RedState asks: Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?

I

In a post on Wednesday, RedState contributor Seton Motley asked, "Why Does The Media Hate (Poor) People Having Cheap Food?" His question came in reaction to a series of reports on and criticisms of the EU's decision to reduce the regulation of sugar in Europe. After all, Motley argues, reduced regulation will mean "sugar prices will fall". This is, on the surface, a very good thing, to be sure. Nevertheless, it may come with a cost (literally). If Europe begins consuming sugar the way the US does, might they risk an obesity epidemic similar to the American epidemic (almost 80 million Americans are obese, according to the CDC)? One might think that obesity is not a public problem but a personal problem--that is between you and your doctor, or your family. Nevertheless, the "estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008" USD. In other words, the purpose of such regulations is not "so we can lose weight", as Motley suggests, (although, 'so that we can keep ourselves healthy' would not be an unreasonable response), but, at least in part, to save the money we'll otherwise spend to treat diabetes ($245 billion in 2012, up from $174 billion in 2007), heart disease, and stroke ("In 2010, the cost of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. was about $444 billion").

There are other considerations Motley's analysis has overlooked, including the highly addictive nature of sugar and the amount of money the sugar lobby spends to keep us from being made aware of just how much (or what kinds of) 'added sugar' is in our food. 

However, even on the purely economic level, Motley's question is shortsighted by far. 

Does Pew report suggest gun violence is down? Sort of...

Last Tuesday, Dana Loesch, political pundit and radio and television host, tweeted that gun homicides are down by 30%, citing a Pew report as evidence:

Her followers on twitter were excited to have actual statistical support to bolster their position against gun control, noting that liberal proponents of gun control don't do so well with data and statistics:

The problem is that the Pew report doesn't quite say this. Indeed, one might simply compare Loesch's statement with the title of the Pew report presented at the bottom of her own tweet: "Gun homicides steady after decline in '90s". It is true that the header above the graph specifically says: "Gun violence has declined since the '90s". However, even a brief glance at the actual numbers indicates the myopic lens through which Loesch read the report.

Notice, gun violence is not down merely 'since the '90s', the decline took place primarily in the '90s, and gun violence has largely stagnated since then. In itself, the decline is a good thing, to be sure. But, a curious reader of the report might wonder: 'What was so special about the '90s that led to this decline?" Politifact.org offers a few interesting possibilities. 

First, Bill Clinton was in office during the '90s, and signed two significant pieces of gun legislation, the Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Second, the decline followed "the end of the crack epidemic", and, in this sense, this graph does not represent a decline at all, but a return to normal numbers (so to speak) after a sharp increase.

Regardless of the cause (and I am neither interested in taking a stance, nor properly qualified), using the report as evidence that there is no need to even discuss gun control measures is a fundamental misreading of the report altogether.