Figures don't lie, but...

 I want to compare two charts, one is famous, the other is not, yet...

First, let's look at the chart that Donald Trump was pointing to when someone took a shot at him. This is a little fuzzy, because it's from a screenshot.

The first thing I want you to notice is that the chart has a big arrow at the bottom pointing to the end of Donald Trump's admnistration, marked "TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE". Note where it is pointing on the time scale, around March of 2020.

Except Trump didn't leave office in March of 2020. (If he did, then who was acting as President?) He left office on January 20, 2021. March of 2020 was 7 months before the election, and almost 10 months before Trump left office.

 That's odd.  You would think that if there was any date that the Trump campaign would get right, it would be the date he left office.

The second thing I want you to notice is the date marked "TRUMP Tariff threat leads to Mexican cooperation."  That's May of 2019.

Let's look at the second chart, the less famous one:

Yeah, this one's also a screenshot, so it's fuzzy too.  I'll update with clearer images when I can source them. This chart does two things that the first one doesn't:

• Corrects the date when Trump left office to January 2021.
• Adds data through September of 2024 (so far.)

Notice the rise in illegal immigration since the low point the original chart called the end of the Trump administration. That's a roughly 85,000 person increase in the monthly rate of illegal immigration from that low point. Even if you attribute some of that increase to the November election, and Biden becoming President-Elect, most of it happened before November, and the rate of increase tapered off in November.

So the decline in Illegal immigration started around May of 2019 and reversed around March of 2020. It's possible that Trump's actions and policies caused that dip, but those policies were still in force during the rise in most of 2020. Could there be another cause at work?

How about a global pandemic? It may be coincidence, but the decline started around the time that lockdowns began, and reversed around the time that vaccines became widely available in the US. Latin America was about a year behind the US in vaccine availability and the rate of vaccination.

Could the decline in illegal immigration have been a pandemic response, and the rise in illegal immigration late in Trump's return in fact a return to what the rate of illegal immigration have been without the pandemic? Could the Trump campaign be knowingly taking credit for something the Trump administration had nothing to do with? Stranger things have been done and said in politics.

Now let's look at the decline late in the Biden administration. What could have caused that?  Well, in 2023, in response to the surge in immigration, the Biden administration got Mexico to station troops to stem immigration into the US. It worked.

By the way, that cooperation was established in a 2022 "Summit of the Americas" in Los Angeles. A Declaration from that Summit (released June 10, 2022) did the following:

• Got Costa Rica, Colombia and Ecuador to offer legal immigrant status for Venezuelans crossing their borders. The situation in Venezuela drove a lot of immigration to the US, that is now being stopped in other countries.
• Got Mexico, Belize and Costa Rica to place tighter restrictions on Venezuelans flying into their countries.
  

 It was the Biden administration that got Mexico to pay for a wall, by stationing Mexican troops to enforce the border from their side. It was the Biden administration that got other countries to create a series of smaller "walls" to do what the Trump administration promised, but failed, to do.

Yes, a lot of people get into this country bypassing the legal process.  Why is that? Well, the legal system is swamped, so thousands of immigrants a day are crossing the border, asking for asylum, and getting briefly detained and, if there isn't an obvious issue, released, bypassing the Asylum process.

Why is the legal system swamped? Well Congress failed to act. Constitutionally, it is Congress' job to write laws and fund the enforcement process. The Congress had a bipartisan fix, or the start of one, before them last year.  It didn't pass, because the Republican support for it pulled out at the last minute.

That kept illegal immigration a live topic for this year's election. There was a way to start resolving the issue, and the Republican party chose politics over signing off on legislation that they co-wrote. They did the political thing, rather than the right thing.

You can build a wall, or you can work on better solutions. Take your pick.

In simple fact, the immigration situation is far more complex than a simple graph is ever going to show. 

Especially when that graph has carefully selected wrong data.

Figures don't lie, but they sure can be manipulated to sell a false narrative.

The 2020 Election: Was there a "Steal" to Stop?

OK, I generally try to not stray too deep into the miasma that is politics these days, but there is something that is worrying me. I’m seeing people, bright, intelligent people whom I respect, still buying into the “voter fraud” argument. If you’re one of those people: I hate to say this, but I truly do love you, and love sometimes has to speak the truth:

Y’all have been gaslighted. I don’t say that lightly, and I’m trying not to be mean about it, but that’s the only thing I can find to explain the phenomena.

I have two different explanations for why the 2020 Election couldn’t have been stolen: One Logistic and one Statistical. We’ll take the Logistic first.

The Logistics problem begins with this simple fact: Every voting precinct has a different slate of candidates, offices, and issues. Not every state, or every county, every voting precinct. For example, in my precinct, I vote for a different school board than the one for the city I live in, because I’m part of that school district. The school district doesn’t follow city boundaries.

Each voting precinct has a different ballot, which means that the encoded data will be different. Each precinct’s mail in ballots will be different as well. Wikipedia reports that in 2020, there were 176,933 precincts in the United States. That doesn’t have to be an exact number, though. Managing to fraudulently manipulate the results from anything over a few thousand different voting precincts rapidly becomes a logistical nightmare. Anything over 100,000 precincts in a 24 hour period? Logistically impossible. What about with a computer? Well, you would have to find a way to program a computer to invisibly manipulate different ballots, captured by different means, all within 24 hours.

What about AI? Well; (1) AI was not that advanced in 2020, and (2) AI requires a huge sample of text and images (multiple millions of samples) to be able to even recognize a ballot reliably, let alone decipher hundreds of thousands of different forms and formats, and successfully manipulate them. I'm pretty sure that someone would have spotted all those samples being accumulated.

Now, on to Statistics: I’m deep down a “numbers and logic” guy, so let’s take a logical look at some numbers. I’m using two sources of information: A 20 year MIT database of observed voter fraud as of 2020, and a table of 2020 state-by-state vote counts from Dave Lep’s Atlas of US Presidential Elections.

First, the MIT database shows, over the past 20 years, just over 1,200 cases of voter fraud, 204 of which involved mail-in ballots. That is a rate of voter fraud of 0.00006%.

Now let’s look at Dave Let’s Atlas. I didn’t pick this site because of any particular political bent, it just happened to be the first one I found that had a handy table. First, let’s look at the popular vote. The margin of popular vote victory for the Biden/Harris ticket is 3,078,287 votes. In order to make it a “dead heat”, half of those (1,539,543) would have to be fraudulent. There were 158,590,015 total votes cast across all 50 states, so a “dead heat” popular-vote election would require that there was a fraud rate of just under 1%

That is 16,000 times the rate of voter fraud observed at MIT, just to get to a dead heat. A victory for Trump/Pence by the same margin would require a fraud rate of 1.94% of all votes cast, about 32,000 times what MIT observes.

Ah, but a few key states for the Electoral College were close! What about those? Basically, we’re talking here about Arizona (11), North Carolina (15) and Georgia (16). For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that all 3 actually should have gone to Trump/Pence. The next closest state, by a “% of fraudulent votes to make it a dead heat” measure is Wisconsin, with 0.31%. That is still 5,000 times the MIT observed rate. Let’s assume that Wisconsin should have gone to Trump/Pence by the same margin (10,000 times MIT’s rate of vote fraud). Now you’re at a dead heat in the Electoral College at 269 each.

That’s what you have to assume to imagine that voter fraud made it a dead heat. 10,000 times the observed rate of voter fraud.

Not a clear victory for Trump/Pence, just a dead heat in the Electoral College. You have to assume that every one of the 4 closest states to a dead heat should have gone to Trump/Pence.

For a clear victory (by the same vote margin) you would have to throw in Pennsylvania (the next closest state after Wisconsin) with an assumed a rate of fraud in of 12,000 times the MIT observation.

To be clear: To buy the argument that voter fraud manipulated a loss for Trump/Pence, you have to assume that either; (1) a campaign to affect the vote through fraud at 12,000 times the observed rate of fraud has so far gone totally undetected by the people responsible in both parties, or (2) MIT’s data only reflects unsuccessful fraud, and the successful fraud isn’t caught. (That’s called “ascertainment bias”, where you don’t know reality because your sample size misses too much.)

Dealing with the first point, some may argue that it is all a product of a massive conspiracy to cover up the fraud. In response, I would point to Chuck Colson’s comment about his belief in the Resurrection:

“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.”

Regardless of how you may feel about the Resurrection, Mr. Colson’s point about conspiracy is valid: The Watergate conspirators couldn’t collectively keep a secret for 3 weeks. The more collaborators there are in a conspiracy, the more possibility that someone would break, especially when their careers and even their lives are being threatened. A cover-up on this scale would have to involve thousands of people, at many levels, any of whom would be able to bring forward evidence to prove the conspiracy, any time in the past almost 4 years. Nobody has come forward, nobody has confessed, despite the threats, and despite the opportunity to be a hero by saving some court cases.

Didn’t happen. That dog don’t hunt.

Now, let’s think through that second possibility for a moment, because “Survivorship bias” and Ascertainment bias both happen. MIT’s data when I referenced it covered 20 years of observations (1999 – 2019)*.

The assumption that the data is that massively flawed, and that the real rate of fraud is underreported by a factor of 12,000, calls into question every election in the past 20 years, regardless of who won.

So, if you want to believe that Trump’s loss in 2020 was a result of undiscovered voter fraud, you would have to accept that his victory in 2016 was a fraud as well.

Either; (a) there has been massive fraud for the past 20 years, that the MIT survey doesn’t pick up on, or (b) the 2020 election had a rate of voter fraud that exceeded the historical precedent by a factor of 12,000, and that with all the tens of thousands of people responsible (see my logistical argument) either missed it, or lied, and nobody has ‘fessed up.

That’s why I’m saying that, if you, bright person whom I respect, buy the “voter fraud” argument about the 2020 Election, you have been successfully gaslighted.

The numbers just don’t work. The logic is faulty. I’m sorry to say it, but your perception of reality has been distorted.

* I originally wrote this in late 2020, and have only minimally updated it since.

An argument for Intelligent Design from an surprising source

Neil Degrasse Tyson just posted an incredible argument for Intelligent Design on TikTok. 

He didn’t think it was an argument for Intelligent Design, but it is.

Here’s how it goes, he starts talking about shuffling playing cards, and gets to the fact that there are 52! (52 factorial) different possible sequences of cards after a proper shuffle. For those who don’t remember that part of math, 52! is:

52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48 x 47 x 46 x 45 x 44 x … x10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1

which works out to 8 x 10⁶⁷. 8 with 67 zeroes after it. A really big number.

To put that into context, he explains that if you took a trillion people, in each of a trillion civilizations, in a trillion different universes, handed each a deck of playing cards, and gave each person instructions to shuffle their deck a trillion times a second, and had that go on for a trillion years, you would only have a 40% chance of one of those shufflings giving the same order as a deck you just shuffled.

So how is that an argument for Intelligent Design?

How old does Science say the Universe is? The longest time that I have found in scientific research is 26.7 Billion years.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the development of intelligent life only requires 52 steps, in the correct order. Each step is represented in our thought experiment by a playing card. Only one sequence out of all the possible sequences results in life as we know it. Neil argues that hitting the correct sequence would take;

• a trillion universes,
• times a trillion civilizations,
• times a trillion people,
• times a trillion shuffles per second,
• times 31,536,000 seconds per year,
• for a trillion years,
• with only a 40% chance of success at hitting the correct sequence.
  

Here we are having this (presumably) intelligent conversation in (at most) 2.67% of the time, in just one universe!

The counter argument is that this isn’t the only cycle the universe (or multiverse) has taken.

If all that is, is on infinite repeat, anything could happen.

Even a famous atheist accidentally posting an argument for Intelligent Design on TikTok.

The nature of suffering...

In an earlier post, I touched on the relationship between suffering and purpose. In that entry, I touched on the idea that suffering is not in itself evil. Rather suffering with no (good) purpose is evil, and it is the lack of purpose that defines evil suffering. I thought it was about time to expand on that concept and explore it a bit further.

Let me take the example of Guantanamo Bay interrogation methods. The question of whether they are evil (just, legal, etc.) has been debated in many other venues, and I don't intend to either justify or vilify them here. My only purpose is to use them to explore the relationship between purpose and suffering.

On one level, the question of purpose and suffering in a situation like Guantanamo can be reduced to a question of whether the ends justify the means. If one believes that the ends (protecting America from potential terrorists) are sufficiently important to justify the extreme measures that have been documented to extract information from detainees, then one is likely to conclude that the suffering of Gitmo detainees is not evil.

The next question is, of course, whether the suffering of Gitmo detainees is effective in reducing terrorism. This is where, from a philosophical standpoint, the "ends justify the means" position starts to fall apart. If the ends are not achieved by the means, then no justification remains. However, the effectiveness in this case cannot be determined either before or during the suffering. A useful philosophical definition of evil cannot, therefore, be based on effectiveness.

In a way, I alluded to this in the earlier post, in that the firefighter who suffers trying to save people and isn't successful is still seen as a hero for the attempt.

Conversely, one may choose to suffer for some perceived benefit, either for oneself or for others. I think it is sufficiently intuitive that such suffering, chosen by the sufferer, for a purpose that the sufferer sees as worthy, is not evil. Foolish, perhaps, but not evil. Indeed, many stories both from various religions and from popular culture honor and extol willful suffering for the sake of another, or for some lofty goal. Indeed, even willful suffering for personal benefit is admired as an example of discipline (think Marathon runners, Olympic athletes, Triathletes, etc.).

The question then returns to one of the purpose of the suffering.

On behalf of? How can a choice that inflicts suffering be beneficial?

• Ask any pediatric oncologist. The child often does not understand why they are having to suffer, yet the physicians administer chemotherapy and radiation for the child's benefit.
• Ask a parent. Children often do not understand parental rules, and view them as causing needless suffering. The child may see the suffering as evil, however, the parent knows that the end result of not imposing the suffering is worse.

This really brings me to the key question in terms of understanding of the nature of evil.  As a former atheist, I have to say that one of the things that made me a theist was that I could not say with confidence that mankind is the ultimate intelligence in the universe.  This leads to a logical chain:

• If one accepts the possibility of a greater intelligence, one must accept the possibility that that greater intelligence may have some hand in humanity's past and future.  
• Once one accepts that possibility, one has to accept that human suffering may have a purpose beyond our comprehension at the time of suffering.

Given that possibility, our arguing about whether suffering is evil may be on a parallel with the child arguing that homework is evil because (s)he doesn't yet understand why it is necessary. 

I landed that earlier discussion in roughly the same place, but I wanted to revisit the idea, because of this additional idea that has come to me of late:

If I have one great fear for our society, it is that, in the interest of "doing good" we eliminate all suffering, and thus miss a lesson that we need.

Why does Cycling have a drug problem?

Why does Pro Cycling have a drug problem?  Well, I have a theory, which I will now present for your consideration:

Every sport has had drug problems, but cycling seems to be having more than its share of troubles with it.  Let's compare cycling to other pro sports in terms of the expectations put on its athletes.  Can anyone name another professional sport where the athlete is expected to compete with any of the following injuries?

• Broken Collarbone
• Broken Wrist
• Broken Elbow
• Broken Tibia
• Fractured Cheekbone
• 2-5% of his or her skin flayed off
• Punctured Lung
• Ruptured Spleen

These are all injuries suffered by Tour de France-level competitors who continued to ride with those injuries for at least 15 kilometers before being taken out of the race.  In the case of the broken tibia, Alberto Contador finished an 18 km mountain ascent with a broken tibia after a crash.

So, if super-human levels of pain tolerance is an expected part of the sport, why WOULDN'T a drug problem be common?


Maybe in Boxing or MMA a fighter may complete a round with an injury like that, but how long is it before the athlete gets checked for these injuries? In Cycling it could be hours.

Crazy, isn't it?  Why do they do it?

Because if they don't demonstrate the ability to tolerate that level of suffering, they won't have a contract next season, or maybe not even for the rest of this season.  Cyclists don't get multi-year, multi-million dollar, contracts.  Most of them barely make a living wage (if that, Phil Gaimon made $2,000/year in his first contract as a pro, and still makes less than I do, between cycling, sponsorships, book sales, & etc.).

The top contenders on the Tour de France make in the $150,000/year range, if they can complete a season at the top of their game, or, like Jens Voight, can demonstrate the ability to make the team significantly more likely to put someone on the podium.

If you have to compete at the very top level, just to make a living wage, why WOULDN'T there continue to be a drug problem?
So what can be done about it?

I (and others) suggest 3 simple steps:

1. UCI (the international federation) is responsible for promoting the sport, AND enforcing drug policy.  One agency responsible for making the sport both exciting and clean.  Those two goals are at odds, so segregate them.
2. Minimum payment clauses required for a team to compete in UCI events.  If a burger-flipper at McD's can expect minimum wage, why can't a pro athlete?
3. Cyclists compete for spots on teams and negotiate for salary in total ignorance of what others are being paid.  End the secrecy, so that riders can negotiate in fairness.

Note that none of these steps address the drug problem directly.  They do remove most of the incentive to cheat, or for the UCI to continue to condone cheating.

MS Rides for Sponsorships

BikeMS is a series of 100 fundraising cycling events held nationwide to benefit the local chapters of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Most of the money goes to provide local programs and support for people with MS, the rest goes to support research into cures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an unpredictable, often disabling disease of the central nervous system that disrupts the flow of information within the brain, and between the brain and body. The effects are unpredictable, and may include tingling, numbness, loss of coordiantion or muscular control, and loss of vision. While it is currently thought to be an autoimmune disorder, little is understood about the trigger. I do these rides because I know a number of people (friends, co-workers, and family) who are affected by MS.

For each MS Ride below, there is a link shown on the right. All Sponsorships are Tax-deductible donations to the National MS Society - Ohio Buckeye Chapter, from which you will get a receipt for tax purposes.

Date	Event	Links
June 20-21, 2015	BikeMS – Bike to the Bay (Saturday 35, 50, 75, 100 - Sunday 50, 75, 100)	I want to sponsor! http://bikeoha.nationalmssociety.org/goto/ckottingB2B15
July 11, 2015	BikeMS – Central Ohio Challenge (30, 50, and 95 miles)	I want to sponsor! http://bikeoha.nationalmssociety.org/goto/ckottingCOC15
Aug. 1 – 2, 2015	BikeMS – Buckeye Breakaway [Formerly Pedal to the Point] - (30, 75, 100, 150, 175 miles)	I want to sponsor! http://bikeoha.nationalmssociety.org/goto/ckottingBB15

Losing weight and getting fit: My experience

To start with, like every other blogger out there who writes about this, I have a few caveats:

• I'm not an MD.  I don't even play one on television.  (Yes, I am old enough to remember that commercial...)  If you have a serious weight problem, SEE YOUR PHYSICIAN.  If (s)he is no help, find one who is.  There may be a physiological problem that needs to be dealt with.
• That being said, this is based on some empirical evidence (that of my own household) and a fair amount of reading from, and conversations with, people who are experts.
• I hold no disdain for those who are struggling with a genuine weight problem.  I hold no pity, either.  I know from my own experience:
• how easy it is to get there, hence, no disdain.
• that (barring the aforementioned physiological issue) it is a result of one's own decisions, hence, no pity.
• either disdain or pity is actively detrimental.
• I do hold pity for those poor souls who are, frankly, just fine, but are convinced that they are "too fat".  This is a psychological problem that needs to be addressed, but is beyond the scope of what I can do in a blog entry.  Let me say this: If you think you are "too fat" despite what your friends / significant other / physician / parents / etc. are telling you, get help.  Please.

OK, caveats out of the way, some observations on weight loss from someone who has been there.  First some general facts:

• Our bodies were built to try to pack on pounds if at all possible, to get us through times when there isn't enough to eat.  
• This is particularly true for women, as your body constantly stands ready to provide nutrition for two.
• The problem for most of us is that those "lean times" don't happen anymore.
• Exercise boosts your metabolism.
• The process of burning fat (really converting fat to blood sugar) is slow, while the process of converting food to blood sugar is fast.
• Vigorous exercise depletes blood sugar faster that the fat-burning process can replace it.

These facts create some scenarios that can trip us up.

• Eating less may not work, and eating a lot less may be worse.  
• Your body will respond by slowing your metabolism (trying to preserve fat) causing you to burn fewer calories per hour all day, feel lethargic, and be less likely to exercise.
• Working out more may not work, and working out a lot more may be worse.  
• Working out hard will deplete your muscle glycogen and blood sugar levels, which your body will work to replace as fast as it can.
• Since your body tries to preserve fat (to get you through the lean times that aren't happening) it won't burn fat to do it if there's food available.
• Since converting fat to blood sugar is slow, converting food is fast, and your body is in a hurry, you will get ravenously hungry after a hard workout.
• Being ravenously hungry either means that you're not eating and suffering, or you're eating and defeating yourself, and feeling guilty because of it.  Either way, it sucks the joy out of a good workout.
• Working out really hard without adequate preparation also risks injury.

If you have self-discipline or motivation that would put a Navy SEAL to shame, you may be able to lose a lot of weight and pack on muscle at the same time, but you have to be pretty obsessive about it, and obsession is no fun for you or any of the people around you.

Also, if you focus on weight loss first, you may find that you're pretty happy with the amount of muscle you have.

So what are you going to do?  Here's what worked for me:

• Moderate reduction in calorie consumption, particularly avoiding those things that convert quickly to blood sugar or fat (sugars, simple starches, oils, and fats).
• Regular (daily, or at least 5 times a week) moderate exercise that is enjoyable was more effective at weight loss than busting my butt at things I suffered through 3 times a week.

Why did this work?  Here are my thoughts:

• Reducing those foods that the body quickly converts to sugars or fats, while still eating enough overall that you aren't aware of hunger, makes your body use it's fat-burning processes to replace blood sugars all day, and gives it time to do so.
• The goal of exercise in weight loss isn't to burn fat.  The goal is to keep your metabolism from slowing down in response to the reduced calorie intake.  Moderate exercise will keep your metabolism from slowing down, but allow your body to maintain normal blood-sugar levels through the slower fat-burning process. 

So that's what worked for me.

• I went from 267 pounds to 220 (47 pounds) by the "work a lot / eat a little" regime, in 2 years, and stalled there for another 7.  An average weight loss of about 2 pounds / month, if you ignore the 7 year stall.   
• I got from 220 to 175 (45 pounds) in 8 months by the "eat smart / work some consistently".  An average weight loss of 5.6 pounds a month, or more than a pound a week.

Here's the danger: Don't go back to your old ways.  You will put the weight back on (I did, some, and am working to get it back off again).

Last thought:  The word "Diet" comes from the Latin, where it means "daily life".  This is a process of lifestyle change.