Saturday, September 11, 2004

Contact the Globe's Ombudsman

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 9:36 PM

Make them accountable for misrepresenting Dr. Bouffard's words.

Here's the info:

Christine Chinlund
ombud@globe.com
617-929-3020 / 3022

 

CBS Drops the ball again

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 8:17 PM

Well, CBS keeps poking at its own eye. First, INDCJournal reported that the Boston Globe misrepresented world-renowned forensic document Dr. Philip Bouffard by overstating his uncertainty. Then, Little Green Footballs and Allahpundit reported that CBS was taking the Globe story. The only problem, they couldn't even get Bouffard's first or last name right. Boy they must be bleeding heavily in their research department. I'm sure this doesn't make Bouffard any happier:

Saturday's issue of the Boston Globe reports that one document expert, Phillip
Broussard,
who had expressed suspicions about the documents, said "he now
believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer
typewriter available at the time." Anchor Russ Mitchell of the Saturday edition
of the CBS Evening News says CBS News contacted Broussard Saturday, and
Broussard said he could not dismiss the documents as fake, but he needs to do
more analysis before coming to a final conclusion.

Sorry, CBFF reported that...
 

PO Box 34567 Appears to be correct

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 7:01 PM

The same address appears in the documents that Bush released. You can find a copy here

Here is a screenshot of the address itself:




It's important to remember that over time Zip Codes can change. An oil company called Ashland, of all things, currently uses the P.O. Box 34567, in Houston, and has since 1991, though the Box now appears to be located in 77234.

Unless the address is mistaken in the Bush-released document, the address on the CBS documents appears to be valid.

 

Globe off its axis?

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 11:03 AM

The gentleman whom the Globe interviewed regarding the documents is being misprepresented, according to the man himself. Bill at INDCJournal, who originally spoke with him, has more.
 
Friday, September 10, 2004

Bringing the Letters back to the center

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 5:29 PM

Centering isn't easy to do on a manual machine, as Charles over at LGF indicates. I browsed the manual for the IBM Selectric Composer, possibly the only machine that could possibly have created the documents in question. That manual addresses centering, and has this to say:

In case you're having difficulty reading, it says that "Visual centering is applied to the vertical placement in large areas to create an "optical illusion." Since it requires artistic judgment, which comes naturally with experience, the instructions you receive here will be limited to exact centering.' It goes on to explain 'exact centering'.

I created another Word doc to see if Microsoft uses 'exact' or 'visual' centering. The Word Doc is not perfectly centered, although it might appear so to the naked eye. I had to measure, and there was a discrepancy of 4 mm:

The Selectric suggests 'exact centering by dividing the page exactly in half. Here are the instructions:

Doing this would not result in a page like mine...it would result in an exactly centered document. Oddly enough, the documents produced by CBS do not correspond with 'exact centering' - as Charles at LGF indicates, the centering is lined up with a default Word doc, like mine above. As Allah suggests, the likelihood of this is incredibly small. Did Killian eyeball this centering at 80mm - 76mm, like Word does, abandoning the centering mechanism provided by this unlikely machine? Maybe, but it is highly doubtful.

UPDATE: After further consideration, I recognize that the 2mm discrepancy on each side of the text could be a result of paper alignment or could be specific to the printer. As evidence continues to mount, however, it is clear that my centering argument needn't be entered into the discussion to make the documents appear any more false. I'm sure there will be updates tomorrow.


 

More on the Rather Docs

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 4:55 PM

Bill at INDCJournal just updated his blog after having spoken with Philip Bouffard again, his conclusion:
What does this all mean? It means that the possibility that this memo was not
forged based on typographic evidence alone is contingent upon the possibility
that an Texas Air National Guard Lt. Colonel typed a personal "CYA" memo on an
ultra-modern, highly-customized typesetting machine that was typically used for
professional or high end applications that demanded camera-ready documents for
use in printing. And even so, Dr. Bouffard still noticed "a dozen or so design
differences" between the CBS document and the possible type of such a rare
machine, differences that seem apparent but cannot be confirmed to a 100%
threshold because the of the poor quality of the photocopied document.
You will soon be able to watch an extended Rather interview at the Daily Recycler. Make sure you check that out when you get a chance. And a reminder that Mr. Rather will be discussing these issues, at least according to reports, on CBS at 5.30 CST.
 

Lord what fools these mortals be!

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 3:44 PM

CBS insists that the documents are real.:

This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a
preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by
unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and
individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry
Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his
thinking.

In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent
handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their
content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS
News nor is one planned.

My guess is that they are hoping that the premise that the documents are false is 'unprovable', given that no original documents exist. Still, as the other networks continue to report all of the inconsistencies in the letters, the burden of proof will increasingly fall on CBS. If CBS is unable to do so, or the documents are otherwise proved to be forgeries, democratic strategist Pat Caddel says "it would be the end of the race."

On Fox News live (via NewsMax), Caddel says:

"[Democratic officials are] so involved in this," the former Carter pollster
worried. "They have gotten themselves so involved in this issue [in] the last 24
hours that somebody's going to, if they're not authentic, they're going to be
blamed for it. It's incredible to me that they've gotten in this."

Caddell said he wasn't trying to sensationalize the issue, explaining that instead "I'm
trying to save my party, you know, by telling the truth."

And later:
He said that forfeiting the presidential race would be the least of his party's
problems if Democrats are tied to any forgery scandal.
"The race is over – and we've got bigger problems than that," he warned.
What a mess. Puck was right.

UPDATE: Here's another text comparison:


 

Stories from 6 Iraqi Women

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 3:21 PM

Highly recommended read. The stories are better than I'd hoped.
 

CBS Information Minister Speaks

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 2:16 PM

Rather:

"The Bloggers, they always depend on a method what I call ...
stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their
lies."

"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will
discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are
pretending things which have never taken place."

"Lying is forbidden in CBS. Viacom will tolerate nothing but
truthfulness as it is a company of great honor and integrity. Everyone is
encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and
hearts."

Of US Bloggers: "They are most welcome. We will butcher them...We
will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

"Their failure in this regard is abysmal. They want to tell the
world changes thought - as a matter of fact, they do not respect the world, they
want to tell taxpayers and the domestic public to keep them deceived. We will
embroil them, confuse them and keep them in the quagmire. They have begun to
tell more lies so that they might continue with the perpetration of their
crimes. May they be accursed."

"We will kill them all........most of
them."

Disclaimer: None of these quotes represent anything that CBS employee has ever said. This post is included purely for fun, and any resemblance to real people is in jest.
 

CBS ISSUES RESPONSE: We'd Rather not retract.

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 11:52 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>>sniffle<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Catch the Rather video at the Daily Recycler

Dan Rather is staking his reputation on this. Allah predicted a retraction tonight. I don't think we'll see one from CBS, given his comments.

 

A response to my critics

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 10:19 AM

There are some who continue to suggest, despite the overwhelming pile of evidence indicating the possibility of forgery, that these documents are consistent, simply asserting that my copy isn't a 'perfect' copy of CBS's copies. Here is my reponse to them.

Clearly it's not perfect...if I wanted to, I could distort my document to make it appear more rough and aged, but obviously, I won't be able to go through the exact same processes as the alleged forgers did in order to create the appearance of the indicia to which some readers refer.

Even so, I haven't heard of a single professional document examiner who has considered these documents to likely be legitimate - they all say that they appear to be forgeries for a number of reasons.

Is it theoretically possible that these documents were produced by an ultrasophisticated typewriter which required poweruser skills to produce superscripts? Yes. Is it likely? No way. I'm going to have to invoke Occam's Razor here.

Linear irregularities in this document are, in my opinion, echoes of the process required to age the document, and not the result of a typewriter. Where they the result of a misaligned 'e' on the type ball, the 'e's would e consistently inconsistent. If you are honest enough to look at the document, you will see that this is not the case.

Here is the 'e' in 'Memo:



And here's the next instance of an 'e':

The 'e's have it. They're different, yes. But that's just more evidence that this wasn't done with a typewriter. As one of my favorite literary figures, the good Londoner Sherlock Holmes said,

"It is a curious thing," remarked Holmes, "that a typewriter has really quite as much individuality as a man's handwriting. Unless they are quite new, no two of them write exactly alike. Some letters get more worn than others, and some wear only on one side.
I suppose that it is theoretically possible that the typist changed the ball after noticing the irregularity on the first use, but again, that is an overly complex solution, or at least, more complex than many other possible solutions.

The simple answer is that these documents are forgeries. It would be best for CBS own up to this. If they don't, they risk throwing their credibility right out the window. From those executive windows high above the canyon streets, that credibility is facing a hard fall.
 
Thursday, September 09, 2004

But Why?

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 9:32 PM

For those who doubted my forgery of the CBS forgery, Shaun created on his "Anti-Bush Site" an animated overlay gif. Thank you Shaun...very impressive. Here it is for your viewing pleasure:


But WHY, you ask?
I've been asking myself this question since I started blogging on the seemingly forged 60 minutes documents on Thursday morning.

Why someone would attempt to bring attention to Bush's service record at this point of the game? That's the easy question.

But why create a forgery (and let's assume that's what they are) if it's going to be such a bad one. As I see it there are a number of answers to that question.
  1. Karl Rove. I don't really believe this, but it's the easy answer for people who can't come to terms with the possibility of liberal muckraking. As far as I can tell, the first time Rove's name was mentioned was in pacetown's comments: "My theory? Karl Rove is having a seriously fun time with the mainstream media. He certainly had some fun creating these documents and having them leaked to CBS. LOL, Karl, LOL!" Even as it seems unrealistic, Bush will win huge PR points when the non-CBS networks pounce on the wounded, 60-legged beast and reveal the letters as frauds.
  2. The Forgers were just that lazy: This is a fairly reasonable possibility, but they went to a lot of trouble to make the documents look old and slipstream truth with fiction in such a way that the documents would be believable. As many suggest, there are several stylistic features of the documents (use of CYA, improper abbreviation, shadowy reference to the people "upstairs" for whose benefit this document would have been written) that don't really jive with this theory.
  3. The Forgers started out Joking and got in over their heads: Until CBS reveals the source of these documents, we won't know if this is true, but it seems to be to be a certain possibility. Imagine this scenario: a couple of Kerry supporters, aware of questions surrounding Bush's National Guard service, string together a couple of documents which fill in the holes...they print them, refine them a bit, print them again, and 'age' them a little bit before sharing them, offline, with friends. The question is how CBS would be connected with such a scenario. This is a question that I can't answer.
  4. CBS is intentionally deceitful: This explanation won't work either, because the forgeries aren't good enough. Were CBS somehow wholly responsible for this farce, they would have done a better job creating forgeries. Heck, I would have done a better job creating forgeries.
  5. CBS is just that Lazy: It wouldn't be anything new. They screwed up here, or at least misrepresented. Now, they insist that they stand by their 'sources' whoever they are. CBS execs are likely wringing their hands trying to figure out how to get out of this, because experts are overwhelmingly rejecting their claims. Are they covering up laziness or deceit? In either case, this is a big black eye, and considering that's their logo, that's a big problem.

To me, it's most likely the last option. CBS likely got so excited about some information, that was perhaps funneled through a credible source through some garden-variety forger. This solution doesn't particularly satisfy me, but neither does anyone else. If any pacetown readers have any thoughts, please do not hesitate to leave them here for us. We can only speculate until CBS decides to reveal their information. The evidence against them is mounting, and they may not have any room to retreat by tomorrow evening. They may be holding out, hoping that September 11th coverage requirements will give them a free-pass. Hopefully we'll know, sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: According to a contact of Allahpundit, the NY Sun and Post may be picking up on this tomorrow, perhaps even on the front page. Keep your eyes open.

UPDATE: Mainstream Media pick up on the story. Here's a lpartial ist of stories:

  1. GUARD-MEMO 'HOAX' - New York Post
  2. CBS documents look forged, colonel's son says - Washington Times
  3. Bush National Guard memos may be forgeries - Miami Herald

There's about 1600 more, although most are reprints from Matt Kelly's AP story. The bigger this story this becomes, the less that John Kerry gets to talk about the issues.

Via Allah: check out the article in the Spectator article on this...their sources indicate that the Kerry camp knew about these documents weeks ago and that they may have been responsible for dropping them into CBS's hands.

 

Kerry Supporter: 99% Sure it's a hoax

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 7:47 PM

The experts are weighing in, and it doesn't look good for the documents. The Weekly Standard's Steve Hays did a little more research and discussed the documents with several forensic examiners. Here's what they have to say:
And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

"These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not
have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.

Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."
And later:
So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
Again, I am certainly not qualified to declare these letters as forgeries, but at a bare minimum, CBS should indicate what evidence leads them to believe that they are legitimate. They can always blame it on their experts. The Boston Globe got their info from CBS, so they're off the hook. What a mess for CBS...who knows what will happen once we find out their reality shows are forged too?
 

Bush Guard Documents Forged?

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 11:31 AM

UPDATE: FOXNEWS is talking about the authenticity of the documents. Big media (at least everybody but CBS) will be on this post haste, perhaps as early as this evening. You can watch a video of Fox's coverage here (I may take this down if I get too many downloads, so someone with a lot of bandwidth mirror it please).

UPDATE: Allahpundit has some more information on this and INDC actually consulted a PhD forensic examiner specializing in documents. The forensic examiner's conclusion:
I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

FORENSIC EXAMINER UPDATE: Dr. Philp Bouffard, who made the above estimation, is so well-renowned that other examiners write articles about him...here's a screenshot:

60 minutes ran a story last night about Bush's national guard service. New documents have been uncovered which indicate what may have happened for several months in 1972. However, there is speculation on the internet (I know I know)that these documents were forged...that they look like they came out of a word processor rather than a typewriter from 1972. I scoffed at first, but then thought I would compare one of documents from then with the same document typed up in MS Word, just 5 minutes ago.

They are for all intents and purposes identical. See for yourself (hold down the shift key when you click so that they open in new windows):

Here is the original, allegedly from 1972. And here's a screenshot:




Here is my copy, made 5 minutes ago. USING STANDARD 12 point, Times New Roman on Word 2003. Here is a screenshot that I have Photoshopped and tilted slightly:




UPDATE: The Power of Crap created an overlay for pacetown. Thanks!

Every line break is the same. Every space is the same, and all of the text is printed perfectly on each line. Granted, "the original" looks to have undergone some 'aging', but there's no way that document originated in 1972. It may have been copied into Word, but it didn't come out of a typewriter. More on that at Powerline.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.

UPDATE: Greetings LGF and Allahpundit readers. Some have noted that I made a few errors whilst copying the document. Those have been fixed in both the screenshots and the PDF document. Thanks for your alertness.

 

The Death of Polls

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 9:44 AM

Most of the polls we see on a day to day basis are done over the telephone. According to Zogby these list are compiled from external or internal sources:
Telephone lists generated in our IT department are called from the 2002 version of a nationally published set of phone CDs of listed households, ordered by telephone number.
Pollsters call people talk to them about demographic information and find out whom they plan to vote for given various scenarios. It occurred to me that this system isn't as accurate at they likely think it to be, because I personally know many people who simply don't show up on their telephone lists. Why? Because they use cell-phones and VOIP.

I'm sure there's always a bit of noise from people whose numbers no longer work, but I don't think there's a huge political bias for those folks. Most of the people I know who have either abandoned their landlines in lieu of strictly wireless or wireless/VOIP lifestyles are under the age of 25, and there is likely a political bias for that demographic, even if most of them don't vote. Do the pollsters recognize this? They do, or at least Zogby does, but their response is to ignore these people:
Increasingly, people are relying on cell phones and don't even have a home phone, he said. They still make up only a small percentage of the population, he said. But these cell phone-only users are "demographically distinct," he said, and are almost always "young adults."

"The current approach to cell phones (in polling) is to exclude them," he said. "You can do that with the current numbers. But it becomes less and less acceptable as more households have only cell phones."
I would bet that there are millions out there who only have cell phones, and that most of these belong to young people. This Forbes article suggests that we are operating in the magnitude of millions:
But last year the total number of local phone lines declined 4.7% from the year before as customers cut off 9 million more lines than they added, according to the Federal Communications Commission.
That was 2001-2002. This is clearly a problem for the phone companies, but it's also a problem for the pollsters, and, by extension, Politicians. The number may be offset by young peoples' disinclination to participate in the political process, but it may not be. If the cell phone generation rocks the vote (still a scenario which is unlikely), we could all be shocked this November.
 
Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Nike's Big Joke

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 11:30 AM

Is, I believe on the athletes. Take this pair of 'Tennis Boots' worn by Serena Williams during the U.S. Open:

Frank DeFord shares his perspective on sports couture here, in his radio essay from today's Morning Edition.

My guess is that Nike knew she'd get the boot pictures, silly as they may be.

 

Damn that Traffic Jam

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 8:11 AM

A few of you may remember my post regarding the foolish waste of both time and fuel, caused by peoples' insistence on staying in the right lane at intersections when they are going straight. If you don't remember, here's a brief summary:
Conservatively, about 150 million of us encounter this phenomenon every day. At 45 seconds an instance that's an astonishing 1.875 million wasted hours (214 years) of good old American productivity wasted every single day.

Additionally that's 750,000 gallons of gasoline, burnt foolishly every day.

The yearly costs are staggering:

Yearly Time Wasted: 684,375,000 hours
Yearly Fuel Wasted: 273,750,000 gallons

That's a lot of waste, and it's not due to unavoidable things like congestion. It's due entirely to individuals who don't shift to the left lane if they don't need to turn right.
Well, now a study has been released that tabulates the cost, in both productivity and fuel of traffic congestion throughout the urban United States.

The numbers are staggering, according to Reuters:
Motorists wasted 5.7 billion gallons of fuel idling in traffic, the study showed.

The annual financial cost of traffic congestion as measured in wasted fuel and lost productivity is estimated at more than $63 billion, compared to $14 billion two decades ago.

The average cost per motorist was $829 per year
Those numbers are averages...it's even worse in major cities. Your average Angelino (citizen of Los Angeles) spends 90 hours a year idling away his or her smoggy life away in traffic, pondering, I guess, not only how much time he or she is losing, but also the unavoidable long-term effects of the acidic, poisonous smoke, billowing from the stopped car in front of them, wearing lines of weariness into his or her facial skin. At least real estate is affordable in Los Angeles...oh wait.

Washingtonians don't have it much better...they spend about 67 hours stopped in traffic...nearly three days of their lives just sitting there each year. New Yorkers average about 50 hours. You can read the full Urban Mobility report here.

Another bold pacetown prediction: in 10 years, half of us will be working out of our homes at least half of the time. Half of us could be doing this right now, given the wonders of internet communications. As video conferencing in particular gets more advanced and as bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper, people will be able to make almost seamless transitions to telecommuting, sitting couches and office chairs rather than car seats. This, I would argue, will increase productivity dramatically in the long term, provided there is accountability.

Just ask Claire Huxtable.
 
Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Peter Jackson shedding the pounds

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 11:53 PM

The once rotund Kiwi is swimming in his trademark puffy jacket on the set of his latest project King Kong:

By way of reference, here he is in a picture taken February of this year:

You can keep up to date on the progress of Jackson's remake at www.kingiskong.net.


 

What's in a Signature?

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 10:57 PM

I'm no handwriting analyst (although I do come from handwriting analyst stock), but I thought it would be interesting to compare the handwriting of what I will call 'individuals of note'. If you haven't made this list, do not fret, as I have only included a few individuals. If you would like to have your signature included among these individuals, send me a scan and I will add it to the list.

Let's start with current President of the United States, George Bush:

This looks almost like Syw Bol, but it's not, it's George Bush. Good thing I am here to tell you these things. There's not a lot to go on here, but I'm sure an experienced graphologist could glean something from these scribblings. Since we're waxing presidential, why not look at the challengers to America's Chief Officer.

John Kerry's signature looks like this:

And here is the signature of another man with the initials, JFK:

Not exactly the same, I suppose, but pretty similar. Jack Kennedy actually signed his name in a number of different ways. We can't forget the shadowy Ralph Nader, whose John Hancock befits his people's candidate image:

It is doubtless written in soy-ink.

But none of these men, stately as they may be, penned or quilled their names onto say, the Declaration of Independence, or led our country out of a Civil War...

Thomas Jefferson, the man who for me acquired my particular piece of property 201 years ago, must have had little practice in signing his name:

That is Thomas Jefferson, although you'd hardly know it to look at it. Other founding fathers took a little more pride in their names. No signature list would be complete, for example, without the legendary John Hancock:

That really is a great signature.

Lincoln's is clean and simple:

Evidently latter day statesmen like Bill Clinton

Ronald Reagan

And even Tony Blair

Have opted for that Lincolnian simplicity.

What do the signatures say? If I have any graphologist readers, I would love to know.

My favorite signature of all is not so much a signature as a rune, and it belongs to that famous South African, J.R.R Tolkien:

Does it get any cooler than that? Not to me.

 

The first (and last) aerobics picture you'll see here.

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 2:00 PM

This picture wouldn't be noteworthy were it not from a new Iraqi fitness program that is now being broadcast from al-Iraqiya TV.


 

A look around the Bounce

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 8:05 AM

Many are claiming that George Bush experienced a large bounce from the RNC, some say that it is only a modest bounce. Some say it is a temporary bounce. Which one is it? Let's look around the web and see what they have to say...that should clear things up, right?

Talon News, out of Houston, says the following of the bounce (9/6):

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- President Bush got a huge bounce following last week's Republican National Convention. Polls conducted by both Time and Newsweek magazine show George W. Bush with an 11-point lead over his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry.
Okay, that's simple enough, but the picture gets a little more obfuscated when one reads another article from the same source the next day:

Rasmussen's current poll shows President Bush up by one point, but Rasmussen says that will likely change with their newest poll.
Interpreting this poll, Rasmussen goes on...

"The bottom line is that the president is ahead by 4 to 5 points at this time," Rasmussen said on his web site, www.RasmussenReports.com. "That's a significant improvement over the past few weeks, but not a double digit lead."
One point actual equals four to five points because Rasmussen says that poll has "rogue data". The survey actually indicated that there were more rogues than gentlemen participating.

So now, we're looking at anywhere between a 1 and an 11 point lead for Bush, plus or minus 2.5 points or so. And these guys get paid for this. Let's move on to some other sources.

According to CNN, "Bush's bounce poll shows Kerry flagging":
For the first time since the presidential contest became a two-man race this spring, it seems to have a clear leader: President Bush.

The latest TIME poll shows Bush leading his rival, John Kerry, 52% to 41%. Kerry's decline has coincided with the airing of television ads attacking his Vietnam War record and antiwar activism.
CNN also reports this - "Poll: Bush apparently gets modest bounce" - saying
Last week's GOP convention in New York City appears to have given President Bush a modest bounce and a small lead among likely voters, according to a poll released Monday.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,018 adult Americans, including 778 likely voters and 926 registered voters, was conducted by telephone September 3-5.

Bush's convention bounce appeared to be 2 percentage points.
That article suggest that Bush is now leading by 7 points. CNN can't decide either. I guess they figure, "we'll report both and take credit either way. " It is a new frontier in journalism.

Some democrats evidently believe in the bounce. They're blaming his campaign strategy:
Senator Christopher Dodd said the Kerry message had been "confused" during summer while Senator Bob Graham said the campaign was "out of focus".
Most pundits tend to agree that Kerry leaned too heavily on his Vietnam service, only to have that service publicly questioned by the Swift Boat Veterans. In any case, Kerry supporters insist that the bounce, whether it exists or not, is merely temporary. Perhaps they should be taking Jimmy Carter's wife's advice:
Don't worry about polls, but if you do, don't admit it.
A lot can and will happen between now and November. Iraq is unstable, Afghanistan is scheduled to have its first democratic elections, and Democrats are scrambling in fear of the new movie Team America: World Police that seems, at least in title, to make fun of Republicans. Why? Perhaps because the movie is an action movie starring puppets. Who knows? Watch the trailer and tell me if you understand.
 
Monday, September 06, 2004

A Labor Day Puzzle

posted by Jeremy Chrysler @ 9:45 AM

Count the number of men before and after the animation. I'll give you the answer if you email me at jeremy at spacetownusa.com.

Thanks to Mahalanobis for the puzzle. Enjoy!