The Truth According to Mark

There's a new rumor going around the Internet that the election was fixed. Actually the new part is that they came up with specifics. Lots and lots of specifics.

It seems that Bush used $26 million in Enron money laundered through the Saudis to bribe a bunch of voting machine technicians. Claiming to be FBI and Homeland Security agents, the technicians went to polling places were they ordered lockdown and altered the totals. But, Karl Rove didn't pay up so some of the technicians are going public.

This story has everything including gaping holes. To start with, the only time the low-level functionaries know all of the details is in bad movies. In real life, you would never bother to tell people where the bribe money was coming from. Nationwide, only one place was locked down and with all the publicity hat one got, any other lock-downs would have made national news long ago. Since when did Bush get access to Enron money? Heck, since when is there any left?

And ignoring everything else, why renig on paying the technicians when they know too much?

Even MSNBC's Keith Olbermann who has been repeating every other rumor doesn't believe this one.

Setting the record straight on some issues.

Smoking will kill you, even if someone else is doing the smoking, right? No. Call it what you will - passive smoking, second hand smoke, whatever - it isn't dangerous. Think about it. Smokers are drawing the smoke directly into their lungs. Anything that others get has been diffusing into the air. For more information, see here.

Even if the results are accepted at face value, the impressive-sounding risk figures for lung cancer and heart disease imply that passive smoking accounts annually for one extra death in every 10,000.

This article puts the whole thing in perspective.

Habitual, lifelong smokers face a 30 to 40-fold higher risk of contracting lung cancer than non-smokers. That sounds massive and many smokers are persuaded to quit because they believe it is. But, since the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers is minuscule, it does not amount to an objectively high risk.

Sandford admits: "Smokers are more likely to die of heart disease than lung cancer." And pro-smoking campaigner Joe Jackson argues: "Even if you're a heavy smoker, your chances of not getting lung cancer are still more than 99 percent.

And my favorite quote:

Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation says: "I simply do not know where they conjure up their statistics. The statistics for passive smoking in particular would not be published or even considered in any other scientific discipline.

BTW, Shaken Baby Syndrome doesn't exist, either. A new study found that an adult man or woman cannot shake a baby hard enough to cause internal damage. If a baby is shaken it will damage the neck, not the brain.

And the arctic is not warming.

"Antarctica has been cooling for the last 50 years. Most of the Arctic has not warmed over long time scales," she told the news service. "Temperatures (have) always changed in the past and (they) always will. . . . We don't have enough understanding of natural variability and we don't see enormous amounts of temperature change to be alarmed about," she explained.

And this:

Naurzbaev, et al (2002) created a proxy temperature data set spanning nearly 2,500 years for the Taimyr Peninsula of northern Russia, all of which is poleward of 70° N. The authors studied tree rings-widths of living and deceased larch trees. They reported that "the warmest periods over the last two millennia in this region were clearly in the third, tenth to twelfth and during the twentieth centuries." The first two, they claim, were warmer than those of the last century. Twentieth century temperatures appeared to peak around 1940.

...

The ACIA appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s -- cool decades in much of the world -- and end in the warmer 1990s or early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years, and the implication, "if present trends continue," is that massive warming will occur in the next century. Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?

For that matter, can't we dispense with the use of linear trends for cyclical time series which have a cyclical nature? My college statistics prof would have been very upset at this practice, because the character of a trend line in a data set like the one shown in Figure 3 is largely a function of the starting and ending points selected.

I also looked closely at many of the charts and saw misleading information. For example, the chart on global sea level rise goes back only 10 years but shows a steep increase. Then I read the y-axis -- a total rise of about one inch! Since we don't know where the data originated (the caption says "from a satellite launched in 1992") we can only wonder whether the measurement accuracy is sufficient to even measure a one inch change (or whether such a change even matters!).

Dan Rather is retiring. It's about time. When your credibility has become a punchline for both Jay Leno and Dave Barry you have overstayed your welcome. He's not leaving for months, yet so there is still time to get some digs in. Here's one.

Someone over at the Democratic Underground figured it out. Maybe they've been reading my blog (actually, I hope not, these guys drip venom instead of spit).

I'm about as pissed off as anybody about * winning. The Red-Blue crap is largely useless; especially talks about a boycott! Here is why:

(1) We need the Red states in 2006 and 2008. What a perfect softball for Rove to hit in those states -- see what these elitists really think of you.

(2) We don't campaign in the Red states, advertise much, or pay much attention to them. How the F are they going to get the message about our commitment to their issues? I wondered why we didn't do massive local radio advertising; great medium and lots of people listen while they drive all over the place.

(3) California elected Reagan twice and Deukmejian (R) twice. What a great move that would have been back then; boycott California. Give me a break.

(4) Are you comfortable adopting the same strategy that Nixon used to screw us; except this time we're screwing ourselves. Nixon's Southern strategy was to pit middle and lower class whites against blacks on the race issue, thus getting the white vote while not representing their interests. We're not screwing ourselves. Pit Red and Blue states against each other on location, religion, etc. when the real issues pertain to war, economic justice, racial-ethnic justice.

(5) I'm in very Blue part of a Red state, Northern Virginia. We have a Democratic Governor. I don't even think about Red-Blue (raided in CA, lived in NYC before here). Guess what we produce that you will boycott -- the f'ing internet. Telenet was the first public data network (Reston, VA); MCI set up the internet backbone (Arlington, VA); UUNET was the backbone integrator (Fairfax, VA). Go right ahead and boycott VA but be sure to use one of the other "internets."

Venting time is over. Lets be both tactically and strategically smart. If you want to see what's up, look at Montana state-wide elections, look at Colorado, look at Virginia's governor and potential in 2008.

Pretty rational post from a site that speculated that Bush (43) tried to kill his father (Bush 41) in a plane crash.

Speaking of venom, one of the most venomist cartoonists, Ted Rall, was dropped from the Washington Post. Why? Because he said that President Reagan is rasting in Hell? No. Because he said that Pat Tillman, the football player who enlisted in the army to fight terrorism deserved to die? No. Because he compared allowing Republicans to vote is like mainsteaming retarded kids? Yes, but only because he offended parents of retarded kids.

How will the Blues ever win over the Reds? In order to take the White House in 2008 they will have to convince a majority of the voters to switch parties, or at least a majority in enough states to give an electoral victory. Congress will be trickier since the Republicans have majorities in both houses.

The Blues need to make nice to the Reds. They need our votes or at least for us to stay home while they vote in their candidates. The trouble is that right now they hate us. They talk about succession, joining Canada and leaving us "Jesusland". They stereotype us as homophobic , racists fundamentalists.

As long ago as August the left felt that being a Republican was a moral failure. Remember the attempts to stage sick-outs in New York City during the Republican National Convention? More recently, the Bush twins were denied service at a restaurant.

Freemans, tuesday night the 16th of nov. the bush twins , along with 2 massive secret service men, tried to have dinner. They were told by the maitre'd that they were full and would be for the next 4 years. Upon hearing, the entire restaurant cheered and did a round of shots... it was amazing!!! [Ed: We're hearing that this is actually true.]

The Bush twins are not their father. Refusing them service is an act of spite.

Considering the reaction, are any Republicans welcome there?

Then there is the constant insistence that the vote must have been rigged based on the assumption that no one who voted for Gore would vote for Bush.

In 2000 they could blame the Supreme Court but this time they have to blame the voters. That's more than they can stand. They are really mad at us.

So, the Blues are calling us names and saying that they don't want to live in the same country that we live in.

After all this, how are they going to talk any of us into voting for them in the future?

I can hear the ads now, "Back in 2004 you stupidly voted for the wrong side. Now's your chance to make up for it." That's going to convince a lot of voters.

Is there such a thing as free will? Or, when considered as a group, do individual choices cancel each other out leaving a core behavior - sort of like a flock of sheep. That's how the talk of voter fraud strikes me. Statistitions look at the number of registered Republicans and Democrats in a county and make statements on the maximum number of votes that Bush could get vs. the number he actually got. If the actual count is higher than the projected maximum then something must be wrong with the way the votes are counted. After all, Bush couldn't have persuaded more Democrats to vote for him in 2004 than voted for him in 2000. Who you will vote for is fixed. The only variable is how well each side does at turning out the vote. No free will or voter choice involved at all, just organizational efforts by the parties.

Here is one example of this thinking:

The paper was authored by Michael Hout, a professor of sociology at U.C. Berkeley, and three other researchers. The analysis found a statistical relationship between electronic voting machines and votes for President Bush, which seems to have accounted for anywhere from 130,000 votes to 260,000 votes. Hout was not immediately available for comment.

Here's another:

Most people would have expected John Kerry's performance at the polls this year to be similar to Al Gore's in 2000. And in 229 out of 300 voting districts, or wards as they're called in New Hampshire, that was the case. Kerry either matched the percentage of votes that Gore received in 2000 in those wards or did better than Gore. But in 71 wards, Briggs found, Bush did better in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Interestingly, most of the allegations center around optical scan voting which leaves a paper trail. This is an exception. These researchers are looking at touch screen voting. Keith Olbermann (who is flogging this horse even while on vacation) says:

Hout and his research team consistently insisted they were not alleging that voting was rigged, nor even that what they’ve found actually affected the direction of Florida’s 27 Electoral Votes. They point out that in a worst-case scenario, they see 260,000 “excessives” - and Bush took the state by 350,000 votes. But they insist that based on Florida’s voting patterns in 1996 and 2000, the margin cannot be explained by successful get-out-the-vote campaigns, or income variables, or anything but something rotten in the touch screens.

Note that they only factored in two prior elections and failed to factor in the increase that Bush naturally gets as a sitting war president.

So, is there a problem. No, not according to the people doing a recount in New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire vote recount requested by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is still in progress, but preliminary results show no significant changes in the numbers.

So what's really going on with optical scan voting? The common points are rural, relatively poor counties that use optical scan voting. Analysis of the Florida counties showed that they have a high percentage of registered Democrats but they tend to vote Republican.

Maybe, instead of finding fraud, these statisticians are discovering two related facts:

1. Poor, rural counties register Democrat by tradition but vote Republican.
2. Poor rural counties often buy optical scan voting machines because they are cheaper than other alternatives.

Of course, statements like this from Nader's spokesman doesn't help.

Zeese said that ruling out voting machines as the problem in New Hampshire's results means "the problem was probably the Democrats."

"If we rule out the scapegoat of the machines, it just means more soul-searching on the part of the Democrats to figure out why they lost to the worst president in history," Zeese said. "You cannot assume that inconsistencies between exit polls and trends in voting or registration are going to turn out to show machine fraud. The Democrats really can be (just) as bad as they look."

Let's get over that "worst president in history" fixation. If Nader really believed this then he would have campaigned for Kerry himself.

Speaking of worst presidents.. the Clinton library opening gives us a chance to look back at Slick Willies record. After near-misses with Kerry and Gore, Clinton is looking better all the time. I don't think that I would call him a bad president. In 1999 he admitted that he was a "C" president and hoped to elevate himself to "B" status. His big initiative in 2000 was to try to establish a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. Had he succeeded he would have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize. Arafat had other ideas so, failing to bring his grade up on the final, Clinton finished his term with a "C" average.

At best, Clinton's accomplishments were mixed. His assault weapon ban was meaningless. He provided extra finding to police although this mainly went for equipment, not extra manpower (also, he counted 10,000 cops for ten years each is not 100,000 cops). His welfare reforms seem to have worked pretty well.

Yes, he did balance the budget but that required an over-heated economy and cutbacks that left our military too small to properly occupy Iraq.

Yes, he did preside over a huge economic expansion but much of this was caused by Internet startups and a stock market that was way too high. The dot-coms are gone taking a lot of venture capital with them and the stoke market had its inevitable correction. Also, companies like Enron did most of their growth in the Clinton regulatory environment.

Foreign intervention was at a high point but Clinton was too risk-averse. The government that we placed in Haiti has already been overthrown. Bosnia and Kosovo are a mess, still a long way from fair democratic elections. Somalia is worse. Clinton's efforts to force a peace between Israel and the Palestinians provoked an intefada that is just now winding down. Clinton's weak reaction to terrorism encouraged Osama bin Laden to attack us in our homeland.

On a personal level, many of Clinton's associates in Arkansas were jailed over Whitewater. There might have been more to it but Clinton's people stonewalled to an amazing degree.

Clinton's personal life left much to be desired. In 1992 he pretty much admitted that he had played around but promised that those days were behind him. When he got caught with his pants down he lied to his wife, lied to the American people, and lied, under oath, to a grand jury.

His last acts in office were to pardon friends and benefactors and to loot the White House of furniture.

Maybe we should make that a "C-".

Let's take a break from politics and talk about copyright. Hollywood is worried that people downloading movies from the Internet will kill their business the same way that file sharing did the music business. To prevent this they are pushing Congress to pass a new copyright law. I think that most people will be appalled when they discover that the new law prohibits skipping over ads.The broadcasters insist that there is an unwritten contract between them and the viewer that you will watch ads in exchange for receiving broadcasts.

Next they will insist that you use the bathroom during the show instead of the commercial break.

TiVo isn't waiting for this. They have their own way of making sure that you see ads.

Then there is the broadcast flag. This will be part of digital transmissions. When it is set you cannot record.

All of this is to stop the Napster Effect. The music industry saw sales fall several years in a row and blames Napster and other file sharing. But... is this justified?

Several things have happened since the recording industry's high point in the last 1990s. There has been an economic downturn. Three new game platforms came out. DVDs became mainstream and people started buying movies instead of renting them. Entertainment money comes out of the same pool. The same people who are buying PS2s and DVDs are the ones who buy most music and they seldom have separate pools of money for different purchases.

At the same time the recording industry eliminated the single and pushed CD prices over $20. The word is that most CDs have one good track. Why pay $20 for a music track when you can get an entire movie for the same money?

They also reduced the number of new CDs released each year. Granted most of these would have lost money but their proof of lost sales looks at total CDs sold. They don't talk about profits which are still high.

Still, on the surface it sounds logical. Why would people buy a CD when they can get the music through file-sharing? This theory falls flat when you consider how most music is sold - people buy it because they hear it on the radio. For free. The music companies even pay stations to play songs. So free music can sell CDs.

Anyway, hold onto your VCR and your cassette recorder. You may need them in the future.

Back to politics (sort of). I saw a junk fax today asking if you thought that the country made a mistake re-electing George Bush. They asked people to check "yes" or "no" and fax it back. They will send the results to Congress.

The fine print showed that there would be a minimum charge for voting. I wonder how many people who are outraged at the election will fall for this?

Red State/Slave State. In the post-election free-for-all it was pointed out that a map of the pre-Civil War slave states is similar to the slave states. There are all sorts of problems with this analysis.

First, at least half of the red states were either free states or territories "open to slavery". For the most part, these territories were not actually open to settlers until after the Civil War so they hardly count.

Second, the Electoral College gives a poor indication of actual voting patterns. The USAToday breakdown by county tells a different story. Snopes covered this subject and has a different map shaded by the percentage that counties voted Bush or Kerry.

Tech Central Station went a step further. They have the county map and a map showing population. This makes it very obvious that Kerry's support was directly proportionate to population density. The author gives a few possible explanations. One interesting correlation is that people's willingness to help a stranger goes down as population density goes up.

Not discussed is the demographic breakdown of cities. Kerry's support came from minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, from union members, teachers, trial lawyers, college students, people with advances degrees, and high school dropouts. With the the exception of the dropouts, the rest of these people are mainly found in cities.

Those Wacky Folks at Al Jazeera. The footage of a marine was shown repeatedly but the footage of Margaret Hassan pleading for her life was not shown.

Aljazeera on Tuesday decided not to broadcast the video as it could not be sure that the woman was Hassan. An Aljazeera official said the channel would also not air it out of respect for the feelings of its audience.

I'm just speculating here but I wonder if the footage of the marine had a translation of what he was saying. His words made it clear that he thought he was about to be attacked. In fact, he had been injured by a booby-trapped corpse the previous day so he had good reason to be wary.

One thing I know for certain, Al Jazeera did not bother to tell its viewers that the man who was killed was part of a group that thought nothing of kidnapping and executing the Iraqi head of an international aid organization.