8 Reasons to Reject Erroneous Claims of Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election

1. Claims are made without any proof or evidence.

 

Consider the following:

• Trump team lawyer Jesse Binnall claimed in an interview, "We are going to present evidence of real voter fraud...by 5:00 today. That will be submitted to the court...We have instances, for instance of 40,000 plus people who voted twice in the election. We have data showing that people who were on the record as having voted by mail didn't even receive ballots and say that they didn't vote." In the end, no reliable evidence was provided.
• Rudy Guiliani testified in an Arizona hearing that “a few hundred thousand” of the state’s 5 million “illegal aliens” probably voted. He provided nothing by way of proof to support the claim of fraud, that those perpetrating it were illegal aliens, or the amount of illegal votes.
• Matt Schlapp claimed in a press conference in Nevada that a whistle blower claimed to see a van marked "Biden/Harris" stuffing envelops inside. "The doors of the van were open, ballots were clearly visible, ballots were open with letter openers, and ballots were refilled and sealed in envelopes," said Schlapp. This is my favorite. If that were going on, it would take a good amount of time to complete that process. Why did the "whistle blower" not seek the authorities and report the incident? Why did the whistle blower not pull out his/her phone and take photographs, or video? Additionally, does it make any sense that someone trying to commit fraud in favor of the Biden/Harris ticket would actually have "Biden/Harris" on the van they were committing fraud in?
• Vicki Sutton: "On November the sixth, I checked my voter account and the rest of my family’s, everybody’s vote was there except for mine." This one is particularly interesting, not only in that no evidence was provided, but also the assumption that because her vote was not found, there must be fraud. It excludes all other possibilities that could explain the missing entry.
• The now infamous hearing with Mellissa Carone's testimony is full of claims that were not supported by evidence: "...that poll book is off by over a hundred thousand.", "What about the turnout rate...120 percent?", "Dead people voted.", and "Illegals voted." are just a few of the litany of claims that were presented in testimony without any evidence to support them.

Each of these is a claim. They sound great on the news, but we live in a world where superstition is no longer an acceptable form of evidence. We require proof in all aspects of life, and that burden of proof always rests upon the claimant. The person who claims fraud must prove fraud. It is irresponsible to say, for example, 'I see fraud! Now you prove that fraud didn't take place.' The person making the claim must be the one to back up that claim. And it must be backed up with reliable evidence. Each of the above has been represented in public by someone claiming fraud, and not one of these claims has been backed up with any evidence of any kind.

 

2. Republicans are openly accepting the results

 

This may seem trivial, but it is not. When the winner is a Democrat, we would expect Democrats to agree with the outcome. When the loser is a Republican, we expect Republicans to challenge the outcome. But what about the other two possibilities? Would a Democrat challenge the outcome if they are on the winning side? Of course not. That fails common sense. The last possibility is telling, however - If Republicans on the losing side accept the outcome, they have nothing to gain, in doing so. So why do it? I would argue that Republicans who have openly accepted the outcome of the election are doing so because they recognize that this is the right thing to do, and that their loss is legitimate. Here are just a few of the more notables:

• AP quoting AG William Barr: "...to date [1 Dec 2020], we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."
• Dean Knudson: "There were no dumps of ballots during the night, none...There is no evidence of any fraud related to Dominion voting machines in Wisconsin..."
• On November 8, former President George W. Bush (2001–2009), the previous Republican president, congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris by phone, and said in a statement: 'The American people can have confidence that this election was fundamentally fair, its integrity will be upheld, and its outcome is clear.'
• On November 11, Arizona attorney general Mark Brnovich, a Republican, stated that he had not found any evidence of significant fraud that could change the outcome of that state's result.

 

3. The evidence that is being presented is faulty

 

Matt Braynard, a data analyst reviewing data of alleged voter fraud claimed in a Georgia House hearing to have thousands of examples of specific voters who should not have been allowed to cast ballots. A quick search of records by Georgia Public Broadcasting News found registered Georgia voters were included in spreadsheets provided as evidence. Additional review by Bee Nguyen of the same data found in the first 10 records of alleged out of state voters, 8 were Georgia residents, and one was a duplicate.

This is just one example of data presented that, upon closer scrutiny, fails to support the claims of the Republicans.

 

4. Claims of voter fraud aren't voter fraud

 

The following have all been presented in hearings in states across the country as testimony:

• Jenna Ellis (in a hearing in Denver, CO): “We don’t know if it’s happened in Colorado,” Ellis said of widespread fraud. “Wouldn’t you like to find out?” This is a common trick employed by people who are pushing lies, without technically lying. They raise a specter of wrong doing which sounds legitimate, but in fact is baseless.
  
• A poll worker testifying in Arizona stated that 1) she voted but she doesn't know if her vote actually went to the candidate she voted for 2) a homeless guy voted and 3) the elections worker who was watching a box of ballots looked "frail". So taking these in order, 1) Not knowing something does not constitute fraud, 2) Homeless people have the right to vote, too. 3) Most poll workers are elderly and frail. This is because manning the polls requires a commitment away from the office that people who are still in the workforce often cannot commit to. But being frail does not constitute fraud.
• Matt Schlapp also claimed in the press conference in Nevada that one whistle blower allegedly claimed to have seen a "significant number of signatures on mail-in ballots" that the person believes should have been reviewed but was pushed through, according to an affidavit sent to News 3 by a GOP official. Believing that signatures need review is not evidence of fraud. 

 

5. Their experts witnesses are not reliable sources of truth

 

• Sydney Powell's secret military intelligence expert witness turned out to be Joshua Merritt, a 43-year-old information technology consultant who failed to complete an entry-level intelligence training program at Fort Huachuca, AZ according to the U. S. Army. “He kept washing out of courses,” said Meredith Mingledorff, citing his education records. “He’s not an intelligence analyst.”
• Jesse Richard Morgan, a truck driver delivering mail for the post office claimed "there was a significant amount of mail -in ballots being shipped from Bethpage, New York [to Pennsylvania]" Jesse is an unfortunate individual with a long history of criminal activity and drug abuse. Common Pleas Judge Stephen P. Linebaugh remarked that a common theme with Morgan in drug treatment court had been “it was never your fault.” He also “constantly lied,” the judge said.

 

6. Claims of voter fraud are being debunked

 

• Arizona hearing, Army Lt. Phil Waldron said the Dominion Voting Systems machines used in Arizona could have been hacked or even manipulated at polling places to change the outcome of the election. Meanwhile, a post-election test — comparing a legally mandated sample of hand counted paper ballots with the machine count and witnessed by members of both parties — came up as 100% accurate.
• A review of the video that purportedly demonstrated a suitcase full of ballots in Pennsylvania being pulled from under a table in fact was just one of the many cases used to transport ballots to the center for counting as part of the normal process.
• Republicans claimed they were not allowed into the counting centers to observe the count. This is patently false. When votes are being counted, the board of elections (generally, an office holder responsible for the counting, a Democratic official, and a Republican official) have free access to any part of the rooms. Notice not no one on the election boards is claiming that they did not have access? This is because they did, and claims to the contrary are just lies.
• A social media rumor alleging that 3,239,920 votes were counted in the state of Wisconsin, but only 3,129,000 million voters were registered. As it turns out, the 3,129,000 number came from the 2018 mid-term elections. The rise between 2018 and 2020 was due to the contentious nature of the election, and the counts were legitimate.

 

7. Legal action forces legal behavior

 

FOX and Newsmax have repeatedly pushed claims of voting irregularities and outright fraud. Their most recent target was Dominion Voting Systems, a Denver-based electronic voting machine company who's systems were alleged by the news agencies to have miscounted or changed votes. Smartmatic was another. FOX and Newsmax, upon being notified that they were being sued for defamation, aired public statements retracting their claims of collusion, and conspiracy to defraud the voting process. This is a substantial blow to fraud claimants, based upon a very simple principle in civil law. In civil defamation lawsuits, there exists the idea that 'the truth is a defense." In short, this means that if you can demonstrate that your claims are founded in truth, then you cannot be held liable for damages. If the claims being pushed by the right-wing media were factual, there would be no need to issue retractions under threat of litigation

 

8. The string of failed lawsuits suggests fraud claims are not legitimate

 

Here is an accounting of the lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, or other Republican groups regarding election fraud. Their record is 2 wins, 43 losses, 7 withdrawn, and 5 ongoing.

 

State	Court: Details	Status
Pennsylvania	3rd U.S. Court of Appeals: In Bognet v. Boockvar, Republicans argued that the extended mail-in ballot deadline challenged the constitution.	Denied
Pennsylvania	U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Barnette v. Lawrence, the GOP lawsuit claimed that Montgomery County wrongly allowed mail-in voters the chance to cure ballots.	Dismissed
Pennsylvania	U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign argued that there was insufficient access by observers.	Denied
Pennsylvania	U.S. District Court, Middle District: In Pirkle v. Wolf, four voter plaintiffs generalized allegations of fraud, based on complaints issued by third parties.	Withdrawn
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In response to the Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots, Republicans claim that Philadelphia did not give election observers enough access.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Hamm v. Boockvar, Republicans claimed that the state wrongly allowed voters to cast provisional ballots to cure invalid mail ballots.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: Northampton Republicans challenged notifications of votes that were canceled during prescreening.	Withdrawn
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Trump v. Boockvar, the campaign challenged the three-day deadline extension given to mail-in voters missing identification to supply proof of identification.	Relief granted
Pennsylvania	Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County: Both the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign challenged over 2,000 mail-in ballots.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas: In Trump v. Montgomery County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign and the RNC challenged about 600 mail-in ballots that lacked voters' addresses.	Withdrawn
Pennsylvania	U.S. Supreme Court: In Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, Republicans challenged the extended mail-in ballot deadline.	Active
Pennsylvania	3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: In Trump v. Boockvar, the campaign is arguing that different provisional ballot practices violate equal protection.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Supreme Court: The Trump campaign appealed a Philadelphia County Board of Elections decision to count five different categories of mail-in and absentee ballots.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections, Nicole Ziccarelli, a GOP legislative candidate, challenged 2,349 undated mail-in ballots.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Court of Common Pleas for Westmoreland County: Ziccarelli is also challenging a small number of provisional ballots.	Relief granted
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In Kelly v. Pennsylvania, a group of Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, claimed that the state's no-excuse mail ballot law violates the state constitution. They sought an order blocking certification of most mail-in votes or that directs the state Assembly to choose the presidential electors.	Denied
Pennsylvania	Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: Metcalfe v. Wolf, repeats claims of voter fraud, alleging that thousands of illegal ballots were cast and that drop boxes for ballots were improperly allowed.	Denied
Pennsylvania	U.S. Supreme Court: In Texas v. Pennsylvania et al., the state of Texas filed suit against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin alleging that fraud and mistakes damaged the presidential election in those states.	Denied
Michigan	U.S. District Court, Western District: In Johnson/Stoddard v. Benson, two Trump supporters made generalized allegations of voter fraud.	Withdrawn
Michigan	Michigan Supreme Court: In Johnson v. Benson, two Trump supporters made generalized allegations of voter fraud.	Denied
Michigan	U.S. District Court, Western District: In Trump v. Benson, the campaign claimed that Wayne County denied election challengers proper access to watch election workers handle ballots.	Withdrawn
Michigan	Wayne County Circuit Court: In Constantino v. Detroit, two Republican poll challengers alleged irregularities in the vote at the TCF Center.	Denied
Michigan	Wayne County Circuit Court: In Stoddard v. Detroit, the plaintiffs claimed that ballots were improperly duplicated by Democratic Party inspectors.	Denied
Michigan	Michigan Court of Claims: In Trump v. Benson, the campaign sought to have more poll observers watch the vote count.	Denied
Michigan	U.S. District Court, Western District: In Bally v. Whitmer, a group of voters disputed election results in three counties based on allegations of voting irregularities and fraud.	Withdrawn
Michigan	U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In King v. Whitmer, a group of Michigan Republicans asked a federal judge to reverse Biden's victory in Michigan, an outcome that was formally certified earlier this month.	Denied
Wisconsin	U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Langenhorst v. Pecore, Republicans made generalized allegations of voter fraud that relied on third-party accounts.	Dismissed
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Election Commission, a conservative group claims that the five cities of Kenosha, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee and Racine illegally accepted grants from Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerburg to improve election systems. They also claim that officials failed to get voter identification for some mail-in ballots.	Denied
Wisconsin	U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell is alleging fraud with voting machines.	Dismissed
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Trump v. Evers, the Trump campaign seeks to invalidate mail ballots it claims were improperly included during the canvas in Milwaukee and Dane counties.	Denied
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Mueller v. Wisconsin, the lawsuit claims drop boxes were placed without proper authority and seeks nullification of any ballots placed in them. It accuses Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of leading a propaganda campaign to encourage their use, part of a "treacherous operation to interfere with the presidential election."	Denied
Wisconsin	U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Trump campaign claims that state election officials made ballots and drop boxes available in a manner not allowed by the state legislature.	Dismissed
Arizona	Maricopa County Superior Court: In Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes, the Republicans sought a hand recount of the ballots cast in Maricopa County by precinct. The GOP does not allege fraud, but it claims that the audit of votes did not meet state law.	Dismissed
Arizona	Maricopa County Superior Court: In Trump v. Hobbs, the Trump campaign claimed that using Sharpies to fill in mail-in ballots caused an overvote and invalidated ballots.	Dismissed
Arizona	Superior Court for the State of Arizona: In Ward v. Jackson, Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona Republican Party and a Trump elector, alleges misconduct in the elections administration and seeks that the vote certification by Gov. Doug Ducey be annulled.	Denied
Arizona	U.S. District Court: In Bowyer v. Ducey, involves Texas lawyer Sidney Powell and alleges "massive election fraud" involving Dominion voting systems. These claims are similar to those in other lawsuits.	Denied
Arizona	Superior Court for the State of Arizona: In Stevenson v. Ducey, the plaintiffs contested the election results.	Active
Arizona	Clark County District Court: In Election Integrity Project v. Nevada, the plaintiffs claimed that Nevada's vote-by-mail structure is unconstitutional. The suit was filed in September.	Denied
Arizona	1st Judicial District Court, Carson City: In Law v. Whitmer, Trump's six electors claimed irregularities, including the improper use of scanning machines to verify signatures.	Denied
Arizona	U.S. District Court: In Stokke v. Cegavske, the plaintiffs sought to stop the use of automated signature matching in Clark County.	Withdrawn
Arizona	Nevada Supreme Court: In Kraus v. Cegavske, the Trump campaign, the Nevada GOP and a Republican voter and count-watcher named Fred Kraus sued to stop the use of automated signature matching.	Dismissed
Arizona	Clark County District Court: In Becker v. Gloria, April Becker, a state Senate candidate, challenged the use of automated systems to match mail-in ballot signatures and the mailing of ballots to all registered voters.	Denied
Arizona	Clark County District Court: In Marchant v. Gloria, Jim Marchant, a congressional candidate, challenged the use of automated systems for signature-matching and for mailing ballots to all registered voters.	Dismissed
Arizona	Clark County District Court: In Rodimer v. Gloria, Daniel Rodimer, a state legislative candidate, challenged the use of automated systems for signature-matching and mailing ballots to all registered voters.	Dismissed
Georgia	U.S. District Court, Northern District: In Wood v. Raffensperger, an Atlanta lawyer and Trump supporter sought an injunction to prevent a statewide canvass, arguing that a consent decree wrongly imposes an invalid procedure to verify voter signatures.	Denied
Georgia	U.S. District Court, Northern Division: Pearson v. Kemp makes many of the claims alleged by Texas lawyer Sidney Powell, including that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems allowed Democratic officials to fraudulently add votes for Biden.	Dismissed
Georgia	Fulton County Superior Court: In Wood v. Raffensberger, a conservative group is behind a lawsuit claiming that thousands of illegal votes were counted and that funds contributed by Mark Zuckerberg tainted the election. The suit seeks to invalidate the presidential election results.	Denied
Georgia	Fulton County Superior Court: In Boland v. Raffensperger, the plaintiff claims more than 20,000 ballots were cast by non-residents and that counties did not properly screen mail ballot signatures. Seeks an audit or, if none is granted, decertification of the election results.	Denied
Georgia	U.S. District Court, Southern District: In Brooks v. Mahoney, four Republican voters claimed that a voting machine software glitch caused a miscounting of votes.	Dismissed
Georgia	Chatham County Superior Court: The Georgia Republican Party and the Trump campaign sought a reminder that mail-in ballots arriving late would not be counted.	Dismissed
Georgia	Fulton County Superior Court: Boland v. Raffensperger claims more than 20,000 ballots were cast by non-residents and that counties did not properly screen mail ballot signatures. The complaint seeks an audit or, if none is granted, decertification of the election results.	Denied
Georgia	Fulton County Superior Court: In Trump v. Raffensperger, the Trump campaign and a Trump electorclaim thousand of ballots were cast by ineligible voters.	Dismissed
Minnesota	Minnesota Supreme Court: In Kistner v. Simon, several Republican candidates make generalized claims of voting irregularities. The lawsuit sought to block the state's certification of votes until an audit of the returns could be completed.	Denied
Minnesota	Minnesota District Court, 2nd Judicial District: In Quist v. Simon, the plaintiffs claim the secretary of state created procedural changes that made the ballot counting process "overly broad, arbitrary, disparate and ad hoc."	Active
Minnesota	Minnesota District Court, 2nd Judicial District: In Jensen v. Simon, the plaintiffs seek to contest election results under the claim that invalid votes were counted.	Active
Minnesota	U.S. District Court: In Trump v. Toulouse Oliver, the Trump campaign claims the secretary of state allowed ballot drop boxes without legislative authority. The plaintiffs ask the judge to void Biden's elector certificate and "remand to the state of New Mexico legislature pursuant to appoint electors."	Active

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-election-fight-includes-over-30-lawsuits-it-s-n1248289

 

Conclusion

 

We are long past the time to give up the misguided notions that there was 'massive fraud'.  Critical thinkers know this is all complete bullshit. We knew it before Donald Trump became president, we knew it when he said there was fraud in 2016, we knew it when he said he would accept the outcome of the 2020 election only if he won, and we know it today. All that is left is the hope that those who continue to buy into the misguided tantrums of a sore loser come to their senses before real damage is done to this nation.

What Drives the Economy (It's More than Just the Stock Market)

'We're in a record economy - the market hit another record...' has become a popular refrain. The problem is, the market is at best, only a small portion of the overall state of the economy and may at times be entirely misleading. Other indicators of the state of the economy include the unemployment rate, the Gross Domestic Product (how much we produce in goods and services), the inflation rate, and wages.

The Market¹

The numbers: On Jan 1, 2016, the DOW Jones average was at 17,400. Today it's at 28,800. That's roughly a 40% increase over 4 years. Not bad. Now, what does that mean? In short, it means that investors are valuing businesses 40% higher today (on average) than they were in 2016. It's as much a measure of optimism as anything. Being willing to buy shares in a company for a higher price (which is what causes the market to rise) does not indicate the past performance, or present value, but rather future expectation of performance.

Chart 1: Stock market performance: 2018-2021

The Unemployment Rate²

The numbers: In January 2016, the unemployment rate was 4.9%. Today, it's at 7.9%. Clearly, this is not good. In fact, it hit a record high in April at 14.9%. The unemployment rate tries to capture the number of people out of work but we've already heard that there are problems with the measurement; it misses people who stopped looking for work, are no longer receiving benefits, and never started (after high school, trade school, or college) because there just aren't the jobs available. This is very troubling and implies that the real number of unemployed is much higher than the unemployment rate shows. To be fair on the record high, the fear brought about by the pandemic was so sudden, that it resulted in a flurry of layoffs/firings in a very short period of time, so the number of people requesting unemployment benefits is compressed in time, which drives the percentage higher.

Chart 2: Civilian unemployment rate

The GDP³

By the numbers: Over time, the GDP tends to rise about 2 - 4% each year, and has maintained that rate perfectly since 2016 - until 2020. In the first quarter, it declined about 5%, and in the second quarter by over 31%. The important thing to recognize about GDP is that it is driven by demand. That is, if people are buying more and asking for more services, hiring and production will increase to meet that demand. It also means there will be enough to meet demand, which keeps prices steady. (Recall supply and demand: increase supply without demand, prices fall; increase demand without supply, prices rise, etc.) This is one of the reasons the GDP is such a popular measure for the economy. The implication here is troubling: fewer people are needed in the labor market because people are buying less.

Chart 3: Real GDP change 2016-2020

The Inflation Rate⁴

By the numbers: The inflation rate from 2016-2020 has help somewhat steady:

Year	Inflation Rate
2016-2017	2.1%
2017-2018	1.9%
2018-2019	2.3%
2019-2020	1.4%

Table 1: Inflation rates, 2016-2020

What does all this mean? First, inflation is not a bad thing when it sits in a narrow band. It should be above 1 - 1.5%, but below 3 - 4%. And for the most part, that's where it's been, which is a good thing. (Side note - if inflation and GDP move up and down together, that is a really good thing, because it implies a "stable" economy.) One cautionary note: We're now at 1.4%. For those of you who lived in the 70s, and remember the "stagflation" (lack of rise in the cost of living), you'll remember that is not a good thing. It means the economy is stalling, and wages can't go up. We're not in a state of stagflation currently, but we do need to keep our eyes on this, as it's trending that way.

Chart 3: United States Annual Inflation Rates: 2010-2020

Wages⁵

Are you better off financially today than you were in 2016? Looking at the inflation rate, if your wages are going up less than that rate, you're not doing so well because you can't buy as much. If you're earning more relative to the inflation rate, you're doing better as your earnings can buy more. Looking at the numbers: From 2016 to present, average hourly wages went from 21.31/hr to 24.79/hr.* so we are definitely earning more dollars. The rate of growth (so we can compare to the numbers above) is:

Year	Wage Growth
2016	2.3%
2017	2.5%
2018	3.4%
2019	3.3%
2020	3.8%

Table 2: Wage growth

This is actually not bad; for each year, dollars earned are higher than inflation. That said, there are a few items here that deserve additional attention:

• The unemployment rate: Fewer people are making those higher wages so it's not as good as it appears. Additionally, many families are using that extra money to help out friends and family who aren't earning as much.

• Reduced taxes account for most of those gains. This drives up the national debt and results in our government paying out more to higher interest on the debt which means less money coming back to us in government-sponsored programs such as infrastructure, defense, etc.

• The measurement is a very broad average. Some people do better while others do not.

* These are only wages for supervised employees, not small business owners, executives, etc. The numbers for 2020 are provisional.

Conclusion

In summary, the economy is doing better in some places but worse in others. If you don't take anything else away from this, take this: one number does not describe the state of the economy. If anyone tries to argue that perspective, ask yourself what number they picked, and why.

References

1 https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

2 https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

3 https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

4 https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

5 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (Series: CES0500000008)

Day Hike: Tippecanoe State Park

I was able to get away for a hike today to a new park, Tippecanoe State Park in Northwest Indiana. For this trip, I chose to hike trails 3, 4, 5, and 8.

I started out that the Nature Center, which has a trailhead to Trail 4. This winds through woodlands with the first point of interest being a lagoon left over from a change in the rivers course many hundreds of years ago. This time of year, plant life was teaming in the lagoon, and the entire surface is covered such that you can't see into the water.

Trails were wide and flat, making for an easy hike.

 

After winding through the Tippecanoe Nature Preserve for a while, I picked up Trail 5. This continues north bumping up against the river, and two campgrounds. There is a short stretch where we hike on the road (maybe 100-150 feet or so), then it's back into the woodland.

The river was slow and winding through the park.

 

At the north end of the park, we come to some events structures, restrooms, and such. With a quick cross of the road we're on to Trail 8 in the Sand Hill Nature Preserve. This is a quick loop, then it's back south on Trail 5.

At the point where I originally picked up Trail 5, I turned right, heading south then west over to Trail 2, a shared hiking and horseback riding trail. This was another out and back loop. I returned back to Trail 5, then picked up Trail for again for the return.

It's not the worst hike I've had, but there was much left to be desired.

Pros:

• The woodland areas were beautiful. Much of the trails were through pine forests, and the needles helped keep the trail flat and clean of brush.
• When it was quiet, it was very quiet.
• There are plenty of trails to hike, and they are generally well marked.
  

Cons:

• There was a constant source of human noise, mostly from campers getting rowdy and fishermen yelling and laughing at each other, all the while in the same boat.
• Spiderwebs filled the trail. I ended up picking up a thin stick and swaying it in front of me to collect the webs.
• The bugs were horribly distracting, constantly flying around my face and ears.
• Some of the trails are nothing more than service roads. If you see a trail that looks like a straight line, it's probably a service road.
• The trails were entirely too close to campgrounds. This distracted from the nature viewing, and again, takes the hiker through stretches with a lot of music and yelling.

I have no regrets for making the trip, as it was only 45 minutes from home, but I don't expect I would return to this one. If you're looking for a place to camp around lots of other people, and do some kayaking or canoeing, this is a good park. If you like quiet hikes that immerse you in nature, this is not the place.

DETAILS
Time: 5 hours 40 min.
Distance: 23.5 km
Min Elevation 189 m
Max Elevation: 264 m
Temp: 90 deg. F

My COVID-19 Project: Building a Stand-up Desk

The time of the executive desk has passed, and it's time to move on to a stand-up desk. We had these when I worked at CME (although those were electric), and I really liked it. Initially, I looked for adjustable desks, and regardless of whether they were powered or manual, they were very expensive. So, I ordered some table legs online, and started digging around for the wood. Here's the result.

The first step was to get the legs attached to the table surface. The holes in each leg for the screws are just slightly different on each leg, so I put marks on each leg, and under the surface to ensure I always get them in the right place, once holes are drilled.

Getting the legs affixed to the surface.

So, after some digging, I found most of the wood I'll need. The surface came from a cabinet we picked up from Habitat for Humanity (the cabinet is now an island in the kitchen). It had some damage in one corner, but a new veneer will fix that. I just happened to have almost a full sheet in the garage.

Finished the drawer, and main assembly of the surface and shelving.

The stained piece will end up being a drawer for storing supplies. It will slide into the two 2x10s that I mounted to the surface. The trim on the drawer came from a stack of old trim we had that we pulled out from the house. The plywood was in the scrap bin, and the wood on the back came from a stack of wood that we pulled out of the deck a few years ago. The shelves came from the same stack of old deck wood.

Stained the desk and cut pieces for monitor stands.

The staining is finished for the main part of the desk. I've also cut pieces to support two monitors that will sit on each side of the desk. the wood (with the exception of the small square pieces) came from the same pile of old deck wood. I ended up buying a short piece of scrap for the squares. The black ones will be where the monitor mounts to the pole, and the unstained pieces will be the bases.

It's a stand-up desk!

We see the monitor stands are now assembled. I also added trim around the surface. It was also scrap from the house. A little more stain, lots of varnish, and it's ready to go. I designed the section underneath the surface to be the same width as a standard computer rack so I could mount my old virtual machine server which is being repurposed as a desktop. Unfortunately, my dual monitor card doesn't fit in the case, so I'll need to pick up a low-profile dual monitor video card for this one.

Post Set-up

I realized quickly that the amount of surface will isn't quite as much as I need (I felt like this was the case as I was building it, but until it's in place, it's hard to be sure). So, I moved an older temp stand-up desk next to it, which does much better. I noticed it's a little warm under the desk, so when I ordered the dual monitor card, I also picked up an extra case fan to move a little more air. I found that the cables are being pushed around in back by the rear wall on the drawer. I'll need to make a small bracket, and hang the cables from the bottom of the surface so they are out of the way.

You Don't Need (or Want) Special Characters in Passwords

This comes up over and over: 'We should require special characters in our password rules because that makes our passwords more secure.' The premise is that by increasing the character set, and mixing in non-alphanumeric characters, the number of attempts to guess the password grows very large. The computational power required to execute a brute-force attack on a password (guessing different strings of text one after another) becomes prohibitive. Therefore, if we generate passwords using a larger character set, then the number of combinations of characters going into the password (which is of some arbitrary length) will be greater and therefore more secure. This premise is completely true. However, the conclusion that follows is suspect on the grounds that it ignores other options to increase the number of combinations. Additionally, there are some problems with it that I'll argue by the end of this post, give us a much simpler solution to the problem of brute-force attacks.

The Problem With Special Characters

This may seem a bit obtuse if you aren't a tech junkie but bear with me; it's important. In the world of information technology, we need to be able to interact with software using more than just natural language and numbers. We need symbols that have what is referred to as "special meaning." Special meaning means that a single symbol is interpreted in a specific way to the software we're interacting with; much like a shortcut. Here are two examples:

Example 1
ls -l *

This is a Unix command we might type at the command line to display information about the files in the current directory. It contains two special characters: the dash '-' and the asterisk '*'. To the shell (where we type the command), the dash character means that the software should interpret the following character as a parameter to the command. In this case, -l means to display more information in the output than the ls command otherwise would. The asterisk means to display information about every file and directory in the current directory.

Example 2
http://www.example.com/store?item=123456&quantity=2

This example is not unlike information we might find in the address line of a web browser during a purchase. We have lots of characters with special meaning to the web server. The colon, forward slash, question mark, ampersand, and equal sign all have special meaning to a web server.

The problem here is that if we need to pass a password to a command, and that password uses characters with special meaning, it can confuse the software that reads and tries to interpret the entire command. In short, we get errors.* There are ways around this in some cases, and certainly we could write the software that does the interpretation of the command to more elegantly read and interpret the characters but this leads to increased complexity (increasing the potential for bugs), and it introduces additional code that slows down the process of figuring out what you want the software to do. So in short, more bugs, and more time.

A Mathematical Solution to Eliminating Special Characters

Consider the purpose of a password. It's basically a key. The arrangement of characters in a password is not unlike the peaks and valleys of a physical key that you would use to lock your house. If that key is more complicated, it's harder to reproduce. Hackers use software to try to reproduce the arrangement of characters in a uniform way to 'guess' your password. This is the essence of brute-force hacking. It works like this:

First try a, then b, then c followed by the remaining letters. Next, try aa, then ab, then ac, and so on.

We can leverage one very interesting constraint on brute-force hacking that can render the process ineffective: compute power. Computing systems can only do so much in a given period of time. The method described above requires a very large number of combinations, each of which requires a certain amount of the computer's time to complete. There is a way we can construct a password such that it requires more time to hack, effectively thwarting the brute-force hacking attempt. In short, we use the limitations of the hacker's computing systems against him.

This is where we circle back to the character set. We can make it take longer to guess a password by increasing the password's complexity. We do this by adding additional characters to the character set we use. In the following table we show the number of attempts that a hacker would have to make to try to guess a password that is 8 characters long using increasingly complex character sets:

Character Set	Combinations
a-z	1,562,275
a-z, A-Z	752,538,150
a-z, A-Z, 0-9	3,381,098,545
a-z, A-Z, 0-9, . , ! $ & # @ etc. (a total of 23 special characters from the US keyboard)	48,124,511,370

Table 1: Combinations of characters by increasing the character set

Just by adding characters with special meaning, we've forced the hacker's computer to do roughly 16 times more work in order to crack our password than if we used only letters and digits. But, we still have the issue of software complexity described above. That brings us to the silver bullet of strong passwords. Instead of adding characters to the character set we use, we could increase the length of the password. But would that really do much? Wouldn't we have to add many characters in order to increase the number of combinations to make it prohibitive to crack? Let's see:

Character Set	Password Length	Combinations
a-z, A-Z, 0-9	8	3,381,098,545
a-z, A-Z, 0-9	9	20,286,591,270
a-z, A-Z, 0-9	10	107,518,933,700
a-z, A-Z, 0-9	11	508,271,323,000

Table 2: Combinations of characters by increasing length

Those are some pretty big numbers. Let's break this down into English, comparing the last line of Table 1 with row 3 of Table 2. By adding just 2 more characters onto the length of the password, we more than doubled the number of guesses, reduced the required characters in the character set by 23, and eliminated any problems that special characters might cause on the command line. Adding just one more character to the password length means our hacker friend's computer will need to guess up to another 4 hundred billion combinations of letters and numbers.

That is the power of the mathematical topic of combinations, and that's why you are much better off increasing the length of the password, than just adding special characters. In fact, you can even use simple words of your own language one after another, so long as the length of the password remains long.**

Just for fun, how long do you think it takes to attempt a brute-force attack? In 2018, using the most powerful computers available, (not what's sitting your your desk) a 12 character password would take about a year. A 13 character password would take 64 years! As time passes, advancements in computing power will shorten these times. The elegance of the process is that we just add one more character to ensure a long time required for the attack.

Conclusion

Passwords are necessary today but complexity is not. Increasing the length of a password increases its protection from being guessed much more than just increasing the character set used.

* Yes, I know, we should not be passing password in at the shell or in the address line of a web browser. In a perfect world, we would not. In the real world, we often have to deal with software that we have no control over, and it may be a necessity.

** I would recommend against using individual words separated by spaces. There is a variant of brute-force attacks that use words from the dictionary in a similar fashion. If using full words, you'll want to remove spaces, or insert them in the middle of words to prevent each string from matching a word from the dictionary.

An Answer to "If Christians don’t personally engage in politics, it’s all over for America"

This is a response to a Facebook discussion that arose between one of my cousins, and I.

I won't take issue with the article's content, as it was published in the Opinion section, and the author, Mr. Marshall has the same right as we all do, to argue what he believes to be true. More generally, I would argue the basic premise of 'allowing rights for LGBT persons is infringing on the rights of religious members of our community' is fundamentally flawed.

To support this argument, there are a few things that need to be stated at the outset. First, a belief in fairness is not a "right" until it is written into law. The founders (casting a wide net here to all those in all colonies who established governments supportive of the Constitution) knew this, as they refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added. They knew that socially accepted norms of fairness are not enforceable, but worse, can be changed over time to suit personal ambition. The only rights you and I share are those 1) written into the Constitution, and 2) in laws that are not deemed by the courts to violate the Constitution. Second, regardless of what one may think of a person with different political, religious, or moral believes, whether that person be straight or gay, black, white, Latino, or oriental, if that person was born in the United States, that person is a citizen of the United States. Finally, an infringement of a right is to deny someone a right that they, as a citizen are entitled to, based upon the law.

Now, with that out of the way...

Argument 1: All Citizens Have the Same Rights

From the Constitution (14th Amendment, Sec. I): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Absent of contrary wording, this means every person born within the United States, straight or gay, black, white, Latino, or oriental is a citizen of the United States. As we read further in this amendment, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Basically, this is saying that it is a violation of the Constitution to infringe upon the rights of any one person without following the law, or rather, we are all entitled to the same set of rights. This is a real problem for those that argue the points raised in the article. How can we prevent two homosexual people from getting married, or adopting a child, holding down a job, or receiving visitors in the hospital when the 14th Amendment is clear on the equality of all citizens, not just religious citizens? (NB: Although there are no specific enumerations of marriage, adoption, obtaining a job or receiving visitors in the hospital in the Constitution, there are many laws at the Federal and State levels covering these topics. So long as those laws are not judged by the courts to be a violation of the Constitution, they would be considered rights.)

Argument 2: Formalizing Equality Is Not an Infringement of Religious Protections

The Constitution is clear on the rights of its citizens on the subject of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (Amendment I). Put another way, there are two things that are a violation of the Constitution regarding religion: establishing one religion that all citizens must adhere to, and preventing anyone from practicing the beliefs of their own faith. (Of course, we have to agree that there are certain limits here. If a particular faith describes a practice that is a violation of other laws, those laws must take precedence. We don't allow our citizens to be harmed by religious practices.) The problem here is the belief, common among many (but not all) Evangelicals, that by giving rights to a gay person, we somehow take rights away from a religious person. There is nothing in that belief that is supported by the law. Two men getting married may be offensive to one's sensibilities, and it may be thought of as immoral, but two men getting married does not inhibit or prevent a religious person from practicing his or her religion. The church member can still believe what he or she wants. He or she can still attend services, refrain from committing actions that are out of line with their beliefs, pray, read a bible not just in private, but in public, and so on. There is no right to 'not be offended'.

Argued in a different light, consider that the author of the article came right out and stated, "Six Catholic Republican congressmen voted "yes,'...[to HR 5]." Where is the logic that these six decided to remove their own religious rights? Can we honestly say that they voted for in favor of this resolution knowing full well that it will remove their right to practice their religion as guaranteed by the Constitution? Consider that in Congress, there are 0 atheists. Not one member of Congress openly admits non-belief. Yet, 236 members of the House passed the resolution. That's 236 religious persons, overwhelmingly Christians, have voted in favor. Where is the logic that over half of the religious members of Congress support a bill that could infringe upon their own religious protections, much less that would violate a Constitutional protection of religious?

Argument 3: Infringement of One's Rights is an Infringement of Everyone's Rights

This argument tends to be most often explained in the context of the Holocaust because it was so blatant and obvious, but there are countless examples in history. When we start to devalue the worth of one group of people, it is a slippery slope that ends up with other groups being devalued, as well. The problem is that eventually, there becomes a small group of people who end up deciding who's rights are valid and who's are not. In Nazi Germany, it was members of the Nazi party who ended up dictating rights, to the detriment first of Jews. But then it spread to removing the rights of other groups such as homosexuals. This was easy, as homosexuality in the 1930s was so much more frowned upon that it is today. But, when artists and authors started to claim this was unjust, their rights were infringed upon, as well. Concentration camps began to fill up with them as well. Then, when professors, scientists, and politicians who understood the dangers of what was happening began to speak out, they too were jailed and killed. So, what started out as an attempt to infringe upon the rights of one specific group, spread to any citizen who was not aligned with the Nazi party. Again, this was not the only time in history this happened. One of the problems with this (in addition to it being unfair by any measure), is that someday, some other group could come into power, and decide that those who infringed upon the newly-empowered group's rights now deserve no such protections. And so on it goes, each group in power infringing upon the rights of those with whom they disagree. In this world, we all suffer.

Conclusion

Religions deal with morality and faith. Nations deal with laws and rights. When we start to mix the two, it is important to ask ourselves, are if we are trying to use either to promote our own ideas and beliefs, however well-meaning to hurt another group of people who are different that we are. The founders knew this was possible. The protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights were written specifically to prevent that. It is my hope that one day, an atheist, a homosexual, a democrat, and a republican can all sit down together and talk about why they believe what they do in order to educate the others, rather than using our beliefs as a club to beat others down with.

Configure a TP Link Wireless Router for Simple Internet Access

After putting up with a failing wireless for the past two months, I decided to replace it. I ended up purchasing a TP Link Archer C9 wireless router. It operates on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz frequencies at the same time, and allows for (mostly) full management. After going through the manual, I realized that it did not cover the method I use to integrate the wireless into my home network, so after hours of trying to get this thing set up, I decided to write it down.

The two methods in the manual describe using the Archer C9 as a wireless extender, and connecting directly into the service provider's cable/DSL modem, such that all network traffic going to the Internet would end up going through the router. This is problematic for me, as I have my own firewall connected to the cable modem, and I don't really want to put this new device out in the wild, with a public IP address.

My particular use case involves simply connecting the wireless to a switch on my network, then enabling the wireless so anyone connecting can get access to the internal network, and Internet, but enjoy the protection of the firewall. It looks like this:

In order to get this to work, we have to deviate from the instruction manual just a bit.

Step 1: Connect the Device to the Network
Plug a standard network cable into any of the 4 LAN ports on the back (it doesn't matter which one; just don't connect to the Internet or WAN port). Plug the other end of the cable into a switch that supplies the rest of the house with network connectivity. Plug the power adapter into the wall, then into the device. Turn the power on.

Step 2: Connect to the Wireless
In order to connect for the first time, you'll want to connect to the wireless, first. You'll see the default SSIDs show up. Select one, then when asked for a password, type the device's PIN (the 8-digit code printed on the back  label).

Step 3: Configure a Password
The router is delivered with a default password. It's the same 8-digit PIN used as the wireless password. When starting the configuration for the first time, you'll be asked to configure a new password. Type in each of the provided boxes on the screen.

Step 4: Configure the LAN Interface
Once you are logged in, you will be presented with a page that has three tabs, Quick Setup, Basic, and Advanced. We'll be working strictly in the Advanced tab. Once in Advanced, select the Network item in the left menu, then select LAN. Here, you can set up the device's IP address and Subnet mask. Select an IP address that is 1) in the same subnet as your firewall or cable modem, and 2) is not being served through DHCP. (If you don't know, check your cable modem configuration or that of your firewall, if you have one. If DHCP is enabled, there will be a set of starting and ending IP addresses for the range. The TP Link's IP address must be outside of this range.) Finally, click Save.

Step 5: Configure DHCP
I'm serving addresses via DHCP from my internal firewall, so I don't need a second DHCP server. I just disabled it. If you need to assign IP addresses to new devices automatically, perform 5b, otherwise perform 5a.

5a. Click the DHCP Server link further down in the Network group of options we opened earlier. Uncheck the Enable DHCP Server checkbox, then hit Save.

5b. Select a starting and ending IP range in the IP Address Pool boxes. Set the Default Gateway to be the IP address of your firewall or cable modem. Set the Primary and Secondary DNS addresses. Normally, if you have a device connected to the cable modem, it will obtain these addresses from your service provider's DNS servers. You can also look around the Internet for a couple of publicly-available DNS servers. Once complete, hit the Done button.

6: Set Up the Wireless Radios
Next, Click on the Wireless item on the left menu, and select Wireless Settings. You'll want to set the Network Name(SSID) field to something you can easily recognize on your phone, tablet, or laptop. Next set the Security to WPA/WPA2-Personal (the other options are for older technologies, and are not nearly as secure). Version and Encryption can bot be left on Auto. Give the wireless a good password. Generally, a 20-character (or longer) password is considered appropriate. Use a combination of Upper and lower case characters, numbers, and one or more special characters. I have found that combining a word with a number with a nonsense word that is easy to remember tends to be a good method. For example:
BoBcat.8675309-XPEKT
This is relatively easy to remember, but long enough, and using enough different types of characters that it will be difficult to crack using a brute-force attack. Also, change this password every quarter or every 6 months at the latest. The longer it sits on the router, the more time people have to try to figure it out. Leave the remaining settings as they are, and click Save. If you look in the upper right corner, you should see a line that looks like:
2.4GHz | 5 GHz
This allows you to switch between each radio's configuration settings. (I'm running version 1.2.4; earlier versions just put the 5GHz radio settings underneath the 2.4GHz radio settings.) Click on the 5GHz to show that radio's settings. repeat the steps in this section for that radio, with a few differences: specifically, use a different SSID and a different password. Everything else can remain as set above, or on the defaults.

Step 7: Set Up the Time
At the bottom of the left menu is a tab called System Tools. Select that, then select Time Settings. Select your timezone, then hit Save.

Step 8: Reboot
Click the Reboot icon in the upper right corner of the configuration page, then wait. This step is critical, as if there are any settings that did not get saved, they will be lost the next time the router loses power.

Step 9: Test
You should now be able to connect to the Wireless, and access the Internet.