The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
RealityForAll said:
You have asserted that NYC murder rates are going down. Clearly not the case currently.
The last comparison years where the NYC murder rate went down was comparison between 2016 (335/3.9) versus 2017 (292/3.4). It appears that somewhere between 2017 and 2018 there was an inflection point* regarding the NYC murder rate year to year chart.
*- see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point
PS When doing chart analysis, inflection points are often the most important points on the chart. Because new trends typically begin with inflection points.
this is nonsense. you are cherry picking a point in time to make your point. The homicide rate in NY remains at a very low level by historical standards.
seriously -- do you really believe your own argument?
In a nutshell: Nobody wants a rise in the number of murders, but what matters for trends is the rate (which won’t be all that accurate if you round the population in your denominator to 100,000s) over time.
DaveSchmidt said:
In a nutshell: Nobody wants a rise in the number of murders, but what matters for trends is the rate (which won’t be all that accurate if you round the population in your denominator to 100,000s) over time.
sez u. what about inflection points? huh?
DaveSchmidt said:
In a nutshell: Nobody wants a rise in the number of murders, but what matters for trends is the rate (which won’t be all that accurate if you round the population in your denominator to 100,000s) over time.
2018 NYC Murder Rate Recalculation Based on Various Population Numbers
A= number of murders
B= NYC population
r= murder
For purposes of this demonstration let's use four ("4") different populations for 2018 and then see affect on the murder rate. The various NYC populations will be identified as follows:
B1= 8,375,000 people - scenario1
B2= 8,425,000 people - scenario2
B3= 8,450,000 people - scenario3
B4= 8,475,000 people - scenario4
r1=A/B1= 3.5325 murders/100k people - rate under scenario1
r2=A/B2= 3.5224 murders/100k people - rate under scenario2
r3=A/B3= 3.5015 murders/100k people - rate under scenario3
r4=A/B4= 3.4710 murders/100k people - rate under scenario4
IOW, small variances in population of say 100,000 people (difference between B4 and B1 yields a very small difference in the murder rate of say 1%). In the real world , none of these differences are significant as all of these populations have the same murder rate (namely 3.5) because all four scenarios round to the same 3.5. Clearly, the 8.4 million population assumption is accurate enough for this calculation. And, it appears that 8.4 million is the population figure that was used by the FBI in calculating NYC's 2018 murder rate.
PS Why won't you accept the Compstat gross murder numbers? If these numbers are good enough for BD then they are good enough for me. Additionally, actual number of dead, murdered NYC bodies constitutes a primary source for such information.
==================================================
| 2018 NYC Murder Rate Analysis | ||||
| A | number of murders | 295 | ||
| B1 | NYC population scenario1 | 8351000 | ||
| B2 | NYC population scenario2 | 8375000 | ||
| B3 | NYC population scenario3 | 8425000 | ||
| B4 | NYC population scenario4 | 8499000 | ||
| r1 | A/B1 | 3.5325 | ||
| r2 | A/B2 | 3.5224 | ||
| r3 | A/B3 | 3.5015 | ||
| r4 | A/B4 | 3.4710 | ||
Graph of last 11 years of NYC murder rates with inflection point noted. See attachment.
drummerboy said:
.
Is this is an invitation for us to do some role-playing?
Do you want to be Edith or Archie?
Or perhaps Rob Reiner's character, or Sally Struther's character.
RealityForAll said:
Is this is an invitation for us to do some role-playing?
Okay, but I'm playing Venger this time.
RealityForAll said:
Graph of last 11 years of NYC murder rates with inflection point noted. See attachment.
why the last 11 years? if you're looking for an "inflection point" in the NYC homicide rates, try 1990. Or if you prefer a trend that moves in another direction, try 1967.
Are you aware that no amount of graphs, charts, inflection points and turgid prose will turn a specious argument into a persuasive argument?
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:
Graph of last 11 years of NYC murder rates with inflection point noted. See attachment.
why the last 11 years? if you're looking for an "inflection point" in the NYC homicide rates, try 1990. Or if you prefer a trend that moves in another direction, try 1967.
Are you aware that no amount of graphs, charts, inflection points and turgid prose will turn a specious argument into a persuasive argument?
Apparently, no amount of statistics (and the science behind those statistics) will cause you to examine your narrative.
PS If you desire more years of graphing then graph away. Here is the source for the different NYC murder rates by year: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-New-York-New-York.html The statistics for NYC murder begin with 2004 on this site.
RealityForAll said:
Apparently, no amount of statistics (and the science behind those statistics) will cause you to examine your narrative.
PS If you desire more years of graphing then graph away. Here is the source for the different NYC murder rates by year: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-New-York-New-York.html The statistics for NYC murder begin with 2004 on this site.
I already posted a graph of the NYC homicide rate that goes back to pre-WWII. My "narrative" is that the long term trend in homicides (and crime overall in NYC) is way down since 1990. There is no need to "examine" it because it's true. Your narrative, on the other hand is mostly made up in your own mind from a cherry picked starting point in the trend line.
ml1 said:
why the last 11 years? if you're looking for an "inflection point" in the NYC homicide rates, try 1990. Or if you prefer a trend that moves in another direction, try 1967.
Or, if that forecast proves accurate, 2019.
RealityForAll said:
Or perhaps Rob Reiner's character, or Sally Struther's character.
My druthers are usually Struthers, but I’d decline her for Reiner.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
why the last 11 years? if you're looking for an "inflection point" in the NYC homicide rates, try 1990. Or if you prefer a trend that moves in another direction, try 1967.
Or, if that forecast proves accurate, 2019.
forecast or guess?
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
why the last 11 years? if you're looking for an "inflection point" in the NYC homicide rates, try 1990. Or if you prefer a trend that moves in another direction, try 1967.
Or, if that forecast proves accurate, 2019.
RealityForAll said:
Or perhaps Rob Reiner's character, or Sally Struther's character.
My druthers are usually Struthers, but I’d decline her for Reiner.
DS feel free to critique my methodology and analysis for projecting total 2019 NYC murders. Please be specific. My recollection is that we have 303 NYC murders as of 12082019 (with only 23 days left in year since last reporting date). Clearly, the total 2019 NYC murders will be more than 303.
If you have a different methodology for such analysis, then please share it with us.
PS My recollection is that I analyzed the issue as follows:
303 murders/342days=0.886 murders/day
0.886 murders/day x 23 days (remaining)=20.37 murders
Say 20 murders (as murders total must be in integers) predicted for the period 12092019 through 12312019. For a total of 323 NYC murders (predicted) for 2019 total.
DaveSchmidt said:
RealityForAll said:
Or perhaps Rob Reiner's character, or Sally Struther's character.
My druthers are usually Struthers, but I’d decline her for Reiner.
+10
DaveSchmidt said:
Spotted live in the wild: The telltale rhetorical question of someone who has no intention of learning anything.
What has your knickers in a twist? DB getting to you?
Sometimes, numbers are not the only indicators that we should rely on — common sense observation works, too.
DaveSchmidt said:
Static cling.
You do, of course, know to put softener in the washer? Gets the kinks out.
The FISA report has been all but forgotten in the haste to get impeachment behind us. It needs to be front and center, not lost in the frenzy.
Speaking of people with their knickers in a twist, the President of the United States has the best, twistiest knickers of them all:
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
That's just page 1. It goes on for six pages like that. It reads like a Trump Twitter Greatest Hits boxed set.
mtierney said:
Can you please stop posting your used toilet paper here? You are literally the only person who cares what these Nazi simps have to say.
nohero said:
That's just page 1. It goes on for six pages like that. It reads like a Trump Twitter Greatest Hits boxed set.
reads like 25th Amendment time.
Klinker said:
mtierney said:
Can you please stop posting your used toilet paper here? You are literally the only person who cares what these Nazi simps have to say.
Mtierney's arguments, if you can call them that are typically illogical, inconsistent and hollow (among other things) and she rarely directly responds to criticism of her MAGA drivel.
That said, as the only MAGA voice, mtierney is arguably the MVP (most Valuable Poster) in MOL politics section. If she goes that leaves moderates such as myself become the relative far right, which makes this place more of an echo chamber than it already is.
So mtierney, keep doing what you do.
Klinker said:
mtierney said:
Can you please stop posting your used toilet paper here? You are literally the only person who cares what these Nazi simps have to say.
The Federalist Society has been at least partially responsible for assembling the pool of candidates for all of Trump’s judicial nominees. Describing the URL (for the group that is so involved in creating SCOTUS candidate lists) as used toilet paper is frankly naive and sophomoric. IMHO, it is important to ocassionally read articles from the Federalist Society so I can better understand their policy prescriptions and goals. And, then respond negatively to policies with which I cannot abide.
Klinker, IMHO calling The Federalist Society names (such as nazi sympathizers) is merely acknowledgement that your POV lacks substance. Some of my critiques of the Federalist Society inlcude: i.) excessive power in a private group, ii.) tendency for The Federalist Society to describe alternatives only in the binary; and iii.) Trump obtaining moral support for denial of birthright citizenship (and Trump's fanciful interpretation of the 14th amendment in order to eliminate birth-right citizenship) from various Federalist Society articles.
It appears to me that you (Klinker) relate to the world with a relatively closed mind. Or, perhaps, you (Klinker) have such an all encompassing narrative that new issues, policies and facts do not need to be debated. I would suggest that you reconsider your habits for confronting new or different ideas or policy prescriptions.
Can you (Klinker) provide three ("3") critiques of The Federalist Society (other than nazi sympathizer or used toilet paper)?
nohero said:
ml1 said:
nohero said:
That's just page 1. It goes on for six pages like that. It reads like a Trump Twitter Greatest Hits boxed set.
reads like 25th Amendment time.
Trump did write "not I" when it should have been "not me", but not everyone would agree with you that it's a sign of dementia.
Call DS in on this offense to grammar. Also keep DS in mind, if any punctuation errors are identified in the same DJT letter.
Apparently, there is a return of the poster who only thinks and writes of human bodily waste. Which actually speaks volumes from whence his opinions emerge.
For a brief period here, I believe we actually had a conversation going!
Smedley, I shall persevere. But I do believe there are others in MOLand who would join in an expression of their conservative views. However, facing the gang of school boys who pounce and trash the messenger/poster, is off-putting.
RealityForAll said:
The Federalist Society has been at least partially responsible for assembling the pool of candidates for all of Trump’s judicial nominees. Describing the URL (for the group that is so involved in creating SCOTUS candidate lists) as used toilet paper is frankly naive and sophomoric. IMHO, it is important to ocassionally read articles from the Federalist Society so I can better understand their policy prescriptions and goals. And, then respond negatively to policies with which I cannot abide.
Klinker, IMHO calling The Federalist Society names (such as nazi sympathizers) is merely acknowledgement that your POV lacks substance. Some of my critiques of the Federalist Society inlcude: i.) excessive power in a private group, ii.) tendency for The Federalist Society to describe alternatives only in the binary; and iii.) Trump obtaining moral support for denial of birthright citizenship (and Trump's fanciful interpretation of the 14th amendment in order to eliminate birth-right citizenship) from various Federalist Society articles.
It appears to me that you (Klinker) relate to the world with a relatively closed mind. Or, perhaps, you (Klinker) have such an all encompassing narrative that new issues, policies and facts do not need to be debated. I would suggest that you reconsider your habits for confronting new or different ideas or policy prescriptions.
Can you (Klinker) provide three ("3") critiques of The Federalist Society (other than nazi sympathizer or used toilet paper)?
“The Federalist” ( the website quoted”) is not The Federalist Society.
Two different things.
Carry on.
nohero said:
Trump did write "not I" when it should have been "not me", but not everyone would agree with you that it's a sign of dementia.
“Not I” is correct. Putting it another way reveals the nominative case more clearly: “You, not I, will have to live with it.”
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
drummerboy