Despite the angering total lack of respect for life and liberty and the lack of ethics or morality by a conservative, Alaska talk show host, this article about the rally for Alaska Women Reject Palin - the largest rally EVER in the state of Alaska - is quite uplifting.
Biggest Rally in Alaska History... Alaska Women Reject Palin
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Bullshit ....
In writing my last post, I was googling to try to find the democratic party official or worker or something who said that while working for the democratic party, he didn't have to listen to the left at all. Instead, I came across a random blog - I guess it can't be that random if it showed up in google's first page search results - some guy wrote about how both the Democrats and Republicans have it wrong. Don't get me wrong, as evidenced by my voting for Nader, I think both parties have a lot of shaping up to do. However, this guy's reasons for why the democrats need to shape up are right out of the Fox News play book. Seriously, dude, seriously.
Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:
Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because
1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.
Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.
3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai
The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.
5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?
Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.
6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.
I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.
7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).
Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...
Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.
Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.
In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.
-- End Inappropriate Comment --
Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:
Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because
1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.
Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.
3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai
The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.
5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?
Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.
6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.
I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.
7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).
Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...
Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.
Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.
In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.
-- End Inappropriate Comment --
Monday, July 28, 2008
America: The New India?
One of the things I've always hated about liberal intellectuals is the glorification of non-Western culture. I'm not saying that eastern cultures don't have positives - they have plenty - but they also have many many negatives (just as we do).
I remember talking with a friend of mine who was preparing to head to grad school for Indian History. She began telling me about how the Indian government was so responsive to the people - responsive in a way that the American government isn't. Specifically, she was talking about the Indian government's attempts at dealing with the exponential increase in suicides among poor farmers.
I looked at her quizzically. In America, I said, we would never get to a point where poor farmers are so desperate that they start killing themselves - we subsidize farmers, we have welfare. I wasn't saying that any of these solutions were perfect - the subsidies of Reagan should surely be replace by the revolving loans of Roosevelt; welfare plus promotion/creation of middle class jobs should surely replace welfare-as-slave labor, i'm sorry, i mean "welfare to work" - but the point was that in American, for better or worse, we generally keep people from killing themselves because of financial ruin.
Turns out that I was wrong. In the wake of the recent mortgage crisis (and I mean recent in the sense that it's the direct result of 20 years of deregulation of financial markets and tearing down social safety nets of the New Deal), people have begun killing themselves rather then watch their houses - likely the accumulation of their life's work - be sold off to the lowest bidder.
Is this seriously what America - and it's lofty ideals - has come to? Seeing suicide as an effective solution - for debtors and creditors alike - to what generally amounts to wall street's speculation and predatory lending? During the Great Depression - and don't kid yourselves, this is Great Depression #2, we just have enough of the safety nets enacted by the New Dealers in place to keep the economy from complete and utter collapsie - people shot the bankers and cops who came to foreclose houses, not the other way around. The people said, fuck you - if you're going to sell my house for a fraction of what I owe you and not give me the opportunity to buy it, I'm taking to the streets with guns and fire and stuff. Or something like that.
Ever since Bush got into office, I just cannot help constantly thinking of the old adage: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's become my sad sad mantra as I watch people throw away the very solutions to problems they are claiming to solve.
And repeat it we will.
Read the article The Suicide Solution by Barbara Ehrenreich at TheNation.com.
I remember talking with a friend of mine who was preparing to head to grad school for Indian History. She began telling me about how the Indian government was so responsive to the people - responsive in a way that the American government isn't. Specifically, she was talking about the Indian government's attempts at dealing with the exponential increase in suicides among poor farmers.
I looked at her quizzically. In America, I said, we would never get to a point where poor farmers are so desperate that they start killing themselves - we subsidize farmers, we have welfare. I wasn't saying that any of these solutions were perfect - the subsidies of Reagan should surely be replace by the revolving loans of Roosevelt; welfare plus promotion/creation of middle class jobs should surely replace welfare-as-slave labor, i'm sorry, i mean "welfare to work" - but the point was that in American, for better or worse, we generally keep people from killing themselves because of financial ruin.
Turns out that I was wrong. In the wake of the recent mortgage crisis (and I mean recent in the sense that it's the direct result of 20 years of deregulation of financial markets and tearing down social safety nets of the New Deal), people have begun killing themselves rather then watch their houses - likely the accumulation of their life's work - be sold off to the lowest bidder.
Is this seriously what America - and it's lofty ideals - has come to? Seeing suicide as an effective solution - for debtors and creditors alike - to what generally amounts to wall street's speculation and predatory lending? During the Great Depression - and don't kid yourselves, this is Great Depression #2, we just have enough of the safety nets enacted by the New Dealers in place to keep the economy from complete and utter collapsie - people shot the bankers and cops who came to foreclose houses, not the other way around. The people said, fuck you - if you're going to sell my house for a fraction of what I owe you and not give me the opportunity to buy it, I'm taking to the streets with guns and fire and stuff. Or something like that.
Ever since Bush got into office, I just cannot help constantly thinking of the old adage: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's become my sad sad mantra as I watch people throw away the very solutions to problems they are claiming to solve.
And repeat it we will.
Read the article The Suicide Solution by Barbara Ehrenreich at TheNation.com.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Dashboard Politik: Gun Control.
I shot a gun for the first time in my life this year. It was loud and it hurt. It was also kinda cool when I figured out how to actually hit the targets.
On the long car ride from upstate to NYC, I got into a debate about politics with people I didn't know that well ... which is so the kind of thing I'd do. Obviously, the topic of gun control came up.
My biggest beef with the topic? Everyone says "It's a constitutional right! End of Story." This pisses me off for various reasons.
Firstly, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld for the last 80 or so years that the right of an individual to own a gun is NOT constitutionally protected. Now that doesn't mean we can't have a debate about it; what is means is that there are really two debates: The first is whether you believe the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted the sentence "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The second is, if the constitution doesn't protect an individual's right to own a weapon (which, currently, it doesn't), how much, if at all, should we limit an individual owning weapons.
Let's tackle the first "debate" first. Since I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I, truthfully, don't entirely understand the nuances of the Supreme Courts decision but the gist is this: When the constitution was penned, the term "to bear arms" commonly referred to military service. Taking into consideration the beginning of the amendment ("A well-regulated militia ..."), the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to protect the right of individuals to form militias. Well-regulated militias ... which are necessary for a free state. Arguably, the Illinois National Guard would fall under this definition. Note that Crazy Joe with his machine gun in Alabama does not constitute a well-regulated militia.
Now during this dashboard politik as I'm calling it (which now that I'm looking it up on Wikipedia doesn't really make sense but it's catchy so I'm keeping it), someone brought up an argument that I'd never heard before and couldn't immediately refute. The argument I have come to learn is termed the "Insurrectionist Theory." It goes as follows: The founder fathers ensured the right to bear arms so that individuals could have comparable weapons to the government which they then could use to overthrow the government. It's an interesting idea. I do believe that the founder fathers crafted our government to ensure that citizens could freely oppose the government. However, for me, it seems somewhat of an illogical argument. If you were plotting to overthrow the government, why would you respect its laws? Doesn't respecting its laws, forbidding you, for instance, from obtaining an assault weapon, inherently give those laws validity?
Let's say, however, you think it is logical. It did, definitely, give me pause. So I did a little research. Apparently, The Insurrection Theory of the Second Amendment, is actually a relatively new theory and is hotly debated by legal scholars. Something to note is that it's primarily supported by selective quotes from the founding fathers ... most of whom were Anti-Federalists. In case you missed it in history class, the Federalists won (twice, actually, if you count the Civil War.)
So let's move on, with the assumption that the Supreme Court has, for the last 80 years, correctly interpreted the constitution and an individual's right to own a weapon is not constitutionally protected. Now defining something as not constitutionally protected really tells us nothing - it tells us that we, as citizens of a democracy, have a right to make laws that prohibit, limit, require gun ownership or don't say anything at all. Obviously, every state, has some sort of Gun Control laws.
One of the questions I often ask is why does any individual need a hand gun? What purpose does it serve other than to kill people? It's not good for hunting so why do you need it? Here are some arguments and my opinionated refutation:
My real point, though, is this: Let's all wake up and read a history book. An individual's right to own a gun is not constitutionally protected so let's have a real discussion about gun control. I don't care if you agree with me but can we please talk about it without the conversation being cut off immediately by "It's in the constitution!" because it's not. Please?
On the long car ride from upstate to NYC, I got into a debate about politics with people I didn't know that well ... which is so the kind of thing I'd do. Obviously, the topic of gun control came up.
My biggest beef with the topic? Everyone says "It's a constitutional right! End of Story." This pisses me off for various reasons.
Firstly, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld for the last 80 or so years that the right of an individual to own a gun is NOT constitutionally protected. Now that doesn't mean we can't have a debate about it; what is means is that there are really two debates: The first is whether you believe the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted the sentence "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The second is, if the constitution doesn't protect an individual's right to own a weapon (which, currently, it doesn't), how much, if at all, should we limit an individual owning weapons.
Let's tackle the first "debate" first. Since I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I, truthfully, don't entirely understand the nuances of the Supreme Courts decision but the gist is this: When the constitution was penned, the term "to bear arms" commonly referred to military service. Taking into consideration the beginning of the amendment ("A well-regulated militia ..."), the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to protect the right of individuals to form militias. Well-regulated militias ... which are necessary for a free state. Arguably, the Illinois National Guard would fall under this definition. Note that Crazy Joe with his machine gun in Alabama does not constitute a well-regulated militia.
Now during this dashboard politik as I'm calling it (which now that I'm looking it up on Wikipedia doesn't really make sense but it's catchy so I'm keeping it), someone brought up an argument that I'd never heard before and couldn't immediately refute. The argument I have come to learn is termed the "Insurrectionist Theory." It goes as follows: The founder fathers ensured the right to bear arms so that individuals could have comparable weapons to the government which they then could use to overthrow the government. It's an interesting idea. I do believe that the founder fathers crafted our government to ensure that citizens could freely oppose the government. However, for me, it seems somewhat of an illogical argument. If you were plotting to overthrow the government, why would you respect its laws? Doesn't respecting its laws, forbidding you, for instance, from obtaining an assault weapon, inherently give those laws validity?
Let's say, however, you think it is logical. It did, definitely, give me pause. So I did a little research. Apparently, The Insurrection Theory of the Second Amendment, is actually a relatively new theory and is hotly debated by legal scholars. Something to note is that it's primarily supported by selective quotes from the founding fathers ... most of whom were Anti-Federalists. In case you missed it in history class, the Federalists won (twice, actually, if you count the Civil War.)
So let's move on, with the assumption that the Supreme Court has, for the last 80 years, correctly interpreted the constitution and an individual's right to own a weapon is not constitutionally protected. Now defining something as not constitutionally protected really tells us nothing - it tells us that we, as citizens of a democracy, have a right to make laws that prohibit, limit, require gun ownership or don't say anything at all. Obviously, every state, has some sort of Gun Control laws.
One of the questions I often ask is why does any individual need a hand gun? What purpose does it serve other than to kill people? It's not good for hunting so why do you need it? Here are some arguments and my opinionated refutation:
- Protection: You need a hand gun to protect yourself. Statistically speaking, if you have a hand gun in the house, it is more likely to be used against you than you are to use it against an intruder. The argument was made that that was a skewed statistic because people with unregistered hand guns wouldn't take them out for fear of punishment for having an unregistered hand gun. But if that's the case then you aren't using that hand gun to defend yourself. Furthermore, I think this argument perpetuates the atmosphere of fear we have in this country - don't move, you might get killed! Aaah!
- Sport/Recreation: Going to a shooting range is fun and recreational; shooting is a sport. Firstly, there is no sport in which people shoot hand guns. Secondly, is the fact that someone considers something "fun" or recreational really a good litmus test for its legality? I've read that Southerns considered lynching blacks quite the recreational activity. Does that make it OK? What about drugs or drive-by shootings or gang rape?
- Everything is Dangerous: Driving in a car is dangerous too. That's true. I could get hit by a bus walking across the street looking both ways. However, a car's main purpose is transportation. A gun's main purpose - the reason it was created (regardless of how fun it is to shoot at targets) - is to kill stuff. Danger is the point not the unhappy side effect.
My real point, though, is this: Let's all wake up and read a history book. An individual's right to own a gun is not constitutionally protected so let's have a real discussion about gun control. I don't care if you agree with me but can we please talk about it without the conversation being cut off immediately by "It's in the constitution!" because it's not. Please?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The primary system is failing us!!
I just found out that Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race. This right after Kucinich - by far the best progressive candidate and the only politician i know with the balls to risk his career to do what's right - dropped out due to a fierce re-election campaign.
I'm heartbroken and I blame the primary system. Here's why:
I'm heartbroken and I blame the primary system. Here's why:
- Having primaries on different days in different states gives more weight to those states that come first. Super Tuesday hasn't happen yet. Four states - count them four - have voted. (Well technically 6 states have voted but since the democratic party has used its corrupted weight to disenfranchise Michigan and Floridian democrats and not count their votes, I won't either). Only 8% of the country has weighed in on primary candidates and already 4 candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, andBiden) have dropped - one of them (Edwards) even had a real shot. Moreover, none of the states that have voted are states significant enough to swing an election. Plus I don't want Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to make voting decisions for me. Do you?
- Caucus's are bullshit. The caucus system (used in Iowa and I think Nevada), just like th electoral college, are fucking us time and time again. They are complex and time-consuming - we can't even get people to come out and pull a lever, let alone show up at a specific time to play musical chairs. Moreover, it gives a skewed perception of people's votes. If my candidate doesn't get enough people standing in the corner, then I have to more all my voting power to another candidate that I don't want. It makes it an all or nothing race and convinces people that a) certain policies are more popular than they are and b) that they can never vote for a long shot candidate because they'll have to pick the mainstream choice anyway. I do understand the motivation behind caucusing - it gives some semblance of a second choice. However, there are better options out there - like Instant Run-Off which allows you to rank candidates giving the politicians and the media and you a better picture of what Americans really want.
- The god damn media. Something needs to be done about the FCC and it's total unresponsiveness to the American people. (Don't believe me? The FCC recently ruled to open up media companies to even more conglomeration despite holding hearings across the country in which citizens overwhelmingly said NO to this proposal.) The media has talked about 2, maybe 3, democratic candidates - Clinton, Obama, and somtimes Edwards. And what do they talk about? Clinton's tear; whether race or gender will cause one or the other to win. It's ridiculous. Maybe, for once, CNN could mention some of their policies?
- Debates not being debates. This plays into the above topic. Kucinich - despite meeting their set criteria - was not allowed in multiple televised debates. Remember when we had fair access laws? Think we still do? Thanks to Reagan the media can favor a single candidate - even in a debate - for no reason what so ever. The American public - we included - tends to think that debates are run by the government or some non-partisan organization. Not so. Debates are run by the Democratic party and the Republican party period. So what you might say? So this means that they are not going to include third parties or even their own candidates if they seek to create change.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Why Computers Don't Work and Touchscreen Voting Machines are BAD FOR DEMOCRACY ...
Over Thanksgiving, Adam and I visited an old friend and his new girlfriend. The conversation, predictably, turned to politics. Adam or I somehow or another, predictably, brought up Greg Palast and his investigations into systematic voter disenfranchisement by the republican party in 2000 & 2004 in FL, NM, and OH. Don't know what I'm talking about? Read about it on GregPalast.com and/or buy his book, Armed Madhouse.
Girlfriend commented that we are less sophisticated with voting that Honduras (or some Central American country) because they use touch-screen voting machines.
I was instantly transported back to my Computer Science professor's office after the 2004 elections and our, admittedly random, conversation on the horrors of touchscreen voting.
That's right: Two people with advanced degrees in Computer Science think touch screen voting machines are a bad idea. Bad bad BAD.
I think this surprises many people who equate technological advancement with 'better.' But let me ask you this: Has your computer ever crashed and lost ALL of your life's files? Has your computer ever crashed when you had a serious deadline in, like, 10 minutes? Have you ever read through a manual for a new gadget or software? Have you ever understood said manual? Have you ever had to wait days or weeks for someone to come fix your internet connection? Have you ever had to leave your computer for days or weeks to have it repaired?
Of course you have. Why? Because computers don't work.
Nah, I jest ... sort of. The truth of the matter is that computers are insanely complex. There are whole areas of theoretical computer science devoted to proving that software and computers do what they say that they can do. Most commercial software and hardware are never put to these tests - they tend to live in the minds and papers of disheveled professors and disgruntled students. The point is that a computer cannot be guaranteed to work when you need it, where you need it, and how you expect it to. And this isn't even taking security into account.
And touch screen voting machines are simply computers with fancy screens. Now it is true that there are computers systems out there (banking anyone?) that guarantee that their computers work exactly correctly and are rarely down. It takes a lot of money, planning, and techy people to make this happen.
Does every county in the state have a super tech on hand to immediately fix issues with touch screens? Do they have the money to pay for a redundant system and high security measures? Have they put in the time and effort to train the election volunteers on how to use, fix, and troubleshoot the machines?
Hell no.
In a disturbing turn of events, the Department of Justice has settled their lawsuit with the New York State Board of Elections by forcing NY State to comply with disabled-access provision in the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002. Now I am all for ensuring the voters can vote, no matter the circumstance. Who isn't? (Besides Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party) The problem with this settlement is that is defines both Paper Ballot Optical Scan Systems (PBOS) AND touch screen electronic voting systems (DRE) as acceptable disabled-access ballot marking devices.
The good news is that your precinct has a choice. The bad news is that many people, like Girlfriend, think that touch screen voting machines - machines that have been proven to be unreliable and easily tampered with - are better. Remember kids - shiny and pretty aren't better! Never forget the Ford Pinto.
Alright, now for some facts. I am totally stealing these talking points from the NY Chapter of Progressive Democrats for America:
May 2006.
Girlfriend commented that we are less sophisticated with voting that Honduras (or some Central American country) because they use touch-screen voting machines.
I was instantly transported back to my Computer Science professor's office after the 2004 elections and our, admittedly random, conversation on the horrors of touchscreen voting.
That's right: Two people with advanced degrees in Computer Science think touch screen voting machines are a bad idea. Bad bad BAD.
I think this surprises many people who equate technological advancement with 'better.' But let me ask you this: Has your computer ever crashed and lost ALL of your life's files? Has your computer ever crashed when you had a serious deadline in, like, 10 minutes? Have you ever read through a manual for a new gadget or software? Have you ever understood said manual? Have you ever had to wait days or weeks for someone to come fix your internet connection? Have you ever had to leave your computer for days or weeks to have it repaired?
Of course you have. Why? Because computers don't work.
Nah, I jest ... sort of. The truth of the matter is that computers are insanely complex. There are whole areas of theoretical computer science devoted to proving that software and computers do what they say that they can do. Most commercial software and hardware are never put to these tests - they tend to live in the minds and papers of disheveled professors and disgruntled students. The point is that a computer cannot be guaranteed to work when you need it, where you need it, and how you expect it to. And this isn't even taking security into account.
And touch screen voting machines are simply computers with fancy screens. Now it is true that there are computers systems out there (banking anyone?) that guarantee that their computers work exactly correctly and are rarely down. It takes a lot of money, planning, and techy people to make this happen.
Does every county in the state have a super tech on hand to immediately fix issues with touch screens? Do they have the money to pay for a redundant system and high security measures? Have they put in the time and effort to train the election volunteers on how to use, fix, and troubleshoot the machines?
Hell no.
In a disturbing turn of events, the Department of Justice has settled their lawsuit with the New York State Board of Elections by forcing NY State to comply with disabled-access provision in the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002. Now I am all for ensuring the voters can vote, no matter the circumstance. Who isn't? (Besides Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party) The problem with this settlement is that is defines both Paper Ballot Optical Scan Systems (PBOS) AND touch screen electronic voting systems (DRE) as acceptable disabled-access ballot marking devices.
The good news is that your precinct has a choice. The bad news is that many people, like Girlfriend, think that touch screen voting machines - machines that have been proven to be unreliable and easily tampered with - are better. Remember kids - shiny and pretty aren't better! Never forget the Ford Pinto.
Alright, now for some facts. I am totally stealing these talking points from the NY Chapter of Progressive Democrats for America:
OPTICAL SCAN TECHNOLOGY (PBOS) IS BETTER THAN TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES (DRE’s)
TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE
One Example: AccuVote-TSX machines (Diebold) in Cuyahoga County, OhioTOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE
May 2006.
- The poll workers were baffled on how to work the machines and the manuals from Diebold were useless.
- 143 machines broke down. Dozens of other machines had printer jams or mysteriously powered down.
- More than 200 voter-card encoders (which create the cards that let voters vote) went missing
- One audit of the election discovered that in 72.5 percent of the audited machines, the paper trail did not match the digital tally on the memory cards.
TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES ARE BEING REJECTED BY
ELECTION OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
ELECTION OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
- Spring 2006: Florida decides to get rid of their electronic voting machines.
- July 2007: California decertifies every electronic voting machine in the state after a Top-To-Bottom Review.
- December 2007: Colorado decertifies about half of its touch-screen devices.
- December 2007: Ohio secretary of State Jennifer Brunner releases a report that states touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” Brunner is now ordering Cuyahoga County, Ohio to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4th 2008.
- December 2007 Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sponsor a bill (S.2295) that would ban the use of touch screen machines across the country by 2012.
THE BEST CHOICE IS “OPTICAL SCAN” TECHNOLOGY
- The voter marks her votes on a paper ballot, filling in bubbles to indicate which candidates she prefers. Voters with disabilities or non-English languages directly mark and verify their ballot by using an accessible ballotmarking-device (BMD).
- The vote is immediately tangible to the voters; they see it with their own eyes, because they personally record it.
- The tallying is done rapidly, because the ballots are fed into a computerized scanner. There are no delays for voters because one scanner can countthousands of ballots a day (3500). With DREs you may have to stand in line because it takes twice as long to vote on a DRE as on a lever machine or paper ballot. You need at least two DREs to replace each lever machine. If a DRE breaks down, you are stuck, but if the scanner breaks down, you can keep on voting on paper ballots.
- If there’s a recount, the elections officials can simply take out the paper ballots and count the votes by hand.
- The voter-marked paper ballots prevent endless fighting over tight election results.
- Optical scanning is used in what many elections experts regard as the “perfect elections” of Leon County, FL where the error rate — how often his system miscounts a ballot — is three-quarters of a percent at its highest, and has dipped as low as three-thousandths of a percent.
- PBOS systems are MORE COST EFFICIENT to acquire, maintain, and use PBOS machines cost about one third what DREs cost. One DRE serves 200-300 voters, while one optical scanner and one accessible ballotmarking-device serves 2000-3000 voters, so far less equipment is needed. The cost efficiency of PBOS over DRE’s has been acknowledged by New York County Elections Commissioner Douglas Kellner.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
myspace message from adam entitled "My Mind Has Just Been Fucking Blown"
"An analysis of the National Election Study exit poll data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden showed that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically, but instead voted for their favorite candidate, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 2.9 million and might have won the election"
The full Barry Burden study is on line(PDF), but it's 23 pages long, and written by a political scientist at Harvard....so it's very fucking boring. I took this from the Draft Nader Page. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Oh, and a reminder, that's 30 million votes for a guy who spent about 80 million less than the other two candidates and wasn't in the debates. Which leads to think....maybe he should have run as a Democrat.
my mind has similarly been blown ... like, to pieces.
The full Barry Burden study is on line(PDF), but it's 23 pages long, and written by a political scientist at Harvard....so it's very fucking boring. I took this from the Draft Nader Page. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Oh, and a reminder, that's 30 million votes for a guy who spent about 80 million less than the other two candidates and wasn't in the debates. Which leads to think....maybe he should have run as a Democrat.
my mind has similarly been blown ... like, to pieces.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Wayne's World
if you don't get feminist news like me, you may not know that a debate has been raging about the opening of a new Planned Parenthood in none other than my home state of Illinois in the town where Wayne and Garth lived. the city blocked the opening saying that planned parenthood did not obtain permits legally and anti-abortion groups rallied.
but so did pro-choicers ... and now the clinic, which i believe is the largest in the state, is open. hooray.
read the planned parenthood myspace blog here.
in other lame, anti-feminist moves, verizon decided to block NARAL's short code which allowed users to voluntarily sign up for news via text from NARAL. eventually, after thousands of customers wrote the ceo of verizon, he relented.
read some blogs about it on Huffington Post or where ever else you want.
which brings me to ....
drum roll please ....
capitalism and the importance of the following:
1. government regulation in capitalism. once upon a time, telephone companies (and gas and electric and other types of industries where a service was deemed essential and a monopoly deemed a necessary evil) were heavily regulated. the government told them that they couldn't take advantage of their decidedly un-capitalistic position of controlling our communications, heat, electricity, water, etc. They had to provide services to people. Good service. Unbigoted service. remember that time? me neither but it should be returned to none the less.
we assume that our sources of news are accurate and that we are being given information. news flash. we're not. no, we can't all spend all our time gaining all the itsy bit of info on everything that happens in this country. that's why we have journalists. journalists, who until recently, took seriously their ethical responsibility to be as fair as possible in their reporting, to protect whistle blowers, and to not bow to the powers that be. it's hard for reports to do this when their pay check comes from ... the powers that be.
plus my electric bill is outrageous.
2. consolidation of big business is anti-capitalistic. in fact, having only a handful of corporations operating in a single industry (or related industries) comes pretty damn close to monopoly. and monopoly is essentially the same as communism. that's right, communism. both involve one large, omnipotent entity controlling the production, pricing, and consumption of a product.
i don't how many people remember (or ever learned?) basic economics but adam smith, the "founder" of capitalism had this little theory of an "invisible hand." the idea being that all these small businesses compete in a market for customers and an invisible hand determines the price based on supply and demand. the key part here is small businesses. it's much like democracy. individuals make small decisions that collectively decided the direction of our government (baring violations of the bill of rights etc ... again importance of the role of government ...). nothing pisses me off more than small business owners who are fiscally conservative, which in today's political sphere is essentially pro-big business. which in turn, is anti-small business. perhaps you didn't notice but bush has consistently cut (and proposed further cuts) of the small business administration budget. not to mention he tax "cuts" which only benefit the rich and wealthy.
i saw the premiere of "An Unreasonable Man", the documentary about Ralph Nader. afterwards there was a Q & A with the film makers and someone asked a question about Ralph's support of capitalism. this girl was shocked to hear the Ralph was pro-capitalism and pro-small business (which in my head should ... and do go hand in hand).
when adam and i were first dating we would play a game where we'd ask each other random questions. once he or i asked what we most disagreed with about popular liberal politics. both our answer was that we felt that socialism was not the answer. i feel that this is another thing that the exceptional right wing pr machine has twisted: that all liberals are commies; that being anti-big business is equivalent to being anti-capitalism. i believe in entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses in america. i believe in capitalism. but i also believe in learning from history. a history that smacked us across our heads and told us that the government was an essential part of the economy and must regulate capitalism, i.e. the great depression.
so what can you do to support small business? i don't have all the answers but here are a few ideas:
buy handmade at etsy.com
buy things at locally owned stores
join a csa
choose to use a small business for things like: web sites/hosting/design/development, financial planning, real estate, insurance ...
yes, it might be a bit more work and a bit more expensive but think of it as moving towards a culture where walmart gets taxed more than you. which is really money in your pocket.
AND then there might be a real Wayne's World ... you know, locally produced media. it'd be awesome!
but so did pro-choicers ... and now the clinic, which i believe is the largest in the state, is open. hooray.
read the planned parenthood myspace blog here.
in other lame, anti-feminist moves, verizon decided to block NARAL's short code which allowed users to voluntarily sign up for news via text from NARAL. eventually, after thousands of customers wrote the ceo of verizon, he relented.
read some blogs about it on Huffington Post or where ever else you want.
which brings me to ....
drum roll please ....
capitalism and the importance of the following:
1. government regulation in capitalism. once upon a time, telephone companies (and gas and electric and other types of industries where a service was deemed essential and a monopoly deemed a necessary evil) were heavily regulated. the government told them that they couldn't take advantage of their decidedly un-capitalistic position of controlling our communications, heat, electricity, water, etc. They had to provide services to people. Good service. Unbigoted service. remember that time? me neither but it should be returned to none the less.
we assume that our sources of news are accurate and that we are being given information. news flash. we're not. no, we can't all spend all our time gaining all the itsy bit of info on everything that happens in this country. that's why we have journalists. journalists, who until recently, took seriously their ethical responsibility to be as fair as possible in their reporting, to protect whistle blowers, and to not bow to the powers that be. it's hard for reports to do this when their pay check comes from ... the powers that be.
plus my electric bill is outrageous.
2. consolidation of big business is anti-capitalistic. in fact, having only a handful of corporations operating in a single industry (or related industries) comes pretty damn close to monopoly. and monopoly is essentially the same as communism. that's right, communism. both involve one large, omnipotent entity controlling the production, pricing, and consumption of a product.
i don't how many people remember (or ever learned?) basic economics but adam smith, the "founder" of capitalism had this little theory of an "invisible hand." the idea being that all these small businesses compete in a market for customers and an invisible hand determines the price based on supply and demand. the key part here is small businesses. it's much like democracy. individuals make small decisions that collectively decided the direction of our government (baring violations of the bill of rights etc ... again importance of the role of government ...). nothing pisses me off more than small business owners who are fiscally conservative, which in today's political sphere is essentially pro-big business. which in turn, is anti-small business. perhaps you didn't notice but bush has consistently cut (and proposed further cuts) of the small business administration budget. not to mention he tax "cuts" which only benefit the rich and wealthy.
i saw the premiere of "An Unreasonable Man", the documentary about Ralph Nader. afterwards there was a Q & A with the film makers and someone asked a question about Ralph's support of capitalism. this girl was shocked to hear the Ralph was pro-capitalism and pro-small business (which in my head should ... and do go hand in hand).
when adam and i were first dating we would play a game where we'd ask each other random questions. once he or i asked what we most disagreed with about popular liberal politics. both our answer was that we felt that socialism was not the answer. i feel that this is another thing that the exceptional right wing pr machine has twisted: that all liberals are commies; that being anti-big business is equivalent to being anti-capitalism. i believe in entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses in america. i believe in capitalism. but i also believe in learning from history. a history that smacked us across our heads and told us that the government was an essential part of the economy and must regulate capitalism, i.e. the great depression.
so what can you do to support small business? i don't have all the answers but here are a few ideas:
buy handmade at etsy.com
buy things at locally owned stores
join a csa
choose to use a small business for things like: web sites/hosting/design/development, financial planning, real estate, insurance ...
yes, it might be a bit more work and a bit more expensive but think of it as moving towards a culture where walmart gets taxed more than you. which is really money in your pocket.
AND then there might be a real Wayne's World ... you know, locally produced media. it'd be awesome!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Right on Ralph!!
Make them Sweat the Big Stuff
A society reveals its values, priorities and distribution of power in the way its rulers punish deviant behavior. Here are some examples for you to ponder:
Members of Congress were in an uproar recently over a MoveOn.Org political advertisement in the New York Times titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” The following copy alerted readers to their belief that he may likely testify before Congress as a political General reflecting the rosy views on the Iraq war-quagmire by his commander-in-chief, George W. Bush.
How dare MoveOn.Org criticize a General in the midst of' Bush’s war of choice, growled Republicans and some Democrats as the Senators rushed to overwhelmingly vote for a resolution condemning the ad?
How dare those many Americans who criticized Civil War Generals, World War Two Generals, Korean War Generals (remember General Douglas MacArthur) and Vietnam War Generals (remember General William Westmoreland)?
This kind of criticism inside Army, inside the Congress and among the citizenry has been as American as apple pie.
How come a similar uproar has not come forth about the many female U.S. soldiers in Iraq raped or sexually harassed by male soldiers who are often their superiors? Where are the generals to crack down on these outrages? This story was documented in a long cover story in the New York Times Magazine some months ago, citing numerous sources, including the Pentagon.
Senators demanded the resignation of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) caught in a toilet sting operation at Minneapolis airport. Senator Craig – he now says foolishly so – pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. For doing what? As Frank Rich described the situation in the New York Times: “He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn’t expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and ‘wide stance’ were at most a form of flirtation.”
Conservative columnist, George Will expressed similar views.
The penalty for Senator Craig is likely termination of his Senate career but not one required by law. Just by pressure from his “pure” Senate colleagues.
Now contrast what should be required of George W. Bush by our Constitution, laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory nation.
Plunging our nation into an unconstitutional war of massive carnage and cost, and committing numerous, repeated crimes along the way, from widespread torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva conventions to spying on Americans without court approval (a felony), does not agitate the Senators as did the airport toilet tapping.
Added to the Bush presidency's serial and continuing crimes are his bungling and incompetence. He has enriched crooked corporations, burned tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and most seriously, deprived soldiers of sufficient body and humvee armor year after year, which has cost the lives and limbs of thousands of American GIs.
In a US court of law, such behavior would be judged criminal negligence.
Yet, there has been no demand from Congress for his impeachment, or his resignation, or even any support for Senator Russ Feingold's modest resolution of censure (S.Res. 302 and 303).
Bush's Justice Department has thrown the book at several plaintiff lawyers for paying people to be lead plaintiffs in securities fraud cases while not pursuing well over 90% of the corporate crooks who actually stole big money from investors and shareholders while paying themselves compensation beyond their dreams of avarice.
If the Department needed a bigger budget to go after this corporate crime wave, they should have requested it from Congress. The resulting fines and restitutions alone would have paid for such an enlarged law and order drive.
I am sure you can cite many examples of public hypocrisy, double standards and inverted priorities from your knowledge and experience. There are many explanations about why and how these powerbrokers and powerholders get away with such behavior.
But let us remember Abraham Lincoln’s observation about the power of “public sentiments.” We need to inform, focus and deliver a different quality and quantity of “public sentiments” directly to our allegedly public servants.
So that they start to sweat the big stuff.
This article was by Ralph Nader. Read the article on Nader.org.
If you think Nader cost Kerry and Gore the election, go to gregpalast.com and read the excerpts from his books on voter purge lists and other "true" conspiracies thanks to none other than W.
If you don't know all the things you should thank Nader for (seatbelts, food labeling, air bags, etc), then watch the documentary 'An Unreasonable Man'. And yes, it is fair ... much more than I am.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
"i am the cause of all your problems ..."
so adam and i finally got our shit together and returned the netflix dvd that had been sitting in the apartment for months. yes, that's right, MONTHS. anywho, we rented the first season of 30 Days - the new tv show by Morgan Spurlock on FX. the first episode was Morgan and his lady friend (oops, now fiance) trying to live on minimum wage. now, i've read nickel and dimed. i'm aware of the issues but nonetheless the episode made me sad and pissed off. why you ask? well, even if you didn't ask, i'll tell ya ...
because these problems can be fixed. don't get me wrong. the world is complicated. many issues are too complicated to be solved by a few simple policy changes. this is not one of those issues. so here it is:
Becca's quick fix to vastly improving the lives of the working poor:
1. raise the minimum wage. duh.
2. universal health care. the vast majority of americans that declare bankrutpcy do it because of medical bills ... and that includes the middle class. americans spend double what countries with universal health care pay. and last time i check, i waited forever at the doctor's office and i'm paying his ass.
and while you are at it:
3. don't send primary caregivers on welfare back to work unless you are going to give them a choice and provide subsidized childcare.
4. provide subsidized childcare.
5. public education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! spend money on it. NOW. this is definitley one problem that would be solved by throwing money at it.
and a couple more ...
5. stop teaching our kids abstinence-only education. it doesn't work and it puts their lives at risk and increases unwanted pregnancy.
6. stop sending non-violent offenders to prison because then they come out violent offenders and don't support their families or their community.
But Becca, you say, this will never happen because there are two many crazy conservatives and wussy liberals in politics.
Becca's quick fix to make America an actual democracy again:
1. PUBLICALLY FINANCED CAMPAIGNS. period. end of story.
and while your at it ...
congress should NEVER be able to give itself a raise. that's ridiculous. no one else does so why should our representives?
because these problems can be fixed. don't get me wrong. the world is complicated. many issues are too complicated to be solved by a few simple policy changes. this is not one of those issues. so here it is:
Becca's quick fix to vastly improving the lives of the working poor:
1. raise the minimum wage. duh.
2. universal health care. the vast majority of americans that declare bankrutpcy do it because of medical bills ... and that includes the middle class. americans spend double what countries with universal health care pay. and last time i check, i waited forever at the doctor's office and i'm paying his ass.
and while you are at it:
3. don't send primary caregivers on welfare back to work unless you are going to give them a choice and provide subsidized childcare.
4. provide subsidized childcare.
5. public education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! spend money on it. NOW. this is definitley one problem that would be solved by throwing money at it.
and a couple more ...
5. stop teaching our kids abstinence-only education. it doesn't work and it puts their lives at risk and increases unwanted pregnancy.
6. stop sending non-violent offenders to prison because then they come out violent offenders and don't support their families or their community.
But Becca, you say, this will never happen because there are two many crazy conservatives and wussy liberals in politics.
Becca's quick fix to make America an actual democracy again:
1. PUBLICALLY FINANCED CAMPAIGNS. period. end of story.
and while your at it ...
congress should NEVER be able to give itself a raise. that's ridiculous. no one else does so why should our representives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
