Pangloss

Interesting, thanks guys.

Great article this month in Scientific American on electronic voting systems. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00018DD5-73E7-1151-B57F83414B7F0000 Let me know if it requires registration and I'll just post some excerpts, but I'd rather not because it has interesting illustrations. One of the more interesting examples they talk about is a system that actually does a printed receipt that's encased behind a transparent panel. The voter looks at the paper to make sure it's correct and then touches a button to confirm, and then gets a receipt. That way a paper trail exists, in case of electronic screw-up, but the official paper printout is KEPT, so it can't be tampered with. In a related note, California governor Schwarzenegger (yes I cut-and-pasted his name!) passed a bill today banning paperless voting systems by 2006, so a system like this would be required. That article can be found here. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=E%20Voting%20Paper%20Trail

That's fine if you (we) want to use that as an internal point for discussion. I think it's an open debate and some good points exist on both sides. Just bear in mind that there is a larger context for WMDs that happens to be different, so you're going to continue to run across articles and discussions that take a different point of view. (shrug) I think the point here was just that budullewraagh was trying to explain why someone above responded in a certain way.

Yah ditto, and doesn't he have like a 20-something approval rating?

Just curious if you Brits on here think Teflon Tony has a chance for a third term.

Yeah that's why I thought it was a little more realistic. Presumably that's Pyongyang, which if 60 Minutes is right is the only really developed area in the whole country. (shrug)

Come to think on it, the pic I linked above does look Photoshopped. I just googled it up without paying much attention, being a familiar subject to me. The one on this page looks a little more realistic, and has supporting text. http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488

They keep trying, but of course nobody wants to watch. We need to seek ways to generate public interest in participating in stuff like that. I converse about once a week in email with a reporter who runs a program here in South Florida that follows George Stephanopolis on Sunday mornings. Just the fact that he's come to expect my email, and always sends a reply, tells you how (un)popular the show is. But he tries.

Just to flesh out my above post a little, I think public perception of the central issues of the presidential race, and other races with national focus, is pretty good. It could be better, but it's gotten a LOT better since 9/11, and shows signs of improving even more. Before I get to the "but" implied in the above paragraph, I just want to add that a friend of mine said something to me the other day that stuck in my mind. He said that it might actually be a GOOD thing that the country is so divided right now regarding the presidential election. It means people are *involved*. They're motivated, charged-up, interested, invested, etc etc etc. I like to see that, especially as a centrist it's really important, because I know that today's Bush/Kerry-basher is tomorrow's deep-thinker, reaping the benefits of prior experience in watching the system at work. Getting to the "but" now, even though attention is way up on the national front, it's TERRIBLE on local races. Even IMPORTANT local races like senators and congresscritters. The House races are particularly important -- EVERYONE has one, it's LOCAL in the sense that only a relatively small number of your fellow neighbors in a small geographic area will decide on who that person is, and the person you put out there will have the ability to represent you on a national scale. That's incredibly important, and yet *NOBODY* pays any attention to it. Every single American who reads this post and votes will vote on a House member in November. It's actually pretty easy to find out who your current representative is -- they all have web pages on the House web site, and there's a handy tool there where you can type in your address and find out who it is. But try and find out who the OTHER candidates are, and you immediately run into a HUGE problem. Now your task becomes Googling articles, searching Wikipedia, and checking the local television news web sites for Get Out the Vote pages. Holy Toledo, what a pain! It's ridiculous! Something REALLY needs to be done about this. Local election web sites sponsored by the government, perhaps? I have no idea, but I do know this: When 69% of Americans want the Assault Weapons Ban renewed, and the Senate passes a bill to continue is by an *overwhelming* majority, and the president promises to sign it, and you STILL can't get it passed, you really have to wonder what the hell is going on. (The answer, of course, is that special interest groups control the House.)

Yah I like TDR. I understand your point, but he's a complex person worthy of further study. My dog-earred copy of Morris's "Theodore Rex" sits on a handy shelf alongside my dog-earred copy of Sandburg's Lincoln biographies. People focus too much on the imperialism, IMO. They forget that "walk softly and carry a big stick" begins with "walk softly"! But I didn't mean to change the subject. Regarding funding, I think we should pay particular attention to the fact that while the amounts of money pouring into campaigns has skyrocketted, public perception of issues and candidates, particularly in local races but even in House races (!), continues to be poor. So what has all that money gotten us? Thus I don't have a problem with killing the money. But I agree that there's still a problem here in terms of how to involve people. The Internet is certainly helping, and I expect us to go from 50% to maybe as high as 60-75% turnout in November, which would be revolutionary. But it's not enough, especially when you consider that not every eligible voter is registered. Good thread, keep it going.

John, have you read "Bias" or "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg? He lays out a pretty good case for media bias being an ongoing problem, and why.

Hah! Well put. And guess who cleaned up Tammany Hall? One of my favorite role-model Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt! Well, not so much for the imperialist-like events in places like the Philippines, Cuba and Panama, but for the progressiveness towards limits on big business.

I can't think of any reason why companies should be allowed to make political contributions in the first place. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Regarding Haliburton, I won't defend that situation, but in general it ought to be possible for the government to do some level of business that doesn't involve contracting with the lowest bidder. Some things are just not well-suited for that approach, due to speed and quality concerns.

Make your time!

I actually like the fact that the rebuilding of Iraq wasn't given to the lowest bidder. But it was just plain stupid to give it to a firm so closely tied to the administration. Of course, finding a firm that can do that job that *doesn't* donate vast sums to either (or both!) parties is an exercise in futility. This goes back to one of my favorite "talking points": Getting big business out of politics.

I'll assume you mean to suggest that they posed a threat to Hussein himself, since it stretches credibility to presume that a terrorist threat against Iraqi civilians would have carried any weight with a guy who had no compunction about killing them himself. I don't have a problem with that suggestion in general, but I believe it is counter-indicated by the evidence, which speaks of high-level meetings and discussions. If it was just a case of terrorist demands, they would have simply said "do this or die" and he would have either complied, or not. Still, it's a reasonable suggestion.

Well that strikes me as a reasonable position. As do the points about administration exaggerations and distortions in general. I guess it's just the "big lie" angle where I stop short. But I definitely understand how people get to that opinion, and I can't really fault them for it. Like I've posted before, there are a lot of things that bother me about the Bush administration.

Yah he allegedly had a falling out with AQ, but he still let terrorists stay, operate and train in his country.

Heh, nicely put. I find myself unable to respond, quite put in my place. (grin)

Nice post. I couldn't help but quote the whole thing, it was so well said. I think you're probably right about the outcome of the election, and I agree with your comment about the Jesus remark. And I get a centrist vibe from you as well. I have a couple of pretty good friends who lean just a little to the left, and they tend to balance me out sometimes, which I find to be very valuable.

John, thanks for the link. I was pretty familiar with the quote but I wanted to see what you were reading, because I've never seen a really good analysis OF that quote, only op-ed pieces that *take advantage* of that quote to do anti-Bush spin. I had hoped for the former in this case, but I was disappointed. It's just another ABB piece. Oh well, it was worth a shot. At any rate, what is it about that scene that you feel might have been a lie? Specifically, I mean. Are you saying it was a lie because you feel the president knew about 9/11 before it happened, i.e. a massive conspiracy? Or more along simpler lines; saying that he had seen something that he had not actually seen? Or something in-between, perhaps? In the case of massive conspiracy, we have the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report to lay those fears to rest. As for the latter, I don't see that as a big deal if he just mis-spoke. People do that sort of thing all the time. He might have just mixed-up the fact that he saw it later that morning on tape (like most of us did). But I'm no apologist -- on the contrary I see myself in the role of radical centrist, determined to get at the truth. If you think that has larger relevence, I'm all ears.

A fun thing to do with Heinlein is to read three books in succession (which he wrote in succession, as I dimly recall, but don't quote me on that): Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Link please?

I agree with these points. I agree. Why should we always get stuck being the world's policemen? I'll go along with that, I'm just not convinced Kerry will try anything. If France wasn't going to get involved with Iraq under the Bush administration they're CERTAINLY not going to get involved in Iraq under a Kerry administration. They've won, why should they bother? Ditto Germany and Russia. They "beat Bush", why should they cooperate with Kerry now that America (in their view) is on the proverbial ropes? Game over.