Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts
Obama has earned another term
Published: October 19, 2012 12:13PM
Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.
But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.
In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: “Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?”
The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.
More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions, is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.
If this portrait of a Romney willing to say anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a group of wealthy donors, “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.
And what of the president Romney would replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he inherited the day he took office.
In the first months of his presidency, Obama acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.
The president also acted wisely to bail out the auto industry, which has since come roaring back. Romney, in so many words, said the carmakers should sink if they can’t swim.
Obama’s most noteworthy achievement, passage of his signature Affordable Care Act, also proved, in its timing, his greatest blunder. The set of comprehensive health insurance reforms aimed at extending health care coverage to all Americans was signed 14 months into his term after a ferocious fight in Congress that sapped the new president’s political capital and destroyed any chance for bipartisan cooperation on the shredded economy.
Obama’s foreign policy record is perhaps his strongest suit, especially compared to Romney’s bellicose posture toward Russia and China and his inflammatory rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Obama’s measured reliance on tough economic embargoes to bring Iran to heel, and his equally measured disengagement from the war in Afghanistan, are examples of a nuanced approach to international affairs. The glaring exception, still unfolding, was the administration’s failure to protect the lives of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, and to quickly come clean about it.
In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem-solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.
Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.
kelley wrote:justdrew, i don't assume 'they' are smart enough to prevent collapse, or to even entertain the question amongst themselves. i think is maybe where our conversation diverges.
in the last two debates, i found the most significant moments to be centered around romney's mantra concerning energy: oil, coal, natural gas. he chanted the names of these commodities as if they were the tenets of a faith, which i suppose they may be, to some. there's a highly coded message there that's nonetheless simple to decipher. i'm not talking about peak oil per se, but more about the ideology of an affluent society that cannot entertain a concept of growth that isn't materialistic in its most basic sense.
Nordic wrote:POINTS?
Fuck you. It was photos like that which led to the Vietnam war ENDING. You think I want to score fucking POINTS?
FUCK YOU.
justdrew wrote:
rejecting romney is the only realistic chance we've got to keep it together.
kelley wrote:justdrew wrote:
rejecting romney is the only realistic chance we've got to keep it together.
that's exactly right, and there's huge risk yet a greater efficacy to just this point you make if he's chief executive come 2013. the widespread dissatisfaction with everything must be pinned directly on this guy, and i think this is where the duopolistic state will overplay its hand if he's indeed installed. coming systemic failure is real. it'll be impossible to smear him with the simplistic 'incompetence' epithets that occasionally dogged bush, to little effect. romney is absolutely the villainous face of the transnational corporate capitalist class. hopefully, americans will recognize him as such, and with any luck occupy etc will seize upon this similitude and exploit it to full advantage.
i mean, in a twisted way, romney is the poster boy for change you can believe in.
justdrew wrote:he's done as much as was possible [Obama]
kelley wrote:romney is the poster boy for change you can believe in.
IanEye wrote:*
les feuilles mortes
*
JackRiddler wrote:kelley wrote:justdrew wrote:
rejecting romney is the only realistic chance we've got to keep it together.
that's exactly right, and there's huge risk yet a greater efficacy to just this point you make if he's chief executive come 2013. the widespread dissatisfaction with everything must be pinned directly on this guy, and i think this is where the duopolistic state will overplay its hand if he's indeed installed. coming systemic failure is real. it'll be impossible to smear him with the simplistic 'incompetence' epithets that occasionally dogged bush, to little effect. romney is absolutely the villainous face of the transnational corporate capitalist class. hopefully, americans will recognize him as such, and with any luck occupy etc will seize upon this similitude and exploit it to full advantage.
i mean, in a twisted way, romney is the poster boy for change you can believe in.
It's sort of what I thought after the Bush selection. A virtual tie, the loser installed by fraud and judicial fiat, no legitimacy, utter stupidity, the villainous face of the deep state. Hopefully, Americans will recognize him as such...
The problem was, his crew were in the driver's seat and had the ability to play the public through terror, and the victory energized his constituencies.
It's a dangerous game.
It will be also with Obama. I'm not expecting it but won't be too surprised if the war with Iran goes ahead anyway. I just think the dynamics will be more conducive to opposition.
.
MON OCT 15, 2012 AT 08:36 PM PDT
Harpers Magazine cover story: "How to Rig an Election"
by ivorysteve
My copy of the November Harper's Magazine arrived today, with a surprisingly front-and-center article on the state of America's vote-counting technology. It's a well-researched piece, with much of it depressingly familiar to many progressives who followed the tin-foil-hat-tainted theories of the 2004 election. It reviews the recent history some of us know: the ESS&S / Diebold coziness, Bev Harris and hackable GEMS system, the Help America Vote Act Trojan horse, Chuck Hegal, Max Cleland, the exit poll disparities in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004 that all exhibited a "red shift" to the Right.
The article then brings things up to date.Some argue that the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 disprove the existence of the red shift. However, this may be a misinterpretation of complex political upheavals that occurred in each of those election years.... Post-election analysis did in fact suggest extensive red-shift rigging. But in both election cycles, these efforts simply failed to overcome eleventh-hour events so negative that they drastically undercut the projected wins for the G.O.P.
Those events were Mark Foley's exposure (and G.O.P. leadership cover-up) in 2006 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. But in 2010, the article details how the victories of Scott Brown, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, and Jim DeMint each left evidence that the computer-counted tallies were suspect.
The most depressing part of the article is how the subject of election counting integrity is not even discussed, by either the press or progressive politicians.Why? No doubt the fear of being branded a conspiracy theorist inhibits many - that term having long served as a cudgel to suppress discussion of all sorts of crimes against democracy... "For Democratic legislators and candidates, openly questioning the integrity of American democracy feels like committing political suicide", says Ben Ptashnik. A former Vermont state senator, Ptashnik ran for office in 1996 specifically to spearhead the state's Clean Election Act - whose provisions were largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a decade later.
It's a sobering look at an issue I, for one, thought was more or less over. Reading it makes the obsessive poll tracking lately, here and in the press, seem rather pointless - if one suspects there is an electronic thumb nudging both polling and final results, from president down the entire ballot.
The article is by Victoria Collier in the November Harpers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/1 ... n-Election
We won’t be self-governing until WE count the votes!
Harper’s November issue—not online yet, but delivered to our house this week—has an absolutely thrilling, definitive article, by Victoria Collier, on electronic vote-rigging: “How to Rig An Election.” It’s the lead article featured on the cover. I devoured it, and can happily say: the news is OUT that we’ve been trying to tell denial-ridden skeptics for YEARS!
I know other articles have appeared elsewhere, including in the NY Times and Rolling Stone. But Collier’s is the first I’ve seen that covers the breadth and depth of the problem as we activists know it—that private, computerized vote-counting since HAVA is completey inadauditable, and has made election-rigging laughably easy for anyone with the access. And that four GOP-friendly voting companies–with more felons involved on their employment rolls than can VOTE in many states!–have the access. And that our inexplicably, treacherously clueless political parties and elected officials have navel-gazed while it happened. They look up only during campaigns, coming to voters to demand money and votes, then betraying us utterly by letting it all go to waste when an election–many elections!–are stolen with impunity.
America is gaining clarity on this. We will not be self-governing again until WE count the votes. Our anonymous ballots must be cast in private – but they must be COUNTED IN PUBLIC. That means–sorry–not inside a computer. But I DO have a technology-friendly election idea:VIDEO CAMS to track ballot custody while in the hands of elections officials! Including absentee ballots! CAMS to follow those precious ballot batches wherever they go, and CAMS on the people who will, once again, count them. Streamed to the web and local cable access, til the counting’s done!
Brava Victoria Collier, and check out her article, everyone.
Peace,
Mimi Kennedy
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2012/10/we ... the-votes/
Election Integrity's Victoria Collier Speaks Up
By Joan Brunwasser
Life Arts 12/16/2011 at 07:39:33
My guest today is Victoria Collier. Welcome to OpEdNews, Victoria. You're the daughter and niece of James and Kenneth Collier, authors of the book Votescam: The Stealing of America , a chronicle of their 25-year investigation into how elections are rigged by computerized voting machines. Victoria is the editor of http://www.votescam.org. I've run across a number of your most recent op ed pieces including What To Do When They "Let" Us Win Elections and Why Americans Viciously Protect Their Hub Caps But Not Their Ballots: A Thoughtful Exploration of Modern Democracy. I guess you're not too happy with the state of our nation these days. Weren't the most recent elections nationwide a gain for the 99%?
There were some victories, yes. In Ohio, Mississippi, and Arizona, ballot initiatives and recalls were successful in slowing some of the more aggressive metastasizing of the extreme-right agenda; in these cases, union busting and the war against women's right to choose.
However, many far-right incumbents stayed in office, a fact that got lost in the hoopla over the rare progressive victories.
The problem is that our computerized elections system is still fundamentally insecure -- open to centralized manipulation and outside hacking. So, small "wins" like we saw last week are, sadly and ironically, a setback to the Election Integrity movement, because we now have to fight harder to call attention to the fact that our electoral system is still out of our control.
We know the machines that count our votes -- including Optical Scanners and Touchscreens -- are controlled by a small cartel of corporations that manufacturer them and program their software. Their owners, stockholders and key staff share, not only extensive criminal histories, but also alliances with the extreme right-wing.
So my feeling is that the people who control our votes essentially just "let" us win these progressive victories. Why they let us win is the question, and we can only speculate.
They may have had to let us win because it's too difficult to rig the votes undetectably with strong turn-out and citizen awareness of the issues. Which means that voting still matters because it's hard to manipulate results when the margins are wide. Therefore we can't boycott elections -- that's not the answer. On the contrary, we need to show up in armies, in an electoral insurgency. We must also, simultaneously, organize in 2012 to ban the Trojan Horse computerized voting machines, but meanwhile we can make it damn difficult for them to get away with rigging the results.
However, realize that if the machines are pre-programmed to add a certain percentage of votes to Candidate A, it might mean that Candidate B still wins in a landslide, but by a smaller margin, which still does not reflect the true will of the voters. In practice this likely means that Independent or third party candidates -- or particular ballot initiatives -- are registering lower returns than the machines tell us. Ralph Nader won 3% of the votes in his last presidential bid -- or so we're told. He might have won the 5% needed to receive federal funding for his campaign. The Greens have been a demoralized party and yet they may be more popular than our elections results suggest.
So, am I happy with the state of the nation these days? No, but I'm more hopeful than I've ever been. I support the Occupy movement, and I hope it develops into a force that can organize to help take down the Corporatocracy. One of the top demands -- if demands are ever officially presented -- must be a publicly observable hand-counted paper ballot vote count that supports the voter's right to know who actually won, and by what margins.
You say that "the machines that count our votes " are controlled by a small cartel of corporations that manufacturer them and program their software. Their owners, stockholders and key staff share, not only extensive criminal histories, but alliances with the right-wing." That's a pretty important and provocative statement. Can you expand on it a little for our readers? Despite any number of investigations by Black Box Voting's Bev Harris, Brad "Bradblog" Friedman, Marc Crispin Miller and others, this is not widely known or understood. If it's true that our elections have, in fact, been hijacked by highly partisan individuals, why haven't alarm bells been going off all over the place - in the press and among our politicians, leaders and the general public?
Currently I'm compiling the best of the Election Integrity work together onto one webpage: http://www.votescam.org/the_evidence. This will narrow the field of research for people new to the issue, and show what an amazing body of evidence we have that our votes are regularly stolen through centralized computerized rigging.
So, with the caveat that people who care need to start exploring that body of evidence themselves, I will point to some highlights about the crooks who manufacture our vote counting machines.
Lynn Landes explains on her website that there is no government oversight of our elections, or the elections equipment industry:There are no government standards or restrictions on who can sell and service voting machines and systems. Foreigners, convicted criminals, office holders, political candidates, and news media organizations can and do own these companies. . . Many voting machine companies appear to share managers, investors, and equipment which raises questions of conflict-of-interest and monopolistic practices.
The two biggest corporations, Diebold and ES&S, were originally owned by two Russian brothers, Todd and Bob Urosevich. They took over other manufacturers until they were the major election equipment suppliers. In 2009, Diebold was sold to ES&S. Currently, the only other company of any significance is based in Canada.
In Chapter 8 of Black Box Voting, Bev Harris delves more deeply into the right-wing, religious, military, media, and big energy connections of the ownership, key personnel, and stockholders of the manufacturers -- and the charges against them of bid-rigging, anti-trust evasion, kick-backs, money laundering, bribery, embezzling, price-fixing, stock scams, defrauding the government, tax fraud, computer fraud, and cocaine trafficking.
These criminals are the people building our election equipment. Their machines count our votes in secret, completely unobservable within their "proprietary" software. Can you imagine anything more insane?
Both Diebold and ES&S have also been caught installing uncertified software in their machines. Former Diebold bank machine auditor Stephen Spoonamore admits that Christian fundamentalists were, at one point, most of the people who programmed the Diebold and ES&S voting machines. And lest we forget, Diebold's CEO Wally O'Dell infamously promised to "deliver" the 2004 Ohio results to George W. Bush.
And it's not just the manufacturers who are crooked -- it's also the companies that certify their machines.
Harris writes, "You would expect that a company that certifies our voting machines would not have its owners running for office. You would also expect that no one who owns the certification company would be under criminal investigation. You'd be disappointed."
I'll let the readers enjoy the rest of Chapter 8 themselves. I think you all get the picture.
Not only that, Victoria, but these same companies or their subsidiaries or offshoots also program the machines, maintain them, and are the technical people called in most places on Election Day when the election workers have problems with the machines. Not one of them is vetted.
It's nice work if you can get it, right? Quite a racket. Now, getting to the second part of your question: Why don't most people know about this issue?
The corporate media has not been reporting the evidence, except in a very few instances, which are almost baffling when you understand how involved the networks have been in manipulating our elections. In this, the Votescam investigation is unique because we are the only people to delve deeply into the media's role in vote rigging.
The Democratic party is also complicit in election rigging by -- at the least -- never exposing the total lack of safety and accountability in our system, and never challenging clearly fraudulent results, most glaringly Al Gore and John Kerry, who promised to fight their stolen elections, then promptly rolled over and played dead. Of course, both parties work beautifully together to keep third parties out of power, and that's what seems to matter most, at least at the top -- keeping the two most powerful gangs in control of the political turf.
Some other reasons include:
The apathetic nature of too many modern Americans who can't be bothered to care how democracy actually works, because Survivor is on.
Politicians and NGO leadership complicity by silence. Both have a deadly fear of being labelled a "conspiracy nut" and losing their funding or constituent support. This effectively neuters them.
And finally, the Progressive media's historic refusal to report on this issue. This includes The Nation, Mother Jones, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, and pretty much every other bastion of left-wing journalism. There are many possible reasons why, too complex to discuss here. But I encourage all your readers to flash-mob these media figures with demands that they do this issue justice.
I don't think the average person is aware of the deep involvement of the corporate press in vote counting and reporting. How does this work and why is it bad? Can you explain what actually happens on Election Night?
As I mentioned, my father and uncle uncovered election fraud in Miami in 1970 where the local T.V. networks reported phony results to the public, supposedly based on "projections" -- not actual returns -- that matched the final, "official" results with amazing (impossible) accuracy. They later discovered the poll worker's signatures had been forged, and the official results falsified. In order to give the public their "projections" the networks claimed the courthouse computer had broken down, and no actual results would be forthcoming. This was a lie, officially denied in a press release stating, "The courthouse computer was never down, and it was never slow."
That was localized, centralized, corporate media-managed election fraud -- and there was reason to believe it was taking place across the country, in exactly the same pattern, beginning with the networkannouncement: "the courthouse computer has broken down . . . "
Now, consider this:
News Elections Services (NES) was created in 1964 as a media consortium of the major networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, plus the Washington Post, the New York Times, and later on, CNN and FOX News.
The NES media pool gathered and tallied the national vote results, feeding them to the individual networks, who reported them to the public. The perception was given that each network was competing for results, but that was not really true after 1964.
NES had the same secretive, incestuous, shady structure as the voting machine manufacturers, changing its name over the years but maintaining its small team of core personnel. When Voter News Service (VNS) was under investigation for its role in the 2000 election where they called the presidency for Al Gore based on their "projections," most Americans believed they were a relatively new company. But VNS was just the latest iteration of NES -- still the same private corporate media consortium controlling exit polling, vote gathering, "projections" of winners, and the reporting of final results.
This uber-powerful cabal is the most secretive organization involved in our democratic process. I'm the only person to ever interview their former CEO, Bill Headline, who admitted that VNS had no intention of opening their process to democratic oversight. You can read the transcript online.
The existence of NES/VNS means that the kind of media manipulation my father and uncle discovered in 1970 has been possible at a national level. Is it necessary to falsify the official results every time? Could NES possibly communicate via computer or modem with county-level centralized tabulators? Was that even necessary? Who the hell was watching the process? No one!
So, the corporate press -- the same people we know are daily lying to us, censoring stories of government corruption and covering up election fraud evidence -- have been in charge of reporting the vote results on election night. And no one is checking to see if they're accurate. No one.
Meanwhile, VNS has morphed again. It is now News Election Pool (NEP) -- and, to be honest, I haven't done any investigation into this latest incarnation, which appears to be just as shady, secretive, and mysterious as all the previous ones, without even a proper website or a brochure for that matter.
Why thank you, Victoria! As you point out, people have been messing with our elections for a very long time. Many years ago, your father and uncle investigated Dade County voting irregularities and wrote Votescam . Were you a kid at the time? How did their investigations affect you? Did you think they were off their rockers or on to something?
The historic Votescam investigation began in Dade County, but for the next 25 years, Jim and Ken were the foremost election fraud activists in America, uncovering myriad scams using modern voting technology -- everything from lever machines to computers -- taking place all across the nation. I feel their most important work was the investigation into NES and its capacity to centrally manipulate our elections on a national level.
But what their monumental efforts really exposed -- the devastating final analysis -- is how easy it is to corrupt our entire system with just a few well-placed criminals stationed as sentinels against justice at every level of our system.
Jim and Ken filed lawsuits against ABC News, the Justice Department, and the League of Women Voters for their role in aiding and abetting election fraud. Finally they ran up against an Appeals Court judge named Antonin Scalia, who helped crush their case in a disgraceful back-room "star chamber" session. A tragic end to their work, vindicated somewhat by the publishing of the Votescam book in 1992. However, the book itself was then, quite amazingly, banned by the major corporate book sellers, who listed it as "out of print" in their databases! It also disappeared from the Library of Congress!
The truth is that Votescam is one of the greatest conspiracy stories of our time, and still very hard for most Americans to stomach. But we've got to keep telling the truth, regardless. It's more important now than ever.
Yes, I was a child at the time, and I was largely shielded from the struggles of their work until I was a bit older. Ken lost his family during those years. It's hard to keep a marriage together when you devote so much effort to unpaid, and dangerous activism. Their lives were threatened, and the editor of their newspaper was shot in his driveway.
As I get older, I appreciate their sacrifices more deeply, and the greater understanding they left us, of how we lost this country.
I can tell you that they were not off their rockers. While human and flawed, they were two of the smartest, most insightful, far-seeing men I've ever known. Black belts, chess masters, expert pool players. Strategists, in other words. And most courageous, not just in stealing government evidence, getting arrested, etc., but also for taking the heat from the larger culture which ridiculed them as "conspiracy nuts." After many years I think they got fed up, stopped caring whether they were believed, and just kept pursuing their own justice because they were in too deep to stop.
I was most affected by their work once I realized I would inherit their Votescam legacy. I did not want it! But I was clearly also inheriting a broken country, with only a thin patina of democracy left. So, many of my personal plans began to dissolve as I realized we would likely see a revolution in my lifetime.
So, you took over where they left off? There are more people in the Election Integrity movement now. Does that stave off the isolation that your father and uncle suffered?
Jim and Ken both died young. I took over after they were both gone.
My personal activism was in the environmental movement, but I understood that none of the issues that mattered to me -- like ending the wars, or fighting Monsanto, or dealing with the catastrophe of climate change -- would be addressed until we broke the hold of powerful vested interests in our government. When we do that, then I believe we will win most battles at the ballot box. Most Americans don't want to live in a war-torn, toxic world, where a small percentage of elites hold all the wealth, our social services are gutted, our jobs disappear overseas for ample slave labor, and quality of life diminishes every year. As our weather goes more haywire, the population will begin clamoring for solutions on climate change. For this, we need real representation.
As an activist, yes, I am less isolated than my father and uncle because the stolen presidency in 2000 blew the issue of election theft into the public spotlight. Unfortunately, we have two internally divisive camps in the EI movement: those who still support the use of computers to count ballots in some capacity, with a paper "back up," and those, like me, who demand hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB), cast and counted in the precinct, before the ballots leave public view.
My HCPB team has been the underdog for about 12 years, but now we're growing quickly. Originally, there was hope among the techies that we could use open-sourced software or secondary machines to check on the first level of machines. But in reality, neither provide a publicly observable system, which must be the gold standard requirement for real democracy.
When it comes down to it, democracy is not faith based. It's also not fast food. It's a slow and sometimes cumbersome system at the legislative level, and also at the electoral level. Counting ballots is not an area where we can sacrifice safety and transparency for speed.
That sums it up nicely, Victoria. What haven't we talked about yet?
One thing we haven't talked about is how this is everyone's issue. I'm often told by well-meaning people, "Thank you for taking this issue on, we're so grateful." And I want to scream, "This is not my issue, it's our issue!" (Admittedly, sometimes I do scream it.)
We've lost control of the democratic experiment through our own lack of vigilance, our own apathy. Democracy requires the participation of an educated, aware populace. Not only do we have to understand the issues of the day, we have to monitor and protect our democratic institutions and processes, or they will be corrupted and destroyed from within.
While we've been sleeping, our electoral process has been stolen from us by essentially corporatists, extremists, and proto-fascists. Until we organize together to take it back, there's little hope for our future.
Obviously we've arrived at the tipping point; the revolution has galvanized with the Occupy movement, and it will intersect with the pivotally important 2012 elections. I'm working to bring the issue of how our votes can be stolen by computer prominently into the dialog, so we can start organizing to Occupy Elections in 2012.
People can join the dialog right now at Occupy Rigged Elections on Facebook.
Thank you so much for articulating this issue which affects every single one of us, whether we know it or not. It's been a pleasure talking with you, Victoria.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Electi ... 6-322.html
JackRiddler wrote:Sadly you are still focused on your understandable personal aversion to the two front-men presented as a "choice." .
JackRiddler wrote:No matter who wins the mostly-scam election (agreement on most policies), we will have to fight the government to change the odious policies, to end the empire and end the wars. An election won't do that.
JackRiddler wrote:However, in a couple of weeks, no matter what any of us do, we get Romney or Obama. Also, Democrats or Republicans holding majorities in each of the two houses of Congress.
JackRiddler wrote:Under what conditions are we better equipped for the fight?
I've argued it makes a difference. One reason I've brought up is that it's better the Obama voters rather than the Romney voters perceive themselves to be in the majority. It's better if the Obama voters expect that their voices count accordingly, that they should get what they've been promised. It's better if the coalition of those who vote for the Democrats (out of lesser evil argument or because they really believe that stuff) are energized, than if the coalition of those who vote for the Republicans are energized. This is painfully obvious.
Elvis wrote:(Parenthetically, check this piece about trouble at Harper's:
Editorial Shake-Up as Harper’s Tries to Stabilize in a Downturn
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/busin ... t=cse&_r=0)
JackRiddler wrote:Elvis wrote:(Parenthetically, check this piece about trouble at Harper's:
Editorial Shake-Up as Harper’s Tries to Stabilize in a Downturn
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/busin ... t=cse&_r=0)
Shit! If they bring someone in from the outside, watch out.
I like Hodge and post-Lapham they've maintained the journalistic quality and no-bullshit style and design for the last adult readers in the country. Though the article paints MacArthur as the potential heavy his own stuff has been good and let's keep in mind (as I just learned) that the mag was going to go under in 1983 and he saved it and put Lapham in charge for 25 years, so... hope is not completely irrational, as with some things.
justdrew wrote:JackRiddler wrote:Elvis wrote:(Parenthetically, check this piece about trouble at Harper's:
Editorial Shake-Up as Harper’s Tries to Stabilize in a Downturn
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/busin ... t=cse&_r=0)
Shit! If they bring someone in from the outside, watch out.
I like Hodge and post-Lapham they've maintained the journalistic quality and no-bullshit style and design for the last adult readers in the country. Though the article paints MacArthur as the potential heavy his own stuff has been good and let's keep in mind (as I just learned) that the mag was going to go under in 1983 and he saved it and put Lapham in charge for 25 years, so... hope is not completely irrational, as with some things.
that stuff's over and done with. There were staff cuts, and people aren't getting paid a lot, but it's still hanging in there. Thanks to John R. MacArthur and the rest of the staff.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests