Gasoline prices show high level rift

October 7, 2004

Here I was getting ready to praise Ali Rodriguez for reaching the conclusion that gasoline prices have to be increased, and newly minted Minister of Information Andres Izarra comes on TV to say that the Government is not considering it and they want to ”emphatically reject it”.  According to Izarra, Rodriguez’ statements were “taken out of context”. Well, Rodriguez’s statements were quite clear he said that “gasoline in Venezuela is being given away essentially for free” and that the Government was studying ways to increase it without affecting the poor, which is eminently sensible.


What is happening is clear; Rodriguez has internally discussed within PDVSA and probably with the Ministry of Energy and Mines the huge gasoline subsidy to Venezuelans by PDVSA, as discussed in this blog a few days ago.  They have probably come to the conclusion that this does not make sense long term, but did not know how to approach the issue with Chavez, so they floated this balloon that was so quickly punctured. Good for them anyway!


 


Rodriguez appears to be in the doghouse with Chavez in any case. A week ago Chavez had an event in a local theater to celebrate or praise one of is missions when he noticed that Rodriguez was not there. He publicly complained about it to Minister of Energy Ramirez and said Rodriguez should come to these events in one of the boggest scoldings any Government official has received in the last five years. (This was the same event in which someone in the balcony said “We are hungry”, to which Chavez snapped back “Does someone have a complaint?” and the same voice said “We are hungry”, to which Chavez said “Then you will have to leave the premises”).


 


Rumor has it that Rodriguez will be fired soon and replaced by former Minister of Defense Prieto, who is on the Board of PDVSA and happens to be the father of Chavez’ son in law. Prieto has become quite powerful and vocal within PDVSA, where his relationship with Chavez puts fear in people. Reportedly, there are many divisions and power groups within PDVSA, bickering and arguing about every detail. Unfortunately, most decisions, like the gasoline price increase, are being put off for fear of upsetting the maximum leader, while the real business of PDVSA (and Venezuela!) goes unattended.


Gasoline prices show high level rift

October 7, 2004

Here I was getting ready to praise Ali Rodriguez for reaching the conclusion that gasoline prices have to be increased, and newly minted Minister of Information Andres Izarra comes on TV to say that the Government is not considering it and they want to ”emphatically reject it”.  According to Izarra, Rodriguez’ statements were “taken out of context”. Well, Rodriguez’s statements were quite clear he said that “gasoline in Venezuela is being given away essentially for free” and that the Government was studying ways to increase it without affecting the poor, which is eminently sensible.


What is happening is clear; Rodriguez has internally discussed within PDVSA and probably with the Ministry of Energy and Mines the huge gasoline subsidy to Venezuelans by PDVSA, as discussed in this blog a few days ago.  They have probably come to the conclusion that this does not make sense long term, but did not know how to approach the issue with Chavez, so they floated this balloon that was so quickly punctured. Good for them anyway!


 


Rodriguez appears to be in the doghouse with Chavez in any case. A week ago Chavez had an event in a local theater to celebrate or praise one of is missions when he noticed that Rodriguez was not there. He publicly complained about it to Minister of Energy Ramirez and said Rodriguez should come to these events in one of the boggest scoldings any Government official has received in the last five years. (This was the same event in which someone in the balcony said “We are hungry”, to which Chavez snapped back “Does someone have a complaint?” and the same voice said “We are hungry”, to which Chavez said “Then you will have to leave the premises”).


 


Rumor has it that Rodriguez will be fired soon and replaced by former Minister of Defense Prieto, who is on the Board of PDVSA and happens to be the father of Chavez’ son in law. Prieto has become quite powerful and vocal within PDVSA, where his relationship with Chavez puts fear in people. Reportedly, there are many divisions and power groups within PDVSA, bickering and arguing about every detail. Unfortunately, most decisions, like the gasoline price increase, are being put off for fear of upsetting the maximum leader, while the real business of PDVSA (and Venezuela!) goes unattended.


Gasoline prices show high level rift

October 7, 2004

Here I was getting ready to praise Ali Rodriguez for reaching the conclusion that gasoline prices have to be increased, and newly minted Minister of Information Andres Izarra comes on TV to say that the Government is not considering it and they want to ”emphatically reject it”.  According to Izarra, Rodriguez’ statements were “taken out of context”. Well, Rodriguez’s statements were quite clear he said that “gasoline in Venezuela is being given away essentially for free” and that the Government was studying ways to increase it without affecting the poor, which is eminently sensible.


What is happening is clear; Rodriguez has internally discussed within PDVSA and probably with the Ministry of Energy and Mines the huge gasoline subsidy to Venezuelans by PDVSA, as discussed in this blog a few days ago.  They have probably come to the conclusion that this does not make sense long term, but did not know how to approach the issue with Chavez, so they floated this balloon that was so quickly punctured. Good for them anyway!


 


Rodriguez appears to be in the doghouse with Chavez in any case. A week ago Chavez had an event in a local theater to celebrate or praise one of is missions when he noticed that Rodriguez was not there. He publicly complained about it to Minister of Energy Ramirez and said Rodriguez should come to these events in one of the boggest scoldings any Government official has received in the last five years. (This was the same event in which someone in the balcony said “We are hungry”, to which Chavez snapped back “Does someone have a complaint?” and the same voice said “We are hungry”, to which Chavez said “Then you will have to leave the premises”).


 


Rumor has it that Rodriguez will be fired soon and replaced by former Minister of Defense Prieto, who is on the Board of PDVSA and happens to be the father of Chavez’ son in law. Prieto has become quite powerful and vocal within PDVSA, where his relationship with Chavez puts fear in people. Reportedly, there are many divisions and power groups within PDVSA, bickering and arguing about every detail. Unfortunately, most decisions, like the gasoline price increase, are being put off for fear of upsetting the maximum leader, while the real business of PDVSA (and Venezuela!) goes unattended.


Two days, two laws, same objective

October 7, 2004

Today, the National Assembly began approving the new “Bill for social responsibility of the media” also called the “muzzle law” by the opposition. They only approved the title and the first article of the Bill, but managed to modify what had been discussed. The innovation this time is that they included subscription TV as being a subject of the law, which implies the Government could block Direct TV subversive programs, such as CNN or Seinfeld if it felt like it.


Separately the Head of Human Rights organization COFAVIC warned two days ago that the new changes in the penal code include a penalty of thirty years in jail for any organization that receives international funding. She warned that besides the threat to ONG’s like Sumate, this threatens all human rights organizations who only receive funding from international sources and are the only ones denouncing the daily human rights violations of the Government.


 


As they say: “Looks like fascism, quacks like fascism, walks like fascism …do you really wonder what it is?”


Two days, two laws, same objective

October 7, 2004

Today, the National Assembly began approving the new “Bill for social responsibility of the media” also called the “muzzle law” by the opposition. They only approved the title and the first article of the Bill, but managed to modify what had been discussed. The innovation this time is that they included subscription TV as being a subject of the law, which implies the Government could block Direct TV subversive programs, such as CNN or Seinfeld if it felt like it.


Separately the Head of Human Rights organization COFAVIC warned two days ago that the new changes in the penal code include a penalty of thirty years in jail for any organization that receives international funding. She warned that besides the threat to ONG’s like Sumate, this threatens all human rights organizations who only receive funding from international sources and are the only ones denouncing the daily human rights violations of the Government.


 


As they say: “Looks like fascism, quacks like fascism, walks like fascism …do you really wonder what it is?”


A denial from the horses mouth

October 6, 2004

Minister of Information Andres Izarra may be doing too many things now that he is in Caracas, compared to his quiet and efficient days in Washington DC where he had all day to think of new ways to make the opposition look bad. Well, today he said that Eva Golinger had shown that Sumate had received US$ 23 million from the US Government. But Alek Boyd was on top of the story and none other than Eva Golinger herself strongly denies the accusation directly:


“Boyd: I never said that no have I presented information a such. USAID has given approximately $25 million to political activities, but up until now, the only information pertaining to Súmate is the NED $53,400 grant and the USAID $84,480 grant. I have never stated otherwise nor am I responsible for other’s misstatements.”


 


Well Eva, in the revolution two or three extra zeroes are simply a roundoff error.


 


Curiously, in today’s Sumate ad in the local papers, Sumate says it has only received US$ 31.120 from the National Endowment for Democracy.


A denial from the horses mouth

October 6, 2004

Minister of Information Andres Izarra may be doing too many things now that he is in Caracas, compared to his quiet and efficient days in Washington DC where he had all day to think of new ways to make the opposition look bad. Well, today he said that Eva Golinger had shown that Sumate had received US$ 23 million from the US Government. But Alek Boyd was on top of the story and none other than Eva Golinger herself strongly denies the accusation directly:


“Boyd: I never said that no have I presented information a such. USAID has given approximately $25 million to political activities, but up until now, the only information pertaining to Súmate is the NED $53,400 grant and the USAID $84,480 grant. I have never stated otherwise nor am I responsible for other’s misstatements.”


 


Well Eva, in the revolution two or three extra zeroes are simply a roundoff error.


 


Curiously, in today’s Sumate ad in the local papers, Sumate says it has only received US$ 31.120 from the National Endowment for Democracy.


Regionals look very bleak at this point

October 6, 2004

I don’t get discouraged easily, but I will not post much today because I am extremely discouraged. I have felt all along that the opposition had to go to the regional elections no matter what, but today I feel that we are simply like cattle going to the slaughterhouse:


It turns out that 1.8 million people don’t have an address or a correct address in the national electoral registry as required by law. The CNE’s response? We have no formal complaint about this. But the new command of opposition Governors and Mayors says that they have made the accusation before and were promised that the full registry with addresses would be handed over to them…yesterday.


 


Meanwhile, the “new” CNE is functioning with three pro-Chavez members and one opposition member as authorities have refused to allow Ezequiel Zamora alternate to occupy her position because…they don’t like her.


 


Meanwhile, Tulio Alvarez says it’s illegal to hold elections on October 31st. according to the electoral law. But …who can enforce the law in an autocracy?


 


And the Supreme Court admits an injunction against the results of the August 15th. recall vote, which I am sure was made …to distract us.


 


I can feel Forero’s headline on Nov. 1st: Venezuela backs Chavez, 90% of all Governors and Mayors elected yesterday support him. Of course, I am being an optimist, it will likely be 100% of Governors and 95% of Mayors, why bother with less if the fix is in?


 


Go Red Sox! They have a better chance than we do and they have Bambino’s curse and have not won since 1918.


October 5, 2004

Prosecutor Luisa Ortega granted an interview to Tal Cual to explain the logic behind the charges against Sumate. It goes something like this:


“The charges that the Public Ministry assigned to them are conspiracy against the republican political form given to the Nation, which is consecrated in Art. 132 of the penal Code.”


 


“Sumate conspired using resources from a foreign power”


 


“The Constitution in articles 130 and 131 establishes the civil duty to fidelity of the citizens towards their nation. We can do politics, ask for a recall vote or elections, what we can not do is to do politics asking for the participation of a foreign organization, because the legislator says that is a crime”


 


Well, the foreign organization “did not participate”, it gave funds to help organize a petition drive. This was not a conspiracy, this was a legal political activity and the funds were used for printing educational leaflets. Using this same logic, then all human rights organizations such as COFAVIC or Amnesty International, will have to cease receiving foreign funding, the same for environmental organizations such as Greenpeace. In fact the exchange at the end proves it:


 


At the end the reporter asked: so, as an example, the human rights organizations that receive funds from abroad can also be the subject of an investigation?


 


It depends what the funds are used for. If the funds were used for a sewing course there can be no crime, because that is not a political activity.


 


This is simply being used as a political weapon, while Government funds are used to finance the campaign of Chavez and all of his supporters. This my friends is another form of persecution and intimidation and has absolutely no justification in a democracy. It is more akin to what is done in totalitarian and fascist regimes.


 


Daniel discusses the other case of intimidation against once Chavez’ Minsiter of Finance General Uson. His crime? Telling the obvious truth. The charge? Tarnishing the image of the Venezuelan army, as if we have not seen our highest ranking Generals inability to complete full sentences, or carrying bags of food around instead of doing their job. By the way I ask: How many people have been jailed for burning those soldiers to death? Such is justice or in-justice in this silly revolution.


October 5, 2004


I have talked about Benford’s law and its prediction as well as quoted results in previous posts, but today I finally received the green light to talk about the details of the work by Pericchi and Torres which you can find in detail here.


Recall that Benford’s law or Necomb-Benford’s Law (NB) applies to the distribution of first and second digits in a table of numbers. That is, if you take a sample of numbers from many “natural” populations, the first or second digit are usually not evenly distributed, but follow the following equations for the frequency of their occurrence:


 


Prob(1st digit = d) = log10(1 + d-1);     d = 1, . . . , 9


For the first digit, and:


                 Prob(2nd. digit=d) = Sum (k=1 to 9)( log10(1 + (10k + d)-1));       d = 0, 1, . . . , 9


For the second digit.


What Pericchi and Torres have done is to check for the NB behavior for the first and second digit in the results of the August 15th. recall vote for both automated and manual votes. They concentrate their analysis on the distribution of second digits because it is not affected by limited ranges of numbers. For example, if one studies the first digit and no voting machine had more than 600 Si or No votes, there will be fewer first digits from 7 to 9, since the only contributing ones would be those from 70 to 99.


The first figure below shows the comparison for both the manual (Top) and automated (Bottom) results for the SI vote for the second digit of all voting notebooks in the recall vote.


 



 


Figure 1. Manual (Top) and Automated (Bottom) results for the second digit of all the voting results for the total of Si votes in each notebook. The smooth line in both cases is the theoretical value for the NB law and the broken line is the results of analyzing the recall data.


Note that in the case of the Si vote, the data from the recall vote closely follows what is expected from the NB law. In fact, as will be shown below the results are probable.


However, the results are quite different for the No vote as shown below:



 


 


 


Figure 2. Manual (Top) and Automated (Bottom) results for the second digit of all the voting results for the total of NO votes in each notebook. The smooth line in both cases is the theoretical value for the NB law and the broken line is the results of analyzing the recall data.


In the case of the NO results while the comparison is quite reasonable for the manual notebooks, the same can not be said for the automated machines where essentially a flat distribution of second digits was obtained, much different than what is expected from BN’s law and quite different from Figure 1. for the Si vote .


In fact, one can do exactly the same analysis to the total number of votes per machine SI+No and one finds the following behavior:


 



 


Figure 3. Manual (Top) and Automated (Bottom) results for the second digit of all the voting results for the total of SI+NO votes in each notebook. The smooth line in both cases is the theoretical value for the NB law and the broken line is the results of analyzing the recall data.


In the case of the total number of votes, once again there are very important discrepancies between the predictions of the BN law and the results.


What Pericchi and Torres did then, was to say that the null hypothesis Ho is that which assumes there was no tampering of the data. They then calculate both the Pvalue and the probability of the occurrences of the data observed assuming no tampering or intervention occurred.


The Pvalue is defined as the probability that a result like the one measured or more extreme is obtained given the null hypothesis, i.e. assuming there was no intervention. Pericchi and Torres then calculate also what is the approximate probability according to the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) which takes into account the size of the sample.


The results for all cases are shown in the table below:


 



Table I. Evidence against the null hypothesis Ho. The data follows the Newcomb –Benford law, except for the case of the automated No votes. But the manual Si and NO do follow as well as the results of the audit.


What is most remarkable about the quoted results is that the approximate probability that the measured result was obtained for the No vote is 1.34 10-36 ( a one followed by 36 zeroes!). Thus, the probability that the results were not tampered with is simply miniscule or extremely improbable, the NB law is violated and one should think more about how the intervention of the data may have occurred. In my mind this proves fraud, because there is simply no way of explaining these results.


 


Even more remarkable, which is quoted in the table above, is the fact that similar plots for the audited results on the cold audit performed on Aug. 18th. show that they do follow the BN law:


 


 


 


Figure 4. Si (Top) and No (Bottom) results for the second digit of the audited results.  The smooth line in both cases is the theoretical value for the NB law and the broken line is the results of analyzing the recall data.


Thus, the audited results for the Si and the No follow the NB law, despite the much smaller sample size in the case of the audit. Thus, once again, the results from the audit and the actual vote are quite different, indicating not only fraud, but that the sample for the audit was carefully picked! I would like the Carter Center, Taylor, Rubin and Weisbrot to explain away this result. I challenge them to do so!