Browsing all articles from March, 2007
Mar
31

Florida moving in the right direction

And they’ll eventually rethink the op-scans, too…

Crist, Republicans push to get rid of touch-screen voting machines
By JOE FOLLICK
Sun Tallahassee Bureau March 30. 2007 6:01AM

TALLAHASSEE – Just a few years after the state and
counties spent tens of millions of dollars to put
touch-screen voting machines in 15 counties, taxpayers
may spend tens of millions of dollars more to get rid
of them.

Gov. Charlie Crist is leading the effort to replace the
touch-screen machines that have become a national
target of derision for alleged inaccuracies in counting
votes. The state’s top elections official, who Crist
appointed, said the controversy over whether votes were
lost in the race between U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan and
Democrat Christine Jennings prompted the decision to
get rid of touch-screen machines. Senate Republicans
are joining Crist in the push to spend nearly $30
million to replace the machines.

Read more.


March 31, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
31

Monsanto's GM corn is killing bees

Bees are dying and they act like it’s a mystery
by TripleJ
Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:13:12 PM PDT
However, in Germany where they still teach science they published an article about the toxic nature of Monsantos Triple Hybrid GM corn and its effect on bees in ‘05. Why won’t the media here mention that GM corn is the likely cause of the bees disapearing? Could it be that Monsanto is a massive multinational corp with a market capitalization of 30 billion dollars?? Of course insects are seen as pests by most people. Most people who passed Earth Science class in highschool understand that every part of the food chain is important and some, but not most, understand that bees perform a task that vital to our survival.
Albert Einstein once predicted that if bees were to disappear, man would follow only a few years later.
That hypothesis could soon be put to the test.

Now in Spain, hundreds of thousands of colonies have been lost and beekeepers in northern Croatia estimated that five million bees had died in just 48 hours this week. In Poland, the Swietokrzyskie beekeeper association has estimated that up to 40 per cent of bees were wiped out last year. Greece, Switzerland, Italy and Portugal have also reported heavy losses.

The depopulation of bees could have a huge impact on the environment, which is reliant on the insects for pollination. If taken to the extreme, crops, fodder – and therefore livestock – could die off if there are no pollinating insects left.
German bee expert Professor Joergen Tautz from Wurzburg University said: “Bees are vital to bio diversity. There are 130,000 plants for example for which bees are essential to pollination, from melons to pumpkins, raspberries and all kind of fruit trees – as well as animal fodder – like clover.

“Bees are more important than poultry in terms of human nutrition. Bees from one hive can visit a million flowers within a 400 square kilometre area in just one day.

“Bees are not only working for our welfare, they are also perfect indicators of the state of the environment. We should take note.”

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/30/164859/442


March 31, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
31

Our broken democracy

Here is an excellent summation by Burt Hall.

To it I would add (1) that Free Press is now doing the most productive work in Congress, and ought therefore to be supported vigorously. They’re at
freepress.net.

And (2), as for election reform, I would certainly not follow MoveOn’s lead, as that organization has been largely uninvolved in this all-important fight,
and is perilously over-cautious in its program.

MCM

The 5-part series documents that Congress and the media had opportunities to (1) hold Bush accountable for a clear dereliction of duty before 9/11, (2) prevent the war in Iraq and (3) limit Bush’s incompetent administration to one term only. These two vital institutions have failed the American people. This article shows the damage done to our country and concludes with thoughts on repairing our broken democracy. If the American system had worked the way it should, things would be quite different today. These differences are illustrated in each part of the article.

PART I – THE BEGINNING AND 9/11
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/876

PART II -TERRORISM VS. THE WAR IN IRAQ

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/879

PART III – NUCLEAR AND SPACE WEAPONS, AND STAR WARS

 http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/881

PART IV – ENERGY, WARMING AND FINANCIAL THREATS

 http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/892

PART V – THOUGHTS ON INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/894

March 31, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
31

TIME carries water for the GOP

March 30, 2007
The weekly update from Media Matters for America
It’s been such a long, long Time since it’s been good
How many ways can one news outlet demonstrate that it is out of touch with the public in one week?
***
Yesterday, Time Washington bureau chief Jay Carney wrote about his magazine’s latest poll, noting that the survey shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both losing to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain in hypothetical general-election matchups. Carney noted:

It’s hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards — and in many cases fed up with — the G.O.P. might still prefer a Republican for President over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved.

Indeed, much of it does. Carney didn’t mention this, but the poll included two other hypothetical matchups — Clinton vs. Mitt Romney, and Obama vs. Mitt Romney. Clinton beats Romney by 17 points; Obama beats him by 24. Strange that Carney left those results out of his article.
Actually, it’s strange that Time tested Romney in the hypothetical matchups in the first place. Why was Romney included and Democrat John Edwards left out?
According to Time’s own polling, registered voters basically have no idea who Romney is. The newest Time poll found that only 35 percent say they know “a great deal” or “some” about Romney; 44 percent know only his name or have never heard of him at all. In the previous Time poll, only 29 said they knew a great deal or some about Romney, while 39 percent had never even heard of him, and more than half had either never heard of him or only knew his name.
Yet Time decided to include Romney in head-to-head matchups against Clinton and Obama. And, when he lost badly, Time’s Washington bureau chief Jay Carney decided to disappear those results from his article headlined “A Surprising G.O.P. Edge for ‘08.”
That edge sure looks bigger when you look only at the data that support it and ignore data that contradict it. How convenient.
And John Edwards, who Time did not test in head-to-head matchups? The newest Time poll found that 75 percent of registered voters know a “great deal” or “some” about him. The previous Time poll found 68 percent knew at least “some” about him.
Yet Time decided to leave Edwards out of the head-to-head matchups. Why did Time include Romney and not Edwards? Why, having included Romney, did Carney omit those results from his article purporting to show a GOP advantage in head-to-head matchups?
Carney went on to suggest that Democrats will be at a disadvantage in 2008 on national security issues:

Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008 — a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security. Without question, Bush has done serious damage to the Republican brand in this arena. But, with the nation waging two wars and terrorism still a threat, that underlying sentiment might be one of the reasons G.O.P. candidates appear competitive at all.

Carney didn’t include any polling data to back up his assertion that the “long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security” constitutes a disadvantage for Democrats in 2008. And, in fact, polling data on the topic suggests — and has long suggested — that this “long-standing disposition” is melting away. Just one week ago, Rasmussen found that more Americans trust Democrats to handle national security than Republicans — a slim lead that balloons to 12 points when voters are asked specifically about Iraq. Those results aren’t anomalous: We’ve written frequently that the media’s continued insistence on portraying national security as a sure political winner for Republicans is not supported by the facts (for examples, see here, here, and here.)

Indeed, Time’s own polling shows the folly of asserting that Republicans maintain a “long-standing” advantage on “issues involving national security.” The last Time poll that measured attitudes toward the parties on national security issues found Democrats with a lead on Iraq and Republicans with a lead on terrorism.
***
Carney has also repeatedly

projected his own discomfort with John Edwards staying in the presidential race despite learning that Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer has returned. Carney wrote a March 22 article on the topic in which he declared Edwards’ explanation “discomfiting”:

John said that when the two of them were alone, Elizabeth was concerned about everyone but herself — her children, her husband and her country, in that order, but not herself.

He clearly meant it to be inspiring, but there is also something discomfiting about that statement. Even more discomfiting was Edwards’ claim that by soldiering on while his wife has incurable cancer, he would be proving that he could deal with the pressures of being President. I wonder how voters will react to that sentiment.

Ana Marie Cox, Carney’s Time colleague, pointed out in a Swampland post that if voters react as Carney suggests they will, it will be in large part because of how people just like Carney treat the topic:

As a piece of punditry, his point may yet stand: Over time, voters may react negatively to [the] image of a man pursuing the presidency as his wife struggles with an incurable disease. But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards’ decision.

On March 23, Carney followed up with his own Swampland post, in which he defended his suggestion that the Edwardses’ decision is “discomfiting”:

I don’t think it’s inappropriate or unfair (or remotely politically biased) to say that I feel discomfited by the decision and the rationale behind it, or to make the fairly simple point that some Democrats out there might feel the same way.

[...]

I don’t think it is a stretch to suggest that, as they learn about Elizabeth’s recurrence and about her and John’s decision to continue his campaign, parents across the country are going to be asking themselves what they would do in such a situation. Surely how they answer that question will affect how some of them see John Edwards’ presidential aspirations — more favorably for some, less so for others.

Two days later, Carney wrote again:

I am no doubt inviting more criticism for having the gall to feel uncomfortable with the Edwards’ decision, and for suggesting that other Americans might also feel that way. It must be obvious by now that others do, in fact, have similar doubts — especially about the issue of whether a father of two young children whose wife may be seriously ill, and may even die, might be too distracted to be effective as president.

Carney, of course, can have doubts about whatever he wants to have doubts about. That’s his business. But his repeated suggestion that he speaks not only for himself but for the masses as well makes us wonder why he hasn’t addressed any of the available polling on the topic. Polling that shows that, by at least a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support the Edwardses’ decision.

It’s bad enough that Time’s Washington bureau chief is badly out of touch with the American people. What’s worse is that he claims to speak for them — and ignores evidence to the contrary.
***
Carney, of course, famously declared the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge to be a nonscandal interesting only to liberal conspiracy theorists. Whoops. To Carney’s credit, he eventually acknowledged that “Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo and everyone else out there whose instincts told them there was something deeply wrong and even sinister about the firings” were right, and he was wrong — though he didn’t apologize for the conspiracy-theorists crack. Nor did he explain what, if anything, he has learned about whether journalists should be in the habit of simply assuming that the government hasn’t done anything wrong.
As long as Carney and Time had changed their ways, such complaints may have seemed minor. And, indeed, Time finally paid a bit of attention to the story.
But that seems to be over now.
First, Time’s Richard Stengel took to The Chris Matthews Show to declare the story uninteresting and to flatly assert that pursuing answers would turn out badly for Democrats. Stengel later claimed in an email to Ana Marie Cox that he had been “caught out speaking as a citizen rather than as editor of Time.” But, as Greg Sargent explained:

Look, Stengel can say he’s speaking as a “citizen,” but this citizen is also the managing editor of one of the nation’s top newsweeklies, and it’s kinda off-putting to learn that someone with such journalistic influence either:

(a) knows what these polls say but is not letting them interfere with his view that the American public is predisposed to see Congressional oversight in such negative terms; or

(b) uninterested in consulting said evidence to learn what folks actually think about such matters before speaking for them with the authority of, yes, Time magazine’s managing editor.

Moreover, Stengel may have been simply speaking as a citizen, but by amazing coincidence, the magazine of which he is managing editor just so happens to be behaving in a way that is entirely consistent with citizen Stengel’s beliefs.
Time national political correspondent Karen Tumulty followed Stengel’s lead with her own claim on Swampland that “the public so far seems relatively uninterested” in the prosecutor purge. Tumulty didn’t attribute that claim to anything. She did, however, quote a Project for Excellence in Journalism item to show that the media has devoted a great deal of attention to the story.
As Media Matters noted, that same PEJ item selectively cited a March 16-19 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to support the assertion that “the public has yet to evince great enthusiasm” for the story. In fact, the Pew survey itself found that the percentage of people following the scandal very closely exceeded the percentage who followed the savings and loan scandal very closely, easily surpassed the percentage who followed Scooter Libby’s conviction very closely, and was nearly equal to the percentage who followed Whitewater very closely. In other words, far from showing that the public is “uninterested,” the Pew survey found that public interest is comparable to other recent scandals (real and invented).

And, as Ana Marie Cox (who lately seems to be playing the thankless but vital role of correcting her colleagues’ blatant misrepresentations of both public opinion and reality) pointed out in response, other polling shows that “72 percent think Congress should investigate the White House’s role in the dismissal of the attorneys.”
And now, the new issue of Time magazine appears on newsstands, and it “contains precisely zero stories on the scandal. Nothing. As though it’s not happening.”
After a week in which Kyle Sampson testified and Monica Goodling announced her intention to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in order to avoid doing so — and a week in which polling found that 70 percent of Americans favor investigating the growing scandal – Time magazine decided to go back to ignoring it.
***
Stengel is by no means the only journalist to suggest that pursuing an investigation supported by more than 70 percent of Americans will backfire on the Democrats. The media have been full of dire warnings to Democrats not to conduct congressional investigations, dating back to before Democrats even took control of Congress. Glenn Greenwald, Steve Benen, Greg Sargent, and others have also noted and debunked claims that the public opposes investigations of the Bush administrations. (Chris Lehmann has tackled the equally pervasive pundit declarations that there is nothing to see here, move along please.)
These media warnings that the Democrats shouldn’t investigate the administration’s actions frequently invoke the public’s disgust at Republicans investigations of the Clinton administration in the 1990s. That’s a false comparison.
First, Bill Clinton was a popular president, while George W. Bush may be the most unpopular president of all time. Perhaps that suggests that the public might not react the same way to investigations of Bush?
Second, and more important, the nature of the investigations is quite different. Congressional Republicans conducted countless redundant investigations of the same failed land deal, all of which failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons. They
investigated the White House Christmas card list. Then there was Dan Burton’s carnival freak show of an “investigation,” which involved the Indiana congressman shooting a pumpkin in his back yard in order to “prove” that Vince Foster was murdered. They probed the president’s personal life. By contrast, congressional Democrats are investigating things like whether the Bush administration fired prosecutors because they didn’t indict enough Democrats, and whether they lied to Congress about it. And they’re looking into the false claims the administration made in taking the nation to war.
When a media figure suggests that Democratic investigations of the Bush administration will backfire the way Republican investigations of the Clinton administration backfired, just keep in mind that Republicans harassed a popular president by shooting produce in the back yard, while Democrats are looking into a historically unpopular president’s mishandling of an unpopular war.

Then keep in mind that the media largely acted as cheerleaders for the investigations of Clinton.
In 1998, they didn’t understand that the public was sick of partisan investigations of Clinton. In 2007, they don’t understand that the public wants investigations of the Bush administration.
They’d know these things if only they would glance at their own polls.
***
Finally, in a remarkable example of bad Time-ing, the April 2 issue of the magazine included a profile of Giuliani that gushed over “America’s mayor,” declaring him the “rock of 9/11″ and asserting that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were “Giuliani’s finest hour” and gave him “automatic standing” on the issue of terrorism.
Though you wouldn’t know it from Time’s Teen Beat approach to Giuliani’s rocklike heroism, there actually are widespread criticisms of Giuliani’s actions related to the September 11 attacks and other security issues, as Media Matters has detailed.
Indeed, even as Time’s mash note lingered on newsstands, the New York Times revealed that Giuliani testified in 2006 that he had been briefed on Bernard Kerik’s “relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime” before Giuliani appointed Kerik as New York City police commissioner. Giuliani had previously claimed he had not been told of the ties. And the Associated Press reported:

Giuliani, the leader in polls of Republican voters for his party’s nomination, has been faulted on two major issues:

- His administration’s failure to provide the World Trade Center’s first responders with adequate radios, a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center.

[Sally] Regenhard [whose firefighter son died on September 11], at a 2004 commission hearing in Manhattan, screamed at Giuliani, “My son was murdered because of your incompetence!” The hearing was a perfect example of the 9/11 duality: Commission members universally praised Giuliani at the same event.

- A November 2001 decision to step up removal of the massive rubble pile at ground zero. The firefighters were angered when the then-mayor reduced their numbers among the group searching for remains of their lost “brothers,” focusing instead on what they derided as a “scoop and dump” approach. Giuliani agreed to increase the number of firefighters at ground zero just days after ordering the cutback.

More than 5 1/2 years later, body parts are still turning up in the trade center site.

“We want America to know what this guy meant to New York City firefighters,” said Peter Gorman, head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association. “In our experiences with this man, he disrespected us in the most horrific way.”

Looks like it’s Time to stop polishing Giuliani’s halo and start doing some reporting.

March 31, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
30

Bush likes to lie

News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
30 March 2007
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
Breaking: Top General Tried to Warn Bush on Tillman –General Sought to Warn Bush Not to Say Tillman Died in an Enemy Ambush 30 Mar 2007 Just seven days after Pat Tillman’s death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President [sic] Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press. It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades. The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman’s family.

March 30, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
30

On the myth of "voter fraud"

Kudos to the Brennan Center:
Brennan Center Op/Ed in Washington Post:
‘The Myth of Voter Fraud’ and the U.S. Attorney Purge Scandal
From attorney’s Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law in today’s WaPo…

Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch.
…
[T]hose chasing imaginary fraud are actually taking preventive steps that would disenfranchise millions of real live Americans.

MORE MONEY QUOTES:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4337

March 30, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
30

Defeat in Maryland

From Arlene Montemarano (mikarl@starpower.net):

…”this is a tragedy,” Bobo said.”…

NOTE: The actual reason was NOT cost. Evidence was presented that clearly showed that the money saved over 4 to 5 years in the maintenance of our current set up would have exactly matched that for the purchase of optical scanners for counting the voter created paper ballots. Cost was NOT the issue. ajm
NOTE: The forces in support of paperless unauditable DRE’s did overwhelm the supporters of reform once again by gutting the bill at the very last minute in Committee. I believe that had the bill been allowed out of Committee onto the floor of the Senate, it would have passed and Maryland would have optical scan at long last.

But Maryland can be proud of the 37 sponsors of Kasemeyer’s Bill, the unanimous House support of Hixson’s Bill, and Senator Kasemeyer himself, Sheila Hixson, and Elizabeth Bobo. They risked much to be on the side of justice and honest elections. Though our hearts are broken for the loss to Maryland’s voting public, we will always admire these people who fought along with us and for us. ajm

Paper election ballot measure killed by Senate

Columbia Flier – Columbia,MD,USA
The electronic Diebold Election Systems machines Maryland now uses produce no such paper record. However, a Senate committee heavily amended the bill before …

See all stories on this topic

Paper election ballot measure killed by Senate
03/29/07
Email this story to a friend

A Senate bill that would have required Maryland to use a paper ballot voting system was sent back to a Senate committee this week, effectively killing the measure, the bill’s sponsor said.

“Basically, it means it’s a dead issue,” said Senate Majority Leader Edward Kasemeyer, a Columbia Democrat, who sponsored the bill.

The bill, as originally proposed, would have required the state to use voting equipment that produces a paper record that allows voters to check their ballots before casting votes. It also would have required whatever voting machines the state uses to produce a paper record that could be audited for accuracy.

Read more.


March 30, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
30

For all who want HR 811 fixed

So far, your faxes have not been included in the official record. In order to make sure that they are thus included, please read the following and act accordingly.
MCM
From Nancy Tobi:

URGENT PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FAR AND WIDE
I just spoke with Janelle – Election Legislative Staff of the House Admin Ctte. She asked me to NOT post our conversation to a website but I have her agreement to distribute to list servs. ALL OF OUR FAXES ARE NOT PART OF THE RECORD. TO GET THEM ON THE RECORD WE MUST EMAIL JANELLE BY END OF TODAY AND STATE THAT WE WANT IT PART OF THE RECORD. JUST COPY AND PASTE YOUR FAXES AND EMAIL THEM TO THIS ADDRESS:
janelle.hu@mail.house.gov

Her remarks to me about yesterdays meeting follow:

Short meeting – less than 5 minutes
Mr Brady
Ms. Lofgren
Mr. Ehlers

The three above made short statements about election reform being bipartisan and that they have amendments to make to the bill.

Q: Why they delayed the markup?
A: Can’t go into the details – scheduling conflicts, more work to be done on the bill.

Q: When will amendments be made public.

A: After the recess – COngress reconvenes April 16th – don’t know yet when the markup will be rescheduled. Please call again around that time to find out. We are not trying to symie citizen review of legislation that is of great concern to the voters. Still working on it. Chairwoman ultimately responsible for this – it is a moving target. Chairwoman has expressed desire to mark up the bill in full committee. We understand that there has been great interest expressed to review election law, we are doing the best we can. Submit a letter to be included in the record deadline is close of business today. We have to email to Janelle to have the letter included in the record and we must indicate we want the letter included in the record.

janelle.hu@mail.house.gov


March 30, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
30

Eric Klinenberg in NYC w/ MCM

Friends,
I strongly urge you to attend this talk next Tuesday evening by Eric Klinenberg,
whose new book Fighting for Air is a must-read for all who are concerned about
the current state of US media.
Link.

I hope to see you there!
MCM

March 30, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
Mar
30

So funny you'll forget to laugh


Bush, Rove, Crack Up Press Corp

By John Eggerton — Broadcasting & Cable, 3/28/2007 9:28:00 PM

White House adviser Karl Rove boogied, backed by NBC’s David Gregory, Brian Wiliams burped the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and the President cracked wise, all to the general delight, and occasional gales of laughter, of journalists gathered for the Radio & Television Correspondents Association dinner in Washington.

Rove was a better sport than a dancer, tapped by the surprise entertainment–Whose Line is It Anyway’s Colin Mochrie and Brad Sherwood–for an improv rap number featuring “MC Rove,” with Gregory as one of his backup dancers, and based on information supplied by Rove that, among other things, he collected stamps and liked to “tear the tops” off of small animals.

Rove got into the spirit of the bit, though when President Bush was asked to supply a rap nickname for Rove, his response was “Your Fired!” Sherwood then suggested Rove had offered his resume to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of a host of legislators in attendance at the annual dinner at the Washington Hilton.

Read more.


March 30, 2007   //   General   //   No Comments   //  
« Older

About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:


Help News From Underground!



Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the ChipIn widget above or via paypal to markcrispinmiller@gmail.com


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Twitter



Blogroll