The numbers challenged DOJ is at it again. 

Long version here  and here

Short version:

the incorrect data the DOJ used was 239,000 voters without DMV-issued ID. 10% of black voters, 8.4% of white voters. That’s a real disparity of 1.6% but the DOJ called it 20%. Why? Because in Holder Math, 10 is 20% larger than 8.4–numbers that are mathematically accurate but totally misleading.

(10 / 8.4 ) – 1 = .19 – or 20% faux disparity

(Note : the DOJ rounded 19 up to 20 because why not?)

What would happen if the real numbers were that 3% of black voters don’t have DMV-issued IDs and 2% of white voters don’t have DMV-issued IDs? These numbers would clearly indicate LESS real disparity. Instead of the (already small) 1.6% difference based on the larger and incorrect data, there’s an even smaller 1% difference. And the number of people without currently issued IDs is smaller, too–indicating that fewer people would have to get IDs. So, in every way that would seem to argue against the DOJ’s case. Fewer people, less real disparity.

But if we use Holder Math, this scenario shows a 50% faux disparity.

(3 / 2) – 1 = .5 – or a staggering 50% faux disparity!

What if the numbers of voters with no DMV-issued ID was REALLY small? Let’s say we discovered that the number of blacks with no DMV-issued ID was 1.4% but the number of whites with no DMV-issued ID was 1%. Now we’re down to a .4% difference and only dealing with a very small slice of the population. It doesn’t matter, thanks to the miracle of Holder Math!

(1.4 / 1 ) – 1 = .4 – a stunning 40% faux disparity!

This demonstrates the complete fraud that the DOJ has perpetrated with its “20%” figure by using the total irrelevant ratio of two numbers. The numbers are going to get lower, the Department of Justice knows it, and they’ve set up a formula that will allow them to spin the lower numbers in an even more misleading way.

Let's kick things off with an update of Left Wing Hatred, shall we?

Where to begin?  How about with an actor I like: Actor Backs Off Wish Obama Was More 'Gangster,' But Wants Him to 'Smack Up' Boehner

Then there's this: 

In Newsweek: “There will be prosecutions and show trials. There will be violence, mark my words. Houses burnt, property defaced. I just hope that this time the mob targets the right people in Wall Street and in Washington. (How does a right-thinking Christian go about asking Santa for Mitch McConnell’s head under the Christmas tree?)”

Related: Alan Colmes apologizes for mocking Rick Santorum about his dead baby.

Not to be left out: MSNBC's Matthews Compares Anti-Gingrich Ads to Dresden Firebombing

and

I'm watching via internet stream.  Don't recognize the announcers.  They seem to be surprised that tOSU even showed. 

Laughable discussion of the "incomplete/fumble."  They cou;dn't figure out why it was taking so long as it was an OBVIOUS incompletion.  Until it wasn't.

And Florida cheap shots are now labeled tOSU "breaks".  Gonna be a LOOOONG game to listen to.  More as it develops.

<after Fla TD> next time he wants to challenge, Fickel should revert to his defensive football days and just TACKLE the sumbitch.

<after 2nd Fla TD?  Get the BROAD outta broadcasting.  Yeah ... it's the shoes.

<re sanctions>  First the NCAA as currently constituted will be GONE withing 5-10 years.  Second - I've NEVER been a fan of the NCAA regs and especially not the enforcement (or LACK of enfocement) mechanisms.  OSU has something to play for next year?  You bet your @$$ they do.  What if they go undefeated??!

also: announcers claim tOSU should be happy with the sanctions because USC's were worse.  Really?  If I get 10 years in jail for driving 70 in a 65 zone I should be happy about it because the guy in the next cell got 11 years for killing his wife?  How DO these guys get these jobs???

AFC:

Bengals @ Texans.  Red Rocket vs whoever can drag themselves onto the field.  I STILL like the Texans by about 7.  Early line is 3.  Take the Texans, lay the points.

Steelers @ Tebows.  Many think THIS is why NFL seeding rules should be altered.  Steelers -8 o/u 35.  Line is darned close so I wouldn't play it.  Eight is a weird number and with a low o/u I MIGHT be persuaded to take the Tebows, but the Steelers get the win.  Other prediction - you'll find an ALARMING number of Tebow haters cheering for him this week!

NFC:

Falcons @ Giants.  Matty Ice vs Peyton's little brother.  Giants -3, 48 1/2.  Falcons are the better team but HFA makes the difference.  Giants to win, Falcons to cover.

 Lions@ Christians.  Saints -10 1/2, 58!  Won't be a blowout.  Track meet 1st quarter, slow 2nd quarter, Saints pull waway in the 3rd and the RBBC ices it in the 4th.  Saints to win, Lions to cover.  I'd take the under but I wouldn't feet good about it.

Here's a quote from a December 6 report from NPR: "Since the beginning of the Obama administration, Republicans have escalated the use of the filibuster to historic levels and have blocked nearly 20 percent of Obama nominees. . . . "*   Alas, no fact-checking over at NPR, unless by "historic" you mean "nonexistant".  The truth is, at least as far as judicial nominees go, Bush faced much worse obstructionism.  Some useful facts from Ed Whelan at NRO Bench Memos:

• Obama's has an 81% confirmation rate for appellate judges compared to Bush's 66% (oddly enough, for district court judges Bush did slightly better than Obama, but not by such a large margin).
• There were no successful filibusters in 2009-2010 against Obama's appellate nominees.  In 2011, there were two (nominees Goodwin Liu and Caitlin Halligan).  In 2003 - Bush's third year in office - there were nine, with Democrats beating back "cloture" petitions 19 times. 

If anything, the Senate GOP needs to get tougher with Obama.

The other interesting graph is from James Montier at GMO, and is even funnier.  This graphs the average estimate, from the experts, for the coming year's GDP against the actual GDP:

Of course, it isn't news to us -- or it shouldn't be -- that the consensus estimates of approved experts is often, maybe even mostly, wrong.  

But it always seems to take them by surprise.  

Why is that?

Those of you who hang around here occasionally know I'm a libertarian leaning Austrian.  One of Von Mises main points was his insistance on "the knowledge problem" - that gubmint can't POSSIBLY have the knowledge to correctly plan an eceonomy or, if it did, would be unable to do so.  So it was with great relish (and a little mustard on the side) that I read a recent article by Hernando De Soto in <gasp> the New York Times,

intro:

Here we are, three years into the global financial crisis, and we’re still flying blind. We don’t even know what we don’t know. What we do know is that we’re stuck in a huge contraction of private credit; no one is making enough loans and investments to expand or start businesses and get the economy growing. The remedies applied by U.S. and European governments tried to treat the symptoms — bad debts, shaky banks, floundering businesses, people losing their homes, rising unemployment, currency wars — and not the disease.

Had those symptoms been the real cause of the crisis, “vulture capitalists” should have swept in by now. They should have spotted the signals that send knowledge of who is in trouble and — following the laws of supply and demand — picked up on the cheap the potentially lucrative remains of the nonperforming assets and transactions, correcting the deficiencies that led to them.

go read the whole thing.  It won't make you feel better.  That's the idea.