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.

115 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. Breaking News by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    The President announced today that he as complete faith in the Ohio Supercomputer Center, Smartech Corp. and the RNC, which utterly destroys any remaining credibility they may have had left.

    The longer this fellow stays in office, the more he resembles Richard M. Nixon, IMHO.

    Nixon is not dead. How do I know? Always two there are, a Master and an Apprentice.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Breaking News by Khaed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuck.

      AOLers found /.

    2. Re:Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    3. Re:Breaking News by stewwy · · Score: 2

      Having lived through both I think you'll find that Nixon was a LOT more honourable, at least he bowed out (eventually). I think the only way this one will leave is kicking and screaming.

    4. Re:Breaking News by CogDissident · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, untill someone actually says "no, you can't do that", then he really DOES have the ability to do whatever he wants.

      Example:
      Shooting someone is illegal, yet you go out into times square and shoot someone in the face. A cop comes out and looks at the dead guy, looks at you, and sort of shrugs and walks off. Do you feel like you broke the law? What if you do it every day before work, and eventually a cop says "Hey, maybe it'd be a good idea to stop shooting people". Did you break the law then?

      We really haven't done anything to show Bush that he is anything less than an absolute monarch in his kingdom.

    5. Re:Breaking News by profplump · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Breaking News by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dont forget: (sung to the tune of ""He's got the whole world in his hands") We get twoooo dollars... to the pound...

    7. Re:Breaking News by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Best Economy Ever? My ass. You realize that credit card debt is skyrocketing, foreign markets are dumping US dollars at record rates, mortgage rates are unsustainably low (and I keep waiting for the bottom to completely fall out of that one).

      The economy isn't blasting along. Spending is. It's not the same thing. It's just digging a hole that will have to be got out of later, somehow.

    8. Re:Breaking News by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who is this Terrorism guy I keep hearing about?

    9. Re:Breaking News by Suzumushi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Johnson and Kennedy come foremost to mind regarding the questions you ask above.

      On a side note the Geneva conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete," particularly when applied to warfare with cultures that don't recognize said conventions. Also, there are a lot of conventions and protocols that fall under the catch all term of "Geneva Conventions," and not all of them are readily applicable to warfare with "terrorists."

      I'd also say it's sad commentary that Slashdotters are so willing to mod up anti-Bush rhetoric, without support for those mis-guided conclusions.

      Then again, everyone likes a scape-goat just as much as they like a panacea.

    10. Re:Breaking News by Markemp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because the other side isn't following the rules set by the Geneva Conventions doesn't mean we are freed from the responsibilities of following them. I'm pretty sure we're bound by them regardless of the antics of our enemies. I'll have to do some research to back this up, but I'm willing to bet there is no clause that waives your responsibilities to follow GC under certain circumstances.

    11. Re:Breaking News by Lane.exe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Dow Jones Average is up, but most individual stocks are still trading low and many companies are posting lower-than-average numbers. You can't look at the average itself and use that as a reliable indicator of the health of the economy. The same with the unemployment rate. What you have to look at are correlations of average salary versus the average cost of living.

      --
      IAALS.
    12. Re:Breaking News by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Funny

      Charlie's cousin.

    13. Re:Breaking News by Kelson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's actually kind of sad. Carter was probably the most intelligent president in US history. He just sucked as president.

      I remember someone characterizing Carter, with his long diplomatic career, as a much better ex-President than President.

    14. Re:Breaking News by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember Carter VERY well. Why would you consider him worse than Bush?

      Where do I begin:

      Carter was more in the "Religious Right's" pocket than Bush ever will be. Carter was a Fundamentalist Christian (a religious affiliation), but it consistently galled the religious right (a political affiliation) that he wouldn't champion their causes. For example, he was politically pro-choice, but privately held that abortion was wrong.

      Were visiting dignitaries allowed a glass of wine with dinner while visiting the White House in 1978? Nope! Alcohol was banned in the White House by Carter. Ok... and that makes him a poor president, why? Remember, we're comparing him to a man who hired a flunky with no experience to head up FEMA!

      Average mortgage rates during the Carter administration were over 15%! I don't even pay credit cards 15%!!!

      Inflation was through the roof (12%).

      Unemployment was high (7%). The economy sucked under Carter. However, any economist worth their salt will tell you that this was an unavoidable consequence of global factors, including our exit from Viet Nam. There was also the fact that the Fed was still applying, what Greenspan would later prove to be a losing strategy for managing inflation. None of this was under Carter's control.

      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).

      Devaluation of the dollar. These are consequences of a poor economy. Again, not Carter's doing.

      Gas shortages. Gas shortages are a tough problem, and I have to give R.R. credit for enhancing our oil options. Carter may or may not have responded in similar ways, but by the time any response was possible, he was out of office.

      Iranian hostage crisis.

      Failure to rescue Iranian hostages. This was a very touchy situation, and I doubt we'll ever know for sure what happened. All I'll say is that, from the PR perspective, Carter hosed this one and hosed it good. Beyond that, there's just too much that was never disclosed.

      Demoralization and dismantling of the US military Well, the dismantling of large chunks of the military was inevitable, after the buildup during Viet Nam. Even Reagan's huge buildup in the mid/late 80s was only a stopgap that lasted as long as the end of the cold war.

      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) I see no reason that those were badly needed to cope with the Soviets, and Carter's dealings with the Soviets and with arms issues were a major accomplishment of his presidency.

      It's actually kind of sad. Carter was probably the most intelligent president in US history. He just sucked as president. I think he was the best president we ever had. He refused to allow congress to continue to play their games, and effectively gridlocked them for 4 years. A better 4 years, I couldn't ask for.

      but things were better when he took office than when he left and things were much, MUCH better after four years of Reagan. Military spending was through the roof. Deficit spending dwarfed Carter's administration. The CIA and NSA were dealing drugs for international power-plays. No, things were not "MUCH better" after four years of Reagan - not by a long shot.
    15. Re:Breaking News by Enry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Carter was more in the "Religious Right's" pocket than Bush ever will be. Were visiting dignitaries allowed a glass of wine with dinner while visiting the White House in 1978? Nope! Alcohol was banned in the White House by Carter.

      Oh noes!! Bring religious and being in the "religious right's" pocket are two different things. I don't think Carter is going around telling people that God came down to the White House and told him 'no more booze'.

      Average mortgage rates during the Carter administration were over 15%! I don't even pay credit cards 15%!!!

      Give it time.

      Inflation was through the roof (12%).

      Strong Fed has been keeping it low. Yay.

      Unemployment was high (7%).

      Unemployment is measured differently now than then. It's possible that unemployment now using the same measurements would be the same or higher.

      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).

      What is it now? Oh right $521 Billion. And that's after having balanced the budget in the late '90s. So going from 0 to $521B is a bit more impressive.

      Devaluation of the dollar.

      $2 gets you a pound

      Gas shortages.

      Not sure why this hasn't happened yet. But $4/gal gas, here we come!

      Iranian hostage crisis.
      Failure to rescue Iranian hostages.

      Funny how that ended just as Reagan took office. And how a later scandal was called Iran/Contra. Huh.

      Demoralization and dismantling of the US military

      Yea, the day after Bush blames Democrats for keeping the troops in Iraq longer than they should, Gates says all tours get extended from 12 months to 15 months.

      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)

      We still beat the Russians, right?

      Need I go on?

      Oh, please do. I don't see anything about Carter tortuing American citizens, or spying on their telephone or banking records. The Internets wasn't quite the same now as then, so I'll give Bush a pass on spying on that, at least in comparing to Carter. Maybe Carter is to blame for Walter Reed, or K Street, or leaking Wilson's name, or any of the collection of other scandals we've seen in the past 6 years that makes losing money on a failed land deal look almost..innocent.

      But you go on.

    16. Re:Breaking News by OriginalArlen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it made me feel humiliated, as did the rest of the country. Doesn't it make you feel humiliated to be a citizen of a country whose government is despised by virtually everyone else in the world? I'm in the UK, BTW, one of the staunchest allies of the USA over the last century, but I have to tell you that there's not a cat in hell's chance we'll join the next US military action we're invited to. It would be political suicide. Your president is an international laughing stock. There's a round on a popular UK radio show - listened to by let's say a "mature" audience (the panelists are in the 60s, 70s and the chairman's 85...) did an entire round where they were invited to complete some well-known Bushisms ("I opposed breaching those dams... I know that humans and fish can coexist peacefully") and they simply poured ridicule on him. (And no, BTW, these are the epitome of the bourgeouis, usually completely apolitical, BTW, not young left wing tear-aways. Bush is so intrinsically funny that it transcends politics entirely.
      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    17. Re:Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you kidding me?

      I initially tried to respond to your post, but the list of scandals alone the Bush Administration has been involved with, in addition to economic performance and the overall failure of the Iraq War, was just too much to put in.

      The worst you can say about Carter is that he fucked up a rescue attempt in Iran.

      The worst you can say about Bush? Torture, signing statements, Katrina, wireless NSA tapping, etc., etc., etc., and that doesn't even count that gawd awful mess we're dealing with in Iraq.

      Please. There's no comparison.

    18. Re:Breaking News by gunnk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just one comment on your exchange: Grandparent talked about the level of employment, you addressed the level of unemployment. Two different things since unemployment statistics relate to the percentage of job-seekers without work while employment is a measure of the percentage of the population that has jobs. If unemployed workers give up searching for jobs it is possible for unemployment AND employment statistics to both fall.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
    19. Re:Breaking News by furball · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You ignored Carter's greatest mistake ever, the mistake that has unfortunately screwed over American politics and will continue to do so for ages to come. Carter alienated what would later be known as the "religious right." This group was firmly entrenched in the Democrat Party's side prior to Carter's time. It wasn't until Carter's Treasury Dept. folks decided to change how taxation was going to apply to religious private schools in the south that this particular voting block switched sides overnight.

      This resulted in the Republicans being saddled with the religious right and forever screwing up the right wing and American politics. 3 decades later we're still dealing with it.

      Thanks Carter. You suck.

    20. Re:Breaking News by daeg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    21. Re:Breaking News by Richthofen80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The economy sucked under Carter. However, any economist worth their salt will tell you that this was an unavoidable consequence of global factors, including our exit from Viet Nam. There was also the fact that the Fed was still applying, what Greenspan would later prove to be a losing strategy for managing inflation. None of this was under Carter's control.

      Well, I'm pretty sure the president appoints the members of the Federal Reserve. As president, he should have acted to reverse their course through whatever means he has as Executive in Chief. Saying their was nothing he could do is a cop-out. That's a lot like the other side saying Clinton had nothing to do with economic expansion. Presidents own their economies and have the power to right the ships, no matter how politically unpopular it is.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    22. Re:Breaking News by c_forq · · Score: 3, Informative
      Study history much?

      What other president lied to start a war that has killed more than 3000 American troops?
      Well there were lies told before Vietnam (we didn't even admit we were there for a long time). There was also lying that led to the U.S. invasion of Cuba. And the U.S. invasion of Mexico. And Panama (okay, so we didn't invade Panama, but parking our gunboats in a way that blocked Columbia from a chunk of their own territory is close enough for me).

      What other president's administration has called the Geneva Convention "Quaint" and "Obsolete"?
      Seeing as not many Presidents even had the Geneva Convention, I will ignore this. If you look at the spirit of the Geneva Convention though you will find many presidents who would be in violation if it existed in their day.

      What other president has actually defended torture?
      See the CIA, and every President since 1947.

      What other president has overseen the arrest of innocent people (there have been "enemy combatants" released with their charges dropped), holding them for years as "enemy combatants" without any right to habeas corpus?
      Are you serious? Do you remember this thing called Japanese internment camps? Ever look into how Abraham Fucking Lincoln had some of his opposition jailed for being his opposition?

      What other president has overseen warrant-less NSA and FBI wiretaps?
      Well seeing as the NSA was the agency involved with ECHELON, I would say at least every President since the early 1960's.
      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    23. Re:Breaking News by Sporkinum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The key thing is that the middle class is going away. You are either rich or poor. No in between as the US manufacturing base has gone to the orient. Yeah, there are tons of jobs clerking in stores or flipping burgers. Those count towards the employment statistics. Real wages and buying power are dropping, and have been since 1979 according to the CS Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0211/p03s01-usec.htm l
      I used to work in telecom (MCI), now I work in the medical field and make less money. Not only that, all my recurring bills have gone up. I know I have way less disposable income than I had 8 years ago.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    24. Re:Breaking News by pinchhazard · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "Losing" does not mean that they are killing more of "us" than we are "them."

      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!!!!!!!!
    25. Re:Breaking News by Romancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The unemployment rate itself means nothing if the income is not stated for the employment.
      http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006- 02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm

      The statements about the stock market are meaningless without knowing where the indexes come from, how they are derived, and most importantly: using multiple specific indexes centered around economic health stock indicators.
      http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/04/13/savin g-and-investing-what-is-a-stock-market-index/

      Gas prices are around $3.20/Gal here and have been going up. It is getting to the point that it is no longer news worthy to report on the astronomic gas prices because they are becomming a standard. With the major gas companies all reporting record profits and bonuses for the upper management, there is a disconnect between the welfare of the people and the inherrant corporate goals of making a profit for such a vital infrastructure as gasoline. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that some services should be regulated by the government. If only to limit the maximum percentage of personal profit from sales of a vital infrastructure.

      If we don't need to push alternative fuel souorces right now with aggressive legislation, then we should have the resources to keep our country running without sending additional billions overseas for oil. Paying the areas of the world that supposedly harbor terrorists. They have an economy just like ours, if there is an influx of money in a region then they prosper. "Trickle down" to the enemy is a bad way to support our troops. This government has reversed and hobbled legislation that could have kept us in the front running technology to become independant. No specific technology will help us now. It must be a multifacited environmental/political/economic push to be better at providing and distributing what we consume. Trash, electricity, and commuting fuel all need to be addressed a whole lot better than they are now. The political grandstanding and photo ops don't cut it. Real action and real commitment from the people in charge (automakers and elected officials) will keep this country a world power, or let it fall into mockery on the world stage, their actions will lead us, and we are responsible for our complicity.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    26. Re:Breaking News by operagost · · Score: 2

      Losing means we are losing our country's dignity by continuing our unprovoked invasion of another country.
      Clearly, then, blowing up buses will improve our country's dignity. After all, that's what the "winners" are doing.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Breaking News by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that all it takes to get mod-points here at slashdot, saying Bush=Bad? No reasons, no explanation, nothing but "Bush. Worst. President. Ever." Perhaps. Here's another "all it takes" for you: All it takes to divert attention away from any horrible action by Bush & co. is to bring up a past Democratic US President.

      How many people even remember the topic of this Slashdot story at this point?

      The Matrix so completely has you...

    28. Re:Breaking News by Cairnarvon · · Score: 3, Funny
      I don't know enough about a lot of your points to comment much, but two stood out to me in particular.

      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).
      This is part of why you consider him worse than Bush? The total deficit for Bush's first term was $648 billion. His second term isn't quite as bad, but it's still a lot worse than it ever was during Carter's years.

      Demoralization and dismantling of the US military
      Heh.
    29. Re:Breaking News by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wow, bush is really getting the blame for a lot of things here. I have some questions though. Maybe you can help me out with them.

      In your world,

      What is it now? Oh right $521 Billion. And that's after having balanced the budget in the late '90s. So going from 0 to $521B is a bit more impressive.

      You don't think the tax revenue from the capitol gains cut and the roth IRA conversion which was temporary had anything to do with this do you?

      And I'm wondering about,

      Not sure why this hasn't happened yet. But $4/gal gas, here we come!

      You don't think this had anything to do with the oil embargo do you? Or could it be the government price controls that lead people to believe tankers were waiting just outside US waters waiting on the government to increase the market cap?

      We still beat the Russians, right?

      Could this be because Reagan ended up outspending the russians and with his famous MAD scenario, took the only real leverage the Russians had off the table?

      The Internets wasn't quite the same now as then, so I'll give Bush a pass on spying on that

      Could this pass be also because Clinton started the spying on the Internet and the programs only matured under Bush? Green lantern?

      Maybe Carter is to blame for Walter Reed, or K Street, or leaking Wilson's name, or any of the collection of other scandals we've seen in the past 6 years that makes losing money on a failed land deal look almost..innocent.

      well, To be truthful, I don't have any questions here, just some clarifications. Leaking of wilson's name or more precisely his wife, PLame was done by Richard Armatage, a democrat and the special council knew this from the very beginning of his investigation. But more importantly, The land deal was a direct result of Carters policy and the collapse of the savings and loans along with the loss of farms too.

      Carter tried to improve the economy by letting the banks invest directly in real estate were before all they could do is back a loan and broker the sale of a mortgage. When the banks dumped all their money into it, it drove real estate prices through the roof and eventually caused the bottom to fall out of the market once the prices for land became so high, a normal person couldn't afford it anymore. This forced the banks to scramble for funds to operate and they started foreclosing on mortgages in an attempt to bring cash flow into the system. Eventually this backfired and caused the loan collapse and the rose law firm was right in the middle of it with the Whitewater land speculation.

      But because of this, Farmers were seeing land prices go from $25 -$100 an acre to over $2500 and acre and they took loans out to buy modernized farm equipment with the expectations that the prices would continue to rise and with the increased productivity of the new equipment they thought they could sell a few acres and afford the payments. once the banks dropped and the bottom fell forcing the bailouts, these farmers now owned a huge sum that they couldn't plant themselves out of and their land values dropped so much that selling the farm wouldn't even cover it.

      This leads us into the farm crisis were family farms were being foreclosed to cover the debts of the banks and eventually the savings and loan bailout. The good thing about this was the instillation of the FDIC insurance and limits to the amounts of money that can be loaned out with a required amount to be placed in reserve.

      Unfortunately, All this good stuff could have been avoided with a little more government oversight and some limits imposed on the banks concerning the investment properties. IT should have works on paper but failed miserably in practice. If you are old enough to remember how life was back then, you will know that it is much better today is and how wrong of a statement losing money on a failed

    30. Re:Breaking News by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    31. Re:Breaking News by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe that the unemployment numbers are related to the number of people collecting unemployment benefits.
      You believe wrong, but whenever unemployment comes up on slashdot somebody has to bring up this myth. Read the bureau of labor statistics information on the subject here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    32. Re:Breaking News by jratcliffe · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Dow Jones Average is up, but most individual stocks are still trading low and many companies are posting lower-than-average numbers. You can't look at the average itself and use that as a reliable indicator of the health of the economy.

      1. All the major indices with the exception of the tech-heavy NASDAQ are at or near all-time highs, including the broadest-based (i.e. Russell 2000). The NASDAQ is at post-bubble highs.

      2. Most individual stocks are not "trading low," whatever that means. See my comment above.

      3. Many companies are posting "lower-than-average" numbers. In fact, about half of them are (that's what average means), unless you meant median, in which case exactly half of them are.

      Your point that the market conditions don't tell the whole story about the US economy is well-taken, but the assertion that the equity markets aren't doing well just isn't supported by the facts.

    33. Re:Breaking News by Knuckles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet I know what it is, we didn't bomb, strafe and kill to get the hostages back, and that makes you mad. -- No, it made me feel humiliated, as did the rest of the country.

      Behold, most of what's wrong with the US in just one sentence.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    34. Re:Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The president does not appoint the fed chairman. The fed selects individuals for consideration and tells the president who they think should have the job and then the president selects that person. It appears as if the president selects the person but in actuality he does not.

    35. Re:Breaking News by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The US dollar is on decline because of the Mexican financial crisis?

      Europe is dumping US dollars in record numbers because of Mexico's economy?!?

      Asia is dumping dollars too. But before you point to that as symptomatic of some "Asian decline", they're, along with the vast majority of the world's Forex traders, changing their dollars to Euros.

      So, no, I don't buy that blowoff.

    36. Re:Breaking News by Holmwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is insightful?

      If I posted "Just because Windows 98 has lots of security holes doesn't mean OpenBSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD is any more secure. I'm pretty sure that's true. I'll have to do some research to back this up", would I really get modded insightful?

      From the actual text of GCIII (1949), Part 1, Article 2, para 3:

      Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

      In other words, signatories are bound if a non-signatory abides by the convention, otherwise they aren't. Since beheading people, parading them on TV, and mass suicide bombings of civilians are clearly non-compliant with the Conventions, the US is not bound by GCIII as a matter of international law in dealing with al Qaeda or similar organizations.

      That doesn't mean the US can do whatever it wants -- it's still not allowed to kill people it's captured, and UCMJ also applies.

      It also doesn't prevent the US from abiding by GCIII, and here as a matter of personal opinion I think the administration was very unwise and set a foolish precedent. Your opinion may vary.

      In Vietnam, for example, the US chose to treat North Vietnamese POW's under the Conventions, but not the Vietcong, even though neither force was abiding by the Geneva Conventions.

    37. Re:Breaking News by TheGeneration · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes. If that isn't "sharing the wealth," then socialism is much nastier than I thought."

      Fascinating, that 10% you're talking about also earns 95% of the countries wealth in a year! Meanwhile the 90% that earns 5% of the country's wealth each year is paying 30% of the taxes! Wow, what a burden that must be for the bottom 90%, paying 6 times the rate the top 10% does.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    38. Re:Breaking News by Carmody · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The longer this fellow stays in office, the more he resembles Richard M. Nixon, IMHO."

      I morphed them, and it was surprising how little work it was:
      http://www.dougshaw.com/experiments/presidents.htm l

      --
      God is real unless declared integer
    39. Re:Breaking News by syphax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes you just gotta feed the trolls?

      around 30 reasons
      30? I mean I know it was a new one every day, but I didn't realize we were up to 30.

      Why does the far left support groups like Hamas and Al Quada
      Here's a relatively simple answer: They don't. Opposing the war in Iraq ~= support for Al Quaeda. That's a pretty important point to grasp. In fact, if you can't grasp how that is possible, ho boy, I really don't know where to start.

      And you actually explain cogently why lefties don't support Muslim terror groups- you are absolutely right, no feminist or gay would ever welcome sharia law. QED.

      That's another problem with the far left. Its inability to allow others to argue their side.
      Yeah, cuz it's not like Tom Delay accused Reid of treason today, or anything. It's all on the left, huh.

      And I personally love it when people whine about their anticipation of getting modded down. Especially those who tend to criticize the supposed 'victim culture' in the US. Poor me, people criticize my dumb ideas.

      Hell, one single item, small children being imprisoned for the political beliefs of the parents, was a good enough reason.
      And now they get blown up b/c of the religious beliefs of their parents. Big improvement.

      Listen, people on the really far left tend to piss me off. But they aren't the problem here. The problem is that we had a bad plan for Iraq and implemented it poorly, and it all comes back to senior leadership. Even if one accepts that removing Saddam's regime was the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons (a position I can support in principle), everything else with Iraq (too light a force, no post-fall-of-Baghdad plan, dissolution of the Army, etc.) has been a complete cock-up that has cost lives and billions of dollars. I can't pretend to know the right course of action going forward, but it should be led by someone new. Hell, let's swap Bush 41 back in there, or something.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    40. Re:Breaking News by hubie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Were visiting dignitaries allowed a glass of wine with dinner while visiting the White House in 1978? Nope! Alcohol was banned in the White House by Carter.

      I can't find any reference for that. Are you sure you are not confusing this with Rutherford Hayes' wife Lemonade Lucy in 1878?

      As an avid homebrewer myself, I am certainly appreciative of Carter's signature on HR1337 in 1978 that legalized brewing beer in your home.

    41. Re:Breaking News by kalidasa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ok, do you understand that if you're killing more and more al-Qaeda every day, and the numbers never drop, that means that you're not reducing an exhaustible supply - that you're making more of them by the very measures you claim to be using to eliminate them?.

    42. Re:Breaking News by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, good old Reagan supplying Iran with illegal arms to make a political game of freeing the hostages. What a great man, proving that by Iran taking hostages, we will bend over backwards to give them whatever they want by negotiating with terrorists. Got to love revisionist history. I'll bet you blame the way Bush trashed the economy on Clinton somehow too! (all good neo-cons can trace every problem in the world back to Clinton in 3 steps or less)

      P.S. shouldn't your alias be "Archie B" as in Bunker?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    43. Re:Breaking News by cHiphead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    44. Re:Breaking News by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Informative
      ***Demoralization and dismantling of the US military Well, the dismantling of large chunks of the military was inevitable, after the buildup during Viet Nam. Even Reagan's huge buildup in the mid/late 80s was only a stopgap that lasted as long as the end of the cold war.***

      A common misunderstanding Carter was handed a disfunctional military by Nixon, Ford, and Donnie Rumsfeld -- who was as much a disaster in his first tour at Defense as he was in his second. Carter INCREASED real military spending by 3% in each of his four budgets (which were 1978,1979,1980 and 1981 BTW not 1976-1980) That's just about the same rate that Reagan increased spending until Congress eventually stepped in and decided that the US had about as big a military as it could afford. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was 4.7 percent when Carter took office. It was 5.2 percent when he left.

      Don't believe me? Look it up. It's public record.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    45. Re:Breaking News by raddan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't disagree with you on your analysis that war reporting is inaccurate, however you are either mistaken or being disingenuous on the following:

      The unemployment rate is below 5%. It doesn't get much better without forced labor!

      While 5% unemployment is generally regarded as very good, the economist's term "unemployed" does not accurately capture the number of people not working in the country. The term "unemployment" is actually the number of people who have recently applied for unemployment benefits, or who are temporarily unemployed but still seeking work. This number is reported to the government, which explains the problem right there-- there are lots of people who do not work for one reason or another, and either they don't tell anyone, or those responsible for collecting the figures disqualify them from that category. I think it is fair to say that the actual population of people who are eligible to be working, which is probably what most people think of when they hear the term "unemployed", is in dispute, but probably higher than the unemployment figure that you quote.

      The stock market is at near record highs. It has never passed 13000. Right now the Dow is at 12,983.19. The stock market has never been better!

      The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is the figure you are quoting, is merely an indicator of the performance of the 30 companies which comprise the DJIA. In some sense, the DJIA is a good indicator-- it quickly and intuitively tells you how the "top" 30 companies are doing. These companies certainly have some bearing on the stock market, but as you can see, it glosses over some important component markets, like housing, which is (comparitively) in trouble. Now the DJIA's selection of companies is chosen by the editors of the Wall St. Journal. It's not too hard to see some potential conflicts of interest there, but the really interesting thing is that since the list of companies changes over time, it's not particularly useful to compare current DJIA figures with past ones, since it's not really measuring the same thing. We also need to take into account that the stock market is a world phenomenon, and there is currently tremendous growth in China, so the performance of the stock market as a whole should not be taken to apply to any one particular trade or state of any particular country's economy, ours included.

      Also, gas is cheaper today than it was in 1979...

      You're right here. We are, unfortunately, accustomed to the extremely low oil prices of the 1990's. Oil is a hot-button issue for many reasons which I do not care to enumerate, none of which drilling in Alaska will even begin to address (except, of course, those people who directly benefit from drilling in Alaska).

      I beg to differ on the "losing" portion of your propaganda.

      I beg to differ with the "kicking ass" portion of your propaganda. Look, folks-- you can't "win" a "war on terrorism" by combat alone. Let me ask you this-- are we killing more "terrorists" than we're creating? Is it even fair to say that the militiamen that we're killing are "terrorists"? Sure, the people we are fighting are frequently savage, and hardly conform to the Western idea of "just", but let's put this in perspective: nearly all of the people we are fighting had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole, Madrid train bombings, UK bus bombings, Oklahoma City, or any other act of terrorism that has affected the West. Furthermore, many of these fighters were essentially kids when 9/11 happened, as are many of our own military forces. Where did they come from? Is there a big "terrorist" factory out there, or is it the fact that, to them, we are foreign invaders, combined with decades (to put it mildly) of ethnic and religious hatred that is creating a bad and worsening situation over there. Go ahead, try to answer me simply. You

    46. Re:Breaking News by TheGeneration · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So I went and looked up the data for 2004 (the latest year the IRS has released data for.)

      Here are the numbers.
      The top 10% earned 3.049 trillion dollars and paid .567 trillion in taxes.
      The bottom 90% earned 3.9 trillion dollars and paid .264 trillion in taxes.

      For a total of .831 Trillion in paid taxes on a total of 6.949 trillion dollars earned. .567/.831 = 68.23% of all income taxes paid to the US by the top 10%. Leaving approximately 31.77% paid by the bottom 90%.

      What about the top 1% though?

      1.3 Trillion dollars went to the top 1% of Americans. They paid 306 billion in taxes, or 36.89% of all taxes.

      1.3/6.949 = 18% of all money earned in the United States going to the top 1% leaving 82% of wealth going to the bottom 99%.

      The bottom 99% pays .497 trillion dollars in taxes, 63.11% of all income taxes.

      Source Table 1: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250 .html

      Alright, so I stand corrected on my numbers regarding tax burdens. However I must say that the minimum cost of living for those in the lowest 90th percentile is a far greater percentage of their income than it is for the wealthy in the top 10%. That the bottom 90% should be paying less, they need the money to survive.

      As for the higher tax rate on the wealthy... Sure it must be awful to have to pay such high taxes when your wealth is being generated in part by the infrastructure you're paying taxes for. (Highways, roads, police, etc...)

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    47. Re:Breaking News by TheGeneration · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure thing, here you go:

      "First, almost all of the new jobs created in July were in the service industries (generally lower paying jobs with worse benefits) as the employment picture is still very bleak in the manufacturing and good producing sectors (generally higher paying jobs with better benefits)."

      Source: OMBwatch

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    48. Re:Breaking News by sgt_doom · · Score: 4, Informative
      Just two items I would like to add to enhance your excellent post, Good Citizen ajs:

      Further problems with the economy (although most resulted from the deficit spending for that tragic military-industrial-complex profit endeavor, the Vietnam War) resulted from the Arab Oil Boycott due to Nixon's aiding Israel in the Yom Kippur War, nothing Jimmy Carter ever did.

      Also, it was Jimmy Carter who put in place those trade boycotts with the Soviet Union after they invaded Afghanistan - something which was bringing them to their knees, economically speaking, but the same trade boycotts that Ronald Reagan immediately ended by his 23rd day in the White House.

      And as a sidebar, it bears mentioning that the horrible throwaway mission, Operation Eagle Claw (the abortive attempt to rescue the American hostages held in Iran - and it certainly appeared to be nothing more than a BS mission by many of us combat vets), was planned by no other than General Richard Secord, latter deeply involved in Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and an individual with a very shady past....

    49. Re:Breaking News by rhakka · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you mean is, no one should have to take responsibility for starting an unnecessary and failed war?

      "Ooops, sorry! didn't mean to mess it up!"

      It's a fucking WAR, jackass. If you're going to start one... when you're already in one, especially... you better be damn sure, not selectively filtering your CIA reports and LYING.

      You know, colin powell? The UN? Yeah, the administration had been told all that was wrong already. He said it anyway. That's LYING. Very simple.

    50. Re:Breaking News by TheGeneration · · Score: 2, Informative

      here are a couple more sources: BLS.gov

      And an article interpreting that government report: article
      "Look at the jobs we are creating. Yes construction (higher paying jobs) rebounded but much of the real growth is in leisure and hospitality, which are very low paying jobs."

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    51. Re:Breaking News by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ArcherB,, your trivialization of life is too nonsensically ignorant to even begin to answer, so I'll pose just one question on the subject:

      What branch of the US Armed Forces did you serve in???? Nope, didn't think so - and I'm pretty sure you fall into that age category which is still acceptable to military service - but no doubt you have some irrational excuse as to why you aren't over there fighting Bush's War on Terra.

      Today the American soldier fights and dies for Halliburton, this time next year they'll be fighting and dying for Halliburton, a Dubai corporation.....

    52. Re:Breaking News by cyberon22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's not sully the English language by referring to what was being tossed out of the White House as intelligence. There was overwhelming evidence at the time that the case for war was non-existant - pointing this out cost many civil servants their careers and lives. Trying to pass the buck to Britain is especially rich. Do you remember David Kelly, or did you just shut off your brain for the six months prior to the invasion?

    53. Re:Breaking News by abb3w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wasn't until Carter's Treasury Dept. folks decided to change how taxation was going to apply to religious private schools in the south that this particular voting block switched sides overnight. This resulted in the Republicans being saddled with the religious right and forever screwing up the right wing and American politics.

      That does not follow. Even if we stipulate for this argument that your identified lynchpin did result in the then-democratic voting incipient "religious right" (hereafter "theocrats") to abandon the Democrats. However, it was purely the fault of the Republicans that they accepted this albatross in hopes of building a lasting power base. As a Democrat, Carter did the right thing to chase these whackos out of his party; the sensible thing would have been to let the organization wither and decay, like Segregationists and the Bull Moose Populist parties have. But no, the Republicans were too desperate and wanted to quickly overcome the distrust from Nixon, Agnew, and Ford too soon.

      This is your fault. You held your nose and kissed 'em, and let politics make strange bedfellows, and if you haven't the stomach for a divorce by now (even despite the up-front pain and cost) then that's COMPLETELY your own fscking fault.

      (I also suspect, but cannot prove, that you misidentify the key split point. I think the faction split was started when the Dixiecrats lost the desegregation fight and started bailing — there are enough common players that it looks fishy. However, that just may be co-locallity of the time frame of political involvement, and the need to take one side or another. Still, a lot of people who chose poorly are still far too prominent and too far whack.)

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    54. Re:Breaking News by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, Reagen gets all the credit for "saving" the hostages immediately after assuming office, but Clinton gets all the blame for 9/11 over 9 months after he's gone from office?

    55. Re:Breaking News by demachina · · Score: 2


      "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."

      Chances are you will never find any source that will reliably report how many "insurgents" are being killed in an insurgency. It is a notoriously hard number to arrive at for a host of reasons. The main one being "insurgents" don't wear uniforms and dog tags. They basically look like civilians except they are packing, and they can pick up or drop a weapon in a heart beat. And of course in a war zone real civilians often pack weapons too because they live in a very dangerous place. In Iraq it is legal for every household to have a gun, and the AK-47 is the weapon of choice for home defense.

      So #1 when you see a body count in an insurgency it is nearly impossible for anyone to sort out the real insurgents from the innocent civilians who got caught in the cross fire. As a result all the bodies get counted as insurgents and you get a gloriously high number that just gets better when you accidentally kill a bunch of civilians.

      Point #2 the U.S. military was notorious for inflating its body count in Vietnam. It was the one and only measure of success in Vietnam so the military exaggerated it intentionally and also counted dead civilians as insurgents to inflate it further. As a result body counts became a totally meaningless statistic, no one believed it, and its a key reason its not used now. It would bring back scary echoes of Vietnam. The reason U.S. causalties are reported is because it is a very precise and well known number and it translates directly in to family and friends in the U.S. who have lost someone they loved in a senseless optional war.

      All you Bush fan boys so eager to find "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan just need to pack it in. There is almost never anything resembling success by an occupying power against an insurgency, any insurgency. The more people you kill the more animosity you create amongst all their friends and relatives. You can clear and hold territory as is the current "strategy" for "success" in Iraq and the insurgency just moves where you aren't, which it has in Iraq, and when you get tired of holding a place and leave they just move back in.

      I recently heard the most insightful comment on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think on Charlie Rose, but I can't remember who said it. Insurgencies are something you have to try to keep a lid on an let run their course, if you can afford it and stand it. Once they get rolling they almost never end until both sides just get tired of the slaughter and decide to stop. That takes a long time. You simply wont stop them with the application of force by the military and police.

      The only winning strategy in Iraq was to not make the horrendously stupid mistakes that were made right after the war, 1) insufficient boots on the ground to prevent looting and lawlessness, 2) Debaathification which insured all the Baathist Sunni's jumped on the insurgent bandwagon 3) disbanding the military and police which created even more unemployed to join the insurgency and a worse security vacuum, 4) creating a massively corrupt rebuilding campaign that was more to enrich loyal Republicans than rebuild Iraq or keep Iraqis employed so they could feed their families. At this point there is really no winning strategy in Iraq. If you wanted to win you had to do it in a few critical months after Saddam was toppled, but you had to do everything right then and the U.S. did every thing wrong.

      Afghanistan is more complex but isn't exactly going that great either. It has turned in to a completely corrupted narco state sending massive quantities of opiates around the world, far worse than anything that happened under the Taliban. I don't think you can call a state a success whose one and only real export is opium.

      --
      @de_machina
    56. Re:Breaking News by daigu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I'm pretty sure the president appoints the members of the Federal Reserve.

      From the Federal Reserve site:

      The seven members of the Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms of office.

      The Federal Reserve is designed to be resistent to political changes. Also, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman and he served through 1987. If it about picking the right Federal Reserve Chairman, perhaps Carter deserves more credit - as Carter's Wikipedia article would have it:

      With the markets for U.S. government debt coming under pressure, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Volcker replaced G. William Miller who left to become Secretary of the Treasury. Volcker pursued a tight monetary policy to bring down inflation, which he considered his mandate. He succeeded, but only by first going through an unpleasant phase during which the economy slowed and unemployment rose, prior to any relief from inflation.
    57. Re:Breaking News by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Could this be because Reagan ended up outspending the russians and with his famous MAD scenario, took the only real leverage the Russians had off the table?"

      Its more likely the Soviet Union collapsed be because the Russians foolishly got bogged down in a decade long war in Afghanistan. A war that tore Russia apart from the inside. The scarred veterans returning from the horrors of Afghanistan were an integral part of the uprising against the Communist party that sent them there.

      The only credit I'm willing to give Reagan in toppling the Soviet Union was the weapons he gave the Muhjadeen. As a cruel and ironic twist it turns out he was also helping build the Taliban and Al Qaeda at the same time. Reagan's arms build up had no clearly defined role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Its main accomplishment was to enrich U.S. defense contractors. Most of the weapons he spent massive sums on were a joke, Star Wars never did anything worthwhile, his battleships were billion dollar artillery pieces that just diverted funds from more useful projects, and the B-2 and B-1B were a complete joke that are largely shunned to this day in favor of the B-52 which cost a fraction of the price.

      I would give far more credit to Pope John Paul and Gorbachev for toppling the U.S.S.R than Reagan. They used peaceful persuasion, and accomplished a lot more, than squandering money on staggeringly expensive and largely ineffective weapons.

      --
      @de_machina
    58. Re:Breaking News by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Are you saying that wealthy people use more highways, police, fire services, etc. then poor people?"

      Considering that a fair amount of the services protect investments by the wealthy, protect the wealthy from the vagaries of social upheavals and provide protection of the owners from foreign incursions, that would be an entirely reasonable view to take.

      Compare with previous aristocratic and feudal societies; the upper classes could protect themselves by keeping armed forces, but it more or less always eventually ended up with either outsiders or insiders in their armed forces eventually realizing that the rich were fewer and they could beat them up (or send them to gulag, or chop their heads off, as it were) and take their money.

      The benefits to the poorest may be large in monetary value compared to what they pay, but the more intanglible value of not constantly worrying about wether your liutenant or brother is going to stab you in the back, wether the workers are going to band together and execute you, etc, is worth quite a lot. Not to mention the amount of money you save by not being engaged in a constant arms race with your neighbours.

  2. Misunderstanding by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your own submission answers your question.

    Nothing "changed" or was "transferred". http://election.sos.state.oh.us/ is a special web site in operation for elections. Otherwise, it points to http://www.sos.state.oh.us/ as it does now. It appears that the State of Ohio contracted with SmartTech for hosting, processing, and dissemination of the election results via the special elections web site, when it is in operation.

    That probably won't be a good enough answer for people, though. Regardless, it appears that SmartTech has obvious ties to the Republican Party, and hosts many sites for various Republican political interests. The Secretary of State of Ohio is a partisan political position. This doesn't mean there aren't questions that can be raised or points to be debated.

    The sad truth is that partisans are involved in just about every aspect of the voting and elections process, and that's not going to change, ever.

    Witness the decades-old joke from Democratic stronghold cities: "Why did the Democrat walk into the cemetery? To thank his voters."

    It's April 2007. Anyone who believes the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen (or not) isn't going to change what they think now.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding by rlp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting. Perhaps the Secretary of State was merely contracting out to a site that could handle the unusual volume that an election site would experience during a highly contested election.

      Wait, what am I thinking? No, it's more evidence of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:Misunderstanding by Jeian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Save your logical explanations... Slashdot wants a conspiracy, so they're going to see a conspiracy.

    3. Re:Misunderstanding by tedshultz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's April 2007. Anyone who believes the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen (or not) isn't going to change what they think now. Thats not true at all. In 2004 I thought all the people who were saying the election was stolen were crazy tin foil hat types. The more I learn, the more I realize that it is much more likely that I was the blind sheep type. No one is debating that lots of non standard and illegal activities took place during the 2004 election, the only question is how wide spread, and how well organized those activities were. The more stories that come out, the more people will start to change their minds.
      --crazy tin foil hat guy
    4. Re:Misunderstanding by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've looked into a lot of these claims, and most of them are nonsense.

      I personally debunked the UC Berkeley study (cough) which "proved" the Flordia results were rigged. Though they hid it in a bunch of technical nonsense, essentially what they said was that they had a model to predict the outcome of results in Florida (based on past elections in 1996 and 2000) and since the 2004 numbers were different from what they expected, the results were rigged. QED.

      Needless to say, this is complete hokum, and they should have been laughed out of the room instead of published.

      Seems to me there's more evidence for a vast left wing conspiracy. :p

    5. Re:Misunderstanding by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it hardly is a smoking gun, it does create situation so ripe for exploitation that it's proper to second guess the logic of the SOS's decision. There are other checks on the vote totals, but there's still problems if someone can adjust the reporting. Perhaps this is obvious but if you are planning any monkey business running the reporting site gives you the opportunity to see the data before anyone else knows and to delay posting it. Buys time and tells you exactly the minimum number of votes that have to be intercepted up-stream. (It's kinda like the plot of the movie the Sting, where horse racing results were delayed). Even if one is not planning to try to manipulate the precinct totals there's other values. For example, Early and large misreports in the florida election had Gore planning a concession prematurely (he eventually did concede of course). And perceived swings in east coast voting may possibly affect west coast voting turn-out.

      Finally, there's other potential problems. As I said there are other checks on the votes, but it seems they really are not in use. Ohio was such a mess that it still is hard to match up precinct totals with final totals. Some of this is due to artifacts in the way they attribute absentee votes to precincts as virtual voters causing more apparent votes than voters signing in. In other cases the discrepancies in the poll books go the other way. And in some cases precincts post "corrected" total late. Now you might think a person could get all the data and sort it all out. But the fact is that in practice this is not really possible. There just never seems to be one set of books. If you go to many web sites to day, New Mexico, for example, you can do the addition yourself and find that the sum of the precinct totals on the SOS's website is not the sum of the election, and some counties had more votes than voters while others had undervotes in the tens of percent. In fact there are even errors that simply are accepted because the canvassing board accepted them.

      Ordinary citizens usually don't have standing to contest elections. And it can literally be expensive for candidates to do so. Generally they don't get back any bonds they put up unless the election actually changes outcome. And with electronic voting they become more reluctant to do so since theirs nothing to recount (and so the totals won't change).

      Thus in a close election changing the vote totals at the "top" is not even a completely crazy notion since it's in practice hard to verify.

      For these reasons it's imperative that the vote counting system not have egreious opportunities to inflame partisan suspicions. It does not matter so much what was done, if anything, but if it expanded the opportunity for this to be done. Perceptions matter a lot.

      In this case some reports say the crew that set up this site was the same one now being accused of the phone jamming dirty tricks against the DNC. So it's not really so far fetched to be suspicious.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    6. Re:Misunderstanding by telso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad truth is that partisans are involved in just about every aspect of the voting and elections process, and that's not going to change, ever.


      And there's your problem. Elections Canada is an independent agency set up by the Canadian Parliament. Returning Officers are hired for 10-year periods to run the election in every electoral district. All staff, from the Chief Electoral Officer at the top to the poll clerk at the bottom have to be non-partisan and the people at the top can't be members of political parties or have recently held office before their appointments.

      You often hear of political scandals in Canada, but not electoral ones. The best example of that is recounts: recounts happen automatically if there is a difference between the top two candidates of 0.1% of the total vote. However, a losing candidate can request one outside that range if they saw instances of electoral fraud. Do you know when the last time a recount (not even a new election, just a recount) was ordered due to electoral fraud? Because I don't. There you go.
    7. Re:Misunderstanding by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've looked into a lot of these claims, and most of them are nonsense.

      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.
  3. Netcraft confirms it! by Nimey · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Republican Party is dying.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Netcraft confirms it! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next:

      -But who confirms Netcraft? (5, Funny)

      -In Soviet Russia, Netcraft confirms YOU! (5, Funny)

      -That doesn't even make sense, dude. (5, Funny)

  4. Accountability, bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All in favour of investigating this?

    *Half of democrats and no republicans raise their hands*

    All opposed?

    *No democrats and every republican raise their hands*

    No need to investigate then. Nothing to see here, move along!

  5. How reliable is the data? by dougoxley · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I have some questions...

    1. How reliable is the Netcraft data? What would it take to hack Netcraft and make it look like there was a hack of the Ohio SOS?

    2. What information do we have that the election.sos.state.oh.us domain was a part of the election procedures during the 2004 election?

    3. Was the April 2006 change during a primary election?

    Inquiring minds want to know...

    1. Re:How reliable is the data? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "change" is because the elections web site is only in operation for elections. Its operation was contracted to SmartTech by the Ohio Secretary of State. There was no "hack". Partisans and partisan companies are involved in the elections and voting process. The key is having enough oversight to keep everyone honest.

    2. Re:How reliable is the data? by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What a horrible version of this story to pick. There are many submission with the whole story, but only this one is chosen.. How very /.


      This was submitted yesterday when this was still news:

      "The Free Press is reporting how the IT company that provides Rove's emails and RNC websites, also hosted Ohio's 2004 election results. The country results were sent to Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, and those results were hosted on a SMARTech webserver in TN. Blackwell had the IT guys switch the DNS on election night in order to accomplish a man-in-the-middle exploit on election results."
  6. I fail to understand... by Barkmullz · · Score: 5, Insightful


    ...why this is revelant. This sounds like an association fallacy to me.

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
    1. Re:I fail to understand... by bahwi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, while it is easy to jump to that conclusion, it's just not accurate. The problem here is Conflict of Interest pure and simple. While there could be something more there probably isn't, but that doesn't mean the fox should guard the hen house even if he says he won't touch.

  7. Obvious . . . by Dausha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Can anyone suggest a good explanations (sic) for this seemingly dubious election-eve transfer?"

    Somebody obviously hacked the Netcraft server to make it look like the Republicans were so stupid as to try to steal an election by using their own block of IPs. It also seems amazing that the GOP would wait until the last minute to change the DNS, as it can sometimes take a bit longer than expected for such a transfer to properly propagate. Heck, if they were smart enough to steal an election by changing the DNS, why not spoof the entry to make it look like it pointed to the Democrat Party?

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Obvious . . . by aftk2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Democrat party?

      You fail at political dialogue.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
  8. Yawn by pudge · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is no evidence of any kind that any votes we changed through this server "switch" bullshit, or that even if it DID happen, that it possibly could have or would have gone undetected. The counties would surely have seen that their reported results were not what was being reported by the state. If there was going to be fraud, it would have had to happen at the county level, and if it happened there, then why bother to do it at the state level?

    This doesn't even pass the smell test.

    As the Democrats' own statistician, Jasjeet Sekhon, who coauthored their 2004 post-election report said:

    More voters supported Bush in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry. There is no scientific evidence that they did not. There were some irregularities (such as the allocation of voting machines), but they were not large enough to change the outcome. Bush won in 2004; Democrats have to admit that he really did if they are to fix their electoral problems much like how an alcoholic fist has to admit that s/he has a problem.

  9. Which article? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which link is responsible for this: "On Nov. 3 2004, Netcraft shows the website pointing out of state to a server owned by Smartech Corp."

    I'm not questioning this necessarily, but with all of the links to evidence I'm confused why there was no link for this one...

  10. Wrong IPs by pudge · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ohio: 64.203.98.137
    RNC: 64.203.98.0 - 64.203.98.127

    There is no evidence presented that the RNC controlled the Ohio server in question. It fell outside the range.

  11. Jeremy Allison said it best by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    Since the Internet is a series of tubes, either 1) anyone involved has no idea how it works, but got a free iPod for switching hosting facilities, or 2) its a plan by the geeks to throw the election, which, frankly, is better than the politicians throwing it.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  12. as an Ohio resident... by otacon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  13. Fascism in the USA by OriginalArlen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Today's Guardian includes this interesting piece entitled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps". Guess how many steps down the path we are?

    For the benefit of those who won't read it, here's the ten points.

    1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
    2. Create a gulag
    3. Develop a thug caste
    4. Set up an internal surveillance system
    5. Harass citizens' groups
    6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
    7. Target key individuals
    8. Control the press
    9. Dissent equals treason
    10. Suspend the rule of law

    And in other news: Jessica Lynch comes out and condemns the Hollywood show they made of the incident she was involved in.

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Fascism in the USA by Jeian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We did more than half of those things during WW2.

      (We won WW2, by the way.)

    2. Re:Fascism in the USA by bjprice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And even though you haven't been at war since 1945, you're doing more than half of them now.

      --
      v4sw6HPU$hw5ln6pr5$ck4ma8u7LMO$w2m6l7DL$i2e3t4MWb9AHKMRTen5a29s0r1p-5.88/-8.36g5CST
    3. Re:Fascism in the USA by JenniefromtheShire · · Score: 2, Informative
      I thought there were fourteen points:

      1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

      2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

      3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

      4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

      5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

      6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

      7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

      8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

      9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

      10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

      11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

      12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

      13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

      ...and now for the kicker:

      14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear camp

  14. The RNC ... by fossa · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... will it blend?

  15. Re:Cheaters. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

    Our democracy is in great peril as long as these "win at all costs" idiots are in the game.

    Well, what a relief that the democrats would never stoop to grandstanding, using foreign money to fund campaigns, submit thousands of fraudulant voter registrations in key races, retain congressmen caught with $90k of bribe cash in their freezers (and put them on the Homeland Security oversight committee! you can't make stuff like that up!), etc. Do you REALLY think that the other party's habit of doing things like taking election cash from China as donations through a monestary in California DOESN'T count as "win at all costs?" You need a different complaint.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  16. Re:Wierd by jkauzlar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Search for wierd:

    Did you mean: weird

    Even more interesting is that the search for 'weird' and 'smartech' eventually leads to this interesting blog post which lists "Strange Domains Registered by the RNC"

    • africanamericansforbush.com
    • arabamericansforbush.com
    • asianamericansforbush.com
    • catholicsforbush.com
    • conservationistsforbush.com
    • democratsforbush.com
    • farmersandranchersforbush.com
    • jewishbushteam.com
    • laborforbush.com
    • militaryfamiliesforbush.com
    • nativeamericansforbush.com
    • sportsmanforbush.com
    • wstandsforwomen.com (I liked this one :)

    "After you've got your minority support locked away, you can then begin the attack ads:" (from the blog post)

    • democratflipflops.com
    • democratscaretactics.com
    • demsagenda.com
    • imaliberal.com
    • liberalswantyourmoney.com
    • stophillarynow.com

    "...and, of course, to anticipate attacks by grabbing(and squatting on) those domains first:" (from the blog post)

    • georgebushbites.com
    • georgebushbites.net
    • georgebushblows.net
    • georgebushsux.com
    • georgebushsux.net
    • georgewbushbites.com
    • georgewbushblows.net
    • georgewbushsucks.net
  17. So Ohio and RNC use the same host? So what? by HighOrbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think there is anything especially nefarious about a state agency and the RNC contracting for hosting with the same company. Big deal. They probably both buy stuff from Wal-Mart too. I think somebody with an axe to grind is leaping to a conclusion that simply is not merited by the evidence given here.

  18. Re:Cheaters. by KiltedKnight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our democracy is in great peril as long as these "win at all costs" idiots are in the game.
    The problem is, they are in both of the major parties. They are both out to win at all costs and maintain or build their power bases. They are not concerned with doing the job they were sent there to do. They are more concerned with being reelected.

    If you really want to do something, get a "no consecutive terms on Capitol Hill" law enacted in your own state. Make them come home and live under the laws they passed for the past two to six years while holding an elected office. Eliminate their special pension plans, forcing them to live under the same Social Security and Medicare plan they force everyone else to live under.

    Change in the way our government works will not occur until the people wise up and realize they're being strung along with lots of lip service and "feel good" knee-jerk reaction laws.

    I have no plans to hold my breath waiting for that change, however.

    --
    OCO is Loco
  19. Re:The implications of this terrifies me. $ by glassesmonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is horrible to leave out the actual reporting on this and only link to the NetCraft "smoking gun". The mods here really, really suck.

    This was first reported on by ePluribus Media back in Nov. 2006
    Ken Blackwell Outsources Ohio Election Results to GOP Internet Operatives, Again
    And again summarized yesterday by Columbus Free Press
    The GOP's cyber election hit squad

  20. See, the Republicans are right. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    when they complain about voter fraud being rampant. I guess they didn't count on it being found out they were complicit in the fraud.


    Personally, anyone found to be a participant in voter fraud should be barred for life from voting.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  21. Re:Netcraft confirms... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Funny

    I expect it to stay civil, this is the internet after all and we can't have people acting a fool on this thing otherwise some busybody will try to legislate some controls into place.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  22. I can by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    think of an explanation.

    On election day, the people who run the SOS's DNS point election.sos.state.oh.us to a contractor who has contracted to provide "real time" updates from election data, something the SOS's staff is not equipped to do.

    That vendor markets hosting services to political and government entities. It unwisely assigns a governmental web site from the very next block of addresses that are given to a political client, and unfortunately that block of addresses has become implicated in a serious scandal. Note the address is not in the RNC owned block (contrary to the article's title).

    Now there are a gazillion possible ethical temptations that marketing yourself to political and government entities entails. So contracts let to such companies should be looked at very closely. But this is no smoking gun; or if there is smoke, it is more likely to involve improper contract selection than anything else.

    So, it bears looking into, but is nothing to get excited about yet.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  23. Sec State is NOT a partisan position! by coyote-san · · Score: 5, Informative

    Damn it, this is why the republicans are driving this country into the ground!

    The Secretary of State's office is NOT a partisan position. The Secretary swears to protect and defend the constitution (or whatever the equivalent is for Ohio state positions), not to protect the elephant. There should be a clear and unambiguous wall between the office holder's official actions and individual partisan actions, and should never, under any circumstances, use official resources for partisan purposes. When it's inevitable (the classic example being the president flying to events during the election season), the office holder is required to provide appropriate compensation for this use. E.g., equivalent first-class airfare for everyone on AF1, IIRC.

    With most secretaries of state, I would agree with you that it's probably nothing more than temporary hosting during a period of high use.

    But the outgoing Secretary of State, Blackwell (iirc), was extraordinarily partisan in his official acts. He's the reason why Ohio is usually the center of stolen election allegations. Given his amply documented bad behavior in the past, e.g., attempting to have his gubernatoral opponent disqualified on bogus grounds shortly before the election, a rational person would have no choice but to assume the worst and require proof that it truly was an innocent and unbiased decision.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  24. Append Godwin by WED+Fan · · Score: 2

    ...to include "Nixon".

    Now, move along. Has anyone ever thought it was to handle the extra traffic from people checking on election returns? Or did you actually believe that the web site was processing votes?

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Append Godwin by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if your suggestion is true the fact that any political party is so well integrated with the *vote*counting* agency is not a good thing.

      My Gods!

      The Secretary of State is an elected, partisan position in every single state of the union. However, the "vote counting" is done at the local precinct level, usually by county elections staff which in some cases are elected, some cases appointed, some cases partisan, some not.

      The web site in question is just a site for reporting result to the electorate. It has nothing to do with how the votes are counted.

      This is akin to Fox News screaming, "Oh, look, somebody, PBS's web site is run by a company that is owned by a man who makes huge donations to the DNC!"

      The simple fact is, the state of Ohio contracted out to a web hosting service to handle increased traffic on its web site for election returns. The site itself has nothing to do with how the votes are counted or managed. It is a report only.

      Are /.'ers that dense and so ready to cry foul?

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  25. Maxwell's deamon by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've done stat analysis too. I concur with you that accusations based on statistical about what happened in florida don't seem to be strongly supported. That is to say the statistics are not conclusive. But I've also follwed the ohio reports pretty closely too. Some of the reports are incorrect. But some can't be so easily debunked. The strongest cases indicate that shoddy voting equipment created long lines that detered voters in selected precincts. It's also now certain that the recounts were rigged (they precounted then selected the precincts without problems for the official counts. And there are precints where the votes and voters don't add up. You always expect some of that so one can never really put a finger on if there was too much or too little. All very statistically nebulous. and hence an opportunity to tilt things and hide in the noise.

    This is why getting the results early and having the ability to delay posting them enlarges the opportunity for dirty tricks. For example here's a sort of maxwell's deamon way to rig an eleciton completely legally. If you look at the early returns you will see lots of mistakes. Some will go in your favor some will go against you. If you selectively inquire with precinct judges only on the cases where the votes go against you, you can make gains. Indeed both parties routinely do this after the elections so that's not even science fiction. But now suppose your party, and only your party, is magically granted the power to do this on election night itself. Getting totals "fixed" is a lot easier when things are in flux. a simple phone call can say "Hey that can't be right, read those numbers again" will get you an updated total. After the election is done getting changes is much harder. Hence eraly knowledge helps. Running the reporting site would be a windfall.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  26. Exactly right by glassesmonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    ePluribus Media reported this story back in Nov 2006 -- "Ken Blackwell Outsources Ohio Election Results to GOP Internet Operatives, Again"

    The NetCraft IP funny business was noted, and the election.sos.state.oh.us was updated and checked on from 2005 onwards, that is why you can look at NetCraft today on see a history of it. The list of domains hosted on SMARTech were also added to Robtex by querying a list of servers with a long list and adding to it over the years.

    This was posted by some asshat who read the Free Press article The GOP's cyber election hit squad and is trying to take credit.

  27. I wouldn't point that out if you like Reagan. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it made me feel humiliated, as did the rest of the country.
    And this is meaningful? Do you really think that foreign policy should revolve around your ego? What else are you willing to have your country to do avoid the dreaded sting of unmanliness? Does feeling like a part of all that torturing and bombing help?

    True, but how many more have been kidnapped because Iran showed that IT WORKED! and we wouldn't do a damn thing about it.
    I give up, how many American citizens have been kidnapped by Iran since the end of the hostage crisis in 1981? I count six, which were the ones Ronald Reagan traded weapons for, but maybe I'm leaving some out. Speaking of which, if you're wondering how to embolden hostage-takers and terrorists, trading them weapons for hostages is a mighty fine way to do that. Or is appeasement okay when Reagan does it? I didn't get the memo.
    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  28. Breaking News: ePluribus Published this 11/7/06 by luaptifer · · Score: 2, Informative
    Since the original Netcraft hit, we're probably responsible for most all of the updates to that data since the first half of 2005. When we started forcing robtex to crawl the Smartech IP space, there were probably 30 to 50 domains known to the robtex database so it's been our priming that has populated robtex for the most part. We tracked the story back to Bush-loyalist Mike Connell once we discovered that he runs two companies, one for his "Who's who of Republican Politics", the second to create a "non-partisan, woman-owned, small business" to be able to get inside of dot gov. We learned of this in March 2005 and have been following him ever since. The several stories linked here will provide a much better context for your questions, speculations, dismissals, and so on. There's much more to come, we've only scratched the surface with these stories. Enjoy! Related stories
    --
    Grow your own @ePluribUs Media.
  29. This is ridiculous. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would make you French, possibly Spanish or German. In the US unemployment is nearing a historic low, the stock market and economy a historic high and petroleum products are expensive but hardly horribly so if all the full-size SUVs I see on the road are any indication.
    Falling real wages, an unemployment rate that's only dropping because people have been out of work so long they're considered to have left the workforce, a steadily rising poverty rate and a negative personal savings rate are also indications. They don't affect the sorts of people who drive SUVs quite as much as they affect some others, but these things do exist.

    Well, if we stopped funding the Palestinian Authority and encouraged a bit of civil unrest in Iran then we'd be "entrenched" in a battle with terrorism that we'd be winning faster then we're winning it now.
    (a) At what rate do you see us "winning"? Please provide a situation that you think the current policies are leading to (e.g., Kim Jong-Il abdicates and North Korea becomes the 51st state) and a timeline for getting there. (b) "Encouraged a bit of civil unrest"? Ah, because funding the mujahideen, the contras, Pinochet and any tin-pot dictator willing to fight anyone left of Jeanne Kirkpatrick has only served to instill a deep love of America and Americans in the people who came in contact with those groups. Has this ever led to the desired results? Has starting bloody civil wars in other countries ever led to kittens and happiness for us?

    You aren't kiddin'. You can be the sort of shmuck who jets from one environmental riot to another and never be troubled by the hypocrisy.
    Ah, the "limousine liberal" defense. In short, "I bet you're wealthy, so I don't have to listen to you".

    Or the sort who decries the fascist government, loudly, publicly, repeatedly and without the slightest concern that they'll end up where people who loudly, publicly and repeatedly criticize a fascist government traditionally end up.
    It's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? If you can hear the criticism, then there's no rising tide of fascism. If you can't hear the critics, then there's no rising tide of fascism.
    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  30. That's kind of monstrous, isn't it? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The way I see it is that Bush wants to expand domestic production of oil to 1) bring prices down and 2) keep the money here instead of sending it to people who want to kill us.
    Tell me, who's stopping us from drilling in ANWR? It's not the Alaskans!
    Also, gas is cheaper today than it was in 1979 (adjusted for inflation, of course) and there is no rationing and no gas lines.
    The entire known reserves in ANWR would provide six months' worth of oil. It won't bring prices down, and it won't significantly reduce the amount of money sent to people who want to kill us. It will bring money to the people who want to drill there, but that's about it. I'm unconvinced that the nation has a meaningful policy on reducing the use of foreign oil, given that any move toward reducing consumption has been blocked over the last six years.

    Gas is 2.87 a gallon nation-wide. It peaked at an average of about $3 per gallon last year and the year before. I'm unable to find good graphs with this previous year's data on them, but it looks like the peak was around $3 in today's dollars; I should remind you that we're not being embargoed, and it's still almost as bad as it was then.

    I beg to differ on the "losing" portion of your propaganda. However, we have those on the left (including the media) who WANT us to lose this thing so it looks bad for Bush. How many Al Qaeda members did we kill yesterday? How about on any day at all since 9-11? Don't know do ya. Why? It's not reported. Every single US military death is (rightfully) reported with all its gory details, but you NEVER see an enemy head-count. Well, OK, you do sometimes, but they are labeled as "Iraqi civilians killed by US forces". Fact is, we are kicking major ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you won't see it reported because it doesn't meet the agenda.
    The media disbanded the Iraqi army? The media put incompetent partisan hacks in charge of the reconstruction effort? The media decided that torture was a great idea? "Kicking major ass" isn't a foreign policy goal, it's a movie tagline--and it's a stupid euphemism for "killing lots of people". Pretending to be the Golden Horde doesn't work when you're also pretending to be George Marshall. Don't blather on about how you're the armies of goodness and light when you also want to kill kill kill, and those corpses were probably Al Qaeda anyway.
    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  31. Indeed. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For every worker who becomes unemployed, I'd bet there are plenty more who move to lower-paying jobs, lose benefits, take pay cuts, and otherwise end up in a worse situation than they started in.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  32. Logan Act? by benhocking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If so, wouldn't that be a violation of the Logan Act that all the conservatives claim (incorrectly) that Pelosi violated?

    In fact, it's rather hard to imagine a scenario where the hostages get released minutes after Reagan takes office that doesn't entail a violation of the Logan Act.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  33. How stupid is this? by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  34. Social Security is *insurance*. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Social Security isn't a replacement for your personal 401(k), it's an insurance policy in case you get disabled or old. You can also think of it as a tax we pay so that we don't have old, sick, dying people filling up our sidewalks. (Well, to the extent that we would without it--we'd have six times the number of seniors in poverty that we do now.) You can't opt out of that any more than you can opt out of coverage by your local police and fire departments.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  35. Re:Slashdot = DemocraticUnderground.com? by mindlessrabble · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My family first voted Republican nationally in 1856 for Freemont. They typically voted party line since. Until the last elections. Among the 100 or so family members that stay in touch I don't think that more than 10 votes were cast for Republicans. And those were all local candidates, friends of family.

    The Republican party is dead. It is left to the end of the world nut jobs and utterly corrupt. And this "base" is going to drive anyone else away. The party is finished until it hits rock bottom and either dies completely like the wigs or there is a hostile take over by another special interest group.

    Personally, I hope for complete death. Then we can finally have a restructuring of this moribund two party system and get something that actually reflects political divisions in the country.

  36. How does this conspiracy work? by SirBruce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, even if this is true, so what? Let's say the Republican conspiracy controlled the Ohio Secretary of State website. How does this help them steal the Ohio electoral votes? It doesn't change thc actual vote counting. What, was the Secretary of State and his web staff desperately trying to get the "real" vote totals out, only to have the Republicans put fake numbers on the website? These people had no other media access other than their own website? Where are they now?

    1. Re:How does this conspiracy work? by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      SirBruce, Several are now in jail for election fraud. As you've been obviously living under a rock, allow me to refresh your memory: Several months ago two people (with more on trial and do to be convicted) were sentenced to jail in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the county that swung the state election in Bush's favor in 2004. The entire Elections Board was fired with prejudice (meaning no references for that unethical bunch).

      You ever read any news occurring in America...ever????

  37. Re:Dollar/Pound = $2.42 when Carter left office by Enry · · Score: 2, Informative

    In 2001, it was $1.42 to the pound. Now it's $2. It's not as bad as Carter, but it's not much better ($.70 for Carter, $.58 for Bush, Clinton was -$.43!). Throw in the fact that currency markets are starting to leave the dollar and switch to Euro or other currency and it doesn't really help Bush all that much.

  38. sick fucks by thegnu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not trying to troll, but:
    Unfortunately, the Sierra Club thinks that this 5% of ANWR is more valuable as a wildlife reserve than a strategic one.

    Is a very troubling statement to me. At what point does any amount of environmentalism become valuable, and how do you quantify it? We wouldn't need strategic reserves if we'd spent all the money we spent on this war (420 billion dollars) on renewable resources, incentives for alternative fuels and hybrids (some of which are in place, but we could do better), and (why the fuck not?) EDUCATION.

    We'd be almost like a real civilized country. We could expand that education to include stuff like How Not Even The Pope Disagrees With Evolution Anymore, or The Bill of Rights.

    In Mexico, you start learning your constitution in 1st grade. Is it middle school in the USA? Or high school?

    There has to be a fault in your perspective if you truly support this presidential administration's policies and tactics. They violate basic rules of humanity, dignity, and truth, and do it in my name. After stealing the election.

    More proof of which is discussed above. Let's get back on topic.

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  39. Re:Rigging elections, we already knew that. by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.