from bbv.org;
Usually fighting for public rights and observable elections is just like running on a hamster wheel -- constant battles about uncertified, defective voting machines, hiding freedom of information documents, and quibble, quibble, quibble about hand counts, spot checks, digital signatures, cryptography, certifications, testing...but Germany just took a big short cut and got off the hamster wheel altogether! We can learn a lot from what Germany just did.What's important is WHY Germany banned computerized voting. Newspapers gave the impression that Germany banned e-voting due to "security issues" or bugs. NOT SO: The ban was based on HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. This stopped e-voting dead in Germany. No more hamster wheel.This decision represents spectacular progress for the US voting rights groups who believe computerized, secret vote counting violates inalienable rights. Germany gave us effective argumentation for this. It starts with reframing the issue of computerized voting into basic human rights.The details of Germany's knock-out punch arguments are below. If you feel uncomfortable about computerized voting, the controversial Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the new 2009 Holt Bill that expands on HAVA, here's real hope for change. For years now, leaders like voting rights lawyer Paul Lehto, Nancy Tobi (Democracy for New Hampshire/Election Defense Alliance), and Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, and have been focusing on these issues from the standpoint of human rights. We believe that counting votes on computers controlled by insiders violates inalienable rights, specifically the right to public scrutiny of public elections. Germany agrees. Last week, Germany's Supreme Court equivalent, its federal constitutional court, issued a decision that computerized vote counting is unconstitutional. HEY, AMERICA IS NOT GERMANY But the principles in the German decision are very much in line with the principles underlying our own democratic structure. As Paul Lehto explains, "We [the USA] insisted on the human rights provisions as a condition of approval of the post-war German Constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out in December 1948, and the German Constitution was signed off by Allies and went into effect May 23, 1949. We insisted on human rights, including free, genuine public elections, for post-war Germany. We conditioned our approval specifically on these human rights being 'inviolable and inalienable.' Meaning, they can't be violated and they can't be lost, waived or forfeited." WHAT WOULD GERMANY DO ABOUT COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES? Last week's decision by Germany's high court ultimately prohibits voting machines from further use. Reasoning behind the decision is as follows -- I've broken it up into bite-sized chunks, scroll, skim, and re-read the parts that resonate with you: ----------------------German decision: "The use of voting machines which electronically record the voters’ votes and electronically ascertain the election result only meets the constitutional requirements if the essential steps of the voting and of the ascertainment of the result can be examined reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. " ----------------------It goes on to state that such examination must be available to the public; in fact it says "A complementary examination by the voter, by the electoral bodies or the general public"; ----------------------"The use of electronic voting machines requires that the essential steps of the voting and of the determination of the result [the count] can be examined by the citizen reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. This requirement results from the principle of the public nature of elections" ----------------------WHAT WOULD GERMANY DO ABOUT THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT and THE HOLT "VOTER CONFIDENCE" BILL (WHICH EXPANDS ON HAVA)? Germany had its own version of something similar to HAVA. This court decision declares that legislation to be unconstitutional. ----------------------"The Federal Voting Machines Ordinance is unconstitutional because it infringes on the principle of the public nature of elections. "The Federal Voting Machines Ordinance (Bundeswahlgeräteverordnung) is unconstitutional because it does not ensure that only such voting machines are permitted and used which meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections. " ----------------------In various parts of the decision, it makes it clear that the right to public scrutiny cannot be removed in order to make sure voters don't make a mistake on their ballot, cannot be removed for speedy results, cannot be removed and replaced with something else that does not involve the citizens themselves. WHAT WOULD GERMANY SAY ABOUT CERTIFICATION AND TESTING OF VOTING MACHINES? The USA has a decades-long history of inept and corrupt certification and testing processes. Just last week, the EAC admitted that it doesn't understand its own technical reports (leading us to wonder how "the public" is supposed to make sense of any of this.) Here's what the German decision says about certification and testing: ----------------------"Limitations of the possibility for the citizens to examine the voting cannot be compensated by an official institution testing sample machines in the context of their engineering type licensing procedure, or the very voting machines which will be used in the elections before their being used, for their compliance with specific security requirements and for their technical integrity." ----------------------WHAT DOES GERMANY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT TRYING MITIGATING SECRET VOTE-COUNTING WITH AUDITS AND OTHER PROCEDURES? What Americans have been calling an "audit" is mislabeled, because measures called election audits are actually spot checks, and missing the management report component of real audits; no effort is made to evaluate chain of custody as part of the spot check. But the German court decision correctly pointed out that Government substitution of public scrutiny with its own check is no substitute at all. ----------------------"Also an extensive entirety of other technical and organizational security measures alone is not suited to compensate a lack of the possibility of the essential steps of the electoral procedure being examined by the citizens." ----------------------The German decision should bring encouragement to Americans who just knew something was wrong. A whole nation agrees with you! Now, to get our own country to protect and defend our own rights. We all need to help, by clearly stating what we really want: public scrutiny of all phases of public elections. * * * (1) 2009 version of Holt "Voter Confidence" bill: http://www.bbvdocs.org/2009holt.pdf
we must get behind labor and educate others about EFCA!!! do it now and tell the corporations that are lobbying against us where to go!!!
“An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle (one)makes some people lose their minds.”
Yes folks, I’m talking about those who live under the bridge and desire that we follow them there.
“I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.
Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.
For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.
Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it's a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?
Remember that trolls are cowards; they'll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that's what they do!).” http://www.flayme.com/troll/#How
How can you tell if a post is from one of these friendly folks? You can’t easily, especially with these professional ones, and those who pretend to be ‘insiders.’ It doesn’t matter as long as you don’t reward them anyway!
“There is no better way to shift a troll from a newsgroup than simply to ignore it. Sometimes, that is not possible; perhaps it has succeeeded in upsetting people.
It can be tempting to play games with the troll, they are easy to wind up, and watching them in contortions of fury feels like justice. But think before you do this - not out of mercy to the slug - but because it is boring at best for your fellow members, and irritating at worst; you may be labeled a troll yourself. Best to ignore.” http://www.flayme.com/troll/#How
Here are the five types identified loosely;
"A group is considered to be cohesively destroyed when two-thirds to three-quarters of the messages are a result of [trolls'] comments," Wood explains. They often target new users, who are more likely to take offense” or take their side. http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1173450669;pp;2
So remember Lace’s Mantra??? ReportIgnoreDonate really IS the best way to deal with trolls. If you let them ‘trigger’ or ‘take over’ the discussion, then no one wins. Remember, HQ is in charge of deciding what posts to remove, often remove posts with or without their being reported, and ALWAYS have the final say about things; IT’S NOT OUR BLOG. Let’s get back to why we were invited here in the first place!!
it's Joe Ruwe's Birthday TODAY, and since we all love Joe Ruwe, if we all hum Happy Birthday i'm sure he'll hear us and come to the blog!!!
(gets out the pitch pipe) ready???
(blows in pipe) Happy Birthday to YOUUUUUU.....
love ya Joe Ruwe!!
another update from BBV.org, (rather late, i've been working for the O); read it here!
USA - Diebold/Premier says it's too late to fix a new voting machine 2-minute warning and "time-out" feature, which can kick voters off the machine, forcing them to accept a provisional ballot. At least 15 voters were booted off the machine in Johnson County, Kansas recently, and Diebold/Premier says this is due to a software upgrade which sets a timer on voter inactivity. According to the company, the machines receiving the upgrade are used in 34 states and 1,700 jurisdictions.* *This seems inflated, though. Unless the optical scan machines are also outfitted with a 2-minute warning, which doesn't make sense, it would seem that this should only apply to the DRE states and locations. JOINING THIS PROBLEM TO MAKE IT BIGGER: A study on DRE allocation from Ohio indicates that it takes an average of four to nine minutes per voter to cast an average-length ballot, and ballots in many locations will be longer than average this fall. Each additional ballot question can add 30 seconds to the time a voter must monopolize the DRE. Diebold's 2-minute timeout kicks in when the voter does not make a selection quickly enough. (Welcome to 21st Century literacy tests.) According to a Sept. 10 Kansas City Star Article, Johnson County upgraded touchscreen voting machines with a new software release from Diebold subsidiary Premier Election Solutions Inc. Buried in the release notes was a mention of a new "time out" feature that makes the voting machine eject a voter card if there has been no activity for 150 seconds. The machine emits a warning sound at 120 seconds. You can read the full article here: http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14307
This just in from my friends at Planned Parenthood of Iowa, thought I'd encourage you all to check and see what YOUR governor is doing about it!!
Gov. Culver joins the opposition to this rule click here to read
Birth control = Abortion? If a new rule proposed by the Bush Administration is enacted that would become U.S. policy.
A proposed rule which sidesteps the legislative process is currently in the works at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This rule would redefine birth control as abortion! It would also make it easier for doctors and pharmacists to refuse to provide contraceptives.
Iowa Planned Parenthood Affiliate League (IPPAL) knows this is a vital public health issue and has created multiple actions you can take right now to fight this new measure.
Birth Control is NOT Abortion Action Center
Send an e-mail to President Bush telling him why this new rule is a bad idea.Click here to send Pres. Bush an e-mail
The major news media in Iowa have not picked up this story yet! Click here to write a letter to the editor in opposition to this new rule.
Gov. Culver recently opposed this new measure.Click here to send Gov. Culver a thank-you letter
Your help is essential to blocking this new rule change. Changing the definition of birth control and making it abortion will severely impact family planning services in Iowa, and across the nation.
Blocking access to family planning services for millions of women and families is just wrong. Do your part today and take action!
here is the full text of the latest email from Greg Palast.
The McCain Plan: Homer Simpson without the Donut By Greg Palast
[Thursday, August 7, 2008. North Shore, Long Island]
I’m guessing it was excessive exposure to either radiation or George Bush, but Senator John McCain’s comments from inside a nuclear power plant in Michigan are so cracked-brained that I fear some loose gamma rays are doing to McCain’s gray matter what they did to Homer Simpson’s.
On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican candidate descended into the colon of a nuke to declare we need to build 45 new nuclear plants - that this is the way out of our energy crisis. Nuclear power, declared the senator, is a “safe, efficient [and] inexpensive” alternative to oil.
Really? We can argue all day about whether nuclear plants are safe (they aren’t –period). But there can be no argument whatsoever that these giant radioactive tea-kettles are breathtakingly expensive.
here is a synopsis of the tax plans as retrieved from the American Tax Policy Institute.
drat, it doesn't work quite right, but here is the WHOLE tax plan, as it's supposed to be! anyone who knows how to post a .doc, please let me know or i'll send it to you and you can post it. i printed it off for family yesterday. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN
OBAMA
Income
Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M
-$269,364
+$701,885
$603K and up
-$45,361
+$115,974
$227K-$603K
-$7,871
+$12
$161K-$227K
-$4,380
-$2,789
$112K-$161K
-$2,614
-$2,204
$66K-$112K
-$1,009
-$1,290
$38K-$66K
-$319
-$1,042
$19K-$38K
-$113
-$892
Under $19K
-$19
-$567
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.
But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.
According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base.
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.
from Blackbox voting (seriously, if you aren 't signed up, go there and get that way!!!)
Permission to reprint, excerpt, and distribute granted. Complete, Concise Tool Kit booklet: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf TABLE OF CONTENTS Top 5 things you can do 1. Get involved………pg 5-8 2. Hook up with experienced groups………pg 9 Freedom of Information Tips………pg 10-11 3. Protect & defend – deceptive practices………pg 12-24 4. Protect & defend – voter lists………pg 25-37 5. VOTING MACHINES: Protect & defend – vote counts………pg 38-71
(cont...)
http://www.thereitis.org/displayarticle804.html
this article is from a Kerry supporter who talks about abortion and the reality that other countries areactually having LEGAL abortions also have a LOWER abortion rates....go figger!
http://www.thereitis.org/displayarticle785.html
this one is by a STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE who talks about how abortion rates rise under a Reblican administration; and this man's wife would have, had anyone been a candidate for it, been a perfect candidate for an abortion.
I printed these off and shared them at caucuses. I also share them with all Catholics who have conflicts.
please also see my other blog about the verbiage about abortions, i thikn it's called "it will come up." i wrote it in the primaries.
some have wondered about the poem on standing up for those who we believe are being dealt an injustice, and i was discussing it with my coworker who remembered enough of it i could find it....
here it is along with the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out.
thought I'd repost this one, cuz I think it's so important for us to stay aware of...
Barack titled his speech "A More Perfect Union." It's a speech not about racism, it's a speech about the divisiveness of poverty. That poverty has gotten better and worse over the years, and when poverty takes over, we each become more egocentric and self-protective. There was another very smart man named Abraham Maslow, who wrote on the hierarchy of needs (Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow ). When the lower level needs are being consistently met, and met even for some who are particularly traumatized for generations, then we are allowed to move up that hierarchy, and meet other needs. The first levels of course are for physical needs, and once those are met, we meet safety needs, and then love and belonging, self esteem, and self-actualization goals, progressively as the goals before it are recognized as being met. This division has been propagated repeatedly by those 'haves' against those 'have nots' or 'have lesses' (remember the Star Bellied Sneeches from Dr Seuss?); we all strive to be haves. When we see others in competition with us, we become protective out of human nature. The haves get to set the tone on this, they control the media, and control the wealth. They tell me that I should be jealous of that person who gets this benefit, and should object loudly when this person receives assistance with that major problem; all the while controlling the legislature and passing bills that cost us millions and billions; far less than the welfare recipient's benefits would cost. Subsequently, that recipient of services begins to feel completely powerless to get out, and this is propogated through the haves suggesting they are dispicable and deserve oru contempt.
We all know how to motivate a child to do something; praise them for doing it part of the way, or praise their desire to learn. Don't beat them down!!!
When our needs are not met or we worry and fear that they won't, we go into fight or flight mode. We seek, through fear, to find the reason we are have-nots and, especially with the suggestion from the 'haves' we attack, based on biological drives. Fear is a HIGHLY motivating emotion!!! The haves play that to the hilt!!As our country slips back into this economic divide, we will again revert to those 'fear' based tactics, and in fact we see many still stuck there, based not on their history but on the fear they carry from their parents or their parents' parents. Our job, as Obama supporters, is to remember that there is a GREAT DEAL OF FEAR; fear of the unknown (Barack Obama, a culture we don't readily understand and are not familiar with, of our own future and safety and having physical needs met). Fear is the motivation for change in these lower levels of the hierarchy. SO, this is why we see so much fear, and why we feel as if we are battling it; we indeed are, as others feel threatened in, while not SO often their need for physical safety, their need for security of the structure, resources, employment, health, and prosperity. Let's keep that in mind as we interact, both here on the blogs and out in the 'real life.Feel free to comment, share your perceptions; "let's have a discussion."
