Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

KN4M 12-31-03

Expand Messages
  • robalini@aol.com
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Computer Voting Is Open To Easy Fraud The
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      Computer Voting Is Open To Easy Fraud
      The Year Democracy Ended
      By Bob Fitrakis
      12-23-3

      As the year ends, 2003 will be remembered by future historians as the
      year the pretense of democracy in the United States ended.

      Since the 1940s, conservatives have accepted the assumption of
      economist Joseph Schumpeter that democracy in a mass society existed
      of little more than the following: the adult population could vote;
      the votes were fairly counted; and the masses could choose between
      elites from one of two parties.

      With the most recent revelations about the 2000 Bush coup in Florida
      disclosed in the shocking stolen Diebold memos, the Bush family has
      signaled that an authoritarian right-wing dynasty is the future
      course for American politics.

      The Sunday, November 12, 2000 Washington Post, buried on page A22,
      the smoking gun of the Bush family's CIA-style rigged "demonstration"
      election in Florida: "Something very strange happened on election
      night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official of Volusia
      County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and
      found that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000
      votes. But when she checked the county 's Web site for an update half
      an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had
      dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had
      picked up 10,000 ... all because of a single precinct with only 600
      voters."

      So it should come as no surprise when the New York Times headline on
      July 24 of this year read "Computer voting is open to easy fraud."
      The work by Alastair Thompson at http://www.scoop.co.nz and Bev
      Harris in her essential new book Black Box Voting reveal not only
      that computer voting is open to fraud but that massive and widespread
      fraud occurred in the 2000 election.

      Moreover, the emboldened Bush administration appears to have
      continued its fraud in the 2002 and subsequent elections. Why not?
      The investigation by Senator Frank Church in the 1970s revealed that
      the U.S. CIA routinely rigged elections throughout the world and was
      involved in overthrowing democracies and installing dictatorships as
      needed during the Cold War. The list is familiar to human rights
      advocates: Iran and Guatemala in the 50s; Chile and Greece in the
      70s.

      Four computer scientists at Rice University and a separate study by
      the Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University document how easy
      it is to hack into the Diebold voting machines. Diebold's CEO Wally
      O'Dell is an ardent Bush supporter who recently hosted a $10,000-a-
      plate fundraiser for the President in his manor in the affluent
      Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington. He is "committed to helping Ohio
      deliver its electoral votes to the President next year" while, at the
      same time, attempting to contract with the state of Ohio for his
      fabulously flawed voting machines.

      And it's not just Diebold. The largest seller of computerized voting
      systems in the U.S. is ES&S, whose former top exec is now Nebraska's
      Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who won after ES&S machines reported
      an unusual and stunning black vote for him.

      The Dallas News reported that early voting in the 2002 election
      created ". . . several dozen complaints . . . from people who said
      that they selected a Democratic candidate but that their vote
      appeared beside the name of a Republican on the screen."

      Recall the six major upsets of Democrats by Republicans in Georgia in
      the 2002 election. The state's votes were counted on the unreliable
      and easily hackable 22,000 Diebold machines. Also during the 2002
      election, where over 1000 votes were cast in other races, no votes
      were registered for governor as Clinton administration Attorney
      General went down to a surprisingly 5000 vote loss.

      As a result of these obvious voting irregularities, hackers went into
      the Diebold system and stole thousands of documents and internal
      memos which expose the 2000 Florida coup. In Harris' book based on
      these documents and interviews with Diebold officials, she outlines
      how Gore originally conceded the election after somebody used
      a "second [computer] card (card #3) that mysteriously appeared,
      subtracted 16,022 from Al Gore and still in some undefined way, added
      4000 erroneous votes to George W. Bush . . ."

      A summary of the 2002 election by scoop.co.nz found that in 14 races,
      there was a 3-16 point swing to the Republican Party after the final
      poll was taken providing several stunning upsets. By contrast, in
      only two races was there a swing toward the Democratic Party, between
      2-4 points. In three other races, the pollsters were within the
      margin of error.

      The American people have been socialized into denial. First about the
      ruthless and imperialist nature of their 26 intelligence-gathering
      agencies including the CIA and NSA that have been involved in rigging
      elections worldwide and the ongoing involvement by these agencies in
      American politics. What is obviously evolved is a praetorian guard,
      loyal only to the Bush family, that some call the "shadow
      government."

      Most Americans are intent to stick their heads in the sand on Bush's
      vote-rigging and our troops in the sands of Iraq. Future historians
      will record that while the facts and documentation of the end of
      American republic mounted, many believed the babbling of a low-IQ'ed
      well-scripted son of the new aristocracy.

      Bob Fitrakis is a Political Science Professor in the Social and
      Behavioral Sciences department at Columbus State Community College,
      and author of The Idea of Democratic Socialism in America and the
      Decline of the Socialist Party (Garland Publishers 1993). He is the
      editor of The Free Press, where this article first appeared
      (www.freepress.org).

      *****

      The Death of Horatio Alger
      By Paul Krugman, The Nation
      December 23, 2003

      The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made
      outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a
      society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they
      work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic
      status of their father than they were a generation ago.

      The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an
      article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article
      summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United
      States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined
      considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research
      together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income
      and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America
      looks more and more like a class-ridden society.

      And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can
      to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains -
      or even points out what is happening - as a practitioner of "class
      warfare."

      Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years
      ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always been
      thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed
      that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however,
      America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and
      Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing
      of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies. And the
      new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong
      unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high
      incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate management - all helped
      to keep income gaps relatively small. The economy was hardly
      egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s
      seemed very distant.

      Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas
      Piketty and Emmanuel Saez - confirmed by data from the Congressional
      Budget Office - between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the
      bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent.
      Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the
      income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of
      the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital
      gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The
      distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to
      Gilded Age levels of inequality.

      Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like
      that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, "Income Mobility and the
      Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments." America, they say, isn't a caste
      society - people with high incomes this year may have low incomes
      next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all.
      That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point
      out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for
      some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like
      to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid.

      The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a
      general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up
      and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite
      studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official
      under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the
      younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving
      from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what
      these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is
      mainly "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job
      by his early 30s." Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-
      mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods
      isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes.

      It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial
      intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their
      fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose
      fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by
      social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25
      percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after
      World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real
      experience for many people.

      Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of
      today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only
      10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has
      fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making
      their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other
      studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become
      vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons'
      incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems,
      you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into
      which you were born.

      Business Week attributes this to the "Wal-Martization" of the
      economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the
      disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class. That's
      surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role - and
      will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the
      future.

      Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and
      you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to
      further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots.
      What would you do?

      One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so
      that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More
      broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits
      and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that
      those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily
      accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly
      useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax
      rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll
      tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with
      lower incomes.

      Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the
      poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher
      education. This would make it more difficult for people with low
      incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education
      essential to upward mobility in the modern economy.

      And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible,
      you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd
      privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could
      be replaced with poorly paid private employees.

      It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it?

      Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez has
      transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns that
      current policies will eventually create "a class of rentiers in the
      U.S., whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children
      controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented
      children simply can't compete." If he's right - and I fear that he
      is - we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a
      vast waste of human potential.

      Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream.

      Paul Krugman, an economics professor at Princeton and a columnist at
      the New York Times, is the author, most recently, of "The Great
      Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century" (Norton).

      *****

      Radio Nederland Wereldomroep
      http://www.rnw.nl

      The whispering wheel
      by Thijs Westerbeek, 15 december 2003

      A new Dutch invention can make cars, busses and other vehicles no
      less than 50 percent more efficient and thus more environmentally
      friendly. Better still, the technology is already available; it all
      comes down to a smart combination of existing systems.

      This winter, in the city of Apeldoorn, a city bus will be used to
      prove that the claims about the new invention are true. These are
      quite bold. E-traction, the company that developed the bus, boasts
      fuel savings of up to 60 per cent, with emissions down to only a
      fraction of the soot and carbon dioxide an ordinary bus would blow
      out of its tailpipe.

      In addition, the test bus requires no adaptation, its drivers need no
      extra training and there'll be no discomfort for passengers. It will
      simply run on diesel, just like all the other buses, and it should be
      just as reliable. One thing however will be very different; the
      Apeldoorn bus hardly makes a sound, hence its nickname "the
      whisperer".

      In-wheel engine

      All this is made possible by an `in-wheel' electric engine, in fact
      nothing more than a normal electric engine turned inside out.

      The outer wall of a traditional electric engine is a cylinder lined
      on the inside with copper wire. If electricity is fed into the copper
      wire, the current will circle the cylinder on the inside at high
      speed. Cylinder and wire together are called the `stator' (because it
      doesn't move).

      To change the electricity running along the inner wall of the
      cylinder into movement, another part of the engine comes into
      play: `the rotor'. This is in fact an axle, mounted in the centre of
      the cylinder, with permanent magnets attached to it. The electrical
      current in the stator pulls the rotor magnets along and the axle
      starts to turn.

      The wheel works precisely the other way around. The fixed part of the
      engine - the stator - is now on the inside. The wire is wrapped
      around it.

      The moving part of the engine - the rotor - is no longer an axle
      fitted with magnets but a ring running on the outside of the stator.

      The magnets are fixed on the inside of this ring. If power is fed
      into the engine the magnets will - as before - follow the current,
      but now it's the ring on the outside, which will turn.

      Eureka

      And that's what makes `the whisperer´revolutionary; a ring
      functioning as a wheel. By just putting a tire on it you can drive a
      bus, a car, anything with it. Since the wheel is in fact the engine,
      no axles or any other friction-producing and therefore energy-wasting
      mechanical parts are needed.

      Even the transmission is unnecessary; if you want to go faster you
      just run more electricity through the engine. And it works really
      well while braking, when the in-wheel engine works as a generator,
      produces electricity to charge the batteries.

      The whispering wheel with and without tyre

      Pack of Batteries

      The power to drive the Apeldoorn bus is stored in a big battery pack
      that sits in a steel drawer under the bus. Changing the batteries
      every time they're drained would be impractical, as would be taking
      the bus out of service for recharging them for hours on end. Instead,
      a small diesel-powered generator built into what used to be the bus's
      engine bay continuously charges the whole battery pack.

      Since in-wheel engines are so highly efficient, the generator's
      diesel engine can be very small, about the size of the compact city
      car's engine. Because charging the batteries is all it needs to do,
      the tiny engine consumes very little fuel and can run continuously at
      a speed of 1700 revs per minute, the most efficient rev count.

      Clean and quiet

      Passengers will find it more important that the bus is quiet and
      clean. No more roaring buses pulling away from the station in a cloud
      of diesel fumes. When the whisperer pulls away (and whenever it
      drives for that matter), the power comes from the batteries, not the
      diesel engine which simply keeps on purring quietly.

      Furthermore, the constant rev count makes the catalyser much more
      effective, and the small size of the engine makes it possible to
      completely fill the rest of the engine bay with sound proofing. Being
      90 percent quieter than other buses, the `whisperer' really deserves
      its name.

      Testing period

      In the coming six months the bus has to prove itself in everyday
      practice. Come summer, the city of Apeldoorn is set to decide whether
      to use whisperers on a larger scale in public transport. Dr Arjan
      Heinen, inventor of the whisperer and director of E-traction,
      radiates confidence: "This is a practical solution for present-day
      public transport. Every bus driver can get behind the wheel and do
      his job as before, only now it's quiet, clean and energy-efficient."

      The future of the in-wheel electric engine seems bright. At the
      recent Tokyo Motor Show, it was the engine of choice in many of the
      futuristic hydrogen-powered concept cars.

      *****

      Law.com
      Court Finds Felon Disenfranchisement Law Discriminatory
      Monday December 29, 2003
      Kelly Cramer, Miami Daily Business Review

      In a Dec. 19 opinion that reviews the history of Sunshine State's
      constitution, the 11th Circuit said that there is evidence that the
      state's felon disenfranchisement law discriminated against blacks
      when it was enacted and that discrimination may persist to this day.
      Thomas Johnson, et al. v. Governor of the State of Florida, et al.

      A racist boast by a white delegate to the 1868 Constitutional
      Convention that he kept blacks from taking over the state helped
      convince the federal appeals court that the law violates the U.S.
      Constitution's equal protection clause.

      By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court partially reversed summary judgment
      in favor of Gov. Jeb Bush, his cabinet and the election supervisors
      in the state's 67 counties. The class action suit filed by eight ex-
      felons could affect more than a half-million people currently denied
      the right to vote.

      The court affirmed U.S. Southern District of Florida Judge James
      Lawrence King's order dismissing claims that denying clemency to ex-
      felons who haven't paid court-ordered restitution violates laws
      against poll taxes. But it remanded equal protection and voting
      rights claims for trial.

      "We conclude that an original discriminatory purpose behind Florida's
      felon disenfranchisement provision establishes an equal protection
      violation that persists with the provision unless it is subsequently
      reenacted on the basis of an independent, nondiscriminatory purpose,"
      Judge Rosemary Barkett wrote for the majority.

      Citing evidence offered by the plaintiffs, Barkett noted that 10.5
      percent of voting-age African-Americans cannot vote because they are
      ex-felons, while 4.4 percent of voting-age nonblacks are barred
      because of felony convictions.

      The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., criminal justice think
      tank, reports that 13 percent of African-American men are unable to
      vote nationally because of felon disenfranchisement laws.

      Barkett cited other evidence showing blacks are convicted of felonies
      at rates disproportionate to arrest rates that show involvement in
      criminal activities is not race-related.

      Florida is one of four remaining states to bar first-time felons from
      voting unless they receive clemency and have their rights restored.
      Three states have loosened or lifted their bans in recent months.

      In Florida, felons who have completed their sentences lose the right
      to vote, cannot serve on juries, hold public office or qualify for
      some state occupational licenses.

      To regain these rights, they must apply to the Board of Executive
      Clemency, which consists of the governor and his cabinet. The process
      can take several years.

      In her dissent, Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch said the reversal is wrong
      because the 14th Amendment specifically allows states to forbid
      convicted felons from voting. She agreed with the majority affirming
      King's dismissal of a claim that denying clemency to those ex-felons
      who haven't paid their court-ordered restitution violates laws
      against poll taxes.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.