DIEBOLD TO DUMP EVOTING?

Haha! Finally, Diebold is working it out: their Evoting machine business is nothing but trouble. Now, rumor has it, they are going to quit it. Endgadget.com blogs on the situation in a March 4, 2007 post (available here: http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/04/diebold-considering-dumping-e-voting-unit-engadget-says-please/) by explaining:

Apparently executives high up at Diebold, the company that brought untold amounts of frustration to voters and countless faulty elections across the US, are considering dumping their Diebold Election Systems business unit, which it seems is almost systematically attempting to tarnish its parent company's brand with its infamous e-voting machines.

The post goes onto explain that Diebold will likely decide for sure later on in 2007 what happens to the DES but the point is that they're realizing that all this trouble may not be worth the effort. We'll hope for the best--that they shut the damn thing down comple! tely and set a great example for other Evoting machine-makers to follow. FINGERS CROSSED!!

---

Orignal From: DIEBOLD TO DUMP EVOTING?

ANTI GLOBAL WARMING DOC DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE

K, so, I'm just checking out DrudgeReport.Com (for entertainment purposes only, of course) and I see two headlines he's got linking to two different web pages about this new docu that will be airing on Channel 4 in the UK in a few days. Turns out this docu explains how this whole "Global Warming" thing is just a hoax and how we're all wrong to trust "scientists" who say that GW is causing Global Climate Change. Now, the problem isn't that I think Martin Durkin, the director of the docu, is right or wrong, but that he's been wrong in the past, yet people give him more money, more distribution and worse yet, incomplete coverage. [http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece|In this article] at http://News.Independent.co.uk (of all news sources) they don't bother to mention until ten paragraphs into the article that Durkin caused Channel 4 quite a bit of a headache when he:

achieved notoriety when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views". Channel 4 was forced to issue a humiliating apology. But it seems to have forgiven Mr Durkin and sees no need to make special checks on the accuracy of the programme. For his part, the film-maker accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as "complete tosh."

Perhaps, the docu he pitched to Channel 4 back in 1998 wasn't "complete tosh." What was that docu? Well, here's a cutting from [http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/|a March 16, 2000 post] at Monbiot.com:

Channel 4 has hired a charlatan to make its science programmes By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 16th March 2000 In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it, however, he took it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it to their science series, Equinox. To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. "It's not a joke to walk away from four or five month's work," she told me, "but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I'm really glad I didn't put my name to it."

GMWatch.org a website dedicated to publicizing concerns about Genetic Modification (GM) of foods [http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39|said this] about Durkin:

In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

In short, this guy has a habit of taking accepted science fact and making docus that dispute accepted science fact by conjuring up the few who disagree with said facts or by lying to scientists who agree with the facts and then twisting their words. Meanwhile Drudgeypants is posting it on his site like this docu will "rock climate debate." Yeah, right. Typical Drudge. Like he's anything but Mr. Tabloid. The only reason I post so much about the guy is because so many news sources seem to take his lead on stories. Sad, when he does so little to research the stories he links to and what's even more sad is that the "official" "journalists" "reporting" on this docu aren't even doing their job by researching the filmmaker. I mean, the guy has a history of going after environmentalists and their message. He said breast implants are good for you! Can we independents PLEASE build a space ship and leave this mess of a planet where EVERYTHING is politics and NOTHING is truth?

---

Orignal From: ANTI GLOBAL WARMING DOC DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE

GRAE DOES THE LA MARATHON 2007!!

Hey there, folks! Just wanted to to post about ThePete's hero of the day! Now, I don't go tossing around the word "hero" lightly, but my friend [http://myspace.com/oneandonlyhellcat |Grae] trained for months to walk the LA marathon and she actually did it! RIGHT ON, GRAE!! Now, some skeptics may think "oh, she only walked it." Dude, have you ever walked 26.2 miles straight??? Anyway, so Grae, YOU KICK ASS. I'm lucky if I walk 26.2 miles in a MONTH, let alone in a day. So, here's some media as recorded by me of the welcoming committee at the finish line: first a pic:

next two vids (click the pics to play 'em):

Congratulations again to Grae for challenging herself and then following through on it! I hope to be more like you, dammit! (I don't think I'll be tackling a marathon any time soon, though...) And good luck in June!!

---

Orignal From: GRAE DOES THE LA MARATHON 2007!!

Creepy Thing of the Day

Somewhere on the top ten list of creepy things on a bus:

A 40-something, balding man with greying hair who has skipped today's shower and spotted three cute teenage girls who clearly then thought to himself: "I'll sit with them!" You know he meant to since there are loads of other empty seats on the bus. > shudder<

---

Orignal From: Creepy Thing of the Day

CHENEY MONGERING THE FEAR AGAIN

So, check out this cutting from [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070302-0052-us-iraq.html|a March 2, 2007 article] from AP.org and SignOnSanDiego.Com:

"If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance. The violence would likely spread throughout the country and be very difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, the (militants) would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban," Cheney said.

"And then aliens will invade and murder our men and turn our women into sex slaves. Children would be torn apart like fresh bread and probably worst of all, America... would be no more..." You know that's what he wants to say! So, there's all this crap about how "we can't leave Iraq because that would mean failure and failure is not an option!" The catch is: WE'VE ALREADY FAILED IN IRAQ. It's DONE folks. DONE. Sadly, our soldiers and a lot more Iraqis are dying over there for nothing. The longer we stay the more "emboldened" Al Qaeda and the Taleban will be. Our military and our funds are both being drained dangerously low now. This is what they want. They're controlling us by preying upon our "fear of failure." We are quite literally letting the terrorists win by staying. The longer we stay, the more taxed we are and the more demoralized. The longer we stay the more antagonistic we are becoming to ourselves and our leaders. The longer we stay, the more money we'll spend and the more people will die. You ever wonder where the $1 trillion we've spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came from? You ever wonder where all these people who are dying are coming from?

---

Orignal From: CHENEY MONGERING THE FEAR AGAIN

URLs 2/23

http://www.energyfiend.com/2007/02/caffeine-what-the-world-drinks http://www.energyfiend.com/caffeine-content/spike-shooter http://www.energyfiend.com/2007/02/the-8oz-drink-with-the-most-caffeine-is http://www.energyfiend.com/2007/02/how-to-make-your-own-cola http://www.slashgear.com/bill-stones-bathtub-sub-214025.php http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/top-gear-space-shuttle-complete http://www.rogueamoeba.com/freebies/ http://ilounge.com/index.php/sitenews/comments/ilounge-wallpaper-contest/

---

Orignal From: URLs 2/23

NOW MORE THAN EVER MIDDLE EAST A POWDER KEG

Here's a fun little cutting from [http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454153.0444444446.html|a February 21, 2007 article] at WorldTribune.Com that talks about how hot things are getting in the ME:

"We consider this moment in time unprecedented in terms of the amount of insecurity and instability that is in the region," U.S. Fifth Fleet commander Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said. "Although our presence in the Arabian Gulf is for defensive and not offensive purposes, the U.S. will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or U.S. troops come under direct attack," Walsh added.

At a news conference on Feb. 19 in Manama, Walsh said Iran could pose a greater threat to Gulf security than Al Qaida, Middle East Newsline reported. The naval commander said Iran's frequent military exercises were meant to provoke tension in the region and threaten the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, which contains about 40 percent of global oil shipping.

Weeee, so we got a stack of people over there with some seriously big guns all itching for a fight. There's almost nothing metaphorical about calling the ME a powder keg. One false move and things are going to get squirrelly real quick.

You know, "squirrelly" like when squirrels explode and take the tree with them...

---

Orignal From: NOW MORE THAN EVER MIDDLE EAST A POWDER KEG

A Day of "Who the 'F' Cares?!?!" in the News

I get up this morning, and ThePete notices a couple of "news" items on DrudgeReport.com. He and I both have similar thoughts on politics, he a bit more indignantly than I. Apparently, there are a few things that are passing as news in the world, items of "interest" that really do not matter a hill of beans in this world. Here are a few of them: 1. "Prime Minister Tony Blair is a human with a youthful past" -- Ok, that's not the real headline. The real headline is "Young Blair's obscene gesture". Apparently, an old picture of Blair as a College student has been finally revealed in its entirety to the public. It used to be viewed cropped to only show a feathery-haired young Blair wearing an old fashioned "Barbershop"-style hat. Now you can see him holding his hand in an "obscene" gesture as if he is jerking himself off. This is just an interesting thing...not something to get all hyped up about. It is totally irrelevant what our politicians did in the past (unless they killed someone or committed fraud or theft). It's what they DO in the time they are in office which really matters. Even if they say something seemingly hypocritical while they are in office ("I'm against drugs even though I smoked weed in College"), we can't hold past things for or against them. Anyway, we can just enjoy the picture for what it was and learn a little more about his past, but not hold it for or against Blair or give it a reason for what he has or hasn't done. Oh, and for those who think Bush is free from a past like this, watch this video of himself, a grown man out of College, making a very pointed obscene gesture at the camera while he was Governor of Texas. And I have many, MANY more objections to things he's done IN the office of the President that is the real news of the day. 2. "Our Ancestors Didn't Have the Same Morals Regarding Slavery As We Do Now!!!!" -- this must be obvious to all of us, yet the Baltimore Sun felt it was important to point out that "a new twist" to Barac Obama's "intriguing family history" has arisen : ancestors on his mother's side owned slaves. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO KNOW???? WHY IS THIS A TWIST???? WHO CARES???? There's a 99% chance that I have Portuguese/Spanish ancestors who tortured Jews into becoming Christian during the Inquisition, yet that has no true relevance on how I am as a person. Now, the article goes on to say that "The report, on Reitwiesner's Web site, carries a disclaimer that it is a "first draft" - one likely to be examined more closely if Obama is nominated" and that this information "could add a new dimension to questions by some who have asked whether Obama...is attuned to the struggles of American blacks descended from West African slaves." I would say that this is an interesting way of looking at someone, but not the be-all and end-all of why someone should or should not vote for him as a potential leader of the nation. It may be an interesting topic of conversation, but said conversation should only realistically last about 10 minutes, in my opinion. But then again, I'm not black and don't have the smidgen of a connection to black slaves besides an "aw shucks, parts of our past as Americans suck and I'm glad that slavery no longer exists" opinion of history. Then again, I caught Al Sharpton on The Daily Show last night. It was revealed that his slave ancestors (his great-grandfather) were owned by ancestors of Strom Thurmond (past segregationist/Presidential candidate/Dick Tracy villain). Sharpton reacted to this by saying that the best moral or thing to take away with this revelation was that slavery is not an "ancient" practice in America's deep past, but something that is only three generations away. Jon Stewart agreed, saying "hey, I even knew my great-grandfather, the father to my grandfather". Sharpton then basically said that this information only gives some credence to the amount of progression black Americans have experienced; within 140 years, they have gone from things to 3/5 of people to separate but equal, disenfranchised citizens to full citizens with some racial/socioeconomic problems still to iron out. And finally, a 1/2 black and 1/2 white man whose mother's ancestors could have been cotton-picking, slave-o! wning neighbors with Strom Thurmond, is in a good spot in the race for President. It's inspirational! Hmmm...maybe I should retract my "really do not matter a hill of beans in this world" stance now...

---

Orignal From: A Day of "Who the 'F' Cares?!?!" in the News

John Edwards Visits No and SoCal Go See Him!

OK, so I don't tend to like politicians very much. I think they're all corrupt in varying degrees and never seem to really say what they think. While I think John Edwards is still one of those people, I do think he speaks the truth more than most politicians do. In fact, I had never donated money to a campaign before I donated to his before he lost the Dem primary back in 2004. What about Edwards made me donate money? It's how he described America. He said there were two. One made up of the rich folks and another for the poor. He's come the closest to admitting that there is a class war going on in America. This trumps everything else--racism, sexism, homophobia--all of those things are just distractions from the fact that the system favors the rich and pees on the poor. No, those were not his words, but I believe that is generally how John Edwards looks at things. Now, I'd like to vote for an independent candidate come November of 2008, but if there isn't one I like and Edwards is still standing, I'm going to vote for him. Yes, he talks of the "two Americas" while owning a mansion that he bought with money he made as a trial lawyer, but so what? I don't see that as significant if he's willing to walk his talk. How many other rich white men talk about how the system is designed to be unfair to the poor? Here's the info on where he'll be talking as it appears in the email I got from his campaign:

* WHEN: Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 2:30pm * WHERE: Berkeley, California YWCA Berkeley 2600 Bancroft Way Located near Berkeley or Rockridge BART For more information please call 209-648-2578. [http://johnedwards.com/r/6550/326875|If you plan to attend, please respond by clicking here.] AND * WHEN: Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:00pm * WHERE: UCLA Kerckhoff Patio (up the hill from Bruin Plaza) University of California, Los Angeles 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, California [http://johnedwards.com/r/6551/326875|If you plan to attend, please respond by clicking here.] These events are free and open to the public. No RSVP or tickets required. We hope you will be able to join us!

I'd like to go to the UCLA one, but I'm at work until 6pm and can't afford to take any more time off this month. I'm losing 6 work days thanks to a family trip and a friend's wedding--I really can't take that time off, but I'll be doing a lot of novelling and scripting during much of that time, too. Still that much less in the bank account is going to sting, regardless. So, I can't spare even a couple hours... after all, I know which of Edwards' two Americas I live in! Oh and if you go to either event, take some pics and either send 'em to me or link to them in the comments and tell me how it went. I'd love to live vicariously through you. :) If you can't make it, why not check out JohnEdwards.com and see if he's the right guy for you?

---

Orignal From: John Edwards Visits No and SoCal Go See Him!

POLITICALLY PROGRAMMING THEM YOUNG

So, I see an interesting Google ad the other night and click on it to find a website selling quite an odd little book. Here's a screengrab of the cover:

[http://littledemocrats.net/|]

Wow, I wish I could say that I was surprised that a book like this exists. I remember a friend of my wife telling us upon his announcement that his wife was pregnant that they would raise their child to be a good Democrat! This is NOT something to brag about, folks. I mean, Mommy's a Democrat because she's an idiot who ignores all the evidence and doesn't mind giving Republicans chance after chance to fuck up Iraq even more. Mommy's a Democrat because she doesn't mind seeing American GIs get killed in a foreign country in a war they shouldn't be fighting. Mommy's a Democrat because she's too thick to think for herself in a world where we're all programmed to think in binary. Ones and zeroes. Blacks and whites. Democrats or Republicans. I keep thinking of that stupid bumper sticker saying: "If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention!" There are just too damn many people who are not pissed off. I don't care if the Dems were powerless in Congress before this year--what about protests? What about speaking out loudly against things worth speaking out loudly against? Real American leaders would have stood up and filibustered every damn legislation in order to draw attention to the illegal war. But did the Dems lift a finger? Sure, Ted Kennedy got all red in the face a couple of times, but doesn't he do that every Friday night, anyway? Sure, John Conyers had hearings in the basement to spite the Republicans, but ultimately, he took impeachment off the table. What's really horrible about this book is that it teaches kids to trust one political party over another. Kids should not be introduced to politics until they are older. Opinions formed as pre-teens can be the hardest to change. You're literally brainwashing your kid by showing him this book. How is this book any different than books extremists use to teach kids to hate Christians? How is this book any different from the kind of programming that kids see when they walk into a corner store and see cigarette ads? It's just as insidious and just as wrong. We don't need more "two-party" thinkers to save the world. We need people who aren't going to fall back on the same old politics and think for themselves. Go ahead and order that book by clicking the pic above. Click on that pic a LOT so this post shows up in their referrer logs. Then they'll come here and see this post and know that teaching a kid to be a member of any political party is terrible. Teach your kids to think for themselves and to ask questions and to even question the answers to those questions. This is the path to sane judgment. Trusting a leader because of his party alone is a mistake. Look at what happened when Republicans thought they were voting for a conservative in George W. Bush. They got a big government, big-spending, war monger who looks at 18 year-old black kids as canon fodder. Not exactly conservative values, but good old John McCain supports his president because Bush is a Republican! It's amazing what you find when you actually click on those Google ads. Why don't you go see what you can find? (HINT! HINT!)

---

Orignal From: POLITICALLY PROGRAMMING THEM YOUNG