DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 08, 2007, 10:46:36 PM
-
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40123000/jpg/_40123225_car_b203_ap.jpg)
Cubans are not allowed to watch foreign TV broadcasts
The official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party has warned Cubans against manufacturing or using illegal satellite TV dishes and aerials.
The paper highlighted the case of four men facing up to three years in prison for allegedly making home-made receivers to pick up foreign channels.
Cuba this week condemned a new US strategy of using Florida-based stations to beam TV Marti to Cuba.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6344691.stm
-
Are US citizens given the choice of watching Cuban tv?
-
Are US citizens given the choice of watching Cuban tv?
I'm thinking that Cubans down in Florida probably have some access - at least satellite.
-
<<Are US citizens given the choice of watching Cuban tv?>>
They sure as hell aren't allowed to watch Al Jazeera. But remain perfectly free to sneer at Cuba's media controls. What a great freedom-loving country. I'm so glad they're not hypocrites too.
-
<<Are US citizens given the choice of watching Cuban tv?>>
They sure as hell aren't allowed to watch Al Jazeera. But remain perfectly free to sneer at Cuba's media controls. What a great freedom-loving country. I'm so glad they're not hypocrites too.
Certainly they are... unless satellite doesn't count. But we had it with Dish Network before we left for Jordan. There's an English language version now, too.
-
Are US citizens given the choice of watching Cuban tv?
Sure. It's streamed on the 'net, Castro has built high-powered transmitters to beam it into south Florida, and many cable and satellite systems carry it as an optional channel.
-
They sure as hell aren't allowed to watch Al Jazeera. But remain perfectly free to sneer at Cuba's media controls. What a great freedom-loving country. I'm so glad they're not hypocrites too.
Funny, it's available on many satellite and cable systems.
Sure you aren't thinking of Canada?
-
<<Are US citizens given the choice of watching Cuban tv?>>
==========================================
In Miami, you cannot get Cuban TV. It is not available on Comcast cable, or the Dish or Direct TV networks.
You would need some sort of special equipment. Maybe it is possible to pick it up in Key West.
-
In Miami, you cannot get Cuban TV. It is not available on Comcast cable, or the Dish or Direct TV networks.
You would need some sort of special equipment. Maybe it is possible to pick it up in Key West.
You can use any C-band satellite dish. It's even freely available (you don't have to subscribe).
Here is a page that lists the birds and channels it's broadcast on: http://www.lyngsat.com/freetv/Cuba.html (http://www.lyngsat.com/freetv/Cuba.html)
-
<<Funny, it's available on many satellite and cable systems.
<<Sure you aren't thinking of Canada?>>
It's banned in Canada because the government imposed conditions on any commercial carrier that would have made it financially impossible to carry the program. I just assumed it was also banned in the U.S.A. You are saying that in any major metropolitan centre in the U.S.A., I could hook up to a major cable company and get Al Jazeera?
-
In Miami, you cannot get Cuban TV. It is not available on Comcast cable, or the Dish or Direct TV networks.
You would need some sort of special equipment. Maybe it is possible to pick it up in Key West.
======================================================================
You can use any C-band satellite dish. It's even freely available (you don't have to subscribe).
Here is a page that lists the birds and channels it's broadcast on: http://www.lyngsat.com/freetv/Cuba.html
=======================================
I would classify a C-Band satellite dish as 'special equipment'.
Not one in ten thousand homes has one. Maybe not one in a hundred thousand.
I am planning to get some sort of dish that will not involve me paying some bunch any monthly fees at all, by the way.
I would like to get TV in Spanish, French and English.
Any suggestions?\
-
I am planning to get some sort of dish that will not involve me paying some bunch any monthly fees at all, by the way.
I would like to get TV in Spanish, French and English.
Any suggestions?
Yeah, get a C-Band satellite dish. Since everyone is switching to digital, you can find people that will give you their equipment if you come take it down and haul it away. I know that is what the lady who bought my house in Baltimore did, since she didn't want the dish and I refused to take it with me.
C-Band is not "special equipment" - it's the old-style satellite dish, commonly known as the "West Viginia State Flower," since so many rural areas had them in nearly every yard.
(http://www.danheller.com/images/California/Nipton/Misc/shack-n-satellite-dish-big.jpg)
-
I am planning to get some sort of dish that will not involve me paying some bunch any monthly fees at all, by the way.
I would like to get TV in Spanish, French and English.
Any suggestions?
Yeah, get a C-Band satellite dish. Since everyone is switching to digital, you can find people that will give you their equipment if you come take it down and haul it away. I know that is what the lady who bought my house in Baltimore did, since she didn't want the dish and I refused to take it with me.
C-Band is not "special equipment" - it's the old-style satellite dish, commonly known as the "West Viginia State Flower," since so many rural areas had them in nearly every yard.
(http://www.danheller.com/images/California/Nipton/Misc/shack-n-satellite-dish-big.jpg)
But don't try to set up a rig like that in Cuba.
-
<<But don't try to set up a rig like that in Cuba.>>
I tend to think along XO's lines. Those C-band satellite dishes probably don't exist in one in ten thousand households.
When the availability of Al Jazeera is restricted to C-band dishes, in effect it means Al Jazeera is banned from America in 9999 out of 10,000 homes. Pretty damn good censorship IMHO.
-
<<But don't try to set up a rig like that in Cuba.>>
I tend to think along XO's lines. Those C-band satellite dishes probably don't exist in one in ten thousand households.
When the availability of Al Jazeera is restricted to C-band dishes, in effect it means Al Jazeera is banned from America in 9999 out of 10,000 homes. Pretty damn good censorship IMHO.
Would three of them be a threat to our state?
-
I tend to think along XO's lines. Those C-band satellite dishes probably don't exist in one in ten thousand households.
And you would be wrong, again. Drive through any rural area in the US, and you'll see those dishes in virtually every yard. Even in urban areas, they were fairly common until the digital dishes came out. If they were so uncommon, why were some urban areas starting to pass laws restricting ownership of the dishes?
When the availability of Al Jazeera is restricted to C-band dishes, in effect it means Al Jazeera is banned from America in 9999 out of 10,000 homes. Pretty damn good censorship IMHO.
Al Jazeera is not restricted to C-band satellite. Don't you follow the threads?
-
I just assumed it was also banned in the U.S.A. You are saying that in any major metropolitan centre in the U.S.A., I could hook up to a major cable company and get Al Jazeera?
Yes, and if the local cable company didn't offer it, you can get it on Dish Network (http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/whats_on_dish/international/Arabic/packages.aspx), which is available throughout the US.
That's the problem with your assumptions; they are frequently incorrect.
-
in effect it means Al Jazeera is banned from America in 9999 out of 10,000 homes. Pretty damn good censorship IMHO.
Dish Network is already installed in over 17% of the homes in the US, so all of those are capable of receiving Al Jazeera. Add to that the cable companies that also supply the Al Jazeera network feed, and you'll see that your statement is full of crap.
-
I tend to think along XO's lines. Those C-band satellite dishes probably don't exist in one in ten thousand households.
OK, finally dug up some numbers. In 1994, when DSS systems were just being introduced, ~500,000 homes had satellite dishes in the US. Most of these had to be C-band, because Ku-band was never popular here (it was a European thing) and DSS was just coming out. That equates to about 0.8% of US households. Much higher than 1 in 10,000. That number has grown in the meantime, unfortunately, it seems all of the recent figures lump all satellites in together. While C-band has not grown as fast as the DSS systems, in rural areas where space and zoning issues don't really exist, people love the fact that most channels on C-band are free. DSS is a subscription-only system.
-
I tend to think along XO's lines. Those C-band satellite dishes probably don't exist in one in ten thousand households.
OK, finally dug up some numbers. In 1994, when DSS systems were just being introduced, ~500,000 homes had satellite dishes in the US. Most of these had to be C-band, because Ku-band was never popular here (it was a European thing) and DSS was just coming out. That equates to about 0.8% of US households. Much higher than 1 in 10,000. That number has grown in the meantime, unfortunately, it seems all of the recent figures lump all satellites in together. While C-band has not grown as fast as the DSS systems, in rural areas where space and zoning issues don't really exist, people love the fact that most channels on C-band are free. DSS is a subscription-only system.
Could I get a connection to Al Jezera in Cuba?
-
<<Would three of them be a threat to our state? >>
Ask the Bush administration how many people can be allowed to hear their bullshit contradicted before there's a threat to the state.
-
<<Yes, and if the local cable company didn't offer it, you can get it on Dish Network, which is available throughout the US.
<<That's the problem with your assumptions; they are frequently incorrect.>>
I followed your link to Dish Network and they offered the ARABIC PACKAGE including Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera in Arabic as part of a package.
I was actually referring to the relatively new English-language Al Jazeera, which as far as I know is NOT available in the U.S.A.
Obviously, the Arabic-speaking population of the U.S.A. is small enough in itself, and if it's further reduced to those amongst them who subscribe to Dish Network or have C-band dishes, nobody gives a shit WHAT they watch.
Opening English-speaking Americans to the views of Al Jazeera is an entirely different matter. Far as I know, it didn't happen and it ain't gonna happen in the Land of the Free.
-
<<Would three of them be a threat to our state? >>
Ask the Bush administration how many people can be allowed to hear their bullshit contradicted before there's a threat to the state.
Al Franken , Chevvy Chase and Dan Rather are threats to the state?
It is too bad that so few Americans are allowed to use the internet elese they could read Al Jezera online.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm
-
<<Al Franken , Chevvy Chase and Dan Rather are threats to the state?>>
I didn't know those guys showed videos of Israeli and American atrocities every night. They must be more radical than I thought.
<<It is too bad that so few Americans are allowed to use the internet elese they could read Al Jezera online.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm>>
I think a third to a half of Americans using the internet are surfing for porn and free music. Not too many news accounts there of Israeli and American atrocities either. The rest of them are checking e-mail. Again reverting to real life, a kind of terra incognita for most conservatives, the average American still gets his news from TV. Which is why English Al Jazeera is not on TV.
-
I was actually referring to the relatively new English-language Al Jazeera, which as far as I know is NOT available in the U.S.A.
Funny, that isn't what you said. Regardless, the English version is available in the US on C-band for free. Also, these US providers all carry it: GlobeCast World Satellite Television (http://www.globecastworldtv.com/) FISION - Digital Fiber Entertainment (http://www.fision.net/) JumpTV Online TV (http://www.jumptv.com/) VDC - Virtual Digital Cable (http://www.vdc.com/)
Couldn't find any Canadaian providers that supplied the channel.
Since it's a new channel, I'm sure either Dish Network or DirecTV (or both) will soon pick it up.
Obviously, the Arabic-speaking population of the U.S.A. is small enough in itself, and if it's further reduced to those amongst them who subscribe to Dish Network or have C-band dishes, nobody gives a shit WHAT they watch.
Well, actually, the households with Dish Network or C-band dishes is a significant part of the market, probably totaling about 20% of the households at this point in time. Also, many cable companies carry it as well, so the market penetration is pretty good in the US.
Opening English-speaking Americans to the views of Al Jazeera is an entirely different matter. Far as I know, it didn't happen and it ain't gonna happen in the Land of the Free.
Sorry, wrong again. It did happen in the "Land of the Free." Or were you talking about Canada again?
-
To be equal to Cuba, MT, we would not just make receivers scarce or have a low demand , we would have to forbid them , there is no forbidden radio recever in the USA.
The nearest thing to it is that you can't tap into cable for free, but this is hardly for the purpose of making the truth hard to find.
There is no US governmet rationing for truth , rather there is just a severe copetition between the various versions of it.
-
You're beating a dead horse when you make comparisons to Canada. I've already said that Canada has effectively banned English-language Al Jazeera from all Canadian households. If it makes you feel any better, I freely admit that the Constitutional guarantees of free speech or any other civil liberty are much stronger in the U.S.A. than they are in Canada. Setting up Canada as an example is just picking a fight with a straw man. That's not the point. There are much higher standards in the U.S.A. and the issue is whether those standards were being eroded. Same thing in spades for Cuba. Why the comparison? Cuba's in a totally different situtation than either Canada or the U.S.A. and the Revolution is in a fight for its life - - why on earth should it be expected to wallow in the luxury of free speech, which it knows will be skillfully exploited to destroy the national unity required for the struggle?
Just checked out GlobeCast and holy shit! they do carry English Al Jazeera. Ami, this time you're right and I'm wrong. And I apologize for my slurs on the Land of the Free. They still are the Land of the Free. I'm impressed. THAT'S something we can't see here in Canada.
-
You're beating a dead horse when you make comparisons to Canada. I've already said that Canada has effectively banned English-language Al Jazeera from all Canadian households. If it makes you feel any better, I freely admit that the Constitutional guarantees of free speech or any other civil liberty are much stronger in the U.S.A. than they are in Canada. Setting up Canada as an example is just picking a fight with a straw man. That's not the point. There are much higher standards in the U.S.A. and the issue is whether those standards were being eroded. Same thing in spades for Cuba. Why the comparison? Cuba's in a totally different situtation than either Canada or the U.S.A. and the Revolution is in a fight for its life - - why on earth should it be expected to wallow in the luxury of free speech, which it knows will be skillfully exploited to destroy the national unity required for the struggle?
Just checked out GlobeCast and holy shit! they do carry English Al Jazeera. Ami, this time you're right and I'm wrong. And I apologize for my slurs on the Land of the Free. They still are the Land of the Free. I'm impressed. THAT'S something we can't see here in Canada.
Nor shall it ever be a feaure of a communist revolution , the persuasion of Comunism depends too much on haveing no debate.
I am perplexed at the Canadian situation tho , I had thought the tradition of good government in Canada was strong enough to allow dissenting expression.
-
<<I am perplexed at the Canadian situation tho , I had thought the tradition of good government in Canada was strong enough to allow dissenting expression.>>
Fuck them, they don't have a clue. They'll get it in another hundred years. They'll probably get then to where you are now.
-
<<I am perplexed at the Canadian situation tho , I had thought the tradition of good government in Canada was strong enough to allow dissenting expression.>>
Fuck them, they don't have a clue. They'll get it in another hundred years. They'll probably get then to where you are now.
Why is that?
Truely I am perplexed.
Our system allows various factions to take over peacefully each in turn as they persuede the public .
Freedom of speech is critical , elese the faction in power might never leave peacefully , haveing the power to sheild the public from negative information about it.
If we did not change the party in power occasionaly there would be less turnover and freshness , when more is usually better .
-
<<Why is that?
<<Truely I am perplexed.>>
Really? It's Jewish political pressure plus an absence of any absolute, unconditional Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Jewish pressure exists everywhere, strong Constitutional guarantees only in the U.S.A.
-
<<Why is that?
<<Truely I am perplexed.>>
Really? It's Jewish political pressure plus an absence of any absolute, unconditional Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Jewish pressure exists everywhere, strong Constitutional guarantees only in the U.S.A.
I am still perplexed ,maybe moreso.
Is there no public demand for first admendmet sort of rights?
What makes Jewish pressure worse than Wasp influence or Chineese?
-
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Canada has a lot of freedoms as well. The problem with Canada that many Americans don't understand is that the country is barely held together. Seriously. It is not the strong union that the United States has had since the Civil War. Canada is a far more federalist nation than the United States has ever been. If you like state's rights, you'll love Canada (but you'll have to call it Federalism).
It isn't just Quebec either (and by the way there are other Francaphone communities outside of Quebec), but the Atlantic Provinces, and Alberta, and sometimes British Columbia. Ask a Canadian about MacDonald or McKenzie (or Trudeau) and you are likely to get responses ranging from seething hatred to affable hero worship.
But Canadian policy is not always geared to indiviuals across the country, they tend to look at specific areas and to what keeps Canada together. It is something akin to a Confederation. I think it is interesting that many of you make Canada out to be some socialist wonder land. It isn't. In general the most left wing party in Canada (NDP) has always been on the fringes. The centrist Liberal party (and it is named Liberal under the European definition, not the modern American definition) has dominated Canadian politics. The Conservatives were mainly similar to the pro-business American Republicans until the Reform party came about and grew in force then the Conservatives became more focused on social policies.
Canadians do have a written Bill of Rights, thanks primarily to the Constitution Act of 1982. This is actually rather bizarre for a Westminster system. Britain, for example, has an uncodified constitution which is preferable, in my opinion, for such a nation.
-
<<I am still perplexed ,maybe moreso.
<<Is there no public demand for first admendmet sort of rights?>>
Yeah, sure, among some of the talking heads and the so-called chattering classes. But I don't think you really understand the placidity of the Canadian people. We live in a fairly well-run country. Except for the weather (and that might be changing, please God) we are ten thousand times better off than the average American. So basically nobody gives a shit except maybe the Indians because they really got fucked. But nobody listens.
<<What makes Jewish pressure worse than Wasp influence or Chineese?>>
Wasps and Chinese don't really give a shit. Nobody ever tried to exterminate them as a whole people. Jews remember stuff like that like it all happened yesterday. And it did. It all happened in my lifetime. So they are understandably concerned that they finally have a well-armed nuclear state and that its interests be protected at all times. As am I. I just happen to think they are going about protecting their long-term security in a very bad, bad way.
-
JS, I agree with a lot of your comments about Canada, but I don't think that Federalism is what makes the difference. Even before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, none of the Provinces were legally able to get out from whatever egalitarianism and civil rights came with the English common law that underlaid all of them. "States' rights" never became as big issue in Canada as it is in the U.S.A. because there was never a regional need to override Constitutionally guaranteed rights (here guaranteed by an "unwritten constitution") to a defined group of citizens.
I trace the persistent lag in guarantees of civil freedoms here not to a stronger federalism, but to the stronger tradition of royal authority now represented by the executive branch and to the corresponding reliance on Parliament as guarantor of independence from the Royal whim. What is called Parliamentary authority was not some theoretical declaration of the supremacy of "the people" but a very real bulwark against a real and continuing Royal power, still extant here, at least now in theory only, which in the U.S.A. was abolished through the American Revolution. If in fact, Parliament had to be supreme, then part of that supremacy was not only the giving of civil rights but the ability to take them away. Thus in the Charter, the Parliamentary power to override basic civil freedoms was preserved. That to me was a clear residue of British constitutional theory that Parliament (although technically or nominally still "the Sovereign in his Parliament") must be supreme. And THAT was a consequence IMHO of the lack of a written Constitution such as that of the U.S.A. which they never got around to doing until a few years ago and then proceeded to botch the job. Morons.
-
I agree to an extent.
Though, personally I prefer the Westminster system with a sovereign Parliament and an unwritten constitution.
My point was mainly that Americans often criticize Canada without understanding it at all. In fact, I'd easily wager that a far larger percentage of Canadians understand the American system of government more than the percentage of Americans that understand the Canadian system of government. That doesn't even touch on history and politics.
As an example, Toronto is a very large city (roughly 4 and a half million people) but is also far lower in crime than comparable American cities. This is especially true of violent crime. Even cities considered relatively "safe" in America have a much higher crime rate than Toronto. Seattle, for example, had a homicide rate of 4.2, robbery rate of 246, and a break-in rate of 1343 (those are rates per 100,000). Those rates don't even compare to Chicago, L.A., New York, and other major metropolitan areas and indeed Seattle is often considered one of the United States' premier cities in which to reside. Toronto's rates are 1.8, 103, and 449 respectively.
Many Americans chalk up such crimes to the minorities living in those urban areas. Yet, few cities have the diversity and multiculturalism (I like throwing that word in since it causes such ire) as Toronto. It has a high ethnic diversity along with a high religious diversity. Moreover, the cities emergency call services are equipped to handle over 150 languages.Link (http://www.toronto.ca/emerg/911.htm) Yes Sirs, America is asked to provide forms in two languages and scoffs, some countries go far beyond that!
So, I think my point was to highlight some of the major differences for those Americans who simply think of Canada as a "socialist 51st state."
-
As an example, Toronto is a very large city (roughly 4 and a half million people) but is also far lower in crime than comparable American cities.
Yeah, but we don't have violent optometrists in the US. (Mikey should know about this one, for those who don't -> Silverman Helps Feud Ends In ETF Arrest (http://www.torontoist.com/archives/2007/02/silverman_helps_1.php).)
;)
However, more on your point, last time I checked (and it has been a while) the violent crime rate in Vancouver is higher than that in Seattle (they're right next to each other and have roughly the same ethnic makeup). In addition, crime rates in the US have been trending down for a long time (over 30 years) while they have been trending up nearly everywhere else in the world. Also, crime rates in rural areas of the US are virtually non-existant - indeed, lower than most of the world for similar population densities. The crime in the US is nearly literally a cities-only problem, while the crime in other countries is more evenly spread across the countryside.
-
However, more on your point, last time I checked (and it has been a while) the violent crime rate in Vancouver is higher than that in Seattle (they're right next to each other and have roughly the same ethnic makeup).
According to this (http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm) Vancouver scored well lower in homicide and robbery, and slightly lower in break-ins than Seattle as of 2004. The sources were: Source of Canadian stats: StatsCan 2004 (The Daily, July 21, 2005) & Source of American stats: Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reports.
The crime in the US is nearly literally a cities-only problem, while the crime in other countries is more evenly spread across the countryside.
That's a non-point. I compared only cities to cities and I doubt that rural Canada has a massive crime problem. Besides, Europe doesn't have the rural land that the United States has, so the comparison there is moot. It still doesn't answer the question as to why Canadian and European cities are safer, and Toronto debunks the oft-held American myth that crime is directly linked to higher percentages of minority populations.
-
According to this (http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm) Vancouver scored well lower in homicide and robbery, and slightly lower in break-ins than Seattle as of 2004. The sources were: Source of Canadian stats: StatsCan 2004 (The Daily, July 21, 2005) & Source of American stats: Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reports.
You're leaving out many violent crimes (rapes and battery, for instance) and break-ins are not violent crimes.
-
You're leaving out many violent crimes (rapes and battery, for instance) and break-ins are not violent crimes.
I don't recall saying break-ins were violent crimes. Nor do I recall saying that I included every violent crime.
How does this refute my point that Americans often mischaracterize Canada? Or that Canadian cities are typically safer than U.S. cities?
-
You're leaving out many violent crimes (rapes and battery, for instance) and break-ins are not violent crimes.
I don't recall saying break-ins were violent crimes. Nor do I recall saying that I included every violent crime. How does this refute my point that Americans often mischaracterize Canada? Or that Canadian cities are typically safer than U.S. cities?
Since from an overall violent crime standpoint, as Ami referenced, (not selected ones, as you referenced) they're not. Nor are they trending downward, like in the U.S.
-
Since from an overall violent crime standpoint, as Ami referenced, (not selected ones, as you referenced) they're not.
Oh really? Show me a United States city with a comparable population to Toronto that has a lower violent crime rate. Let's see the statistical evidence.
Nor are they trending downward, like in the U.S.
Again, let's see the proof. Trends are fine, but they aren't everything. When you start from a very high rate compared to a very low rate then simply saying "we are trending downward while you are trending upward" is not an impressive statistic.
-
Canada is also trending downward in violent crime, and we didn't start from the ultra-high levels of the U.S.A. from Stats Can:
<<Canada's crime rate, based on data reported by police services, fell a marginal 1% last year. While the total violent crime rate declined, the national homicide rate increased 12%.
<<Except for an increase in 2003, the crime rate has generally been falling since 1991 when it peaked. Police reported about 2.6 million offences in 2004, resulting in a crime rate that was 12% lower than a decade ago.>>
It's pointless to drag other violent crimes into the picture unless you have comparative figures - - if you want to drag in rapes, show the rapes per 100,000 in both countries for example. Half-truths are unhelpful to say the least. Generally speaking, homicides are probably a better index of violent crime than rape, simply because rape victims can recover and there are varying degrees of rape, some purely statutory. All things considered, homicide is easily the most violent crime and the only one from which nobody ever recovers.
-
I don't recall saying break-ins were violent crimes. Nor do I recall saying that I included every violent crime.
Perhaps you should go back and look at the point of mine that you were trying to refute.
-
I decided to do a little investigating of my own, because we know how much Sirs and Ami like to stick to the facts.
So, I checked out official websites and some news articles. Here's what I found.
Crime Rates have trended down in the United States for thirty years: False
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StateCrime.cfm) and the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html) who keep track of data from 1960 to 2005 the rate of property crimes, violent crimes, and homicides have not been trending downwards for 30 years, nor have the rates of other nations been trending upwards over the same period of time as I'll show with Canada.
The violent crime rate in the United States did not start to trend downwards until 1991, where it reached a national peak of 758.1 violent crimes per 100,000 persons. A very high violent crime rate. It is now around the same rate we had in 1977 (strangely, 30 years ago) of 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 persons. The Homicide rate has held steady since 1999 and also reached its peak in 1991. The property crime rate has lowered since 1991 as well.
Homicides in Canada fell to 1.9 per 100,000 persons compared to the 5.7 per 100,000 in the United States. Robberies, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon all fell. There is a higher rate of sexual assault in Canada than in the United States.
The only cities that come close to having a similar crime rate to the United States metropolitan areas are Regina and Winnipeg, and even they aren't very close (they fall under the U.S. national average in most categories). A large driver for Canadian crime rates are the western provinces of Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta.
Finally, New Zealand put together a report that compared violent crime in some English speaking nations and attempted to make all the definitions coincide (as a method of comparing apples to apples, due to each nation's variation in law and what exactly constitutes specific crimes). They came up with these totals for violent crimes per 100,000 for data from 2000:
Australia 121
New Zealand 133
England & Wales 153
Canada 237
United States 506
-
In Georgia we get more crime in hot weather , and crime disapears entirely when we have two inches of snow.