Day Hike: Potato Creek State Park

Potato Creek State Park is located just southwest of South Bend, IN. It has facilities for camping, hiking, fishing, and horseback riding.

Despite the cold and rainy weather, I took the day to hit trails 4 and 2. Shortly after starting out, I disturbed a blue heron on the lake. The remainder of the train was uneventful. Some parts of the trail are paved or stone-covered. In spite of the wet weather, there was very little mud - only one spot about 6 feet long. There are also numerous lookouts built where one can observe wildlife (season permitting). Now that the leaves have dropped, much of the horizon and sky were various shades of gray. On the floor, however, there were numerous small ground cover plants which revealed a beautify green carpet for most of the hike.

Overall, It was a really nice walk, and I expect I will visit again in the warm weather to see the park in the warmer months.

 

Distance: 7.33km

Elevation Gain: 128m

Temperature: ~41 deg. F

Time: ~2 hours

"A History of Us" Released

After years of research, writing, and editing, the first volume of my family history is complete.

 

While having provided technical assistance to my mother when she was working on the Landers family history, I was more focused on work and social life to have taken up the cause. That changed when I attended a memorial service for my uncle, Jim Taylor. I realized that I had very little knowledge of my family's past, and that my children knew even less. I was also unhappy with some works produce on my maternal side. I decided that a well-researched survey was needed. This book is the beginning of that effort. The original plan was for a simple referential-style work that consisted of one page per person, with just basic facts about that person, their spouse, and children. Given the richness of the stories I was reading, I soon realized that format would not adequately portray our past. The book grew and developed along the way into its current form which is more narrative, and includes additional sections on "Further Research" and "Name Origins."

Additional contributions were made by Pat Taylor, Paul Hargrove, Paul Pomerleau, and Sydney Lohman.

From the back cover:

A History of Us: The Hargrove, Wright, Dalton, and Stroud Families documents the ancestry of Lynn Paul Hargrove dating back to 1474. Coverage includes 126 families from as far away as Fifeshire in Scotland, Yorkshire in England, The Palatinate, northern Switzerland, France, and Italy. Prominent surnames in the family include Basse/Bass, Cox, Hargrave/Hargrove, Lawrence, Seibert/Sibert, Stäffen/Stephens, Vasser, and Wright. In addition to family histories, the book describes general cultural notes and key historical events that shaped how the different families worked their way through history to the present day. Specifically, attention is given to the rise of the merchant class in England, various wars fought in the Palatinate, the Powhatan Uprising, the Fort Seybert Massacre, and the Flood of 1937.

The contents:

Acknowledgments
Introduction
Pedigree
FOREIGN ANCESTORS
    English Ancestors
    Swiss & German Ancestors
    Scottish & Irish Ancestors
    French & Italian Ancestors
THE IMMIGRANTS
    The Journey
    English Immigrants
    German Immigrants
    Scottish & Irish Immigrants
    French Immigrants
AMERICAN ANCESTORS
    Hargrave & Harrell
    Cox
    Basse/Bass, Griffin, & Harris
    McGehee, Watkins, & Wright
    Scarborough, Stewart, & Hobbs
    Carr, Kirby, Murphey, Perkins, & Vasser
    Stephens
    Sibert, Wright, Hobbs, & Stephens
    Dalton & Stroud
    Hargrove & Elmore
    The Contemporaries
Name Origins
Further Research
Name Index

A History of Us is available on Lulu.com, amazon.com, and bn.com.

High-performance Sub-netting

I wrote the following article back in 2009 while I was working on my Cisco CCNA certification. I just ran across it, and though to post it here. Enjoy!

Overview

This page describes a process for subnetting. With minimal preparation (the creation of a table), an understanding of the process, and a few hours practice, you should be able to subnet any IP address/mask (or prefix) in under 60 seconds. The end result of this will be the network address, broadcast address, and valid IP address range for hosts.

Prerequisites

There are a few things you must have a good grasp of in order to get through this process. These are listed below:

• Address classes (A, B, and C): Knowing the address class will help you pick the appropriate row in the table from which you will be working.

• Interesting Octet: The "interesting octet" is octet of the address that we are working with. For an IP address such as abc.def.ghi.jkl, def is the second octet, ghi the third, and jkl the fourth. This is essentially where we are replacing values to differentiate between a network number and a host address. For example, given the IP address and prefix 163.45.18.29/21, the interesting octet will be the third octet (with the 18) as that is where most of the work in subnetting takes place. We determine this by looking at the prefix, and identifying the row in the table in which the prefix is found. If this seems unclear, we'll be working with exercises below that will help. A few other notes about the interesting octet: 1) the first octet (with the 163) is never the interesting octet, 2) the interesting octet is usually determined by the address class (the second octet is the interesting octet for class A addresses, the 3rd octet is the interesting octet for class B addresses, and the 4th octet is the interesting octet for class C addresses).

The Table

The following table is used to do the subnetting:

The bottom row lists address prefixes. When given a prefix in the problem, you can look it up here to determine which column you're working in. In addition, prefixes will tell you what the interesting octet is. If the prefix falls in the A row, the 2nd octet is the interesting octet. If it falls in the B row, the 3rd octet is the interesting octet. Finally, if it falls in the C row, the 4th octet is the interesting octet. The top half contains two rows. The top row lists the subnet mask value that will appear in the subnet mask. If you are provided a subnet mask instead of a prefix, you can look at the last octet in the mask before the zero to see which column in the table you're working with during the process. The second row lists block sizes. This is the size of the block of addresses that the address/prefix provides. Subtracting 2 from this number will give you the number of valid host IP addresses in the block. There are other tables out there that you can use for a similar process. I chose this one because of how the exams are administered. You are generally provided two sheets of laminated paper, and a dry-erase marker for the exam. There is not a lot of room (or time) to write large complex tables.

The Xs: In the last row, you will notice two Xs. This is because you cannot subnet an address down to this level. With a /30 prefix, the block size is 4, leaving a network address (1) a broadcast address (2) and two valid host IP addresses (3 and 4). If you attempt to subnet further with a /31 prefix, this would result in a block size of 2, with one for the network address, one for the broadcast address, and nothing left for host IP addresses. There is a /32 mask that is valid, however that is unrelated to subnetting.

The Process

OK. Enough of the talk. Let's do a few exercises to see how this works.

We begin with the IP address provided above and a prefix, 163.45.18.29/21.

1. Write down the ip address and prefix on a sheet of paper:
   
   

   
   
   

2. Look up the prefix number (21) in the bottom half of the table. It falls in the 5th column, so we will be using that column of the table for the remainder of the exercise. At this point we can already make some useful notes about the address. First, we see that it falls within the class B range. This means that the first two octets will be unchanged (and as such, I do not write them down on the piece of paper), and the 3rd octet is the interesting octet, because the prefix (21) falls on the middle row in the bottom half of the table. We also know, by looking at the top row, that the value in the interesting octet of the subnet mask will be 248 (hence, a mask of 255.255.248.0). Finally, we know that the block size we're working with is 8. More on this in the next step. At this point, I usually write the block size above the interesting octet, so I can keep track of where I am at:
   
   

   
   
   

3. Now, we figure the network and broadcast addresses. To do this, we go back to the block size. The block size determines where network addresses start, and is an incrementing value in the interesting octet. Our goal is to find the network number that supports the provided IP address. To do this, we count incrementally in the interesting octet until we reach the host address number (without passing it). in this case, we count as follows:

   
   163.45.0.0
   163.45.8.0
   163.45.16.0

   
   At this point, if we increment again, we will pass the value in the third octet, so we stop, and we are left with the network number: 163.45.16.0. Write this down:
   
   

   
   
   

4. Now, we need to find the broadcast address. This is probably the most difficult part to explain, but after some practice, it will become very intuitive. First, we increment the interesting octet one more time (passing the host address value for that octet) and subtract 1. The next number in that octet (incrementing by the block size) is 24, minus 1 is 23. If this were a class C address (and we were working in the 4th octet), we would be finished. For class A and B addresses, we need to fix octets to the right of the interesting octet. To do this, we throw a 255 in each remaining octet to the right of the interesting octet. In this case, we place 255 in the 4th octet, and we have our broadcast address, again, written down to keep track of where we're at:

    

   
   
   

5. All that is left is to find the valid IP address range; that is, the range of addresses that can be assigned to hosts in the network. To do this, we increment the network address by 1, and decrement the broadcast address by 1. The first valid IP address is obtained by adding 1 to the number in the 4th octet of the network address, and the last valid IP address is obtained by subtracting 1 from the 4th octet of the broadcast address. Thus:

   
   First valid IP = 163.45.16.[0 + 1] = 163.45.16.1
   Last valid IP address = 163.45.23.[255 - 1] = 163.45.23.254.

   
   Again, write these down to keep track of where you're at:

   
   
   

And there you have it. You've subnetted an IP address to find the network address, the broadcast address, and the valid host IP range.

Another Exercise

Let's do another exercise. This time, we will use an address that falls in the Class A range, and we'll assume that we were given an address and mask (instead of a prefix). The address we want to find subnet information for is 89.65.129.68 with a 255.240.0.0 subnet mask.

1. Write it down:
    

   
   
   
   How did we know to write the prefix of /12? Simple: Remember one of the prerequisites is that you have to have a solid understanding of IP address classes. We know that an address with 89 in the first octet falls in the Class A range. We also know that the last number in the subnet mask before the first 0 octet is 240. We look up the 240 in the top row of the table, follow down that column to the prefixes in the bottom half, and look at the number in the class A row: 12. This is the prefix for the subnet.

2. Next, get the block size. The block size appears in the lower row of the top half of the table, and it is 16. Remember, this means we have blocks of 16 addresses with two reserved for network and broadcast, leaving 14 for valid host addresses. We also need to find the interesting octet. In this case, it's octet 2, as the second octet is the interesting octet for class A addresses. Write this down:
   
   

   
   
   

3. Now, we find the network and broadcast addresses. Increment in the interesting octet by the block size:

   
   89.0.0.0
   89.16.0.0
   89.32.0.0
   89.48.0.0
   89.64.0.0

   
   The next number in the interesting octet, 80 exceeds the host address number, so we stop at 64 for the network number. Write it down:
   
   

   
   
   

4. To find the broadcast address, count up one more in the interesting octet (89.80.0.0), place 255s in all octets to the right of the interesting octet (89.80.255.255) and subtract 1 from the interesting octet to get the broadcast address (89.79.255.255). Write it down:
   
   

   
   
   

5. Now, to find the valid host range, add one to the network address, and subtract one from the broadcast address:
   First valid IP = 89.64.0.[0 + 1] = 89.64.0.1
   Last valid IP address = 89.79.255.[255 - 1] = 89.79.255.254.
   
   

   

...and you're done.

Senators Voting to Acquit Donald Trump

 A message to the members of the Senate GOP:

 

Here is the list of the GOP cowards that refused to hold Trump accountable, and when they are up for election. Let them know we expect more from our leaders when their seat comes up for election.

State	Senator	Up for election
Alabama	Richard C. Shelby	2022
Alabama	Tommy Tuberville	2026
Alaska	Dan Sullivan	2026
Arkansas	John Boozman	2022
Arkansas	Tom Cotton	2026
Florida	Marco Rubio	2022
Florida	Rick Scott	2024
Idaho	Michael D. Crapo	2022
Idaho	Jim Risch	2026
Indiana	Mike Braun	2024
Indiana	Todd Young	2022
Iowa	Joni Ernst	2026
Iowa	Charles E. Grassley	2022
Kansas	Roger Marshall	2026
Kansas	Jerry Moran	2022
Kentucky	Mitch McConnell	2026
Kentucky	Rand Paul	2022
Louisiana	John Kennedy	2022
Mississippi	Cindy Hyde-Smith	2026
Mississippi	Roger Wicker	2024
Missouri	Roy Blunt	2022
Missouri	Josh Hawley	2024
Montana	Steve Daines	2026
Nebraska	Deb Fischer	2024
North Carolina	Thom Tillis	2026
North Dakota	Kevin Cramer	2024
North Dakota	John Hoeven	2022
Ohio	Rob Portman	2022
Oklahoma	James M. Inhofe	2026
Oklahoma	James Lankford	2022
South Carolina	Tim Scott	2022
South Carolina	Lindsey Graham	2026
South Dakota	John Thune	2022
South Dakota	Mike Rounds	2026
Tennessee	Marsha Blackburn	2024
Tennessee	Bill Hagerty	2026
Texas	John Cornyn	2026
Texas	Ted Cruz	2024
Utah	Mike Lee	2022
West Virginia	Shelley Moore Capito	2026
Wisconsin	Ron Johnson	2022
Wyoming	John Barrasso	2024
Wyoming	Cynthia Lummis	2026

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