You know, it really seems lately that it only pays to be dishonest. No wonder so many people are taking it up. We have to turn this trend around. I don't care how many capitalists have to eat it. If it isn't honest money, you can't have it.

And what is really sad is the way some folks (like our trolls) have no interest in honesty and integrity - the mounds of evidence of systematic fraud, conflict of interest, etc - mean absolutely nothing to them. All they care about is winning. Who gives a rat's ass if the Republicans are actively engaged in subversion if the democratic process, so long as they are successful in doing so - and should they actually get caught through the actions of whistleblowers, they can just buy people off (right Bruce?)

These bastards throw around the word "unpatriotic" because of their psychological need to project onto others the things that they themselves are culpable of. What could be more unpatriotic that fixing an election, supposedly the first recourse of the citizenry? You can be sure that any time a Republican accuses someone else of wrongdoing, that they are guilty of that very same thing, and to a greater degree that their accusation.

How is it that we are still presenting these arguments repeatedly? How is it that we have not simply moved forward to do our constitutional duty to throw off the chains of tyranny? Remember the movie Airheads (OK, stupid movie) when those guys took over the radio station with water pistols and forced some kind of broadcast?

Errr...no, mr FBI man, I'm not advocating similar action...I'm just saying "remember". Just reminiscing. Thoughts. Ponderances. Maybe even a "wouldn't it be funny if..." Certainly no "call to action" to save our democracy, if that's what you were implying. What's that? I'm not allowed to think about those things? Makes me a terrorist to remember those things? O. my bad then. I'll do my best to stop thinking (of course, that means I'll have to switch parties.)

For Christ's sake ITMFA.

Perhaps we can get an initiative on the ballot and vote to require CA elections use paper ballots, hand counted.

Oh, wait. The Cabal's machines would make sure it lost.

Catch 22 strikes again!

Bruce McPherson seems like the kind of guy who can comfortably sit at the country club with a table full of martinis and discuss his accomplishments with a group of awe-struck listeners. Such as when he says: I was responsible for getting through legislation for a paper trail.

But, when asked about details, he doesn't know the first thing about the machines. He keeps turning to his underlings to help him stumble through the questions.

And stumble he does:

Question: So if the federal government passes on the Diebold machine, or the memory card, what’s the next step for it then…?

Answer: Well, if it, uh, if it seems to meet the test, uh, and we’re satisfied with it, uh, we would certify it. But, uh, we’ll just see what they what they say, actually. Um, frankly that had gotten through the test across this this part of the Diebold (Dee-bold) or Diebold (Die-bold) system and they hadn’t looked at it at the federal level. And what we, we said, we need to, we need to have another check at this, and they said wow that was an oversight that should have been caught. So we’ll see how they respond and we’re gonna have to be satisfied with it. But I’ll just have to wait till then. And I hope we can, the system would take, say the certifier said it’s okay, there would be a……

And it seems to get worse as the questions get more detailed.

I don't know if he's uninformed, incompetent, lying, covering up something, or just plain technically-challenged.

I would like to be able to give him the benefit of the doubt if he was indeed responsible for a paper trail. However, I can't seem to muster up any confidence that this man should be in charge of the hackable voting machines for a state that is larger than a lot of countries.

Compare and contrast:

A REAL Public Servant, Ion Sancho:
==========================

Security through obscurity is a joke

3 minute video

http://video.google.com/...773354560&q=election

There is a common thread in the neoCon realm, which has produced the current republican dictatorship.

They conduct themselves in a manner that destroys whatever it is that has their attention, be it Iraq ("shock and awe" democracy) or elections (insecure machines posing as bedrock of democracy).

Then when confronted with bona fide questions they cannot muster up enough care to get beyond sound-byte denials.

Take for example the denial of global warming (link here) or the disaster it portends.

They seem to have the same view of destruction no matter what it involves ... Iraqi people, American democracy, or the survival of the planet earth.

A simple sound-byte denial seems to satisfy all their curiosity and human considerations. Which means they must be veneer ("A deceptive, superficial show; a façade").

Put it in perspective: McPherson's "raise" for running an illegal election, is greater than people in poverty working full time on minumum wage, which the Repulisivecans just voted down raising. A person making minimum wage makes $10,000.00 a year. The Republicans want these people to wallow in poverty.

Jesus, this is truly sickening. I'm getting tired of asking "How do these people sleep at night?"

If you watch his body language, the degree of eye, facial, and body ticks, it looks like he's making it up on the spot. If this guy were trying to sell me something, I'd politely tell him that I'm just browsing in the hopes that he'd take the hint and go away. I wouldn't consider him a very good actor.

Choke on your raise, Bub. Your day of judgement will come.

$154,875 a year, and he flippantly kills transparent democracy in the course of the job. Sometimes it's just not worth it Bruce!

It's not too late to fess up. You'll get a percentage of your honor back, and save the nation as a reward!

A much better deal!

Arlene Montemarano #5

Unbelievable but believable video!

Contrary statement? Not in 2006 America!

I am still reeling from a report Larry Bergan linked to in another thread. That report, from 1988, says:

4.13 Summary Of Problem Types

4.13.1 Insufficient Pre-election Testing
4.13.2 Failure to Implement an Adequate Audit Trail
4.13.3 Failure to Provide for a Partial Manual Recount
4.13.4 Inadequate Ballots or Ballot-Reader Operation
4.13.5 Inadequate Security and Management Control
4.13.6 Inadequate Contingency Planning
4.13.7 Inadequate System Acceptance Procedures

(link here, to 1988 official report).

The sickening bottom line is that the generation of electronic election machine protesters who preceeded us fully and completely warned the local and national election war lords of the dangers.

And those war lords, like McPhearson ("son of Fear"), did nothing but make things worse.

And get rewarded for their incomparable incompetence????

Sole Congressman Argues A Pay Raise for Federal Bureaucrats No Good While Budget in the Red

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) was not the only congressman to speak out about a procedural measure (H. Res. 865) that blocked open debate on H.R. 5576, a massive appropriations bill funding multiple federal agencies and the Washington, D.C. government.

Matheson, however, was the sole lawmaker to direct his comments squarely at the automatic 2% cost-of-living pay raise legislators and other agency heads will be getting in fiscal year 2007.

Matheson’s comments are provided below.

I do not think it is appropriate to let this bill go through without an up-or-down vote on whether or not Congress should have an increase in its own pay. The effect of this legislation is that is exactly what is going to happen.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to this rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2007 cost-of-living pay raise for members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on the previous question so that we can have a debate and vote on this issue in the light of day.

big dan #14

Matheson is in my district and I rarely see anything positive from him. He always claims he has to bend over to support Bush or be kicked from office.What makes me mad about that is the fact that I went to one of his town hall meetings here. It was a bipartisan event. He had just voted against a broad reauthorization of the Patriot Act a week earlier.

After he had taken many questions for a half an hour, the only one that got much applause was a bill he had voted in favor of, helping a union that had several members there. When it was my turn, I got up and thanked him for voting against the Patriot Act. Almost the entire crowd burst into applause and he joked that the meeting would be ending now (on a high note for him).

I then asked a hard question saying that Paul O’neil, Richard Clark, and Bob Woodward had virtually validated the “Downing Street Memo” years before it appeared, which got about half the amount of applause. He really struggled with that one, saying he wasn’t a particularly partisan guy, but adamantly agreed the Republicans were doing some pretty corrupt things, but there wasn’t much he could do.

He recently voted to REAUTHORIZE the Patriot Act, but sent a form letter explaining why. It was a little hard to understand, but all I could discern from it was that it make things easier for librarians. I’m certainly glad for that but I think I have a few more concerns about it! I’m willing to admit, I don’t understand how these things work, but I DO NOT think he can claim he had to vote for the Patriot ANYTHING to please the Republicans!

Of course the pay raise thing is a big step in the right direction. Keep moving that way (TO THE LEFT), and we'll see how my attitude changes!

OT --- Larry --- That's pretty lame on Matheson's part about using the "library provision" as an excuse to vote for reauthorization of the USA"PATRIOT" Act. (He is certainly not alone in using that ruse. It's the excuse of choice.) Was the only thing wrong with the USA"PATRIOT" Act the inclusion of libraries in Section 215? It's a big, popular (and important) issue, but begs all kinds of other vital questions about the PA - accountability, of course, above all.

In regard to the rewriting the ""library provision" does it practically (in regard to liberty) mean anything? (See "Reauthorization Analysis" on the ALA link.) Already Alberto Gonzales, says the provision is "open to clarification."

Anyway, for the administration and its lapdogs, it's all smoke and mirrors. They will still do whatever they like, particularly in using "National Security Letters" issued by FISA. e.g. here

So, in the control room (Congress according to the Constitution) red lights flashing and alarms are blaring and our "representatives" are sleeping, kowtowing to an out-of-control administration, shuffling papers, debating irrelevant matters, or toasting those who fund them (and gofering for them.)

They have a job description and oversight is right there on the top.

Arry:

There was a great segment on the PBS "Now" show from a couple of weeks ago where a librarian had been approached to give up some confidential information. They were so unprofessional that word got out and the media was calling his library so often, he had to tell his employees to not answer the phone.

This poor bastard couldn't tell anybody what it was all about and must have looked like a CIA operative to his fellow employees, friends, and FAMILY!

He was now, finally allowed to publically divulge this terribly embarrassing chapter of his otherwise normal life. He said he was glad he could, but noted that he couldn't tell the story until after the train had left the station on the Patriot Act extention.

I don't know why the congress even bothers to pass laws anymore. Why don't they just spend their time pissing around doing whatever they like and spare us the complexity!