Election turnout vs. presidential votes, pt. 2

A few hours ago I posted about a discrepancy between the number of voters voting and the number of votes cast in a number of Florida counties. In order to expand on that analysis my SO and I set out to acquire data from a number of other states to see how widespread the problem was.

After analyzing Florida and Oregon we attempted to acquire data from several other populous states (ranked here). We have now successfully analyzed data from Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas (Oregon and Florida were analyzed in my previous post). We were not able to analyze data from the following states for various reasons:

• California - data formatted inconveniently for analysis
  
• Georgia - couldn't find turnout
  
• Illinois - no statewide county summary
  
• New Jersey - couldn't find turnout
  
• New York - no results posted until after election certified on Dec. 6
  
• Pennsylvania - couldn't find turnout

Here is a summary of the three new states' data that we have analyzed:

Texas: None of Texas' 254 counties reported more votes cast for president than voters voting. Data from Texas Secretary of State Elections Division results page, all precincts listed as having reported, accessed ~9:30pm today.

Ohio: None of Ohio's 88 counties reported more votes cast for president than voters voting (data here and here, the election night page lists 100% of the precincts as having reported, accessed ~9:30pm today).

Michigan: Four of Michigan's 83 counties (4.8%) recorded more votes for president than voters voting in the election, for a total of 1,582 excess votes in the four counties (Jackson, Muskegon, St. Clair, and Wexford Counties). Data from the Michigan Secretary of State's unofficial results page (data here and here, no data for % reporting precincts, accessed ~10:15pm today).

Due to the length of the dataset tables I have posted them as separate pages:

• Michigan datset
  
• Ohio dataset
  
• Texas dataset

Florida: election turnout vs. presidential votes

[Update 11/9/04: The Florida Department of State Division of Elections modified the data on their website on 11/8/04; I've posted about the new data here. I haven't found an explanation for the changes.]

The number of votes cast in a county for a specific race should never exceed the number of voters who voted. However, in comparing the numbers published on the Florida Department of State's website, it appears that in some counties there were more votes cast for president than there were voters voting (I first saw this mentioned here).

My SO and I obtained data for the 2004 election in Florida from the "1st set of unofficial returns" on the Florida Department of State Division of Elections election results page (accessed today ~6pm). The results pages report that

• For the presidential election, the "% report" is 100.0% for all counties
  
• For the turnout data "Y" (presumably "yes") for all counties in the "Final Report" and "Absentees" column.

Based on these data, there are 13 counties (out of 67 total; 19.4%) in Florida where there were more votes recorded for the presidential election than there were voters voting. These 13 counties have a total of 268,159 excess votes cast for president within them. One county (Hernando) reported 0 voter turnout, which seems obviously wrong. However, even excluding Hernando there were 192,327 excess votes cast for president across the remaining 12 counties.

But are these just normal election day hiccups? One way to test this is to look at another state and see if it has the same trend in its numbers. We first attempted to look at California, but its data was formatted inconveniently for copying to Excel, so we switched to looking at Oregon. We obtained data from the Oregon Secretary of State's Elections Division website today at ~6:30 pm (specific pages here and here). We chose these states haphazardly (CA because we live here, OR because it's next door).

We analyzed Oregon's data in exactly the same way as we did for Florida, and none of Oregon's 36 counties reported more votes for president than there were voters voting.

[Update: We've now analyzed data from Texas, Ohio, and Michigan - see this post for the analysis.]

Here are the data tables:

Table 1: Tabulated data of total voter turnout and total votes cast for president, in all Florida counties in the November 2, 2004 election. Note that a negative number in the "turnout minus votes" column indicates that there were more votes cast for president than voters voting in the county.

County	Turnout	Presidential votes cast	Turnout minus votes	(T-v)/T	Excess votes
Alachua	111,287	111,022	265	0.2%
Baker	10,059	9,955	104	1.0%
Bay	75,100	74,998	102	0.1%
Bradford	10,913	10,851	62	0.6%
Brevard	265,764	265,075	689	0.3%
Broward	705,766	704,376	1,390	0.2%
Calhoun	6,006	5,961	45	0.7%
Charlotte	80,140	79,730	410	0.5%
Citrus	69,691	69,462	229	0.3%
Clay	81,387	81,230	157	0.2%
Collier	127,409	128,352	-943	-0.7%	943
Columbia	25,075	24,984	91	0.4%
DeSoto	9,532	9,495	37	0.4%
Dixie	6,472	6,440	32	0.5%
Duval	379,257	379,614	-357	-0.1%	357
Escambia	161,183	142,990	18,193	11.3%
Flagler	38,532	38,475	57	0.1%
Franklin	5,973	5,930	43	0.7%
Gadsden	21,094	20,984	110	0.5%
Gilchrist	7,042	7,012	30	0.4%
Glades	3,446	4,188	-742	-21.5%	742
Gulf	7,299	7,256	43	0.6%
Hamilton	5,116	5,079	37	0.7%
Hardee	7,285	7,246	39	0.5%
Hendry	9,810	9,774	36	0.4%
Hernando	0	75,832	-75,832		75832
Highlands	33,996	41,491	-7,495	-22.0%	7495
Hillsborough	461,772	461,520	252	0.1%
Holmes	8,349	8,298	51	0.6%
Indian River	61,321	61,321	0	0.0%
Jackson	19,850	19,797	53	0.3%
Jefferson	7,501	7,477	24	0.3%
Lafayette	3,352	3,325	27	0.8%
Lake	123,751	123,938	-187	-0.2%	187
Lee	242,434	241,433	1,001	0.4%
Leon	136,229	136,314	-85	-0.1%	85
Levy	16,742	16,649	93	0.6%
Liberty	3,051	3,021	30	1.0%
Madison	8,342	8,307	35	0.4%
Manatee	143,830	143,539	291	0.2%
Marion	140,321	139,644	677	0.5%
Martin	72,709	72,430	279	0.4%
Miami-Dade	716,574	768,553	-51,979	-7.3%	51979
Monroe	39,629	39,525	104	0.3%
Nassau	32,740	32,664	76	0.2%
Okaloosa	89,485	89,707	-222	-0.2%	222
Okeechobee	12,243	12,197	46	0.4%
Orange	386,104	387,752	-1,648	-0.4%	1648
Osceola	63,589	82,178	-18,589	-29.2%	18589
Palm Beach	452,061	542,835	-90,774	-20.1%	90774
Pasco	191,854	190,866	988	0.5%
Pinellas	457,213	455,203	2,010	0.4%
Polk	211,200	210,777	423	0.2%
Putnam	31,059	30,964	95	0.3%
Santa Rosa	67,329	67,213	116	0.2%
Sarasota	195,942	195,530	412	0.2%
Seminole	186,178	186,115	63	0.0%
St. Johns	86,603	86,262	341	0.4%
St. Lucie	100,374	99,913	461	0.5%
Sumter	31,998	31,837	161	0.5%
Suwannee	15,861	15,801	60	0.4%
Taylor	8,613	8,580	33	0.4%
Union	4,714	4,675	39	0.8%
Volusia	209,052	228,358	-19,306	-9.2%	19306
Wakulla	11,820	11,763	57	0.5%
Walton	24,027	23,974	53	0.2%
Washington	10,450	10,365	85	0.8%
Sum	7,350,900	7,588,422	-237,522		268,159

Table 2: Tabulated data of total voter turnout and total votes cast for president in all Oregon counties in the November 2, 2004 election.

County	Turnout	Presidential votes cast	Turnout - votes	(T-v)/T	Excess Votes
Baker	8,990	8,904	86	1.0%
Benton	46,135	45,842	293	0.6%
Clackamas	183,139	181,768	1,371	0.7%
Clatsop	19,329	19,188	141	0.7%
Columbia	24,978	24,795	183	0.7%
Coos	33,501	33,276	225	0.7%
Crook	10,106	10,028	78	0.8%
Curry	11,423	11,336	87	0.8%
Deschutes	74,295	73,809	486	0.7%
Douglas	54,945	54,358	587	1.1%
Gilliam	1,160	1,136	24	2.1%
Grant	4,234	3,157	1,077	25.4%
Harney	3,735	3,702	33	0.9%
Hood River	9,823	9,760	63	0.6%
Jackson	96,611	95,824	787	0.8%
Jefferson	8,124	8,034	90	1.1%
Josephine	42,017	41,631	386	0.9%
Klamath	31,314	31,078	236	0.8%
Lake	3,989	3,881	108	2.7%
Lane	180,353	174,856	5,497	3.0%
Lincoln	24,555	24,317	238	1.0%
Linn	51,153	50,657	496	1.0%
Malheur	10,893	10,773	120	1.1%
Marion	116,702	115,929	773	0.7%
Morrow	4,173	4,110	63	1.5%
Multnomah	345,957	343,290	2,667	0.8%
Polk	35,118	34,802	316	0.9%
Sherman	1,122	1,099	23	2.0%
Tillamook	13,746	13,605	141	1.0%
Umatilla	26,145	25,890	255	1.0%
Union	13,442	13,284	158	1.2%
Wallowa	4,569	4,500	69	1.5%
Wasco	11,866	11,685	181	1.5%
Washington	224,850	223,276	1,574	0.7%
Wheeler	913	876	37	4.1%
Yamhill	40,794	40,417	377	0.9%
Sum	1,774,199	1,754,873	19,326		0

Chiang Mai Curry (Thai red chicken curry)

My SO and I made a favorite Thai curry last weekend, so I thought I'd post it up today as my end-of-the-week recipe blogging post. The curry has a coconut milk base and is packed full of flavorful ingredients (curry paste, ginger, garlic, fish sauce, turmeric, etc.) I brought some leftovers to work for lunch, and three separate people walking past my door asked what the delicious smells were. This recipe is modified from Bhumichitr, 1988.

5 tablespoons oil
4 medium garlic cloves, pressed (using a garlic press) or finely minced
3 1/2 tablespoons Thai red curry paste
1 can coconut milk (13.5 oz)
1 pound boneless skinless chicken, cut into thin strips (we use thighs)
3 inch ginger piece, peeled and grated
1/2 cup chicken stock (or water)
5 tablespoons fish sauce
4 teaspoons sugar
2 teaspoons ground turmeric
3 tablespoons lemon juice
8 cloves pickled garlic, pressed or minced (or 8 cloves fresh garlic pressed or minced and mixed with a bit of rice vinegar)

0) Start some rice cooking. Get all the above ingredients ready and lined up on the counter before you start cooking.
1) Heat the oil until it's very hot, then add the garlic and fry until golden brown (a few seconds).
2) Add the curry paste, mix in, and cook for a few seconds.
3) When the electric stove burner you're using starts to shoot out sparks, shriek and transfer the pot to a different burner (yes, this actually happened when we were making the recipe last weekend).
4) Add the coconut milk, stir, and cook until it starts to reduce (bubbling for a bit).
5) If you're not using real pickled garlic, press 8 cloves of the fresh garlic, mix with a bit of rice vinegar, and add this mixture while the coconut milk is reducing. If using real pickled garlic, add it later.
6) Add the chicken, stir well, and cook until it's nearly done (a few minutes).
7) Add, stirring after each addition: ginger, stock, fish sauce, sugar, turmeric, and lemon juice.
8) Cook for a minute or two longer to make sure everything's cooked.
9) If you are using real pickled garlic, add it now.
10) Serve.

We've also added various vegetables to the dish; last weekend we added a half-pound of frozen green beans a few minutes after adding the chicken, and they added a nice contrast, though if we add them again we plan to defrost them first, since they halted the curry's simmering.

This dish is extremely flavorful, and depending on the curry paste you use will likely be quite spicy as well; be sure to have lots of rice on hand.

We made this recipe with red curry paste that we bought in a 4 oz can at an Asian market. We used "Maesri" brand; its contents were 40% chili, 20% garlic, 20% onion, 6% lemon grass, 6% salt, 5% spice, 3% galangal, and it was made in Thailand. I've found it available online at importfood.com, though I have no idea if this is a good curry paste or not (it's just the only brand we've used). We've also used that manufacturer's yellow curry paste, and it's been just as good (and a bit less spicy).

Bhumichitr, Vatcharin, 1988. The Taste of Thailand. MacMillan, NY. Pp. 143-144.

[Update Jan 2006: Want to make a Thai curry but don't have the exact ingredients specified above? Take a look at our flexible Thai curry recipe for more ideas.]

New mouse cages

My SO and I bought two more cages for our mice today, bringing our total number of cages to four. Three of the cages are CritterTrail, and the fourth is a Habitrail. All four of the cages are connected by tubes (the manufacturers' tubes interconnect), so our seven mice now have plenty of room to run around in. Here's the new setup:


Our new mouse cage setup. The two new cages are on the right, while the two cages we bought two weeks ago are on the left.
To hold the new setup we assembled two of our IKEA modular shelf systems in our living room, which will also give us much-needed storage space. We simply attached the two new cages to the two old cages (while the mice were still in them), and let the mice discover the new cages on their own. It didn't take long before Rem, Deuce, and Ace all found the new cages, and were happily exploring.


Ace (or maybe Deuce) looking into the new cage.
The mice all displayed nearly identical exploring behaviors at first. They crawled through the tube leading into a new cage, sniffed the new cage's interior (and maybe put down a paw or two), then turned around and rushed back to the familiar cage. Then they turned right around and walked back through the tube and into the new cage without looking back. It didn't take the mice long to learn how to get around the entire setup.


Ace exploring one of the shelves of our new CritterTrail Three.
Right now the mice are running all over the tall cage, and are having a blast. The new red wheel is a huge hit (they now have three wheels total), and they can't seem to get enough of climbing on the bars.

Voting Problems

If you read any of the news immediately after the election, it sounded as though voting went off without a hitch. However, recent reports indicate that a number of problems did occur:

• An Ohio electronic voting error gave Bush an extra 3,893 votes in Franklin County - Yahoo news and CNN
  
  
• A south Florida machine lost 70,000 votes for a ballot measure - reported in two Miami Herald articles (from the blog Blue Lemur)
  
  
• Craven County (North Carolina) had problems collecting precinct data, double counting ~11,000 votes, and then compounded the problem with human error before it was fixed - The Sun Journal
  
  
• LaPorte County (Indiana) officials discovered that their vote totals only listed 300 registered voters in each precinct, forcing them to stop the count. They're still trying to solve the problem according to the article - The News-Dispatch
  
  
• Palm Beach County (Florida) logged 88,000 more votes than voters - reported on the website Washington Dispatch; the county has since revised their numbers.


• Approximately 4,000 early votes were irretrievably lost in Carteret County (North Carolina) due to problems with an electronic voting system - The Sun Journal

These problems were (obviously) caught, and in most cases were able to be corrected. However, the question quickly arises: since there were problems in some precincts, are there problems that have not yet been detected in other precincts? Only by carefully analyzing election data from across the country can we determine how many problems there were, and that's exactly what some Democratic congressmen are asking be done (Wired article).

I've read some arguments that since Bush's lead is large enough that most errors wouldn't have changed the outcome, we should not even bother looking for errors. I find this illogical. First, we do not know the magnitude of any potential errors at this point; no major discrepancies have been proven to have occurred, but there also hasn't been much time to look for them. Second, even if correcting errors in this election would not change the outcome, it's still important to discover and correct the underlying causes so future elections will be more accurate.

The 15th Tangled Bank

In the category of "better late then never" (darn distracting election), I'm finally getting around to reading this week's Tangled Bank, hosted by Mrs. Tilton over at The Sixth International. I can only agree with her description of the baby mice as "insufferably Cute." I hope I didn't cause any monitor meltdowns ...

I will hosting the next Tangled Bank here at Rhosgobel on Wednesday November 17th. If you want your latest and greatest science-related post included, just send your link to me at rhosgobel2@comcast.net (see the Tangled Bank page for more information).

The "toss out the state" game

Prashant Mullick just left a comment linking to a post describing why he feels Bush does indeed have a "Broad Nationwide Victory." (I wrote on this topic a few hours ago.) The crux of his argument is this:

"John Kerry victory margin:
New York: 1.19 million votes
California: 1.02 million votes
Combined total of NY and CA: 2.21 million votes

George Bush victory margin:
Nationwide: 3.56 million votes

This means that in the 48 states other than NY and CA that voted in this election, George Bush had a mandate of 5.77 million votes. That is pretty substantial!"

I have a few words in response to this:

1) Why throw out CA and NY? They are, after all, the first and third most populous states in the nation. Are their votes somehow invalid or unimportant?

2) You can calculate similar differences in number of votes by throwing out a couple of conservative states. In Texas (the second most populous state) the margin of victory for Bush was 1.68 million votes, which makes up nearly half his margin of victory right there.

In fact, if we throw out

• Texas – 1.68 million vote margin for Bush
  
• Georgia – 0.56 million vote margin for Bush
  
• Indiana – 0.51 million vote margin for Bush
  
• Alabama – 0.48 million vote margin for Bush
  
• Utah – 0.38 million vote margin for Bush

Then we end up throwing out a total of 3.61 million votes for Bush, which means that Kerry wins the election!

"A-HA!" you say, "but you threw out five states, not just two." But California's and New York's populations sum to 54.6 million, while the total population of the five conservative-voting states I threw out is 43.8 million (link to data). Thus, in throwing out these states I've actually thrown out fewer total people, so if anything I've been more fair than Prashant.

OK, clearly this is ridiculous. We could play the "toss out the state" game all night. The fact of the matter still remains: only about 20% of this nation actually voted for Bush on Tuesday, while another 20% or so voted for his opponent (and ~60% didn't vote for either one).

(state election vote counts from CNN at approximately 1am today)

"A broad, nationwide victory"

CNN reports the vice president as saying, "The result is now clear: a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory." He's trying to argue that their administration now has a strong mandate from the country for their second term. That's just bull.

Let's look at the numbers. Based on the most recent CNN estimates, Bush/Cheney received 59,108,395 votes, while Kerry/Edwards received 55,554,114 votes (Nader received 395,871). Now, I'm no mathematician, but even I can realize that the margin of victory here was only 3.09%. To look at it another way, Mr. Cheney, there are at least 55,949,985 voters who did not agree with you, and who in fact wanted to send you home come January.

Let's also look at the total proportion of the population that voted. Yes, voter turnout was at a "record high", with CNN's best estimate being 119.8 million total voters. They report that this is approximately 60% of eligible voters.

However, America is not composed solely of eligible voters, so let's look at the total population, which the CIA World Factbook estimated to be 293,027,571 in July of 2004 (has the CIA ever heard of significant digits?). Thus, using CNN's estimate of total votes cast, only 40% of the US population voted. Of those 40%, only 51.3% voted for Bush, meaning that Bush only has evidence for the support of a whopping 21% of the nation's population (or ~30% of all eligible voters). This is not a broad mandate.

Admittedly these are not atypical numbers for a presidential election (margin of victory, turnout, and % of population all fall within the range of historical data; see Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections), but I still find it heartening that only one in five Americans actually voted for Bush.

(all 2004 voting numbers from CNN at ~8pm PST)

Despair

My hope for a positive outcome faded last night as I realized that the popular vote totals, and even apparently the electoral vote totals, were adding up for Bush. There is still hope, and like Pharyngula I have not given it up yet (and I hope that Kerry does not give up either, though reports indicate he may have), but I am distraught.

I am left wondering how more than half of my voting countrymen and women could have voted for an administration that is so obviously flawed, when there was a viable option that was so much better. Kerry was going to bring sanity and respect back to an office that has had so little of it these past four years, and I am disturbed that a majority of people in this country decided to vote against that.

Ever since 2000 I have consoled myself by hoping (and believing) that Bush would be a one term president, that we would see the error of our ways in 2004. I was wrong, and now I have nothing left to console me for the next four years.

I despair for our future.

Anxiety

My SO and I both voted today, and we were able to use the paper ballot option without issue. They didn't ask us to put the ballots in provisional envelopes (unlike some areas); we just put them straight in the ballot box.

My students were pretty wired about the election today in lab, sharing regular updates about electoral vote counting (but largely ignoring our 16 state ballot initiatives). I was thankfully far too busy to keep up with results during the day (I only got my lab slides finished a few minutes before lab), but now that I'm home I'm anxiously refreshing the election results pages.

Here's hoping that Pharyngula gets to make those root beer floats ...

Goering Quote

Snopes has the full version of Hermann Goering's often-quoted description of how easy it is to lead a populace to war. They also have background on how the quote was obtained, which I'd never read before. The full version is below, along with a question asked by the psychologist who recorded the quote.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I [Gustave Gilbert, the psychologist] pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Tangled Bank Announcement

This week's Tangled Bank will be hosted by Mrs. Tilton (e-mail: mrs_tilton chez yahoo co yew kay) over at The Sixth International. Get your submissions in before it's too late! (and yes, I'm even further behind than Pharyngula in remembering that this was a Tangled Bank week, but it doesn't help that I just spent the last few hours going over all the CA ballot initiatives in detail, and most of the past few days writing my now 20-page-long animal diversity lab ...)

E-voting in Florida

Without Bound links to a video of what electronic voting may look like on Tuesday in Florida.

George Soros

George Soros has been touring the country speaking about what is wrong with Bush and the war in Iraq:

"The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.

"We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates.

"Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.

"The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections." (from the original speech; PDF)

(via BoingBoing)

Spicy Roasted Vegetables

I came home Thursday to find my SO roasting this new creation in the oven; it was a delicious surprise. Each vegetable's unique flavor and texture combined to form a tender and moist (but not mushy) dish. Since it was so tasty I can't help but make it this week's end-of-the-week recipe blogging post.

5 small-medium potatoes
4 biggish carrots
4 medium onions
4 small-medium beets
3 small turnips
~10 cloves of garlic
1 tablespoon sea salt
1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
1/4 teaspoon cayenne
1 tablespoon paprika
2 tablespoons melted butter
1/2 cup white wine
1/2 cup chicken stock

0. Preheat oven to 350F.
1. Peel all the vegetables but the potatoes and chop them all (including potatoes) into 1/2 to 1 inch dice.
2. Put the vegetables into a casserole dish (my SO used a 3 quart glass dish) and drizzle the butter on top.
3. Sprinkle the spices over the vegetables, and toss until distributed.
4. Roast at 350F for approximately 1/2 hour uncovered, stirring once halfway through.
5. Add the white wine and chicken stock, mix, and cover loosely with foil before returning to the oven. Raise the heat to 375F. Roast for approximately 1/2 hour more.
6. Take off the foil and stir. Continue cooking, stirring every 10-15 minutes, until all (or most) of the water has evaporated from the dish.

The ingredients were what we had on hand, so feel free to vary the proportions to your own taste (though the mix above turned out very well). If you can't find turnips (hardly anyone uses them anymore!) you could probably increase the amounts of other vegetables to make up for their absence. We found a 1/4 teaspoon of cayenne made the dish surprisingly spicy, though we did just get a new supply from Penzeys, so you might want to use more if your cayenne is older (or you have a high capsaicin tolerance).

The beets turn the entire dish a lovely magenta color, but if you wanted your vegetables to be their usual colors you could probably roast the beets separately and add them at the end.

Categories:

• cooking
• recipe
• vegetables
• healthy

Political Links

There's been a flurry of interesting posting happening in the blogosphere ... here's some of what I've been reading in the past few days:

• I got a lot of hits Friday from Google searches like "Bush ad photoshop" (I'm #1 for that search when it's limited to blogspot.com, as someone did). The page all these searchers were directed to was my post on Bush's Yakuza ad back in July, not one discussing the more recent example of photoshopping that Pharyngula covers (CNN article on the recent example). Fascinating that the Bush campaign has now been caught poorly photoshopping content in not one, but two ads. At least they didn't plagiarize this time ...
  
  
• "What happened to George Bush after 10 years?" is a video that compares Bush's speaking abilities in the 1994 Texas gubenatorial debates to the 2004 presidential debates. I was stunned by how well Bush spoke in 1994; I highly recommend watching the comparison. (via BoingBoing)
  
  
• The Bush campaign is apparently blocking access to its website from many foreign countries (BoingBoing post #1, post #2).
  
  
• There's more debate flying around the web that Bush might have had something on his back under his jacket, both during the debates and at other times. Bush has tried to brush this bulge off as a badly tailored shirt/suit, but others have said it could be an audio prompter, a defibrillator, or safety equipment.
  
  
• The Economist has endorsed John Kerry for president, after endorsing Bush four years ago. Even though I don't agree with all their points, the article is very thoughtfully written. "If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal ["to finish the job he has started"], and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world." I believe the point that Bush has lost all credibility in the Islamic world is a critical one: how can we hope to peacefully work with countries when they have no faith in our leadership?
  

Iraqi Civilian Deaths

Pharyngula linked to a news article summarizing a recent Lancet article (requires free registration) that publishes the first scientific estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq due to the recent war. The paper compares death rates from before and after the war, and the numbers are staggering:

"Evidence suggests that the mortality rate was higher across Iraq after the war than before, even excluding Falluja. We estimate that there were 98 000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000– - 194 000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja. In our Falluja sample, we recorded 53 deaths when only 1·4 were expected under the national pre-war rate. This indicates a point estimate of about 200 000 excess deaths in the 3% of Iraq represented by this cluster."
-----
"The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1 - –419) than in the period before the war."

Reading the discussion is also rather eye-opening:

"Falluja was the only cluster where GPS units could not be used to find the random starting point [the researchers used GPS units to determine random locations within a town in which to start their surveys]. These devices have military uses and their possession resulted in the imprisonment and death of many Iraqis during the previous regime. Since interviewers were stopped and searched repeatedly getting into Falluja, the use of a GPS unit could have resulted in the killing of interviewers. Stopping a car in Falluja at a random point at the date of the visit (Sept 20) and walking away from it was also likely to result in the killing of interviewers."

You don't see that type of methodology issue reported in your average journal article ...

The paper finishes with the excellent point that the US military now has no excuse not to provide good estimates of civilian casualty counts:

"This survey shows that with modest funds, 4 weeks, and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained. There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to not be able to provide more precise tallies."

They've found their coordination

The mouse babies are now 17 days old, and in the past two days they've suddenly found their coordination. All the kids are now sprinting around the cage, and every now and then they'll suddenly jump a short distance. We suspect they're entering the "flea" stage of mouse baby-hood, wherein they being to jump around, like, well, fleas (though thankfully they don't bite). As a result, we've switched from handling them in our laps to playing with them in a large plastic container.


Ace nibbles on a piece of bedding while Runt, Genie, and Narrow Stripey (from top to bottom) rest in the handling bin.
The babies have also changed in a number of other ways. They've started exploring their cage regularly, and a few are even running on the wheel. Probably one of the biggest changes is that they've all started eating solid food; both the puppy chow and the regular rodent diet seem to be popular. I'm sure Rem is happy about that ...


Narrow Stripey nibbling on some puppy chow while Genie explores.
Even with all these changes and new behaviors, the babies will still sleep on our hands :)

They're two weeks old!

The babies have passed the two week mark, and to celebrate the occasion they opened their eyes! Actually, all of the babies opened their eyes on day 13 except for Runt, but on day 14 even Runt opened its eyes. Having their eyes open makes them look a lot more like mice.


Wide Stripey taking a short break from exploring.
The babies are much more adventurous now that their eyes are open. Deuce seems like the most active of the bunch - it was the first mouse to crawl up my arm (which was vertical at the time) and explore my shoulders, and usually is the first mouse out of the nest tin. However, all the mice are quite willing to wander far from our hands and the nest tin now, and they seem to love testing how far they can lean over a slope before slipping off, as well as trying to squeeze into every little space they can find (and then, if it's cozy enough, curling up and sleeping in it).


Wide Stripey climbing a "mountain" on its 14th birthday.
Tonight I was handling three babies, and after they walked around my lap for about half an hour, they all chose a different spot to curl up and take a nap in.

We also bought a a new cage setup for the mice yesterday, which they seem to be enjoying. I'll talk more about that in another post, though.

As always there's more pictures on my Flickr page:

Note: all of these pictures were taken on Monday night.

The American Conservative endorses Kerry

This is something that I never thought I'd see this year: a conservative publication (The American Conservative) printing an article (by Scott McConnell) endorsing Kerry for president (though they also have dissenting articles). The McConnell article is incredibly scathing of Bush, and a great read.

"Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail."

Via the comments in this Pharyngula post.