|
For The Trees
Who is our economy FOR, anyway? About the Authors: Dave Johnson John Emerson Richard Reich Thomas Leavitt
Recent Posts: BEST OF STF: Dave's: Articles not at STF: The ATLA Speech on building a progressive infrastructure Lowering the Bar The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors On the Right and their communications infrastructure: Why Republicans Win Win or Lose The "Conventional Wisdom" Machine Some History of the Conservative Movement HOW TO FIGHT BACK An Amplifier Of Our Own Don't Blame the Democrats How They Do It 1 2 3 4 Getting Rolled Other: You're Gonna Get Drafted Scalia and Self-Government Who is Our Economy For? Voting Machine Story Link Collection What's Wrong with this Picture? (Voting Machines) Like Meat in the Supermarket Get Active Thin Line 1 2 3 Fixing Social Security Seeing the Forest I, II, III "Incredibly Positive News" The Breadth of It The Republican Crony Club Moon Bush Ralph Nader is a Scab John's Best Of: Kerry Smear Page Bandar Bush 9/11 Commission Report Damages Bush -- if you read it Florida Goon Squad Intimidated the Supreme Court The Use and Abuse of George Orwell Zizka's Archives (John's previous identity) Zizka Sampler News Sources: AlterNet BuzzFlash Common Dreams Cursor Drudge Retort Information Clearing House Smirking Chimp TruthOut What REALLY Happened Links to Other Weblogs: |
 2/28/2003 Newsday Story on Voting Machines! This important story is getting more attention. Newsday has a story, Paperless Voting Machines Under Fire. "Even my ATM has the courtesy of asking if I want a receipt," said Kim Alexander, president of the Sacramento-based non-profit California Voter Foundation. "My pay-at-the-pump Visa transaction is more secure than my voting ballot if my county goes to paperless voting."Terrifying Update - In the story they quote a spokesperson from Sequoia Voting Systems, one of the companies manufacturing the machines: Even if the records are never handed to voters and are instead kept with the county registrar, they represent another layer of complexity for administrators. "You'll have printer jams, you'll run out of paper, you'll have voters say, 'That's not how I voted,' and you'll have to have procedures for letting them re-vote and to determine which of the receipts you printed was the valid one, and which of those constitute the official recount in case of a contested vote," Sequoia spokeswoman Kathryn Ferguson said.You got that? The Sequoia spokesperson complains that there shouldn't be a paper trail because voters will say "That's not how I voted"!!! This company is making it clear that they trying to stop voters from being able to verify that the machine correctly records their vote! Have YOU called your member of Congress about this yet? Have YOU written to your newspaper about this yet? --- Posted at 2/28/2003 11:43:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post  
Added to Voting Machine Links I have added Electionline.org - The Election Reform Information Project to the Collection of Voting Machine Articles. Electionline is a very good resource on this issue. I'm also changing the TITLE of the collection to "Voting Machine Story Link Collection." (Does this break the rules of blogging?) --- Posted at 2/28/2003 10:58:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Consumer Confidence Worst In 9 Years I have my browser set to My Yahoo as my home page. I have it set up to show me news, political news and business news, and I get headlines from different news sources. Under the heading "Top News Stories From Reuters", there is this headline: Consumer Sentiment Hits 9-Year Low-Report. Under the heading "Financial News from CBS MarketWatch.com", there is this headline: U.S. stocks climb on consumer strength. The second story contains this information: Wall Street is reacting favorably to the latest Consumer sentiment data, which fell less than expected in February.OK, it's the worst reading in nine years, but stocks are up because it wasn't as bad as expected. Meanwhile, the current PE ratio of the S&P 500 is 22.6. As I wrote before, "This is where the stock market usually falls FROM, not TO." The stock market crashed FROM a PE ratio of 21 in 1929. To put it a different way, stocks are extremely high right now, even though they have fallen from the incredible heights they reached during the bubble. Here are two charts that show you what I mean: Still overvalued and Another perspective. What these charts clearly show is that we are only part way through the bubble, and the market still has a long way to fall before it gets back to where it should be. Here are two more charts, showing historical PE ratios so you can see where we are in terms of valuation instead of price: one, two. The charts on page 2 of this PDF file also clearly show where the stock market is relative to historical average. This is not a pretty picture! Want to know my thinking on this? The clowns are running the show. Run for your life, get away from the stock market. Get rid of your debt, SAVE MONEY. Paul Krugman writes about the economy today. (I should warn you now that both the headlines and content of stories linked to at My Yahoo change sometimes; it happened to me after I wrote the "War Is Peace" entry below.) --- Posted at 2/28/2003 09:14:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/27/2003 SUVs CalPundit on SUV safety. --- Posted at 2/27/2003 06:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Gotta Read You gotta read this over at PLA! It's titled Lies, Distortions and Deception and details the lies that the Bush administration is using to promote its tax cut agenda. You just gotta go read it! --- Posted at 2/27/2003 06:38:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
War IS Peace! Bush's M.O. is to promise the public what polls show the public wants, and then go ahead with whatever his agenda is, usually the opposite of what Bush promised. It is a pattern of "say one thing and do another", using the words to cover up the actions. So far this deceitful method of has proven remarkably effective. Here is an example that makes this trickery so clear, and is so blatant, that it hopefully will force the public to see what Bush is doing. The headline on the story is "Bush: Iraq War Will Build Mideast Peace" The polls show that people want peace. How do you manipulate that public desire for peace into public approval of your war? You tell the public that war IS peace! UPDATE - That is headline of the article that was at that link when I posted this story! Here is a New York Times story covering the same event, with a similar headline. --- Posted at 2/27/2003 02:33:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/26/2003 aWol Skippy is pointing to Planet Swank who is pointing to this Mother Jones timeline of Bush's National Guard duty. Go see why so many webloggers are referring to the pResident as aWol Bush. Planet Swank says they got it from Testify! --- Posted at 2/26/2003 07:48:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Call Tomorrow Skippy suggests if you tried to call senators today and couldn't get through, call tomorrow (Thursday)! --- Posted at 2/26/2003 07:15:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Clearing Up the Santa Clara County Vote Story The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Board "took a step Tuesday toward creating a touch-screen voting system that will issue a paper printout.." This appears to be the opposite of the San Jose News story. The press release (below) is confusing. Here's how it seems to add up. It looks like they voted to NOT REQUIRE paper trails at this time. But IF the Secretary of State decides to require paper trails, then the machines will have that added. --- Posted at 2/26/2003 01:29:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Big Voting Machines Stories Over at Black Box Voting, a story about a former employee of a voting machines company, suing the company for firing him for whistleblowing. Spillane's lawsuit charges wrongful and retaliatory termination; he contends he was removed so that he could not blow the whistle to certification labs and pass critical information to the US General Accounting Office. He says he has evidence which shows voting systems are certified despite known flaws, demonstrating a weakness in both the NASED and the ITA system for certifying machines.Here's a bit about the ownership of this company: VoteHere's board of directors includes former CIA director Robert Gates. VoteHere's Chairman is Admiral Bill Owens, who was senior military assistant to Secretaries of Defense Frank Carlucci and Dick Cheney, and also includes Ralph Munro, a key Washington State politician.Meanwhile, Santa Clara County, Ca voted to purchase voting machines WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL! Santa Clara County supervisors rejected pleas from computer scientists Tuesday that they require new electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail after each touch-screen vote is cast, leaving that decision to the California secretary of state. But supervisors did vote to set up a limited pilot project for November's election that will give some voters a physical receipt to verify their otherwise ethereal ballot.They take it with them? What good does THAT do? It doesn't help a recount, but it does help people sell their votes! After Tuesday's 3-2 vote, supervisors will begin negotiating with Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland to buy at least 5,000 electronic voting machines. The company will get the $20 million contract only if it agrees to provide paper printouts when -- and if -- the California secretary of state calls for printed verification of electronic votes.So it's up to the California Secretary of State. (Let the Secretary of State know how you feel. Here is contact information. Scroll down to Elections Division.) This month, in response to stepped-up pressure from a nationwide network of computer scientists, voting rights advocates and security and fraud experts, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley launched a task force on electronic voting. Members are expected to call for security guidelines and the need for verification of votes.So what happens if the machine has a glitch and loses its voting data? Do they throw out the election or just the votes? Here is the county's official press release: Board of Supervisors Selects Electronic Voting System -- Calls for Pilot "Paper Record" Study SAN JOSE, CALIF. -- Today, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors approved the staff recommendation of Sequoia Voting Systems to provide its Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system, and directed staff to proceed with negotiations. Under the Board's proposed plan, the County will petition the Secretary of State to approve pilot projects for a paper record a voter could inspect in the November 2003 and March 2004 elections. This strategy would enable the County of Santa Clara to move forward to comply with the Federal Court Order which requires nine counties, including Santa Clara County, to convert to electronic voting by the March 2004 Presidential Election. It also would set the stage to prepare for a voter inspected paper records, pending the final recommendations of a newly appointed State Task Force on Electronic Voting. All three firms that competed for the $20 million County contract are certified by the California Secretary of State's Office to provide DRE voting systems. In recent weeks, computer scientists and computer technology professors have voiced concerns about DRE voting systems that do not produce paper records for voter inspection. The Board held a workshop on February 11, 2003 to review issues pertaining to accessibility by the disabled, costs and security. "The action taken by the Board of Supervisors keeps us on track to meet the Federal Court Order and if the Secretary of State approves the pilot for a voter verifiable paper ballot, it would enable us to develop a system that assures our voters that Santa Clara County elections continue to be fair and accurate," said Supervisor Blanca Alvarado, Chairperson. The proposal to move forward with DRE voting system, using paper records on a limited basis for the November 2003 and March 2004 was offered by Supervisor Pete McHugh who cited concerns that the work of the newly formed State Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force might take longer than anticipated; and waiting for those results could place the County in jeopardy of violating the Federal Court Order. "All of the recent reports in the media may have created doubts in the minds of voters about the ability of the County to conduct an accurate election using the electronic voting machines," said Supervisor Pete McHugh, District 3. "If the Secretary of State approves the pilot studies, it would enable the County to test the accuracy of the machines, assess the impact of the paper record requirement on those who are visually impaired and should minimize any doubts and concerns these security issues have created among County voters." The Board also approved the creation of an ad hoc election systems oversight review committee, proposed by Supervisor Jim Beall, District 4. The Committee would be comprised of voters, computer security experts and citizen observers. Background Following an extensive competitive process that included a six-month pilot program and extensive community input, the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters recommended Sequoia Voting Systems as the preferred vendor to implement its new Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting System. The County's Finance and Government Operations Committee reviewed the selection on January 31, and forwarded it to the full Board for consideration on February 4, 2003. The Board decided that additional time was required to study the issues pertaining to access for the disabled, costs and security and set a special workshop for February 11, 2003. At that workshop, the Board heard presentations by staff on the six-month pilot project and the vendor evaluation process. It also heard brief presentations from the three firms who responded to the RFP - Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia. The Board also heard concerns from members of the computer science community. # # #So contact California's Secretary of State! Write a letter! --- Posted at 2/26/2003 12:25:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/25/2003 Please Read Please read THE HIJACKING OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MOVEMENT: How a Violent Sect Duped Mainstream Civil Rights Groups, at Nathan Newman's weblog. --- Posted at 2/25/2003 09:57:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush Caught on Film Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap --- Posted at 2/25/2003 04:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Great! Thanks to Thinking it Through for pointing me to THIS POSTER! Go see! --- Posted at 2/25/2003 04:12:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Democracy Michael Finley's blog is now named worldgonewrong. See this excellent piece on responsibility in democracy. A bit of it to get you to go there and read: Every decision is a moral act. Every time you tell a pollster, "Sure, drop bombs on those people," you have just dropped a bomb on someone, with you heart and soul. It was a sin of intent, a sin not of deed but of thought. If leadership uses your vote or remark or letter to the editor to justify violence, then you have done something even worse: you aided and abetted in the commission of a sin. --- Posted at 2/25/2003 03:09:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Some History of the Conservative Movement The following is adapted from my article, Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors?, February 10, History News Network. Part 2 of this piece, HOW TO FIGHT BACK, is now posted. Some History of the Conservative Movement In 1971 the National Chamber of Commerce circulated a memo by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell among business leaders which claimed that "the American economic system" of business and free markets was "under broad attack" by "Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic." Powell argued that those engaged in this attack come from "the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians." According to the Powell memo, the key to solving this problem was to get business people to "confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management" by building organizations that will use "careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing only available in joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations." It helped immeasurably, Powell noted, that the boards of trustees of universities "overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system," and that most of the media "are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the free enterprise system to survive." Powell wrote that these organizations should employ a "faculty of scholars" to publish in journals, write "books, paperbacks and pamphlets," with speakers and a speaker's bureau, as well as develop organizations to evaluate textbooks, and engage in a "long range effort" to correct the purported imbalances in campus faculties. "The television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance." Powell said that this effort must also target the judicial system. The "Four Sisters" In 1973, in response to the Powell memo, Joseph Coors and Christian-right leader Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation. Coors told Lee Edwards, historian of the Heritage Foundation, that the Powell memo persuaded him that American business was "ignoring a crisis." In response, Coors decided to help provide the seed funding for the creation of what was to become the Heritage Foundation, giving $250,000.(1) From David Greenberg's New York Times review of Edwards' book, The Power of Ideas: "Coors told Edwards that Powell's manifesto had "convinced" him that American business was "ignoring a crisis." Coors was moved to act. He "invested" the first $250,000 to fund the 1971-72 operations of the Analysis and Research Association (ARA) in Washington, D.C., the original name of the [Heritage] foundation. Other wealthy contributors followed Coors' lead. Their aim was to counter liberal power in Washington, and aggressively market policies and legislative proposals to Congress and the President that reflected the conservative agenda. Heritage became the trend-setting model for scores of policy institutes and lobbying operations that compose the radical-right apparat. Heritage has been a major beneficiary of the Coors' Castle Rock Foundation ever since."Subsequently, the Olin Foundation, under the direction of its president, former Treasury Secretary William Simon (author of the influential 1979 book A Time for Truth), began funding similar organizations in concert with "the Four Sisters"--Richard Mellon Scaife's various foundations, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Olin Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation--along with Coors's foundations, foundations associated with the Koch oil family, and a group of large corporations. (2) (This core group of four funders was dubbed the “Four Sisters” in the article. Funding the war of ideas, 19-26, July, 1995 issue of Christian Century. See Funder of the Lott CCW Study Has Links to the Gun Industry, Violence Policy Center for a discussion of this. In this article, I will refer to this group of funders as the "Four Sisters Funding Group" or FSFG.) The organization Philanthropy Roundtable was founded to coordinate this funding. Following Powell's long-term plan to "build a movement," FSFG has funded and built a network of think tanks, advocacy organizations, and expanded into media, lobbying, and other areas. The work was slow but effective. As Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute, told a group of conservative business people, "things take time. It takes at least 10 years for a radical new idea to emerge from obscurity." "Funds generated by business...must rush by the multimillions to the aid of liberty...to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists, writers and journalists who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty. [Business must] cease the mindless subsidizing of colleges and universities who departments of economy, government, politics and history are hostile to capitalism."Creating "Conventional Wisdom" Now, after 30 years of effort, this core FSFG has built a comprehensive ideological infrastructure. There are now over 500 organizations, with the Heritage Foundation at the hub, all funded by this core group. David Callahan's 1999 study, $1 Billion for Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks in the 1990s, found that just the top 20 of the organizations spent over $1 billion on this ideological effort in the 1990s. The right-wing movement's messages are orchestrated and amplified to sound like a mass "movement" consisting of many "voices." Using "messaging"--communication techniques from the fields of marketing, public relations, and corporate image-management--the movement appeals to people's deeper feelings and values. Messages are repeated until they become "conventional wisdom." Examples include lines like "Social Security is going broke" and "public schools are failing." Both statements are questionable, yet both have been firmly embedded in the "public mind" by purposeful repetition through multiple channels. This orchestration has been referred to as a "Mighty Wurlitzer, " a CIA term that refers to propaganda that is repeated over and over again in numerous places until the public believes what it's hearing must be true. From "The Mighty Wurlitzer," by Robert Borosage, American Prospect, May, 2002 "With all that ideological money, institutional heft, coordination, and credentialing, the right has perfected what the CIA used to call a "mighty Wurlitzer" -- a propaganda machine that can hone a fact or a lie, broadcast it, and have it echoed and recycled in Fox News commentary, in Washington Times news stories, in Wall Street Journal editorials, by myriad right-wing pundits, by Heritage seminars and briefing papers, and in congressional hearings and speeches."As a study by the People for the American Way, has put it: "The result of this comprehensive and yet largely invisible funding strategy is an extraordinary amplification of the far right's views on a range of issues. The various funding recipients do not march in ideological lock-step, but they do promote many of the same issues to their respective audiences. They have thus been able to keep alive in the public debate a variety of policy ideas long ago discredited or discarded by the mainstream. That, in turn, has been of enormous value in the right's ongoing effort to reshape American society. The success of the right-wing efforts are seen at every level of government, as a vast armada of foundation-funded right-wing organizations has both fed and capitalized on the current swing to the right in Congress and in the state legislatures."The Money Comes With Strings The FSFG money comes with ideological strings attached. Their think tanks are not independent; their organizations must espouse their ideology. "Cato, for example," as Gregg Easterbrook pointed out in an article in the Atlantic in 1986, "flatly states that it will not release any study that calls for a government program. The institute's president, Edward Crane, says that he receives one or two commissioned reports each year that are 'inconsistent,' and he does not publish them. The analyst Jonathan Stein lost his job at [the Center For Strategic & International Studies] CSIS several months after he published a book highly critical of Star Wars, the study of which is worth millions to think tanks that toe the line. (CSIS denies there was any connection.) " The core group that controls this movement is now attacking even Republicans who would previously have been considered "conservatives" for inadequate ideological purity. Members of the moderate wing of the Republican Party are derided by the radical right as nothing more than RINO's -- Republicans In Name Only. The FSFG is funding efforts to drive these moderates out of office and out of the party.(3) The Movement is Coordinated Currently the core of the "conservative movement" meets weekly with representatives of the FSFG. As Eric Alterman has revealed: Their weekly agenda was hammered out every Wednesday at a meeting chaired by Grover Norquist, a rightwing Leninist who believes in an ever-shifting tactical alliance. Among those who attend the invitation-only meetings are spokespeople and representatives of NRA, the Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation; corporate lobbyists, the top people from the Republican party and the Congressional Republican leadership, and chief White House aides. Trusted rightwing journalists and editors also attend, though the meetings are off the record. While the ostensible purpose of the meeting is to share information and coordinate strategy, they also give Norquist the opportunity to act as an ideological enforcer. When one member of the Bush administration worried to a New York Times reporter that the administration's plan to repeal the estate tax would cripple charitable giving, he was publicly warned by Norquist that this was "the first betrayal of Bush", and was gone not long afterward. When a conservative pundit named Laura Ingraham criticised a fellow conservative in the House of Representatives for overzealousness, she was immediately informed by Norquist to decide "whether to be with us or against us". She was no longer welcome at the meetings.David Brock, in his book Blinded By the Right, described from inside this "movement" how different parts of the right-wing web and their funders interacted during the attempt to remove President Clinton from office. Brock writes that funding was supplied by Richard Mellon Scaife, Federalist Society (funded by Scaife) lawyers and judges working behind the scenes assisting Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and supplying information to (Scaife-funded) American Spectator magazine. Even the Justice System A review of the 1993 Alliance for Justice study, Justice for Sale by Richard L. Grossman, says Powell's recommendations for changing the legal system have led to "a multi-faceted, comprehensive, and integrated campaign," coordinated and funded by large corporations and rightwing foundations, "to create taxpayer subsidized law firms...to rewrite American jurisprudence...advanc[e] their agenda before judges, lawyers, legal scholars, and government policy makers...[and] sought to assure control over the future direction of the law" by installing ideologically friendly faculty in law schools, as well as organizing and rewarding students with scholarships and clerkships under conservative judges, and placing those judges on the bench. The influential Federalist Society, an organization of ideologically conservative lawyers, law students, law professors, bureaucrats, activists, and judges, with chapters on most law school campuses, was also founded and funded by the core FSFG. The Federalist Society also serves to assist members with job placement -- its members screen and make up many of the Bush administration’s appointees to the Justice Department, Federal judgeships and other prominent positions. (6) A Case Study Often it is possible to discern how the timing of a "Mighty Wurlitzer" chorus relates to a planned conservative policy initiative. A recent example is the flurry of articles that hit the press starting in late November, originating from the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform and the Tax Foundation, which claimed that the poor do not pay enough income taxes. The Wall Street Journal even referred to the poor as "lucky duckies." The paper did not mention that poor people do pay Social Security taxes. The publicity appears to have been timed to the release of the president's latest tax-cutting program.(4, 5) The Effect on Society The core right-wing web of organizations funded by the FSFG has increasingly been able to set the public agenda, shifting national and local politics consistently to the right and away from the mainstream public interest. As a result, right-wing ideological premises and arguments dominate public-issue debate, with big money using this communications infrastructure to drown out other voices, virtually creating a one-dollar-one-vote society. "As one investigative journalist stated years ago in a pioneering investigation of the conservative philanthropy of Richard Scaife," wrote Sally Covington in a 1997 study, "layer upon layer of seminars, studies, conferences, and interviews [can] do much to push along if not create, the issues, which then become the national agenda of debate.... By multiplying the authorities to whom the media are prepared to give a friendly hearing, [conservative donations] have helped to create an illusion of diversity where none exists. The result could be an increasing number of one-sided debates in which the challengers are far outnumbered, if indeed they are heard from at all."Now Posted -- How to Fight Back ----------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1.See Jerry Landray, From The Powell Manifesto: How A Prominent Lawyer's Attack Memo Changed America. 2. See also The Machine’s Origins, Consortium News, and Buying a Movement, People for the American Way Foundation. 3. See http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html#moderates. 4. See: Heritage Foundation, May 8, 2001 http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=4327 Americans for Tax Reform, May 7, 2002 http://www.atr.org/caucus/article050702.html Tax Foundation, November, 2002 http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html 5. The Wurlitzer: Nov. 20, 2002 http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937 Nov. 26, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39211-2002Nov25¬Found=true Nov. 26, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2074666/ Dec. 3, 2002 http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021203-415124.htm Dec. 4, 2002 http://www.naplesnews.com/02/12/perspective/d856951a.htm Dec. 10, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/taxnotes30th_anniversaryspeech_dec10_2002.pdf Dec. 15, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59577-2002Dec15¬Found=true Dec. 16, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2075483/ Dec. 21, 2002 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/12/21/duckies/ Jan. 7, 2003 White House proposes tax changes: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/kd3739.htm Jan. 9, 2003 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/09/ED210726.DTL Jan. 14, 2003 http://slate.msn.com/id/2076725/ Jan. 16, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2077089/ Jan. 20, 2003 http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002938 Jan. 20, 2003 http://slate.msn.com/id/2077201/ 6. See The Federalist Society - The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law by Jerry Landay, The Washington Monthly, March, 2000. --- Posted at 2/25/2003 01:33:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
North Korean Missiles The only thing that scares me more than North Korea having missiles with nukes that can reach California (where I live) is that General Rove probably sees it as an opportunity to take California's electoral votes out of play for 2004. --- Posted at 2/25/2003 10:42:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
After All, It's Your Money I posted this as a comment over at Daily Kos: I think Bush is going to get the vote (at the UN). He has announced that the Treasury's checkbook is open (Turkey). So now it's just a matter of settling up the price. That's all. Lots of secret agreements, lots of "aid" deals, lots of promises for a share of the "rebuilding" contracts. The Bushies are going to pay what it takes - after all, "it's your money," not theirs. --- Posted at 2/25/2003 10:36:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Read My Lips Is someone saying that Blair is Bush's Bitch? (This is a movie, click at your own risk unless you have DSL or cable.) --- Posted at 2/25/2003 08:18:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/24/2003 HOW TO FIGHT BACK This is a follow-up to February 25's piece, Some History of the Conservative Movement. This is a much revised version of something I posted here a few months ago. There is a version of this, designed and formatted to be sent as an e-mail message for forwarding, available online at: http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/ltr030403.rtf HOW TO FIGHT BACK The right seems to be taking over everywhere. They are tearing down so much that we care about - environmental programs, family planning programs, basic "safety net" programs, causing massive budget deficits, etc. How did we get into this predicament and what do we do to get out of it? How did the right shift the center of American public opinion? And how can we beat them at their own game? The Predicament - The extreme right-wing took complete control of the Federal Government on Nov. 5th. The solution -- Fight Back with the Commonweal Institute. Those of us fighting for common sense policies that protect the environment, prevent corporations from abusing workers, investors and the communities around them, provide pregnant women with basic health care, and ensure that the rich pay their fare share of society's needs (among other things) are now reduced to fighting a rear-guard action to prevent further damage. We see it every day in the headlines - education, health care, public parks and even roads, police and fire departments -- all face massive budget cuts. It seems you can't open up a paper or turn on the television without hearing about an environmental setback, a school closing, a hospital shutting down, the cost of health insurance rising or another corporation laying off massive numbers of workers after moving production overseas. It's just overwhelming! This is not your grandmother's country. What happened to the common sense, mainstream middle of the road politicians like Sen. James Jeffords that your grandmother used to cast votes for without hesitation? He had to leave his own party, saying the extremists have taken over! Why has the extreme right-wing pulled the country so far to the right that sometimes you have to look very closely to tell the difference? How did the "center" of the American political spectrum shift so radically to the right over the last three decades? And what can we do to shift it back? What can we do about it? It is important to understand what has been happening to us! How did the right shift the center of American public opinion? And how can we beat them at their own game? They have been so effective, maybe we ought to be doing some of what they've been doing! (Acting with honesty and ethics, of course!) So I'd like to write about the right-wing movement's campaign to move the public to the right. By examining how it was done we can learn how to counter it, and move the public and the country back into balance, back to the center back to sanity. And then I'll describe the Commonweal Institute’s plan to do something about it. Part 1 - What has been happening to us? Pushed to the right. The American public has been the target of an ongoing, deliberate, planned campaign to push them to the right. Who is funding this campaign? A small group of wealthy far-right and Christian-right individuals, foundations and corporations. Since the early 1970's, they have been pouring literally hundreds of millions of dollars into a small group of think tanks and organizations in order to create the appearance of a much larger "movement." You might recognize some of the following names: The Heritage Foundation (founded in 1973), The American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1943, but whose budget exploded from $1 million a year in 1970 to $11 million a year by 1981), the Cato Institute (founded in 1977), the Free Congress Foundation (founded in 1977 by Paul Weyrich, who also helped found The Heritage Foundation), The Federalist Society (founded in 1982), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (founded in 1984). These organizations did not exist a few decades ago, but now are cited with overwhelming regularity by mainstream media and politicians. The research to back this up is on the Commonweal Institute's web site, at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. I also go into detail about this subject in a recent article, Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors?, online at http://hnn.us/articles/1244.html. What's remarkable is that when you look at these, and about 500 other similar organizations that have sprung up since the early 1970’s, they are all funded by the same few people, corporations and foundations! You'll find that Richard Mellon Scaife and his family foundations, and the Bradley Foundation, Olin Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, and Coors family foundations and a few corporations and individuals are funding and coordinating almost all of the activities of this right-wing “movement.” What seems like a number of different organizations and individuals is really just a small group. What do they get for their money? Studies and policy papers ("idea product") specifically designed to support right-wing political positions. Translated by modern marketing techniques (polling, focus groups, psychological profiling…) into easy to digest sound bites that resonate emotionally and culturally, these "ideas" are promoted by “independent experts” and “scholars” through far-right outlets such as TV’s Fox News, the Internet’s Drudge Report and NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio, newspapers like the Washington Times, and a multitude of right-wing columnists, pundits, authors and celebrities (many of which are dependent on right-wing institutions for their paychecks). How pervasive are these ideas? The “communications engine” of the right-wing goes far beyond the self-consciously "conservative" institutions cited above. An extraordinary number of the “talking heads” on network television ("Meet The Press" on NBC), cable (CNBC) and public TV (McLaughlin Group), articles and letters on the editorial pages of national newspapers (the New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today), “sources” and experts in news stories, “studies” referred to in magazine articles (US News and World Report, Time, Newsweek, etc.), and books reviewed in the paper get their “talking points” from these extreme right-wing organizations. This is all well documented in the research gathered by the Commonweal Institute at "What did the Republicans do in the 1970s? They went back to their roots and created institutions for the long-term. They spent money on think-tanks and local organizations and decided to build a new party from the ground up that appealed to conservatives. They elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the party they built then is the same party that Karl Rove is orchestrating today. The fringe-y think tanks of the '70s -- like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute -- now provide an endless supply of talking-head and op-ed support for right-wing policies. And, give them credit, they're just full of ideas."Part 2 - How is the Commonweal Institute going to shift the center of American public opinion? The Commonweal Institute will provide message leadership. The Commonweal Institute is committed to advancing moderate and progressive principles through message leadership, using strategic marketing and aggressive communication of ideas. We are working to bring positive moderate and progressive messages to the public and build widespread support for the issues we care about. Our goals: to swing American public opinion back towards a moderate/progressive perspective; to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas; to revitalize and reenergize the democratic process; to advance the values of fairness, justice, and opportunity and to help create a equitable society with sustainable economic development. Here's how. The Commonweal Institute will use modern marketing and public relations methods to advance moderate and progressive principles to the broad, mainstream public -- some of the same techniques that the right wing has used so effectively to dominate our nation’s marketplace of ideas, but used honestly and ethically. The “idea product” of moderate/progressive think tanks and other organizations will be translated into researched, effective messaging that resonates with target audiences. This means polling & focus groups to uncover issues important to the targeted demographic & psychographic groups and cognitive interviewing, linguistic analysis, framing analysis, etc. to determine effective emotional messaging that reaches these target groups. Because people respond best to stories that trigger an emotional response, using words that evoke images in the mind and metaphors that hook facts to their deeper feelings, giving them a sense of “Oh yeah, that's right.” The Commonweal Institute will work with other organizations to use multiple channels of communication to reach the widest possible set of audiences. These channels of communication will include books, articles, columns, commentaries, letters to the editor, newsletters, on-line information, expert speakers, scholars, talk show guests, video clips, tapes, media training for activists and advertisements, as well as providing talking points and other ready-to-go materials for use by opinion leaders, public speakers, educators, activists, talk show hosts and guests and the general public -- the exact same set of tools and techniques that the right wing has been using to shape public opinion over the past three decades. An example: If the rumored "liberal radio talk show network" does gets started, the talk-show hosts will need things to talk about, and will need to know how to talk about them in ways that reach out and grab a mainstream general public audience. THIS is what Commonweal will do. The Commonweal Institute will provide the wording, data, issues, framing, even many guests. Manufacturing "conventional wisdom". The right has used the technique of repeating something often enough that people believe it (the “public schools are failing”, “Social Security is going broke,” "we need to cut taxes to stimulate the economy"). Commonweal Institute will provide message leadership, creating conventional wisdom that reflects moderate and progressive principles by repeating messages that build support for moderate and progressive principles, over and over again, through many outlets, using words that resonate with people, until public opinion changes. A battle of ideas. We progressives and moderates have a clear advantage in the battle of ideas -- we don't have to lie, trick or otherwise fool the public to get them to agree with us! In fact, we are going to do the opposite -- we're going to tell it like it is. The right wing is trying to convince the public to do absurd things, such as giving up their Social Security, pensions, healthcare, environmental regulations, workplace safety rules, environmental protections and all the rest of the benefits and protections we have built up over the years, just so that some rich white guy can upgrade his five car garage to a seven car garage and park another couple of Ferraris in it. That’s why, even with all the billions spent and all the domination of the media they've developed, they STILL can't get a majority of the voters to agree with them, even after convincing so many people to give up voting entirely! Multi-issue vs. single issue. While many issue-organizations offer good information for their issues, they tend to be financially dependant on reaching out to their own base of supporters. Many have limited budgets and cannot reach as many as they would like. Fundraising is difficult and ongoing, and it makes sense to reach people who will tend to support your cause. It is not typically economical for single-issue organizations to spend the money to reach out to the mainstream, general public. So out of necessity there is a lot of preaching to the converted. In addition, more and more, they are fighting shorter-term defensive battles, as they endure constant attack by right-wing elements. To reach out to wide general audiences, talking about a number of issues, you need a different kind of organization. Moderates and progressives need to fund and develop infrastructure. This is what the Commonweal Institute is. The beginnings of a foundation for progress. What we’re creating at the Commonweal Institute is an “infrastructure” organization. These are what the right-wing has been building over the past three decades. The Commonweal Institute will work to change underlying public attitudes, by translating particular issues and causes into a larger framework of understanding, and communicate that general perspective to the public at large. Growing the base. Changing underlying public attitudes toward the moderate/progressive perspective will bring the growth of the base of support for moderate and progressive organizations and leaders. Environmental, social, health, and other types of organizations will see their own support and funding base increase. They will also have some of their burden reduced as government again picks up some of the load. It’s not about picking the right politicians. Politicians and parties follow the lead of the people. Once the Commonweal Institute is able to change the public's core attitudes, moderate and progressive leaders and officials will have an easier job convincing voters that they have the right solution, since the public will already understand the issues it faces, and will already be asking for what they are suggesting. This will be a lot easier for candidates and elected officials than having to explain the background of issues, introduce the programs, and convince the voters that they have the right ideas and solutions, all at the same time, and in a single 15 to 30 second sound bite. Some good news. Lack of money is not what has been handicapping moderates and progressives. There is actually a lot of money available on the moderate/progressive side. It just hasn’t been used as effectively as the money poured into right-wing idea machine infrastructure. There are some good articles about this on Commonweal’s information page, online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. Much of the money supplied by moderates and progressives goes to fund narrow programs with limited and specific goals. This once worked well as a way to get a lot done with limited funds. But "program funding" is not as effective in a time when so much that we care about is under attack from right-wing organizations! There is no “fight back” component in this kind of funding. This style of funding creates organizations that lack the flexibility to quickly respond to changing needs. Opportunities are often lost as a result, when the resources to take advantage of them are unavailable until the next annual budget cycle. The right has provided general operating funding money for use any way the organizations want, as long as it is spent to further the right-wing ideological movement, according to their specific long-term strategic goals. Moderate and progressive donors need to do much more of this. So the money is there, but until this funding pattern changes, organizations like the Commonweal Institute must be funded by individual donors who understand the necessity of the task at hand and want to help out. You, in other words. Return on investment. Here's an example of the funding problem. Many of us support local members of the national Land Trust Alliance, such as The Sempervirens Fund in Santa Cruz County, California, which is working to permanently protect the area's remaining ancient old growth redwoods by acquiring land and integrating it into the public parks system. They are currently working to raise $13.4 million to save the San Lorenzo River Redwoods. But that huge investment, and others like it, can be undone overnight, wasting all the money, if public officials decide to gut anti-logging protections in the state parks under the guise of “forest fire prevention”, or even sells off the state parks. (Yes, they're even talking about selling state and national parks)! Progressives and moderates face losses like this across our entire “investment portfolio” of programs, because they have failed to build infrastructure that works to change underlying attitudes, along with funding specific projects and programs. Without this infrastructure, progressives and moderates will continue to experience losses and lack the ability to generate the kind of large-scale public reaction that makes ideas like clear-cutting our national forests under the guise of “fire protection” non-starters. The Commonweal Institute will increase our return on the investments we make in organizations and programs that work on specific issues. Whew! OK, I wrote a lot here today. Let me sum up Please visit Commonweal Institute’s website at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org. Tell others! Please take a look at the collection of resources on Commonweal’s Information Page at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. No matter what else you take away from reading this, learning about what the right-wing has been doing and telling others is one of the most effective ways to immunize yourself and combat their pervasive messaging! Donate money. And, of course, if you agree that it is time to work “to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas,” please go to this web page, http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/youcanhelp.html, and help build the Commonweal Institute. FIGHTING BACK TAKES MONEY. But there are a lot of us! We are reaching out to all Americans, and asking for your participation in democracy, your birthright, and your obligation as a citizen. We are just facilitators of your participation. Even a little can help us a lot, in rallying people to the cause. Even one dollar says you care. Give. Give....give time, give attention, give your presence at rallies, give the time to get informed, and if you have a few dollars, give to Commonweal Institute so we can continue the fight. Where did you give money last year? How many charities got $10 or $100? Add it up. Does that really reflect your own priorities? Why not consider making one big gift this year to one nonprofit that can make a difference, needs to make a difference, now? This may be the most important issue of all -- your own political freedom and the fate of democracy. Put the money where your beliefs are. Give what you can, and get active. ----------- There is a version of this, designed and formatted to be sent as an e-mail message for forwarding, available online at: http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/ltr030403.rtf --- Posted at 2/24/2003 02:38:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machines Front Page Story The San Jose Mercury News has a front page voting machines story today, Board faces key decision on voting by computer - POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD WORRIES SUPERVISORS It focuses on a local county decision, but covers many of the important points. Trusting the machine to self-audit, critics say, is akin to an IRS audit on someone who created his own receipts.This has also been added to Seeing the Forest's Collection of Links to Voting Machine Articles and Websites. --- Posted at 2/24/2003 10:24:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/21/2003 Michael Kinsley has written one of his best columns ever, Losing on the Bush Diet: Suppose you had a friend who was grossly overweight for years but lately had been looking very trim. Suddenly, though, he puts on 30 or 40 pounds and is waddling around like his old porcine self. He explains that he's found a marvelous new diet: "You eat like a pig and stop exercising until you get so fat that you just have to lose weight." Would you say that your friend is kidding himself? And if your friend went on to complain that he was getting fat because other people were eating too much, and that this diet was the only way to stop these other people from putting those unsightly pounds on him, would you think his self-delusion was becoming clinical? Or would you start to suspect that the joke is on you? Yet this is essentially the logic adopted by the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership to rationalize turning the federal budget surplus back into huge deficits.Go read. Get mad at stupid Republicans. YEAH! --- Posted at 2/21/2003 02:58:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Major Paper Acknowledges Voting Machine Issue A San Jose Mercury News editorial today acknowledged the voting machines problem! The editorial, If voters get a record of their ballot, they can check on the system includes (there's more), I know zip about software code, but if I were the supervisors, I'd put a lot of stock in the views of Stanford computer professor David Dill, SRI Computer Lab scientist Peter Neumann and other experts who have spent their careers matching wits with hackers. When they say security is a problem, there's cause for worry. The clearest explanation I've heard of the security problem with touch screen systems and the commonsense solution to it came from Alan Hu, an associate professor of computer science at the University of British Columbia and a protege of Professor Dill. He offered it during a hearing this month. It's worth repeating. Imagine a store, he said, where the clerk shows you the total of your purchases on a handheld electronic calculator. Behind the counter, he enters your purchase amount into a ledger. He shows you the total, then clears the calculator for the next customer. Suppose the clerk occasionally pockets the cash and ``forgets'' to enter the purchase in the ledger book. Or maybe he skims off cash and enters a smaller amount than what you purchased. A computerized voting machine that shows your votes on a display screen only and records your votes internally is like a clerk using a handheld calculator. To reduce the risk of cheating or help catch sloppy errors, you can do a background check on the clerk, just as you can certify a voting machine's hardware and software. You can have the clerk fill out duplicate ledgers, analogous to redundant hard drives in voting machines. You can encrypt the ledger books to prevent others from forging them -- and encrypt data storage and transmission in voting machines. But in both cases, no amount of security or auditing of records will catch cheating or errors, because the cheater is the one preparing the audit record. The solution to a dishonest clerk is simple. The clerk enters each transaction on a cash register, and the customer sees what is on the cash register tape. If there's any doubt about the clerk's accuracy or honesty, you compare what the clerk recorded with the cash register tape. The solution for the voting machine is essentially the same: You show a printed copy of the ballot for the voter to confirm; if there's a discrepancy, the voting machine can be shut down. If there's any doubt about the correctness of the voting machine, you can compare the totals it reports with a separate count of the printed copies.Hooray! --- Posted at 2/21/2003 02:19:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Hegemoney.com Hegemoney.com --- Posted at 2/21/2003 09:25:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/20/2003 Time to Go, Zell Isn't it about time for Zell Miller to announce that he is really a Republican? Or perhaps he feels he is more useful to the Republicans calling himself a Democrat. --- Posted at 2/20/2003 02:35:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/19/2003 Heading Off Any Trouble This is posted over at Roger Ailes: Today, some jackass sent an insulting e-mail to Oliver Willis which was designed to look like it came from me. I cleared things up with Oliver, who was very gracious. Around the same time today, I received an e-mail which was designed to look like it came from someone other than the real sender, which was sent through a re-mailer. If anyone gets an e-mail like this which supposedly came from me, please let me know. I can assure anyone who recieved something like this that it did not come from me.In case something's up - anyone who has received any e-mails from me that might be offensive, check with me and make sure it's from me. Continuing on this point - Anyone that has received any e-mails from me that make me look stupid, it wasn't me. If I should have put the addresses in the BCC and instead put them in the CC in that e-mail Monday - it wasn't me. If I accidentally sent everyone 10 copies of the Robert Reich Commonweal Institute endorsement - it wasn't me. Richard, if you got an e-mail from me that said, "Blow me" - it wasn't me. If the e-mail in any way indicates that I might owe you money - it wasn't me. If it had any misspellings or typos - it wasn't me. If I turned down a free dinner invitation - it CERTAINLY wasn't me. If you believe it was me, then the terrorists win. It was Bill Clinton that did it. --- Posted at 2/19/2003 01:33:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machine Additions I have added new articles/websites to the Collection of Voting Machine Articles. Voting Machines: Vote Tampering in the 21st Century (NOT the same site as "Black Box Voting - Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century") Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project --- Posted at 2/19/2003 11:07:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/18/2003 Another Voting Machine Article Commonweal Institute's Uncommon Denominator: "new computerized voting machines are vulnerable to tampering." --- Posted at 2/18/2003 04:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Clinton Fighting Terrorists From BuzzFlash: Tired of Getting Those Wingnut Emails Saying Clinton Did Nothing for Terrorism? Well, Send Them This Page. --- Posted at 2/18/2003 04:06:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Scalia and Self-Government Remember civics and history class, where we learned about our constitution and our government, and how America is about democracy and "the people" and self-government? The fundamental concept underlying our country is that we are self-governed. America was the first country with true self government. Until then the underlying concept of western government was that government's powers existed because of God's authority. This was the "divine right of kings" -- you did what you were told because the king ruled with authority granted by God. According to St. Paul, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Our "Founding Fathers" broke away from those essentially theocratic beliefs to form the United States. Their Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Our Constitution begins with the words, "We the People of the United States". Our country's fundamental founding concept is that our government derives its authority from the consent of the governed - WE THE PEOPLE make the decisions. America made enemies when it declared that people should be governed by people. Royalists, monarchists and oligarchists do not believe these things. Many now believe that corporations and markets are better suited to make society's decisions. The enemies our country has historically faced have been those who believed that someone at the top decides, not the people. First England, with its God-chosen King. Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II. Hitler's Nazis with their ideology of "God's chosen people" as Hitler privately referred to "the Aryans." The Soviets were ruled by dictators who worshipped an ideology. Even our Civil War was fought against those who believed God gave them the right to own other people. Does America's concept of self-government still have enemies? Self-government is rejected in favor of God's government in a shocking May, 2002 article, God's Justice and Ours, [alternate source] written by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The article is a refinement of January, 2002 remarks Scalia made at a U-Chicago panel discussion. In the panel discussion and subsequent article Scalia explains his reasons for his belief that the death penalty is moral. His argument is that government - the State - is allowed to do things that regular people cannot do because government has a higher authority granted to it by God. He writes, "The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual." He believes God chooses humanity's leaders, and democracy obstructs God's wishes by imposing ordinary people as the decision-makers. He condemns the "tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government". If one believes this, then one has the problem of how to identify the leaders that God chooses. Scalia appears to think that the way to identify legitimate God-chosen leaders is when they seize power in conflict, demonstrating that God chose them over others. He writes, "These passages from Romans represent the consensus of Western thought until very recent times. Not just of Christian or religious thought, but of secular thought regarding the powers of the state. That consensus has been upset, I think, by the emergence of democracy. It is easy to see the hand of the Almighty behind rulers whose forebears, in the dim mists of history, were supposedly anointed by God, or who at least obtained their thrones in awful and unpredictable battles whose outcome was determined by the Lord of Hosts, that is, the Lord of Armies. It is much more difficult to see the hand of God—or any higher moral authority—behind the fools and rogues (as the losers would have it) whom we ourselves elect to do our own will. How can their power to avenge—to vindicate the “public order”—be any greater than our own?"THIS is the thinking of the guy who, in an electoral conflict, put Bush into the White House, blocking the democratic recount because a vote count showing Gore winning would harm Bush's legitimate position as president-elect. Does Scalia see the Bush v Gore case as a "battle" that demonstrated that god chose Bush over Gore? Did Scalia think that he was acting as the people's - the Constitution's - agent in this, or instead as God's agent? The fact is that there are plenty of individuals, even in America, who do not believe in democracy. Think about the statements that voters in Florida are "too stupid to vote." Just read the messages at any libertarian message board. Just think about the underlying philosophy behind the Republican corporatists: democratic government is bad and so should be weak, corporations are good, the rich are good, one-dollar-one-vote is the market way to make decisions. Just think about how the Christian Right controls much of the Republican Party now -- powerful people and organizations that believe America is violating the laws of God by following concepts of self-government. But OUR system believes that the PEOPLE govern. OUR constitution says that WE THE PEOPLE determine our destiny. And Scalia swore an oath to uphold and defend OUR Constitution! Scalia writes, "The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible." How far is this from a call to overthrow our constitutional government and replace it with a theocracy? This guy should not be on the Supreme Court. This sure sounds like he does not believe that the law comes from "We the People," as the constitution says it does, and does not believe that the very principles underlying our form of government are legitimate! He calls for "people of faith" to combat democracy because it obscures "the divine authority behind government"! How far have we come from the country I used to know - from the things I learned in my high school civics class? If our system were functioning properly Scalia would never have been nominated to a seat on our Supreme Court. If our system were functioning properly he would never have been confirmed. If our system were functioning properly Scalia would be impeached. Article VI, Clause 3, of our Constitution, says: "judicial Officers ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." How could it possibly be more clear that Scalia does not fulfill his oath of office? It's a testament to how far we have come from our self-governing roots that we are not in the streets demanding the resignation of such individuals. It is a testament to the strength of the forces in our country who oppose democracy and want to impose theocracy/corporatocracy! This is the battle we are engaged in with the right. Does President Bush's view of the law resemble Scalia's? Do you remember when Bush attended a secret meeting with the Christian Far-Right's Council for National Policy and emerged with the entire right-wing communications apparatus -- the "Mighty Wurlitzer" -- lined up behind him? What did he promise them? What about the snippets leaking out of the White House concerning Bush's belief he is chosen by God to lead the Christians against Islam? Scalia himself endorses the idea that God authorizes Christian revenge, when Scalia writes, "government carries the sword as "the minister of God," to "execute wrath" upon the evildoer." Is that Bush speaking, or Scalia, or do the two really sound like one? I have been corresponding with Eric Zuesse, author of the book, Why the Holocaust Happened: Its Religious Cause & Scholarly Cover-Up, who has been studying Scalia's speech for some time, and who has a yet-to-be-published article that demolishes Scalia's interpretation in his speech of St. Paul's writing. Zuesse says, "My analysis criticizes Scalia's assertions as regards their historical falseness about Romans 13:1-5, and also as regards the beliefs they indicate to have been behind his actions in Bush v. Gore. I especially criticize his implicit repudiation of the Declaration of Independence saying, that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and the U.S. Constitution saying that "We, the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Both contradict Scalia's "Government, however you want to limit that concept, derives its moral authority from God."So which is it going to be? Are we going to continue self-government? Or are we going to change to an authoritarian system, ruled from the top by a God-chosen leader? Is a theocracy the right-wing vision that Bush is implementing? Did Scalia already give us "the God-chosen leader" on December 9, 2000? --- Posted at 2/18/2003 01:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/16/2003 A Threat To Peace A Threat To Peace. --- Posted at 2/16/2003 09:44:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
How Voting Machines Should Work I left this as a comment over at Ruminate This. Here's what people mean by a paper backup: The voting machine makes the voting easy and the new technology ensures that there are no invalid ballots. After you vote the machine prints out a paper backup of YOUR vote, for YOU to examine. Then YOU take that paper ballot to the desk where the voting officials are sitting, and you deposit that paper backup into a LOCKED BALLOT BOX. All the officials at the table watch you do it and watch each other to make sure everyone keeps their hands out of the ballot box. At the end of the night that locked ballot box is opened and the ballots are counted. All the officials are watching and verifying this counting. They compare this count to the count shown by the machine. THEN the machine is allowed to transmit its totals to election headquarters where computers are able to quickly tabulate election results. The election officials write down the results of their own counting, lock the ballots back in the box, and take the box AND their written records to headquarters for use in case of a recount. This is a foolproof system. It does not rely on accurate machines, instead using human verification of every step. I've worked in polling places in San Mateo Country, CA, and this is similar to how it is done now, except for the improvement of technology making the voting easier and ensuring that there are no invalid ballots. Update - Question - "...as I see it, your entire audit procedure relies on a separate but equal paper voting system. If that is your deal, why bother with the machimes at all?" Answer: Because good touch-screen machines make the voting easier, prevent invalid votes and confusion (like Palm Beach Jews voting for Buchanan), report reliable counts to computers at headquarters so the election is over in a few hours, and the paper trail ballots they print out are uniform, evenly marked, valif, and verified by the voter. --- Posted at 2/16/2003 05:03:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/14/2003 Voting Machines Story Spreads The voting machines story has reached Slashdot. Update - one comment in the Slashdot piece points to a good blog entry about voting machines here. --- Posted at 2/14/2003 07:32:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Thanks to Cursor I discovered this excellent article, "Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His "Techniques of Deceit," exposing the 14 "techniques of deceit" that Bush has used to sell the war to the public. --- Posted at 2/14/2003 10:31:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Never Mind News report - "False Alarm? Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information": It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange — meaning high — last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS.So forget the duct tape, plastic sheeting, safe room, etc. Convenient timing, though, what with Bush's polling numbers down and the U.N. inspector's reports and all. --- Posted at 2/14/2003 09:44:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
My Mind Keeps Coming Back to This My mind keeps coming back to what I read at Daily Kos the other day. I think this is important. WE COULD LOSE THE WAR. I've dreamed up scenarios involving China taking Taiwan, Korea doing something, Iran getting involved, but the posts and comments over at Daily Kos are much more realistic, and some of the comments are from people with military experience. I suggest reading "One war scenario" along with the comments posted at the end, and if nothing else, even if you don't read the first, read "Follow up on "One war scenario." It will reposition your thinking. EVERYTHING I read or hear from the mainstream press, and EVERY comment I hear from regular people presupposes a really quick, maybe 5 day war that we win easily. But if the Iraqis fight, they could win, especially if they really DO have weapons of mass destruction. (And don't forget that Iran isn't likely to sit and wait for us to regroup and then come after them. Plus, China and Korea, etc.) --- Posted at 2/14/2003 07:45:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/13/2003 Be Responsible Be responsible and go over to PLA and read the whole Responsibility Era series. This is great stuff. Go to PLA and scroll down. There's "The Balanced Budget Amendment,"The 9/11 Investigation," "Foreign Policy" and "The Responsibility Era." The very best of blogging. This is why everyone reading this should be telling everyone they know who is is thinking person to start reading weblogs! --- Posted at 2/13/2003 09:25:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Not Posting Much I'm not posting much because I have a cold or something. --- Posted at 2/13/2003 03:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Joke I got this joke in my e-mail this morning: During a propaganda tour, president Bush visits a school to explain his politics to kids. He invites the kids to ask him questions. Bobby stands up and tells him "Mr. President, I got 3 questions:" 1. How come, that although the count of votes was not in your favor, you still won the election? 2. Why do you want to attack Iraq without an imminent reason? 3. Don't you also consider the bombing of Hiroshima the biggest terrorist attack of all times? Before the president can answer, the recess bell rings, and the kids leave the room. After they came back, Bush invited them again to ask questions. Joey stands up and tells him "Mr. President, I got 5 questions:" 1. How come, that although the count of votes was not in your favor, you still won the election? 2. Why do you want to attack Iraq without an imminent reason? 3. Don't you also consider the bombing of Hiroshima the biggest terrorist attack of all times? 4. Why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early? 5. Where's Bobby? --- Posted at 2/13/2003 11:23:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/12/2003 No Title Interesting. --- Posted at 2/12/2003 04:41:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machines in the Guardian Today Paranoid party rights today in the Guardian. (Thanks skimble). This story is creeping up the food chain. I also added this to my collection of articles and websites that cover this issue. I've added several new items there so check it out. This is an important story. It is ready to make it into the mainstream. So it's time for all of us to work to move it up to the mainstream. Start writing letters to the editor, calling newspapers asking about covering this story, calling radio stations, calling politicians. Refer them to BlackBoxVoting.com. --- Posted at 2/12/2003 02:16:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Noticing Ruminating Ruminate This is being noticed BIG TIME! FAIR has them listed with the heavyweights, like Eric Alterman, John Nichols, Tom Tomorrow, not to mention Washington Post and, especially, Hollywood Reporter. Media Whores Online added them to the cherished Unbiased Dailies list. AND The Guardian. Go check it out! Weblog power grows! --- Posted at 2/12/2003 01:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/11/2003 Secret Revealed - I'm Not Atrios In my day job I wrote an article that is published over at History News Network. I'll write about that article in a separate piece very soon. Seeing the Forest has been an anonymous blog. I previously wrote, I want this to be a weblog ABOUT, not a weblog BY. I think I have some good reasons for that. First and foremost this focuses criticism to content. I mean this limits a critic's ability to attack the content by attacking & attempting to discredit the author - a favored right-wing technique. If you don't know who the author is you're stuck with having to look at the content and argue with that. Too bad. I'm not saying that I expect to be writing anything worthy of right-wingers taking note. My second reason is more that this is NOT an ego-based endeavor so why put my name on it.But in my day job I'm publishing articles that I write because I think the subject matter is important. Publications identify the authors of articles. When I link to articles I've written readers learn my name. Should Seeing the Forest remain an anonymous blog, for the reasons above? Should I continue to use "IssuesGuy," and you'll also know who I am? Would it be stupid to continue writing pieces here and leaving comments on other weblogs as "IssuesGuy." If Bush gets to have everything both ways then why can't I? Meanwhile Ive been told now that they have a name tied to the all-important Seeing the Forest weblog, Karl Rove is personally supervising the dirt-digging operation. Reporters are gathering on my lawn. Teenage girls are swooning. Hollywood producers are sending me scripts. I wish. --- Posted at 2/11/2003 10:09:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/09/2003 More Voting Machines Rebecca Mercuri writes, Security expert Peter Neumann and I were interviewed recently by NPR about voting technology. The segment is supposed to air on Monday in the "Morning Edition" show. This is a multi-segment show that is repeated in some listening areas. For times, check your local NPR listings, sorry we don't know which segment we will be in, or even if the segment will air on Monday for sure, but thought the "heads-up" notice would be appropriate. The segment will be on the NPR website after it airs, so you can hear it there if you miss the broadcast. For those interested in elections who have not yet seen David Dill's excellent website about voter-verified audit trails and the recent hearings in Santa Clara County, do check it out at: http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.htmlI have also added this website to my collection of voting machine-issue websites. The website contains this good news: Friday, February 6, 2003. Very good news California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced that he will be forming a task force of experts to study this issue! Perhaps there will be a statewide solution. --- Posted at 2/09/2003 05:43:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/08/2003 A while back I wrote: Sometimes lately - since Bush v Gore - I imagine I'm looking at current events as if I am a future historian, tracking the record of "what happened" - sort of like how we now look back at Germany in the 30's, trying to understand how it happened.Some important words over at Daily Kos today: What to do? First, spouting off in the blogs and staying engaged and informed, trading opinions and sharpening arguments, and conceding an opponent’s well-made points is healthy and good for all of us. It helps us find common ground where possible and identify issues that bother all of us. People who read and participate in blogs or get their news significantly from the Internet may be better informed than most. This doesn’t make us better than others, but it does give us the opportunity and responsibility to do something more than complain amongst ourselves. Yes, it means writing, faxing, or emailing your elected officials to let them know when you deem an issue to be important. But take the time to build an email mailing list and fax numbers made up of key US senators or representatives. What good is getting mad today about the GAO decision and your fears about the 2003 version of the Patriot Act if you don’t fire off a quick email or fax to these office holders about it? First off, they will be surprised to see that folks are paying attention. Secondly, although it may feel as if your message won’t make any difference, the experience of the right-wing media Wurlitzer of the last two decades shows that a small group of well-informed people who keep the heat up and gradually spread the effort around can convince officeholders and the media that people are paying attention to something other than the establishment spin. Third, you should also have similar email and fax address books for the key people of your local newspaper(s) and TV stations, and just as importantly, the national writers, editors, and punditocracy. It is in my mind more important for the media to hear that today’s developments bother a significant group of folks, because in the absence of such dissent, our largely lazy corporate media won’t bother to hunt out dissent from the masses, and left to their own devices will return to the conservative establishment spin that is being fed to them at the Beltway cocktail parties and White House events. I have first hand experience at seeing several reporters and national columnists gradually change their coverage and tone on an issue when they see that people are paying attention and sending in emails and faxes challenging the spin being handed to the reporters at the government briefings. It may not happen overnight, but it can and does happen. The media will pay attention to well-informed opposition and those who are willing to stand up and make a reasonable opposition argument. Fourth, instead of feeling alone with your concerns, join groups on issues that interest you so that you can network, obtain more information, be a better lobbyist of the media and officeholders, and build local networks of like-minded people. Even if many issues are of concern to you, there are many groups you can join for little money on a wide variety of issues that need you, and can allow for you to be heard by the local media.There's more so please go read the whole Daily Kos piece. --- Posted at 2/08/2003 01:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/07/2003 Voting Machine Story Link Collection A new, complete collection of articles and resources on this subject is available at the Commonweal Institute. Also see "Making the Integrity of Electronic Voting Into a National Issue". I put together a collection of voting machine stories and websites. Let me know if you know of other good articles or other resources on this subject. My "What's Wrong with this Picture?", Seeing the Forest Who makes the vote-counting machines? "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines" To Register Doubts, Press Here, New York Times, May 15, 2003 New Voting Systems Assailed - Computer Experts Cite Fraud Potential, The Washington Post, March 27, 2003 Black Box Voting - Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century - a website dedicated to this issue. Electronic Voting - Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D. - contains many links to websites and stories about this issue. Diebold - The face of modern ballot tampering American Coup: Mid-Term Election Polls vs Actuals Atrios on right-wing Christian Reconstructionists buying voting machine companies Voter Fraud 2002: Death Stalks America's Democracy (Includes a collection of links.) Computerized Balloting is Taking Over Elections In Maryland--But Can We Trust the Results? The Nightmare Scenario Is Here - Computer Voting With No Paper Trail THE SECRETIVE WORLD OF VOTING MACHINES Can we trust the vote count anywhere? In any race? In any election? Hagel’s ethics filings pose disclosure issue Republican Manufactured Voting Machines Involved in Election Fraud Votescam: The Stealing of America Electronic voting system an invitation to trouble Votescam in the Electronic Age How to Rig a Touch Screen Voting Machine HOW SAFE ARE OUR VOTING MACHINES? - Rage Against the Machine The Real Scandal Is the Voting Machines Themselves Area Democrats say early votes miscounted, Court hearing delayed as meeting planned on touch-screen problems Vote Fraud in America Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002 Elections Voter News Service: What Went Wrong? and Sideshow's essay linking to this. Voting machines must provide a voter-verifiable audit trail - David Dill's website about voter-verified audit trails and the recent hearings in Santa Clara County, CA. - with links to to other sites on the voting machine issue. Computer ballot outfit perverts Senate race, theorist says. At The Register. Also read the reply. Paranoid party rights in The Guardian. Commonweal Institute's Uncommon Denominator: "new computerized voting machines are vulnerable to tampering." Voting Machines: Vote Tampering in the 21st Century (NOT the same site as "Black Box Voting - Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century") Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project If voters get a record of their ballot, they can check on the system. A San Jose Mercury News editorial today acknowledged the voting machines problem. 2/21/03 Board faces key decision on voting by computer - POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD WORRIES SUPERVISORS -- The San Jose Mercury News front page story, 2/24/03 * Great resource!* Electionline.org - The Election Reform Information Project Paperless Voting Machines Under Fire - Newsday, Feb. 25, 2003 Election Guardians ** Key Story -- Scientists question electronic voting, SF Chronicle, March 3, 2003 Voting Technology, California Voter Foundation Computer-Related Elections, Peter Neumann Which Corporation Owns Your Vote over at AlterNet. Election Fraud & Voting Machines - You can't vote them out if you never voted them in. Cronus Connection Are American elections fixed? Britain to Launch Electronic Voting Systems -- International Herald Tribune, April 20, 2003 Voters must have faith in the vote count," by the chief elections officer, San Mateo County, California, San Jose Mercury News, May 19, 2003. --- Posted at 2/07/2003 12:36:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Far Out! Psychedelic Republicans. (Pointed to by Dan Gilmore.) --- Posted at 2/07/2003 11:14:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Microsoft and Technology Investment Brad DeLong is writing about Microsoft making it appear that the Opera web browser doesn't work correctly. How much of the Silicon Valley slump - and the national technology slump - is the result of the Bush administration's deal letting Microsoft off the hook from their anti-trust conviction? You simply can not get venture money, or any other type of funding, if you are in any area where Microsoft is, or possibly could be. Of course this is having an effect! The Bush-Microsoft deal dried up technology investment. You would have to be a fool to invest when a predatory monopoly is given government protection to operate as it pleases. Look what just happened to WebEx, after Microsoft bought PlaceWare. Palm is laying off because of Microsoft's competition in PDAs. How soon does Microsoft take over the embedded software market - cell phones, etc.? Look how many software companies have gone out of business because of Microsoft. The idea of the anti-trust remedy was to restore competition and innovation. Has there been a SINGLE investment in ANY company that Microsoft could compete with, since the Bush-Microsoft deal? --- Posted at 2/07/2003 10:41:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Some More on Jobs Here's a story from this morning's San Jose Mercury News, Sales sluggish in January WINTER NOT SUCH A WONDERLAND FOR MANY OF NATION'S RETAILERS, confirming what I wrote below. The January "retail jobs surge" wasn't. --- Posted at 2/07/2003 07:32:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Understand the Numbers Here's the explanation of what's going on with today's employment report, U.S. Unemployment Rate Drops in January, Economists had predicted that retail hiring would pick up because holiday employment was well below normal. This meant that fewer seasonal workers were laid off in January.In other words, this is an adjusted employment number. USUALLY there is a lot of retail hiring for the Christmas shopping season, so they adjust for a large number of layoffs in January. Obviously there wasn't as much hiring this year, so there were 100,000 or so fewer layoffs in January. Adjusting for the 100,000 expected layoffs makes it look like the retail sector is strong now. Everyone knows it isn't. Here's another story that talks about this, U.S. jobless rate falls to 5.7%. Because of the way the government adjusts the figures for seasonal factors, both December's loss and January's gains in retail are probably illusory. Read more about the seasonal problems.That last reference is to this story, Job growth could be an illusion. When the government reports its monthly numbers, it adjusts them for seasonal factors to allow economists and us interested amateurs to see underlying trends more clearly. But sometimes the seasonal adjustments serve only to cloud the issue. For instance, retail hiring typically soars in November and December as retail outlets get ready for the holiday rush. The seasonally adjusted government data tries to smooth out that seasonal bump, so that normal seasonal hiring would appear as zero job growth in the reported data. But if the normal seasonal patterns are disrupted, the number becomes distorted. That's what happened this year.UPDATE - The first story changed since I posted this morning. The first story now has this quote,: instead of the one above Holiday hiring was well below normal, meaning fewer seasonal workers were laid off in January. That means seasonal adjustments accounted for January's large gain, economists said. "The big swing of 101,000 jobs in January was statistical, not real," said Joel Naroff, president and chief economist of Naroff Economic Advisors. --- Posted at 2/07/2003 06:18:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/06/2003 Voting Machines Ruminate This is writing about voting machines. --- Posted at 2/06/2003 03:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Good News / Bad News The good news is that the comments have been restored. The bad news is that comments left yesterday appear to have been lost. --- Posted at 2/06/2003 09:14:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Lesson The lesson for history to learn from this Korea story (if there is a history after all this is over) is: Never, never give a big speech and declare a group of countries to be "evil," and say you're going to attack first, and start preparing to attack one of the countries, unless you're in a position to do something about it if they BELIEVE YOU! Obviously Korea believed you! Lesson #2: Don't put your POLITICAL ADVISOR in charge of your foreign policy and war planning, (even if there IS a Congressional election coming up.) OK, now, with these Korean activities in mind, I have a message that I'd like you to rush straight to General Rove. You also threatened Iran, and they haven't forgotten this, and they're sitting there next to Iraq waiting for our forces to to be preoccupied with that situation. They're heavily armed, and they're smart, and they aren't going to sit and wait for General Rove's attack, currently planned for October 2004. They're also figuring out how to fight back. Just like Korea is doing. DUH! (Also posted at No War Blog.) --- Posted at 2/06/2003 06:51:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/05/2003 What Liberal Media? What Liberal Media? --- Posted at 2/05/2003 06:26:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Is the Republican Party a Cult? Everybody go read The 8 Basic Elements of Mind Control at Blah3. (Unfortunately I can't link to individual articles over at Blah3 so you might have to scroll or look in the archives to find this.) (Referred by Skippy.) --- Posted at 2/05/2003 12:43:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/04/2003 Even More on Voting Machines A reader sent in a link to this article "from Bruce Schneier, one of the foremost security experts in the world." --- Posted at 2/04/2003 10:30:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Did you Do Your Homework? Did you do your homework assignment? Here is what you would have seen, from The Money Behind the Media: Over the past 30 years a small group of wealthy conservative philanthropies have quietly funded a movement to change the social, legal, educational, media and political landscape of the United States. Using tax-exempt funds these philanthropies have coordinated their giving to create a suppy-side machinery for implementing their mostly Republican agenda.The test will be comprehensive. Study up, here's the library: Articles and reports tracing the formation of the right-wing ideological movement, how it is funded and how it operates. --- Posted at 2/04/2003 10:20:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/03/2003 Wow Wow. Go read the comments to the post titled "Jobs Going Away," the entry about the e-mail I received from a guy who can't get a job because so many jobs are being shipped to India or because of competition from H1B workers here. (And if you have time, read the Business Week Article that it points to, because I'm going to be writing more about it. Yeah, I know, more homework.) --- Posted at 2/03/2003 09:58:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Homework Here's your homework assignment. Go read The Money Behind The Media, over at Cursor.org. (Be sure to click "Next" at the bottom of the pages.) --- Posted at 2/03/2003 04:52:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Stocks A bunch of scary economic outlook news from Skippy, including "Market Timers Foresee Imminent Crash for Stocks". --- Posted at 2/03/2003 02:29:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machines Testify! has a good piece on the voting machine problem here. (Scroll down to "Vote Scam 2002/2004".) --- Posted at 2/03/2003 09:35:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Last Day to Comment on FCC Ownership Regulations skimble points out that today is the last day to comment on FCC proposals to relax media ownership regulations, and tell you how to do it. --- Posted at 2/03/2003 09:18:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Word Hunter S. Thompson, in a Salon interview: "Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?" he writes, referring to the people currently occupying the White House. "They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis."I couldn't have said it better myself. And on that note, I begin another day's blogging. --- Posted at 2/03/2003 08:32:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/02/2003 What's Wrong with this Picture? See also the Voting Machine Story Link Collection So the voting machine story is starting to be talked about by more and more people in more and more places - another major story driven by webloggers. I've written about it here, here, here, here and maybe a few other times - there are a number of links to other sources in that last one. Atrios and Sideshow, Bartcop and Testify! have also been writing about this, as have a number of others. (Let me kow and I'll add a link to you.) For now let's not get hung up on whether Nebraska's Hagel, or Georgia's Chambliss or anyone else won in 2002 because something was rigged. There is no way to know, and it's over, and nothing is going to change anything. Instead, let's just look at what we have here: - Really rich, far right-wing "Christian Nation" fanatics involved in the ownership of the companies that make the voting machines. That alone should set off alarm bells. - Electronic voting machines that leave no verifiable, auditable trail beyond what the machine reports as the vote count. You can't verify that whatever was recorded as your vote was what you actually voted, and there is no way to do a recount of the totals other than what the voting machine itself reports. That alone should set off alarm bells. - Voting machines that come with contracts forbidding looking at the code, so there is no way to check what the machines are actually doing. You can't look at the code that comes with the machines to see if it is set up to download special code on election day. You can't set one up on election day to see if it is downloading code, unless you steal the machine. (And there are ways to tell if the machine is being checked. For example, you don't send code to any machine that someone working for the company isn't looking at, in a polling place, and checking that the modem line isn't monitored.) These contracts alone should set off alarm bells. - These are voting machines with modems, supposedly to report results, but modems can receive as well as send. The RAM can't be checked because you have to turn it off to move it to check what's in RAM, so the contents of RAM are wiped. And you can't run pre-election tests because the machines might be testing for the right time-and-date before downloading special code. Who would have imagined that any district would EVER buy such machines? But they do. What competitive company would design such a thing? But they did. The unaccountability of results is suspicious enough, but when you learn WHO is involved with these companies this goes over the top. This is an easy situation to fix. Demand that voting machines come with a paper printout that the voter looks at to verify that the vote was recorded correctly, and puts this paper record in a ballot box that is watched. That's all there is to it. Why in the world don't these machines come with this simple, common-sense security measure? Dan Gilmore writes in Saturday's column, The right to vote -- and for that vote to be counted with integrity -- is at the heart of liberty. People are already skeptical. If we continue on this path, pure cynicism will corrode what's left of public trust in an already frayed system.Skepticism is the least of it. Paranoid nutcases like me will let our imaginations take us a lot further than just skepticism when we see "Christian Nation" fanatics buying up the voting machine companies and pushing unauditable voting systems on the public. Oh yeah, we can. --- Posted at 2/02/2003 12:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machines Atrios is talking about voting machines again today. Here's another about voting machines. Update - Problems at blogspot today - just go to Atrios for now and scroll to "Thom Hartmann tells us more about voting machines and Chuck Hagel. " I'll update the link and remove this note when the correct link is working. --- Posted at 2/02/2003 09:00:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2/01/2003 Busy I've been busy, so please read Dan Gilmore's Saturday column on voting machines here. And Atrios on this topic here. --- Posted at 2/01/2003 10:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Copyright © 2002-05. |
Blogger's RSS feed 
Please help Seeing the Forest meet expenses. You can contribute using Paypal or Amazon by clicking either of the following buttons. Thanks! I took out the Amazon "donate button" because they are a red company, helping fund the right. Archives 
|
|||
