There seems to be a widespread perception that the crime rate (particularly for violent crimes) is increasing. But the facts don’t support this perception.

Statistics Canada recently reported crime rates through 2004. The crime rate, and the rate of violent crimes, has been declining fairly steadily since 1991 (the downward trend continued in 2004 after a slight rise in 2003). So why do so many perceive the rate to be increasing? There are several things that contribute, I think.

First, when we make comparisons, we tend to look at raw numbers. That is, we are thinking of the number of crimes in total, not the number of crimes per capita. There are more crimes over time – because there are more people. To understand the scope of the problem, though, we need to look at the rates per capita. That is a better measure of how we are doing, as a society.

Second, we tend to choose an unhelpful starting point of reference. We don’t pick last year, or five years ago. We pick a more distant point, when the raw numbers problem is exaggerated. In addition, we pick a small number of reference points – probably two (the start and end) – and don’t look at a more informative continuum of data.

Third, we tend to idealize the past. So our start point becomes the wonderful past time we yearn for, further encouraging us to see the present as worse. Everything is worse now, right?

Finally, misconceptions about the rate of crime sell newspapers, newscasts, etc. The media have an interest in perpetuating this view. In addition, some politicians earn votes by talking about crime, and some businesses sell anti-crime products (alarm systems, etc.) by talking about crime.

These seem to me to be a few of the reasons. I’m sure there are others. Let me know about them!

N.B.: I suspect the story may be different in the United States. I don’t pretend to have the slightest idea what is happening anywhere else in the world. I’d be curious to hear from people who do know, though.

John Doyle, in today's Globe and Mail, talks about the change in attitude evident in the American media since Katrina. For the first time since 9/11, the mainstream media is showing a willingness to criticize the American Government’s actions.

This has to be a good thing. And if it truly represents a change, it can’t be a good thing for George W. Bush. And that also has to be a good thing.

Given the date, a moment’s reflection on the events of September 11, 2001 seems almost required. I’m fairly certain blogs will be filled with thoughts about 9/11, so I’ll limit myself to what I think is the most striking point.

Immediately after the attacks, there was an incredible amount of goodwill for the United States around the world. A mere 4 years later, all of this goodwill has long since evaporated. Indeed, I think anti-American sentiment is at an all time high in much of the world.

So what happened? I think the reasons are obvious, and there are two which I think are most important.

First, the American Government used 9/11 to invade Iraq. Most of the world, I think, believes they have wanted to finish off Hussein for some time, and 9/11 provided an excuse. I think it is probably deeper than that, though. The announcement last week that the US now expects to have a base in Iraq for the foreseeable future suggests this is really all about a permanent American presence in the Middle East.

Second, the American’s have used 9/11 to further create a sense that they are the world’s moral compass, and have a legitimate right (they might even say duty) to police the world. I doubt that every American thinks that, but the re-election of George W. Bush does suggest that many do.

There are other reasons (our short collective attention span, Bush’s less than stellar intellect, and so on), and the highly emotional post-9/11 state could not have been maintained in any event. But we are almost at the opposite side of the spectrum 4 years later, and the Americans should look in the mirror when they wonder why.

In the aftermath of Katrina, the price of gasoline in my neck of the woods has increased in price about 30% to about $1.30 a litre. This is presumably about supply and demand: The supply of gasoline goes down and the equilibrium price goes up. Here is why that bugs me.

The supply has gone down because the American capacity to produce has gone down. The cost of production (for those still producing) has not changed. So, the people still able to produce are making a lot more money and, unless they intend to donate the extra profit to repairing the damaged producers, they are doing so on the backs of those producers (and me).

How can that make sense?

I know, I know. Supply went up, so the price goes up to reduce demand.

That makes feel so much better.