Thought Bandit

I'm from the Government, I'm here to help.

KG Elliott — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:42:00 GMT

Just in case anyone wants to think about what happens when Government gets involved with things this article will help.

Sadly, I never once doubted the authenticity of the story. That was what really struck me. This is typical stuff. It has soaked down through the fabric of government. I thought about the various government agencies I have come in contact with in search of some sanity and a hopeful example that would make me cheer, "good job!" .... er, .... Nothing. Even the most inspired ideas are crushed flat during the implementation. [Comments continue after the article]

Wheelchair ramp will cost $100,000 a foot
San Francisco Chronicle
Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross
Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Where else but San Francisco City Hall could a 10-foot-long wheelchair ramp wind up costing $1 million?

Thanks to a maze of bureaucratic indecision and historic restrictions, taxpayers may shell out $100,000 per foot to make the Board of Supervisors president's perch in the historic chambers accessible to the disabled.

What's more, the little remodel job that planners first thought would take three months has stretched into more than four years - and will probably mean the supervisors will have to move out of their hallowed hall for five months while the work is done.

"It's crazy," admits Susan Mizer, director of the mayor's Office on Disability. "But this is just the price of doing business in a historic building."

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick said Tuesday that the issue went to the heart of liberal guilt that often drives the city's decision making. He also choked on the price tag, and asked that the board take some more time to come up with an alternative, like maybe just getting rid of the president's elevated seat.

The root of the problem dates back to when City Hall got a $300 million makeover in the 1990s that made just about every hallway, bathroom and office accessible to the disabled. The exception was the board president's podium, which is reachable only for someone who can climb the five steps from the chamber floor.

The understanding was that the room would eventually be made fully accessible. But no one worried about the podium until 2004 when Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who uses a wheelchair, joined the board.

City architect Tony Irons and representatives of the state Office of Historic Preservation - which had to be consulted to make sure the city was sensitive to the building's designation as a state landmark - were called in to take measurements.

Then preservation architects from the San Francisco firm Page and Turnbill worked up no fewer than 18 design options - at a cost of $98,000 - with ideas ranging from an electric lift to abandoning the president's lordly podium altogether.

No one could decide which design to use, so after a year of arguing, the Department of Public Works was ordered to make 3-D computer models of all the options.

The ramp won, which means lowering the president's desk, which means eliminating three of the "historic" stairs and tearing out Manchurian oak panels that are no longer available, which in turn will mean finding a historically correct replacement.

And because the ramp was going to encroach on the room's sound equipment, officials decided they might as well use the opportunity to upgrade the board chamber's entire audio-visual system, to the tune of $300,000.

Here's what else is going into the million-dollar ramp:

-- $77,000 for the city's Bureau of Architecture project manager, design and construction fees.

-- $455,000 for the actual construction, plus asbestos removal.

-- $28,000 for a construction scheduling consultant.

-- $3,500 for an electrical consultant.

-- $68,000 for the Bureau of Construction Management to oversee the construction and various consultants.

-- $12,000 for Department of Technology and Information Services oversight.

-- $16,500 for permits and fees. (Yes, believe it or not, the city charges itself.)

-- And as much as $65,000 for bid overruns.

All for a total of: $1,123,000.

And counting.

The supervisors considered signing off on the work Tuesday but put it over for another week. Even if the board gives its final blessing, however, construction of the ramp won't be completed before the end of the year - midway through Alioto-Pier's second and final term.

"I deserve equal access to every part of the chamber," Alioto-Pier told her colleagues, adding that ending discrimination is worth the $1 million.

I just re-read this (article) again and I shuddered at the fact that this overhead is at a City level involving a single room of a single building ! Then followed the realization that the federal government is desperate to insert itself further into the health system. I felt the need to open a window. I tried to manufacture some solace by calculating my likely expiration date against the deterioration rate of the health system as the departments grow and the rules compound. Drats, it will kick in just as I need care the most and am too weak to fight. Then I really freaked myself out at the inescapable rationale which says that once the main body of health care has been taken over, dental is next.

Swift Boating 2008

KG Elliott — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:40:00 GMT

Swift Boating - who has the keys to the boat ?

“Swift Boating” has become a part of the political lexicon. Incredibly (predictably), the definition has been reversed. We could take this as proof that there is no political consultant alive today who hasn’t read George Orwell’s 1984, but we would also have to also assume that no voter alive today has.

Today, Swift Boating is defined as an untruthful, sinister, conspiratorial attack on anything a politician has said or done . This is a really handy way to defect uncomfortable scrutiny. It will be used daily during this election cycle.

Thus, it’s worth a moment to understand the origin of the term and the cure.

Presidential candidate John Kerry wanted some of the political capital earned by a war hero in the aftermath of 911. He made extensive use of his purple hearts from the Viet Nam war. A group of his contemporaries challenged his story.

WITHOUT REGARD to which side was right, Kerry had the keys to the boat. With a single signature he could have released his military medical records and ended the argument. How it would have turned out doesn’t matter to the point I’m about to make.

My point is this: We (the voters), are about to go through hours of needless talk about the 2008 versions of Swift Boating, again, needlessly. These iterations will obscure the real issues that real voters need to consider. Plus it will be just plain ugly and turn off the lion’s share of voters from the process. This can and should be avoided.

While I can’t claim to know who and / or what will make up all of these arguments, I can promise you that one of them will be Sen. H. Clinton’s years of White House experience. She has the keys to that boat. With a single signature she can release the records from the Clinton Library.

My opinion extends, equally, to any candidate, of any party, who trades on their record while keeping it locked up.

Voter ID

KG Elliott — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:15:00 GMT

Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID
Justices to Hear Challenge to Law
By Robert Barnes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/24/AR2007122401892.html
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 25, 2007; Page A01

“The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.”
>>Snip>>
“Democrats there challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, although they have not produced a person who wanted to vote but was unable to do so because of the law.”
>>Snip>>
“The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?”
_______________________________________________________
How can anyone - without a motive - consider requiring a standard ID to place a vote as some sort of unconstitutional oppression ? ! ?

How can the media consider this issue as a partisan strategy ? Unless, maybe, it is.
And if it is - how do we decide for ourselves if Voter IDs are good or bad for a democracy ?
To me it’s as simple as can be,.Voter IDs should be required .

The argument that some folks are old enough to remember the Jim Crow laws and be intimidated to the point of not voting is ridiculous. And if there is a standing example of this hypothetical, surely they can be comforted by their party leadership.
Further, if there is someone who does not have a photo ID, they can get one. If you know of anyone who can’t, just let me know and I’ll arrange to get them help.

I personally signed up to be an election worker two years ago just to see how it works from the inside. I can tell you first hand that anyone with a phone book can vote multiple times on any given election day in multiple voting districts. Even if a poll worker is suspicious, there is no system to challenge the vote or even to call for help. The fact that in this case it is the Democrats who are going to the Supreme Court .... shame on them.

Sanctuary Cities: The Hoax

KG Elliott — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:06:00 GMT

Sanctuary Cities: The Hoax

Sanctuary cities are hard to number because while some are upfront about it, others are doing the same thing in a de facto way. In either case, they make the same general claim that it is not their mandate to determine the legal or illegal immigration status of the criminals they arrest.

HOWEVER, these very same city, county and state jurisdictions do EXACTLY that !!

Yup, and they claim reimbursement for jailing them from the US Department of Justice. But don’t take my word for it. You can find the details of every jurisdiction and how much they have been paid for jailing illegals on the DOJ web site.

When you read the reports, remember that this is the tip of the iceberg. They don’t get paid until the criminal reaches the level of felon or repeat offender and after four days of incarceration. Think of the number of criminals who make bail or are released on personal recognizance before four days and you start to see the scale of the hypocrisy.

This is public information and I’m shocked that every local news editor isn’t asking their local authorities about it. (someone is assigned to tract them in every department) I’ll admit it is a little hard to find because it falls under the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. “The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.” The specific program is named “State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)”.

Here are the links to the web site and it’s download PDFs.

FY 2007 Information:
FY 2007 SCAAP Guidelines (PDF)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/2007_SCAAP_Guidelines.pdf
FY 2007 ICE Country Codes (PDF)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/FY2007_ICE_Country_Codes.pdf

FY 2007 Inmate Data File Format (PDF)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/FY2007SCAAP_Inmate_Data_Elements.pdf
Related Information:
FY 2006 SCAAP Payment List
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/06SCAAPPayments.pdf

FY 2005 SCAAP Award Information
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/05SCAAP.html
SCAAP Archive Information
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/scaap_site.html
Contact Information:
Written Inquiries:
Linda Hammond-Deckard
SCAAP Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20531

So there you have it. Do something.

Immigration vs. Illegal Imigration

KG Elliott — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:42:00 GMT

Immigration Law:

I listened to Tony Snow from the White House on the Rush Limbaugh show. I've heard discussions on the Melenie Morgan show. I listen to the topic on the remaining shreds of Air America, Ed Shultz, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Riely, et all. I’m surprised how both political polar starting points get this carrot in their lips but never in their teeth.

There are several bills and compromise bills floating around. In my opinion there is a much better starting point. Let’s see if you agree.

There are several components that all sides, including we the unwashed public, agree on:

Something needs to be done.
There are between 12 - 17 million people involved.
We can’t logistically deport that many people all at once.
Unions and political parties want 12 million “fresh meat” voters.
Illegal immigrants come here for the jobs.
American business needs the workers.
Amnesty for “Illegals” is off the table for the public .

The better starting point is:
- Offer amnesty to the American Business.
- Don’t even attempt to do a mass deportation.
- Fix the legal immigration system.
- Revamp the US Justice Dept. system for reimbursement for local law enforcement as regards Illegals.
- Establish a separate identification system for non-citizens.

Amnesty for Business:
Business has one year to register their illegal and suspected illegal workers. During this period the workers can continue working with the employer paying a per pay-period fee. This fee is calculated to even out the pay rate with immigrants and US citizens. Half of the aggregate fee will be returned to the employer if the immigrant eventually becomes legalized. The natural chain of events here is that each business will realistically asses which worker is worth the investment. Those not deemed to be worthy will be cut loose and go into the wind. It is important to recognize that these “in the wind” people will not worsen the existing problem. It will leave them in the existing problem but less of them, thus the first cut has been made. A portion of these wind people may settle into another business’s acceptable group. The rest will either “self-deport” which might include going further north to another country or they will become obvious to the ICE system. The immigrants who stay with the employer will for the first time be fully identified. This is a major accomplishment. The fees paid by the employer will be directed to partially fund the other elements of the plan.

Mass Deportation:
As I said, don’t even try it. Once the number has been reduced in step one, deportation has to be Criminals First. A One Strike, zero tolerance for crimes big or small. The question becomes to where do we deport them. If their home nations want to continue to receive foreign aid and or trade benefits, they will have to pay to come get them. In contrast to the previous step, this is not a case by case proposition. If a particular nation will not agree to come and get their citizens its time to finally make use of the UN for the type of mission they are good at. Remember, the accepted catalyst in the first place was jobs. The UN can arrange for jobs in other countries who also need workers. The illegal can accept the offer or voluntarily self-deport to their home port. As a last choice, jail. This will likely be out-sourced and cause a whole new dust up. But that can be worked out in a separate essay. However, by this point the numbers have been reduced to a manageable size, Another major accomplishment.

Fix the Legal Immigration Policy:
I won’t spend a lot of words here except to say that the main problems have grown over time, much like feature creep in computer software, with all the exceptions that have become policy. It needs to be rolled back to the original standards. Most importantly, we must remove the technicality known as the “Anchor Baby”. As it stands now if, let’s say, a couple from Denmark is on a cruise ship inside US territorial waters and have a baby - that baby is a US citizen. The current immigration policy extends extra rights to the parents. Its just plain wrong.

Revamp Justice Dept. Reimbursement:
Currently, even in the so-called Sanctuary Cities and Counties, the US Dept. of Justice pays the local costs of police and courts for jailing repeat felony illegal immigrants. The key word is repeat. This has become a planned revenue source for these entities who see it as good business to keep unused jail cells filled and overtime pay flowing in a sick catch and release dance. You can find the exact figures for all jurisdictions on the Justice Dept. web site. You have to drill down a bit but you will be shocked at the millions of dollars sent to even small communities. Look at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/05SCAAP.html and click - “ Go to the FY 2005 SCAAP Payment List... “ Shocking.

Separate identification system for non-citizens:
None of us (US Citizens) wants a National ID card. The need for this is muted by establishing a separate ID system for non-nationals. Throw all of the technology we have at it. Naturally, it should be compatible with the Interpol system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. Obviously, this is a brief overview of the strategy and anyone who is predisposed to do so can chip away at the details. The objective, as it is with all the posts here, is to plant a seed and let others expand, nurture, perfect and claim these ideas as their own.

ACLU Salaries

KG Elliott — Mon, 21 May 2007 04:32:00 GMT

" Salary is commensurate with experience, within the parameters of the ACLU compensation scale. Excellent benefits package provided. ... "

I became curious about the ACLU and the money that pours through it. It seems that the awards they win always include legal fees. However those fees aren't disclosed. Evidently there is such a thing as the "ACLU Compensation Scale".
I'm not having much luck finding a copy of it. When I do a search on the web it returns 155,000 job offers. I didn't, of course, count to se how many were unique. Still, when I do the same search within the ACLU.org site it returns 120,000.

If anyone has some light to shed, please do so.
I'm somewhat surprised at not finding any details about this. I'm not ready to say that the ACLU doesn't want the public to know. After all they are quick to say eleswhere that the pay rate is low.

ACLU - Rock Paper Scissors.

KG Elliott — Mon, 21 May 2007 03:11:00 GMT

I think we need a new law that says every judge in the country is issued a sort of "preemptive challenge".
It would say that a judge has 3 lifetime "preemptive challenges" allowing them to decide cases brought by the ACLU using Rock Paper Scissors !

This is not to say that all ACLU cases are wrong or unworthy.
What I'm saying is this: While I don't know exactly how many judges we have in this country, if they each knocked out just three of the silly ones during their career - its a start.

I know my whacky notion can never become law. But step through the natural chain of events if it did. Judges will be called out in a de-facto way as to their bias regarding the extreme ACLU issues. The ACLU will have to up the pace in their judge shopping and hopefully the public will actually mark their ballots when it comes to electing judges.

In the case of this particular school district I bet they could spend the cost of this trial more effectively than on Tigger socks.

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/05/20/news/local/iq_3959435.txt
ACLU v. Redwood dress code
'Tigger socks' case gears up for Napa court
By DAVID RYAN, Register Staff Writer
Sunday, May 20, 2007

When the ACLU helped a group of Redwood Middle School students and their parents sue the Napa Valley Unified School District over their school's dress code policy in March, it ignited controversy around the world in the court of public opinion.

The next round in the dress code battle will play out in the courtroom of Napa County Superior Court Judge Raymond Guadagni.

On Wednesday, lawyers involved in the case are scheduled to show up at a hearing that will determine whether the school can enforce the dress code policy or set up a system where parents can excuse their children from abiding by it.

According to court papers, the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction against the district is made on grounds the plaintiffs "have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury" unless the injunction is granted. The ACLU charges the dress code is a violation of the students' free speech rights under the state and federal constitutions -- and the state education code, which decrees students of public schools have the right to wear "... buttons, badges and other insignia."

School attorneys say the plaintiffs should not get an injunction because they bypassed the school's complaint policy, and because ACLU attorneys cite federal, not state law to show cause for it. What's more, school lawyers argue the injunction would unfairly disrupt the school with only 15 days before the end of the school year.

Redwood Middle School has the strictest dress code policy in the Napa Valley Unified School District, banning every color but white, yellow, green, blue, brown, khaki, black and gray.

Clothing must be made out of cotton twill, corduroy or chino -- no denim -- and brand labels, logos, words and flags are out, too, no matter how petite.

The rules were put in place in the late 1990s to discourage gangs on campus, a policy school officials say has worked in recent years.

Plaintiffs Toni Kay Scott and her sister, Sydni, however, are part of a small group of a dissidents who believe the policy violates their free speech rights. Toni Kay has said she's been punished, "dress coded", more than a dozen times, most famously for wearing argyle socks with a picture of the Winnie-the-Pooh character Tigger on them. School officials found Sydni in violation once for wearing a shirt that had the words "Jesus Freak" on it.

Yet courts have in recent years been struggling with the definitions of allowed free speech at schools stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, where in the late 1960s students wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Students won the right to some forms of free speech in that case, but among the legal questions facing judge Guadagni on Wednesday will be whether Tigger socks can be important enough to rank with a war protest.

"Plaintiffs cannot claim with a 'straight face' that, for example the wearing of Tigger socks rises to the serious level of political speech," school lawyers wrote in court documents.

"The freedom of expression the student plaintiffs seek is not reasonably calculated to render the educational experience at Redwood any less safe," ACLU lawyers wrote in their brief.
--

High School Student Speaks Out

KG Elliott — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:55:00 GMT

Cruising various the Opinion Page of various smalller newspapers I came across the following commentary. My reply follows her commentary.
Standardized tests suck the life out of learning
By KARA (last name omitted) Saturday, December 9, 2006 Kara is a Eleveth Grade High School Student

The conversation regarding education today seems strangely inconsistent. The educational conversation should naturally have the improvement and enlightenment of our nation’s young minds at its core; however, the current dialogue has transcended the discussion of education. In fact, education seems to largely have left the picture.

The entrance of (the School District) into state-mandated Program Improvement has brought to the surface long-simmering tensions over No Child Left Behind. This statute represents much of the current educational conversation — dry, focused on statistics, targets, AYP, SPSA, AMAOs, EPCs. Yet the problem with the current educational dialogue is not the program improvement, the statistics, the reading enrichment and supplemental math classes or the placement of students into additional support classes. It goes deeper than that. The fundamental flaw in education today is its reliance on standardized tests. English teachers may protest the invasion of anthologies and the death of the novel, students may complain about three math classes in a six-period day and administrators may challenge the haste with which these standards have been forced upon them. But if we do not address the core of the issue, a solution cannot be reached.

Standardized tests suck the life out of learning. In encouraging instructors to teach toward and students to pass a single test, the CST, the proposed educational system will produce students skilled at one thing — passing the test. Will they be able to look at soil samples and draw conclusions based upon their knowledge of human impact on local ecosystems? Will they be able to connect the symbolism of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables” to his commentary on politics, society and human nature? Will they be able to relate the anti-Communist “red scare” of the 1950s to Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” or even to the current war on terror? Maybe not. But they’ll sure be good at taking that test. Assessing student ability is not a bad thing; indeed, it is essential to the constructive criticism necessary to improve as a student and as an individual. Was the CST a comprehensive, holistic, deliberate assessment of student ability, growth, achievement and effort, this would be a moot subject. However, it is not. The CST tests the wrong things in the wrong way.

In today’s dialogue, the spirit of learning, of enlightenment, of thought and discussion and discovery, has been abandoned. With it has gone the purpose. What is the purpose of education if not to awaken in our children curiosity, inspiration and realization? What is its purpose if not to prepare young students for the analytical discussion, challenging decision-making and uncomfortable realizations they will undoubtedly face in college and in their adult lives? When these objectives are forsaken, education disappears as a moral goal and is replaced as a political tool and a business transaction. As the skills of analytical reading and writing are undermined and textbook teaching prevails, it seems more and more like politicians and businessmen are stripping from our children their most basic right, that of the pursuit of valuable knowledge.

The recommendations recently passed by the school board represent not a failure of our community to protect the rights of the student, but rather a failure in the higher levels. The current federal administration has proved itself inept in many areas of national policy; education is simply an addition to its list. No Child Left Behind is a paradoxical, backwards and unjust approach to the education of children. The time must be taken to forsake the standardized test and to develop a comprehensive, deliberate way to evaluate student ability. It can be done. The key is to abandon the unflagging, rigid superficial standards that block creative achievement and adopt principles that embrace student realization of universal truths. The institution of education can result in the achievement of education, but only if such influences as money and political gain remain peripheral.
--------- my response ----
Congratulations to Kara, the author of “Standardized Tests Suck the Life out of Learning” for a well written, cogent opinion about standardized testing (aka) No Child Left Behind.

If all our students met the standards exhibited by Kara, she’d be correct in her assertions. Sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the case is so far removed from that reality as to make her plea , well ... unrealistic.

Everything she rightly stakes out as a goal for education is unattainable without a high baseline standard of math and language. While I understand her frustration, I think its aimed at the messenger not the culprit.

At this point in time and history, it has become necessary to inflict remedial instruction on our current crop of students. That she, and some percentage of students, don’t need it is really a separate issue. As an aside, Kara and her peers should be allowed to attend a private school, of her choice, with no additional costs to them beyond the school taxes her parents and we already pay. This is a notion that has always been vilified by the educational establishment, called vouchers.

In the mean time, America owes it to their students a knowledge of math and language as a foundation to learn all of the rest. Even if that quest has to be pushed back until after high school for a while.

For example she ponders the question: “Will they be able to look at soil samples and draw conclusions based upon their knowledge of human impact on local ecosystems? “ Not detecting any sarcasm in her question, I have to say that it precisely makes the case for NCLB. How does one meaningfully create, compare and analyze soil samples without some fairly high math skills . Further, how does one then communicate the results without good language skills.

So all in all, I remind the reader and Kara in particular, that I’m very impressed with her commentary. Further, her taking a shot at capitalism in her last paragraph is understandable if one is willing to make some generalized assumptions about the adults which comprise her educational environment.

The fact that students like Kara must pay the price for the misuse of the educational system for the last 10 to 20 years is unfortunate but not wrong. The fact that they don’t have a readily available alternative is sad and hopefully a problem that Kara’s generation will solve.

I hope she and other students will utilize the newspaper to keep us up to date on how they feel and what they know.

Florida Election goes to Court 2006

KG Elliott — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:34:00 GMT

It had to happen - a law suit contesting the outcome of an election based on electronic voting.

In Saratoga County the looser of a Congressional seat is claiming that a disproportionate “undervote” means there must be a problem.

As you probably know, an Undervote is when on one particular contest on a ballot no vote is recorded for either or any candidate.

When losers want to raise an issue (winners seldom do) this is a standard complaint. It is shocking to me that this is so, so simply remedied its ridiculous !!

The fix requirers no change to the machine. No change to the software.
Just add a choice that says: “Intentionally Left Blank”. End of problem.

No this idea should not be confused with the similar but different “None of the Above”. The folks who suggest this continue on with the notion that this choice is a vote against both candidates. And if NoA gets the most votes a new election must be held. Tempting, but that is a different question and has very little chance of being adapted.

Even the idea on the table of Left Blank will meet with stiff resistance from politicians. This is because even if it would never trigger a revote, it would hurt their feelings and send a message that they won’t want to hear.

In my humble opinion, “Intentionally Left Blank” would be a good suggestion to everyone’s Registrar of Elections.

Can US Foreign Policy Survive Politicians ?

KG Elliott — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:33:00 GMT

The question is almost to simple and obvious to even ask. Can the foreign policy of the USA withstand the constant onslaught from half the politicians in the country ?

Lets assume that half the US politicians are form one party and the other half is from the other party.

Thus, a resounding success of our foreign policy is bad news for half of the career politicians.

So the question evolves to: How many career politicians are willing to set aside their own self-interests to support America and it's foreign policy ? 75 % ? , 50 % ? , 2 % ? .... Sadly, the answer is obvious.

Then pile on the career politicians from around the world who share the same low threshold of intellectual integrity and we arrive at the current world view of America.

Worse yet, we the public are too busy or too lazy to stand up and make ourselves heard by those politicians.

Electronic Voting Under Fire

KG Elliott — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:14:00 GMT

Electronic Voting will increasingly come under fire from two separate entities:

Those who instinctively don't trust it.

Those who want to manipulate the outcome of elections.

While that may sound like a contridiction, its not.

The first group may subscribe to conspiracy thinking or just may simple find computers unreliable and not very secure.

The second group may not be part of a conspiracy, per se, but they may feel strongly enough about the outcome of an election that sympatico insticts to allow any questionable paper ballot to fall their way. If one follows the voting process it just plain works out that the folks involved tend to pool up by party and amongst them are party activists.

One doesn't have to search too hard to find "Chicago Style" election adventures.

The point of this entry is to point out that the pressure to return to the bad old days is building.