Maybe Democracy is Just a Good-Bye

New e-voting study shows it's really easy to steal an election:

"given the widespread, ongoing evidence of rampant insecurity in popular electronic voting systems (Google 'Diebold,' for instance) and the mystifying nationwide failure to do anything about it, will another voice shouting that the house is on fire be enough?

I have this fantasy where I organize a group of computer science types who've been working for years on electronic voting problems and we write a book called, How To Steal a National Election: An Step-by-Step Handbook. The book would come complete with everything from discussions of the theory underlying how you could steal a presidential election by rigging a few key counties, to a nuts-and-bolts, 'push this, pull here, type in this command' guide to how to rig specific machine models. We'd also include a CD with source code, applications, schematics, all the other tools the modern election fraudster needs. I feel that if there were some way to make clear just how real this threat is and just how easy it is to actually steal and election, maybe folks could get motivated to care. But maybe I'm just fantasizing."

I find that I am really frustrated with the state of the "debate" on this question. Why are people so friggin' stupid!?!!

Responsible individuals feel little or no obligation to take even the most obvious precautions or to feel guilty for egregious election tampering.

Here's a link to a press release on the Electronic Voting Task Force Report that triggered the little fantasy quoted above.

Revenge of the Wal-Mart Voters

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Revenge of the Wal-Mart Voters:

"Weekly Wal-Mart shoppers make up about one-fifth of the U.S. population.

Zogby finds that while 85 percent of frequent Wal-Mart shoppers voted for President Bush's reelection in 2004 (and 88 percent of people who never shop there voted for Sen. John Kerry), Wal-Mart voters have turned on the president dramatically. In a poll taken earlier this month, they gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating -- compared to a 45 percent positive rating from born-again Christians, 49 percent from NASCAR fans, and 54 percent from self-identified conservatives.

Most worrying for the GOP: Fifty-one percent of Wal-Mart voters agreed with the statement that it's 'time for the Democrats to take over and run' Congress -- as opposed to just 31 percent who think 'Republicans deserve to retain control.'"

Thanks to Carpetbagger Report for the link. I think this development is almost hopeful.

Rolling Stone : Al Gore 3.0

Rolling Stone : Al Gore 3.0: "Right now we are borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the most unstable region of the world, and to bring it here and burn it in ways that destroy the habitability of the planet. That is nuts! We have to change every aspect of that."

Gore clearly believes that a great and radical change in direction in political direction and policy is possible. Please.

The Corporate Right-Wing Media, volume 17

Atrios questions::

"Why these cable networks believe that chasing the shrinking Fox audience is a smart thing to do I have no idea.

Fox does do some things that a ratings-conscious network probably should think about emulating. But isn't the market for conservative assholes saturated?"

One of the curiousities of our time, regarding the Perfect Political Storm, which never comes, is, why does the Perfect Political Storm never come?

Part of the answer, accepted across the blogosphere, is that the Corporate Right-Wing Media is increasingly incompetent in ways that tend to help reactionary Republicans at the expense of liberal and progressive Democrats. Daily Howler recently offered a summary explanation, including (my words):
1. Corporate consolidation
2. Class (the pundits are all Rich)
3. Resentment (journalists are mostly mediocre or worse in intellect and professional achievement, and envy and resentment make them more comfortable with morons like Bush than with geniuses like Clinton)

Atrios, above, points out what I regard as the best evidence of the effects of Corporate Media Consolidation, and why a thorough-going, slice-and-dice Media Reform has to be a top priority for Democrats.

Those arguing that capitalism puts effective limits on the utility of Corporate Media as the Propaganda Unit of the Fascist State, which Bush has been building for 5 years, have to explain the behavior of CNN and MSNBC, which have failed as business enterprises, pursuing the wildly successful Fox. Businessmen, pursuing profit, would recognize that half the potential cable audience is liberal, progressive or moderate, and the way to profit is to zig to Fox's zag. Fox goes conservative, you go liberal. Not exactly rocket science, just Business Strategy 101. MSNBC's most successful show is Olbermann's, because Olbermann is an entertaining moderate voice. But, that doesn't get MSNBC to dump its roster of right-wing losers. Nor do MSNBC's generally abysmal ratings matter to the profit meisters at General Electric (MSNBC's owner).

Bottom line, the Corporate World is not so dedicated to Profit, that they will voluntarily cater to liberal, progressive or truthful viewpoints.

If Democrats, liberals, progressives, moderates, and patriots want to survive politically, something effective will have to be done. It is not a winner as a campaign issue, but it is a must-do-something-immediately policy issue, should the Democrats find themselves thrust again into power.

One thing the Democrats could do, even out of power, is to try to buy editorial control of MSNBC or CNN. As a business proposition, this makes perfect sense, and should not cost anything out of pocket (for the purchase -- investments would have to be made to upgrade either CNN or MSNBC). A smart investment banker can negotiate a deal, which would allow the Party or its surrogates to sink money into production values and (gasp!) news gathering, while G.E. or Time-Warner gambles on increased ad revenues following on big increases in ratings, reach and audience quality.

Making a serious business offer is a winner politically, if it is refused, because it becomes Exhibit A in any subsequent regulatory Reform effort.

Hussman Funds - Weekly Market Comment: June 26, 2006 - Recession Risks are No Longer Dormant

Hussman Funds - Weekly Market Comment: June 26, 2006 - Recession Risks are No Longer Dormant: "In a reasonable world, one would look directly at the huge U.S. government deficit and paltry U.S. savings rates, combined with a housing boom that's creating a growing inventory of unsold houses, and say, “Wow, we're not saving enough, and we're investing in the wrong stuff, and as a result, we're becoming dangerously dependent on foreign savings that will be hard to repay with future productivity.” Unfortunately, we're living in a world with no introspection, so we actually see analysts arguing with a straight face that our current account deficit reflects – I'm not making this up – a “foreign savings glut.” That's like the Garth Brooks song where he looks at the beer he's holding and sings “lo-ooong neck bottle, let go of my hand…”"

'When will America again have two national political parties?'

tristero at Hullabaloo asks:

"When will America again have two national political parties?

"I honestly wish I could say 2006. There are some positive signs that a second party could emerge, in the face of major attempts to suppress it, from what's left of the Democratic Party. It certainly would save a lot of time. Building a second party from scratch will be no picnic.

"But let's not kid outselves. A political party that announces 'A New Direction' which scrupulously avoids Iraq, Katrina, and the fundamental issue of competence in government... That's not a political party with national influence as a goal.

"That's the bad news. The good news is that the time is ripe - overripe - for a new generation of intelligent, hard-nosed, passionate, and responsible political organizers to create a truly mainstream political party that could easily route the Bushists. 'Cause what's goin' on is just plain ridiculous and everyone knows it."

The Threat to the Planet

The New York Review of Books: The Threat to the Planet:

In order to arrive at an effective policy we can project two different scenarios concerning climate change. In the business-as-usual scenario, annual emissions of CO2 continue to increase at the current rate for at least fifty years, as do non-CO2 warming agents including methane, ozone, and black soot. In the alternative scenario, CO2 emissions level off this decade, slowly decline for a few decades, and by mid-century decrease rapidly, aided by new technologies.

The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century, while the alternative scenario yields an increase of less than two degrees Fahrenheit during the same period. Warming can be predicted . . . based on knowledge of how Earth responded to similar levels of greenhouse gases in the past. . . . Climate models by themselves yield similar answers. However, the evidence from the Earth's history provides a more precise and sensitive measure, and we know that the real world accurately included the effects of all feedback processes, such as changes of clouds and water vapor, that have an effect on temperature.

How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth's history. The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.

Any responsible assessment of environmental impact must conclude that further global warming exceeding two degrees Fahrenheit will be dangerous. Yet because of the global warming already bound to take place as a result of the continuing long-term effects of greenhouse gases and the energy systems now in use, the two-degree Fahrenheit limit will be exceeded unless a change in direction can begin during the current decade. Unless this fact is widely communicated, and decision-makers are responsive, it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences. We have reached a critical tipping point.