"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-- Mark Twain
The type of research I do often involves statistical analysis of data collected as part of the research project. While I don't claim to be an expert (the true stats folks are really nerdy) I consider myself reasonably well-versed in the ins and outs of what we academics refer to as data-diddling.
For the most part we are scrupulous about collecting the data, but anything goes when it comes to analyzing it. For example, I can make a pretty good case either for or against global warming (or cooling) using the same data set and simply varying the time frame being analyzed.
Which is why I'm somewhat ticked at myself. I should know better than to take anything this administration and its media lackeys say at face value. But when Eric Holder and the DOJ filed suit to block voter ID laws in various states, citing the fact that minorities would be disproportionally affected, I read the reported numbers (minorities lack the required identification somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% more than whites), shook my head, wondered how they functioned in today's society, and went on about my business. I was mildly curious about why there was such a great discrepancy between the two groups, but figured that the states would explain that when the cases came to trial.
I should have known better.
From an article about a recent House Judiciary Committee report on whether or not the Department of Justice is pursuing a partisan agenda in place of neutrally enforcing the law:
“The Justice Department claims that in South Carolina minorities are 20 percent more likely than whites to lack photo ID,” the report states. “This sounds significant until you examine the original data. 90% of minorities have photo IDs compared with 91.6% of whites. The Department’s presentation is mathematically true (because 10% is technically 20 percent more than 8.4%) but it masks that in reality, the Department is battling over a difference of less than 2%.”So Holder and his media lackeys are getting their panties in a wad about 90% compared to 91.6% - a difference of 1.6 percentage points. But through the magic of statistics that gets reported as a difference of 20%.
Mathematically valid. Ethically invalid. A perfect example of a lie enabled through statistics.
2 comments:
Thoughts-
Figures lie and liars figure.
Lawyers figure they can lie anytime and anyplace better than anyone else, it's an acquired and required skill of their profession.
There are too many lawyers, there should be no more than 1 per 100K citizens. (Illegals DON'T Count!)
There are too many judges, there should be 1 per 100K lawyers.
We should raise the bar on the Bar Exams, they are far too easy, and lawyers should be required to be re-tested every five years to be allowed to practice in each jurisdiction. No more of this state wide stuff. Lawyers who wish to be certified to file and argue before the Supreme Court of their State or of the United States, must pay a 40% of annual gross income contribution to the Victims' Relief Fund of the jurisdiction they are registered to vote in, for each Court.
No lawyer should be certified to practice law who has not performed Volunteer Cummunity Service for 1 year with the local police or sheriff's department AND served a minimum of 6 months as an Un-Paid, Self-Insured Warden's Assistant in the Showers of a major State or Federal Prison for Lifers.
When the System is broke, ya' gotta' raise the Bar!
PS: Foreign States and parties may not sue in local, State, or Federal Courts, and No Legal Association, of any kind, will enjoy legal standing at any time in any matter unless a party to the suit.
PPS: FWIW, "Justice" will from now on have a slit cut in her blindfold over each eye, her scale balanced each year, and her double-edged sword will be sharpened and constantly maintaied with a razors edge.
PPPS: I know, I'm dreaming. Don't wake me up, please.
Pascvaks beat me to it, and said it MUCH better than I :-)
Post a Comment