Friday, October 24, 2008
Where Are The "Strict Constructionists" At Election Time?
Larry Beinhart, on Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. You know, the one that says: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In your dreams.
Losing It
Ashley Todd, McCain supporter, faked being attacked by a robber in Pittsburgh. She said the robber used a knife to carve a B (for Barack) on her right cheek after he spotted a McCain sticker on her car.
It did not take long for Pittsburgh Police to get to the bottom of the story, and Todd confessed that she had made the story up. Even amateur sleuths would probably have suspected Todd of making here story, after seeing this photo:
Note to self: If you are going to make up a false story about being cut by an assailant, remember that images in mirrors are reversed.
Special award for partisan hackery to the Drudge Report, who broke the story as true yesterday. Anything to smear Barack Obama with is welcome at the Drudge Report. Needless to say, Sean Hannity made the story the centerpiece of his show last night.
It did not take long for Pittsburgh Police to get to the bottom of the story, and Todd confessed that she had made the story up. Even amateur sleuths would probably have suspected Todd of making here story, after seeing this photo:
Note to self: If you are going to make up a false story about being cut by an assailant, remember that images in mirrors are reversed.
Special award for partisan hackery to the Drudge Report, who broke the story as true yesterday. Anything to smear Barack Obama with is welcome at the Drudge Report. Needless to say, Sean Hannity made the story the centerpiece of his show last night.
The System Is The Fraud
Let's face it: The United States is a mess when it comes to elections.
Things started to visibly unravel in the 2000 election, which was decided by the Supreme Court and by the Florida Secretary of State, who had served as Florida's Bush campaign co-chair. If the same thing had happened in, say, the Ukraine or Liberia, international observers would have flocked to the site and monitored the inevitable remake. But the United States has a superiority complex, so no one will admit that the system itself is the fraud.
Additionally, for a country that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy, participation in elections is ridiculously low. Voter participation in excess of 60% is considered an example of healthy democracy. The system is besieged by potential and real fraud and is run along partisan lines.
I grew up in Italy, where elections have been afflicted by a variety of problems (mainly accusations of ballot box stuffing and fraud).
Yet, Italy has an enviable election system compared to the one in the United States. The number of voters consistently exceeds 80% and approaches 90% on most general elections.
In Italy, I never had to stand in line to vote for more than 15-20 minutes. Elections are held on Sunday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and on Monday from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. This gives all people, including those who have religious hang-ups about voting on Sunday, a chance to cast their vote.
Paper ballots, easily countable and verifiable, are still used.
The Italian electoral system is not perfect, but "going Italian" would be a step forward for American elections.
There are many things to like about America, most people would agree. But the way elections are run is an example to be avoided.
I will never get tired of repeating this: Nov 5 is the day when we need to roll up our sleeves and fix this broken system, once and for all, so we never have to live through another election period dominated by suspicion and fear of disenfranchisement.
Things started to visibly unravel in the 2000 election, which was decided by the Supreme Court and by the Florida Secretary of State, who had served as Florida's Bush campaign co-chair. If the same thing had happened in, say, the Ukraine or Liberia, international observers would have flocked to the site and monitored the inevitable remake. But the United States has a superiority complex, so no one will admit that the system itself is the fraud.
- The use of malfunctioning (or rigged) machines
- Vote suppression efforts
- Unequal distribution of voting equipment to favor one party over another
- Long lines at polling stations
- Voting on a workday rather than on the weekend, and for a very limited number of hours (not all states allow early voting)
- The remaking of electoral districts along partisan lines
- The diversity and the varying efficacy of voting methods
- The exclusion of small party candidates from the presidential debates
- The tolerance for gigantic conflicts of interest (such as CEOs of voting equipment proclaiming their preference for a party or a candidate, secretaries of state that act as chairs of a candidate's campaign.)
- Courts are routinely called to solve disputes that should not even exist in the first place
Additionally, for a country that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy, participation in elections is ridiculously low. Voter participation in excess of 60% is considered an example of healthy democracy. The system is besieged by potential and real fraud and is run along partisan lines.
I grew up in Italy, where elections have been afflicted by a variety of problems (mainly accusations of ballot box stuffing and fraud).
Yet, Italy has an enviable election system compared to the one in the United States. The number of voters consistently exceeds 80% and approaches 90% on most general elections.
In Italy, I never had to stand in line to vote for more than 15-20 minutes. Elections are held on Sunday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and on Monday from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. This gives all people, including those who have religious hang-ups about voting on Sunday, a chance to cast their vote.
Paper ballots, easily countable and verifiable, are still used.
The Italian electoral system is not perfect, but "going Italian" would be a step forward for American elections.
There are many things to like about America, most people would agree. But the way elections are run is an example to be avoided.
I will never get tired of repeating this: Nov 5 is the day when we need to roll up our sleeves and fix this broken system, once and for all, so we never have to live through another election period dominated by suspicion and fear of disenfranchisement.
Another GOP Vote Suppression Tactic
Under the pretense of saving taxpayers money, Florida GOP lawmakers shortened early voting hours from 12 to 8 hours, leading to huge lines at early voting stations, reports McLatchy Newspapers.
UPDATE: Oct 28, 2008.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist has declared a poll emergency, and re-extended early voting hours from 8 to 12 a day, due to the larger than expected turnout. Thumbs up to Gov. Crist for doing the right thing, regardless of partisan considerations.
UPDATE: Oct 28, 2008.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist has declared a poll emergency, and re-extended early voting hours from 8 to 12 a day, due to the larger than expected turnout. Thumbs up to Gov. Crist for doing the right thing, regardless of partisan considerations.
With Early Voting Under Way, Numerous Reports Of Votes Being Flipped
Brad Friedman is publishing reports of documented machine malfunctions (the kind moniker for voter fraud) on his site, Brad Blog.
During these election days, Brad Blog should be on your list of "must reads".
During these election days, Brad Blog should be on your list of "must reads".
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Mark Crispin Miller On Election Fraud
Mark Crispin Miller talks about election fraud with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!
[Video requires Real Player.)
Miller paints a picture of ongoing fraud that is a wake-up call for anybody who believes that democracy in the U.S. is tamper-proof.
A couple of statements Miller made that are not featured in the clip above sounds particularly chilling, because they echo what we have already seen in 2004 and 2000:
Whatever the results of the upcoming elections (and I really have a weird feeling about this), we must start working on reforming our electoral system on Nov 5.
[Video requires Real Player.)
Miller paints a picture of ongoing fraud that is a wake-up call for anybody who believes that democracy in the U.S. is tamper-proof.
A couple of statements Miller made that are not featured in the clip above sounds particularly chilling, because they echo what we have already seen in 2004 and 2000:
we have to take the necessary psychological step of being prepared just to say NO if this race too is stolen. This will mean shrugging off the various bullshit rationales--"Bradley effect," huge (and imaginary) Christian turnout, etc.--that will be trotted out to help "explain" a startling victory by McCain.
Also, we should tune out all the shit that they'll be talking to discredit the exit polls, if the latter should complicate the narrative of Big John's upset "win."
Whatever the results of the upcoming elections (and I really have a weird feeling about this), we must start working on reforming our electoral system on Nov 5.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
We're All Gonna Die!
Well, 100% of us will die at some point or another. Some of us, perhaps not surprisingly, may be killed by cell phones.
Neither Dr. David Carpenter nor Dr. Ronald Herberman are likely to become household names any time soon, but the testimony they gave to the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy on Cell Phone Use and Tumors on September 25, 2008, should be cause for enhanced concern about cell phone usage and will at some point become common knowledge among users of cell phones (85% of people in the United States, close to 100% in many other countries).
"Precaution is warranted," Carpenter said. "Even in the absence of absolutely final evidence concerning the magnitude of the risk." In the meantime, you should at a minimum keep your young ones away from cell phones.
And now, if you will excuse me, I have to go grovel before my wife, who has been warning me about the adverse health effects of cell phones for about ten years.
Neither Dr. David Carpenter nor Dr. Ronald Herberman are likely to become household names any time soon, but the testimony they gave to the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy on Cell Phone Use and Tumors on September 25, 2008, should be cause for enhanced concern about cell phone usage and will at some point become common knowledge among users of cell phones (85% of people in the United States, close to 100% in many other countries).
"Precaution is warranted," Carpenter said. "Even in the absence of absolutely final evidence concerning the magnitude of the risk." In the meantime, you should at a minimum keep your young ones away from cell phones.
And now, if you will excuse me, I have to go grovel before my wife, who has been warning me about the adverse health effects of cell phones for about ten years.
Advice For Republican Hatemongers
This should be obvious, but apparently it has escaped the notice of many hatemongering Republicans on the campaign trail (including Republican VP pick Sarah Palin): you cannot retract that which has been recorded for posterity.
Another Republican was struck with "foot in mouth" disease, then said "I did not say that", only to be proven a liar.
Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) accused Obama of "inciting class warfare" and said that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Ed Brayton of Dispatches From The Culture Wars is convulsing with righteous disgust.
Another Republican was struck with "foot in mouth" disease, then said "I did not say that", only to be proven a liar.
Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) accused Obama of "inciting class warfare" and said that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Ed Brayton of Dispatches From The Culture Wars is convulsing with righteous disgust.
Eternal Shame
"True, the fact that McCain and Palin have managed to inflame anger and hatred in small pockets of this country means that the embers were there to begin with.
But we're not looking at the second coming of the Third Reich. These McCain-Palin supporters don't represent the real America that most Americans believe in. We're much better than that. It's to their eternal shame that McCain and Palin aren't."
The rest of Joyce Marcel's article is on Common Dreams' website.
But we're not looking at the second coming of the Third Reich. These McCain-Palin supporters don't represent the real America that most Americans believe in. We're much better than that. It's to their eternal shame that McCain and Palin aren't."
The rest of Joyce Marcel's article is on Common Dreams' website.
A Handy Table To Explain Pro- v. Anti-America
Jon Swift did all the hard work and put together this "handy chart" with examples of what is pro-America, and what is liberal.
A Robo-call You Might Like
The Obama campaign is hitting back at McCain's sleazy robo-calls. You might like this one.
Al-Qaeda Pulls For President McCain
Osama Bin Laden stated in 2004, with no small dose of braggadocio, that his goal was to contribute to the bankruptcy of the U.S. of A.
Now, it appears that Al-Qaeda is pulling for Sen. McCain to be elected.
Wait a second! Al Qaeda wants Sen. McCain in the White House? That does not make sense! Don't Republican scaremongers always tell us that a Democrat in the White House would make another attack more likely? (Curiously, they omit to mention that the deadliest attack on U.S. soil was carried out under the watch of President Bush, whom they praise for keeping us safe.)
I don't think this is reverse psychology, although I am sure that Conservatives will spin it that way. Actually, it makes perfect sense: enemies need committed enemies to stay in business.
I only bring attention to this article because there are innumerable wackaloons on the right who maintain that we need to elect Republicans to keep our land secure, and that Obama does not know how to, while McCain does. It is the same trite tactic they used against Kerry in 2004, down to the pack of wolves ad, and the reason why we have allowed Republicans (with the complicity of too many Democrats, it should be noted) to run roughshod over civil liberties and over the Constitution.
The pursuit of perfect security comes at a costly price, as Gen. Eisenhower's prophetically said: "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
Now, it appears that Al-Qaeda is pulling for Sen. McCain to be elected.
Wait a second! Al Qaeda wants Sen. McCain in the White House? That does not make sense! Don't Republican scaremongers always tell us that a Democrat in the White House would make another attack more likely? (Curiously, they omit to mention that the deadliest attack on U.S. soil was carried out under the watch of President Bush, whom they praise for keeping us safe.)
I don't think this is reverse psychology, although I am sure that Conservatives will spin it that way. Actually, it makes perfect sense: enemies need committed enemies to stay in business.
I only bring attention to this article because there are innumerable wackaloons on the right who maintain that we need to elect Republicans to keep our land secure, and that Obama does not know how to, while McCain does. It is the same trite tactic they used against Kerry in 2004, down to the pack of wolves ad, and the reason why we have allowed Republicans (with the complicity of too many Democrats, it should be noted) to run roughshod over civil liberties and over the Constitution.
The pursuit of perfect security comes at a costly price, as Gen. Eisenhower's prophetically said: "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
How To Make Your Wife Wince (Along With A Few Hundred Supporters)
Sen. McCain may not be George Bush, but he surely talks like him. Remember this?
Now, fast forward.
Rep. Murtha (D-PA) said something ill-advised about people in Western Pennsylvania (saying that the entire region was "redneck" as late as ten years ago). He issued a an apology and a clarification, but not so soon that John McCain himself was not able to make a meal of... his own foot. Watch.
It's little things like these that can be ominous for a campaign.
Coming soon, a video of Sen. McCain spitting out the chewy part of his right sock (or was it the left one?).
Now, fast forward.
Rep. Murtha (D-PA) said something ill-advised about people in Western Pennsylvania (saying that the entire region was "redneck" as late as ten years ago). He issued a an apology and a clarification, but not so soon that John McCain himself was not able to make a meal of... his own foot. Watch.
It's little things like these that can be ominous for a campaign.
Coming soon, a video of Sen. McCain spitting out the chewy part of his right sock (or was it the left one?).
Dress To Impress
When you are on the stump giving speeches about how your terrorist-loving, un-American opponent wants to spread the wealth and to impose socialism on the country that you and other real Americans, like Joe the Plumber, Cindy the Beer Heiress, Michele the McCarthyist, and Todd the Secessionist love so much, it is essential that you convey the best impression of yourself to your God-fearing, country-loving, real American audience, and that you show up well-dressed at your rallies.
That explains your tab of $150,000 on clothing in just a little over a month, charged to the account of the Republican National Committee.
That explains your tab of $150,000 on clothing in just a little over a month, charged to the account of the Republican National Committee.
Retractions Are An Art
In the final days of the campaign, retractions abound. Some are more credible and effective than others.
To show you what I mean, here is what Sarah Palin said last week in North Carolina:
And here is her retraction:
Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, also had a retraction to make, after he had jocularly said "f@#! you" to those in the McCain campaign--like Gov. Palin--who were playing the "real America" card to divide the American people. He realized his comment was inappropriately worded, and so he issued this heartfelt retraction:
To show you what I mean, here is what Sarah Palin said last week in North Carolina:
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.
And here is her retraction:
I don't want that misunderstood. If that's the way it came across, I apologize.
Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, also had a retraction to make, after he had jocularly said "f@#! you" to those in the McCain campaign--like Gov. Palin--who were playing the "real America" card to divide the American people. He realized his comment was inappropriately worded, and so he issued this heartfelt retraction:
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
On Real America, Peddlers Of Racism, And Shamelessness
Colbert puts Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Sen. Obama in perspective, and puts the racist commentators of the right in their place (beginning with Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh).
Then, Jon Stewart, and Jason Jones of the Best F@#!ing News Team on Television, team up in successive clips to put to shame the McCain's campaign argument real America can be found only where people vote Republican (you know, places like "real" Virginia, Wasilla, Alaska, etc.)
Then, Jon Stewart, and Jason Jones of the Best F@#!ing News Team on Television, team up in successive clips to put to shame the McCain's campaign argument real America can be found only where people vote Republican (you know, places like "real" Virginia, Wasilla, Alaska, etc.)
What To Do If Red America Wins
No, I am not talking about the risk of Comrade Obama being elected (really, have these people no sense of shame)? I am talking about what we poor people can do if Red America wins the election. You know Red America: Real America!
Read "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off - Why The Blue States Should Secede."
Read "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off - Why The Blue States Should Secede."
Monday, October 20, 2008
Jon Swift On Joe The Plumber
Jon Swift is back, and his with is pretty sharp still. He suggests all Americans should sacrifice a little for Joe the Plumber, as Joe is apparently not registered to vote.
Two Perfect Examples Of Media Spin
First, a little fun exercise, then I will give you a couple of examples of spin:
(Left to Right, Top to Bottom: David Brooks, NY Times; John Meacham, Newsweek; Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC; Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman, MSNBC; Chuck Todd, MSNBC)
That is the discussion panel on yesterday's Meet The Press. Can you spot the liberal in the picture above? No? Exactly. Let's move on.
MSNBC and CNN are often accused of being in the tank for Barack Obama by McCain supporters. Progressive writer David Sirota's theory is that "objectivity in the media today is defined as worshiping the status quo, denigrating popular uprisings, and serving as stenographers to power, celebrity and money." There is much to agree with that assessment.
My theory is simply this: the media bloviates, a lot (it is hard to fill a 24 hour news cycle with intelligent, thoughtful analysis, but not impossible). Media "contributors," as they have come to be known these days, are generally lazy when it comes to doing intelligent, fact-based analysis. Much easier to pull "facts" straight out of one's ass than to do actual research. Add to that sad truth the fact that the media has to find balance where there is none, lest it should be accused of bias, and all bets are off.
Here are a couple of examples of spin and fabricated balance (whether it's intentional or reflexive, it does not matter.)
On yesterday's Meet The Press, Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC contributor and wife of Alan Greenspan, had this to say about negative ads.
OK. Let's cut straight through the crap. What Mitchell is essentially saying is that both campaigns are running negative campaigns. To some extent, that is true. But while McCain is running robo-calls in battleground states that falsely paint Obama as a friend of terrorists (Bill Ayers), the Obama campaign is running an ad that ties McCain with Bush. Mitchell defines it as "remarkably negative." What is remarkably negative about it? Simply the fact that the ad ties McCain with Bush. Does it do so using the same unsubstantiated allegations and innuendos that McCain is using in the "Ayers is a terrorist is Obama's friend" robo-calls? No, it simply shows McCain boasting that he voted with President Bush over 90% of time, more than many of his Republican colleagues. Mitchell's conclusion? A remarkably negative ad. Watch.
I don't know about you, but I see a world of difference between telling lies (negative tactic) and underscoring the fact that your opponent boasted that he supported the president more than 90% of the time (thus "stepping in it".) But a supposedly pro-Obama journalist is oblivious to the difference.
Then, just this morning, I heard Bill Schneider, CNN political analyst, explain the tightening in the polls that seems to be happening with this rationale (and I paraphrase using my best recollection of Schneider's statement): Sen. McCain has made a powerful argument in the debate that he is not President Bush.
How? By claiming that he is not President Bush in last week's debate. Really.
Bill, Bill, Bill. I looked up your profile on Wikipedia. You just turned 64 (happy belated birthday!). Don't you know the difference between an argument and a claim? (And an unsubstantiated claim, at that.) Or did you think that McCain was simply saying: "my birth certificate and the president's are totally different?"
(Left to Right, Top to Bottom: David Brooks, NY Times; John Meacham, Newsweek; Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC; Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman, MSNBC; Chuck Todd, MSNBC)
That is the discussion panel on yesterday's Meet The Press. Can you spot the liberal in the picture above? No? Exactly. Let's move on.
MSNBC and CNN are often accused of being in the tank for Barack Obama by McCain supporters. Progressive writer David Sirota's theory is that "objectivity in the media today is defined as worshiping the status quo, denigrating popular uprisings, and serving as stenographers to power, celebrity and money." There is much to agree with that assessment.
My theory is simply this: the media bloviates, a lot (it is hard to fill a 24 hour news cycle with intelligent, thoughtful analysis, but not impossible). Media "contributors," as they have come to be known these days, are generally lazy when it comes to doing intelligent, fact-based analysis. Much easier to pull "facts" straight out of one's ass than to do actual research. Add to that sad truth the fact that the media has to find balance where there is none, lest it should be accused of bias, and all bets are off.
Here are a couple of examples of spin and fabricated balance (whether it's intentional or reflexive, it does not matter.)
On yesterday's Meet The Press, Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC contributor and wife of Alan Greenspan, had this to say about negative ads.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I said it at the last debate. I'm not George Bush. It's--if, if Senator Obama wants to run against George Bush, he should have run for president four years ago.
MR. BROKAW: Can [the Obama campaign] continue to tag John McCain with George Bush?
MS. MITCHELL: They can, and, in fact, they're doing it with a remarkably negative ad. I mean, we talk a lot about the negativity on the Republican side. But the fact is that Barack Obama has so much more money, and some of these targeted ads, one that they unveiled on Thursday and Friday of this week and it's on national television, has John McCain in his own words saying, in another interview, in another context, "I voted, I supported George Bush 90 percent of the time." So they've got him on videotape. And the fact is, that this ad is running and running and running.
OK. Let's cut straight through the crap. What Mitchell is essentially saying is that both campaigns are running negative campaigns. To some extent, that is true. But while McCain is running robo-calls in battleground states that falsely paint Obama as a friend of terrorists (Bill Ayers), the Obama campaign is running an ad that ties McCain with Bush. Mitchell defines it as "remarkably negative." What is remarkably negative about it? Simply the fact that the ad ties McCain with Bush. Does it do so using the same unsubstantiated allegations and innuendos that McCain is using in the "Ayers is a terrorist is Obama's friend" robo-calls? No, it simply shows McCain boasting that he voted with President Bush over 90% of time, more than many of his Republican colleagues. Mitchell's conclusion? A remarkably negative ad. Watch.
I don't know about you, but I see a world of difference between telling lies (negative tactic) and underscoring the fact that your opponent boasted that he supported the president more than 90% of the time (thus "stepping in it".) But a supposedly pro-Obama journalist is oblivious to the difference.
Then, just this morning, I heard Bill Schneider, CNN political analyst, explain the tightening in the polls that seems to be happening with this rationale (and I paraphrase using my best recollection of Schneider's statement): Sen. McCain has made a powerful argument in the debate that he is not President Bush.
How? By claiming that he is not President Bush in last week's debate. Really.
Bill, Bill, Bill. I looked up your profile on Wikipedia. You just turned 64 (happy belated birthday!). Don't you know the difference between an argument and a claim? (And an unsubstantiated claim, at that.) Or did you think that McCain was simply saying: "my birth certificate and the president's are totally different?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)