Slashdot Mirror

Shocker: Turkish think-tank recommends Turkey as model for "Arab Spring" revolutions

Re:Can they stop them all? by cold+fjord · 2012-03-15 18:04 · Score: 2 · on Turkey Bans Pastebin and Tinyurl

Shocker: Turkish think-tank recommends Turkey as model for "Arab Spring" revolutions

Re:Can they stop them all? by cold+fjord · 2012-03-15 18:04 · Score: 2 · on Turkey Bans Pastebin and Tinyurl

Shocker: Turkish think-tank recommends Turkey as model for "Arab Spring" revolutions

Re:Can they stop them all? by cold+fjord · 2012-03-15 18:04 · Score: 2 · on Turkey Bans Pastebin and Tinyurl

Unholy Alliance Part I
Unholy Alliance Part II

Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by cold+fjord · 2012-03-08 18:08 · Score: -1, Redundant · on TSA 'Warning' Media About Reporting On Body Scanner Failures?

You should watch Fox News from time to time. Been watching the real news shows again, right?
Please, tune in to the propaganda, you're getting so out of the loop.

Interesting.... you are implying that the mainstream media isn't willing to carry news of terrorist attacks and threats. So, why does it so upset liberals and progressives that Fox does? What stake do they have in suppressing that knowledge? Why does it upset them when it is covered?

Unholy Alliance

Unholy Alliance offers a very serious and disturbing account of the intellectual corruption of an important segment of the American Left. Even those of us who do not identify with the Left should be worried about the kind of rationalizations for Islamic terror and terrorists that have established a foothold in its ranks. The willingness of some mainstream liberals to form alliances with apologists for and defenders of terrorism in the name of defeating President Bush or sabotaging the war in Iraq represents an ominous development in American political life. Just like the battle for the soul of liberalism in the 1940s and 1950s, during which liberal anti-communists confronted and eventually defeated popular front pro-communists, the struggle within liberalism about Islamic fundamentalism in this decade may well have a defining effect on America's future.

Horowitz makes a very strong case that significant segments of the Left have formed alliances of convenience with Islamist radicals. He notes that immediately after 9/11, a number of prominent leftists opposed any American response and blamed American policies for the tragedy. With thousands of Americans dead, Noam Chomsky was so consumed by hatred of his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world that he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban. Other prominent writers denounced America for its reactions more vociferously than they condemned Al Qaeda for its murderous actions.

All Spelled Out

Politically speaking, it's probably the most explosive suggestion you can make today: that the Left has joined hands with radical Islam. That it is fellow-traveling with it. Such a suggestion will get you branded a McCarthyite, immediately. But is it true (the suggestion, that is)? Afraid so. And this case is powerfully, sickeningly made in David Horowitz's new book.

At first blush, it may seem an odd alliance: the leftists and the Islamists. After all, Islamists are premodern "conservatives." Reflecting on a big anti-war rally in London, Mark Steyn pointed out that militant lesbians were marching alongside militant Muslims. Did the former care that the latter would have them dead? Not really.

What unites the Left and Islamism, above all, is a deep-seated hatred of the United States (and, secondarily, Israel). Also, an absolutist, totalist view of the world. Those are enough.

Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by cold+fjord · 2012-03-04 09:00 · Score: 1 · on The Vortex Gun Coming Soon To a Protest Near You

Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.

If it is the minimal force necessary to enforce the law, it is probably reasonable, not excessive, under the law.

Given yourself enough weasel room there?

Not so much "weasel room" as qualifying it since I expected exactly this sort of reaction if I didn't, but from the other direction. "Non-lethal! what about Randy M Somebody! He was pepper sprayed and died on the spot!" Pepper spray, like tear gas, tasers, and batons, are properly known as less lethal weapons. They are unlikely to kill if used properly, but on rare occasions it happens.

Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops.

And protesters don't get a pass, even if they are non-violent, if they don't comply with a lawful order to disperse. The difference is that the police are legally entitled to use force to compel compliance with the law. Demonstrators are not entitled to use force to defy the law, and being non-violent doesn't give you a pass to ignore the law and the police indefinitely.

And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.

Then you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you. You start shooting, even as you describe, and it would be both reasonable and lawful for the police to shoot you. Furthermore, how much better off do you think the demonstrators will be once shooting starts? The first thing that is going to happen is the officers will draw their sidearms and shotguns. Now the possibility for real harm is just beginning. You just aren't thinking this through.

Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.

Then my advice to you is stay completely away from protests. The "worse people than you" will be taken care of, one way or another. You should be clear that the law enforcement bench is a lot deeper than the local guy you meet in the donut shop, including state and federal agencies. When needed, state National Guards, the US Army, and the US Marines have all helped settle things down in various cities. No city is going to be left under threat or control of lawless protesters indefinitely. To believe anything else is fantasy.

This is far more constructive, if ironic, than fantasies of violence: Occupy Gets Its Own PAC

Re:Oh no. by brianerst · 2012-02-28 12:08 · Score: 1 · on US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option

Why? Conservatives have been "going ape shit" over foreign sources of energy for far longer. Drill, baby, drill is their mantra - natural gas is just another thing to drill.

Plenty of conservatives have been pitching the idea of energy diversity, albeit mostly within carbon fuels. Bob Zubrin is a darling among a lot of the conservative set and he's been pushing Energy Victory, his plan for mandated flex-fuel vehicles for years. Zubrin pushes methanol the most, but he's happy with CNG too. There's a whole set of energy-independence conservatives that have pushed for flexible fuels and wind power as a way to defund OPEC among other things.

(I used to write for an alt-energy blog, so I got to know the players on both sides of the political spectrum.)

Misinformation abounds on this thread by Boawk · 2012-02-26 06:43 · Score: 1 · on Dharun Ravi Trial: Hate Crime Or Stupidity?

Next Tuesday the trial of 19-year-old Dharun Ravi opens. . . . If found guilty, Mr. Ravi could go to jail for ten years.

What did Dharun Ravi do? Well, he was a freshman roommate at Rutgers University with a chap named Tyler Clementi. Clementi was homosexual, and not a closeted one — he didn’t make much of a secret of it. Why would he? Our young people are taught from kindergarten on that “gay is just as good as straight,” that Heather has two mommies, that homosexuals should be “proud,” and so on. My local high school has a club for homosexual students. Anyone who’s embarrassed or ashamed about being homosexual hasn’t been paying attention for about thirty years. And in fact, Clementi wasn’t ashamed: in those first three weeks of his freshman year, he attended at least one meeting of the Rutgers students Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Alliance.

Well, a year last September, Dharun Ravi and another freshman, Molly Wei, used a webcam to secretly watch Clementi kissing a young man Clementi had picked up. After watching the video, Ravi gossiped about it on Twitter, quote: “I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.”

Three days after that, Clementi committed suicide by jumping from the George Washington Bridge. Whether this had any connection at all to the webcam incident, is not known. That Dharun Ravi thought his prank might drive Clementi to suicide is preposterous; that he intended that result is preposterosity squared.

The homosexualists were up in arms none the less, and every damn fool politician in New Jersey joined in the hue and cry. Chris Christie, who I think less of every time he opens his fat mouth, quote: “I don’t know how those two folks are going to sleep at night, knowing that they contributed to driving that young man to that alternative.” They don’t know that, Governor, and neither do you, and neither does anyone. They played a trivial prank; Clement killed himself; cause and effect are not obvious, certainly not established to any fair evidentiary standards.

(And nor will the trial attempt to establish such cause and effect. As the USA Today report notes: “Ravi is not charged with anything to do with the suicide.” A legal friend tells me that if the prosecution so much as mentions Clementi’s suicide, that would be grounds for a mistrial. The trial is not about the suicide, it’s about what Dharun Ravi did – see above.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291621/darkness-new-jersey-john-derbyshire

Re:Here it comes. by cold+fjord · 2012-02-24 19:51 · Score: -1 · on Cars Emit More Black Carbon Than Previously Thought

True global warming "believers" don't believe, they looked at the available evidence and weighed the opinions of experts and came to a conclusion based on facts and consensus.

I'm afraid your wrong on a number of counts.

First, most global warming believers probably hold that belief because that is what teacher said, or that is what they read in the paper, or on the web, and not through an independent review of data, papers, and reports. Although scientists and engineers may find the hard data more approachable, I expect that most of them are still at a casual level of familiarity with the material, not truly informed, let alone expert.

Second, there is something approaching consensus among scientists that the earth has gotten warmer in some measure. That doesn't mean that the data is not without disputes and controversies, including but not limited to data normalization techniques, sources, and transparency.

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

Now, this is before we consider the troubling revelations of Climategate.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
Peer Pressure
Peer-Review Thuggery
Scientists Behaving Badly
Without candour, we can't trust climate science
Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

Analysis There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.
“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. I

Re:Here it comes. by cold+fjord · 2012-02-24 19:51 · Score: -1 · on Cars Emit More Black Carbon Than Previously Thought

True global warming "believers" don't believe, they looked at the available evidence and weighed the opinions of experts and came to a conclusion based on facts and consensus.

I'm afraid your wrong on a number of counts.

First, most global warming believers probably hold that belief because that is what teacher said, or that is what they read in the paper, or on the web, and not through an independent review of data, papers, and reports. Although scientists and engineers may find the hard data more approachable, I expect that most of them are still at a casual level of familiarity with the material, not truly informed, let alone expert.

Second, there is something approaching consensus among scientists that the earth has gotten warmer in some measure. That doesn't mean that the data is not without disputes and controversies, including but not limited to data normalization techniques, sources, and transparency.

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

Now, this is before we consider the troubling revelations of Climategate.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
Peer Pressure
Peer-Review Thuggery
Scientists Behaving Badly
Without candour, we can't trust climate science
Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

Analysis There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.
“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. I

Re:Here it comes. by cold+fjord · 2012-02-24 19:51 · Score: -1 · on Cars Emit More Black Carbon Than Previously Thought

True global warming "believers" don't believe, they looked at the available evidence and weighed the opinions of experts and came to a conclusion based on facts and consensus.

I'm afraid your wrong on a number of counts.

First, most global warming believers probably hold that belief because that is what teacher said, or that is what they read in the paper, or on the web, and not through an independent review of data, papers, and reports. Although scientists and engineers may find the hard data more approachable, I expect that most of them are still at a casual level of familiarity with the material, not truly informed, let alone expert.

Second, there is something approaching consensus among scientists that the earth has gotten warmer in some measure. That doesn't mean that the data is not without disputes and controversies, including but not limited to data normalization techniques, sources, and transparency.

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

Now, this is before we consider the troubling revelations of Climategate.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
Peer Pressure
Peer-Review Thuggery
Scientists Behaving Badly
Without candour, we can't trust climate science
Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

Analysis There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.
“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. I

Re:Santorum claiming that.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 20:07 · Score: 0 · on Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

I voted for Obama but feel that I got burned for it. Is it too much to ask that he at least allow an investigation of whether Bush & Cheney should be charged? That bit of "looking out for one's own," "Presidential perks" - fucking the Constitution and the rest of us in the bargain - in addition to the wiretaps, the "guilty 'cuz I say so" hit on a "terrorist" American, and the failure to immediately dismantle the TSA is taking us way too far down the wrong path.

Yes, it is too much. You views are from a pretty narrow political fringe. There is very little support for that in the country, and not enough in congress to matter. It isn't going anywhere. Furthermore, you are almost certainly wrong on your views in terms of what is and isn't legal in this regard. There is plenty of precedent for what both Bush and Obama have done from other presidents and court cases involving armed conflict. One of the basic mistakes that people make is to confuse the demands of criminal law with the procedures that are followed under the law of war. You can't wish it away just because you don't like it, or don't like the outcome.

You will probably have a much more balanced view of the world, and a better understanding of events, if you read more widely. Try National Review. It is center right and will probably broaden your horizions.

Pax

Re:So says the religious guy. by cold+fjord · 2012-02-21 19:26 · Score: 1, Informative · on Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

Only in this particular debate, the actual scientists agree with Unnamed Democrat. That doesn't quite have the symmetry you were going for, though, right?

That really depends on the debate, doesn't it? We keep hearing that there is "Consensus" about man-made global warming being a fact in shrill tones, with accusations of being anti-science, or a "denier" if you disagree or have reservations. But the simple fact is that there has never been a genuine consensus among all scientists, not even all climatologists, that global warming, to the extent that it exists, is man-made. (Indeed, how often do you see tens of thousands of people agree about anything with no dissenting or differing views at all? I don't think that there are even many dictatorships that claim the vote is 100% for the ruling party anymore.) The faux "consensus" is in fact a means of control and a way to provide an opening for punishing dissent by denying publication, tenure, grants, and damaging reputations. The stakes are enormous: billons of dollars in green energy funding, carbon exchanges, direct government and bureaucratic control of much of the economy and daily life with the proffered goal of controlling carbon emissions. Progressives and leftists have always wanted more government power to regulate the economy. No wonder the Communists march about global warming - ironic given the Soviet record on the environment.

The Climategate emails are quite revealing.

Peer-Review Thuggery

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.
One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.
The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?
This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.

Re:10 Year plan vs daily/weekly bullshit laws by cold+fjord · 2012-02-18 07:28 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Is the Government Scaring Web Businesses Out of the US?

Major General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corp, was an extraordinarily brave and devoted Marine who served the United States in an exceptional manner while in uniform, earning two Congressional Medals of Honor - the highest American medal for bravery on the battlefield. Out of uniform and in the realm of politics, however, citizen Butler involved himself in leftist fringe politics. I would be inclined to follow Major General Butler anywhere on the battlefield, but nowhere near a voting booth. In this regard he is like Chomsky, a man of exceptional virtual in his field, but a political crank (popular though he may be) and genocide denier.

. . . . Back in the 1930s, the U.S. Communist Party recruited a former Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, to give speeches on the eve of World War II denouncing military preparedness as a capitalist racket. The idea was that by persuading an individual man of valor to propound shameful views, those views would somehow become less shameful. It didn’t work then. I doubt it will work now. - Wesley Who?

War is sometimes chosen for you by your enemies, not by some secret cabal in government or industry. Other nations and groups have their own plans, such as forcing Islamic conversion and Sharia law to replace the US Constitution on the US independent of anything the US does.

If the so called Military-Industrial complex is so powerful, why has the long term trend since World War 2 been towards decreased spending as a percentage of the economy?
Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Well Below Historical Average

If there is no threat, why do we keep seeing arrests and convictions like this?

Federal agents arrest Amine El Khalifi; he allegedly planned to bomb Capitol
Federal authorities on Friday arrested a 29-year-old Moroccan man in an alleged plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a series of terrorism-related arrests resulting from undercover sting operations.

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria,

Re:Really? by cold+fjord · 2012-02-18 06:05 · Score: 1 · on Is the Government Scaring Web Businesses Out of the US?

I found the article you pointed to at the Conceptual Guerilla to be an interesting piece at a site devoted to cutting edge progressive thought and politics. I think I've found a companion piece of similar gravitas over at The People's Cube.

Of course no web article is going to cover material like this in any real depth. Anyone wishing to explore related themes may want to consider some of the following books by prominent African American economist Thomas Sowell:

Marxism: Philosophy and economics
Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
Affirmative Action around the World: An Empirical Study
Race and Culture: A World View
Intellectuals and Society
Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition
The Housing Boom and Bust, Revised Edition
Black Rednecks and White Liberals
Dismantling America: And Other Controversial Essays by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell will never have the following of a Chomsky, but then he doesn't have Chomsky's genocide denier problem. (Cambodian genocide)

Politics vs. Economics - Short-term decisions have long-term effects
Evil-Man Economics

Re:Really? by cold+fjord · 2012-02-18 06:05 · Score: 1 · on Is the Government Scaring Web Businesses Out of the US?

I found the article you pointed to at the Conceptual Guerilla to be an interesting piece at a site devoted to cutting edge progressive thought and politics. I think I've found a companion piece of similar gravitas over at The People's Cube.

Of course no web article is going to cover material like this in any real depth. Anyone wishing to explore related themes may want to consider some of the following books by prominent African American economist Thomas Sowell:

Marxism: Philosophy and economics
Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
Affirmative Action around the World: An Empirical Study
Race and Culture: A World View
Intellectuals and Society
Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition
The Housing Boom and Bust, Revised Edition
Black Rednecks and White Liberals
Dismantling America: And Other Controversial Essays by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell will never have the following of a Chomsky, but then he doesn't have Chomsky's genocide denier problem. (Cambodian genocide)

Politics vs. Economics - Short-term decisions have long-term effects
Evil-Man Economics

Re:Easy is easy by cold+fjord · 2012-02-05 18:47 · Score: 2 · on Using Crowdsourcing To Design More Accessible Elections

Its not as much nonsense as you make it out to be. Look at the statistics for low income families and their ability to get proper identification.

Here are some interesting statistics:

American University found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi lacked a government-issued ID. A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only 23 people in the entire sample would be unable to vote because of an ID requirement. . . . .
The weakness of the case against voter ID has been much in evidence in courtrooms. The Indiana and Georgia voter-ID laws were upheld by state and federal courts. In the Georgia case, the federal court pointed out that after two years of litigation, none of the plaintiffs, including the NAACP, could produce a single otherwise eligible voter who did not have a photo ID or could not easily obtain one. That failure was “particularly acute,” the court wrote, “in light of the Plaintiffs’ contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable photo ID.” Similarly, in the Indiana case, the federal court noted that “despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, Plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting.”
The Georgia court said that the claim that voter ID is the same as a poll tax “represents a dramatic overstatement.” Imposing tangential burdens “does not transform a regulation into a poll tax” and “the cost of time and transportation” to obtain a free ID “cannot plausibly qualify as a prohibited poll tax because those same ‘costs’ also result from voter registration and in-person voting requirements, which one would not reasonably construe as a poll tax.” All of the states implementing voter ID have provided free IDs for anyone who does not already have one. As Rhode Island state senator Harold Metts said, “In this day and age, very few adults lack one of the forms of identification that will be accepted, and the rare person who does can get a free voter-ID card.”

Re:Voter-ID by cold+fjord · 2012-02-05 18:07 · Score: 1 · on Using Crowdsourcing To Design More Accessible Elections

The baseless claim that voter ID is a Republican plot to depress the votes of minorities, who disproportionately support Democrats, certainly isn’t made by those Democrats who overwhelmingly control the Rhode Island legislature that passed voter ID. State representative Jon Brien, a Democratic sponsor of the bill, said it was wrong for party leaders to “make this a Republican-versus-Democrat issue. It’s not. It’s simply a good-government issue.” Brien added that “we as representatives have a duty to the citizenry to ensure the integrity of our elections, and the requirement to show an ID will ensure that integrity.” State senator Harold Metts, a black Democrat whose support of Rhode Island’s voter-ID bill angered the ACLU and other leftist organizations, said he was “more interested in doing the right thing and stopping voter fraud.” And polling shows that the so-called leaders of the civil-rights establishment who oppose voter ID are actually out of touch with their constituents, who recognize that voter fraud often hits hardest in minority communities.
Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.
For those who might reply that this was because Barack Obama was on the ballot, think again. Mississippi, with an equally large black population and no voter ID, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 2.35 percentage points. Georgia’s registration records show that while only 42.9 percent of registered black Georgians voted in 2006, when there was no photo-ID requirement, 50.4 percent voted in the 2010 congressional elections — an increase of more than seven percentage points. Georgia’s secretary of state recently pointed out that, compared with 2006, voter turnout in 2010 “among African Americans outpaced the growth of that population’s pool of registered voters by more than 20 percentage points.”
Indiana witnessed similar results. In the state considered to have the nation’s strictest voter-ID law, turnout in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election, when there was no photo-ID law. In the general election, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state. Neighboring Illinois, which has no photo-ID requirement and is Obama’s home state, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 4.4 percentage points — barely half of Indiana’s increase. In the 2010 election, Indiana was one of the states with a substantial increase in black turnout: “The black share of the state vote was higher in 2010 than it was in 2008, a banner year for black turnout,” according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The black share of the total vote went from only 7 percent in 2008 to 12 percent in 2010.
Numerous studies — including those by the Heritage Foundation, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska–Lincol

Re:Ballot stuffing is very rare. by cold+fjord · 2012-02-05 09:12 · Score: 4, Informative · on Using Crowdsourcing To Design More Accessible Elections

Ballot stuffing (or even voting two or more times) is very rare.
So rare as to be a non-issue. Despite claims to the contrary.

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong about that.

. . . two Troy city officials, the city clerk and a councilman, along with two Democratic political operatives, have pled guilty to forging absentee-ballot signatures and casting fraudulent ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. The WFP is the political party associated with ACORN.
One of the citizens whose votes were stolen was stunned at what happened. She said that she was “sure this goes on a lot in politics, but it’s very rare that they do get caught.” This voter was right on the money with that observation — fraud is so easy to commit in our election system that it is rare that fraudsters get caught and even rarer that they get prosecuted.
. . . one of the Democratic operatives who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told New York State police investigators “that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” And whose votes do they steal? DeFiglio was very plain about that: “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing, and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions.”
That is exactly what former Alabama congressman Artur Davis said recently when he admitted that he was wrong to oppose voter-ID requirements. Davis says the “most aggressive” voter suppression “is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt” of Alabama, which is an area of very poor black communities. These are the very areas where the NAACP claims voter fraud does not happen. The NAACP opposes all reasonable measures to safeguard the voting process for its own constituents, even going to the extent of defending vote stealers, as the NAACP did in Greene County, Ala., in the mid-1990s. Small wonder one of its local officials was recently sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud in Tunica County, Mississippi. - Yes, Virginia, There Really Is Voter Fraud

And more . . .

In contrast, a subsequent media analysis showed that at least 2000 votes were cast illegally in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. Since the margin of victory in Florida was 537 votes, the fraudulent votes were sufficient to affect the outcome of the election.
That’s not an isolated example. Evidence adduced at various commission hearings suggests numerous instances of actual voter fraud. The cases involve organizations and individuals who register ineligible voters, dead people, and fictional characters. In an infamous Ohio case during the 2004 presidential election campaign, a canvasser paid with crack cocaine registered Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins, and scores of other equally noteworthy characters.
Again, these aren’t isolated cases. A major 2001 voter registration drive in St. Louis’s black community produced 3,800 new voter cards. When some of the names appeared suspicious, elections officials investigated all of the cards and determined that every single one was fraudulent. Dogs, the dead, and people who simply didn’t want to register were among the new registrants.
The problem isn’t only that canvassers are being paid to produce manifestly fraudulent voter registrations; it’s also that voter rolls throughout the country are being padded with hundreds of thousands of false and fraudulent names. For example, testimony by John Sample before the Senate Rules Committee showed that Alaska had 503,000 people on its voter rolls but only 437,000 people of votin

Re:Easy is easy by cold+fjord · 2012-02-05 08:41 · Score: 2 · on Using Crowdsourcing To Design More Accessible Elections

Good point. The best you can do is to get the facts out and try to make a good argument.

Voter ID Is Not Jim Crow

Re:Easy is easy by cold+fjord · 2012-02-05 08:41 · Score: 2 · on Using Crowdsourcing To Design More Accessible Elections

Good point. The best you can do is to get the facts out and try to make a good argument.

A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election

Voter ID Is Not Jim Crow

Re:Don't you get it? Republicans only ones DEFENDI by cold+fjord · 2012-01-29 19:58 · Score: 2 · on Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad

"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.

No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.

I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.

That's funny, really.

Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain’s victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Today Show and the New York Times that the eruption of the tea parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.
Waving the “bloody shirt” of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the “epidemic” of black-church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush’s “insensitivity” regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd’s murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain’s success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next nearest competitor, Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.
And it wasn’t that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It’s that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems, and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it.”
And it doesn’t hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.

If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, that doubt should have been put to rest when Barack Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Stop whining!”

A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election

Actually, it was no la

Re:Don't you get it? Republicans only ones DEFENDI by cold+fjord · 2012-01-29 19:58 · Score: 2 · on Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad

"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.

No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.

I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.

That's funny, really.

Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain’s victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Today Show and the New York Times that the eruption of the tea parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.
Waving the “bloody shirt” of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the “epidemic” of black-church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush’s “insensitivity” regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd’s murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain’s success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next nearest competitor, Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.
And it wasn’t that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It’s that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems, and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it.”
And it doesn’t hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.

If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, that doubt should have been put to rest when Barack Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Stop whining!”

A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election

Actually, it was no la

Re:Don't you get it? Republicans only ones DEFENDI by cold+fjord · 2012-01-29 19:58 · Score: 2 · on Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad

"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.

No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.

I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.

That's funny, really.

Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain’s victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Today Show and the New York Times that the eruption of the tea parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.
Waving the “bloody shirt” of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the “epidemic” of black-church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush’s “insensitivity” regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd’s murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain’s success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next nearest competitor, Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.
And it wasn’t that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It’s that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems, and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it.”
And it doesn’t hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.

If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, that doubt should have been put to rest when Barack Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Stop whining!”

A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election

Actually, it was no la

Re:Don't you get it? Republicans only ones DEFENDI by cold+fjord · 2012-01-29 19:58 · Score: 2 · on Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad

"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.

No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.

I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.

That's funny, really.

Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain’s victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Today Show and the New York Times that the eruption of the tea parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.
Waving the “bloody shirt” of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the “epidemic” of black-church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush’s “insensitivity” regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd’s murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain’s success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next nearest competitor, Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.
And it wasn’t that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It’s that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems, and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it.”
And it doesn’t hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.

If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, that doubt should have been put to rest when Barack Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Stop whining!”

A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election

Actually, it was no la

Re:Don't you get it? Republicans only ones DEFENDI by cold+fjord · 2012-01-29 19:58 · Score: 2 · on Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad

"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.

No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.

I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.

That's funny, really.

Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain’s victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Today Show and the New York Times that the eruption of the tea parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.
Waving the “bloody shirt” of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the “epidemic” of black-church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush’s “insensitivity” regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd’s murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain’s success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next nearest competitor, Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.
And it wasn’t that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It’s that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems, and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it.”
And it doesn’t hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.

If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, that doubt should have been put to rest when Barack Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Stop whining!”