No, you know nothing about me. I do similar calculations quite a bit when deciding on real estate purchases and later tracking various categories of expenses and profits- as individual units and in the aggregate. I have no interest in doing them here. I simply enjoy debunking your statistics. It's clear you are becoming emotional and lashing out. So let's be clear: when I debunk your statistics, I am under no obligation to recalculate them for you. Got it?
I'll keep that in mind if you ever debunk my statistics. For now, though, all we have is your persistent whining about which assumptions and methods I use.
If you think the Democrats' Jim Crow era was a bigger atrocity, good for you. I wasn't expecting you to help me make an even bigger case against Democrats regarding the systematic taking of fundamental rights. Consider this a hat tip to you, thanks!!!
There's no question that in the first part of the 20th century the Democrats were by far the worse party. They were the party of southern, white, rural, religious conservatives, who cloaked their white supremacy behind the fig leaf of states rights and anti-big-government rhetoric. That same description now applies to one of the two parties, but it's not the Democrats.
I see.... so depending on the issue, you choose different numbers of decades to go back.
Quite the opposite. In order to prevent myself from cherry-picking, I don't make any choices with regard to how far to go back -- I find the best data source I can and go back to the start of the data source, whenever that happens to be. If it runs back to the 1920s, I calculate from there. If it only goes back to the 1970s, that's the start of my calculation.
So you assert you "forgot" about FDR wrongly incarcerating 120,000 people when you created your post on incarceration rates.
Do you see those two inverted commas before and after the word "forgot"? They're called quotation marks. They actually mean something. When you're using them the way you just did, it implies you're quoting me, which, as you know, you weren't. In fact, not only did I not assert I "forgot" about those detentions, I didn't say anything that could be reasonably paraphrased that way. Rather, I explained that I calculated based on the data source I had. I have no idea whether that data source included or didn't include those particular detentions among the incarcerated. But, given my statistical method, it made absolutely no difference either way, since the detentions started after the beginning of the FDR/Truman era and ended before its end, and so they wouldn't have shown up in the growth of incarceration for the period, whether they were counted or not.
Note, my method here isn't one of selective inclusion and exclusion. I specifically avoid doing that. For example, in 2001, 3000 American were murdered in the 9/11 attacks. I know that they were not counted by the FBI in the murder stats for that year. If my purpose had been to make Bush look worse, I could have added them back into the stats for that year and come up with an averaging method that would have factored them into the comparison. Using that altered method, I suspect I could show that average per capita murders on Bush's watch were greater than the murder rate he inherited (rather than the actual result I showed, which had murders declining a bit under Bush). But I didn't. I used the official data, as with every other calculation, and used the same method of calculating the delta from start to finish, as with every other calculation I did.
I could, of course, easily game the numbers to make the Republicans look worse by tailoring my data and my method from one calculation to the next that way. But I keep myself from doing so by taking the official data straight up, from the start of the data series, and applying a consistent statistical method to it. What you're whining about is that I didn't break from that for purposes of making FDR look worse, by altering methods to include some things into the incarceration rate that may not have been included.
Oops, it looks like we've stepped onto another flaw in the entire premise of your "series" of simple-minded rants, yes?
No. As you'll see above, what you did is gave me an opportunity to highlight the way I've been very consistent in my approach, to deny myself the opportunity to game the numbers. I could have gamed them to make the Republicans look worse, the same way you think I ought to have gamed them to make the Democrats look worse, but instead I calculated neutrally.
