http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04028.html
Berkeley Researchers Report "Unexplained Discrepancy" in FLA Vote Totals
Study released Thursday indicates the probability is that electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to Bush in Florida
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash was a telephone media participant in a 10 AM (Pacific Time), November 18th, news conference conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of California at Berkeley. This is our report.
A research team at UC Berkeley reported Thursday morning that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study showed an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods.
Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Sociology Professor Michael Hout, formally disclosed the results of the study at a press conference and called for an immediate investigation by Florida officials.
“The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic counties, not the [conservative] Dixiecrat counties you’ve all heard about before, but the more heavily Democratic counties that used e-vote technology, including Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties in order of magnitude,” said Professor Hout.
The statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predicted a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush’s share of the 2004 vote in Broward County, but the machines actually tallied an increase of 51,000 votes for a net gain of 81,000 votes for the President.
With the research team’s statistical model, it was expected that President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County but instead he gained 41,000, a difference of 49,900 votes.
And President Bush should have gained only 18,000 votes in Miami-Dade County but in fact gained 37,000, for a difference of 19,300 votes.
“ The disparity in favor of the incumbent President Bush cannot be explained away by other factors. The study shows that counties that used electronic voting resulted in disproportionate increases of votes for the President,” said Professor Hout.
Furthermore, statistical adjustments for the size of the counties, the number of votes cast, income, ethnicity and other factors, do not explain or account for the discrepancy why the President received so many votes in heavily democratic counties that used electronic voting.
Hout made this appeal: “For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting, someone needs to explain the statistical anomalies that we found in Florida. We’re calling on officials in Florida to take up this task and to take action now.”
Full Version: Berkeley Bombshell Lands Right on Target
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
QUOTE(MrJim @ Nov 18 2004, 02:21 PM)
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04028.html
Berkeley Researchers Report "Unexplained Discrepancy" in FLA Vote Totals
Study released Thursday indicates the probability is that electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to Bush in Florida
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash was a telephone media participant in a 10 AM (Pacific Time), November 18th, news conference conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of California at Berkeley. This is our report.
A research team at UC Berkeley reported Thursday morning that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study showed an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods.
Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Sociology Professor Michael Hout, formally disclosed the results of the study at a press conference and called for an immediate investigation by Florida officials.
“The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic counties, not the [conservative] Dixiecrat counties you’ve all heard about before, but the more heavily Democratic counties that used e-vote technology, including Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties in order of magnitude,” said Professor Hout.
The statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predicted a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush’s share of the 2004 vote in Broward County, but the machines actually tallied an increase of 51,000 votes for a net gain of 81,000 votes for the President.
With the research team’s statistical model, it was expected that President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County but instead he gained 41,000, a difference of 49,900 votes.
And President Bush should have gained only 18,000 votes in Miami-Dade County but in fact gained 37,000, for a difference of 19,300 votes.
“ The disparity in favor of the incumbent President Bush cannot be explained away by other factors. The study shows that counties that used electronic voting resulted in disproportionate increases of votes for the President,” said Professor Hout.
Furthermore, statistical adjustments for the size of the counties, the number of votes cast, income, ethnicity and other factors, do not explain or account for the discrepancy why the President received so many votes in heavily democratic counties that used electronic voting.
Hout made this appeal: “For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting, someone needs to explain the statistical anomalies that we found in Florida. We’re calling on officials in Florida to take up this task and to take action now.”
Berkeley Researchers Report "Unexplained Discrepancy" in FLA Vote Totals
Study released Thursday indicates the probability is that electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to Bush in Florida
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash was a telephone media participant in a 10 AM (Pacific Time), November 18th, news conference conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of California at Berkeley. This is our report.
A research team at UC Berkeley reported Thursday morning that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study showed an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods.
Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Sociology Professor Michael Hout, formally disclosed the results of the study at a press conference and called for an immediate investigation by Florida officials.
“The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic counties, not the [conservative] Dixiecrat counties you’ve all heard about before, but the more heavily Democratic counties that used e-vote technology, including Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties in order of magnitude,” said Professor Hout.
The statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predicted a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush’s share of the 2004 vote in Broward County, but the machines actually tallied an increase of 51,000 votes for a net gain of 81,000 votes for the President.
With the research team’s statistical model, it was expected that President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County but instead he gained 41,000, a difference of 49,900 votes.
And President Bush should have gained only 18,000 votes in Miami-Dade County but in fact gained 37,000, for a difference of 19,300 votes.
“ The disparity in favor of the incumbent President Bush cannot be explained away by other factors. The study shows that counties that used electronic voting resulted in disproportionate increases of votes for the President,” said Professor Hout.
Furthermore, statistical adjustments for the size of the counties, the number of votes cast, income, ethnicity and other factors, do not explain or account for the discrepancy why the President received so many votes in heavily democratic counties that used electronic voting.
Hout made this appeal: “For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting, someone needs to explain the statistical anomalies that we found in Florida. We’re calling on officials in Florida to take up this task and to take action now.”
this is exactly what i found. the worst counties are broward, palm beach, and pinellas. broward is the worst by far.
UC BERKELEY RESEARCH TEAM: “Someone Must Investigate and Explain These Anomalies” With Florida E-Voting That Gave Between 130,000 and 250,000 Extra Votes To President Bush
Problem Only In Largely Democratic E-Voting Counties, “99.9 Percent” Certain Error Of E-Vote Tally Responsible
by Betsy R. Vasquez
NOVEMBER 18, 2004 – A University of California at Berkeley research team told a press conference today that a study they have done of the e-voting in Florida shows there is a statistical anomaly in 3 heavily Democratic leaning counties which gave President Bush between 130,000 and 250,000 more votes than he should have received.
“Someone must investigate and explain these anomalies,” said Professor Michael Hout, a Sociology professor and head of the UC Berkeley research team that issued the report.
At issue are Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade counties, listed “in order of magnitude” of the discrepancy.
The report indicates that, “In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.”
Asked if there was any chance people in these counties simply decided to vote for President Bush in these excess numbers, Hout said there is “less than 1 in 1000” chance.
What happened in these counties, said Holt, “was out of pattern with what occurred in the other 64 counties in Florida.”
Even in other counties that used e-voting, but in which Bush support was stronger, there were not statistical anomalies found like the ones in the three large, heavily Democratic-leaning counties cited.
Hout described himself as a skeptic, and noted he has been acting to explain the “Dixiecrat” issue that caused a number of counties in Florida which have a higher number of Democrats to vote more heavily for Bush. He noted that these counties did not present as anomalies in this study.
But in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade, the results of the analysis showed so dramatically a problem that, “that’s why I’m not a skeptic now,” he said.
“Something went awry with the voting in Florida,” he said plainly.
What exactly the issue is Hout and his team left for others, repeatedly responding to questions on the topic by saying, “I am not an engineer or a programmer.” He said the errant vote counts could be due to embedded software glitches, smudged screens, or, in one case, to a reported count in which at some point the tallying reversed and started counting downwards. But he was clear to say that this list was not definitive as this was not his area of specialty.
“All I know is that the smoke alarm’s gone off, it’s up to the Fire Department now,” to figure out exactly what occurred, by which he meant election officials in the three mentioned counties.
Due to the “significant departure” from what vote count should have occurred in these counties, President Bush received a total of 1,157,435 votes while he should have received between 900,000 and 1,020,000.
The team said they studied both Florida and Ohio, but only spoke about the Florida results at this press conference. There is a possibility that they could also look into e-voting in other states, but, as one of the researchers noted, “We are busy grad students,” and so that might not happen immediately.
The purpose of this study was deal with the issue that there were not statistics evaluating potential e-voting problems. “Just rumors in the blogosphere,” said Hout. And so the team sought to both “shoot down false claims,” which Hout said they have done, as in the case of the Dixiecrat Florida counties, as well as confirm actual problems, such as the ones found in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade.
“We are not a political action committee, not a lobby, we are just a bunch of researchers who have something we think is important,” said Hout.
Exit polling data was not used for this project, as they would present a whole new group of statistical issues into the mix.
Again Hout repeated, “The smoke alarm is beeping, people need to see if there’s a fire.”
“We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance,” the report says. “Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size Hispanic/Latino population.”
“The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush,” according to the report.
The entire report is available at UC DATA.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22berkeley.htm
Problem Only In Largely Democratic E-Voting Counties, “99.9 Percent” Certain Error Of E-Vote Tally Responsible
by Betsy R. Vasquez
NOVEMBER 18, 2004 – A University of California at Berkeley research team told a press conference today that a study they have done of the e-voting in Florida shows there is a statistical anomaly in 3 heavily Democratic leaning counties which gave President Bush between 130,000 and 250,000 more votes than he should have received.
“Someone must investigate and explain these anomalies,” said Professor Michael Hout, a Sociology professor and head of the UC Berkeley research team that issued the report.
At issue are Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade counties, listed “in order of magnitude” of the discrepancy.
The report indicates that, “In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.”
Asked if there was any chance people in these counties simply decided to vote for President Bush in these excess numbers, Hout said there is “less than 1 in 1000” chance.
What happened in these counties, said Holt, “was out of pattern with what occurred in the other 64 counties in Florida.”
Even in other counties that used e-voting, but in which Bush support was stronger, there were not statistical anomalies found like the ones in the three large, heavily Democratic-leaning counties cited.
Hout described himself as a skeptic, and noted he has been acting to explain the “Dixiecrat” issue that caused a number of counties in Florida which have a higher number of Democrats to vote more heavily for Bush. He noted that these counties did not present as anomalies in this study.
But in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade, the results of the analysis showed so dramatically a problem that, “that’s why I’m not a skeptic now,” he said.
“Something went awry with the voting in Florida,” he said plainly.
What exactly the issue is Hout and his team left for others, repeatedly responding to questions on the topic by saying, “I am not an engineer or a programmer.” He said the errant vote counts could be due to embedded software glitches, smudged screens, or, in one case, to a reported count in which at some point the tallying reversed and started counting downwards. But he was clear to say that this list was not definitive as this was not his area of specialty.
“All I know is that the smoke alarm’s gone off, it’s up to the Fire Department now,” to figure out exactly what occurred, by which he meant election officials in the three mentioned counties.
Due to the “significant departure” from what vote count should have occurred in these counties, President Bush received a total of 1,157,435 votes while he should have received between 900,000 and 1,020,000.
The team said they studied both Florida and Ohio, but only spoke about the Florida results at this press conference. There is a possibility that they could also look into e-voting in other states, but, as one of the researchers noted, “We are busy grad students,” and so that might not happen immediately.
The purpose of this study was deal with the issue that there were not statistics evaluating potential e-voting problems. “Just rumors in the blogosphere,” said Hout. And so the team sought to both “shoot down false claims,” which Hout said they have done, as in the case of the Dixiecrat Florida counties, as well as confirm actual problems, such as the ones found in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade.
“We are not a political action committee, not a lobby, we are just a bunch of researchers who have something we think is important,” said Hout.
Exit polling data was not used for this project, as they would present a whole new group of statistical issues into the mix.
Again Hout repeated, “The smoke alarm is beeping, people need to see if there’s a fire.”
“We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance,” the report says. “Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size Hispanic/Latino population.”
“The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush,” according to the report.
The entire report is available at UC DATA.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22berkeley.htm
And here's Wired's story on the press conference and report:
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,657...tw=wn_tophead_1
As of yet, I have not seen any mainstream press (aka "liberal" press) reports on the UC report or conference.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,657...tw=wn_tophead_1
As of yet, I have not seen any mainstream press (aka "liberal" press) reports on the UC report or conference.
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance,” the report says. “Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size Hispanic/Latino population.”
“The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush,” according to the report.
I said to friends throughout the campaign, that I really thought they were going to cheat again. And...I believe THEY DID!
“The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush,” according to the report.
I said to friends throughout the campaign, that I really thought they were going to cheat again. And...I believe THEY DID!
QUOTE
Hout described himself as a skeptic, and noted he has been acting to explain the “Dixiecrat” issue that caused a number of counties in Florida which have a higher number of Democrats to vote more heavily for Bush. He noted that these counties did not present as anomalies in this study.
But in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade, the results of the analysis showed so dramatically a problem that, “that’s why I’m not a skeptic now,” he said.
“Something went awry with the voting in Florida,” he said plainly.
But in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade, the results of the analysis showed so dramatically a problem that, “that’s why I’m not a skeptic now,” he said.
“Something went awry with the voting in Florida,” he said plainly.
In your face, Brossignol.
Add this to the University of Pennsylvania report, and we are starting to get some solid statistical evidence that either something went very wrong with the election, or
JESUS INTERVENED!
(Pronounce Jesus as "Juheessuussss")
JESUS INTERVENED!
(Pronounce Jesus as "Juheessuussss")
QUOTE(ultraist @ Nov 18 2004, 05:01 PM)
[i]We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance,” the report says. “Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size Hispanic/Latino population.”
"Pose-ident" Bush will be getting some of the justice he has wished on others!!!
Well... I spent some time over the weekend and took the data of the past election results from the Florida website and ported it into an excell spreadsheet. ( Don't know how to post that here but if interested send me a PM with an Email)
I crunched the numbers on Saturday and focused on the 4 counties in particular that were the alleged "dixiecrat" ones and hte ones cited in the Upenn report with the highest descrepancies. these were my percentages based on teh data:
County Who 1980 1984 1988 1996 2000 2004
Baker Rep 0.46 0.72 0.71 0.34 0.69 0.78
Dem 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.55 0.29 0.21
Dixie rep 0.35 0.64 0.60 0.46 0.58 0.69
Dem 0.64 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.30
Franklin rep 0.45 0.67 0.60 0.46 0.53 0.58
dem 0.53 0.33 0.39 0.34 0.44 0.40
Holmes rep 0.53 0.78 0.72 0.34 0.68 0.77
dem 0.46 0.21 0.28 0.48 0.29 0.22
I didn't get 1992 into the table (yet) lost interest when I saw the numbers for 1984 and 1988 when the "dixiecrats" didn't like Mondale or Dukakis .... but the ~70% numbers show up there as well. The data at the florida state website only goes back as far 1980.
Now, I am not "debunking" any of Upenn's or Berkley's report... these 4 democratic counties I believe are in the norhtern section of Florida and represent a small percentage of the overall population. While these four do show a trend back in the 80s that "supports" the bush swing this election ( albeit loosely) it doesn't support the all the democratic counties that swung heavily in bush's favor ( like Miami dade... need to go back this weekend and crunch through those too )
Hopeful nformation. I was getting worried after my amature analysis. Two reports now support the theory that this is beyond probability. The "alleged" Caltech unauthored paper only uses the later exit poll data from cnn after it was tweaked.
I hope more ocmes of all this.
I crunched the numbers on Saturday and focused on the 4 counties in particular that were the alleged "dixiecrat" ones and hte ones cited in the Upenn report with the highest descrepancies. these were my percentages based on teh data:
County Who 1980 1984 1988 1996 2000 2004
Baker Rep 0.46 0.72 0.71 0.34 0.69 0.78
Dem 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.55 0.29 0.21
Dixie rep 0.35 0.64 0.60 0.46 0.58 0.69
Dem 0.64 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.30
Franklin rep 0.45 0.67 0.60 0.46 0.53 0.58
dem 0.53 0.33 0.39 0.34 0.44 0.40
Holmes rep 0.53 0.78 0.72 0.34 0.68 0.77
dem 0.46 0.21 0.28 0.48 0.29 0.22
I didn't get 1992 into the table (yet) lost interest when I saw the numbers for 1984 and 1988 when the "dixiecrats" didn't like Mondale or Dukakis .... but the ~70% numbers show up there as well. The data at the florida state website only goes back as far 1980.
Now, I am not "debunking" any of Upenn's or Berkley's report... these 4 democratic counties I believe are in the norhtern section of Florida and represent a small percentage of the overall population. While these four do show a trend back in the 80s that "supports" the bush swing this election ( albeit loosely) it doesn't support the all the democratic counties that swung heavily in bush's favor ( like Miami dade... need to go back this weekend and crunch through those too )
Hopeful nformation. I was getting worried after my amature analysis. Two reports now support the theory that this is beyond probability. The "alleged" Caltech unauthored paper only uses the later exit poll data from cnn after it was tweaked.
I hope more ocmes of all this.
Oh God, please don't insult Jesus with that horrid pronounciation. Besides it wouldn't have been Juheessuuss that intervened, it very well could be the God with a sense of humor. Ahh coyote, the trickster, at work.
QUOTE(MrJim @ Nov 18 2004, 08:49 PM)
JESUS INTERVENED!
(Pronounce Jesus as "Juheessuussss")
(Pronounce Jesus as "Juheessuussss")
QUOTE(gduval @ Nov 19 2004, 12:09 AM)
Well... I spent some time over the weekend and took the data of the past election results from the Florida website and ported it into an excell spreadsheet. ( Don't know how to post that here but if interested send me a PM with an Email)
I crunched the numbers on Saturday and focused on the 4 counties in particular that were the alleged "dixiecrat" ones and hte ones cited in the Upenn report with the highest descrepancies. these were my percentages based on teh data:
County Who 1980 1984 1988 1996 2000 2004
Baker Rep 0.46 0.72 0.71 0.34 0.69 0.78
Dem 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.55 0.29 0.21
Dixie rep 0.35 0.64 0.60 0.46 0.58 0.69
Dem 0.64 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.30
Franklin rep 0.45 0.67 0.60 0.46 0.53 0.58
dem 0.53 0.33 0.39 0.34 0.44 0.40
Holmes rep 0.53 0.78 0.72 0.34 0.68 0.77
dem 0.46 0.21 0.28 0.48 0.29 0.22
I didn't get 1992 into the table (yet) lost interest when I saw the numbers for 1984 and 1988 when the "dixiecrats" didn't like Mondale or Dukakis .... but the ~70% numbers show up there as well. The data at the florida state website only goes back as far 1980.
Now, I am not "debunking" any of Upenn's or Berkley's report... these 4 democratic counties I believe are in the norhtern section of Florida and represent a small percentage of the overall population. While these four do show a trend back in the 80s that "supports" the bush swing this election ( albeit loosely) it doesn't support the all the democratic counties that swung heavily in bush's favor ( like Miami dade... need to go back this weekend and crunch through those too )
Hopeful nformation. I was getting worried after my amature analysis. Two reports now support the theory that this is beyond probability. The "alleged" Caltech unauthored paper only uses the later exit poll data from cnn after it was tweaked.
I hope more ocmes of all this.
I crunched the numbers on Saturday and focused on the 4 counties in particular that were the alleged "dixiecrat" ones and hte ones cited in the Upenn report with the highest descrepancies. these were my percentages based on teh data:
County Who 1980 1984 1988 1996 2000 2004
Baker Rep 0.46 0.72 0.71 0.34 0.69 0.78
Dem 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.55 0.29 0.21
Dixie rep 0.35 0.64 0.60 0.46 0.58 0.69
Dem 0.64 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.30
Franklin rep 0.45 0.67 0.60 0.46 0.53 0.58
dem 0.53 0.33 0.39 0.34 0.44 0.40
Holmes rep 0.53 0.78 0.72 0.34 0.68 0.77
dem 0.46 0.21 0.28 0.48 0.29 0.22
I didn't get 1992 into the table (yet) lost interest when I saw the numbers for 1984 and 1988 when the "dixiecrats" didn't like Mondale or Dukakis .... but the ~70% numbers show up there as well. The data at the florida state website only goes back as far 1980.
Now, I am not "debunking" any of Upenn's or Berkley's report... these 4 democratic counties I believe are in the norhtern section of Florida and represent a small percentage of the overall population. While these four do show a trend back in the 80s that "supports" the bush swing this election ( albeit loosely) it doesn't support the all the democratic counties that swung heavily in bush's favor ( like Miami dade... need to go back this weekend and crunch through those too )
Hopeful nformation. I was getting worried after my amature analysis. Two reports now support the theory that this is beyond probability. The "alleged" Caltech unauthored paper only uses the later exit poll data from cnn after it was tweaked.
I hope more ocmes of all this.
EXCELLENT WORK!
None of these Dixiecrat counties are the ones that the Berkeley analysis declares suspicious.
Try crunching Broward County, for example.
QUOTE
Oh God, please don't insult Jesus with that horrid pronounciation. Besides it wouldn't have been Juheessuuss that intervened, it very well could be the God with a sense of humor. Ahh coyote, the trickster, at work.
If this is God's sense of humor at work... God might very well decide to play marbles with the planet earth for fun too.
I've always thought that Bush is a perfect "coyote" of Native American legend.
But if you read about coyote the trickster, he isn't too bright. Clever, yes, but bright, no. Coyote has no ability to think of long-term consequences, and is always getting in deep trouble for thinking of immediate gratification. Unfortunately, coyote always screws up everyone around him too.
Inability to think of long-term consequences is also a sign of two other conditions:
1. Immaturity
2. Dementia of some type.
These two don't necessarily pair up, although they can. Obviously, young children, who don't think of long-term consequences, aren't demented. But dementia can bring on immaturity that may not have existed before.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.