# Worst Statistical Analysis I Have *Ever* Seen (linked to by Mr. Bruce Hall)

This is a reprint of a post from 2020.

(And I have seen a lot of terrible analysis) [Update 8/14/2020: the author has taken down the post, but here is an archived 8/13/2020 version of the webpage]

Reader Bruce Hall recommends links to this article which asserts that 2020 is not anomalous in terms of deaths. In fact, it’s 20th out the last 21 years!

Now Ms. Colleen Huber, NMD*** comes to this conclusion thusly:

As of this writing, 32 weeks have elapsed in 2020.  However, for each previous year, 52 weeks have already elapsed.  How then can we compare deaths from all causes in 2020 to previous years?

I divided the total number of deaths for each year by the number of weeks.  That is 52 weeks for all years, except for 2020, in which 32 weeks have elapsed as of this past Saturday, August 8, 2020, which is the most recently updated week in the CDC data cited.  This gives us the average number of deaths per week for each of those years, and allows a meaningful comparison between 2020 and prior years.

She then generates the following table:

She concludes:

It seems that there is no pandemic in 2020 of COVID-19 or of anything else, at least not in the United States.

It’s great that Ms. Huber tells us there are 52 weeks in a year. She divides 2020 data by the 32 weeks that have elapsed and have been recorded by CDC (despite the fact that recent weeks are very incomplete in terms of reporting).

This would be a sensible approach — calculating a per/week fatality rate — if there were no seasonality in the data. However, deaths are seasonal in the US, as can easily discerned in the CDC data she was analyzing.

Figure 1: CDC data accessed 7 August 2020.

As we enter the latter part of the year, deaths typically rise (with flu, etc.). Hence, using 32 weeks for 2020, and all 52 weeks for previous years, will typically yield a nonsensical comparison. (There is a standard approach, used in many economics releases — year-to-date counts. I.e., Ms. Huber could’ve compared deaths in the first 32 weeks of each of the preceding 20 years against those in the first 32 weeks of this year.)

Once again, the most embarrasingly stupid data analysis I have seen this year (maybe this decade, although the competition is tough).

My investigation using CDC estimates of expected deaths, here.

*** “NMD” means “naturapathic medical doctor”

## 78 thoughts on “Worst Statistical Analysis I Have *Ever* Seen (linked to by Mr. Bruce Hall)”

1. pgl

Reader Bruce Hall (recommends) links to this article which asserts that 2020 is not anomalous in terms of deaths. In fact, it’s 20th out the last 21 years!

Now, now, he did more than link to this pathetic analysis. He did more than recommend we read this piece of trash. He was trying to put forth this nonsense as a reliable analysis.

But Brucie does this routinely. Puts forth a total fabrication as the truth and then when it is exposed as such, he tries to weasel out from any responsibility.

1. AndrewG

“But Brucie does this routinely.”

Indeed. I don’t usually like the tone you take with Bruce Hall, but I get the frustration.

1. pgl

If he TRIED to be honest, I might give him a break. But he has a very long history of just blatantly lying to us.,

2. pgl

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/schumer-urges-murdoch-to-end-great-replacement-rhetoric/ar-AAXo7tx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2e148575890543f4b7b1fcbbc8896df4

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Fox News of promoting White nationalist “Great Replacement” rhetoric and urged Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch to end it.Schumer, in a letter Tuesday to Murdoch and other Fox executives, cited the racially motivated mass shooting in a Black neighborhood of Buffalo by an accused gunman who cited the idea of so-called ethnic replacement, as well as other mass shootings targeting minorities in recent years. “I implore you to immediately cease all dissemination of false white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theories on your network,” Schumer, of New York, wrote. “Proponents of this white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theory believe that a complicit or cooperative class of elites are advancing a plot designed to undermine the political power and culture of white Americans.”

If Murdoch had a soul he would stop this garbage. Alas Murdoch has no soul – just a thirst for money and power. Human decency requires Fox News stop this racist hate but they won’t as doing the right thing might lower their ratings.

1. Expat

You assume that any Republican has a soul. Big mistake. The Republican party has crawled out from under its rock and is parading its true, deep beliefs: racism, misogyny, war, violence, intolerance, Christianity.
You want to MAGA? Deport all registered Republicans. And every Wall Street banker of any political stripe. Of course, since the entire world hates America, and Republicans specifically, there is nowhere to go but Saudi Arabia, Russia or Turkey.

3. Macroduck

I have long held that it’s a waste of time to read (or listen to) anybody if you can reliably predict what they have written (will say). That rule is not intended exclusively to filter out dishonesty, though it serves that purpose. There are three reasons I can think of to ignore people whose views are predictable. Top of the list is that they aren’t offering new ideas. Second is that they are repeating talking points, so who cares? Finally, people who never change their view tend not to have much regard for the truth.

You can probably detect considerable overlap between the three reasons.

Problem is, casual readers (listeners) are vulnerable to repetition. Unless critical facilities are engaged, whatever message is received most often is the one most likely to be believed. Thirteen people are dead in Buffalo for that very reason.

Brucey, Johnny, Stevie, CoVid, ltr, anonymous…did I miss anyone? They are entirely predictable in their views. This is not just a hedgehog problem. A hedgehog knows one big thing. A partisan pretends to know any number of things. They hammer away, ignoring reality, hoping to dupe casual listeners. Utterly predictable.

1. AndrewG

“Problem is, casual readers (listeners) are vulnerable to repetition.”

Unfortunately, that’s why we have to grow some grey hairs and push back, at least when we can. This partisan misinformation/disinformation stuff is quite literally deadly.

2. AndrewG

Also, personally, I don’t put Steve K in this group, though I do get frustrated with him sometimes.

3. pgl

Is CoVid your name for CoRev? After all reading his garbage is akin to a deadly virus inflicting one’s brain.

4. Barkley Rosser

Macroduck,

Hmm. I don’t think the problem is so much predictability as it is pushing false lines for partisan or ideological reasons. As it is, I see a lot of heterogeneity in this group. The ones most fitting the partisan hack predictability charge look to me to be Bruce and CoRev. JohnH and Anonymous seem to be fixated on spouting Putin troll propaganda, which is not always predictable, given how off-the-wall most of it is. Never know what wacko line is going to be pushed nect.

As for Steven and ltr, they are quite different cases. Steven has reported he did not support Trump, although he often supports more conservative or lilbertarian positions. While maybe predictable on some matters, and quite wrong on some in particular, he is not always that predictable, and is pretty knowledge on some topics.

As for ltr, her views on many things are pretty well known, and if she posts on Chinese issues it will be supporting or more frequently simply repeating the official line. But I shall note that she seems to avoid certain topics, without pointing that out too specificially. I have a suspicion that on those matters she may not be as enthusiastic about official positions as on others. But she comments on many matters aside from China, and while I think I know her views on many of these, they do not follow any particular partisan line, and she is often right on many of those matters, with her long record of data wonkery, linking to hard data sources.

So, this is a more complicated matter than you presented here, I think.

4. AndrewG

“It seems that there is no pandemic in 2020 of COVID-19 or of anything else, at least not in the United States.”

This woman will see no damage to her reputation in the MAGA-verse. Quite the opposite actually.

We are in terrifying times.

5. Ivan

Naturapathic medical doctors are supposedly trained in the same basic sciences as real doctors. But it appears they are having a harder time understanding it.

6. baffling

sometimes people fail to realize that the internet never forgets. you can’t fix stoopid.

7. pgl

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tucker-carlson-says-buffalo-suspect-e2-80-99s-alleged-screed-e2-80-98not-really-political-e2-80-99/ar-AAXm7iA?ocid=uxbndlbing&fbclid=IwAR2FpMCzjPYPzE-tF52UpCE7nfWSinHjZr9Kpkn6ghyzD0IaFUzJKN8tuAQ

Tucker Carlson is the lowest form of scum. This racist actually tries to deny he is at all responsible for the domestic terrorism in East Buffalo. I’m all for the First Amendment but it is time for the plug to be pulled on Faux News since it continues to air this hate filled vile.

8. Ivan

On the internet you can always find some “source” in support of whatever point of view you have locked yourself into. But if you don’t understand the concepts of knowledgeable and credible sources it can be a challenge to become truly informed on a subject. It seems that few except the scientifically trained are comfortable leaving it at “we just don’t know at this time”.

9. pgl

2slugbaits
August 14, 2020 at 5:03 am
Yep. This isn’t the first time that our friend Bruce Hall has relied upon some quack or crackpot. It happens way too often to just be a one-off thing.

Yep!

Now Brucie did not engage for a long time leaving it to CoRev to defend him. Of course CoRev made a total fool of himself but what’s new.

Now Brucie later decided to whine as he always does by trying to deny he took this crackpot seriously. And Tucker Carlson last night tried to say his Replacement Theory racism had nothing to do with the East Buffalo terrorism. Bruce Hall and Tucker Carlson – two total weasels.

10. Macroduck

Of topic, as usual-

I don’t think central bank policy deserves the bulk of the credit (blame) for inflation performance. Global factors and structural change seem better explanations for the persistence of low inflation from the later Greenspan year up to the pandemic.

Is anyone aware of recent research into demographic trends, off-shoring and such matters that address the likely inflation environment over the next decade?

Certainly, 5-year/5-year forward suggests market participants don’t see a big change in the inflation environment over the coming 10 years. Market participants can be wrong, though. Happens all the time; that’s where the big money is. If pricing is based, for instance, in a strong faith in central bank policy when demographic factors are due for big change, markets could be wildly wrong.

So, what’s out there to turn me into a young Bill Gross?

11. joseph

” Ms. Huber could’ve compared deaths in the first 32 weeks of each of the preceding 20 years against those in the first 32 weeks of this year.”

Even this approach could be subject to error if, as you point out, the most recent data is incomplete or contingent on revision. Deaths are commonly not officially recorded until several weeks after occurrence.

12. Econned

Menzie,
What happened? Who/what bruised your ego recently as to prompt you to repost such shallowness? We are all here to listen/laugh.

1. Baffling

And yet no comment on the horrible analysis by huber? Kind of strange considering the nitpicky stuff you often complain about. Giving a pass on such analysis seems pretty biased on your part. Just like you always give a pass to the garbage corev and bruce present on this site as well. An obvious bias on your part econned.

1. Econned

i don’t have a clue what you’re referencing when asserting that I “always give a pass to the garbage corev and bruce present on this site” considering I rarely (if ever) interacted with them. The only times I comment on another commenter is when they have replied to my comments or when they have specifically called me out. I don’t recall that ever being the case for the two commenters you mention.
So maybe the “obvious bias” is in your mirror?

1. Baffling

Your silence towards the garbage typically presented by corev and bruce is quite revealing. You seem to tolerate their garbage. Or accept it. It is a bias you have. Apparently their wrongs are not worth commenting on.

1. baffling

so econned is okay with misdirection and propaganda, as long as it is not directed at him personally. got it. at least you never have to worry if a Good Samaritan law is on the books.

2. CoRev

Baffled states: “so econned is okay with misdirection and propaganda,…” but will not show examples of either.

3. Econned

Misdirection is precisely what you’re doing here. Anyone with an eyeball can see it. Sheesh

4. baffling

econned, do you think corev and bruce produce valid arguments? or are they inaccurate?

2. pgl

Econned has even less clue what the topic was than even Bruce Hall so expecting him to comment is sort of asking too much from our most worthless troll.

1. Econned

I’m beginning to wonder if PaGLiacci’s existence is contingent on my commentary. As a public service, that might make me rethink my entire approach. This ever so tragic clown is completely nauseating. Comical yet nauseating.

1. pgl

You so flatter yourself. Of course my day is so much better when I do not have to see your disgustingly stupid dreck. Now I do hear that Bruce Hall wants to date a guy named Lucy. Hope you two have fun!

2. noneconomist

Fast turnaround from plural to singular: “we are laughing “ to “I don’t recall” to “my commentary.”
You lost econners? Or you only fantasized you had a posse?
I’ll go with fantasy.

3. Noneconomist

Ec: Likely caused by your (both singular and plural) inability to intelligently discuss any topic .

13. Anonymous

a more ‘crude’ topic:

api reports us inventories for week ending 13 may:

crude down 2.445 mbbl
distillates + 1.075 mbbl
gasoline -5.1 mbbl

\$6/gal in usa by august?

10:30 edt tomorrow eia report……

1. CoRev

If “\$6/gal in usa by august” how much by late Oct?

< 1.5 years in office with the fullest implementation of liberal policies, and the US is in worst conditions for many major social and economic areas.

Yes, the voters have notices and the latest trends ~75% blame Biden, and by default liberals.

Thank you for showing us the value of your policies. We tried to tell you, but what's the point in liberals listening and even thinking about contradictory advice. Try logic some day.

1. pgl

Your babble is getting more incoherent with each and every one of your worthless comments. Does anyone have a clue what you just wrote? You certainly do not.

14. Baffling

In other news, Six power plants went down last week in texas, causing the state to enter a power emergency and request conservation. So much for the reliability of those fossil fuel plants. At least the solar and wind turbines were available to pick up the slack. Fossil fuel power intermittency is a real problem in texas.

1. CoRev

Why is there a growing problem with Texas power plants? Here is one analysis: “In the long run, the PTC destabilizes the market for conventional electricity as generators that are not eligible for the PTC are significantly harmed by negative prices, both in terms of near-term daily operational decisions, as well as long-term decisions to build or retire generation. ” For those less familiar with incentives “Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) is the center of discussion.

Another PTC impact is: “America’s continued reliance on the PTC subsidy therefore will invariably deter investments in the conventional power generation needed to maintain a reliable electric system. Conventional generation is critical to reliability because wind generation often does not produce energy during times of peak electricity demand, while producing at high levels (and driving negative prices) when demand is low. In recent years, about 85% of total wind capacity has not operated during the peak hours on the highest demand days of the year, on average. Controllable conventional generation is thus needed to backstop wind and ensure the lights stay on. ” https://www.windaction.org/posts/34882-negative-electricity-prices-and-the-production-tax-credit

Baffled is a prime example of customer reaction to the gas-based generation plants raising prices to pay for those needed maintenance and reliability improvements by moving to a lower priced non gas-based source.

Who’da thought that economic basics could be ignored on an economics blog? Most of the non-liberal readers did.

1. Menzie Chinn Post author

CoRev: Where do you dig up these websites. Yeesh. Lost a bunch more brain cells. Maybe I’ll redesignate what is the worst analysis *ever*.

1. pgl

Just in case CoRev decides not to read the informative links ala Moses, let’s note she and her husband are Tea Party nutcases. Plus we get this:

However, the organization routinely promotes discredited problems and messengers instead of credible sources. On their website, the Industrial Wind Action Group links to articles and information from sources whose work is unscientific or has been linked to the fossil fuel industry – rather than objective sources that could help residents and government officials make informed decisions. According to our investigative research, the Industrial Wind Action Group continues to hype anti-wind rhetoric above reality.

Gee – they are a lot like CoRev!

2. pgl

Moses’s diligent research had me going back to this statement about Lisa Linowes:

She is also a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and inaugural member of the Institute for Energy Research’s Advisory Council.

Both organizations are mouth pieces for Big Oil and Charles Koch. One has to wonder whether CoRev took the time to check on the biases of his new guru. If he did – his failure to admit this woman is bought and paid for by Big Oil is very dishonest. But what is new?

1. CoRev

Menzie asks where I dig up these sites? Why from an internet search engine and the referenced links from articles found.

Saying this: “Yeesh. Lost a bunch more brain cells.” regarding an article pointing out the pricing impacts of incentives? Do you actually dispute those impacts? A quick search of the blog shows incentives have impacts: https://econbrowser.com/archives/2008/01/more_thoughts_o_1 (you for investment)
and
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2012/06/peak_oil_and_pr (james on oil production)
and
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2019/11/foxconn-as-case-study-of-targeted-development-subsidy (you on Targeted Development Subsidy) Where you made this point: “Former Governor Walker has noted that there wer, performance standards imposed, so that the state is in principle not on the hook for subsidies, should FoxConn fail to employ the agreed to number of workers (who do not necessarily have to be Wisconsin residents, by the way).” An approach which to my mind would have significantly improved The federal wind Production Tax Credit (“PTC”)

Specifically what in the article do you refer? Its premise was: “As a matter of both economics and public policy, no government production tax subsidy should ever be so large that it creates an incentive for a business to actually pay customers to take its product.” and thereby perturbs the market prices.

Remember my many recent comments re: renewables pricing “big lie”?

2. CoRev

Its easy to tell when your comments are making points. When the responses to them lack specificity and are personal attacks, their impacts are obvious.

Note, menzie, Moses and Bierka’s comments.

2. Baffling

Corev, i see you dont want to address the fact that the fossil fuel power plants are not reliable. They went down when needed. I guess intermittent and unreliable are not that important to you. Because these plants failed. Just like when the natural gas plants failed during the texas freeze.

1. CoRev

Baffled, I know comprehension can be difficult when the message contradicts the ideology. The even have a name for it, cognitive dissonance.

As to your assertion, it is why I mention your comprehension. Having addressed it several times you still can not understand nor comprehend those attempts.

1. baffling

corev, I pointed out a case where fossil fuels failed. they were unreliable. and you tried to change the topic, rather than address the failure of the fossil fuel power plants. “Having addressed it several times you still can not understand nor comprehend those attempts.” you have not addressed the failure of the fossil fuel power plants. they were a direct example, and you avoided the topic.

2. CoRev

Baffled, can you read? I even referenced an article which explained how and why some plants were failing.

Your own behavior is a prime example of this ideological propaganda works. Repeating fossil fueled generators failed while ignoring the the generation losses from wind and solar during the times of demand stress is misdirection based upon propaganda.

Just days before Uri wind and solar exceeded generation for all other sources. Without Uri happening we could have expected articles claiming their huge success. Except Uri did happen and for days wind and solar failed to achieve anything close to that earlier production.

Not once have any of you renewables warriors admitted that production failure. Not once, but we have seen the 97% outage claim repeated for a year. In a modern, well managed grid an outage may not impact reliability. Indeed the Ferc/Nerc Report mentioned wind and many grid management components failures in its multi-faceted recommendation 1.

3. CoRev

Baffled is so confused by facts: 6 gas power generation plants had outages during the recent Tx heat incident and nobody noticed: https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Central-Time-4-720×480.png

Unexpected and expected drops-offs are routine to wind and solar, that is why they need gas back-up. Wind and solar need gas, gas does not need wind and solar. In the real world why is it that nearly every article about natural gas failing winds up revealing a wind failure?

These very simple facts are never considered nor answered by Baffled, Macrduck, Menzie, Bierka, Barkley, etc.

4. baffling

corev, the vast majority of power failure during the texas outage was caused by a failure of natural gas to be delivered when expected. WHEN EXPECTED. that is what is called unreliable. it is not that something is simply off line. it is when that something goes off line when expected to be online that is the problem. the natural gas systems were expected to be available. and they failed.

5. CoRev

Baffled says, Oh look a squirrel. “corev, the vast majority of power failure during the texas outage was caused by a failure of natural gas to be delivered when expected. WHEN EXPECTED.” BTW thisd even another rephrase of the misinformation re: gas generation outages during Uri.

Why not answer these simple facts? “Unexpected and expected drops-offs are routine to wind and solar, that is why they need gas back-up. Wind and solar need gas, gas does not need wind and solar. In the real world why is it that nearly every article about natural gas failing winds up revealing a wind failure?”

What happened to your claim that adding even more unreliable wind and solar to ERCOT generation will solve the intermittency/reliability/planned/expected outage problem?

6. baffling

“6 gas power generation plants had outages during the recent Tx heat incident and nobody noticed”
yes, because this time wind and solar were there to bail them out. but the fossil fuel plants FAILED. you seem to argue intermittency and failure is only a renewable problem. it is not. it is an issue that a smart grid simply deals with. it is called grid resiliency. anybody who understands the electric grid understands that concept. corev, you don’t get to complain if a renewable goes out, but then give a pass when a fossil fuel source fails. does not work that way. it is disingenuous.

7. CoRev

Baffled, Oh look even another squirrel. My argument has forever been renewables pricing is wrong/incomplete/a big lie.

Unexpected and expected drops-offs are routine to wind and solar, that is why they need gas back-up. Wind and solar need gas, gas does not need wind and solar. In the real world why is it that nearly every article about natural gas failing winds up revealing a wind failure?

These very simple facts are never considered nor answered by Baffled, Macrduck, Menzie, Bierka, Barkley, etc.

8. Baffling

“Unexpected and expected drops-offs are routine to wind and solar, that is why they need gas back-up. ”
Recent history suggests fossil fuel plants suffer a similar fate. Lets price in the cost of their backups as well. Corev, you cant have it both ways.

9. CoRev

Confused Baffled claims: ” Lets price in the cost of their backups as well. Corev, you cant have it both ways.” Actually they are included in their prices. your reaction to rising gas-based electricity price plans was to run to another non gas-based plan.

Back up prices are not included in renewables pricing, but even further perturbing prices is the high level of subsidies for renewables. Baffled, you cant have it both ways.

All electric generation have levels of reliability. That’s why the electric grid is managed for reliable availability. It is only renewables that have routine unexpected and expected drops-offs requiring backup where that back up is not priced into the generation delivery costs.

It the need to have it so poorly priced that drives the big lie. Including renewables in any grid ALWAYS raise the prices.

10. baffling

corev, your commentary is simply incoherent. and your continued denial of the failure of natural gas during the texas blackout is simply dishonest.
let me clue you in on what is not a secret. renewables are the way of the future, and continuing to promote fossil fuels through dishonesty and misinformation lacks integrity. even big oil understands fossil fuels are a thing of the past, and are actively moving towards the future. corev, you are simply living in a past life here. I can honestly say I have rarely encountered somebody as dense as you are. it is time for you to go to pasture before another coronary event occurs.

11. CoRev

Baffled, so you can not address the questions proposed. Not by me but by many in the energy field.

There’s no doubt that there are TRUE believers of the future of renewables. That’s not the issue. The costs of their adoption is the issue, and the lies surrounding their adoption are the issues.

It’s your policy, and the voters recognize the value of this and policies.

12. baffling

corev cannot acknowledge that fossil fuel plants have a reliability issue as well. denial of reality. dumb old man.

13. CoRev

Baffled, when ideology over rides logic, reading comprehension is diminished: “All electric generation have levels of reliability. That’s why the electric grid is managed for reliable availability. ” (just a few comments earlier).

So when you make these kinds of stoopid statements: “corev cannot acknowledge that fossil fuel plants have a reliability issue as well. denial of reality. dumb old man.” All you are accomplishing is showing your inability to think, read and comprehend. Ideology trumps all!

Remember adding intermittent renewables to a grid ALWAYS raise the costs/price.

14. baffling

“Remember adding intermittent renewables to a grid ALWAYS raise the costs/price.”
this is in fact false. and you rely on this statement for all of your analysis. that is why it is wrong. when you start with incorrect assumptions, everything that follows is worthless.

15. CoRev

Still Baffled, claims “this is in fact false.” Being false there must be many examples of this falsity, but are they based upon that “big lie” of renewables being cheaper or based upon the Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE)? At least FCOE is defined in a peer reviewed scientific paper.Show us a list of at least 10 examples of this falsity.

Bet’cha all we see is more deflection, and never see this list of falsities.

16. baffling

corev, it is simply a false statement.

by the way, when you start with the “big lie” commentary, it simply shows you are vulnerable to the conspiracy theory culture. time to get the tin foil hats out.

17. CoRev

Baffled, I said: “Bet’cha all we see is more deflection, and never see this list of falsities.”, and there’s the deflection. ”
baffling
May 26, 2022 at 12:00 pm

corev, it is simply a false statement.

by the way, when you start with the “big lie” commentary, it simply shows you are vulnerable to the conspiracy theory culture. time to get the tin foil hats out.”

For years all you have done is lie, lie and more lies. It’s sad really.

18. Baffling

Corev, your statement is simply false. It is not accurate. There is not much more for me to say here. Your analysis is premised on a falsehood, which is why it is incorrect.

19. CoRev

Baffled- coward. I asked for: ” Show us a list of at least 10 examples of this falsity. (Bolded even)

Bet’cha all we see is more deflection, and never see this list of falsities.”

20. baffling

corev, you can double down all you want. it does not change the fact your arguments are based on false premises. no amount of denial on your part will make your arguments true. you have rarely provided an accurate fact in your arguments. it is dishonest and intentionally misleading. as I said before, you are simply an old man who cannot accept you are wrong.

15. Moses Herzog

Colleen Huber reminds me of that old Kermit the Frog tune: “It’s not easy being duuuuuuuumb”