No, this is not satire, like the recent hilarious Onion video on Diebold, nor is it an April Fools gag. It’s actually just Diebold. Who, as usual, is joke enough all by themselves…were it not for the hundreds of thousands of dead people due, in no small part, to their incompetence and/or treachery, of course.
Here’s the beginning of their latest press release…
NORTH CANTON, Ohio, March 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Diebold is launching a campaign of “caring” to benefit breast cancer research and environmental preservation.
Yes, they had to launch a new initiative to actual “care” about things. And yes, the word “caring” is actually in quotations in the original announcement.
In regard to the environmental part of their new campaign to “care,” a company spokesperson is quoted in the release as saying, “We are evaluating all of our products to ensure whenever possible we are offering a recycled alternative.”
On that point, ironically enough, in Florida of late, things have gone somewhat backwards for Diebold on the recycling front. Rather than using “recycled alternatives” in their products, it is their products themselves which are quickly becoming the recycled. Literally.
As the Tampa Tribune recently reported, thousands of the company’s touch-screen voting machines, recently outlawed in the Sunshine State, are being hauled away by a recycling company to be “shoved into a two-story-tall machine that will mash them into bits that will be separated and recycled.”
Can’t make this stuff up. And let us repeat: Nothing in the above story is an April Fools joke!
When all else fails, and they’re coming for your kids, Philanthropy. Just ask the Rockefellers.
DIEBOLD: “We want to begin to care…about…’things’…”
They probably had the same lousy people who made the crappy machines in on the “PR” campaign, too! This is like when Rush Limbaugh raises money for the troops…as he pimps more war and gets more killed with his propaganda.
Brad, DIEBOLD is “the Onion”!
I’d appreciate DIEBOLD putting more money into accurate/secure e-vote machines!
Keep in mind, election-related products are a very small part of Diebold, Inc.’s business. They make security systems, bank vaults, ATMs, and lots of other stuff world-wide. This was Diebold, Inc. saying this, not Premier, the relatively tiny subsidiary of Diebold, which they only bought a few years ago (2001?).
And there is no such thing as a little pregnant. No such thing as a little crooked. No such thing as needing to smash voting machines to little bits. This is the digital equivalent of tar and feathers, and so be it.
Jack Nauti –
Wow, that’s a whole lotta apologizing for Diebold in such a short note. Any reason why?
BTW, Premier is Diebold. Do not be deceived by the lipstick on the pig.
The power of PR turning hood robin into robin hood.
It’s the Hitler rule: ‘If you want a lie to be instutionalized make sure it is as big a lie as can be’.
Brad (#6): Wasn’t apologizing for Diebold, Premier or anyone else, just pointing out that a PR from Diebold, Inc. is not at all the same as a PR from Premier. Google their financials: Diebold’s market cap is around 2.5 billion. Sequoia just got plucked for about $16 million (over five years). Premier would ostensibly be worth somewhat more than Sequoia, but not a whole lot. But heck, let’s make it double. Premier’s $32 million dollar value then represents, at most, an insignificant .0125 of Diebold.
I’d check out Diebold’s latest financials to see if they broke out Premier’s contribution to revenue, but Diebold’s been having a bit of a problem lately getting those financials out.
As you should know from some of my other posts, I have no problem taking shots. I just like to know I’m shooting at the right target.
Brad, you do a pretty good job, but the election reform movement in general often suffers from serious displays of ignorance that damage its credibility and effectiveness. Keeping it honest is a good thing.
I have a question, Jack. Does the comment you just posted have Thing One to do with a desire to stop EVM election fraud?
Agent99: Yes and no. My last comment was in response to Brad’s insinuation that perhaps I had some reason to apologize for Diebold, which I don’t. But more to the point, I observe that the election integrity movement, like most “movements”, suffers from a tendency to demonize and pile on at the expense of, well, integrity. This always comes at a cost to credibility; every innaccuracy risks discounting the proponents as ignorant zealots.
So, yes, in that sense my comment comes from a strong desire to see democracy thrive through accurate, fraud-free elections, free of not only EVM fraud, but fraud or incompetence of any kind.