Diebold is sending out cease-and-desist letters to people who host, or even link, to their memos and files. It seems like the energy put into this effort might be better focused on making a better, more secure product or something, but whatever.
This site will tell you all you need to know.
Why War?: Targeting Diebold with Electronic Civil Disobedience, why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
I don't know who this woman is, but I guess she didn't like Dubya either!
www.legacy.com/nola/LegacySubPage2.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=1445197
Gertrude M. JonesWord has been received that Gertrude M. Jones, 81, passed away on August 25, 2003, under the loving care of the nursing aides of Heritage Manor of Mandeville, Louisiana. She was a native of Lebanon, KY. She was a retired Vice President of Georgia International Life Insurance Company of Atlanta, GA. Her husband, Warren K. Jones predeceased her. Two daughters survive her: Dawn Hunt and her live-in boyfriend, Roland, of Mandeville, LA; and Melba Kovalak and her husband, Drew Kovalak, of Woodbury, MN. Three sisters, four grandchildren and three great grandchildren, also survive her. Funeral services were held in Louisville, KY. Memorial gifts may be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office.
Published in The Times-Picayune on 10/2/2003.
"Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children. During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography."
Huh? All pornography!?!?
"The effects of pornography are particularly pernicious with respect to children. The recent enactment of the PROTECT Act of 2003 strengthens child pornography laws, establishes the Federal Government's role in the AMBER Alert System, increases punishment for Federal crimes against children, and authorizes judges to require extended supervision of sex offenders who are released from prison."
Good, I'm all for going after child molesters, and I think kiddie porn is an abomination... but this is like saying "Ban sex because rape is harmful to women." (Maybe I should wait and see what next week's proclamation is...)
"We have committed significant resources to the Department of Justice to intensify investigative and prosecutorial efforts to combat obscenity, child pornography, and child sexual exploitation on the Internet.
OBSCENITY? That's awfully vague. The other two have to do with children, but...
"We are vigorously prosecuting and severely punishing those who would harm our children. Last July, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Predator, an initiative to help identify child predators, rescue children depicted in child pornography, and prosecute those responsible for making and distributing child pornography."
"I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents, and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities."
The imagination boggles.
This administration is using a real problem — child exploitation — as an excuse to go after anything they don't like. This is similar to the RIAA decrying peer-to-peer networks because they too can be used to swap porn.
Considering how many child-UNfriendly measures they've pushed through in the last few years — No Child Left Behind, anyone? — this would be pretty funny if it didn't involve real people's lives.
Next up: let's ban magazines and newspapers because some of them run smutty pictures?
According to the Bush administration, the horrible attacks in Baghdad actually demonstrate that the bad guys are frantic because they're losing! "The more progress we make, the more desperate they become," says Condi Rice.
This quote from an A.P. article on the fires in Southern California leapt out at me today.
"'It would be disingenuous to say we have control of these fires. Right now we are throwing everything we can at them,' Dallas Jones, director of the state Office of Emergency Services, said of the major blazes burning in San Diego, Simi Valley and San Bernardino County."
Isn't that kind of blunt honesty painful, yet refreshing? No chirpy fake optimism here. Not for these guys some dumb assertion like, "Since a lot of houses have burned up already, the fire should soon run out of things to burn!" No "We'd rather be fighting this fire here in Rancho Cucamunga than in downtown Los Angeles!" (Or "These flames are burning everything in their path because they hate private property!" The mind boggles...)
It's finally cooling down a smidgin here in Northern California. Not so in Southern California. Less than two months after this article ran in the Chronicle, the combination of dry weather, drought, and dead trees has resulted in, well, fires all over the place. I remember coming up to Oakland a week after the 1991 fire and taking a little tour of the fire damage — a tour that came to a swift end when a live electrical wire started arcing and popping. Yikes!
This was on the front page of SFGate today... the satellite picture reminds me of the fakey picture of the East Coast blackout a couple of months ago... only this one is no fake. The impact on the atmosphere... not to mention the impact on the lives of people who lost their homes, or worse.
Hmmm. Perhaps the president has taken a tip from this guy on the power of positive thinking?
"President Bush said Monday that U.S. progress in Iraq is making insurgents more 'desperate' and spurring attacks such as the bombings at the international Red Cross headquarters and four police stations across Baghdad that killed dozens of people.
"'The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that's available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become,' Bush told reporters at the White House."
--> "Bush Sees Attackers as Growing Desperate Amid Progress in Iraq", New York Times, October 27, 2003, www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-US-Military.html
Global warming? It's almost November and I think it's going to hit the 90s today. Yes, it always gets warm and dry this time of year in Northern California (which is why this is the worst time of year for fires) but there is evidence EVERYWHERE that serious climate changes are occurring... something our "faith-based" government seems to have no interest in doing anything about. Bah. "Let them drive Hummers."
"Arctic being 'transformed' by warming", CNN, October 25, 2003, www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/24/arctic.warming.ap/index.html
No comment.
"Muscleman Put In Charge of World's Fifth-Largest Economy", The Onion, October 22, 2003, www.theonion.com/3941/top_story.html
"The President and his administration cannot have it both ways. They cannot restrict the meaning of "true American" to "Christian-American," and also purport to believe in a pluralistic society. And they cannot allow the military to promote the idea of an American Jihad — a religious war — while claiming to fight a religion-neutral war on terrorism as well."
--> "American Jihad", Farai Chideya, Alternet, October 21, 2003, www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17002
"I tell my cardiologist, 'I have two martinis a day, but what about my cholesterol count?' He says, 'At your age, cholesterol count is about as relevant to you as truth is to George W. Bush.'"
— Studs Turkel, interview in The Onion's AV Club, October 22, 2003, theavclub.com/3941/feature1.html
OK, of course Dems were distancing themselves from Clinton (and arguably, distanced themselves right out of DC) but still, it's somewhat satisfying to read this. (Heck, even the article title gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Is that so wrong?)
"To Some in GOP, Bush's Troubles Become a Liability", Washington Post, October 21, 2003, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A56064-2003Oct20.html
"...A former worker in Diebold's Georgia warehouse says the company installed patches on its machines before the state's 2002 gubernatorial election that were never certified by independent testing authorities or cleared with Georgia election officials.
If the charges are true, Diebold could be in violation of federal and state election-certification rules. The charges also raise questions about the integrity of the Georgia election results and any other election that uses patched Diebold systems that have not been re-certified."
Black Box Voting has been following this issue. They've been suspended due to a copyright dispute with Diebold (isn't this the same tactic the Scientologists used against their opponents?) but some of their material can be found here
Two more links:
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0211/S00078.htm
- All the post polling swings in favour of the democratic party were within the margin of error.
- Several of the post polling swings in favour of the republican party were well outside the margin of error.
- In the states where the senate races were critical and close the swing was predominantly towards the Republicans, with the exceptions of Arkansas and Missouri. The level of post-poll swing in these races in favour of the Republican Party in each race were: North Carolina 3, Colorado 4, Georgia 9-12, Minnesota 8-11, Texas 3-11, New Hampshire 1.
- The state where the biggest upset occurred, Georgia, is also the state that ran its election with the most electronic voting machines.
While the American People were watching reports on Chads in Florida during the 2000 Presidential Elections, the story of 94,000 Floridians being incorrectly placed on a voter "purge" list prior to the 2000 election went unreported until Greg Palast reported it in the BBC. We also later learned from the Los Angeles Times that an additional 179,855 ballots went uncounted. The sum of these disenfranchised Floridians is far greater than the 537-vote margin of victory that we witnessed in Florida.
Let's see if I have this right.A Republican congressman owns a company that sells voting machines
The voting machines are closed source with no audit trail
The voting machines are easily manipulated by anyone with a moderate amount of knowledge of excel
untested and uncertified patches are known to have been placed on voting machines prior to elections
Republicans continue to defy odds and win elections that polls show them losing
----
This happened in Alabama in the latest election for our governor. Initial results showed that the incumbant democrat had won the election, then a last minute change in the figures from a district with a republican in charge of election certification swung the election to the Republican. There was no recourse for the democratic incumbant.
Other commentators pointed out that Democrats aren't immune from the temptation to change election results. You'd think this would occur to Republicans.
Why don't they want to make the system secure and untainted for all? Why don't we even try?
"Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?", Wired News, October 13, 2003, www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00.html
General makes "God-bothering" comments about our army being Christian and in a battle with Satan, and Rummy, of course, defends him. Sure, no rules were broken, but the administration could discourage outbursts like that if they wanted to. Obviously they don't want to.
"Rumsfeld defends general who commented on war, Satan", CNN, October 17, 2003, edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/16/rumsfeld.boykin.ap/
Bah. In addition to being "Defense of Marriage Week" it's apparently also "Say Nasty Things About Jews Week". First Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad says that Jews ""Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." and then a New Republic editor goes off on "Jewish executives". The latter has apologized, the former refuses.
It sounds like what Easterbrook meant was "How can any group of people who have been treated so violently and brutally turn around and glamorize violence and brutality?"
I have heard that sentiment expressed in many contexts and in many ways. It presupposes that people who have been treated badly respond by thinking, "Note to self. I didn't like that one bit. Don't do that to other people and don't let it happen again." Now obviously, that's not the way people really work, though I sure wish it was. We've seen it over and over throughout history. Brutality largely makes people brutal or helpless. It's hard for humans to respond rationally to pain.
Of course, people and nations should try to behave rationally. Of course, we should condemn vile acts, and nobody is above criticism. Yet I do get irritated with the "I'm shocked — shocked, I tell you!..." crap. (Perhaps that "Chosen People" tagline wasn't such a great idea and we should seek to redefine our brand.)
As a side note, I ranted at my boyfriend that I wished Jews really were as powerful as these comments indicate, because then George W. Bush wouldn't be our president — because the majority of American Jews vote for the Democrats. Of course, then he had to go point out that Wolfowitz and a bunch of the other neoconservatives are Jewish too. Dammit.
This column says it all. (And then some.) Apparently President Bush designated this week "Defense of Marriage Week". I pity, and fear, those who feel threatened by the prospect of gays being able to marry.
Are they fearing an onslaught of a new crop of TV reality programs, perhaps? They cannot be any more terrifying than all those horrible dating games and "Married By America" atrocities that pass for entertainment. No, if "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is any indication, maybe TV is about to improve.
OK, so that's not really the concern of the "Marriage Defenders". They just think gays are immoral, so... they shouldn't be encouraged to settle down in monogamous relationships. The lack of logic is staggering. (And yes, I realize that not everybody wants to settle down in the house with 2.3 kids and a dog, but the point is people should be able to choose for themselves!)
The presumption that heterosexual couples are automatically superior is so bizarre too. In my graduate school class, most of us were married or living with someone. By the end, there had been several breakups... all among the straight couples. The lesbian couples all made it to graduation day intact. Not a scientific poll, by any means, but I'm just sayin'.
I just wish people would see this issue for what it really is. If you really want to defend marriage, start with your own (if you're married) and work towards the day that a consenting adult can legally marry another consenting adult.
"Shut Up And Say 'I Do' / Rage against those scary gays and invoke an angry God — it's BushCo's 'Marriage Protection Week', Mark Morford, October 15, 2003, SFGate, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/gate/archive/2003/10/15/notes101503.DTL
"If you want to live like a Republican, you've got to vote for the Democrats." Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, citing the Clinton administration's economic policies, Democratic candidate debates, October 9, 2003 (New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/politics/campaigns/10DEMS.html)
I have raved about Emusic on this blog before. They are a music service that lets you download vast quantities of excellent indie music in MP3 format. Recently, they'd gotten even better, when they added a discussion board and a list feature, so us music fans could share our addictions with each other. And their business model appeared to be succeeding. They certainly got favorable reviews.
Well, all this seems to have changed. For the same price I was paying — $9.99 a month — I now have the dubious pleasure of downloading 40 tracks. That's something like 2 1/2 albums. Or I can pay $50 a month for 300 tracks. (20 albums, by my reckoning.)
Sure, I know companies have to make money. But you don't make money by charging people the same amount per month and offering them less than they got before, and I don't know how the hell they figured that $50 a month is a reasonable price point. That's more than most people pay for DSL or cable.
Naturally, the discussion boards are temporarily shut down, since the Emusic folks wisely figured their customers would be cursing a blue streak.
Here's the letter...
================================================== This is an automated message, please do not reply. To contact customer service please follow the instructions in the email below. ==================================================Dear EMusic Subscriber,
Over the past several years, EMusic has stood alone in its
commitment to providing digital music consumers a service
that offers flexibility and portability. We remain the
ONLY service offering downloads in the standard MP3 format.
We are also unique in our focus on music from the leading
independent labels. Unlike other services, we understand
that many music consumers want to go beyond the Billboard
charts. We remain firmly committed to continuing to
provide avid music fans an alternative to the mainstream.The digital music industry continues to change rapidly,
and EMusic also continues to evolve. The purpose of this
letter is to inform you of a number of important changes
that will affect EMusic Subscribers.First, we are pleased to inform you that EMusic.com Inc.
is being acquired by Dimensional Associates LLC
("Dimensional"), a private equity group focused on
providing innovative online music distribution services.
Dimensional shares EMusic's consumer focused philosophy
of providing low cost, convenient access to great music.
Dimensional plans to continue enhancing the EMusic service
with new features and content and you can look forward to
hearing more once the acquisition has been completed.Although our current privacy policy remains in effect,
http://www.emusic.com/help/privacy_policy.html
when the acquisition is completed, EMusic's privacy policy
will be changing to reflect Dimensional's ownership and your
Personal Information (as defined in the privacy policy) will
be transferred to Dimensional. Please take a few moments to
review this our new policy which will take effect around
October 30, 2003.
http://www.emusic.com/help/privacypolicy.html
As always, EMusic is firmly committed to consumer privacy
and we believe the new policy continues to reinforce this.As an avid digital music fan, you are also aware that the
music industry continues to suffer under intense financial,
legal and technological pressure. As a provider of music
downloads, EMusic is subject to a complex system of
intellectual property rights and technological challenges
that impose high costs and often uncertain risks on the
company.In order to respond to these ongoing challenges and
maintain a compelling service for our valued customers,
EMusic will be making a number of significant changes
in the coming weeks and months. As part of these changes,
we will be discontinuing the unlimited service plan and
replacing it with a new service offering.Unless you visit the link below:
http://help.emusic.com/cu/index.cgi?cmd=step2&st=1&categoryID=1198
and notify us of your intention to cancel your subscription
prior to November 8, 2003, your EMusic subscription will
convert into EMusic Basic. Under EMusic Basic, you will be
billed $9.99 per month for access to the service with no
minimum monthly commitment, but you will be limited to no
more than 40 downloads during your monthly billing cycle.In addition, EMusic is pleased to present a special,
limited time offer available exclusively to current
subscribers - EMusic Premium. Designed for our most
active subscribers, this plan allows you to download
up to 300 tracks per month (approximately 25 albums)
for a monthly charge of $50.00 - a price of just
16 cents per track - with no minimum monthly commitment.
If you are interested in registering for this subscription
plan, you must complete the EMusic XL registration
form no later than November 8, 2003.
http://help.emusic.com/cu/index.cgi?cmd=step2&st=1&categoryID=1998You will still have unparalleled access to the best MP3s
available from independent music labels around the world.
You will continue to have the ability to download this
music, take it with you and play it wherever and however
you like. And, over the next several months EMusic will
be adding significant new labels, artists and releases
as well as enhanced features. EMusic remains committed
to providing the best MP3 service on the Internet. We
continue to believe that EMusic is the best value
available and like you, we are passionate about our music.
We believe that the changes we are making today will enable
us to provide an even more compelling service.To learn more about the new service offering, please go to
http://www.emusic.com/messages/qanda.html
and read our revised terms and conditions at
http://www.emusic.com/bem/new_signup/terms.html
which will be effective as of November 8, 2003. If, for
any reason, you decide that you do not want to become a
member of the EMusic services as described above, you may
cancel at any time during the trial period.As always, if you have a specific question about these
changes or need additional help with your service, the
following site will guide you through our customer service
process.http://help.emusic.com/emhelp/
Thank you for being an EMusic Subscriber.
Don't mention it. I will likely be cancelling my account.
Darrell Issa. The Congressman who bankrolled the recall effort and wanted to be governor himself. The man who cried when he dropped out of the race. The guy who, when it looked like Ahnold and McClintock might split the Republican vote, said people should vote against the recall. The "gentleman" who basically said last night that Grey Davis should get the hell out of the governor's office as soon as possible.
I would like to think that his constituents would give some serious thought to "recalling" their representative. I can't think of anyone who deserves it more.
What an asshole.
OK, so the recall won and Arnold won, yes? Well, out of a state of 35 million people, 4,188,199 people voted for the recall, 3,552,787 voted for Arnie.
I'm utterly baffled by this quote from CNN.
Julie Vandermost, of the California Women's Leadership Association, said her organization was pleased with the results. "We are very happy," she said. "We were very upset about all the regulation, the taxation and the pandering that was coming out of the Davis camp. And we are very excited that we'll have common sense back in California."
I do not think that word "common sense" means what she thinks it means.
Anyway, who voted yesterday? Apparently 52% were female, 40% were between the ages of 45 and 64, and 70% of them were white. Half of them were Republicans, and half were Democrats. More than half of interviewed voters reported a household income of at least $50,000.
Two items that caught my eye: "Almost a quarter of people who voted, said their total family income topped $100,000, and half of them voted for Schwarzenegger. Most of Bustamante's voters reported earnings of less than $30,000. " and "Fewer women voted for Bustamante than the victor. Many voters perceived Bustamante to be closely aligned with Davis and the failed economy, analysts said. And exit polls showed 36 percent of female voters selected Bustamante, and 43 percent favored Schwarzenegger in spite of last minute allegations of groping and sexual harassment that dogged the actor cum politician." (CNN)
There are several morals to this sorry story. One: people are friggin' DUMB. Two: Money and charm can cover up other deficiencies. Three: VOTE, PEOPLE!!! A lot of you guys stayed home and effectively handed over power to somebody else. Sure, voting is frustrating, and watching your side lose is even more frustrating, but what are the alternatives? I'm afraid we'll find out.
--> "Exit poll shows women, whites recalled Davis", CNN, October 8, 2003, www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/recall.results/
--> "The California Recall: Returns", SFGate.com, October 8, 2003, www.sfgate.com/recall/
"Arnold should let the poor woman eat something."
--> "Schwarzenegger wins, Davis concedes", CNN, October 8, 2003, www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/recall.main/index.html
The ones that thought they were rebelling against "politics as usual" and "electing an outsider" and "voting for change"...
You think this multimillionaire with the Kennedy wife is an outsider? You think he's going to be able to dictate terms to Indian tribes and unions? You think he's going to be able to pull this state out of the hole without raising taxes or cutting spending?
BULLSHIT.
Well, you're getting what you asked for. I just wish the rest of us didn't have to come along for the ride.
(Oh, and if anyone thinks this is going to discourage me from voting the next time, it won't, and it shouldn't discourage you either.)
Must he sound so much like the Dwead Piwate Woberts from The Princess Bride? I'm just askin'.
WHAT THE F*UCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE IN THIS STATE?!?!?!
(AND THE COUNTRY, COME TO THINK OF IT!?!??!)
As I write this, my fellow Californians are likely electing Arnold Schwarzenegger our new governor. It's like November 2000 all over again. People are so stupid. I know I'm not supposed to say or think that. I'm supposed to respect other viewpoints, recognize that the other side has a legitimate set of beliefs, and that I should respect them just as I'd want myself and my beliefs to be respected.
Yep. It's sure hard to hold onto that set of ideals right now. Because it's very hard for me to believe that there's any clear or rational thinking going on here. Just vague, and frankly bratty, impulses and moods. "I'm sick and tired of paying taxes!" "I feel screwed over!" "Arnold is strong and he'll be able to stand up to those stupid politicians in Sacramento." Never mind that nobody can seem to explain exactly what Arnold can really do.
And yes, Grey Davis screwed up with the energy crisis, and yes, he takes too many contributions from special interests, and yes, he's not a super warm and likable guy. (Even his next door neighbor joined the pro-recall forces. She wants him out of her back yard.) But the more I hear about Arnold, the more repulsive I find his personality as well. It's a real shame other people don't notice this mean streak in him. It's not about sex, it's about pushing the weak around. This editorial says it all for me...
Even his friends have portrayed Schwarzenegger as a bawdy man who thrives on being the center of attention and is not above demeaning someone for a laugh. These accounts of public groping and grinning — in restaurants and offices as well as on movie sets — are more about being top dog than about sex. They are different only in degree from the mean-spirited "practical jokes" Schwarzenegger practiced at the gym to humiliate fellow bodybuilders.Maybe that's what voters want this time: to have the class bully on their side. His fans seem to want Schwarzenegger to stride into Sacramento and mop up the floor with that loser legislative crew. Perhaps they think muscle and meanness is what it takes to wring gambling money out of federally protected Indian tribes, arm-wrestle employee unions into giving back benefits they've been promised and undo unpopular taxes.
Problem is, a man who describes humiliating waitresses, secretaries and stuntwomen as "playful" seems an unlikely champion of the little people, including those who would vote him into office.
("Muscle and Meanness", Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2003, www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/ la-ed-arnold3oct03,1,3478360.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials)
I will keep trying to understand why this happened, and I sure as hell hope that the Democratic party learns something from it and behaves differently in future, because they must have really sold their souls to get this out of touch. But I'm having a harder and harder time understanding what I'm doing here. Which is really sad, because I was born here and love California...
My sense of humor, I mean. I just couldn't resist. I seem to be getting more juvenile by the minute. Not as juvenile as this stupid #$@#$ recall idea, though. I mean, WTF?!?!? I'm going to bed now.
I know, I know, it's so wrong... but I couldn't resist when I read this CNN story.
I spammed my friends and relatives with this screed against Arnold Schwarzenegger last night. Basically, the more I read about the guy, the more strongly I dislike him. He has no experience, no solid ideas about how to turn things around, and he's a condescending, bullying jackass to boot. (OK, I guess I should say how I really feel.) In an election in which there seem to be no good choices, Arnold is a particularly horrendous one. But don't just take my word for it — I got mad citations from such raving mad liberals like the Public Policy Institute of California, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Jose Mercury News, and the Los Angeles Times.
Hi,I don't usually like to spam my friends and family, but this recall thing is making me break all my rules. Sorry. Wade through as much of it as you can. If you find any of this information useful, PLEASE pass it on, especially the article links.
I'm planning to vote against the recall, and (reluctantly) for Bustamante. No, I don't love our governor or lieutenant governor particularly. Great leaders they are not. However, I believe that the only good reason to recall an elected official is if he did something illegal and/or we learned something about him after the election that was concealed beforehand.
I had extremely visceral reactions to the news this morning and felt the need to communicate my pain in some way.
Is anything good happening anywhere for anybody? (Well, maybe for the A's.)
I really hope that something good follows from some of the breaking headlines. That voters here in California wake up and realize that they're about to replace their drab and disliked governor with a man who refuses to participate in non-scripted debates, has a confrontational style that is unlikely to win him allies in Sacramento or anywhere else, lacks any real ideas for how to fix our woes, and, oh yes, has harrassed women up until quite recently. (I'm not talking about orgies in the 1970s — consensual sex is one thing, bugging people who aren't interested just to show your power is quite another.) That people across this country wake up and realize that they're being ruled by a administration that has nobody's interests at heart except their own... not even the security of the country itself or the lives of their soldiers. Bleh. I keep trying to understand how things got so bad so fast, but I can't quite grasp it.
