HR-811 Opponents: If You Can't Stand the Sausage-making...

It's unfortunate for the cause of quality democracy in America that some think a DRE ban is feasible within the next decade to come without the hard evidence of unreliable and unsecure DREs that HR-811 would provide. They display a stunning lack of awareness of how any legislation is created, forged and passed in this country.

A DRE ban from our influence-drenched US Congress is simply not feasible without widespread, hard auditing evidence that the press and public couldn't ignore. That's exactly what we would have with a VVPAT. That's why Holt's HR-811 is savvy and effective.

Holt, like Kucinich, would love to see DREs go away. Rush, however, realizes that the light of universal auditing is the very best way to get there. Is his bill being pummeled by special interests in House Administration Committee sessions? Of couse it is. He's keeping his 'eye on the prize', however, and the Light of Auditing in HR-811 still stands. The bill deserves our support.

What about all the stuff I read on the Web about HR-811?
No publicly known authors have credibly suggested that HR-811 auditing will fail to uncover bad tallies. They rail against the fact that the paper trail is not up front the vote of record, and of course, lash out at EAC, vendor protections and technology maturity issues (odd to hear about technology hurdles from purists...), but I haven't seen a single credible case that the with all the 'voters glazing over their VVPAT moments' and everything else, in the end, audits will fail to uncover bad vote-counts.

As for it's 'flaws', why would anyone think HR-811 would be a "final word" on American elections? FEC and HAVA legislation were not the final words. Sadly, even the Campaign Financing bill has been half-gutted by the Supreme Court.

Why would anyone think Kucinch's bill would be any less vulnerable to the onslaught of interests? Do they think corporations and lobbyists will shrink in shame at the beauty and shining elegance of Canadian-style paper-only/hand-count voting?

Let's Get Real
Without HR-811's hard evidence, many opponents' pet peeves about companies, commissions and political operatives are back to Zero --- back to the nightmare we're living in now --- black-box-voting, with no proof of bad computerized voting behavior.

Without paper evidence, influential as leading bloggers may seem, voting integrity activists will always seem like the 'aluminum hat' crowd, as likely to fight for a ban on DREs as to fend of the silent black helicopters from reading their brain waves.

HR-811, with all it lacks regarding what grass roots activist think about commissions and corporations, is the very best thing Canadian-style paper-only/hand-count voting could ever, ever hope for.

Life under HR-811
Journalists and every jurisdiction in the nation will have a paper record of every vote to plow into -- whether a precinct is selected for auditing or not -- to prove the very points HR-811's opponents make about equipment, vendors and political game-playing.

No matter which way a computerized voting machine screws up, it'll be flagged. If they record the wrong vote both inside the computer and on the VVPAT, while some citizens may not 'check the paper' for accuracy when they vote, many will, and they'll be flagged by HR-811's voter verification provision. (Note that in those cases, the rejected paper ballots are available for counting...) If they always produce a correct VVPAT, but flip votes inside the computer, they'll also be flagged by the HR-811 audit.

Those bad audits can then be correlated to particular vendors, software and releases. If the commissions and companies involved in voting machines are a house of cards, they'll come tumbling down.

Shine a bright light on DRE inaccuracies!

Let the Auditing Begin!

Holt Lights a Candle; Curious Voices Whistle in the Dark

I'm typically refering to neo-cons when I use the phrase "better to light one candle than to curse the darkness". This time, however, it's an odd band of Internet personalities that campaign vociferously against one of the only bright lights in federal election quality today I find "cursing the darkness".

Rush Holt's HR-811 bill will ensure that a paper record is made of every vote, and that voting machine models or software releases that provides incorrect vote counts will be detected, with proper counts restored through the paper records.

The points made by various critics of HR-811 vary widely in their stated concerns, and while all create the impression that the bill is a giant threat to voting integrity, none wage a meaningful attack on its merits.

I've read those who suggest that the voting machine sampling percentage of 3% is too small. These folks lack training in the statistics behind the 90-year practice of industrial quality control to know that it most assuredly is not too small.

There are those who cite human factors as a reason "not every vote" will have enough of the voter's attention regarding the paper record to ensure accuracy. This notion ignores the huge advantage of identifying bad equiment or software based on the records of the clear majority that will check their vote.

Some say a pure paper system is best. This is a position I agree with, but that I don't consider politically feasible. (It is possible, even for the disabled; check out http://www.Vote-PAD.com.)

Some cite the many other forms of voter abuse besides the integrity of voting machine tallies. To them, I say "more power to ya!", but why shoot down one clearly defined bill that addresses a singe grave election integrity issue well? HR-811 has a decent chance of passing.

Here's just one of the articles, a blog entry, that lists and refutes a number of these concerns in detail, and also provides link to accurate information about HR-811.

Support HR-811. Let's get rid of an election auditability gap big enough to drive a national election through!

Think Again: The First Comprehensive Database of Suicide Bombing

This weekend, the media is pumping out 9/11 anniversary productions. There is some somber coverage of that sad day, and well-deserved praise for its incredible heroes, and there are also kitschy broad strokes of America as some sort of helpless victim.

Fortunately for us and our children, a book bourne of painstakingly accumulated data - not opinion - provides reliable insight into why events like 9/11 happen. It surely is different from a typical romp through U.S. cable news! The book is: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape. In a Cato Institute panel discussion, Flynt Leverett, former National Security Council aide for the Bush Administration said that every policy maker, diplomatic head and military leader should memorize this book.

The Starkly Under-reported Findings. Well, waddya know: much of what Americans are told over and over in the mainstream media about threats of 9/11-type terrorism is just bunk. It turns out that suicide bombing has always been driven by the control of land, and not by religious goals. For that matter, the majority of suicide bombings have been commited by non-Muslims. Well, now -- that's not what we get on the cable news networks. While the people who perpetrated the events of 9/11 are simply murderers, and there is no justification for their heinous crimes, we do ourselves no good whatsoever by ignoring the real drivers of such killers, painting our own picture of their motivations in order to suit our preferred methods of prevention.

Religion's role in suicide bombing, while quite different from the "fundamentalist Islamic jihad against the infidels" we constantly hear about, is in fact, quite enlightening to understand. There is an extremely high correlation between an occupied native population erupting in suicide bombings, and the religions of the occupier and the natives being different - whichever religions they may be. The clear conclusion is that suicide bombing has much more to do with the perceived intractability of an occupier than the characteristics of particular religions.

Professor Pape, a noted authority on national security who has, among his teaching roles, taught air strategy for the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, has assembled the first comprehensive database of suicide bombing. The U.S. Government itself welcomed his research, which enumerates suicide bombings beginning in 1980, and included the use of data mining overseas by native-language researchers.

A Link to Nuclear Non-proliferation. It's instructive to realize how consistent this insight is with the principals of nuclear non-proliferation. Not many realize that Non-proliferation protocols advise strongly against policies such as that of "regime change". Indeed, America has become increasingly eager to exhibit this audacious strain of intractability over the past decade. Besides the 1998 Clinton/Congressional policy of "Iraq regime change", we've moved on to Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric in the 2002 State of the Union along with the attendant calls for regime change in Iran and N. Korea, and of course, the Bush Administration's refusal to go mano-a-mano in negotiating with either of those two countries, opting for oblique multi-lateral talks.

Here in the U.S., we all too often toss around the legitimacy of sovereign governments in our rhetoric. While we hope at least some folks in seats of power understand the ramifications of doing so at one level or another, the American people generally do not. Some people are comfortable blissfully "trusting those in power", but I see grave danger in an electorate operating without facts and proven guidelines.

Another Link to Policies of Yesteryear. Mr. Pape shows how a policy he calls "off-shore containment" would be consistent with these findings. U.S. military personnel would be off-shore on ships, while any bases we have on foreign soil are ready but unmanned. We've heard echos of this before when recruiting tapes for suicide bombers first became public. Their central images are of U.S. tanks and planes on foreign soil.

It happens that going back into the 1960's, it was indeed a principle of American foreign policy, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula, to keep our troops off-shore. Pape lends us his expertise in the use of air power by mentioning that the potency such an off-shore force would have is dramatically stronger than it would have been in the past.

Just the Facts, Ma'am. Here are some facts listed on the Powells.com page for Pape's Dying to Win:

• FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism
• FACT: The world's leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka-a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
• FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.
• FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
• FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.
• FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies-including the United States-have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it's effective.

It'd be comforting to know we now have such inately authoritative data regardig such a grave subject, but it's equally as troubling to see how that data casts such a dark shadow over the past several years of US public policy.

Happy Day-after-Independence-Day, America!

Nir Rosen, one of the few Iraqi-accented Arabic speaking western reporters in Iraq, asks the question: Did the Invasion Make Things Worse in Iraq? This is a crucial article that could only have been written by someone who's been on the ground all this time. Americans would do well to slow down for a spell, and internalize the things written here. America's history and future in Iraq, through the eyes of its citizens - not US pundits.

If you're an American, your thoughts may return home, where all this started. You might scan recent memory for a voice in mainstream politics articulating a coherent, sound, foreign policy that precludes our shoving our noses, whether military or UN-backed/commercial, into the business of weaker countries. Can you identify one such voice?

Be careful what you wish for. It's fascinating to consider Peter Beinart's book, The Good Fight: Why Liberals - and Only Liberals - Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. By recounting the original vision Truman had for the UN, one which seeds an acceptance of US movements abroad by first building consensus, Beinart articulates a unifying theory of foreign policy that sounds both welcome, yet sadly strange to our ears. Surely no Democrat has been breaking through the media bubble with a central theme to juxtapose against the Bush Administration's "Speak brashly and swing a big stick" policy! What may seem really odd, though, is that Beinart is joined in a panel discussion about his book aired by C-SPAN by none other than neocon proponent William Kristol who praises the book, amidst myriad non-essential nits, and declares Beinart an inadvertant neocon. (Those familiar with The New Republic of which Beinart is chief editor may not be so surprised...) Kristol asserts this because as swagger-free as the ideas promoted in Beinart's book are, they still involve an active exercise of foreign influence - one might refer to it as a "compassionate imperialism".

Who started all this, anyway? Read Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. It's Roosevelts (a little known grandchild in a seminal instance, not the Presidents) and McNamaras and military industrial complex finger-wagging Quakers like Eisenhower who gave the Flywheel of industrial imperialism its initial shoves in the '50's, '60's and '70's. Sure, the current Administration has given it the Big Mo needed to become quite difficult to stop, but they didn't 'start the fire'.

In fact, it's a mistake to think Democrats would neccessarily have kept us out of Iraq post 9-11. Some may have, but most would only have done it less lawlessly, and perhaps less ineptly. As those following along know, the current slate of neocons that are in power today had long ago whet the appetites of powerful energy and construction contract candidates with the potential in Iraq. Meanwhile, the national dialog swings like some sort of loose cannon (gee, isn't that a word we reserve for Ross Perot types?) from the setting of exit dates, to rights that many gays don't even want, to immigration, to 'why the Times disobeyed the Administration' rather than 'why the Administration withheld the same request of the Wall Street Journal', ad nauseum maximus. But the Flywheel is spinning, greased by a US Congressional re-election rate that happens to be matched by --- why, waddya know --- none other than Saddam Hussein's re-election mandate - some 98%, up from 86% in 1920. Hmmmph!

Anyhow, thank you, Mr. Rosen, for the unspun story of Iraqi sentiment and in your recent book, the roots of insurgency. Those stories have more to do with the security of Americans against terrorists than many here in the US are comfortable thinking about.

...and heaven help America to pause and consider the real world effects, and the harrowing, bi-partisan momentum of our imperialism. What are we doing to alarm our countrymen of its specter? ...to foster what could only be received as "radical" ("pacifist", "isolationist") solutions? Where would a concerned American start?

The fireworks are over. Happy day after Independence Day, America!

Times' Treason: Praise God and Pass the White-Face!

The civic conversation in America is quite the circus.

The buzz of American media dedicated to - well, not to conservativism, but - to the Republican party yelling "Treason!" regarding the New York Times is more than groundless and stupid. It's negligent. Just this week, the Administration wiped out so many categories of legitimate self-help welfare activities that some states have lost their entire benefit; the Senate carried the ball for telecommunications companies in turning down a "net neutrality" provision; the House supported high hypocracy in the area of nuclear non-proliferation; Israel steps up aggressive military strikes against Palestine... The list goes on.

The only story worth telling regarding the New York Times article is that the Bush administration didn't ask the Wall Street Journal to suppress the same story, making it quite clear that this nothing more than a base lathering publicity stunt.

I haven't been swarming the news channels, but for the record, Kudos to Anderson Cooper 360 as one MSM show willing to have guests Jeffrey Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst) and David Gergen that both flagged this as a campaign tactic. Just as I clicked [Submit] on the Instant Feedback form citing the WS Journal anomaly, Toobin was thoughtful enough to note at least the fact that they published the same day, yet nobody's attacking them.

Sometimes I seriously think a bit of 'crazy like a fox'/Emily Litella (we miss you, Gilda!) writing can go a long way. E.g. NY Times chief editor Bill Keller could have spiked his explanation with something like "We disagree with the White House's attacks on the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times", perhaps going on a bit to defend some aspect of what the Journal does well. It'd force the media to "correct him", and say "but the White House *hasn't* attacked the Wall Street Journal!".

Ah, me... Such a circus! Praise God and pass the white-face!

This COULD be Tough Love Day for welfare moms and Iraqi officials

Today the President will issue the most sweeping reforms in the rules for welfare administration in ten years.

Look out, Welfare Moms! You see...

• Often the Government Hand that is trying to Help You is actually Purpetuating your Plight. By forcing you out of the program, we're helping you help yourself!
• Yet the people administering the Program are certain that it cannot be drawn back. A hint here is that the continuance of the program perpetuates their job security interests.
• It's a distinctly American Value that you are responsible for your own welfare (and happiness, for that matter)

That is why we've sent more than 7 million of you - 60% per the 1996 enrollment - off the program in the past 10 years, and today place another 50% of you in our sights. We hope you understand.

And you, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and other Iraqi ministers? You have nothing to worry about!

• It is clear that the US presence in Iraq is a major source of chaos in your country, and it makes a great deal of sense to most Americans and apparently General Casey that announcing staged troop withdrawals is a sound technique for catalyzing your government into a winning track.
• Just as with the welfare program, the people administering our presence are certain that it cannot be drawn back. A hint here is that the continuance of the occupation serves their interests in maintaining contractor pay-outs, and establishing military control of your oil as more than a dozen bases are built.
• Yes, don't worry about US troop withdrawals. As for self-reliance and individual responsibility, that's an American Value we haul out for the disadvantaged - not people with valuable energy assets we want our hands on!

Hmmm... Honorable lawmakers, politicans and thought leaders from either side of the aisle could be citing Tough Love as an honorable, American rationale for a publicized schedule of troop withdrawals. This could be Tough Love Day both in the economically depressed areas of the US - Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan - and in the government halls of Iraq, but don't hold your breath. All the tough love talk will be for the disadvantaged among us.

Shame on us!

Democrats Beware: You will Lose an '06 Squeeker

Most Americans consider the current power configuration in Washington to be in serious need of change. You'd think that would be a good sign for Democrats. I say to Democrats: Beware.

One of the best political forecasters in the country, Charlie Cook, has written a colorful piece that includes a stern warning to Democrats. It begins by citing a couple classic cases of counting chickens before they hatch, and goes on to describe what may be signs of a bottoming out of Bush and the Republicans' long slide in the polls.

What I find most alarming about what seems to me to be an "irrational exuberance" among Democratic lawmakers is that someone at the level of Nancy Pelosi has fallen prey to it. I can tell you that such an attitude could be a death knell to a Democratic House in '06.

The venerable and non-partisan Mr. Cook cites a folksy "rule-of-thumb" in warning presumptuous Democrats. He says that in his observations over nearly 20 years, politicians exhibiting that particular brand of hubris almost always lose.

I go further and suggest that there are factors today that give Democrats a solid electoral handicap to overcome. These include electoral tampering, which has been shown particularly in '04 to statistically favor Republican candidates, and a media bias that you may not buy as being overtly corporatist, but that is hard to deny has an old-fashioned "stick with the establishment" bend. For example, there are well-documented "narratives" that circulate the press such as "Poor Bush", in which things just aren't turning out so well for the guy, and a "good guy/bad guy" casting of Republicans and Democrats, evident in Tim Russert' spending 1/2 hour last week discussing How Republicans can fend off the '06 onslaught of Democratic congressional seats, with no counterpoint How Democrats can secure a House victory segment in sight.

If people in Nancy's position aren't taxing their brains to figure out how they can win 18-20 of the 15 seats we need in November rather than running 'Victory Laps' in June, the Democrats can kiss their resurgence, along with the long-overdue balance it would bring to Washington power, Good Bye.