READER COMMENTS ON
"This Week on The BRAD SHOW!"
(36 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
james
said on 6/9/2005 @ 5:43 pm PT...
{ed note: Deleted. Same poster posting as different names. When he posts as Atty Jim again his posts will be allowed to stay.}
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
VeryWorried
said on 6/9/2005 @ 5:44 pm PT...
6 or 7 people are voicing support for Congressmen Conyers at dKos.
Brad, since JC doesn't do interviews on weekends perhaps you should record an interview with him during the week and then play it in bits an pieces during one of your shows. Sound like a plan?
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Winter Patriot
said on 6/9/2005 @ 5:53 pm PT...
james sounds a lot like our old friend jimmo, but I don't have time to remind him about the one-name-per-poster rule. Oh well. He won't be a problem as long as everyone ignores him.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Peg C
said on 6/9/2005 @ 6:15 pm PT...
Brad, that looks like a winning line-up! Do you have a studio lined up, a little closer to home?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 6/9/2005 @ 6:47 pm PT...
What good is having Conyers on if you guys don't get to ask him questions?!
We'll keep working on him for that LIVE interview you know you want!
And yes, our fingers are crossed but we *may* have finally found our "homebase" studio. Much closer. But, as always, we'll wait to see how it goes! Lord *please* give us a clean technical show to meet our record of one in a row!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
KestrelBrighteyes
said on 6/9/2005 @ 6:57 pm PT...
Brad - I think you need to move to Nashville - I'm sure there's a studio somewhere out there that would love to have you!
(And in four years you can hire my kid to work for you, he's going to need a job if he doesn't get a college scholarship!)
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Winter Patriot
said on 6/9/2005 @ 7:01 pm PT...
Brad I echo Peg re this week's killer lineup. I wish I could be here with you, but as you [had better] remember, I'll be slacking off again, far from home at another family event. But Kira will be here to host the open thread, provided you start it for her.
Best wishes for a great show. I can't wait to listen to it next week via the archives.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
jimmo
said on 6/9/2005 @ 7:23 pm PT...
Why won't CONyers post the so called petition on the internet?
I can tell you why: because 1/3 of them are false, fake, and fraudulent "signatures".
Every internet petition you see posts the signers. CONyers won't!
Why?
Because I am right. I am always right.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
BUSHW@CKER
said on 6/9/2005 @ 7:48 pm PT...
HEADS UP GUYS!!! THIS COULD BE ANOTHER HUGE SMOKING GUN!!!
RE: DOWNING STREET MINUTES
NEW DOCUMENTS!
Link includes six PDFs (bottom of the page) plus analysis of these secret memos/letters by Michael Lewis.
The 6 PDF's are safely backed up! Not suggesting the site would be pulled down or anything!
How did this one get past us?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
kira
said on 6/9/2005 @ 8:01 pm PT...
Thank you Bushw@cker for posting the link in #9. I'm reading now --- wow!
Liberal Hugs!
===========================
Between our quests we wear sequin vests
And impersonate Clark Gable
===========================
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
BUSHW@CKER
said on 6/9/2005 @ 9:14 pm PT...
Thanks KIRA and BIG, WARM "LEFT LEANING" HUGS TO YOU!
====================
It's a bit too loud in Camelot,
====================
.......thanks to the noise "6 or 7" are generating! Hehe!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
kira
said on 6/9/2005 @ 10:04 pm PT...
BTW, thanks (Bushw@cker) for the info on EZ & Honest Aussie Voting Procedures given freely to the USA.
I've been saying all along it's a simple thing to do it all transparently and honestly and don't forget how much less it costs to vote this way! Ah - but ya can't swing thousands of votes with no record of the crime if you're using paper ballots and a transparent system!!
Canada uses paper ballots and can count all the votes per precinct in a short time - they know before the night is over. They also use an open and transparent system. But watch out --- politicians worldwide are looking into the electronic systems while we voters are kept in the dark.
===================
And tinnitus rings me up alot,
===================
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Torqued
said on 6/9/2005 @ 10:23 pm PT...
This wil be an awesome show. Holy cow, wake the kids!
Re #9 Bushw@cker --- Great find, thanks for sharing it!!!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Peg C
said on 6/9/2005 @ 11:48 pm PT...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Peg C
said on 6/9/2005 @ 11:56 pm PT...
Kira -
You got tinnitus too? A MAJOR irritant! Lifelong. But I can still hear the upper registers, which is a sine qua non when identifying birds! Long live the ringing ears and resounding voices!
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
kira
said on 6/10/2005 @ 1:01 am PT...
Hi Peg #15 - Yes I do. It is a real major irritant - so annoying. I've heard that Ginkgo Biloba can get rid of it or at least reduce the ringing, although I haven't put myself on that regimine yet. Maybe I'll try it this year since it's gotten worse.
It fluctuates - sometimes better, sometimes worse. I love your celebration of it, though!
Bushw@cker #16
Argh. I hate it when that happens. We will be guardedly excited!
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/10/2005 @ 4:34 am PT...
Re: Brad #5,
I've posted some questions in response to your request for questions for Conyers at http://www.bbvforums.org.../71/6674.html?1118401699
Have a look and check back to this thread to see what other questions are suggested.
I hope you'll consider inviting Bev Harris as a guest soon. There are explosive revelations coming out of BBV, including:
1) Documentation of the complex Money Trail and revolving door between politicians, election staff, voting maching companies and lobbyists (both major parties involved) (This is why neither Democrats nor Republicans really want genuine election reform.)
2) Audit Data being posted (scanned original documents) showing extraordinary irregularities (e.g., missing FOIA data even after lawsuits; voting machine tapes unsigned despite state law requiring it; logs that show one "results" tape was run weeks before the Nov 2 elections; touch screens being repeated recalibrated during the day of the election and during the middle of the night; numerous voting machines "missing" from the counting machine event logs)
3) videotaped interview with a key figure with numerous connections to various questionable events
4) evidence of the hackability of Diebold optical scanning equipment (which happens to be the equipment used in some Democratic strongholds--which could explain why neither Democrats nor Republicans are pushing for closer scrutiny of this equipment, whether in Washington state, Ohio or elsewhere)
--to name just a few examples.
This is an excellent website. I hope you can be counted on to expose hypocrisy wherever you find it. Both Democrats and Republicans have a lot to answer for. Don't be afraid to ask Conyers hard questions.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
jpentz
said on 6/10/2005 @ 7:32 am PT...
Just a heads up, regarding Mr. Calame of the NYT.
The following Op Ed appeared at NYT today:
NYT Op Ed- Election Safeguards
Editorial
An Important Election Safeguard
Published June 10, 2005
There are many problems with American elections, but none more serious than the rise of paperless electronic voting, whose results cannot be trusted. Grass-roots reformers are in the middle of a two-day lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill in support of a House bill that would require that electronic voting machines in federal elections produce voter-verifiable paper records. It is an important measure that should be passed without delay.
Electronic voting has been rolled out nationwide without necessary safeguards. The machines' computers can be programmed to steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. There are also many ways hackers can break in to tamper with the count. Polls show that many Americans do not trust electronic voting in its current form; such doubts are a serious problem in a democracy.
MORE AT: NYT Op Ed- Election Safeguards
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
MrBlueSky
said on 6/10/2005 @ 8:16 am PT...
JPentz: Good catch on that one! I think this may be the first time I've seen an MSM outlet agree with those who point out the vulnerability with the voting system (instead of just telling us about "sour grapes.")
==============================
Brad,
If you absolutely cannot get Rep. Conyers to agree to a weekend show for listener questions, would you consider a taped show?
I think it would be vital to have him on the show, whether or not listeners could ask questions.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/10/2005 @ 9:59 am PT...
Brad and others,
These are some of the questions I posed on BBV under the thread "Questions for John Conyers Jr.?"
===============================
Bev,
I see that Brad Friedman of Brad Blog (www.bradblog.com) hopes to interview John Conyers Jr. sometime. Brad Friedman has asked for questions from listeners. (He would prefer to do a live interview on a weekend, but Conyers does not normally do radio on weekends. Maybe a taped interview would be considered, but Brad wants interaction with questioners.)
What questions should Conyers be asked regarding FOIA requests, election equipment, or any other issues relating to his own congressional district and/or Michigan as a whole?
The exorbitant fee requested by Michigan--is that to "just look" in relation to only one single county? Or all of them? (Is the fee reasonable if it includes all requests made to all Michigan counties?) Has Michigan given any indication as to what fees, if any, it would charge for providing copies of records if it finds any after it looks for them?
Is it legal for a government body to obstruct FOIA requests by charging exorbitant fees? Could this be challenged in a court? (If so, which one, and has BBV considered this?)
Previously you mentioned that Conyers' staff was less than helpful to BBV staff--can you be more specific?
Should Conyers be asked to comment on other aspects of lobbying/campaign financing? On any colleague's ties to voting machine companies or their lobbyists? On his Democratic colleagues' questionable activities (name which ones deserve particular mention, e.g. Andrade)?
The more specific you can be, the better.
The Brad Blog claims to "hate hypocrisy" so I plan to hold him to it.
I'm grateful to John Conyers Jr. for speaking out on issues such as election irregularities and the events leading up to the Iraq War. Much as I respect his public words, I do not expect any successful politician--especially one who's been around the block a few times in the current system--to have a closet that is skeleton-free. So I don't expect he has a skeleton-free closet.
Maybe Conyers has a record that is cleaner than most. How might this be determined? Does Conyers/Michigan look "worse" than other places? Or is it just "par for the course"?
Could Conyers be expected to influence the Board of Elections in complying with FOIA requests, or in changing their fee policy? Are these issues beyond his control? Who are the key influencers in these policies?
Since Conyers has been an outspoken advocate for election reform and other issues relating to the quality of our democracy, it is troubling to hear that there seems to be an unhelpful attitude to scrutinizing Conyers' own territory. This is always the danger when any person takes the moral high ground--it can lead to unrealistic expectations of purity. It's not easy to know how much poking around is or isn't justified, with the messed up system that most politicians are working within.
All sides need to be fully teased out, without preconceptions. No one should be immune from being answerable, and also no one should be singled out for harsh scrutiny without justification. (Do they all seem equally bad once you get below the surface?)
I will pass on any questions you suggest that would help to shed light on the facts of what is or isn't happening in Michigan.
I hope that Brad Friedman will consider having you on as a guest, too. The audit information that you are posting is explosive material.
Keep up the great work.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
VeryWorried
said on 6/10/2005 @ 10:19 am PT...
Brad #5, I'll shut my mouth.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
BUSHW@CKER
said on 6/10/2005 @ 12:37 pm PT...
Hi All! re: #9
IF these six documents are "The Real McCoy", they would metaphorically speaking, amount to the placement of C4 explosive under the houses of Bush and Blair! IMO!
On the other hand, [as Brad - via email, cautions] if they are fakes, we could be witnessing the setting of a trap representing the mother of all Rathergates!
The stakes have just been raised Ladies & Gentlemen!
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/10/2005 @ 12:53 pm PT...
VeryWorried,
Are you uncomfortable with asking Conyers tough questions? Why?
I have no idea what the answers might be, and perhaps the very act of asking the questions could encourage some constructive action. (E.g., it could spur Conyers tp use his influence to ensure Michigan FOIA fees are reasonable instead of being $125,000, 50% payable up front--just to "look"). If it's true that Michigan has been more obstructive to FOIA requests than any other state, shouldn't questions be asked?
Here is an excerpt from Bev Harris quoted from http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/icons/tree_m.gif
"We at Black Box Voting especially relate to this official comment, after getting some of our FOIA requests blocked by public officials who delayed compliance, then said time periods had passed, therefore they had destroyed the records (!).
Michigan, the state with the most exhorbitant public records fees ($125,000 just to look for information, 1/2 paid up front) --- well, check out the state official from Michigan who's trying to speed up the clock so that election records will no longer be retained for the required 22 months:
This is in correspondence02.pdf (the second file on the above list) page 86:
"Ballots used at an election may be destroyed after 30 days following the final determination of the board of canvassers with respect to the election, unless their destruction has been stayed by an order of a court of the secretary of state. Ballots shall not be released for examination, review or research unless prior approval is obtained by the board of state canvassers.
"Our board has never granted approval...
"The feds screwed up. The concept is that elections should be final...remedies for challenging an election are purposely written with very short deadlines after the final determination. With the 22 month retention (or whatever it is) this leaves the ballots available for this type of nonsense. The pitch should be elections are final..."
NOTE: This underlines what we have been saying: the "VVPAT" is of no value whatsoever if no one is allowed to examine it except in rare recounts or limited (supposedly) "random" spot checks --- hah! See Kathleen Wynne's video of Ohio "random" checks.
Yup. The sentiment here is to take away opportunities to look at the paper ballots at all, except in controlled circumstances, and the guy is crowing that no one has been able to get through their control system yet.
For those who look at John Conyers as a hero --- I personally dropped off the synopsis of the results of our FOIA requests with his staffers, discussed this problem with them.
The truth is, Black Box Voting does consumer protection of the old-fashioned kind. One reason we don't spend a lot of time building formal coalitions is that this hampers objectivity.
In Michigan, we hit stonewalling of all kinds when trying to audit anything. A lot of voting activists look at Michigan rep. John Conyers as congressional "investigation central," yet his own home state, Michigan, is the most obstructive we've run into --- and that's saying a lot! Rep. Conyer's district uses Diebold optical scans, which we now know are hackable in multiple ways, including remote access. Can anyone do an independent audit of Michigan's Diebold paper trail?
As they say in New York, "Fahgeddaboutit."
=============================
[Catherine A back again] Given that Michigan has been THE MOST OSTRUCTIVE STATE re: election-related FOIA requests from BBV, don't you think Conyers deserves to answer a question or two on this subject, in addition to other topics such as the excellent work he is doing highlighting the Downing Street Minutes issue?
Balance.
If Conyers were President, I'm sure he'd be WAY better than Bush--and I'd still think he should be asked the hard questions.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/10/2005 @ 1:27 pm PT...
And Conyers should ALSO get all the praise he deserves for the issues he is highlighting so effectively.
His commitment, the importance and effectiveness of his speaking up where others have failed to do so, and his leadership in organizing others to move issues forward are of tremendous value.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
VeryWorried
said on 6/10/2005 @ 1:45 pm PT...
Catherine #23, No.
See #2 and #5.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/10/2005 @ 3:39 pm PT...
VW, I guess I misinterpreted your comment #22. I thought you meant that you wished you hadn't brought up the idea of Conyers coming on, because of what I then said.
I couldn't imagine why you said you'd shut your mouth, with a not-very-friendly face. (When will you shut your --when Conyers is on? or keeping your mouth shut about suggesting someone be a guest? or . . . ?)
Sorry for any misinterpretation.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
VeryWorried
said on 6/10/2005 @ 4:43 pm PT...
Catherine, the latter. No problem with the misinterpretation. Not hearing people's tone of voice can easily lead to that. I chose the smiley because its mouth was closed.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
jimmo
said on 6/10/2005 @ 10:51 pm PT...
Dear Guide:
Consider the following quote, if you will, which people on the Web have been tossing around like a towel in a men's room ever since Florida disrupted our national slumber for the second time in a year (the other time being the Elian thing):
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Joseph Stalin)
Now, I don't want to sound too obvious here ... But has anyone ever wondered why a man who a) never had to stand for election for anything, b) never had to hold an election for anything, and c) would ordinarily never give a crap about anything to do with elections in general since he was a TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR ... would even care about votes at all?
I mean, it's not like the guy needed anyone's votes for anything. In terms of being undemocratic and thoroughly unconcerned with elections, you'd be hard pressed to find a better poster boy for electoral indifference than Stalin. He had 20 million Russians murdered just because he could, which by itself makes Hitler, Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic all look like a bunch of kids sitting around on a playground busting toy pistol caps with a rock.
Now, if someone like, say, Papa Doc Duvalier, or William Marcy Tweed of Tammany Hall fame or Fernando Marcos said something like that – or better yet, if Slobodan Milosevic or even Hitler said something like that – this would be a really powerful quote! (Tweed did say something similar – I think his quote was roughly "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?") And all the guys I mention in this paragraph at least pretended to have an election.
But since our boy Stalin pretty much acquired his political power using the Machiavelli playbook and to the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong here) never once stood for election, I find this quote to be highly suspect, and thus a potential Net hoax. If you essentially got the top job in the Soviet Union through internal Communist political intrigue and mayhem, why would you logically make a statement like this?
So my question is: Do you have a reliable source to attribute it to, as opposed to just someone's Website? I'd love to know.
* * *
Dear Reader:
The simple answer, based on my research thus far, is no. Though the quote is frequently attributed to "our boy" Stalin, I haven't been able to find evidence anywhere that he actually said such a thing.
LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER BRADDO FIB ON HIS WEB PAGE!
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
BUSHW@CKER
said on 6/11/2005 @ 2:15 am PT...
NEOCONSERVATISM AND US FOREIGN POLICY: A VIEW FROM VENUS
23 DECEMBER 2004
Link here.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/11/2005 @ 6:51 am PT...
Re: #29 & #30 Great resources. Thanks for posting them.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
VeryWorried
said on 6/11/2005 @ 12:00 pm PT...
Peg, I tried a couple of times since Thursday to add that link to "Further Reading" under the GWB entry in WikiPedia. They keep removing it. So much for freedom of speech.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Peg C
said on 6/11/2005 @ 12:49 pm PT...
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
ThreadJacker
said on 6/11/2005 @ 12:50 pm PT...
Ya'll should hear this interview if you haven't already. It's a retired USAF/Pentagon employee explaining how power was usurped in the pentagon. She described herself as a "paleocon" as opposed to a "neocon" and goes into details surrounding why they knew not to attack Iraq.
http://www.lewrockwell.c.../kwiatkowski-audio1.html
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 6/11/2005 @ 1:22 pm PT...
Karen Kwiatowskis great, Threadjacker. Hoping to get her soon on The BRAD SHOW, by the way!
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
Catherine a
said on 6/11/2005 @ 2:16 pm PT...
ALERT! ALERT!
Bev Harris has just posted a lengthy, thoughtful response to the questions I posed re: John Conyers, Michigan obstructiveness to FOIA requests and related topics. See here.
This should be obligatory reading for all Brad Bloggers. Harris talks about the kinds of specific reforms that are needed, reflects on current legislation ("blemish removal" and "makeup" v.s. "rebuild the system"), and suggests an amnesty for cooperative election officials as one way of getting successful results. She also talks about some pending legal actions.
Harris also describes the nature of the problems with the Michigan Secretary of State and the Michigan State Elections Office regarding FOIA requests. She has supportive words for Conyers and mentions which areas might be the most productive for his office to focus on.
I hope everyone interested in election reform and restoring democracy wll read this post and share it with their friends.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
PetGoat
said on 6/11/2005 @ 6:09 pm PT...
Hear Hear, Catherine! I thought I was pretty well informed on the
voting machines, but that statement had much I didn't know.
We can't expect Representative Conyers to do it all.