Black Box Voting : Interview With Dr. Ulrich Wiesner

SHORTCUTS: How to find what you're looking for

Navigation
  Topics
  Log In
  Log Out
:
Special Search
  New Today
  New This Week
  Advanced Search
  Tree View

Your Account
  Edit Profile
  Register
  Forgot Password

Tools
  Help/Instructions
  Policies

CLICK STATE TO SEE:

"WATCH LIST"
Marked with:

"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with:

...

Interview With Dr. Ulrich Wiesner

Black Box Voting » Mailbag » Interview With Dr. Ulrich Wiesner

« Previous Next »

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post

Start New Thread

Author

Message

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 351
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 8 (A keeper?)

Posted on Friday, October 16, 2009 - 8:29 am:

Many of you are already aware of the recent German Constitutional Court's decision to BAN VOTING MACHINES IN GERMANY.

Following is a an article I wrote, which can also be found on "OpEdNews", introducing Dr. Ulrich Wiesner, which also includes the YouTube link to the interview I, along with Bev Harris, had with Dr. Wiesner on October 7, 2009, on Jack Blood's "Deadline Live" Radio Show in Austin, Texas.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/An-Interview-with-Dr-Ulri-by-Kathleen-Wynne-091 015-701.html

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 547
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 2:14 am:

Magnificent work, Kathleen. You, Bev, Sheila, Karen, Vicki, and Paul have always understood that transparency is essential to democracy.

But there is something else essential to democracy. It requires, by definition, that the supreme power over government be vested in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of elected officials, government bodies, or courts. Somehow Germany's Constitution must have managed to establish a democratic form of government that our own Constitution did not.

Or did it? Would they have had any recourse if the court had not ruled in their favor? Other than to keep trying for twenty or fifty or a hundred years to get the court to rule in their favor?

Is the German Constitutional Court appointed or elected? Are there any qualifications to be on it other than being a citizen and that a sitting President likes you?

Suppose they have a totally transparent, hand-counted paper ballot election in Germany with full public oversight. Candidate X wins by a wide margin. Candidate Y, the losing candidate, files a lawsuit with their highest court. Could their highest court intervene, determine that it is essential (perhaps on the basis of a legal technicality, perhaps for reasons based on national security interests such as a military or economic crisis, or perhaps out of nothing but partisanship) that Candidate X not take office, nullify the election, set aside the vote, order that Candidate Y be sworn in as President, and their ruling be final and not subject to appeal the way our Constitution established things here?

Wasn't it Al Gore who noted that once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, we have no recourse other than armed revolution? Are things different in Germany? Or do they have a better change of justice being done simply due to a greater likelihood of armed revolution if it isn't?

I know that Paul will say that the mistake was Gore's, but there's no guarantee that some future candidate might not make some other mistake. Or the Electoral College could make a mistake. Or Congress could make a mistake in accepting or rejecting Electoral College votes.

The popular vote for President in the United States is not a direct vote and it is not the final and decisive factor in determining who takes office. So however transparent it may be, it cannot guarantee that we get the President we elect.

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 352
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 8:49 am:

Mark,

Thank you for your kind words. Well, as I said in my article, the key to preserving the "principles of transparency" can only be achieved through public hand counts, as the German Court ruled. And as Bev and Paul have noted, it's about "human rights." The German Court simply upheld the German Constitution and did what the court is supposed to do -- protect the human rights of its citizens, as expressed by its constitution, above all else.

Hopefully, we will be able to use their example as a tool to convince others within the elections reform community -- who still believe in "incrementalism" through compromise with the use of the machines as the best strategy in achieving transparency -- to unite with us and get behind appropriately administered "public hand counts" because there simply is no better strategy. Time is of the essence, because there will be a "tipping point" where more and more machines will be flooding into states all over the country, making it even more difficult than it already is, in turning the tide.

The best elections process has always been about simplicity. It was the government, aided and abetted by the voting machine lobbyist and the "technical experts" who had much to gain by promoting computerized voting, who made our elections process a multi-layered complicated mess. I believe they did so by design.

Combine that with the American people being asleep at the wheel, forgetting that citizenship in a free and open soceity requires "eternal vigilance", as Jefferson warned us. We should never have "outsourced" our duties as citizens to the experts. What we saw evolved was their either ending up either working for the voting machine vendors, becoming lobbyists for them, using their expertise in this area to make large sums of money, or simply wanted to be considered by the powers that be to be a member of the "inside track" to that power and finally, to be "relevant."

We've all witnessed how money and power have taken precedence over protecting the citizen's rights by our so-called representatives and even from our courts as well.

We must act fast and use the example of the German Constitutional Court and craft a new message from the election reform community that highlights the Court's decision and remind people that the German Constitution is similar to our own, when it comes to the definition of "human rights" and how that translates into a citizens right to "see" their votes counted, as determined by the German Court.

Sadly, we are still fighting for something that has always been our's from the day we were born, "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator," and these rights should NEVER have been taken away from us in the first place.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 548
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 12:02 pm:

If I understand him correctly, Kathleen, Paul Lehto would say that since our inalienable rights cannot be taken away, they were not taken away, that we still have them, and that the fact that we can't exercise them and that the courts may not uphold them, is legally irrelevant. ;)

In Part Seven of the YouTube videos of the show, Bev explains that a citizen in the United States can't file the same sort of lawsuit that the Wiesners did in Germany. Bev said that in most states citizens generally lack standing in the courts and are not considered a party to elections.

So I looked up the definition of the word citizen and it said that citizens are people who owe their allegiance to and are entitled to the protection of a state or a political community. The phrase "political community" doesn't mean a member of a political party, but that if one is a citizen of a state or a country, one is entitled to the protection of that state or country. Only citizens can vote, so I would think that citizens ARE party to elections, in fact, I would think that since citizens are the ones who are supposed to elect their representatives, the candidates are NOT party to elections and should have no standing, as their only standing derives, or should derive, from the votes of the citizens.

So then, shortly afterwards in the radio show, when you speak of building public support and a critical mass of citizens for transparency in elections, I wonder what good (short of armed revolution) having a critical mass of public support could accomplish. If one citizen lacks standing in the courts, then a hundred, a thousand, or a million citizens lack standing. In other words, with regard to elections, our courts consider us to be subjects, not citizens.

Earlier in the interview and also later on in the show, Bev speaks about addressing distractions. Isn't that the goal of those who are bringing up those distractions--to get us to address the distractions rather than the main point? If we're addressing distractions, haven't we taken our eyes off the prize of election transparency as a basic right?

There are many points and processes in our electoral system that are not transparent. Should we be addressing them one by one, or, as the Weisners did, should we be addressing the fundamental issue of transparency?

Beyond that, should we be addressing the issue, or should we be addressing who makes the final decision on the issue: us, we the people, the citizens, or an unelected body that can decide who has standing, which cases to hear, and whose decisions, whether they promote the general welfare or promote the welfare of a privileged few, no matter how poor, illogical, and unprecedented such decisions may be, even if such decisions were not made by them but by one of their clerks either deliberately or in error, must be recognized as final and cannot be appealed?

I have discussed here on BBV many times the question of whether our elected federal representatives, since we cannot directly hold them accountable during their terms of office, are our servants or our masters.

A bigger question may be if we are citizens or subjects. Our Constitution, as I understand it, did not vest supreme power over government in us as citizens, but in a supreme court that we could neither elect nor hold accountable, and which does not have to Constitutionally recognize us as as a party with standing to challenge elections.

So I guess I'm asking, like the cops always ask when I go to protests, "Who's in charge here?"

What kind of Constitution says that Congress, not the votes of the citizens, is the sole judge of who Members of Congress can be?

And how the hell can any court, even a "supreme" court, rule that citizens lack standing with regard to elections?

In a democratic form of government where supreme power over government is vested in the hands of the citizens, ONLY citizens, and not candidates, political parties, or elected officials, have standing with regard to elections. You can't tell me that I have power over my checking account, and then tell me that I lack standing to sue if somebody forges a check in my name. That's nuts.

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 353
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 12:46 pm:

Mark,

I understand your arguments. You make some excellent points, but these are many of the same arguments we have been going around in circles trying to make heads or tails out of for years.

After talking with Dr. Wiesner and reading the Court's decision, it became clear to me that we needed to try a different startegy, one that focuses on changing the message. At least, that's the way I see it. A message that will resonate better with the average citizen and not just election reform advocates. I have mentioned before that the election reform community must be careful not to become just another set of experts that confuse and confound those who don't spend as much time on this issue as we do. That would be self-defeating, don't you think, because such a concept would intimidate more citizens from getting involved. As for the value of building critical mass...well, we've not achieved it so far, so, maybe the value of it will be revealed, once we achieve it. I don't want to defeat an idea that hasn't come to fruition yet, before considering it ineffective.

Also, I don't think we've really spent a lot of time figuring out how we can use the argument of "human rights" under our constitution as the basis for returning to public hand counts, as the Germans succeeded in doing. However, I do agree with you that sometimes we get distracted by trying not to be distracted! As a result, we may have trapped ourselves inside a constant quest to "prove" that the machines and/or new technology should not be used to count our votes. We've already done that a hundreds times over and we still have not turned the tide in motivating the American people or our Congress to acknowledge the painfully obvious and to get rid of the "secrecy" that is slowly but surely taking away our rights as citizens. Which is why I'm convinced it's time to look in a totally, new, un-travelled direction for the answer, even though we think we've looked under every rock and in every cranny.

Let me just say, the story I've written doesn't end with this ONE interview. It is only the beginning of other things I hope to come as a result of it that may lead us "closer", if not all the way to the "promise land."

Our frustrations kind of remind me of the movie "Cast Away" and how futile it looked for Tom Hanks trying to get off that island. But, finally, the tide brought in a fiberglass sail that made the impossible, possible.

I keep telling myself the same thing Tom told his friend after he got back to Memphis after being on a deserted island for 4 years and what he learned by that experience..."you just have to keep on breathing, knowing that the sun will come up tomorrow...and who knows what the tide will bring."

Indeed.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 551
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 3:22 pm:

I never saw the movie, Kathleen, but if all he needed was a sail, had he already managed to construct a raft?

Do you remember Kon-Tiki? (Again, I didn't see the movie, but I read the book.) Ancient canoes used pandanus sails.

http://outriggersailingcanoes.blogspot.com/2008/03/ancient-sail-found.html

http://www.photographytips.com/page.cfm/4099

But there were ocean-going canoes before that, that didn't use sails. I hope that if the tide didn't bring in a fiberglass sail, an outcast would eventually figure out a way to rig a sail with available resources or a way to devise a raft or canoe that didn't need a sail.

Did he have coconuts on the island? If you scroll down on this link, there are some interesting comments:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/680391

Kathleen, your courage and determination are awesome and it is an honor to know people in the election integrity community who will never give up and are willing to make any sacrifice for democracy.

I don't go to many movies, and in fact I've seen more movies in the past few weeks than I've seen in the previous five years: "Crude," "The Age of Stupid," "Capitalism: A Love Story," and "No Impact Man." The first two had a message, the third refines the message in a way that can reach a lot of people, and in the last one, "No Impact Man," Colin Beavan is the message and it's going viral because it demonstrates how we can empower ourselves, save money, save the planet, and have fun doing it.

I think that you are absolutely correct about our message not reaching and inspiring enough people, and that we have to look in new directions. One of those new directions might be The Fun Theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw

But I'm not sure that a more effective message would be the answer. Sometimes it can be, but sometimes it might not be. At various points in history, charismatic leaders have inspired people to rise up against tyranny, but not all revolutions were successful. So the Weisners didn't say, "E-voting has denied our human rights, we need to inform the German people and pressure our legislators or lead a revolution to restore our rights," they simply filed a lawsuit. It could have failed, but it didn't. Their rights were restored and it was just the two of them and a few supporters with no partisan acrimony and no bloodshed at all.

I don't think we can get a critical mass of Americans to value freedom over material things. Most Americans think of freedom in terms of how much they have rather than in terms of who makes the decisions about what they can and cannot have and how those decisions are made. Those doing well believe that our economy is just fine, our health care system is excellent, etc., and those not doing well often believe that they simply lack initiative rather than lacking the connections and favoritism the rich enjoy. Or that they need only to think more positive thoughts.

I was just reading Jim Rogers' book, Investment Biker and some of his predictions turned out to be wrong because some of his assumptions were wrong. Most of the time he was right because the rise and fall of empires is predictable, so where empires control markets, the rise and fall of markets is therefore also predictable. But human nature is not as easily predictable. Sometimes where we might expect greed, altruism can arise instead. Cost/benefit analyses don't take nonquantifiable variables like happiness, personal satisfaction, and love into account, so sometimes they fail. Capitalists have to kill people when they can't force them to care more about short-term profits than about the habitat they're leaving for their grandchildren. But new grandchildren are always being born, so to destroy the world for short-term profit, you'd have to kill anyone who might eventually have and come to love a grandchild, which means almost everyone--including a lot of capitalists. (Although I do know capitalists who adhere strictly to "he who dies with the most toys wins," and don't give a damn about grandkids or the planet. Greed is a powerful force.)

I just googled the German Constitutional Court, and according to Wikipedia the judges are elected, rather than appointed, but they are not elected by the people but by the German Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court_of_Germany

Wiki: "The Court consists of two Senates, each of which has eight members, headed by a senate’s chairman. The members of each Senate are allocated to three Chambers for hearings in Constitutional Complaint and Single Regulation Control cases. Each Chamber consists of three judges, so each Senate chairman is at the same time a member of two Chambers.

Decisions by a Senate require an absolute majority of 5 votes (in some cases a 2/3 majority is required, i.e. 6 out of 8 votes), decisions by a Chamber need to be unanimous. A Chamber is not authorized to overrule a standing precedent of the Senate to which it belongs; such issues need to be submitted to the Senate as a whole. Similarly, a Senate may not overrule a standing precedent of the other Senate; such issues will be submitted to a plenary meeting of all 16 judges (the 'Plenum')."

The judges do have to have qualifications and they are subject to term limits.

Wiki: "The judges are elected for a 12-year term, but they must retire when reaching the age of 68. A judge must be at least 40 years old and must be a well-trained jurist. Three out of eight members of each Senate must have served as a judge of a Federal Supreme Court. Of the other five members of each Senate, most judges previously served as a professor of law at a University, a public servant or an attorney."

So while it is not entirely democratic, it is a lot better than what we've got.

What we've got is a very materialistic population, a majority of whom don't really care how we get oil, who is killed so that we can get oil, who profits from oil, and how much irreparable destruction to the planet is caused by oil and petroleum-based products, as long as the price at the pump remains affordable. For them, if elections are rigged in a way that will ensure them a steady oil supply, there's no problem.

So we've got a government that sees its job as ensuring that there's a steady supply of oil, no matter what the cost, who profits, who is killed, and regardless of any irreparable harm to human health or the survival of the planet. And with multinational corporations so rich that they can fund or defund governments, we're far from the only government that cares more about profits and "progress," than about people.

I'm looking forward to hearing Helen Caldicott speak on Friday, and hopefully to buying an autographed copy of the newly revised edition of her book, If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal the Earth. On p. 95 of the 1992 paperback edition, Caldicott has this quote:

In my book, a "pioneer" is a man who turned all the grass upside down, strung barbed wire over the dust that was left, poisoned the water and cut down the trees, killed the Indian who owned the land and called it progress. If I had my way, the land would be like God made it, and none of you sons of bitches would be here at all.
--Charlie Russell, cowboy artist, 1923

Somehow, Kathleen, I don't expect the SOBs to be receptive to even the most finely tuned message. So maybe we gotta stop thinking about how we can reach more people and what we can get other people to do, and take a tip from the Wiesners and figure out what we can do. Elections aren't going to change anything because the way that this country runs elections is one of the most basic things that we need to change, lawsuits aren't going to change anything when the highest court in the land has a vested interest in being able to intervene in elections, and I think there's a much better than 50% chance that a revolution would either fail or else bring even worse tyrants to power.

But what we do have is the only thing we really need, a small group of extraordinary people:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. --Margaret Mead

I don't doubt it for a minute, but I don't think we're going to do it by waiting for a sail to wash up on the beach. I think it's going to take a lot more creativity and resourcefulness than that. And maybe a lot of coconuts. ;)

=============================================
Before you accept the results of any election, verify them. If you cannot verify them, don't trust them. Elections officials are humans, not gods, and trust in them is idolatry, not democracy.

Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a

Post Number: 5578
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 4:10 pm:

Kathleen said:

quote:
After talking with Dr. Wiesner and reading the Court's decision, it became clear to me that we needed to try a different startegy, one that focuses on changing the message.

Wise words, wise strategy.

Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a

Post Number: 5579
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 7:25 pm:

The radio interview is outstanding. It's easy to listen to and exceptionally informative.

It includes great discussions about election reform--especially about "what are the MOST IMPORTANT issues", and why.

The discussion puts across key concepts in a way that is non-political. The interview & discussions can be enjoyed by people of all political persuasions.

It's also a good listen whether a person knows a lot about election issues or nothing at all.

There's a lot of new food for thought here, and all the speakers put things across in an appealing down-to-earth way. There is just enough detail, and--especially welcome--a broad historical perspective on where this movement has come from, and what the current challenges are.

Kudos to all involved--Kathleen, Bev, Dr. Ulrich Wiesner & Jack Blood.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 552
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 8:38 pm:

And my previous comment was unfair, Catherine, as Kathleen really did stop waiting for a sail to wash up on the shore and started gathering coconuts.

Kathleen really is one of the most creative and resourceful people in the movement. And every time that Kathleen's courage, persistance, and innovative methods meet with a bureaucratic stone wall, Kathleen looks for a way to get under, over, around, or through that wall, a way to knock it down, or a new direction in which to go.

I agree that the program was outstanding, and that Kathleen, Bev, Dr. Wiesner, and Jack Blood did a great job.

In some countries, like Ireland and the Netherlands, public outrage when they were shown the unreliability of the machines was sufficient to bring about change because their governments, apparently, are responsive to the will of their people rather than just to the will of large corporate donors. In Germany there was an unbiased, highly qualified court with the integrity to consider valid arguments, where the people have standing on Constitutional issues.

Our island has fewer resources, but that doesn't mean that we won't succeed. In fact with people like you, Bev, Kathleen, and many others, I'm sure that we will. And the key is going to be, as Kathleen said and you acknowledged, to find a new strategy.

And in the meantime, as we keep honing and crafting the message, trying to appeal to unresponsive authorities, and searching for new strategies, to remember that there's also the possibility of a sail washing up on the shore, as Kathleen does. On an island other than ours, the Wiesner case could have been that sail.

Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a

Post Number: 5580
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 9:25 pm:

quote:
In some countries, like Ireland and the Netherlands, public outrage when they were shown the unreliability of the machines was sufficient to bring about change because their governments, apparently, are responsive to the will of their people rather than just to the will of large corporate donors.

There are two major differences between Ireland and the US in relation to this issue.
1) In Ireland politics is closer to the people (more elected representatives and they are approachable) and it's a real "sport"--people are generally more engaged.

2) The Media is more informative of all sides on many issues. There is virtually none of the kind of hate-mongering extremist rhetoric. There is vigorous in-depth discussion and debate. Public affairs programs on both radio and television attract wide audiences and are the subject of water-cooler conversations everywhere.

While the media in Ireland certainly has spin, bias and subtle forms of censorship, it is more balanced and in-depth than anything I have ever experienced in the States. Some of the call-in radio shows can and do bring issues into public focus and influence government policy and actions.

The media's role in enabling genuine political discussion and debate is an important factor in people's engagement with politics and government.

When ICTE started raising awareness about electronic voting in Ireland, its immediate goal was to get a paper trail. ICTE was able to get factual information to a range of politicians and media professionals, some of whom educated themselves and followed up on an ongoing basis.

Care was taken with the tone of the information provided to the media. Media relationships were nurtured carefully.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 554
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 10:31 pm:

Does people being "more engaged," mean that Ireland has a more informed electorate? Does citizenship in Ireland confer not just the civic duty to vote, but also the the civic responsibility to inform oneself about the issues?

We have a media monopoly problem here, Catherine. Those who wish to communicate a message that isn't approved by the corporations that own the mainstream media, are limited to the alternative media, which has a much smaller range.

Our politicians, with rare exceptions, are not at all "approachable." Most delegate constituent relations to their staff so that they can devote themselves to the fundraising needed to stay in office. In fact fundraising takes up so much of their time that most delegate all other aspects of office, such as legislative analysis, to their staff, and legislative votes tend to be cast along party lines or to please major corporate donors.

We also live in an age of information overload, so even when our media does cover important issues in a balanced and informative way, it seems to get drowned out by the usual flood of shocks and distractions.

I subscribe to at least a hundred different newsfeeds and mailing lists that cover issues of interest to me, but many of my neighbors just flip the TV to their favorite channel and watch whatever's on "the news." I can delete everything in my inbox that isn't relevant by just glancing at the subject line without opening it, but in order to get a 30-second soundbite of important news, my neighbors have to sit through an hour of ads, celebrity scandals, crimes, and irrelevant distractions, leaving them no time for research or reflection and no way to respond.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3163
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 6:07 am:

Mark,

Re this:
"Our politicians, with rare exceptions, are not at all "approachable." Most delegate constituent relations to their staff so that they can devote themselves to the fundraising needed to stay in office. In fact fundraising takes up so much of their time that most delegate all other aspects of office, such as legislative analysis, to their staff, and legislative votes tend to be cast along party lines or to please major corporate donors."

I think this analysis is quite true at the federal level, much less so, and widely variable at the state level. I know personally dozens of very acccessible and very inaccessible state lawmakers. Frequently, I find it is those with the most "rockstar" high level staffers that actually MAKE their Reps inaccessible, rather than the other way 'round.

Fundraising at the STATE level may preoccupy their MINDS, but not so much their TIME as in Washington. And while too many votes are party line, true, I find most, at least here, are unanimous, or nearly so. 198-0 is our most frequent total, it seems. The bill has usually been the product of compromise before the floor vote happens.

When my member is inaccessible to a walk-in constituent, it's almost ALWAYS because he's already in an appointment or on the House floor itself. His schedule "abhors a vacuum". If he's not "booked" at the Capitol, he's heading back to the district office some 53 miles away. Our rules are different than Congress' rules. There are no sessions with most the the House being somwhere else. Attendance is mandatory. We don't have anything like Special Orders, although we do have a state equivalent of C-SPAN. How refreshing to not have "speechifyin' time".

==========================================
Before you question the veracity of any election, please self-examine to see if perhaps you haven't fallen prey to the all too common problem of the famous "I don't see how Nixon won..." phenomenon.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 555
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 7:40 am:

I used to find that "speechifyin' time" to be very refreshing, Kurt. I watched attentively on C-Span as the late Henry Gonzales, a former head of the House Banking Committee, and a tireless and passionate leader, spoke to an empty room in after-hours sessions and predicted every single banking debacle--even the ones that didn't happen until long after he died.

Of course he wasn't allowed to bring such things to the floor during regular sessions, and nobody in Congress was listening. Both major parties were much too busy compromising away our economy for the benefit of their big donors.

I just did a search for "Pennsylvania bank failures," and it seems that your State legislature wasn't listening either.

A major obstacle to democracy in America is that our mainstream media, many politicians, and many ordinary people, believe that you can have a democracy just by voting, without having to bother to keep yourself fully informed or to ensure that we have a fully informed electorate.

Like the old joke says, we must be mushrooms--they keep us in the dark, feed us a lot of sh*t, and then expect us to vote. ;)

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 354
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 8:10 am:

Mark and Catherine,

Thanks so much for your kind words.

Excellent comments from both of you. Hopefully, due to your comments about the interviw, more people will take time to listen and hear from a citizen who prevailed in bringing back public hand counts to the 4th largest economy in the world! If he can do it, why can't we, right?

BTW, Catherine, have you seen this article from the "Irish Times" entitled "Group Plans Disposal of e-Voting Machines?"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256691641.html

Good pointers on what to do when the day comes that the U.S. makes the wise decision to "dispose of e-voting machines."

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3165
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 8:10 am:

We're pretty good compared to most states in the banking area. Most of our "community banks" stayed away from exotic derivatives and also things like "no income verification" loans. The biggest problem we have is local banks getting gobbled up by megabanks.

We have VERY good mortgage rescue programs in this state, but the truly income depressed from firm closures still face a bad time.

Here's a story of yet another way democracy sometimes fails. Note: ALL Pennsylvania judges, regardless of level, are ELECTED, and at least in THIS CASE, their illegal and unconscionable acts seemed to have general PUBLIC support.

There was AT LEAST public tacit approval in the form of "getting tough on 'crime'".

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20091015_Judges__acts_at_heart_ of_hearing.html

Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 10830
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 8:51 am:

Tremendous thanks to Kathleen Wynne for taking the initiative and doing ALL the work to get this important interview to take place.

I think it is going to be important to expand this interview by getting a transcript and putting together a YouTube -- I am just finishing a short YouTube video on the monopoly issue, lacing it with a big dose of the bigger concentration of power and theft of public control.

We'll push this to the main item on the home page as soon as I can get a little more done on my end -- it will be a few days, and have a commitment that eats up today. Just wanted to check in to say: Wow - great work Kathleen, for making this happen.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 558
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 9:26 am:

With regard to that article about Ireland disposing of voting machines, it seems to me that they're in an excellent position to implement what one brilliant activist called, "Election Reef-form."

That's when you take all the voting machines and dump them into the ocean to form a reef.

Of course there may be environmental concerns with regard to toxic components, but I've always felt that the concept merited serious consideration. ;)

Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a

Post Number: 5581
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 11:31 am:

Mark asked,

quote:
Does people being "more engaged," mean that Ireland has a more informed electorate?

Yes.

Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a

Post Number: 5582
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 11:42 am:

Mark said,

quote:
That's when you take all the voting machines and dump them into the ocean to form a reef.

Yes, we've discussed this option at length, though most of us prefer a deep-sea option!

At one point there was serious consideration given to selling them to NY state, which was interested because there was a sister voting machine company ("Liberty") selling its wares.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 563
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 12:39 pm:

If you'd sold them to New York State, some of us might have returned the favor by shipping a tanker-load of poisonous snakes to Ireland. ;)

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3172
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 1:31 pm:

PLEASE tell me Ireland wasn't playing with "Liberty". Even machine-friendly Pennsylvania threw those suckers out.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 569
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 6:55 pm:

EXCELLENT article by Michael Collins on the Daily Censored:

A Censored Headline and why it Matters:

German High Court Outlaws Electronic Voting

http://dailycensored.com/2009/10/19/a-censored-headline-and-why-it-matters/

Includes a link to the radio show, a link to BBV, and much more. Comprehensive coverage, well written, and fully sourced.

I hope he posts it here on BBV.

Bravo, Michael!

=============================================
Before you accept the results of any election, verify them. If you cannot verify them, don't trust them. If we are competent enough to count our change when we buy something, we're competent enough to distrust anyone who won't let us count our votes and insists instead that we trust them to do it for us.

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 355
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 9:04 am:

Mark,

Michael contacted me indicating that he was going to write about the German Cour's decision. He's all over this story and will help keep it alive.

Note that he also points out the silence of the MSM on this subject. I believe that many voices must join in pushing the story about the Court's decision to ban e-voting, because we sure as heck ain't gonna get the story out through our media!

I predict that if we start to get any traction in building support for similar reform here that we will witness a major onslaught of attacks against those of us who support public hand counts, accompanied with misdirection, misinformation and flat out lies, in an effort to keep the people from ever learning about the importance of their right to be able to "see" their votes counted, without requiring a special expertise in order to do so.

If the people start to wake up and agree we should follow the example set by the German Court, the opposition will be out in full force, so hold on to your lugnuts and be prepared for a really bumpy ride!

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3180
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 12:47 pm:

Kathleen,

I'm more optimistic about the debate IF we can find the people to participate in public hand counts. There are REALLY 'sick and tired' places where civic duty and involvement are all but on life support. I see MASSIVE "okay, as long as they don't ask me to participate" sentiment.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 575
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 2:08 pm:

Agreed, Kathleen.

As is frequently the case, we see things differently, Kurt.

I see more and more people unwilling to participate in our current election process, who would be more than happy to participate in an open process where they were in charge.

Countries like Germany, England, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and others with transparent electoral processes, don't seem to have any problem at all finding pollworkers.

Two of the main reasons it is getting harder and harder to find pollworkers here is because older people can't understand the new systems, and because younger people can.

Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased

Post Number: 355
Registered: 1-2008

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 5:46 pm:

Sign me up, with or without pay...
I have to agree with Mark,
I think there would be real enthusiasm among a lot of people...

...but it is also my experience that there are a lot of different folk out there across the land, a lot of different towns, and therefore --

nobody's prior guess is worth much IMO until we give it a whirl with a readiness to be surprised by how it plays out in real time.

Thanks to all concerned for this very interesting thread.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3184
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 6:24 am:

Joel, Mark,

I agree in the macro scale. I think there'd be enough raw numbers of even unpaid volunteers. My problem is micro scaled, neighborhood by neighborhood. These are important considerations given my state's written Constitutional prohibitions re: poll workers.

Here's a question: Are there any other state constitutions out there that even directly MENTION pollworkers, as Pennsylvania's does? It seems an awfully detailed kind of thing for a constitution to get into, doesn't it?

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 356
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 7:56 am:

Kurt,

Like Mark and Joel, I also believe citizens would be willing to participate in the greatest duty a citizens has.

In every elections office I've visited during election time, citizens are being made to feel like an intrusion and/or an inconvenience that must be tolerated by the election official during the elections process. Who would want to participate in that kind of environment?

Election officials seem to believe that administering elections is a private enterprise and citizens do not belong in "their workplace". One good example of this mentality is when Bev and I were at the Volusia County, Florida elections warehouse going through the bag of election materials they were about to throw away after the 2004 presidential election, one of the election workers said something to the effect that "he wouldn't come to our place of business and do what we were doing..."

It's this very mindset that keeps citizens away.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3187
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 10:13 am:

Kathleen,

I have lived this. I understand why you would feel that way. Let me give you an quick analysis why I think this is.

People don't have the slightest idea what it takes to run elections on an onging basis in states that have elections absolutely every year, as mine does. For 3-3/4 years out of every cycle, no one ever cares. "What do you do the other 363 days?" is the most common question asked.

There literally IS NO DOWN TIME. Right after any November election is certified, usually in early December, IMMEDIATELY thereafter it is time to exchange affidavits with governing bodies as to which offices are up for election the next year, while the registrars are working off the backlog of registration forms held from the last registration day (+1), and the date the past election was certified. No registrations may be done in that interim. Then candidate packets for the next primary (petitions, affidavits, campaign finance forms) need to be procured and assembled. (By the way, a CONSTANT stream of new registrations is happening throughout.) Then the list of offices needs to be advertised, while campaign finance forms are streaming in. Petition season begins and candidates swarm the office with questions and complaints about laws you didn't make.

After the petitions are all filed (all this time you are cranking out voter lists for candidates and parties), the litigation of the challenges to them begins. More overtime doing research into challenged signatures. After that, the appeals happen, and now the last day to program the machines is closing in and the courts are holding your data tables "hostage" by refusng to follow statutory deadlines. Sooo, you end up with not enough time to build your tables, and end up doing it until 3AM five straight days by yourself. You slap a hurried set of data cartridges out to the warehouse and have EVERY machine tetsed, not a sample. Then you redo the errors. Then you deal with polling sites that "can't do it this year" after you've already advertised the polling sites. Then you print pollbooks, train pollworkers, distribute materials the Saturday before.

Primary Day.

Primary Night. All the carts come in, and the sealed paperwork. The next Friday the official tally begins, (nobody usually observing), and then you scan the tens of thousands of pollbook signature barcodes to update voter history.

The tally reveals write-in winners who must be sent affifdavits to match those the primary filers had to do. Now you must do the next year's departmental budget request, and prepare for third-party filers deadline in August.

Then starts all the litigation again, and the court delays, and slapdash machine prep again, etc., etc, etc.

And THEN, only right before every 4th November, and right after, IF IT WAS CLOSE, the whole world decends on you wanting every detail of everything you did, even though they were ENTIITLED to watch everything that happened, but couldn't be bothered.

That's why they have "an attitude", I think. The real attitude is, "Be here or don't. Just be consistent. Don't pick and choose when to be here and then expect us to welcome you when all you're here to do is try to embarrass us, after you weren't here for anything UNTIL you could conceivably embarrass us."

Those people aren't paid enough to compensate them for that kind of abuse. The elected bosses and lawyers might be. The county election staff is paid peanuts.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 579
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 11:05 am:

Kurt writes: "...even though they were ENTIITLED to watch everything that happened, but couldn't be bothered."

Well, I recall filing a public records request to look at some election documents that I was ENTITLED to see. After several months of back and forth with the County attorneys about why the elections officials couldn't comply with my request within the statutory time period, I was finally allowed to view the documents. An elections worker was assigned to me and never left my side, even standing outside the door when I went to the bathroom. I can understand why a lot of people wouldn't want to go to that much bother even if they were entitled to.

A worse case was when our ROV had agreed to allow the observers appointed by the political parties (after removing me in a way that a judge had deemed retaliatory) observe the vote count, but somehow conveniently forgot to notify the observers when the absentee ballots were counted. The observers (except me, of course) were entitled to observe and quite willing to go to the bother of observing, but never got the opportunity.

Dealing with any bureaucracy is difficult at best, oftentimes even for the bureaucrats themselves. Many other countries like Germany, England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc., hold elections and they don't seem to have the same problems, so perhaps the problem is that they're all socialist and allow ordinary citizens more of a role in government, as you seem to believe, Kurt, or perhaps the problem is that we're not. ;)

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3189
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 11:29 am:

Mark,

When I had the job, if I got a request for a data report that we had never even RUN for our own purposes, if I knew where to look it up how to run it, I would.

I even ran customized Crystal Reports reports for a guy once, GRATIS! My co-workers thought I was nuts. I called it being responsive to reasonable requests. It was a report that could have been of wider interest than just one guy.

My understanding is my county doesn't DO that anymore.

Mark, some records are original and unique (e.g. pollbooks, or the "wet" signature poll tapes like in the Volusia event). They can't be endangered, so access needs to be "closely monitored".

I know that's a pain. I have to apologize for that necessity.

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 357
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 11:42 am:

Kurt,

I believe the problems you face are a direct result of the layer upon layer of complexity that has been built into how election officials are forced to administer elections. First and foremost, elections are not about the citizens' right to "see" their votes counted, it's all about protecting the vendor's propretary secrets, which changes the entire tenor of the election process, as it relates to citizen participation. What's worse, such a process totally undermines the "principles of transparency" which makes it even more difficult for the election official and the citizen to be able to work together.

Also, you speak about "living the experience", but do so from the vantage point of your elections office alone. Bev and I traveled the country and got to see many and varied elections offices from different states and the result was always the same...the election officials were friendly as long as we didn't venture into their "territory" by asking pesky questions about problems that occurred during the election or asked for documentation that they viewed as our questioning their veracity in administering their elections or perhaps, calling into question their knowledge of and/or following elections law. Election officials go out of their way to discourage a citizen from being "too" involved or curious about how the election was administered. They even rope off the areas where the votes are being counted or keep you in another room where you can look through a window, which gives the message to the citizen -- you are not welcome.

What you say you experience is a prime reason why we should simplify our elections process, which would make it more amendable to citizen involvement and easier to administer in the long run. As long as machines are involved, I don't see that ever happening.

Also, it appears that you've never experienced a system which was set up to be "citizen friendly" in the administering of an election from start to finish, so, how could you possibly know how citizens would respond to being an active and integral participant of that process?

Furthermore, considering how much election officials are so restrictively co-dependent upon the vendors to help run the election, it is no wonder that you've not had a good experience with citizens. Such an environment immediately puts a citizen AND the election offical on the defensive and disrupts any chance for a real partnership between the two.

Until election officials view citizens as partners in the elections process, and make the process truly open and transparent, issues you dealt with will continue to occur, at the expense of the citizens, not to mention the democratic process.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3190
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 12:03 pm:

Kathleen,

Respectfully, I disagree. It's far less a vendor problem and far more a court-created problem.

To explain, courts have repeatedly ruled that all kinds of public access is limited to times and circumstances "not disruptive of the election workflow" and then interpreted that broadly. One man's civil rights to observe is another man's disruption. Guess who courts err in favor of.

Every one of the eight elections I ran, I went on LIVE TV (not even a 7-second delay) on Election Night, right after the polls closed (I guess they wanted filler until returns came in), and DETAILED each and every machine problem that occured that day, where it was, what we thought caused it, and what we did to fix it.

My county administrator would cringe and frown listening to me. He was apparently allergic to spreading information.

In 2004, after I initially snapped at a BBV volunteer (he hit me on hour #46 of a 48 hour consecutive shift), I INVITED him to be my constant companion shadow on Election Night 2004. He never showed up. I thought then that all he was doing was looking for me to refuse so he could create a controversy.

I still wonder.

I know what you mean, though. When I was selected in 2007 by my then-party to be their Courthouse observer, my successor tried to get a court to bar me. I went to court and won, pro se. I had to agree not to get out my camcorder "until and unless something went wrong, if it did, and immediately summon the judge to rule on who gets the tape".

Nothing amiss happened. As is normal in my county, the majority in incumbent power went down in flames yet again at the county govt level. Municipalities had little turnover, as usual.

As for "calling into question their knowledge of and/or following elections law" , I'm amazed it's not worse than that. Most ED's I know of don't know squat. They "do as they are told". Only the few "rockstars" even open their election law books.

We had a listserve that connected all the counties. We'd try to debate legal points. Only 10-12 would have any opinion beyond "I do what I'm told." And then the guys who had done the "tolding" would throw their staffs under the bus if anything went wrong.

Put ANYONE in a position where they can never win and can only ever lose, and see if they want to play.

When I was the ED, I was "sued" five times for failure to do something. Each and every time, I had. You have to bat 1.000. Not everyone thrives in that kind of environment. Most can't handle the scrutiny, especially with crappy pay.

You want election personnel to stop acting like it's them against the world? Fine, stop making that belief true. Have the higher-ups who decide what goes stand behind their decisions rather than hide like little girls behind staffers that make 1/3 what they do.

I wouldn't play their silly assed game. I was a maverick. I expected the law to be followed TO THE LETTER, no matter whose ox got gored. It got me fired - fired and blackballed for nearly 3 years.

I STILL maintain that Kerry's Pennsylvania win in 2004 was every bit as questionable as Bush's in Ohio, and for many of the identical reasons, too. 10 people are going on trial in January 2010 for illegal use of state government funds in aid of Kerry's 2004 campaign, among other charges. They were just the "ringleaders". The "foot soldiers" are not being prosecuted.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 582
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 7:32 pm:

Kurt writes: "I STILL maintain that Kerry's Pennsylvania win in 2004 was every bit as questionable as Bush's in Ohio, and for many of the identical reasons, too."

But I thought you knew about an official report that positively accounts for every vote, so you can know for sure who won. If you thought the 2004 PA election was questionable, why didn't you look at your report?

We know for sure that Ohio had shenanigans in 2004, because Richard Hayes Phillips managed to get a court order to examine those ballots which hadn't already been illegally destroyed, and found clear documented evidence of tampering by insiders. I've got the book and the CD. Whether or not anybody ever goes to jail (more likely those responsible were rewarded) the evidence cannot be denied. If the same things were done by election insiders in PA for Kerry, as were done by election insiders for Bush in Ohio, then why didn't anybody bother to look at the ballots? Because "their guy" won, so they lost interest? Because their interest was purely partisan in the first place? Because they were more interested in hunting for voter fraud than in documenting election fraud?

I'm not questioning that it could have happened, I'm just wondering why nobody bothered to check. Maybe everybody in PA thought it more important to self-examine than to question the veracity of the election?

Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased

Post Number: 358
Registered: 1-2008

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 6:50 am:

We had a listserve that connected all the counties. We'd try to debate legal points. Only 10-12 would have any opinion beyond "I do what I'm told." And then the guys who had done the "tolding" would throw their staffs under the bus if anything went wrong.

Put ANYONE in a position where they can never win and can only ever lose, and see if they want to play.

I'll say from experience that there are a lot of job domains w/ no specific political agendas where this dynamic goes on...which I think plays a large part in developing & embedding (?enhabiting?) the habits of disinvolvment in individuals that amount in sum (of aggregated individuals) to punting democracy.

In the teaching profession there is currently underway ("No Child Left Behind" is a TrojanHorse for accelerating it) a change --
from a culture of co-responsible mutually-helpful idea-exchanging collegiality
to the cultural dynamic of "just do what yr told"
(incl the elements of mentality Kurt just described),
& a self-editing fear of questioning what is plainly false&wrong &
(what I can only suspect is internally a matter of unconsciously) off-loading one's self-loathing of one's own cowardly irresponsibility to one's own genuine values
by pointing the loathing at people who bring one face-to-face (whether intentionally or inadvertently) with sight of said cowardice (for eg, anyone facing said responsibilities in a way that puts you back on the spot to also do so, but esp anyone in yr face talking at you demanding you do the right thing, multiplicatively so any outsider not sharing the box yr being squeezed out of shape by).

I'm convinced something akin to the above
(in many different shapes in variously virtue-defined individuals)
is a central element of what we were kicking around in the "Elephant" thread a year ago re: changing views --
& also in the increasingly deaf hostility of flame-throwing left/right divisive undialogue the US seems to be getting more loudly entrenched in.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3193
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 8:27 am:

"I'm not questioning that it could have happened, I'm just wondering why nobody bothered to check. Maybe everybody in PA thought it more important to self-examine than to question the veracity of the election?"

Think about it, Mark. It's a question of standing. The ONLY party that had standing to challenge the Kerry win in PA in 2004 was George W. Bush's campaign, and he had just won the election. The reason it wasn't investigated is the reason MOST things don't get investigated in life - no one with standing filed the challenge.

It's the same reason Ohio was aborted. Most politicians, who ironically ARE the most petty people on the planet, will do anything to avoid publicly SEEMING to be petty. And challenges that won't or can't change an outcome, in search of "truth", are on the pettiness Hall of Fame roster, at least in their belief.

Want evidence that challenges have little public understanding? Remember signs saying "Sore -Loserman"? And THAT was perhaps the most facially obviously valid complaint (in the sense it raised important issues) in national political history.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 585
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 11:54 am:

I have thought about it, Kurt. A lot. In fact I even did a little googling:

veracity

Main Entry: ve·rac·i·ty
Pronunciation: \və-ˈra-sə-tē\
Function: noun

1 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness
2 : power of conveying or perceiving truth
3 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy
4 : something true <makes>

And I came to the conclusion that when candidates and elections officials may be more concerned with outcomes than with truth, it might be a good idea to question the veracity of any election.

Particularly if the election involves a secret vote count that is difficult or impossible to verify.

Joel, I agree with you a hundred percent. Maybe a hundred and fifty percent. Kurt, however, feels that we shouldn't necessarily concern ourselves about "punting democracy," because, as he put it, "I find real old-fashioned small business capitalism even MORE indispensible to the American experiment than even democracy is, per se."

So we end up back in that divisive dialogue where terms aren't supposed to be mentioned (except by Kurt), no less defined or discussed.

The reason for this topic is that Germany did something remarkable. They banned electronic voting machines on the basis of a court decision that secret vote counts are incompatible with the basic principles of democracy. (Not 'incompatible with the basic principles of shhhhshhh-don't-say-it.')

Secret votes counts are NOT incompatible with the basic principles of capitalism, and since capitalism is more important than democracy here in the U.S., we can't do the same thing Germany did.

We're not even supposed to discuss it, as that could be inflammatory. We can discuss what was done there and how it was done there, but not why we can't do the same thing here.

I think it somewhat handicaps those who think of ourselves as warriors for democracy, if we can't name, define, and openly discuss democracy. In fact, to the extent that effective rhetoric on behalf of and in defense of democracy is stifled, silenced, or dismissed as divisive and nonproductive, effective rhetoric AGAINST the fundamental principles of democracy will prevail.

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2400
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 26, 2009 - 10:53 am:

quote:
Want evidence that challenges have little public understanding? Remember signs saying "Sore -Loserman"? And THAT was perhaps the most facially obviously valid complaint (in the sense it raised important issues) in national political history.

Maybe it's just your spelling here, Kurt, but I can't figure out for the life of me, what you mean by this?

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3197
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, October 26, 2009 - 12:26 pm:

I checked the spelling of every word. It's correct.

Point 1) The general public has a VERY limited appetite for ANY KIND of election challenges. They equate it with being a sore loser.

Point 2) Even when a challenge raises important valid issues, as Gore did in 2000, the non-partisan public cannot understand what the rules or the issues truly are.

Point 3) Challenging any election is therefore injurious to the challenger's self-perceived reputation.

Another only peripherally related point) You can search the ideologically based websites the rest of your life and you'll be lucky to find even one that doesn't lie about the facts and the decision in Bush v. Gore in some significant meaningful way. Even legal scholarly sites have a tough time.

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2404
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 4:59 am:

"the most facially obviously valid complaint", Do you mean that it's blatantly obvious? As in obvious-on-its-face? If so, you're doing elision of an idiom in a confusing way. And what complaint was that? That Lieberman lost the primary? If that's what you're saying, why do you say that?

quote:
Point 2) Even when a challenge raises important valid issues, as Gore did in 2000, the non-partisan public cannot understand what the rules or the issues truly are.

If you literally mean that they cannot understand what the issues are, I think you're crazy. If you mean that they currently don't understand what the issues are, without better explanation, you might have a point. That's the news media's job, to research and explain things that the public doesn't understand, the one that they seem to no longer do.

And Ohio would have changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential race, had it been adequately investigated.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3198
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 6:43 am:

Brant,

I heard lots of explanations about what the real issues were in Bush v. Gore but you're right. I was watching C-SPAN, not "regular" media, and they were being explained by a boring election attorney, not some partisan in that race. It makes a difference. You're right. Media today is about point-counterpoint, not information.

And IF "Ohio would have changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential race, had it been adequately investigated", then Pennsylvania might have flipped it BACK, had IT been investgated then as thoroughly as Ohio was, after it was too late to change anything.

Ditto 1960, ad infinitum.

Notice that what states have the most serious "issues" doesn't figure into what states get looked at - only which states have enough electoral votes to turn a loser into a winner do.

Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased

Post Number: 367
Registered: 1-2008

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 6:50 am:

One could readily rephrase that to
that's the public's job, to research things they don't understand -- the one they no longer seem to do ...

It seems to me one of the pts of 1st Ammendment operates on an implicit prior assumption that media is owned & operated by folk w/ viewpts who create journals as devices for pushing their own viewpts in their owned journals -- & that our Constitution protects journals' rights to do so rightly or wrongly so broadly so that citizens will have a wide range of sources to judge among in making citizens' own judgments re: which journals to believe how much abt each issue when sorting out each out own opinions.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3200
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 7:05 am:

Joel,

That's a BRILLIANT point. Where we are with media now is where we started as a nation - news dripping with opinion. We are a generation that passed through an era when that got reined in for a while. "Sagt mir wo die Cronkeiten sind." Long time passing.

Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased

Post Number: 368
Registered: 1-2008

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 8:34 am:

capital BRILLIANT no less
LOL
Can I use that in my resum� Kurt?

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3207
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 9:07 am:

Please do, Joel. You're even MORE right than I originally thought.

Think of the modern-day equivalent of the Massachusetts Bay pamphleteers. Bloggers?

Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a

Post Number: 5587
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 9:16 am:

What Joel said.
And what Kurt said about Joel (capital letters and all).

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3211
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 10:29 am:

Brant,

Re this: "the most facially obviously valid complaint", Do you mean that it's blatantly obvious? As in obvious-on-its-face? If so, you're doing elision of an idiom in a confusing way. And what complaint was that? That Lieberman lost the primary? If that's what you're saying, why do you say that? "

You're overthinking this, Brant. I'm talking about the Florida issues in 2000. What constitutes a "legal vote"? That is what Bush v. Gore was all about, at its very core.

It is something that had not been litigated adequately before, and will never be seen that way again, UNLESS some state foolishly adopts a highly subjective and/or changing standard in a statewide recount for a federal office again.

It is THE reason seating the junior Senator from MN took so long. MN made sure a solid stable standard was used by keeping it all in one courtroom's jurisdiction throughout.

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2409
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 4:37 am:

I only heard that in relation to his Senate primary against Lamont, I didn't hear it related to Gore's 2000 election race.

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2410
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 4:44 am:

quote:
One could readily rephrase that to
that's the public's job, to research things they don't understand -- the one they no longer seem to do ...

This is hard for common people to do, with all the chaff being put in the air, Joel. (See below.)

If all of (or even most of) the 4th estate doesn't do this job, Joel, (and the current "he said/his opponent said" reporting style doesn't get this job done) what are the rest of us going to do? Quit our jobs and become unpaid investigative reporters for ourselves? If that has to happen, all of the working stiffs are screwed, aren't we?

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3217
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 9:55 am:

"all of the working stiffs are screwed, aren't we?"

You're just now noticing that?

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2411
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 4:07 am:

No, I noticed it a hell of a long time ago, what I'm saying is that if the media don't run down the truth anymore (and they used to do this, at least some of them, and they really aren't doing it now) the rest of us can't take a week off every month to go haring down the truth, do we?

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3224
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 5:10 am:

"and they used to do this, at least some of them, and they really aren't doing it now"

You're right. Do you see why that is? I think I do. It's because there are so many outlets now. When a few newspapers of record and three TV networks were mostly all there was, that oligopoly power gave them more money than they could ever spend. Now? It gets the budget ax.

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 610
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 6:22 am:

You seem to have it backwards, Kurt. When there were many outlets, they competed for an audience. Now that there is monopoly control of the media and only a few corporate owners of all the outlets, they no longer have to compete, so they don't bother.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3225
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 6:54 am:

I find ownership sometimes does, and sometimes does NOT, influence editorial. When you consider ALL the choices, media, and outlets we have, we've never had more.

We can probably agree the average is pretty bad. There are no Cronkites, Howard K. Smiths, or Huntley/Brinkleys any more.

The most glaring example is Brinkley's old Sunday show is now hosted by Stephanopolous?!?!?
WHUT????

Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx

Post Number: 611
Registered: 7-2005

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:19 am:

More outlets, but owned by fewer corporations.

With radio, you find that local news and programming has been eliminated entirely in many areas and the same programs are carried nationwide. With TV there are many channels, but only six corporations own almost all of them. The big ones are so big that they can buy out the small ones, retain the brand name, slash the staff and budget, and control the programming.

There are no great newscasters because the corporations won't allow anyone who challenges their propaganda on the air. The sponsors and corporate owners control the programming decisions. That's why I haven't watched TV in decades and only listen to pirate and foreign radio where there is still some freedom of speech.

People who listen to talk radio or watch TV believe that there are many people just like them who believe the same things that they do, because the propaganda is the same no matter where they turn the dial or what channel they switch to. But about half our population knows propaganda for what it is and won't allow ourselves to be brainwashed. We may not have a voice, but we know that the corporate media lies--that's what it is paid to do, so that's what it does.

The "mainstream," no matter how rich, poor, credentialed, uneducated, or anything else, should more accurately be called the bottom half of the bell curve. That's the half that is incapable of critical thinking and believes what they're told in church, see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in the paper. It would never occur to them to go to foreign sources for their news--they think that's unpatriotic.

I was taught that when you want to know the truth about current events, get the story from a right-wing source, a left-wing source, and an independent source, and then triangulate--the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of the triangle plotted by those three points of view.

Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne

Post Number: 358
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 4 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:42 am:

The Fourth Estate, unlike citizens, has constitutional and legal protections to have access to government-held information which gives journalists not only the right, but also the tools with which to monitor government. The checks and balances inherent in the representative system also legitimize journalistic inquiry as part of a broader framework of government accountability. In a perfect world, we could count on the media to be the watchdog and voice for citizens. However, they, much like our government, have become almost irreperably corrupt and controlled by corporate power and therefore, have very little, if any, concern for the best interests of the people and our republic.

Unfortunately, most citizens simply do not have the time, finances, investigative savvy nor the access to certain information that makes it possible for them to find the "truth" that the media does. The reality is, as most of us are aware, the media is corporately-owned and because of this fact, has created a "dark side" to investigative journalism, which can and has been used to draw public attention away from other, perhaps more crucial issues that require action.

It is because of this evolution of our media predominately into a tool for power and not an ally for the people, that BBV, from the beginning, has called on citizens to "be the media" whenever and wherever possible. The truth is, we can no longer depend on the so-called "Fourth Estate" to do its job as intended, as long as we live in a society that views freedom of the press and a search for the truth as secondary to high ratings, the bottom line and most importantly, continued access to power.

This is why citizens who don't have the time or ability to investigate and question power, should support those citizen groups and organizations who do -- such as BBV.

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2414
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 12:49 pm:

quote:
When a few newspapers of record and three TV networks were mostly all there was, that oligopoly power gave them more money than they could ever spend. Now? It gets the budget ax.

I don't think this was ever true for TV news media. What was originally true was that TV organizations were lead to believe that they had to provide real news reporting in exchange for getting their licenses, and they lost money on news, both local and network. Papers made money on the news, until the TV networks pulled them down, a lot. They still cover some news but have mainly turned into gossip-about-the-news, instead of the real news, as this is cheaper to do and so more profitable.

It would help if a lot more people had attention spans better than gnats.

Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased

Post Number: 371
Registered: 1-2008

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 6:14 am:

that's the public's job, to research things they don't understand -- the one they no longer seem to do ...
---------
This is hard for common people to do, with all the chaff being put in the air, Joel. ...
If all of (or even most of) the 4th estate doesn't do this job ...

I'd reverse yr point Brant ... the harder it is to do, the less the 4th estate does its job : The More Essential It Becomes for all the rest of us to be more aggressively involved in our own self-education via every available path, incl esp Mark's eg of triangulation, everything Kathleen just said, & I would add a thorough acquaintance w/ dynamics of US history since often much of what goes on offstage behind the scenes is only revealed a generation or two later -- permitting a fuller look at dynamics once the results can't be changed & the perps can't be held responsible.

Re: dynamics of US journalism...
I particularly recommend George Seldes's several excellent books re: US journalism & efforts of America's self-appointed "First Families" to promote monopoly.biz.govt around the world, behind both fascist & democratic facades.

The book Due To Circumstances Beyond Our Control, by EdwardRMurrow's producer/partner Fred Friendly, tells a far more thorough version of the tale sketched in the movie "Good Night, Good Luck" from a few years back.

Journalist autobios are their own unique look at world events and how they are reported, and there are many especially interesting egs of the genre that came out of the 30s & 40s.
I think w/ monopolization of US media, what has come out in recent decades is IMO of suspect reliability.

Who will pay for investigative journalism ... & when what is discovered is or isn't published, are questions w/ a long multi-edged history of hidden agendas in virtuous guise in US journalism.

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2421
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, November 2, 2009 - 6:10 am:

I agree with most of what you've said here, Joel, but it remains the job of anything defined as "news" to actually tell us the factual events (and arguably to tell us the important ones) that are going on in the area that they cover, or they haven't met the dictionary definition of "news" (which should open them to a class action suit for false advertising, but that's another debate).

Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine

Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2008

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 10:32 am:

@ KURT
Point 1) The general public has a VERY limited appetite for ANY KIND of election challenges. They equate it with being a sore loser.

Would you like to cite a source for this statement?

Point 2) Even when a challenge raises important valid issues, as Gore did in 2000, the non-partisan public cannot understand what the rules or the issues truly are.

Cite your source.

Point 3) Challenging any election is therefore injurious to the challenger's self-perceived reputation.

Actually Challenging any election is going to COST MONEY. The rest of the cruft you say is nonsense PERIOD. Cite your sources.

"When you consider ALL the choices, media, and outlets we have, we've never had more. "

Cite your source Kurt. If it's part of the media octopus, you just blew your credibility.

I don't care if your an ex election judge. Your spreading disinformation.

V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir

Post Number: 3585
Registered: 4-2006

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 6:50 am:

Phillip,

I don't NEED a source, I AM the source, having lived election management "up close and personal" for 4 years. These that you choose to ask for a source are my personal observances from 4 years of being "in the game" for thousands of individual elections perhaps 100 or so of which were emminently challengeable on a mathematical basis, but each and every time, they declined to do so, including several decided by 1 single solitary vote, and even some absolute ties.

The undeniable truth is that contesting an election is USUALLY, not always, committing political and reputational suicide.

And that's not advocacy, it's observation.

==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln

Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl

Post Number: 2508
Registered: 1-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)

Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 - 1:30 pm:

quote:
Challenging any election is therefore injurious to the challenger's self-perceived reputation.

You have a way of over-wrangling words, Kurt; "challenger's self-perceived reputation"? Too busy, by half.

And how does a tie not result in what works out to be a challenge, effectively? You're not making a lot of sense, here.

Samuel Scharff
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Abacus

Post Number: 155
Registered: 8-2005

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)

Posted on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - 10:59 pm:

Apologies...this is maybe longer than a post should be; but I think the scope of the thing is part of its impact.

There is an underlying, fundamental possibly fatal fracture in the very foundation of our country�s situation.

Chris Hedges has dealt with it.

===begin clips

We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth.

The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and cliches. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection.

This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.

...Nearly a third of the nation�s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.

The illiterate rarely vote, and when they do vote they do so without the ability to make decisions based on textual information. American political campaigns, which have learned to speak in the comforting epistemology of images, eschew real ideas and policy for cheap slogans and reassuring personal narratives. Political propaganda now masquerades as ideology. Political campaigns have become an experience. They do not require cognitive or self-critical skills. They are designed to ignite pseudo-religious feelings of euphoria, empowerment and collective salvation. Campaigns that succeed are carefully constructed psychological instruments that manipulate fickle public moods, emotions and impulses, many of which are subliminal. They create a public ecstasy that annuls individuality and fosters a state of mindlessness. They thrust us into an eternal present. They cater to a nation that now lives in a state of permanent amnesia. It is style and story, not content or history or reality, which inform our politics and our lives. We prefer happy illusions. And it works because so much of the American electorate, including those who should know better, blindly cast ballots for slogans, smiles, the cheerful family tableaux, narratives and the perceived sincerity and the attractiveness of candidates. We confuse how we feel with knowledge.

The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless. They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.
[...]

As we descend into a devastating economic crisis, one that Barack Obama cannot halt, there will be tens of millions of Americans who will be ruthlessly thrust aside. As their houses are foreclosed, as their jobs are lost, as they are forced to declare bankruptcy and watch their communities collapse, they will retreat even further into irrational fantasy. They will be led toward glittering and self-destructive illusions by our modern Pied Pipers�our corporate advertisers, our charlatan preachers, our television news celebrities, our self-help gurus, our entertainment industry and our political demagogues�who will offer increasingly absurd forms of escapism.

The core values of our open society, the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense indicate something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to understand historical facts, to separate truth from lies, to advocate for change and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable, are dying. Obama used hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds to appeal to and manipulate this illiteracy and irrationalism to his advantage, but these forces will prove to be his most deadly nemesis once they collide with the awful reality that awaits us.

===end clips

Source
America the Illiterate 11/10/08
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081110_america_the_illiterate/

Chris Hedges
...nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years.

...Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School...speaks Arabic, French and Spanish and knows Latin and ancient Greek...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

===

Working for election integrity is clearly part of the counter-revolution we need to be working on...but conventional formulations aren�t going to be enough...graphic books, street theater, song ?--

Any ideas? I think we are in bad trouble...the civil rights/human rights themes may be a key?

best

Abacus

All original content on this website is Copyright (c) 2008-2009 by Black Box Voting. All rights reserved.
Forums powered by Discus Professional - www.discusware.com.
Original site and logo design is by Andy Markley - art101.com.