No, not per capita. Per violent criminal, possibly, depending on which stats you use. We don't have good statistics on police shootings OR violent crime rates though. Using numbers from the NCVS for 2012-2015 and The Guardian's list of police shootings in 2015-2016 .
4,847,887 total violent crimes with a perp group of pers with a single known race.
1,324,270 violent crimes committed by blacks.
2,557,910 violent crimes committed by whites.
307 + 266 = 573 Blacks shot by cops, rate is.00043
584 + 574 = 1158 whites, rate is.00045
Those rates are close enough that I'd say the police are fairly even handed in their brutality, and mostly aren't gun happy. Not even 1 in a thousand violent criminals get shot.
Unfortunately, numbers over 3 years shouldn't be directly combined with numbers for 2 years of which only one overlaps, but that's what I've got. 2015 alone has roughtly the same, while 2016 is wildly different. I used to use an older measure of violent crime, because prior to 2017 the last time violent crimes by race were included in the NCVS was 2006 IIRC.
I could go to the UCR, but then I have to limit it to homicides to get race of offender, and relative homicide rates did NOT track relative violent crime rates the last time I checked. The latter is measured by victim surveys, the former is for crimes where the victim obviously can't answer. That doesn't even get into simpson's paradox issues, where certain areas have different crime rates and shooting rates, and it's possible for the overall trend to be magnified OR reversed in every jurisdiction. And of course the fact that counting crimes does not count criminals, since one person can victimize multiple people. And not all violent crimes are the same.
If you believe the media has a right wing bias, you are delusional. There is no way a right wing media would have highlighted every mistake Trump has ever made, and downplayed every mistake Obama made during his "scandal free" eight years in office. Hell, look at the attacks on Trump which included pictures of kids in cages from the Obama years, which had been basically ignored previously.
"...why did Trump and his associates keep lying about it?" Because it has terrible optics not matter what? People lie to cover up embarrassing but legal actions all the damn time.
In Comey's defense, he was thrown under the bus by his boss, Loretta Lynch. Because she killed any belief in her own impartiality with the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, she said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. What should have happened was a special prosecutor for her emails like we got for Trump. Comey would have been better off public announcing that it was not the role of the FBI and dumped it back on her lap, but I can't entirely blame him given the situation. It doesn't help that taking Hillary down would have required investigating the sitting president as well, since he had an account on her server under a pseudonym.
My personal favorite complaint was that the FBI was ignoring a DOJ policy of not investigating candidates in a current election. Which is a terribly unethical policy and if it had been followed would have given Trump a great campaign talking about about the ruling class in the USA, and lowered the opinion of the FBI even further when it came out.
Reading comprehension fail. They were not threatening their jobs based on who they voted for, they made the claim that if Barack one, the economy would tank and the company would be in trouble, which might impact their jobs.
The google video's sole benefit is that it illustrates that one ideology is completely dominant there despite fig leaf claims to the contrary. Which is relevant when you start looking at actual decisions made in an inconsistent manner, like selectively banning conservative users. Since they are a private company, I don't support any sort of legal action for being biased, but get tired of people trying to pretend they are even handed.
The results on that page are strange to me, probably because it's only dealing with homogenization in particular rather than all adjustments, possibly because it's based on a newer version of the GHCN or includes sea measures.
After the original flap about the Darwin station, in which RealClimate accused Watts of cherry picking, and responded by cherry picking themselves. That struck me as flawed, so I calculated the effects of all adjustments for every land station from GHCNv2 (current at the time). There was a nearly linear net warming trend (very small IIRC) in the adjustments starting around 1900, which means the raw data had a smaller warming trend. The
TARP passed under Bush. Obama voted for it.
I'm not even going to get into the weeds of establishing whether the clash-for-clunkers did anything worthwhile, slower than usual job growth that happened to go on for a long time, exactly how non-mainstream burned and lynched effigies of Obama were, or any of the other questionable assertions in your comment.
I'm willing to bet that Trump will delay via executive order, like Obama did with parts of Obamacare, at which point the left will say "You can't do that!" and the right will pretend it's different when they do it.
I wonder if the previous post was thinking of Marcott's statement about the paper rather than the paper itself. "Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "
One thing I think many Clinton supporters miss: Not convicted != innocent. There are many things which look shady even if they can't prove anything definitively. Consider, for example, the Clinton foundation receiving $1,000,000 from Qatar for Bill Clinton to speak. Yet in their mind, despite being a one time donation for a special purpose, that wasn't an unexpected increase in funding which was supposed to be reported. Even if bribery wasn't proven, the conflict of interest issues were huge.
Yes, Trump's conflicts of interest are potentially larger. However, the media didn't make much of them during the election. Perhaps because doing so would have drawn more attention to the crap HRC pulled? Instead, in the week that Qatar donation was reported, a 10 year old video of Trump being a sexist pig got almost all of the airtime.
Even though I think HRC was a better choice overall, the thumbs on the scales in her favor worked against her.
The small states mostly (with exceptions) don't try to tell the rest of the country how they need to live. The urban left, OTOH, wants to control everything at a federal level. There is a qualitative difference there.
Illegal immigrants != immigrants. Although not a subscriber so I can't see all of it, that article starts off referring just to immigrants. Opponents of border control consistently combine legal and illegal immigrants into one group when spouting statistics, which means they are ignoring the actual point. People who choose to violate the law in order to immigrate are not particularly prone to respect other laws, while jumping through the convoluted mess of our immigration laws suggests someone who is more law abiding than most. Collecting any statistics on illegal immigrants is going to be difficult because they are actively trying to hide, meaning that the combined group is going to be dominated by legal immigrants.
Well, when trying to persuade someone so biased that they automatically dismiss any sources that aren't already nominally on their side, it's helpful to cite a source that they would usually trust. That doesn't make Jezebel good, just useful in this instance.
"Now that the patents have expired, the scientifical experts have determined scientifically with 100% certainty that glycophosphate does indeed cause cancer" [Citation needed]
Medicare for all has a 2.2% income tax applicable to everyone currently paying income tax. From his site: "The 2.2% income tax applies to taxable income as currently defined. In calculating taxable incomefor a married couple with two children, it has been assumed that they use the $12,600 standard deduction and a
personal exemption of $4,050 per family member for a total of $28,800. The 2.2% tax is applied to the remainder."
But that's not all. It's based on a ridiculously underestimated cost of the plan. Effictively, it's wishful thinking. Mega McArdle lays it out better than I could, but the basic point is that it asserts magical unexplained savings. Further, it promises to eliminate co-pays, deductibles, and refusal to cover various treaments.
Before you claim other countries single payer plans prove we could save money and provide universal care, the plan avoids any mention of cutting the pay of healthcare professionals. Doctors here make more than twice as much as doctors elsewhere.
You're missing something on the variations between sexes. Men may be about the same as women on average, but it's ALSO been demonstrated that they have a much greater standard deviation. That internal variation means when you get to points on the tails of the distribution curves, the differences between sexes will be significant even if there was an identical average.
In any case, my original point stands. Considering only general population numbers is misleading when there are other known confounding variables.
Names are not value neutral. You don't want to compare Greg vs Jamal, you should maybe try Billy-Bob to Jamal instead. At least if you trying to identify racism rather than classism.
Raw populations numbers are a default choice, but almost always the wrong one. To evaluation any given system, you need to examine the actual input into that system, which is usually already different from the general population. For instance, correcting the gender wage gap for the different choices men and women make. Or adjusting judicial outcome statistics for different crime rates within different populations. If you ignore those differences, you apply the wrong solutions, like blaming wrokplace sexism for the results of early education sexism.
It would actually be far more equitable if ALL leave was unpaid leave, but you were guaranteed the ability to take it without otherwise being penalized. The person who uses up all their sick/vacation/maternity leave every year is doing less for the company than the one who only takes a 2 week vacation to refresh themselves, and thus earned proportionately less.
HOWEVER, it's probably not a good idea to actually operate that way due to perverse incentives for things such as burning themselves out, and coming to work while hacking up a lung and infecting all your other employees. I'm just saying that there's at least some logic the idea, and I don't think your point makes his argument ridiculous.
On an different note, 'other countries do it' is not a great argument. The general standard of living between the US and any given European country overall favors the US... depending on which factors you consider important. YMMV. They also suffered from the great recession for longer in most cases.
That would depend on the demand for the product, the price elasticity of that demand, and the cost of expansion wouldn't it? More accurately, what my estimates of those values are, which could be way off. If i have to go lease a whole new factory in a different city because my current city wouldn't let me expand for instance, that would suggest it might be better to just decrease price a bit until a new equilibrium is reached.
You mean after a left wing piece of legislation was pushed down their throats without any actual negotiation, using parliamentary tricks? The only negotiation on Obamacare was with conservative democrats, and sometimes the straw republican in Obama's head. I'd give him some credit for the straw republican being based on things like something the heritage foundation wrote, except itwasn't actually similar to obamacare. The actual republicans then in office got nothing out of it. Why would they bother trying to work with someone who's public attempt to supposedly negotiate comes down to "I won"?
The democrats tried to have everything their way. Turning around and banning a practice they started because they didn't like the results didn't do them any favors in the long run.
Obamacare is the first major program to ever be passed on strict party lines, with a minimal majority, using whatever means available to bypass resistance from the opposition and ignoring generally unfavorable public opinion.
You're right, clearly we need more women in prison.
In all seriousness, I wouldn't expect that. Assume for the sake of argument that IQ tests are actually reasonable proxies for raw intelligence. As I understand it, the means are roughly the same but men have a larger standard deviation. Which means if you are studying a field only suitable for high IQ's, you will have more men than women.
The accuracy of IQ tests is questionable, but I think there is some truth to distributions being different between the sexes. It fits with the available evidence. However, it's always a mistake to judge an individual by the group they happen to be in rather than their individual observable characteristics.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not per capita. Per violent criminal, possibly, depending on which stats you use. We don't have good statistics on police shootings OR violent crime rates though. Using numbers from the NCVS for 2012-2015 and The Guardian's list of police shootings in 2015-2016 .00043 .00045
. 4,847,887 total violent crimes with a perp group of pers with a single known race.
1,324,270 violent crimes committed by blacks.
2,557,910 violent crimes committed by whites.
307 + 266 = 573 Blacks shot by cops, rate is
584 + 574 = 1158 whites, rate is
Those rates are close enough that I'd say the police are fairly even handed in their brutality, and mostly aren't gun happy. Not even 1 in a thousand violent criminals get shot. Unfortunately, numbers over 3 years shouldn't be directly combined with numbers for 2 years of which only one overlaps, but that's what I've got. 2015 alone has roughtly the same, while 2016 is wildly different. I used to use an older measure of violent crime, because prior to 2017 the last time violent crimes by race were included in the NCVS was 2006 IIRC.
I could go to the UCR, but then I have to limit it to homicides to get race of offender, and relative homicide rates did NOT track relative violent crime rates the last time I checked. The latter is measured by victim surveys, the former is for crimes where the victim obviously can't answer. That doesn't even get into simpson's paradox issues, where certain areas have different crime rates and shooting rates, and it's possible for the overall trend to be magnified OR reversed in every jurisdiction. And of course the fact that counting crimes does not count criminals, since one person can victimize multiple people. And not all violent crimes are the same.
If you believe the media has a right wing bias, you are delusional. There is no way a right wing media would have highlighted every mistake Trump has ever made, and downplayed every mistake Obama made during his "scandal free" eight years in office. Hell, look at the attacks on Trump which included pictures of kids in cages from the Obama years, which had been basically ignored previously.
"...why did Trump and his associates keep lying about it?" Because it has terrible optics not matter what? People lie to cover up embarrassing but legal actions all the damn time.
In Comey's defense, he was thrown under the bus by his boss, Loretta Lynch. Because she killed any belief in her own impartiality with the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, she said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. What should have happened was a special prosecutor for her emails like we got for Trump. Comey would have been better off public announcing that it was not the role of the FBI and dumped it back on her lap, but I can't entirely blame him given the situation. It doesn't help that taking Hillary down would have required investigating the sitting president as well, since he had an account on her server under a pseudonym.
My personal favorite complaint was that the FBI was ignoring a DOJ policy of not investigating candidates in a current election. Which is a terribly unethical policy and if it had been followed would have given Trump a great campaign talking about about the ruling class in the USA, and lowered the opinion of the FBI even further when it came out.
Reading comprehension fail. They were not threatening their jobs based on who they voted for, they made the claim that if Barack one, the economy would tank and the company would be in trouble, which might impact their jobs.
The google video's sole benefit is that it illustrates that one ideology is completely dominant there despite fig leaf claims to the contrary. Which is relevant when you start looking at actual decisions made in an inconsistent manner, like selectively banning conservative users. Since they are a private company, I don't support any sort of legal action for being biased, but get tired of people trying to pretend they are even handed.
I think his intent was that the media is making a big deal out of it, but an actual lawyer says it's basically a joke.
The results on that page are strange to me, probably because it's only dealing with homogenization in particular rather than all adjustments, possibly because it's based on a newer version of the GHCN or includes sea measures.
After the original flap about the Darwin station, in which RealClimate accused Watts of cherry picking, and responded by cherry picking themselves. That struck me as flawed, so I calculated the effects of all adjustments for every land station from GHCNv2 (current at the time). There was a nearly linear net warming trend (very small IIRC) in the adjustments starting around 1900, which means the raw data had a smaller warming trend. The
TARP passed under Bush. Obama voted for it. I'm not even going to get into the weeds of establishing whether the clash-for-clunkers did anything worthwhile, slower than usual job growth that happened to go on for a long time, exactly how non-mainstream burned and lynched effigies of Obama were, or any of the other questionable assertions in your comment.
I'm willing to bet that Trump will delay via executive order, like Obama did with parts of Obamacare, at which point the left will say "You can't do that!" and the right will pretend it's different when they do it.
I wonder if the previous post was thinking of Marcott's statement about the paper rather than the paper itself. "Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "
One thing I think many Clinton supporters miss: Not convicted != innocent. There are many things which look shady even if they can't prove anything definitively. Consider, for example, the Clinton foundation receiving $1,000,000 from Qatar for Bill Clinton to speak. Yet in their mind, despite being a one time donation for a special purpose, that wasn't an unexpected increase in funding which was supposed to be reported. Even if bribery wasn't proven, the conflict of interest issues were huge.
Yes, Trump's conflicts of interest are potentially larger. However, the media didn't make much of them during the election. Perhaps because doing so would have drawn more attention to the crap HRC pulled? Instead, in the week that Qatar donation was reported, a 10 year old video of Trump being a sexist pig got almost all of the airtime.
Even though I think HRC was a better choice overall, the thumbs on the scales in her favor worked against her.
The small states mostly (with exceptions) don't try to tell the rest of the country how they need to live. The urban left, OTOH, wants to control everything at a federal level. There is a qualitative difference there.
Illegal immigrants != immigrants. Although not a subscriber so I can't see all of it, that article starts off referring just to immigrants. Opponents of border control consistently combine legal and illegal immigrants into one group when spouting statistics, which means they are ignoring the actual point. People who choose to violate the law in order to immigrate are not particularly prone to respect other laws, while jumping through the convoluted mess of our immigration laws suggests someone who is more law abiding than most. Collecting any statistics on illegal immigrants is going to be difficult because they are actively trying to hide, meaning that the combined group is going to be dominated by legal immigrants.
Well, when trying to persuade someone so biased that they automatically dismiss any sources that aren't already nominally on their side, it's helpful to cite a source that they would usually trust. That doesn't make Jezebel good, just useful in this instance.
Not one person in THIS thread of the comments has claimed it's censorship. Your response to sycodon was a complete non sequitur.
"Now that the patents have expired, the scientifical experts have determined scientifically with 100% certainty that glycophosphate does indeed cause cancer" [Citation needed]
Medicare for all has a 2.2% income tax applicable to everyone currently paying income tax. From his site: "The 2.2% income tax applies to taxable income as currently defined. In calculating taxable incomefor a married couple with two children, it has been assumed that they use the $12,600 standard deduction and a personal exemption of $4,050 per family member for a total of $28,800. The 2.2% tax is applied to the remainder."
But that's not all. It's based on a ridiculously underestimated cost of the plan. Effictively, it's wishful thinking. Mega McArdle lays it out better than I could, but the basic point is that it asserts magical unexplained savings. Further, it promises to eliminate co-pays, deductibles, and refusal to cover various treaments.
Before you claim other countries single payer plans prove we could save money and provide universal care, the plan avoids any mention of cutting the pay of healthcare professionals. Doctors here make more than twice as much as doctors elsewhere.
You're missing something on the variations between sexes. Men may be about the same as women on average, but it's ALSO been demonstrated that they have a much greater standard deviation. That internal variation means when you get to points on the tails of the distribution curves, the differences between sexes will be significant even if there was an identical average.
In any case, my original point stands. Considering only general population numbers is misleading when there are other known confounding variables.
Names are not value neutral. You don't want to compare Greg vs Jamal, you should maybe try Billy-Bob to Jamal instead. At least if you trying to identify racism rather than classism.
Raw populations numbers are a default choice, but almost always the wrong one. To evaluation any given system, you need to examine the actual input into that system, which is usually already different from the general population. For instance, correcting the gender wage gap for the different choices men and women make. Or adjusting judicial outcome statistics for different crime rates within different populations. If you ignore those differences, you apply the wrong solutions, like blaming wrokplace sexism for the results of early education sexism.
Damn, I wish I had mod points.
It would actually be far more equitable if ALL leave was unpaid leave, but you were guaranteed the ability to take it without otherwise being penalized. The person who uses up all their sick/vacation/maternity leave every year is doing less for the company than the one who only takes a 2 week vacation to refresh themselves, and thus earned proportionately less.
HOWEVER, it's probably not a good idea to actually operate that way due to perverse incentives for things such as burning themselves out, and coming to work while hacking up a lung and infecting all your other employees. I'm just saying that there's at least some logic the idea, and I don't think your point makes his argument ridiculous.
On an different note, 'other countries do it' is not a great argument. The general standard of living between the US and any given European country overall favors the US... depending on which factors you consider important. YMMV. They also suffered from the great recession for longer in most cases.
That would depend on the demand for the product, the price elasticity of that demand, and the cost of expansion wouldn't it? More accurately, what my estimates of those values are, which could be way off. If i have to go lease a whole new factory in a different city because my current city wouldn't let me expand for instance, that would suggest it might be better to just decrease price a bit until a new equilibrium is reached.
You mean after a left wing piece of legislation was pushed down their throats without any actual negotiation, using parliamentary tricks? The only negotiation on Obamacare was with conservative democrats, and sometimes the straw republican in Obama's head. I'd give him some credit for the straw republican being based on things like something the heritage foundation wrote, except itwasn't actually similar to obamacare. The actual republicans then in office got nothing out of it. Why would they bother trying to work with someone who's public attempt to supposedly negotiate comes down to "I won"?
The democrats tried to have everything their way. Turning around and banning a practice they started because they didn't like the results didn't do them any favors in the long run.
Obamacare is the first major program to ever be passed on strict party lines, with a minimal majority, using whatever means available to bypass resistance from the opposition and ignoring generally unfavorable public opinion.
You're right, clearly we need more women in prison.
In all seriousness, I wouldn't expect that. Assume for the sake of argument that IQ tests are actually reasonable proxies for raw intelligence. As I understand it, the means are roughly the same but men have a larger standard deviation. Which means if you are studying a field only suitable for high IQ's, you will have more men than women.
The accuracy of IQ tests is questionable, but I think there is some truth to distributions being different between the sexes. It fits with the available evidence. However, it's always a mistake to judge an individual by the group they happen to be in rather than their individual observable characteristics.