Slashdot Mirror
Netcraft Shows Smartech Running Ohio Election Servers
goombah99 writes "Netcraft is showing that an event happened in the Ohio 2004 election that is difficult to explain. The Secretary of State's website, which handles election reporting, normally is directed to an Ohio-based IP address hosted by the Ohio Supercomputer Center. On Nov. 3 2004, Netcraft shows the website pointing out of state to a server owned by Smartech Corp. According to the American Registry on Internet Numbers, Smartech's block of IP addresses 64.203.96.0 – 64.203.111.255 encompasses the entire range of addresses owned by the Republican National Committee. Smartech hosted the recently notorious gbw43.com domain used from the White House in apparent violation of the Presidential Records Act, from which thousands of White House emails vanished." Update: 04/25 01:24 GMT by KD : ePluribus Media published a piece called Ken Blackwell Outsources Ohio Election Results to GOP Internet Operatives, Again on election eve 2006, when a similar DNS switch to Smartech occurred. They have been investigating the larger story of IT on Capitol Hill and elsewhere for two years.
No, he easily surpasses Nixon by leaps and bounds. And what's more, Nixon knew when he was breaking laws and doing shady things. This president seems to believe he's doing exactly what he's "allowed" to do and is operating within his rights.
It would be an interesting question to ask the president whether he thought Nixon was a shady character as president and whether Nixon's activities and actions were of a questionable if not illegal behavior. Could he agree with History's assessment of Nixon while at the same time continue to claim he is within his rights and is acting in the best interest of the nation?
this data doesn't mean that the RNC fixed the election, but what it could mean is that by having control over the voting reports to the public, they could infact hold back information or skew results before the votes were finalized and this could prevent a late rush to the polls from democrats fearing defeat.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
This was submitted yesterday when this was still news:
That's not fair -- Nixon was actually a pretty effective president. People only remember the resignation, but he was able to push through a large number of domestic policy changes and had a foreign policy that extended beyond Vietman. Whether or not you agree with his politics (and be sure you know what they are before you make that decision), and the crimes he helped cover up, you should at least respect his effectiveness in the office.
That may be true, but let me share a personal anecdote. Studying in Ohio during 2004, I was glad that my vote might "count" for something, and eagerly anticipated the elections. Being in a (rich and somewhat elitist) college town, you can imagine that liberal sentiment was widespread. Sure, there were a few Bush supporters, but almost everyone I knew of planned on voting Kerry. This is a sizable group of people, several thousand.
The (Republican) voting officials assigned us just TWO voting machines, which coincidentally turned out to be the two oldest in the county. One broke after about an hour in use.
Personally, I ended up standing in line almost 11 hours to vote. Some people stayed in excess of 13 hours (by far the highest in the nation). Needless to say, our votes didn't make it into the county tallies.
Meanwhile, the "townies" (rural and overwhelmingly Bush supporters according to results) had surplus machines, and faced no wait.
I'm not saying that Kerry would have won anyway, but just the brazenness of these people's anti-competitive activities astounded me. I can certainly believe that lesser forms of the same or similar methods were enforced in other areas of the state. IIRC, Ken Blackwell, then Secretary of State (no idea if he still is), said that he would do whatever it took to re-elect Bush. I think that's a quote, but I'm not certain. Certainly, this implies no illegal activity, but given the political climate, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
Care to cite references that say we're "kicking ass" in Afghanistan? You'd think the administration and the Pentagon would be quick to hype up the ass-kicking to deflect against Iraq.
If you believe the mass media have any sort of "left" agenda, or have any agenda whatsoever beyond getting the next advertising deal, you need to buy more tinfoil. The only agenda most American media companies has is to make money; some do it by pandering to religious conservatives, some do it by pandering to Democrats, others are trying to woo the traditional conservative (the small government type, not the current brand of conservatives). If all mass media pandered to the same group as in a nation-wide "agenda", you'd have a vacuum of ad dollars, which we do not have.
And yes, I do see combatant body counts. All the time, in fact, and you would too if you read media outside of the US or read some non-mainstream news sources, or at least not the "big" outlets.
Losing means we are losing our country's dignity by continuing our unprovoked invasion of another country.
Losing means we are losing our brightest stars, sacrificing for political reasons those who would most readily pick up arms in defense of this country. This includes many of our bravest and brightest. What would do more good for this country, having a soldier in Iraq, toiling in endless war, or having that person back at home, raising their children to become good people like themselves?
Losing primarily means that this is not considered by either side to be a conventional war, with winners and losers. The violence and indignation will go on for as long as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it will continue after we leave. The fighting will continue indefinitely. And as such, given that we are foreign invaders, and our "enemies" are defending their home, we cannot "win."
Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
Before we get to your comments, remember that Nixon's "solution" to paying for Viet Nam was to go off the gold standard and print lots and lots of money. What happens when you print lots and lots of money? Well the value of the dollar goes down, of course, which means that people have to pay more dollars to get the same things. When you pay more money for the same thing we call that inflation. And what does the gov do to control inflation? Raise interest rates.
So now let's look at what you complained about (slightly re-arranged)...
Devaluation of the dollar.
Inflation was through the roof (12%).
Average mortgage rates during the Carter administration were over 15%! I don't even pay credit cards 15%!!!
Which invariably leads to...
Unemployment was high (7%).
Deficit spending went through the roof (the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion).
You can't blame Carter for these things. That's not to say he did anything to improve the situation, far from it, but let's at least try to blame the right people for the right problems (not that Carter was lacking in them).
> Canceled the B1-B program as well as the MBT-70. (Both badly
> needed to compete with our enemy of the time... the Soviets who
> had the T-72 and the Tu-160 BLACKJACK)
Pfft.
The MBT-70 was cancelled in 1971. What did he do, go back in time?
Carter did not cancel the B-1B, he cancelled the B-1A. And he replaced it with B-52/ALCM, which EVERYONE not directly tied to the contract will freely admit was a much better system (1500 very small subsonic low-level targets vs 100 -- no brainer). He also funded ATB, or stealth, which was a way better solution.
Regan did an extremely good job of spinning these to make it look like Carter was a moron. But that's just politics.
Again, I'm not trying to support the guy, but these are terrible arguments.
Maury
If you poke around the records a bit, you'll see that we are talking about the Sec'ty of State's website - there was no internet voting, AFAIK. How absolutely unheard of for a web site to migrate to another provider during periods of increased activity! The SOS website was migrated for the Primary and for the Election, the two days of the year the traffic spikes, and she choose a friendly Web Hosting Company - would this be interesting if she choose 1&1 or another independent hosting service?
And the IP addresses issue, puh-leeze, they have many clients that are not the RNC - simply providing a service to the RNC is not a crime - if it were, then caterers, limo drivers, temp agencies, coffee shops, etc. that serve the RNC throughout the year are RNC flunkies...
Seriously, what is the problem - that the SOS website was on a machine physically near Newt Gingrich's website, the election was obviously stolen...
Ken
Google "Taliban 2007" for all the reference you need.
Googled. At the very top - Taliban behead Afghan officer. Yep, we sure do have them running and hiding, violence from members of the Taliban sure has been obliterated.
You'd think the administration and the Pentagon would be quick to hype up the ass-kicking to deflect against Iraq. The Admin does. The Pentagon does not. The press ignores both.
The Pentagon is filled to the brim with cronies using psyops to attempt to direct the media's attention. The administration doesn't know their asshole from their elbow. Fox News certainly caters to conservatives and LOVES reporting victories, but you still see death counts even on that terrible excuse for a 'news' network. The deaths of American soldiers AND Iraqis/Afghanis/etc are equally important for legitimate news dissemination. The problem with American news sources is Journalism has taken a backseat to commercialism. Why do you think we keep seeing Rev. Jesse Jackson and Robert Novak still getting published in newspapers? Its usually flamebait and it sells (even their names alone instill anger in people, but it still sells.)
Next, you say:
If you believe the mass media have any sort of "left" agenda, or have any agenda whatsoever beyond getting the next advertising deal, you need to buy more tinfoil.
and
And yes, I do see combatant body counts. All the time, in fact, and you would too if you read media outside of the US or read some non-mainstream news sources, or at least not the "big" outlets.
Which kinda proves my point. The US media does not present any US military victories, just "how many US soldiers died today." Why should I have to go outside US media outlets to find out how many "insurgents" we are killing vs. how many soldiers we are losing. It's kinda hard to keep score when all you see is how many scores opponent has. Don't get me wrong, this is not a game, but if we attack an Al Qaeda stronghold and kill 10,000 insurgents and lose 5 US soldiers, all I see reported is how Al Qaeda killed five soldiers today. Are you telling me that's not pushing an agenda?
The US media does not present *many US military victories because a.) they don't have the same appeal for ratings (commercialism) and b.) WHAT military victories are worth reporting, US Spec Ops kill insurgents, insurgents bomb the hell out of a market and kill 200 people, 9 Soldiers killed by roadside bomb, etc., etc. The fact is, we are getting our asses kicked because there is no way to fight an insurgency shy of just killing everyone (which, btw, is how Saddam ran things). On a side note, its not the media's job to keep troop morale up, and if you are a soldier or related to one, soldiers are there to do what they are ordered to and not complain about media coverage, they signed up for it.
Have you been off the grid for the past 6 years? Have you listened to any interviews or statements Dick Cheney or anyone at an administration press conference has given about ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING in the past 6 years?
Its called cognitive dissonance and you need to rise above it. Until then, bask in your one sided ignorance while human beings, including small children, are dying.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The Constitution does not apply to the President (Richard Nixon to David Frost, paraphrased; Alberto Gonzales any number of times) according to the Nixonian Guard that are in power now. It's not like they're hiding their belief. Gonzales just told the Congress to go fuck itself last week, on camera. Rice has issued a statement today saying she has better things to do than respond to a subpoena, and apparently won't bother to show up. Who would have the power to arrest her? Gonzales. Yeah boy. That's what will happen, yes.