Saturday, July 31, 2004
Spin, spin, spin, gaaah
Okay, am I getting this straight? This information is from snippets picked up at various times in passing from the radio, so I can't give specific references, but what I heard (starting early this week) was: An investigation was started because it appeared Sandy Berger might have walked off with some National Archive confidential documents or notes - in fact, right from the start, when this came up, I heard it was about his own handwritten notes which he might absent-mindedly have forgotten to get approved before he left. Then a day later I hear that he was supposed to have "stuffed documents into his socks" (try that sometime) and in short the whole thing was made to sound deliberate and sinister instead of accidental, unlike the first report. Then the kerfuffle squawked loudly on all this week while the Democratic convention was in progress. Then I hear that the investigation actually began months ago.
A day after the convention was over, I heard "Sandy is cleared of all wrongdoing."
How transparent can these characters get? (You know what characters I mean.) Why the hell does the media even pick up blatantly phony stories like this? It was never plausible in the first place that the guy would deliberately steal anything.
I worry about democracy in a nation where this kind of moronic nonsense repeats itself time and time again, where voters are so appallingly ignorant they will buy ads equating somebody like Max Cleland with Osama Bin Laden and vote him out. Do they want a government of nothing but stooges?
A day after the convention was over, I heard "Sandy is cleared of all wrongdoing."
How transparent can these characters get? (You know what characters I mean.) Why the hell does the media even pick up blatantly phony stories like this? It was never plausible in the first place that the guy would deliberately steal anything.
I worry about democracy in a nation where this kind of moronic nonsense repeats itself time and time again, where voters are so appallingly ignorant they will buy ads equating somebody like Max Cleland with Osama Bin Laden and vote him out. Do they want a government of nothing but stooges?
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Exasperated
'A spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush accused those seeking audits of trying to "undermine voters' confidence," and declared, "The governor has every confidence in the Department of State and the Division of Elections." '
(NY Times)
The mere fact that Jeb Bush will not permit independent checking of voting machines in Florida should automatically invalidate Florida election results. The mere fact of ANY state refusing to ensure a paper trail of its voting machines should automatically invalidate that state's elections. Furthermore,the mere fact of voting results being put into the hands of a commercial corporation rather than bi-party government people should also invalidate an election. It's only common sense.
It's inconceivable that any sane country would permit even the possibility of infringement of the integrity of its elections. What possible reason could there be for not ensuring complete transparency of voting results, except for corruption? Give me another plausible reason.
That line about corporate secrets cannot be applied to ELECTION RESULTS. How disingenuous can you get? Democracy is not a commercial product. There is no relationship between manufacturers and democracy. They are two entirely separate things. The free market, if there is one, is a nice thing, but it doesn't guarantee honest election results. That's not its purpose, and it should not be assumed that it can bear that burden.
(NY Times)
The mere fact that Jeb Bush will not permit independent checking of voting machines in Florida should automatically invalidate Florida election results. The mere fact of ANY state refusing to ensure a paper trail of its voting machines should automatically invalidate that state's elections. Furthermore,the mere fact of voting results being put into the hands of a commercial corporation rather than bi-party government people should also invalidate an election. It's only common sense.
It's inconceivable that any sane country would permit even the possibility of infringement of the integrity of its elections. What possible reason could there be for not ensuring complete transparency of voting results, except for corruption? Give me another plausible reason.
That line about corporate secrets cannot be applied to ELECTION RESULTS. How disingenuous can you get? Democracy is not a commercial product. There is no relationship between manufacturers and democracy. They are two entirely separate things. The free market, if there is one, is a nice thing, but it doesn't guarantee honest election results. That's not its purpose, and it should not be assumed that it can bear that burden.
