The 2020 Census: I Think We Are Bring Lied To

Yesterday, I posted a short discussion on the US Supreme Court allowing the census to end early. That is despite the slowdowns in counting that the pandemic has caused. Apparently, the president and GOP strategists have concluded that ending the census early helps them to undercount democrats and minorities.

I have become aware of increasing evidence that the Census Bureau is lying to the American people by faking the count data and undercounting housing units in areas that it claims have been 99.9% counted.

Data point 1

The first piece of evidence came from the US Census Bureau itself. The US Census Bureau is reporting that the overall census is 99.9% complete for housing units in the US. Only two states for which data is shown have lower reporting rates, 98.3% for Louisiana and 99.4% for Mississippi. Data is shown for states listed alphabetically through Pennsylvania. Thus states such as Texas and Washington state are not listed. 

What this data does not indicate is how many people are still uncounted. And, why are nearly all states at 99.9% reporting? The data seems as if it is fudged to make the census look more complete than it really is.

Something smells over-ripe fishy. I think the Census Bureau, specifically Trump, is lying to the American people. The data consistency the Census Bureau reports is simply not believable. Data like this cannot be that consistent at 99.9%. This is fake data. This feels like amateurs with no knowledge of statistics or lying about data has faked the data.

Disclaimer: I could be wrong here. My suspicion is based on my decades of research and work with complex biological systems. Complex biological systems, including census counts, are usually noisy and usually rather imprecise at the level of three significant digits (99.9). Is there a statistician in the house? 

Data point 2

The San Diego Union Tribune (SDUT) reports today that the census response rate in some San Diego neighborhoods is less than 50%. The San Diego city population is about 1.1 million and the county population is about 3.5 million. The SDUT writes: 

“Most households in nearly 20 San Diego-area neighborhoods have not responded to the 2020 census and will no longer be able to following a U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday to end the once-a-decade count.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 20 census tracts in San Diego have a response rate below 50 percent. The northwest corner of Oceanside had the lowest response rate, with just 27 percent of households responding as of Tuesday.

In an area of Mission Beach and Mission Bay Park, about 32 percent of households have responded. 

They’re followed by College West with 33 percent and Borrego Springs with 35 percent.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday halted the head count to allow the Census Bureau time to produce an accurate count. The ruling is the latest in a roller coaster of decisions on the 2020 census, which lower courts previously argued should continue through the end of October. 

Activists, who have spent the last several weeks encouraging responses from San Diego’s “hard-to-count” communities, say they feel defeated by the court’s decision.

“We are very disappointed, to say the least, with the court’s decision because there’s no reason to stop it,” said Arcela Nuñez-Alvarez, co-director of the nonprofit Universidad Popular, a nonprofit that does census outreach to rural communities. 

Many advocates had hoped to have until the end of the month to continue encouraging people to fill out the census, especially in areas with low response rates, she said.”

Data point 3

Some other information I've seen suggests that the 99.9% response rate is a deflection from the people count to the “household count”, including this map from the US Census Bureau. Note the comment: “But that may not mean the count is complete or accurate.” 

I now believe that we are being lied to.

And, there is the map shown below that the Census Bureau has put out. The map is interactive and you can click on an area to see the accumulated data. It does not always match the Oct. 13 99.9% data. For example, Montana is shown below as 99.7%, not 99.9% as shown under that graphic. Or do such data discrepancies mean nothing? If it wasn’t the Trump administration, the benefit of a doubt might be warranted. But since it is the chronic liar Trump administration, in my opinion a benefit of any shred of doubt is not warranted. The burden is on the Census Bureau to prove their honesty, not on me to prove their dishonesty.

 

What GOP Activists Really Think: It is Very Ugly

Charlie Kirk, 26 year-old GOP radical activist

On the pandemic: “Like, it’s a great thing.”

The Washington Post obtained dozens of hours of taped meetings in February and August among conservative activists. What is in their minds is terrifying and dangerous. The WaPo writes:

.... a fresh-faced Republican activist named Charlie Kirk stepped into the spotlight at a closed-door gathering of leading conservatives and shared his delight about an impact of the coronavirus pandemic: the disruption of America’s universities. So many campuses had closed, he said, that up to a half-million left-leaning students probably would not vote.

“So, please keep the campuses closed,” Kirk, 26, said in August as the audience cheered, according to video of the event obtained by The Washington Post. “Like, it’s a great thing.”

The gathering in Northern Virginia was organized by the Council for National Policy, a little-known group that has served for decades as a hub for a nationwide network of conservative activists and the donors who support them. Members include Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to President Trump who has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors to support conservative causes and the nominations of conservative federal judges.

The videos, recorded by CNP to share with its members, show influential activists discussing election tactics, amplifying conspiracy theories and describing much of America in dark and apocalyptic terms.

“This is a spiritual battle we are in. This is good versus evil,” CNP’s executive committee president, Bill Walton, said on Aug. 21, addressing attendees at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City. “We have to do everything we can to win.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.”

Expressing concern about voter fraud and disenfranchisement, Fitton called on the audience to find a way to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters. “We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do,” said Fitton, whose organization is a tax-exempt charity. “But this is a crisis that we’re not prepared for. I mean, our side is not prepared for.”

In an interview with The Post, Fitton elaborated on his remarks. “The left has war-gamed this out,” Fitton said. “And it could cause civil war.”

Brent Bozell, a CNP executive committee member and founder of the Media Research Center, another tax-exempt charity, told attendees at one of the August sessions that he believes the left plans to “steal this election. .... And if they get away with that, what happens?” he said. “Democracy is finished because they usher in totalitarianism.”

At the February meetings, attendees discussed plans for seeking an advantage in the upcoming vote. Two said the right will begin “ballot harvesting,” a controversial technique that involves the collection and delivery of sealed absentee ballots from churches and other institutions.

At the time of the meeting, Trump, his campaign officials and other Republicans were blasting the practice as an abuse by Democrats. “GET RID OF BALLOT HARVESTING, IT IS RAMPANT WITH FRAUD,” Trump tweeted this spring.

But Ralph Reed, chairman of the nonprofit Faith & Freedom Coalition, told the CNP audience that conservatives are embracing the technique this year.

“And so our organization is going to be harvesting ballots in churches,” he said. “We’re going to be specifically going in not only to White evangelical churches, but into Hispanic and Asian churches, and collecting those ballots.”

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official and the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a charity, described mail-in voting as “the number one left-wing agenda.” Adams urged the activists not to worry about the criticism that might come their way. “Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor, you’re a racist and so forth,” Adams said. In response to questions, Adams wrote in an email: “I stand by what I said because it is accurate.”  

Two tax law specialists who viewed hours of video at The Post’s request said some of the remarks and planning on the videos could be improper for the groups that are registered with the IRS as charities.

“What was jarring was that it was pretty clear to any reasonable observer that the entire purpose of the panel was to help the Republican Party win in November, up and down the ticket,” said Roger Colinvaux, director of law and public policy at Catholic University’s law school, referring to a panel about health care.  

Marcus Owens, a lawyer who led the Exempt Organizations Division at the IRS from 1990 to 2000, told The Post that participants’ comments on the videos raise potential issues of compliance with election laws and charity rules. “I’ve never seen anything like it on videotape and live,” Owens said, referring to the overt partisan coordination among the nonprofit leaders. “It’s almost like a movie.”

This is absolutely amazing and terrifying at the same time. The right sees impending totalitarianism if democrats win elections. But at the same time, they are 100% blind to the real threat of a demagogic dictatorship that the president is seriously trying to build in America right now. Incredibly, the radical right does not consider massive voter suppression to be authoritarian. The hypocrisy and lies are staggering.

The extent to which the GOP and apparently most conservative elites have swallowed the decades of radical right propaganda and lies is clear and undeniable. These people really are living a dangerous and aggressive Christian authoritarian fantasy. This is more evidence that any means, legal or not, justify sacred white Christian ends for what probably most GOP elites are willing to lie, slander and break laws to achieve.

Clashing Political Realities in the US Senate

In the Senate hearing of Amy Coney Barrett yesterday two of the Senators used some of their time to paint two radically different political realities. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) described what one can call hell, while republican Ted Cruz (Texas) also painted a vision of hell. The two visions were shocking and utterly partisan but probably mostly factually true. If one ignores the partisanship, the two hells merge into one to some extent.

The two sides made each other look bad at best and at worst, something akin to horrendous or deeply immoral and deceptive. How politics is working today seems to describe what people call making sausage. Who knows what all is going into the grinder, but we do know that one thing that is going in is hundreds of millions of dark money dollars from people who want to radically remake American law and society. The two visions of political hell are described below. Are they fundamentally the same or different? Is the logic of one vision more flawed than the other, or are they both about the same in their validity and soundness? Is the legality of all of this something to be concerned about? Do both sides equally respect facts, true truths and sound reasoning?

Whitehouse

Cruz describes hell at ~7:00 to 13:20

At ~21:00 to 23:53, Whitehouse discusses 80 5-4 decisions that have come out of the Roberts court. All of them were straight party line votes in favor of the republican position. In all 80 cases, the republican donor interest won at the Supreme Court. Does that cast the comments that Cruz made in his attack on the staggering amount of dark money going to democrats in a different light, or does that make no significant difference? It also raises the question of why so much corporate dark money is flowing to democrats in this election. What is going on here?

Herd immunity would save more lives than strict COVID-19 lockdown, study says

Sweeping lockdowns across the U.K. may could lead to more COVID-19 deaths and a prolonging of the pandemic than if the government were to let herd immunity build up in young populations, a new study suggests.

Researchers published a reanalysis of data modelling the British government used as guidance for instituting blanket lockdowns and social distancing measures in March, at the beginning of the pandemic.

The findings, published in the British Medical Journal last Wednesday, suggest that while strict public health measures bring cases down, in the long run, the number of deaths rise.

‘Short-term gain, long-term pain’

In one simulation, the researchers ran a model that showed lockdowns, social distancing of those over age 70, and quarantining the sick all significantly stunted the spread of the virus in a first wave. However, when those measures are scaled back, infection rates bound upwards, especially in young people, and push the model into a deadlier second wave.

In that deadlier second wave, young people, who are less susceptible to dying from COVID-19, had helped spread the virus to older populations, who subsequently saw higher rates of death.

The authors described the model as a postponement of the pandemic.

In a different model, where lockdowns are removed and younger people are allowed to go to school and work, while those above age 70 are made to social distance and stay put, the models show significantly less deaths.

“Lockdown does mean that the number of deaths goes down, so there is a short-term gain, but it leads to long-term pain,” the lead author Graem Ackland, a computer simulation professor at the University of Edinburgh told The Telegraph .

“If you had done nothing, it would all be over by now. It would have been absolutely horrendous but it would be over. It wouldn’t even have been completely lunatic to do nothing.”

In the study, the authors suggest that rather than sweeping lockdowns and generalized social distancing, young people should be allowed to go to school while older groups are made to quarantine. This would allow young people to build up a herd immunity while also protecting the most vulnerable populations.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/herd-immunity-would-save-more-lives-than-strict-covid-19-lockdown-study-says/ar-BB19YAVG?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

 

The Republican Supreme Court Ends the Census Early

Dictators thru the centuries

The US supreme court has just ruled that the president can end consensus counting early. That has been a major conservative goal in its attempt to not count minorities and illegal residents. NPR reports:

“The Trump administration can end counting for the 2020 census after the Supreme Court approved a request for now to suspend a lower court order that extended the count's schedule.

The high court's ruling, following an emergency request the Justice Department made last week, is the latest turn in a roller coaster of a legal fight over the timeline for the count.

Last-minute changes by the Census Bureau and its skirting of an earlier court order for the count have left local communities and the bureau's workers across the U.S. unsure of how much longer they can take part in a national head count already upended by the coronavirus pandemic.

Lower courts previously ordered the administration to keep counting through Oct. 31, reverting to an extended schedule that Trump officials had first proposed in April in response to delays caused by the pandemic and then abruptly decided to abandon in July.  

More time, judges have ruled, would give the bureau a better chance of getting an accurate and complete count of the country's residents, which is used to determine how political representation and federal funding are distributed among the states over the next decade. 

Despite the Constitution's requirement to include the "whole number of persons in each state" and the president's limited authority over the census, Trump wants to try to exclude unauthorized immigrants from those numbers. That effort has sparked another legal fight that is also before the Supreme Court.”

The point is obvious: Conservative republicans and probably bigoted or racist authoritarian religious and business interests want to limit counting of minorities. The logic is that by undercounting all US residents, that will favor republicans. For the GOP leadership and Trump, this is about the exercise of power, not democratic governance.

Wealth inequality... it’s a growing problem

While there are community safety net programs (band-aids) put in place for most every country out there, we witness the wealth schism continuing to grow between the world’s very rich and very poor.  Finding that elusive/collective “happy medium” tends to get harder to achieve with each passing year.

As most of us would agree, fixes only happen when root causes are identified and successfully addressed.  So, for example… 

The cause of being poor is usually the result of conditions like: being under-educated, feelings of hopelessness (e.g., being poorly-connected, family cycle of poverty), and negative soft-wiring (e.g., abusive upbringing).

The cause of being rich is usually the result of conditions like: a higher education, opportunities (e.g., being well-connected, family inheritance money), and positive soft-wiring (e.g., nurtured upbringing). 

While these contrary conditions are not set in stone, I believe they are more true than not.

Granted, no one answer can fix the world, but left to our own devices, our baser, more primal instincts tend to rule us (e.g., greed, selfishness, fear, self-preservation).  With that intro, now for the question: 

If you agree that wealth inequality is a problem, should there be additional policies put in place to resolve the gap between the rich and the poor?  For example, government subsidized higher education and universal health care, to name two fixes.  (Yes, that would mean proportionally higher taxes.)

1. I completely agree
2. I somewhat agree
3. I’m neutral
4. I somewhat disagree
5. I completely disagree

Identify the country from which you hail, and then explain your answer.

Thanks for participating and recommending.