Updated @ About Noon Eastern: Welp. I cut and pasted this post, into the comment box at “Ringside” — for our buddy William Otis. He has deleted it. Charming. Seems he believes that free expression, comment and criticism… only should apply when his commenters conform to his world views.

Y A W N.

How utterly… boring. I won’t try to repost mine — this below will stand, in eternity — long after he’s faded to dust, in some obscure graveyard, somewhere…. perfect. End, update.

And I mention his — only because Paul Mirengoff is on vacation in Europe — and we debunked this exact same line of racist, and false “crime stats” crap just about three weeks ago — when uttered at Powerline. [As we said repeatedly before, it all flows from the shrew Heather Mac Donald’s intentionally mal-informed, illogical and bad stats methods “science”… writings.]

So, Bill Otis, apparently a former prosecutor, and thus presumably-a-trained-in-logic lawyer… and now, card carrying member of the frothy, illogical hard right… argues the same old canard, about proportions of US violent crime, whyte v. Black.

What he — and the people he quotes — intentionally fail to mention is that there are about SEVEN times as many non-Black people, as there are… Black people in the US.

Thus the actual ‘incidence rate’ — of violent crime occurs slightly more often at the hands of whyte perps. Simply because they are a larger portion of the overall population. Thus his stats… are meaningless — and misleading, at best.

Said another way, any person in the US — but especially any whyte person — is about 15% more likely to experience violent crime at the hands of a whyte perp, than at the hands of any person of color.

It is a fact, that has been true since the 1960s — and yet, these dyed in the wool racists… do their (like Otis, and Hayward and Hinderaker) absolute level best to only talk about raw overall numbers — ignoring relative risks.

But (for example) when doctors treat humans, they always rely on relative benefit v. relative risk — in a drug regimen, or surgical intervention. What are the odds it improves one’s condition, compared to the odds it leads to a bad side effect / outcome?

Of course, Mr. Otis intentionally ignores here the very same advice he’d gladly credit his physician for offering him.

Malevolent… and moronic — a lethal combination, that.

Out.