Smoking Crack at the Enquirer Editorial Board

Who was the brain surgeon who came up with this one with this one?

Paper receipts may seem a good idea to let voters verify that their vote was accurately recorded. But paper receipts enable the possibility of vote-buying. Vote sellers could turn them in as proof needed to collect bribes from corrupt political organizers. The new machines allow voters to review their vote, and the new federal law requires the machines to produce a secure "audit trail" that lets election officials cross-check paper printouts with electronic totals.

Vote-buying? What kind of moron came up with this rationalization? How could you buy a vote after it is cast? Seriously? How? Does someone at the Enquirer Editorial Board think that someone could create fake print outs and try and challenge an election? You would need human bodies to get on the stand and lie for you to do that, a whole bunch of them. That could happen now with our without electronic systems without vote print outs.

I know how to simply do away with the irrational fears of the Enquirer’s Editorial Board.. CREATE TWO PRINT OUTS. One for the voter and one gets turned in at the polling station like paper ballots are currently, simple as that. I don't really think the voter has to have a print out, but that would be the ideal. What we do need is a hard copy of a vote to have in case the hard drive in one of the machines crashes before the data is downloaded or during the download process, not just because of possible fraud. The process is simple and the solutions are easy. Why are some (and I do mean only some) conservatives dragging their feet?

UPDATE: Wes Flinn also comments.

Editorial Bias

Media bias is a common theme in current events commentary these days. Mostly of the time it is a conservative complaining about "liberal bias" in the media. Often they say that liberal reporters can't report on religion without bashing it. I hope Peter Bronson has read this article in his newspaper about religion in the city. This article was written by a liberal. I don't think I am outing Maggie as a liberal, so I hope no one is aghast at this news, especially Maggie. Her article is very positive on a whole variety of religious groups and specific churches in Cincinnati. In fact the article gives no criticism of any of the groups, which some of them deserve. I don't have a problem with that. I would have add a few other things, but likely if they were added, the editors took them out.

What I am most dismayed at is the title of the article: "Younger worshippers flock back to church: From mainline to modern, youthful ministries flourish." Now, I am fairly sure that most reporters never write their own headlines. That is done by editors. In this case the bias of those editors comes out in full glory. Read this excerpt from the article:

According to a March Gallup poll, 48 percent of America's 18- to 29-year-olds and 59 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds say religion is important in their lives.

But a much smaller number attends services. Only 30 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds and 40 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds say they have attended services in the past week.

Despite national surveys that say there has been only a slight attendance increase among young people over the past decade, local churches say they are seeing a significant upswing of young faces in their congregations.

So nationally few younger people are going to church (with a ?slight attendance increase? over the last ten years) and local church groups claim they are seeing a ?significant? increase in attendance, that information is then somehow transformed to "flourish" and "flock back?" Local churches who are in the business of spinning their message to gain new members are claiming they are beating the national trends, but they don't provide support for their comments and this is enough to claim that young people are filling local churches like their is no tomorrow?? (cough, cough) This information is in the article and editors paint the story as a ?Win? for religion on a big church holiday. How convenient.

I also hope that Freddi Caldwell, a subject in the article, was also joking when he told Maggie that he was a former ?heathen.? If not, well that indicates to me a sign of not only ignorance, but a sign of a person grasping for meaning and buying into something because it?s easy. He was going on about drinking filling a void. If he is an alcoholic I hope he is not claiming he drank because he was not religious. Alcoholism is a disease, not the result from the lack of religious conviction. Religion can satisfy people?s emotional needs, but not their physical needs.

What an Opening Paragraph

Libertarian-Conservative Jim Pinkerton I think has written one of the best opening paragraphs outlining the problem with Bush's pre-9/11 stance on al Qaeda:

"If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, 'Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific,' and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?"

That sums up the failings of Bush. It is not that he could have done anything to prevent 9/11. He likely could not have. What he could have done was to try harder and to admit that he could have tried harder. Instead his surrogates (he says little on the subject) just claim nothing could have been done or that it was someone else's fault, namely the red herring of all red herrings, Bill Clinton.

Bush's campaign has its focus: "Bush is a great leader." What Pinkerton points out is that he may be the person walking out in front, but that does not make him a leader.

This morning John Dean was interveiwed on NPR and made a point about Bush and Cheney meeting together with the 9/11 commission. His point is that Bush is just the Head of State, and Cheney really runs the government. Bush can't answer things without Cheney by his side. This point has been made before, but has mostly been satire. Here we see it in action. Bush's support generally is rested on the personal connect people on the right have for the guy. His frat boy charm is something I find vomit inducing, but the conservative subculture (bible thumpers and small businessmen) eat that attitude up. Bush is the Head of State the GOP wants. What Pinkerton and Dean's observations support is the empty suit charge made against Bush. Bush is not an idiot, but he is a long way from an engaged commander-in-chief.

[Pinkerton Link via TPM]

UPDATE: Great Minds Think alike. Kevin Drum comments on this paragraph as well.

Theocracy in Action

I have been criticized many times for painting groups with a broad brush. I disagree in nearly every instant because I am careful to choose most of my words carefully and point to specific individuals. What I do is call out those who would agree with individuals or have in the past and ask if they agree with the tactics or message they put forward. Today I am doing just that. I am calling out Conservative Christians and ask them if they agree with the tactics and message of Kent Ostrander and his Family Foundation.

His group, out of Lexington, Kentucky, has been out pushing its religious views into the government. Do Conservative Christians want a theocracy? I think they do. I think many want a state religion that outlaws our historical and current secular government, and replace it with some type of faux democracy. Now, when I call people out who do I mean? Well, I mean the usual suspects: Peter Bronson, Simon Leis, Phil Heimlich, Phil Burress, Sam Malone, and even Damon Lynch III. Threw in Lynch mostly to cause a ruckus, but also because of the constant rumor that his is a closet Republican.

So what are the intentions of conservative Christians? They want a state religion by popular vote? Some say that. Do they want to smite out atheists? Some do want that. Why do Conservatives want to put ?God? into government? What is their purpose? Why do they seek to ban Gay Marriage? I have asked for a detail reason for that position for a long time and have yet heard anything on my blog, which I did not really expect, or in the media which seems to just let the question hang out there without any substance behind their opposition to it.

Where are we going? With the letter from yesterday?s paper I mentioned sectarian strife. We are going down the road toward conflict that as I said before is going to result in violence. Kerry?s rally here last week came close to some violence. As the summer goes on the battle lines on the culture wars on the Iraq wars, and on the war for the truth will end up with violence. Call me Chicken Little, call me Ishmael, call me a stupid son of a bitch. What I don?t think you will call me is wrong.

Religous Bigotry

In a letter to the Cincinnati Enquirer we read:

Don't let Kerry, atheists, media win
In response to Sen. John Kerry's challenge for Cincinnati to rise up - 'this election is the most important election of our lifetime' - I must agree, but for a much different reason. We've had a brief return to 'One nation under God,' one of which we can be proud. Are we going to continue with a brave and decent man in the White House, who does the right thing, popular or not?
Margery Sowell, Springfield Township

Ms. Sowell is chicken. She is chicken to come out and say what she wants. She wants a President who is a member of her religious sect, or at least a sect that she can relate to or tolerate. Now, John Kerry is Christian, a Roman Catholic to be specific. I am going to guess that Ms. Sowell does not have anything against Catholics. I could be wrong, but I will be that is not the issue.

Round Three

On the third Anniversary of the 2001 riots it appears that the media is going to startbeating on Cincinnati Again. I guess the 1 anniversary and the 2 were not enough. Here is another column on the Dateline programming airing tonight. Tune in and see what the show reports for yourself.

A Lie or a Delay?

Ken Blackwell has chosen a new voting machine for Hamilton County. He chose eSlate, a machine manufactured by Hart InterCivic of Austin, Texas. What I find troubling is what Blackwell's spokesman said:

A joint committee of Ohio's General Assembly recommended Wednesday that by 2006 all county elections boards be required to allow voters to confirm their choices with a paper receipt. Blackwell supports studying the issue of voter-verifiable paper trails but the technology is unavailable and unproven, spokesman Carlo LoParo said Thursday.

The technology exists, whether or not any of the companies are willing to respond to demand is another problem. How could it be "unproven?" You have a machine that currently "writes" the vote to a data disc. It is not difficult to at the same time it writes to the disc it also print out that data in a report that can be verified by the voter and then stored like current paper ballots are stored at the polling place and then Board of Elections. It is not that difficult a process. The paper trail would serve as a back-up, both for a technical error and for a legal challenge to an election.

I will paint LoParo's comments as spin and not a lie, but that is being generous. It is after all the job of a political spokesperson to lie for their boss, but convince as many people as possible that they are not lying.