HorsesAss.Org

Saturday, May 21, 3:45pm — I’ll be at the Bellingham Grassroots & Independent Media Conference, joining a panel discussion on blogging. Other panelists include Natasha Chart of Pacific Views and fellow Drinking Liberally beer-buddy Lee Rosenberg of Blog Reload.

May 23-25 (Mon. thru Wed.), 3:15pm — I’ll be joining my good friend Stefan on the John Carlson Show (570-KVI), to discuss the day’s developments coming out of the election contest trial in Chelan County Superior Court. I expect we’ll both report positive developments for our respective sides… but my pronouncements will be made with greater conviction.

Tuesday, May 24, 6-8:30pm — “Is traditional media obsolete?” That’s the question they’ll be asking at the International Association of Business Communicators Seattle chapter’s annual Media Evening, at the Gordon-Biersch Brewpub (Pacific Place). Apart from dinner (and I assume, beer) the evening includes a kind of “media relations speed dating” in which media participants will switch tables with each dinner course to discuss “critical communication questions” with the attendees. “Media/Journalist” participants will include Ken Schram of KOMO-TV, George Erb of the Puget Sound Business Journal, and… me. Non-members are welcome to attend, but it will cost you $45.

I also expect I’ll be on the Kirby Wilbur Show again sometime next week to discuss the election contest trial. And Kirby’s promised me I’ll also get the opportunity to needle him about the gas tax recall initiative.

Impeach Bush? America’s reputation in tatters? This must be the rantings of some commie-lib, hate America first, left-wingnut whacko, right?

Actually, this is from a column by a man with impeccable conservative Republican credentials: Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan. Formerly of the Cato Institute, and currently a senior fellow a the Hoover Institution, Roberts is also a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Investor’s Business Daily. Read his bio… it’s quite impressive.

Equally impressive is his scathing criticism of President Bush. Remember that secret memo that I wrote about, that the US MSM is afraid to acknowledge? Well, Roberts says this alone is enough to put Bush behind bars.

Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”

This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock?

Has American democracy failed at home?

Not yet. But we’re awfully damn close.

And here’s the funny part… what Tim didn’t realize was that the longest of his longtime opponents first entered the fray as a freshman in high school.

I often plug Andrew’s NW Progressive Blog and his incredibly useful Pacific NW Portal. What I don’t usually tell people is that he’s only 18. While Andrew never denies his age, he doesn’t promote it out of concern it might detract from his credibility. But since Frank Sennett dwells on Andrew’s youth in a column in today’s Spokane Spokesman-Review (“Young progressive schools state’s right wing“), I thought I’d take the opportunity to toss Andrew a compliment.

I am proud of the way Andrew has matured these past few years, both as a writer and an activist, and am honored to have had the opportunity to play some small role in his political education. Andrew’s dedication and energy is truly impressive — if at times annoying — and while I kinda wish he’d stop calling me at all hours of the day and night, I’d rather have a dozen Andrews incessantly badgering me than none at all… as long as they didn’t all have my cell phone number.

Even more impressive than his activism are his accomplishments. Lot’s of teenagers have energy to spare, but few channel it into something as constructive as Andrew’s multiple websites, all of which have played a role in influencing media coverage of political events. Sennett calls Andrew a “role model”, and the description is well deserved.

In recent days, the Rossi camp’s spin has veered away from the felon vote, and back towards the “total mess” thesis… an unsurprising tactic considering the number of offsetting illegal votes the Democrats have alleged. But this shift is also likely due in part to the report recently issued by the Democrats’ expert witness, Christopher Adolf, who effectively exposes the Republicans’ data as “unrepresentative”, their methodology as “flawed”, and their entire case as “hopeless”.

DJ has graciously summarized Prof. Adolf’s report for me, and not surprisingly, found that his arguments largely echo the same arguments DJ has made in the comment threads here and elsewhere. As DJ modestly explains, any statistician doing an objective analysis should reach the same conclusions. But I’ll just let DJ explain it in his own words… think of it as a kind of guest blog.

Professor Adolph states the first flaw this way: “Use of a non-random, non-representative, and incomplete sample of invalid votes … is useless for answering questions about the net effect of all invalid votes on the state-wide election outcome.”

The take home message is that the Republican’s invalid voter data are not suitable for any type of statistically or scientifically valid analysis.

Essentially, there were systematic biases in collecting the invalid ballots. The invalid votes are not drawn randomly or representatively across the state. Adolph did a very simple analysis to demonstrate this fact using the Republican and Democrat invalid voter lists. The Republican list was certainly cherry-picked. The Democrat list was cherry-pocked, too, but that is partially an artifact of the Democrats going to the precincts that the Republicans ignored.

Adolph points out that “[o]nly a complete statewide census, or a random or representative sample, has any hope of offering an unbiased estimate of the effect of invalid votes.” What should the Republicans have done? “Only if the Rossi campaign put as much effort into searching for invalid votes in precincts they won . . . as in precincts they lost can we begin to trust the experts’ reports.” (This is identical to the “equal scrutiny” argument I was making.)

Professor Adolph goes into much detail on the ecological fallacy in both Professors Katz’s and Gill’s analysis. He points out that “Modern, accepted [statistical] methods would provide strong warnings to the researcher that ecological inference in this case is impossible.” In other words, Katz’s and Gill’s arguments constitute an ecological fallacy. Both of the Republican expert witnesses make a single critical assumption that vote choices within any sub-population in a precinct are the same as the average vote choice in the precinct as a whole. “This assumption is strong, implausible, and unwarranted. Moreover, it flies in the face of decades of warnings from social scientists and statisticians. . . .” (Adolph).

To demonstrate this, Adolph first provides some technical background on Gary King’s solution to the ecological inference problem (which is state-of-the-art social science). I will skip the technical details, except to say that ecological inference can work under some conditions. One condition is that the groups about which we wish to make inference are represented in high enough numbers to provide mathematical limits (or bounds) on their characteristics.

For the 2004 election, it would be necessary that a reasonable fraction of the votes within precincts were invalid votes in order to infer the limits of their voting behavior from the aggregate voter data. Such is not the case. In all 1,344 precincts in which invalid votes have been identified, none of them have a high enough fractions of invalid votes to set these “bounds” and infer felon voting patterns out of the aggregate patterns. This is mathematical fact, not opinion. “The bounds [test] show[s] it is possible that every invalid vote in every precinct was cast for Rossi. Alternatively, every vote may have been cast for Gregoire

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

UPDATE:
Okay… not one of my best performances. The puppy was very vocal last night in voicing her opposition to crate training, so I was a bit a groggy. I’ll try to be better rested next week.

Here’s just one example of how these reports might be misleading:

To a layman, the CFR clearly shows that Ms. Steinman was convicted of a felony. But in a sworn declaration, the Skagit County Clerk’s Office states that Ms. Steinman was only convicted of a misdemeanor. (She apparently cut a deal, pleading to a lesser charge.)

Ooops.

How could the GOP attorneys make such a mistake? Well, one hint can be found in the email correspondence between GOP attorney Eric Martin and Dem attorney William Rava. During one exchange on this subject, Martin admits:

“I don’t practice criminal law, so maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.”

Ooops.

You’d think maybe with all the money the GOP has thrown at this case, they might have thought to hire a criminal attorney to advise them on the whole felon thing, huh? But then, the Republicans have always enjoyed a powerful sense of confidence that only their unique blend of ignorance and arrogance can bring.

Anyway, the Democrats have filed a “Motion to Clarify“, asking the court to rule that a CFR alone is not sufficient proof of a felony conviction. They have requested that Judge Bridges rule on the motion first thing Monday morning, before the trial starts.

“Just like al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership and the media,” the Republican senator from Oklahoma said.

Inhofe said there was “a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF,” and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups.

A US Senator is equating PETA with al Qaeda? Is he out of his fucking mind?

No… he’s a fascist, that’s what Sen. Inhofe is… and in his party’s calculated effort to stir up public support for a one-party state, he’s now equating environmentalism with terrorism. Let’s see now, Democrats are “enemies of faith,” and environmentalists are “just like al Qaeda”… what’s next? Will people who protest the Iraq War (or whatever war follows) be labeled “insurgents”? And will liberal bloggers like me be called “seditious” for writing about it? While I am still free to speak my mind, I have one thing to say to the Senator:

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Despite the fact that state law makes primary losers ineligible, even as a write-in candidate, Ron Sims received over 500 write-in votes in King County alone. It’s a safe bet that most, if not all, of these people surely would have preferred Gregoire over Rossi… so, since 500 votes turned out to be the difference between a close election and an interminable lawsuit, these 500+ people must be feeling pretty fucking stupid by now.

So my suggestion is that if they want to make amends, each and every one of them should pony up $7,000 to the state Dems.

Yeah, I know… everybody has the right to throw away their vote on a symbolic gesture… but then I have the right to call you fucking stupid for doing so.

There’s been talk about legislative “arrogance”… you know, like the arrogance of the Legislature for actually passing legislation. But really, much of the opposition to the gas tax is simply based on the fact that people don’t like paying higher taxes. Hell… who does? Still, while 9.5 cents tacked onto our existing 28 cent gas tax seems like a lot of money, I couldn’t help but wonder how high our gas tax really is, in real dollars, relative to historical levels. My preliminary research might surprise some people.

The chart above plots three lines, the Nominal Gas Tax in pennies per gallon, the gas tax in year-2000 dollars, adjusted using the Gross Domestic Product Deflator, and the gas tax expressed as a sales tax rate (tax per gallon / national average for regular gas.) I’m working on a more in-depth report, and will make my raw data, references and methodology available at that time, but while the specific numbers may adjust slightly in the final analysis, the trends will remain the same.

As you can see, while the nominal gas tax rose from 6.5 cents per gallon in 1950 to the current 28 cents in 2005, the actual cost of this tax both in real dollars, and as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas, has substantially declined over the past 55 years. Once the full 9.5 cent increase is implemented in 2009, the total nominal gas tax of 37.5 cents per gallon would only come to 32.2 cents in year-2000 equivalent dollars, according to current GDP projections. That figure is well below historical highs, and will decline steadily in the years that follow, as inflation eats away at its value.

This is, after all, the nature of excise taxes. Because they represent fixed dollar-values per unit, rather than a percentage rate like most taxes, inflation causes the revenue per unit to decline over time, unless the tax is periodically increased. For example the nickel a gallon hike in 2003, only brought the gas tax (in real dollars) back up to 1991 levels… the last time the tax had been raised. Yes, revenues continue to rise with consumption, but the gas tax is a user fee, mandated by the state constitution to be spent on roads only, so increases in consumption also represent increased wear and tear on existing roads, as well as increased demand for new infrastructure.

So as we continue to discuss the gas tax, and the initiative to repeal it, I think it is important to understand that we’re not really talking about raising the gas tax, as much as we are adjusting it to keep pace with inflation.