Dr. Rusty Shackleford will be making his annual migration to his place of birth this Christmas. Any bloggers and/or readers in the LA area who would like to get together for some jawa food between Christmas and New Years should drop me an e-mail. Paparazzi need not apply.

Also, Mrs. Shackleford is dragging me off to a cruise shortly before Christmas. I hate cruises. To me, a cruise is like being held hostage at a Vegas casino. Any readers and/or bloggers interested in guest blogging should drop me a line. No talent necessary.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:47 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Rusty, look on the bright side of life in regards to the cruise - Abu Abbas has already been apprehended.

Posted by: Editor at November 17, 2004 03:10 PM (adpJH)

2 Unless you're too far away for my poor little car, I'm in.'

Posted by: ccwbass at November 17, 2004 05:27 PM (CONoB)

3 I'd be happy to guest blog.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at November 17, 2004 06:17 PM (zHoql)

4 The Maximum leader stole his whole "Minister" thing from us, but aside from that, he'd be a good choice. We like him anyway. But if you want the original article, I'm unemployed and could probably support a doubled up blogging habit. This message from the Ministry of Minor Perfidy Thank you for your cooperation

Posted by: buckethead at November 17, 2004 08:26 PM (2c+XF)

5 You did specifically say no talent required. And I have very little talent, so I qualify. And I very nearly blogrolled you! I think I need a nap.

Posted by: buckethead at November 17, 2004 08:48 PM (2c+XF)

6 Is that THE Buckethead? OMG!

Posted by: Editor at November 17, 2004 09:20 PM (uurD1)

7 btw, buckethead, this is where you're supposed to come in with your best Mel Brooks impersonation and say: "You hoid of me?"

Posted by: Editor at November 17, 2004 09:21 PM (uurD1)

8 Although unknown, I do fit the "no talent necessary" qualification. I humbly submit myself as a potential guest blogger. To my credit, my site ranks fairly well on Google searches for the phrase "Islamist bastard."

Posted by: Gunner at November 17, 2004 11:40 PM (F5Vin)

9 I agree, I hate cruises as well. But I love the beach, my bikini and a great margarita in hand! (Hopefully on my honeymoon!) To all of you writing me, wishing my soldier good thoughts and prayers, thank you very much. I'm sending Donald emails daily, cards and packages and your emails so he can share with his platoon. I've not heard from him in a couple days, I continue to go nuts, but family, friends and fellow bloggers help me through. Your all very kind! My last email from Donald said: Your my girl and I'm fighting this mess so we can have our future, I love you, keep the coffee hot! I know its silly, but its meaningful - the coffee part I mean. Anyway, this probably was not the place to write this, but I had to let you all know what your thoughfulness means. Thanks ! Sue

Posted by: Susan at November 18, 2004 07:58 AM (3pOYP)

10 Thanks for all the offers to guest blog, I'll be in touch with you guys in the next few days I think (depending on time constraints).

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 18, 2004 08:14 AM (JQjhA)

11 I'd like that opportunity. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at November 18, 2004 02:18 PM (D39Vm)

12 UGH!!! Forget the bloggin jes take me with you.. I have been thinkin about it. Me burn.. oops I mean cook turkey and all the trimmins or have all of it served to me by a waiter in a thong!!!! OMG whata thought.... hahaha Andrea

Posted by: Andrea at November 18, 2004 02:53 PM (+7VNs)

13 [belatedly] You hoid of me? If your thinking of the buckethead the weird musician guy, that's a different, other Buckethead. Although I get tons of fan mail and google searches on Perfidy thanks to the coincidence.

Posted by: buckethead at November 20, 2004 01:09 AM (2c+XF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

***Ace of Spades Exclusive***Must Cite Ace of Spades HQ***

Ace of Spades HQ can reveal that another blogger has posted sexy pics of herself on the internet, and then was fired. He has the exclusive story* on the Diary of a Flight Attendant. Just like Jessica Cutler the Washingtonienne, are we now going to see a Playboy pictoral? And enquiring minds want to know if Ace is a natural redhead or if the carpet doesn't match the drapes?

UPDATE: Jeff Quinton informs me that Queen of Sky's server is slammed. I guess that will happen when the NY Times runs a story on you. Luckily, he found the Google cached page here.

*super-insider blogger jokes

Posted by: Rusty at 05:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

The Llamas want to know who will be the first up and coming blogger to beat Wonkette in the TTLB ecosystem? Honestly Steve, since you're the only one of us who's met her, maybe you could tell us if any of would really want to get on top of her in the Ecosystem.....But it should be noted that Mrs. Shackleford is a redhead, so I do know how to treat them. Go vote for the Jawa now!! I can't let Bill, Ace, Goldstein, Commissar, or Jeff mount her before I do!! Go vote!!

In a related poll, yours truly is losing to David Anderson in Digger's 'favorite blog' competition. I like David and all, but if I'm going to get beat by any one it's gonna be Michelle Malkin or Jane Novak--not some dude. Now go vote here too!!

Posted by: Rusty at 04:40 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 2 kb.

How come these guys always use so many capital letters. Incidentally, this is a Frenchie living in the Netherlands (I traced his IP). That's the Dutch to all of those in my Intro class. Yes, the land where they are now learning the price of dhimmitude is not worth it and are paying for it in blood. So, without further ado--a letter from a cheese-eating surrender monkey to my dear readers:

US'IANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN JEALOUS OF THE FRENCH BECAUSE YOU'RE A MONGREL PEOPLE,WITH NO ROOTS,NO IDENTITY,NO MEMORY,THE MURDERERS OF THE TRUE AMERICANS:THE AMERINDIANS:THE INDIANS AND THE RACIST EXPLOITERS OF YOUR MINORITIES.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:04 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.

The Commissar is back in the map making business. As usual, bloggers will find this iteration of his now famous blog-stunt superbly done and funny.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Sitemeter shows zero people visited this site in the last hour. Is Sitemeter, like, totally messed up? Any one else notice a problem this morning?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:12 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

It must be true, it's in the Onion.....(ht Charles)

BOSTON—By examining web-traffic data for left-leaning DailyKos.com, researchers have predicted that the mass suicide of 14 political bloggers will likely be discovered sometime in mid-December. "After months of doing nothing but sit alone in our rooms at our computers, trying to get our message to the people, we lost the election anyway," read the still-unread suicide pact posted Nov. 3. "We'd rather be dead than live in a country as f**ked up as this one." The bodies will most likely be found by property managers, long-estranged parents, or neighbors returning copies of Joe Trippi's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Related--If the NYT thinks you're 'liberal' then you know you're in left field.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, I forgot about that. And that.

Hat tip, I mean 'Thanks for the Memory' to Brian B.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:56 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Running a site like this you might expect that I get a lot of hate mail...and you'd be right! What's so surprising is where the mail comes from. For instance, you might guess this next comment came from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakistan. Nope, it just so happens that this reader comes from the land down under! As a matter of fact, I traced his IP address to Rockhampton, Queensland. So to any of my Aussie readers out there I'd give this word of warning: watch your backs!

YOu BASTARD Mother f***ers christians and jews U R GOING & KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN MILLIONS WHAT IS THAT !!! JUST 1 OF YOUR MAN IS KILLED U R SO DEPRESSED. U FUNKING BASTARDS TIME WILL SHOW YOU WHO WILL WIN!!!. AND U WILL ALSO SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES WHEN U DIE U UNBELIVERS!!!!!!

mother f***ers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Posted by: Rusty at 10:22 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

The Crack Young Staff over at the Hatemonger's Quarterly have named my little pet Jawa Report the fifth best blog out there. Am I grateful? Hell no! Fifth place? Fifth!! Was Clubber Lang satisfied being the fifth best boxer? Was Mary Ann satisfied with being the fifth hottest castaway? My new goal in life is to be #1 on The Crack Young Staff's list. I'm gunning for you Gordon, Steve/Robo, Seldom, and Armavirumque. I will be number one! Eye of the tiger, man. Eye of the tiger.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:24 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dude! If you think Mary Ann was the FIFTH hottest castaway, you are one seriously sick puppy!

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at November 08, 2004 04:36 PM (UMVKj)

2 Hey Rusty, the blog could only get BETTER now that I've found it. ;-)))))

Posted by: Laura at November 08, 2004 04:47 PM (ptOpl)

3 Oh, hell. I thought you had been rated that hateful by an actual leftie site. Now THAT'S recognition!

Posted by: Brian B at November 08, 2004 04:56 PM (CouWh)

4 Brian, I only wish....

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 08, 2004 04:58 PM (JQjhA)

5 It that the most America haters or the most muslim haters. Sometime it's easy to get confused.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 06:55 PM (aq8Ok)

6 Well, Dr. Shackleford, to be honest, we did not mean to put the list in any order of import. So, you should be happy to note that you are one of the five best blogs, not the fifth best one. We appreciate the enthusiasm, though.

Posted by: The Crack Young Staff at November 08, 2004 06:57 PM (rH6tm)

7 Rusty, You do realize that there is no cash involved? Just the warm feeling that you are the object of Hate. Pure, beautiful Hate.

Posted by: Gordon at November 08, 2004 07:07 PM (dEFhD)

8 Yeah Gordo--I feel the dark side growing.... Oh, and Robert, of course Mary Ann didn't stay the fifth hottest. Why? She just wanted it more I guess!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 08, 2004 07:23 PM (JQjhA)

9 Yeah, well if you think 5th is bad you're getting your ass handed to you over at my weekly poll by some lame lefty http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000360.html

Posted by: Digger at November 09, 2004 12:03 AM (FYEx6)

10 Congrats for the ratings( but who is the one whose judging among the millions of us..???) But I have to add :this blog would be in the category of being one sided .Sorry to say and not being offensive. it is hard to truly being neutral nowadays

Posted by: Roopesh at November 09, 2004 03:54 AM (nphcW)

11 Two MuNus in the top five. Go MuNu!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 09, 2004 10:59 AM (+S1Ft)

12 But I have to add :this blog would be in the category of being one sided. I'm shocked! Shocked and appalled!

Posted by: Brian B at November 09, 2004 12:34 PM (CouWh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Q:What's wrong with this quote (via Paul at Wizbang)?

From early afternoon to very late in the evening, those who checked in with the leading political blogs like Drudge, Wonkette, Andrew Sullivan, evote, mydd.com, Daily Kos, and others were given the distinct impression that John Kerry would win the election.

On top of that doesn't this reveal something even bigger? When the folks over at CBS want to check on 'leading political blogs' who do they go to? With the exception of Drudge, who isn't even a blogger, all of these sites are lefty sites!!! Ok, so maybe AS isn't 'lefty' so much as he's a partisan hack single issue voter who pretends he's neutral but would back Hitler so long as he was for gay marriage. Oh, I'm sorry, no bias over at CBS. Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all.

It's no wonder that CBS doesn't seem to get the whole Rathergate thing. To them, they didn't 'get their asses handed to them by the blogosphere' as Kate opines. They don't read the blogosphere, they don't get it, and when they do read the blogosphere it's a bunch of gossips (Wonkette) or leftists (Kos) so far out to the left that they feel perfectly centrist. What Rodney Dangerfield (RIP) line from Back to School? "If you want to feel thinner, hang out with a bunch of fat people"? Note to Bill--aint no way no one is going to get fired at CBS. Why should they? A simple retraction ought to be enough (when forced, oh and after the election).

Robert puts words to my thoughts exactly: When Toto pees on your foot, Eric, don't say we didn't warn you.

PS-Via Evil Glenn this WSJ piece which is good. I still say my explanation is the best among all the plausible ones I've heard. Oh, and I missed this earlier from Joyner, "Just think how messy it'd be if they weren't so professional? "

Posted by: Rusty at 04:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

Took the weekend off to be with the family. Since I got the Christmas decorations out of the attic for my wife, I thought the least she could do for me is fix some breakfast. No go. It looks like I'll be having blogs for the most important meal of the day. At least I know I'm eating the breakfast of champions. So, what's up around the blogosphere today?

Chad Evans notes that Zarqawi's latest morning cartoons include blowing up British troops. And as long as were talking morning toons, Hyscience notes some pro-US home videos out there. Did you know that before the Phillipines was a US colony that it was controlled by Espagne? Hence, the reason why they are a bunch of gezpacho eating surrender llamas too. What does the Donald have for breakfast (besides his own face)? Democrats. Think Muslims were just so nice to Christians over the centuries? Uncle Mike says have a falafal and think again. Simon has all of Asia covered--Kimchi gauranteed. Digger decides to have an Arafat death conspiracy this morning, with a side of farber beans. New blog for me, The Modern Crusader, has the goods on the Fallujah assault--MRE? More Fallujah MREs served by John Little--comprehensive assault news and this very interesting news about foreign terrorists in Iraq.Bob Hayes has snails for breakfast and says we should try to bully the French. Kevin, was that fisks or fists? I always get those two confused. Mike King on the stupidity of the left, "The VRWC wants kosher!!" Do electors eat grits in Atlanta? Germans love David Hasselhoff but not as much as cars. Oh, and Flea, I was with you too man. Arm raised high. Don't shoot Commie!

Posted by: Rusty at 08:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 3 kb.

By now all of you have heard that the biggest fluster-muck of the MSM's coverage of the election was the pathetic accuracy of the exit polls. Since I have some first hand information on how the process worked, at least in this part of my little state, let me share some quick thoughts.

Some in the blogosphere are calling this a conspiracy of sorts. That the numbers were deliberately cooked. Others say the numbers weren't deliberately pro-Kerry, but that their early release was part of a plan to depress Republican voter turnout in Western states. For instance, over at Powerline:

It seems likely that Democrats ran the exit polling process, and deliberately generated bad data to create momentum for the Kerry campaign. This much, I think is a reasonable inference. It is also reasonable to suspect that the same people who created the bad data leaked it to Democratic bloggers as part of a strategy of depressing Republican turnout.

Personally, I don't know if Democrats ran the exit polling process, but I'm sure liberals did, which is essentially the same thing. And there is very little doubt that those in control leaked it....

Someone somewhere in the process deliberately manipulated either the polling process, or the selection of participants, or something. With the pre-election polls as accurate as they were, it's virtually inconceivable that the superior exit polls could have been off like they were. Something smells very rotten.

As most of you know, I blog from my desk at a small university somewhere in the vast hinterland of America. From my earlier posts on the subject, you know that my university is just as liberal as Berkeley or any other campus (in my department 9 full-time faculty voted Kerry, 2 for Bush, 1 did not vote, and 1 declined to state). So, why is this relevant? Because all those who ran the exit polls were students and the students were recruited by faculty members.

Two weeks or so before the election I received a phone call from a colleague on the English faculty. She had been contacted by one of the firms that had been subcontracted to conduct the exit polling for the Associated Press. They wanted her to recruit three students to do exit polling in the local vicinity and as many students as she could get to travel to nearby counties. Why is this relevant? Because she is a junior English instructor. If the firm had simply looked up our university in the phone book I would think they would contact me--the senior member of the political science faculty and the specialist in American government. They did not. So why did they contact her? No idea. However, I will note that she is an activist in the Democratic Party, an open Kerry supporter, and involved in many liberal causes.

Later, I learned the firm contacted one other faculty member to recruit students--the director of Social Work. If you do not know what Social Work students are like think of a typical lefty student stereotype, add a dash of love for all things Great Society, and throw in more than a spoonful of feelings of entitlement and there you go. The firm recruited all of their workers to conduct polling from among this group.

All of the polling in 1/8 of our state was done by Social Work students. All of it. My state, if you must know, was said to be 'too close too call' according to the exit-polling data. In actuality, Bush won by 10 points.

If the exit polls were conducted by students all across the country, I suspect that we may have one of the reasons why the initial data turned out to be so wrong. Students, generally, are more liberal in college than when they get out into the real world. Further, if the type of student recruited at my university was repeated across the country then we have an even bigger problem. The firm contacted two very liberal professors (even more liberal than the rest), who in turn asked their favorite students if they wanted a chance to make some cash.

From there it is not hard to figure out why the numbers would be so skewed, even if the students did not deliberately do it. You see, each of us has a natural tendency to feel more comfortable talking with some type of people over others. If I was to conduct an exit poll, I would feel quite comfortable talking to a guy in a cowboy hat. On the other hand, a guy wearing a Che shirt and Birks might be somewhat out of my comfort zone. Not that I wouldn't talk to any Che shirt guys, just not as many. If my bias is repeated over and over, by hundreds and by thousands of poll workers, than this bias becomes substantial when the numbers are aggregated.

This explains why the data were wrong. Students, possibly a lot of very liberal students, were hired for a day to run the exit polls. They tended to oversample other liberals--not in a huge way but enough to make a difference. These data were then turned over to the experts who aggregated them and then reported bad data to the major news outlets.

Two questions remain. First, why was it that a well known liberal and the head of a department renound for indoctrinating liberalism into it's students were contacted to recruit students? It may just be a coincidence, but I fail to see the logic in it. Second, why were the misleading data leaked out? Our explanation, thus far, only suggests why the data were bad. It does not explain why these data were leaked out. There may be no connection. It only takes one excited Kerry supported to call Wonkette and Sullivan and then let the 'good news' pick up steam from there.

Just a few thoughts. Many questions remain.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:19 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 1025 words, total size 6 kb.

1 "Students, generally, are more liberal in college than when they get out into the real world." Is this why, a day or so before the election, you told your students not to vote? Because, as you say, they're likely more liberal? And, if more liberal, likely to be that much more of an obstacle for getting the GOP re-elected? Please clarify. Were you telling your students not to vote because you knew how they'd likely vote (i.e. probably Democrat), though likely gave them some other bullshit reason not to?

Posted by: Venom at November 05, 2004 01:59 PM (dbxVM)

2 Dear God, man! Bush won and now we're talking about this, on a conservative site none the less. Liberal sites spin the election count one way and Conservative sites spin their data another way. Holy shit! Bush won, lets get on with our lives.

Posted by: LMAO at November 05, 2004 03:42 PM (p5xDI)

3 bad samples by liberal bias? not likely. More likely the exit polls were right and the diebold machines with no paper trail gave the election to diebold's favored candidate, George Bush. ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 05, 2004 04:39 PM (ursvs)

4 Someone needs to take off their tinfoil hat and pop another lithium.

Posted by: Ricky V at November 05, 2004 06:14 PM (AHaCg)

5 Upon further investigation there seems to be a correlation between paper balloting and exit polling being very similiar but computer balloting and exit polling being dissimilar, always in favor of Bush. We do know for a fact that diebold compoany is pro-republican, their programming is not privy to public eyes. I am not saying that there is proof as of yet of fraud, but statiticians can make models of voting irregularities and find if there is fraud. i doubt "liberal students" caused massive sampling error by bias. anyone who utilizes quantitative research, especially those who make a living by it try very hard to make sampling procedures valid and reliable. it is not a great leap to assume that if Bush inc believes in power politics that they will commit crimes to maintain that power. Remember, realpolitik is about power...there in no crime in this realm unless you get caught and can be punished by others. Bush Inc does believe they are above the will of being punished ...by anyone. ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 05, 2004 07:06 PM (ursvs)

6 Will aluminum foil work instead? I don't think tin foil has existed since 1948. What you really need is a raincoat and umbrella, because what it is is a bullshit monsoon.

Posted by: Mr. K at November 05, 2004 08:21 PM (5ZElc)

7 Ernie is making me laugh. No...really...he is. I'm laughing.

Posted by: Jeremy at November 05, 2004 09:52 PM (/U19w)

8 Methinks Ernie's been listening way too much to Moonbat Central Radio.

Posted by: SAHMmy at November 05, 2004 10:07 PM (wdeq0)

9 My understanding is that exit polls were very accurate in some states. Why the disparity?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 05, 2004 10:44 PM (FSKXR)

10 P.S. See my post on this...

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 05, 2004 11:12 PM (FSKXR)

11 Plausible, and if accurate rather comical in a way. Liberals can recognize bias easily, right? Reminds me of a seminar I sat in on as an undergraduate student. The researcher was touting his company's new test for "good" cholesterol. During the presentation he mentioned his employees (read "fellow researchers") had provided the samples used in his test group. During the Q & A, I queried him on this (to make sure I had heard it correctly) and then politely suggested the data could be inaccurate as a result of researcher bias. This didn't go over well with him (after all, he wouldn't bias his own research, right?), but it did with other students & some faculty in attendance who had a more objective view. Thanks for the insight.

Posted by: DaveC at November 05, 2004 11:19 PM (RDq/O)

12 Ernie should share whatever he's taking.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 06, 2004 06:48 AM (t/n9o)

13 I don't think so, greyrooster. Some things are nice to share, but paranoia isn't one of them.

Posted by: BarCodeKing at November 06, 2004 07:43 AM (l35ua)

14 Yo, Rusty... not to sound bitter or anything, but if you blow me off this time I'll lose all faith in humanity and the just organization of the universe (ok, I don't have much faith in the latter anyway). Seriously, take a look at my last post. I do believe it severely undermines your explanation. To tell you the truth, I very much hope that the appearance of vote manipulation among electronic ballots is pure hogwash. But there are some troubling numbers that need to be explained. von Nostrand out.

Posted by: Professor Peter von Nostrand at November 06, 2004 10:22 AM (FSKXR)

15 PVN - the lastest employment stats show that you were not blown off at all regarding "Kerry's Biggest Lie". Anyway you want to spin it, it looks like there will be a net gain in jobs since 2001. It is you who should issue a retraction.

Posted by: Mr. K at November 06, 2004 11:29 AM (xQLFT)

16 Ernie, the point is you can share what you feel. We are not going to cut off your head. Whether it has anything to do with the truth or not is neither here or there. Just be thankfull that you live in a democracy and stop being such a sore loser.

Posted by: sopotamia at November 06, 2004 12:34 PM (GA+CB)

17 Smokin' analysis: comes closest to any others I've read so far in terms of explaining the exit poll fiasco, or conspiracy, (depending on how you frame it.) I'll post it on my blog.

Posted by: rocco at November 07, 2004 12:59 AM (DEja9)

18 One minor criticism: Given the fact that most of the state exit polls were way off base, I think you're illogical in concluding that relatively small biases caused the large cumulative inaccuracies in these polls.

Posted by: rocco at November 07, 2004 01:27 AM (DEja9)

19 I'd also like to know a bit more about the electronic voting. As some of us know, the CEO of one of the major electronic voting companies, Diebold Inc., has been a major Bush fundraiser and campaign organizer, and said in a confidential August 2003 campaign memo that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president." We already know Diebold is sleazy. Not long ago they secretly collaborated with an advocacy group for the blind. They said they'd donate to the group if the group promised to sue states that don't use electronic voting -- complain the states discriminate against the blind (even though tactile voting cards, etc. work perfectly well and are a lot cheaper). I haven't researched this much, but some have said that the exit polls were quite accurate in many states, and less accurate in states with electronic voting. In some states the exit polling was dead-on, whereas in others it was off by more than 5 percent. When it was wrong, the actual vote inevitably favored the president. There are two possible explanations. One, the exit polling was wrong, and two, the actual vote counting was wrong, and the second possibility is a lot more disconcerting; if I were you, I wouldn't probe so deeply into this one. The voting systems for Diebold in particular are terribly designed, and relatively easy to hack from either the inside or the outside for someone who has even a vague clue about computers. If you know there's a difference between RAM and the hard drive, you probably have a decent shot. Their security is so weak they actually had a lot of their key files stored on a publicly-accessible FTP site until fairly recently. I'm only throwing this out as a response to what you're throwing out -- implying there might be some sort of shenanigans with the exit polls. What I'm MORE concerned about is that there could have been some sort of shenanigans with the ACTUAL VOTING. Some people this year were certainly desperate enough -- I have NO DOUBT -- to try to pull something. I'm not saying anyone did; I'm speculating, just like you did in your blog post. What's the most likely explanation? That the exit polling was wrong. And there are reasons to believe this is the case. But the other possibility is just a little greater than I wish it was, because the system is so flawed. p.s. I also don't trust Jeb. In 2000 he made plenty of "mistakes" down there as governor of Florida with regard to voting, and they always seemed to favor his brother, oddly enough. The Bush's have such extensive political connections they have the power to manipulate some things behind the scenes if they want to. And Jeb seems completely devoted to helping his brother. This isn't an allegation. It's just an observation. I always hope for clean elections, and I'd like to think everyone else does too, but I know some people on both sides care more about winning than about anything else. I don't even think it matters whether manipulations took place. I think it's wrong for people who are so partisan to be in charge of setting up the election systems. Jeb does indeed have the power to pull strings to change the system a bit to favor his brother, and he has certainly done this on a few occasions, though he's not the only one. In Ohio, the official in charge of overseeing all aspects of voting is a devoted Bush supporter and like Katherine Harris in 2000, a Republican with political ambitions. At one point he'd reportedly told White House chief of staff Andy Card that not enough provisional ballots would be available in the state. He knew a Republican strategy would be to challenge voters in Democratic precincts, so that they'd require provisional ballots. And the point isn't whether or not it happened. The point is he HAD THE POWER. (And what else might he have done, knowing all the ins and outs of the system? All the loopholes, all the ways to affect the outcome.) I think in the end, this is like the court system. It not only needs to be fair, it needs to have THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS, so that people will have faith in it. Anyone who thinks Katherine Harris was concerned about fairness needs to have their head checked. Our election system is still desperately in need of an overhaul, but we've done little to set this in motion. How can a guy win the presidency by 500 votes, as in 2000, and there not be a recount? If I'm running for head of the neighborhood beautification committee, for God's sake, I can ask for a recount. Our system is messed up, and it needs a total overhaul. I don't know whether shenanigans occurred this year. I just know enough about the system to know that shenanigans are far too easy to pull off, and that very partisan people are in charge of some very important positions having to do with elections. Both sides have tried to pull tricks, but since Bush has won twice, most of us are most interested the ones that might have favored Bush.

Posted by: hold on a sec at November 07, 2004 04:33 AM (ASZ8c)

20 PETER VON NOSTRIL: Don't you realize by now that no one reads your posts. Read one, read them all. The reason you're on this blog is that no one is on yours. On exit polls. Bunch of nonsense. Should be outlawed. Waste of money. MY POINT BASED ON WHAT I OBSERVED AT MY POLLING STATION. Ask a normal looking, well dressed person. 65% Bush, 35% Kerry. Ask a person wearing a ball cap & driving a nice pickup truck. 100% Bush. Ask a black woman 100% Kerry. Ask a black man 90% Kerry. 10% Bush. Ask a red neck with a dirty pickup truck. Budweiser 70%, Miller lite 25%. George Wallace 5%. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK. Too easily manipulated.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 07, 2004 07:56 AM (JDP+5)

21 what total bullshit. give it up already, and focus on finding a candidate and a theme for the nexte election...or on second thought, hang on to your Michael Moore-esque conspiracy theories, and keep running off serious minded moderate voters.

Posted by: Mr. K at November 07, 2004 07:59 AM (XtcU7)

22 ERNIE: Please continue. Nothing better than a good laugh on Sunday morning. Uh ho! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are doomed!

Posted by: greyrooster at November 07, 2004 08:01 AM (JDP+5)

23 Rusty?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 07, 2004 11:11 AM (FSKXR)

24 Hold On A Sec ardon me,only I'm losing the will to live here!I hate to be the bringer of bad news but - Boring!Boring!Boring I'd jump right off of Brooklyn Bridge right about now, only it's a bit too far to walk.Your comment has completely worn me out!Excuse me while I just slit my wrists instead wont you.Jesus, what do you do for an encore?Shit, how can you even be bothered to type that stuff.Take up fishing can't you or even bird watching, anything that involves you chiefly being in your own company,or be a monk in isolation somewhere,yeah thats the ticket,you'l be alone, nobody bothering you, or you bothering them.Just think of it at least.You'l be happy,so will we.Oh what a perfect world it would then be. Save us.I'm out of here!

Posted by: sopotamia at November 07, 2004 11:30 AM (7BYCG)

25 Exit Polling should be illegal. It supports nothing except partisan Bullshitting prior to the real election results, and can be used as a method to sway voters farther west in the later time zones by either party. It should be stopped . . period! And Ernie? Get some help!

Posted by: large at November 07, 2004 12:37 PM (VRK2g)

26 Personally I think it was caused by the VRWC, who told all their members to claim to be Kerry voters on the way out, in order to make sure all the Bush supporters would get out and vote. See, I can do conspiracy theories too!

Posted by: Kathy K at November 07, 2004 06:03 PM (yuWLp)

27 It is funny, you see conspiracy in polling yet I know not many of you understand probability theory. Exit polling should be the most accurate polling type, given that people are polled upon leaving the election site. You should read a book and figure out the demands of random sampling and the assumptions that can be made about a population from ransom sampling. In short for the american retards though, watch your dollar crash bovine idiot nation. Fascism isnt patriotic fools. my presidnt talks to jesus! hahahah welcome to hell stupids ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 07, 2004 09:44 PM (ursvs)

28 wow, you are seriously kookoo for coacoa puffs

Posted by: rumcrook at November 07, 2004 10:19 PM (fLlQ8)

29 Give enough time and true colors come out. The piss ant ERNIES did. Just what I said he was all along. Just another jealous America hater.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 03:30 AM (BFaxF)

30 He doesn't even have a color...he is transparent..he is NOTHING.

Posted by: Laura at November 08, 2004 07:57 AM (ptOpl)

31 Dick Morris from an article in The Hill: "Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state. So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries." so, after a bush victory in which the exit polls are wrong he naturally assumes that the exit polls were faulty, not the vote count. please. had the polls been favoring bush in a kerry victory he would be screaming foul at the top of his lungs. please understand that this issue has implications larger than this election. elections should be fair and the process should be transperant and verifiable. at the moment there is evidence that places the fairness of certain machines in doubt. the producers of these machines do not have to show their programming code to anyone outside of their own company. with e-voting there is no paper trail, meaning results are not verifiable. if we are going to invest so much time and money into our elections, shouldn't we take the time to scrutinize the voting process and spend money to ensure its accuracy? as far as i am concerned, the question Thom Hartman (commondreams.org) asks is a valid one: "Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes? " you can begin your pesonal attacks now.

Posted by: lg at November 08, 2004 10:45 AM (VquLJ)

32 Okay! Once again I ask. Do you have a better way? Bitch, Bitch. No ideas, No solutions. If you consider this a personal attack. So be it. I just believe if you're going to complain suggest a better way. Even Kerry said he had a plan. He just didn't say what it was. So, now he's unemployed. Which is usually what happens to those without a plan.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 01:48 PM (aq8Ok)

33 Lg: Paper trail. At my polling location there is a paper trail. We go to a booth insert our card. Punch out our choice. Then we place the card into a big box and return the top portion to the attendant. There are 4 or 5 people present to ensure (1) You are at the correct polling station. (2) You only get one card (3) You are on the list of registered voters. (4) That there is no cheating by the attendants. and they checked your registration card and ID. Now what is the problem. How could it get any better?

Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 01:59 PM (aq8Ok)

34 dear greyrooster, i was simply pointing out that our voting system may need to be overhauled, and should be thoroughly scrutinized. perhaps we could go to a system that prints out a voter's selections for confirmation, then is kept in case of a request for a recount. how about making the software of these machines accesible to a third party regulator. Maybe these machines can be developed, owned, and operated by the states in which they are used, not by private companies. Perhaps more exit polling should be done to help verify vote counts (as they do in third world countries). i would also like to see conflicts of interest, as in the diebold case, treated more seriously and perhaps regulated. please note: before there can be a solution to a problem, the problem must first be identified. therefore, when someone points out a problem, it does not mean they are "bitching".

Posted by: lg at November 08, 2004 02:15 PM (VquLJ)

35 there are many different types of voting machines. some of the e-voting machines have no paper trail at all. regarding the dick morris quote, exit poll numbers are used to verify the quality of vote counts in other parts of the globe. if they are so accurate, why then are we writing off the fact that the polls in the US were strangely wrong this year? it is easy to say the polls were wrong, but sometimes the easy answer is not always the right answer.

Posted by: lg at November 08, 2004 02:22 PM (VquLJ)

36 Rusty?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at November 08, 2004 02:28 PM (62QDG)

37 VEMON: How about everybody punch 3 different machines. One observed by Republicans, one by Democrats, and one by a neutral party. Now I ask you. Who is neutral and how do we know he's neutral. However, if the 3 machines differ. We could do the whole election over. Or it can be done by Social Security #. But then big brother would know. But on the good side you could sell your vote for big bucks. Which is what I would do. I tired of electing the best of the worst.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 08, 2004 05:40 PM (aq8Ok)

38 Ernie has a point. Its those damned Diebolds. We need to reverse the result in the state where they were used most widely... California.

Posted by: Neal at November 09, 2004 01:38 AM (PRN2J)

39 ok rusty. you say the liberal students messed up the exit polls. i say the op-scan central tabulation machines in florida messed up the count. why don't we settle this thing with some random sampling? all kinds of companies do some sort of quality assurance, why not the voting industry? let's randomly pick some of the counties in florida that used these particular machines and do a manual recount. since these machines (it is actually the software that is in question) were used in smaller counties, a quality assurance test would be fairly quick and inexpensive. isn't proving democracy worked worth a little time and money?

Posted by: lg at November 09, 2004 10:14 AM (iAojr)

40 Political paranoia strikes again!

Posted by: Laura at November 09, 2004 11:23 AM (ptOpl)

41 lg: As much as I love ad hominem personal attacks, I'll resist just this one time. You live in the Florida panhandle and they love to register Democrat and vote Republican. Ann Coulter has an article on just this very subject. http://www.anncoulter.org/ Look up how your county voted in 2000 back when they had the old voting machines, and I bet you will find that it is within 5%-10% of 2004.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 11, 2004 06:30 AM (TkP9t)

42 I got about halfway through this blog entry and decided to abandon it. I find your arguments unconvincing, your methods unscientific, and your opinions transparently partisan. Don't bother to respond, I'll never be back.

Posted by: anon at March 17, 2005 02:29 PM (JHXnR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

La Shawn Barber is a great blogger who celebrates her blog anniversary today. Hey La Shawn, what ever happened to that article you interviewed me for?

Posted by: Rusty at 12:44 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Rusty + Spoons = Rusty Spoons.

(Yeah, more like a Flea thing, but I'm still sick and half coherent. Thanks Beth!)

Posted by: Rusty at 12:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Since I'm sick, let me just heave some link droppage. I'm reading these posts on my sick bed, so why not refer them? I just can't keep them down--stuff seems to be coming out every oraface! Crumpets get puked. Southern fried chicken upchuck. Arafish sushi spewage. Baghdad is beautiful, even when you're sick. Truth tonselitis. Dancing dizziness. News Hour enemas. My penis...well, let's not talk about that. Broken camel heave. Lefty gland lumps. Stern spew. A spoonful of crow. Delaware diarrhea. Naked fever. Concession crappage. Anti-American fever. Cabinet chlamidya. West Nile Virus. Student loan shiza. Che caca. Europussy puke. Liberal lameness. Dan dung. Gazpacho goo. High-tech heaves. France (just France).Green roughage, too much. Democratic diarhea. Oil-for-food farts. Draft dry-heaves. More blog bargage. Celebs make me sneeze. Pat myself on my own aching back. Cat cough. Homo hives. Laughing makes me hurt. I'm so ronery rauphing ralphing. Traitorous tetnus. Left blogging barfage. Vodka vomit, inconceivable! Asshole leakage. Hetero-HIV. Vote or die death watch. DU drowning. Shatner.

I need a blessing.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:50 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 5 kb.

I just wanted to thank all the people who have been linking me lateley. I really don't know all of the blogs that have linked me, but if you would like me to link back at you just drop me a line at my g-mail account. I didn't start blogging to become popular with other bloggers--in fact, one of the reasons I blog anonymously is so I can say outrageous things if I want--but I'm very happy that something here has resonated with the blogosphere. I was shocked to find that I was #49 at TTLB today. Now if only I was #49 in traffic rankings....

To all my regular readers, too, thanks. A shout out for you is in order. I especially appreciate all of you who leave comments--in spite of the fact that there are serious issues on this site about remembering your info. If you're a regular reader and don't comment, please do so from time to time. It's why I blog. I try to read most of the recent comments, but don't always respond. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:28 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You read these comments!?!??? Oh Christ! I'm banned for life now. Or, I just come here for the porn.

Posted by: Dick at November 04, 2004 03:03 PM (hu9UN)

2 On a more practical note. When Arafat's done and he looks to be. What then? Who's next?

Posted by: Dick at November 04, 2004 03:06 PM (hu9UN)

3 Ok, I admit, I am a new captured reader But being that I'm a "VIRGIN" what does BLOG mean?

Posted by: Susan at November 04, 2004 03:06 PM (3pOYP)

4 I found it, thanks anyway Definition: a personal Web site that provides updated headlines and news articles of other sites that are of interest to the user, also may include journal entries, commentaries and recommendations compiled by the user; also written web log, Weblog; also called blog Usage: computing

Posted by: Susan at November 04, 2004 03:11 PM (3pOYP)

5 Susan, we need to set you up with a website. I'd love to read your daily rants.

Posted by: Dick at November 04, 2004 03:49 PM (hu9UN)

6 I am sure I am in your mind when you issued that thank you. I always try to send across the voice off reason in my post (subliminal message: kill all people who pray to any god... don't view it as murder, view it more as "letting them find out for sure that they don't get to meet their 'maker' - it's kinder in the long run"). Promising your blog many more posts in the near and distant future until religious fanaticism is obliterated from this world... and then we can get on with just "moderate religionists"... that would include George Dubya but we'll let him through at the moment because I've never heard of a Christian suicide bomber.

Posted by: Red Devil at November 04, 2004 05:17 PM (3e5Z+)

7 there's porn?

Posted by: rev rick at November 04, 2004 05:37 PM (TG49H)

8 some funny shit I thought I'd share http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=4046&start=1&end=10&display=photoshop

Posted by: Mr. K at November 04, 2004 05:39 PM (GH87X)

9 #49...cool! Its a nice post so, thank you Rusty for the fine posts and more importantly your straight thinking point of view ect ect. Bring on the porn. No really, I liked the finger theme yesterday. That was fun.

Posted by: Jane at November 04, 2004 06:07 PM (6krEN)

10 You are welcome. I love reading your blog. It si one of the ones I read every day. I love how you cover the terrorists. I think that all people in America should read your blog. Then maybe the Anti-American's in outr country will see twhat we are up against. I also like to post up a blog just to post my thoughts of the days current events. I can't really talk to most of my friends about these type of things, because most of them are liberal and think I am crazy for being a republican and thinking tha War on Terror is a good thing. More power to you. You have a ver good blog and enjoy it very much.

Posted by: Stix at November 04, 2004 06:22 PM (12+ED)

11 You go, Jawa Boy!

Posted by: Gordon at November 04, 2004 06:32 PM (dEFhD)

12 Thanks folks, and EIP, that's funny stuff.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 04, 2004 07:12 PM (JQjhA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm sort of under the weather today, so light posting--and on such a wonderful day too! Yasser Arafat is dying, George Bush was re-elected, and Afghanistan has a it's first elected President. What a time to be alive. Good things are happening all around.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:44 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

....never do an unfiltered Google Image Search for "the finger" again.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:45 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Bill at INDC:

DAN RATHER: One would expect that the blogging machine which the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign has used for any number of purposes over their four years will start now, if it hasn't started already, to say, listen, Kerry-Edwards, for the good of the country, need to concede.

ED BRADLEY: I'm sure it's started already. If we could tune into the Internet we'd see that people are already saying that now. That's certainly the drum the White House is beating.

See also Zee, Darleen, Tempus Fugit, the Commissar (related), and others

Posted by: Rusty at 02:13 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.