The Chicagoist will be launching later but in the meantime please enjoy our archives.

You Got the Rings, but You Might Get Jumped for Them

By Jocelyn Geboy in News on Nov 1, 2006 5:04PM

So the Cardinals won the Series. Yeah, yeah. The Cubs fans can't stand it, and the Sox fans are equally chagrined, what with just ruling the school last year and then not even making it the playoffs this year (insert sad foghorn noise here).

But here's one thing that caught our spiteful eye: St. Louis tops the dangerous cities list released by Morgan Quitno Press. Yeah! Take that, St. Louis!

2006_11danger.jpgThis news let Camden, New Jersey, off the hook as it had topped the list for two years in a row. However, the reason we're telling you this is because we find something sort of odd about the whole story. When we initially heard about this, our instinctive competitive nature wanted to find out where Chicago ranked in comparison to St. Louis. But get this: Chicago's not even on the list.

It's not because it's not dangerous. It's because it's never been on the list. "Chicago and other Illinois cities are not listed in the most dangerous/most safe cities list because data specifically for rape cases, as opposed to the broader category of sexual assault, was not available to researchers who compiled the list, Kathleen Morgan of Morgan Quitno Press, a Lawrence, Kansas-based publishing and research company, told WBBM Newsradio 780."

Oh. That seems messed up. What gives? We just opt out of defining rape statistics? Gary, Indiana, and Kenosha, Wisconsin, can manage this, but we just don't have a clue? Or we *choose* not to? That's even shadier than East St. Louis.

Image via dolce_1951