Archive for May 14th, 2006

One million real page reads for the Devil, how many fake pro-Chavez votes in the recall referendum?

May 14, 2006

Sometimes in the next few hours, I will get the one millionth “page read
according to the ranking system. Remarkable that what started
as a curiosity on my part in August 2002 has had so many visitors and
despite its somewhat restricted topic has managed to stay up there in
the rankings. To tell you the truth, its not only had many
more visitors than I expected, but I have made more posts than I ever
imagined. It certainly beats the school newspaper I started in high
school called “Se dice…” (People say…), a weekly rag which was
banned by the school authorities after only three weeks of very
succesful printing.

Obviously I thank you all for your attention and participation.

While it is not easy writing this regularly, I have to say that the satisfaction of having posted on topics like the Chascon (Chavez/Tascon) list/database and the referendum studies on a timely manner, has been sufficient compensation for my effort.

Perhaps the thrill of writing a blog like this can be best summarized by something that happened last night.Two nights ago I posted
part II of the recall studies by Delfino, Salas and Medina and was particularly
taken by the results of the regional election in October 2004. To me,
seeing that data was the strongest and most compelling proof that may be understood by
anyone that the results of the 2004 recall referendum were fabricated
by the CNE. Then, I began exchanging emails with a good friend on how
strange those results were and amieres in the comments pointed out a single case that was truly amazing. In his own words:

“How about this one example: Escuela Raul Leoni, Parroquia Santa
Apolonia, Municipio La Ceiba, Estado Trujillo. Signatures=762,
Referendum 2004=616/938 (40%/60%); Regionals 2004=1247/530 (70%/30%);
Presidentials 1998=689/318 (68%/32%); Presidentials 2000=597/466
(56%/44%) In this center they have been pro opposition in 1998(68%),
2000(56%) but amazingly in August 2004(40%) the completely flipped and
in Octber 2004(70%) they flipped again and became the most pro
opposition they have ever been!!!

about it. At this voting machine the opposition has always had more
than 56% of the vote, but miracolously, in the recall vote, the
opposition only got 40% of the vote in the form of 616 Si (Yes) votes
and then, as abstentrion went up and the opposition was demolarized, twice as many people came out in the October 2004 regional elections to vote, given the opposition 70% of the vote in the form of 1247 votes for it!

asked the same reader if he could check in how many voting machines the
number of pro-opposition votes was larger than the Si (Yes) votes in
the referendum and he quickly answered:

There are 2181 cases (out 8228 centers, a full 27%) where there were
more votes in the regionals for the opposition than SIs in the
!!! And that considering that many people didn’t vote in the
regionals because of the disapointment because of the Referendum result.”

is by far the clearest and most convincing proof of the fraud that took
place at the recall referendum. It does not require mathematical
knowledge to understand how implausible it would be that a demoralized
opposition, with abstention increasing from 30% to 60%, would increase
the absolute number of votes in 27% of the voting machines. Take that
Carter Center and Jorge Rodriguez! Dare to explain it!Or even try!

did not require this to believe that there was fraud, the matehmatical
studies for me were convicing enough. But this information should be
useful in convincing many that still think there was no fraud on that
fateful August day.

In contrast to these fake numbers, and we don’t even know how many of those there were in the recall referendum, my visitors are all real and they seem to like coming here
searching for the truth and helping in finding the truth. That in
itslef is satisfaction enough for all of the work that goes into writing this.

Purpurata’s begin to flower

May 14, 2006

Well, the Purpurata’s have begun to flower. The National flower of Brazil was called Laelia Purpurata for the last couple of hundred years and obviously, ever since I began collectng orchids. But guess what? Last year scientists decided that it is very close to the Sophronitis family and now it is known as Sophronitis instead of Laelia. How did they determine this? Using DNA analysis two scientists Berg and Chase determined that they were essentially from the same family. I am sure as scientists they were thrilled, but as a collector I find all of these continuos reclassifications a pain, I just can’t keep track of them!

Sophronitis (Laelia) Purpurata Werkahuseri. The color is a mixture of purple and gray that I think is absolutely spectacular.

This is the more subtle Sophronitis Purpurata Suavisima or Delicata, I ahd trouble taking the picture on the left as there are two bunches of flowers on the plant and they were in such different planes that they would not come out focused until I chanegd the angle.

I have lots of plants of this Equitant Oncidium whose name has the word clown in it, but I can’t remember it. I splt a large plant into smaller pieces two years ago because it was growing over itself, but not doing well. This is the first “spin-off” to flower since two years ago, hopefully it will now start flowering regularly. It is a very nice and strong plant that every spring flowers in man shoots that last for months.