Hinzman's lawyer is making an interesting argument."Canada has not granted refugee status to American citizens in the past, but Hinzman's supporters are counting on a precedent in international law to help the American. Gerry Cordon, a Hinzman supporter, says a soldier who refused to fight in Saddam Hussein's army in the invasion of Kuwait, successfully sought refugee status. To help his client, Hinzman's lawyer plans to present evidence of a systematic pattern of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, including attacks on civilian population centers, and the torture and murder of prisoners, at Monday's hearing." The new line of argument came after"the Crown...succeeded in having Hinzman's principal argument -- that the Iraq war was illegal -- ruled irrelevant." Three days have been set aside for the hearing, with a decision due in January. I expect the request to be denied but I also expect a lengthy appeal process...and that might be more successful.
Hinzman's prospects have been both harmed and helped by his status as a deserter rather than a draft dodger. There is not the same precedent in refugee law or public sympathy for deserters -- after all, they did volunteer for the service they are now fleeing. On the other hand, he could face a stiff prison sentence -- up to and including the death penalty -- if returned to the States and that punishment may be viewed as"persecution" -- in short, as a reason for asylum. For this reason, if for no other, the U.S. is likely to give Canada assurances that a lesser punishment will be inflicted.
For more commentary, please see McBlog
He writes, Michel Chussudovsky at Global Research has a somewhat alarmist article out, speculating that Bush intends effectively to annex Canada for security purposes, but another view is that the extension of NAFTA borders to the whole of the North American continent will amount to the same thing. QUOTE: A tri-national committee is studying the creation of a common NAFTA border, which is another way of saying that it is studying how to eliminate America's borders with Canada and Mexico. A logical extension of the NAFTA accord, it neatly sidesteps unease about illegal immigration, by eliminating the troublesome border across which the illegals travel. Then too, it will push the security border of the US out to formally include all of NAFTA space, which means formally applying US security rules to both Canada and Mexico. This will, in effect, mean the end of both Mexican and Canadian sovereignty. To compare this to Europe's Schengen rules is to ignore the vast difference in internal power relationships in NAFTA and the EU. Germany is the first among equals in Europe; the US is first and last in North America. Sovereignty being only worth as much as the ability to defend it, neither Canadian nor Mexico are going to be left with much.
My commentary: The article is not altogether alarmist. The U.S. clearly wants control of the Canada-US border and is already imposing its own terms -- e.g. Canada will certainly adopt the biometric passports demanded by the States and it will do so for no other reason than it has been demanded. The article is quite correct in stating that Canada has been turning over to the States information and files on its citizens for the purpose of allowing America to evaluate and deal with them as security threats. The most notorious case is that of Maher Arar in which the RCMP clearly turned over documents on a Canadian citizen to the US authorities who used the information to deport him to Syria (and torture) when he had the misfortune of stepping on American soil for the sole purpose of making a plane connection home to Canada.
The U.S. also wants control of Canadian air space in order to institute the anti-missile shield. Prime Minister Martin is showing all the signs of wanting to wag his tail like a good little Bush-poodle but he's encountering problems. For example, during a speech to the labor union Canadian Auto Workers in Toronto, Martin pushed the advantages of the anti-missile shield. The report I saw did not mention how the PM lumped the shield in with labor concerns but it was probably along the lines of,"if you want trade concessions from the States, we'll have to give them something in return. Son of a Gun! I just remembered what Bush wants for Christmas." CAW president Buzz Hargrove reportedly told Martin that Canada shouldn't be part of the U.S."militarization of space. We should defend our own borders." According to Hargrove, Martin and he"agreed to disagree." Martin is trying to calm such criticism by repeating Bush's assurance that there would be no offensive weaponry in the satellites circling Canadian skies; this assurance is important because the Canadian public is strongly opposed to the"weaponization" of their air space but are unlikely to protest against mere self-defense. At this point, Bush has no credibility in Canada so no one seems to credit his warranty. After all, in the same speech in which he surprised Martin by raising the spectre of the shield, Bush also declared,"Defence alone is not a sufficient strategy. There's only one way to deal with enemies who plot in secret and set out to murder the innocent and the unsuspecting. We must take the fight to them." It is not often these words escape my lips but Thank God for Quebec! As one news report states,"The pressure on Prime Minister Paul Martin to reject the U.S. proposal for a ballistic missile defence shield increased yesterday after members of his own party's Quebec wing voted for the government to abstain from the controversial project." (Martin himself is part of the Quebec wing so the rebellion is a particularly sharp slap in the face.) The Bloc Quebecois is also raising stakes by linking the anti-missile shield with rhetoric about Quebec sovereignty. (People should not read too much into this, however, as the Bloc links the rising of the sun each morning with calls for sovereignty and has done so for decades.) Reaction in Quebec guarantees one thing, however; the anti-missile shield will not sneak through the House without vigorous debate. According to the Globe and Mail,"The issue [the anti-missile shield] will be debated at the party's national convention in March 2005 and Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised to put the divisive issue to a vote in the House of Commons." As I mentioned in my earlier blog, I expect such a measure would pass.
The other parties -- other than Martin's Liberals and the Bloc -- are busy agitating for transparency on the issue. The Edmonton Sun states,"The Opposition [the generally pro-shield Conservatives] charged yesterday that the Liberal government is hiding crucial information about Canada's possible role in the program and stalling on taking a stand.... NDP [the adamantly anti-shield New Democratic Party] MP Libby Davies said her caucus was promised a briefing by the federal government a month ago and is still waiting for it. '(Prime Minister) Paul Martin is dilly dallying around,' she said. 'I think it's about time that he says where he's at on this issue'."
The most compelling reason why the Chussudovsky article may not be alarmist has nothing to do with happenings in Canada. It has to do with attitudes in the States. When dealing with the sovereignty of other nations and the human rights of other nationalities almost literally knows no bounds. Why should Canada and Canadians be any different?
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
Canada is in the unenviable position of being required by Bush for a program that he seems determined to pursue: the US anti-missile shield. The US wants to place"the shield" over all of North America to protect it from attack by"rogue states" like North Korea. It won't work unless Canada signs on and puts her air space under de facto U.S. control or, at least, at the service of U.S. goals. How important is the program to Bush? I had the TV news on in the background as Bush and the FLOTUS arrived for his first visit to Canada and my attention riveted to the screen as the debarking first couple were followed by Connie Rice and Colin Powell. Bush brought in the heavy hitters for a simple goodwill visit?
Clearly, he wishes to use seduction and smiles rather than a harsh tone with Canada's Liberal PM, who is now on the defensive and over-explaining himself. (As the leader of a minority government, he does that a lot.)"Whatever we decide," Martin has assured Canadians,"it will be in Canada's interests. We are a sovereign nation and we will make our own decisions on our airspace." The PM doth protest too much methinks. Or maybe he's having to think fast on his feet. After all, the missile shield program was not meant to be on the agenda during Bush's visit let alone be part of a speech Bush delivered to the entire nation.
In his prepared remarks on at a joint news conference with Martin, Bush sketched what had been discussed at their earlier meeting."We talked about the future of Norad and how that organization can best meet emerging threats and safeguard our continent against attack from ballistic missiles," Bush stated. According to Canadian news sources, however, the missile shield wasn't discussed and came as a surprise to Martin who hastened to assure the press that he wasn't surprised. Whatever. The issue is now sitting on Martin's desk, with the weight of an elephant?the last thing he wanted to happen before the upcoming election.
The extremely vocal New Democratic Party has come out against the missile shield, saying"We don't want to see a weaponization of the future. It's our future." The majority of Canadians do not wish to participate in the US missile shield, but it is a slim majority and the issue could ultimately blow either way. One thing is for sure. Martin did not want this to become an election issue. Especially since the program is particularly unpopular in Quebec and Martin's Liberals can't afford to lose more ground in La Belle Province. Bush unceremoniously created a political mess for Martin.
Nevertheless, I think a measure pledging Canada's co-operation is likely to pass if put to a vote of the House. For one thing, the official opposition party, the Conservatives will back it. For another, Martin is weak-kneed around Bush, and however unpopular the measure may be in areas of Canada and even within factions of Martin's own Liberal party he can look to Tony Blair's poodle routine for inspiration.
For more commentary, please see McBlog
And while we are on the subject of manipulating the system to promote/protect one individual...how about the push that is under way to change the U.S. Constitution in order to give Arnold Schwarzenegger a shot at the White House? The Schwarzenegger Amendment? The Constitution currently blocks the Austrian-born Schwarzenegger from the office of President because it requires candidates to be native-born. The Amend for Arnold Campaign is already on the Internet and arguments are being launched about why it is 'proper' for foreign-born individuals to be elected. (Personally, I don't care. Let them put Bin Laden on the ballot -- would he be any worse? OK, Ok, he probably would be. But the fact remains, I don't care about the nationality of who is put in a position of unjust power. It's the power of the position itself I'm against.) The Bushnevs know that Arnie may be their best chance of holding onto government after GWB has run out of gas, next-Presidentwise. Can American politics get any more ridiculous? It is time to remember...
"a scene from the SF film Demolition Man, which takes place in the year 2026. As Sandra Bullock attempts to bring Sylvester Stallone up to speed on what has happened in the world in the last 30 years, she refers to the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library.
Stallone:"Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?" Bullock:"Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor?" Stallone:"Stop! He was President?" Bullock:"Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment."
Oh, well, as a Canadian, I can be smug...it's *your* problem. WAIT A MINUTE!! I blogged earlier today on NAFTA-Plus, which is trying to make everything"down under" our problem as well. Drat! Does the American/Canadian/Mexican version of"Mi Casa Es Su Casa" allow me to say,"Get the hell off my property?"
For more commentary, please see McBlog
What is NAFTA-plus? Intriguingly, it is a plan that both socialists and fundamentalist Christians oppose.
To secure a closer Canada-US partnership, the Bush administration wants to make sure that Canada addresses US concerns about our shared border serving as an entry point for terrorists. And, oh yes!, it wants to tap into Canada's cannon-fodder potential as well as its natural resources. Natural resources: Canada is not merely an oil and electric energy exporter, it is by far the world's largest untapped source of lumber, natural gas, clean water, mineral deposits, etc. Cannon-fodder: there are all those fresh-scrubbed Canadian boys and girls who could be shipped overseas instead of fresh-scrubbed American ones to die for corporate profits and neocon dreams.
NAFTA-plus calls for Canada to direct massive tax dollars toward border and domestic security, in addition to beefing up our military so that it can participate both in crises within North America and overseas. (The Canadian military is a bit of a joke and, frankly, I like it that way. I'm sure it still annoys the hell out of Bush that Canadians are not in Iraq.) The proposed NAFTA-plus scheme also includes a"resource security pact." This offers Canada certain advantages: e.g. exempting Canadian lumber from US trade restrictions. It offers the US huge advantages: e.g. guaranteed access to Canada's energy resources.
In short, Canada is being offered financial incentives - mostly the elimination of trade barriers and the influx of American investment to undeveloped regions like Northern Quebec - in exchange for falling in line with America's military/security goals and for sating America's hunger for natural resources.
The five elements of the proposed plan so far are: 1) reinventing borders to establish a common security perimeter, possibly involving a Canadian national identity card with biometric identifiers; 2) the"harmonization of business regulations"; 3) a resource security pact; 4)"reinvigorating" the North American Defence Alliance; and 5) developing new institutions to manage a Canada-US partnership.
I don't have a lot of answers yet - I don't even know how likely the plan is to succeed -- but I will be researching a lot of questions in the next few weeks.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
Pilger writes, There is nothing illicit about this cover-up; it happens in daylight. The most striking recent example followed the announcement, on 29 October, by the prestigious scientific journal, the Lancet, of a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. Eighty-four per cent of the deaths were caused by the actions of the Americans and the British, and 95 per cent of these were killed by air attacks and artillery fire, most of whom were women and children.
The editors of the excellent MediaLens observed the rush -- no, stampede -- to smother this shocking news with"scepticism" and silence. They reported that, by 2 November, the Lancet report had been ignored by the Observer, the Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Star, the Sun and many others. The BBC framed the report in terms of the government's"doubts" and Channel 4 News delivered a hatchet job, based on a Downing Street briefing. With one exception, none of the scientists who compiled this rigorously peer-reviewed report was asked to substantiate their work until ten days later when the pro-war Observer published an interview with the editor of the Lancet, slanted so that it appeared he was"answering his critics." David Edwards, a MediaLens editor, asked the researchers to respond to the media criticism; their meticulous demolition can be viewed on the alert for 2 November. None of this was published in the mainstream. Thus, the unthinkable that"we" had engaged in such a slaughter was suppressed -- normalised. It is reminiscent of the suppression of the death of more than a million Iraqis, including half a million infants under five, as a result of the Anglo-American-driven embargo.
In the same vein, I received the following email...[NOTE: I have not verified the accuracy of the analysis. Also I have edited out various comments that seemed politically over-the-top and may call the fellow's perspective into some question.]
Dear Ms McElroy, The following letter is being sent to global media and other organizations concerning horrendous civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please inform your associates and readers. Yours sincerely, Dr Gideon Polya.
Re: Reporting Iraq civilian deaths in post-invasion Iraq...Aside from the sustained lying, massive public deception, illegality, the horrendous" collateral" civilian casualties and immense US corporate benefit (nearly US$400 billion extra military expenditure by the US alone since 9/11), there is a further outrageous scandal associated with the post-9/11 US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, namely the NON-REPORTAGE of horrendous civilian casualties by mainstream global mass media. SOME mainstream global media have FINALLY permitted their readers to glimpse the horrendous reality of Iraq civilian deaths thanks to a scientific article in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet - however the figure typically quoted of"100,000 over 18 months" is a MINIMUM ESTIMATE as outlined in estimates #1-4 below.
#1. The group of US scientists that just published an article in the top British medical journal The Lancet (online, 29 October 2004) found 0.1 to 0.2 million civilian"excess deaths" in post-invasion Iraq; that mortality increased post-invasion; and that violent death increased dramatically post-invasion. From primary survey data, The Lancet article calculated a post-invasion Iraq annual mortality rate of 12.3 deaths per 1000 (corresponding to 300,120 persons per year with The Lancet article's assumption of a population of 24.4 million ). However their pre-invasion estimate of an annual mortality rate of 5.0 deaths /1000 corresponds to 122,000 persons per year - yielding an upper estimate from The Lancet of"excess deaths" of 178,120 people per year - corresponding to 297,000"excess deaths" in 20 months of US war and occupation in Iraq. This upper estimate (based on data in The Lancet) of nearly 300,000"excess deaths" due to the US invasion and occupation in Iraq is equivalent to ONE HUNDRED (100) World Trade Centre atrocities. This US study is consonant with EXISTING UN and UNICEF data that has been COMPREHENSIVELY IGNORED by mainstream global media.
#2. According to UNICEF (2004), in 2002 the under-5 infant mortality was 1,000 in Australia, 108,000 in Iraq and 283,000 in conquered Afghanistan (up from 277,000 in 2001) - noting that these countries have populations of about 20, 24 and 22 million, respectively. From UNICEF data it can be CONSERVATIVELY estimated that the post-invasion under-5 infant mortality has been about 0.2 million in Iraq and 0.9 million in Afghanistan. These estimates largely IGNORE the effects of invasion and the evil reality that in Iraq (since 1991) and Afghanistan (since 2002) there has been an excess" collateral" mortality of about 2000 Muslim children for every US combat death...
#3. According to the UN, the current annual death rates in Iraq's poorest Arab neighbours Jordan and Syria are 4.3 and 3.9 persons per 1000, respectively - and the values range from 1.9 to 3.7 persons per 1000 for the prosperous and peaceful Arab Gulf States. If we assume a conservative estimate of an annual death rate in a peaceful, non-occupied Iraq of about 4 persons per 1000 then we would EXPECT 97,600 Iraqi deaths per year - as compared to the post-invasion estimate by the US scientists of 300,120. The difference - the"excess mortality" due to the US invasion and continued war and occupation - is 202,520 deaths per year or about 340,000 after 20 months of US-imposed war and occupation.
#4. Using UN and UNICEF data it has been CONSERVATIVELY calculated that total"excess mortality" (excess death, avoidable mortality) in war-ravaged Iraq since 1991 has been about 1.5 million (with under-5 infant mortality totalling 1.2 million) [see G. Polya, Australasian Science, June, 2004] and that the"excess mortality" has been about 1.2 million in post-invasion Afghanistan (with the under-5 infant deaths totalling 0.9 million)....
Silence kills. Silence is complicity. Please inform everyone. Save the children.
Dr Gideon Polya, e-mail: gpolya@optusnet.com.au. [Credentials: Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text"Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently writing a book on global mortality (numerous articles on this matter can be found by a simple Google search for"Gideon Polya")].
For more commentary, please visit McBlog
"Dr. Salih al-Issawi, head of the hospital, said he had asked U.S. officers to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the wounded but they refused. There was no confirmation from the Americans.
"'The American troops' attempt to take over the hospital was not right because they thought that they would halt medical assistance to the resistance,' he said by telephone to a reporter inside the city. `But they did not realize that the hospital does not belong to anybody, especially the resistance.'
"During the siege of Fallujah last April, doctors at the hospital were a main source of reports about civilian casualties, which U.S. officials insisted were overblown. Those reports generated strong public outage in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world, prompting the Bush administration to call off the offensive."
Congratulations to the courageous invaders. Applause for the new Crusaders against Islam who wield high-tech machine-guns rather than swords, who ride atop tanks rather than horses. With only 10,000+ troops the brave Crusaders have managed to break down the doors of a neutral hospital, to prevent doctors from treating those in need, and to handcuff patients for interrogation. Admittedly, they fall one step short of the old tried-and-true method of medieval Crusaders who killed the innocent indiscriminately and then"let God sort them out" from the guilty. But the invasion is still young; give them time. More than anything else, however, the Americans have aggressively shut down an embarrassing source of information on the human costs of their invasion. Now the only"facts" to emerge on matters such as civilian casualties will be the ones sanitized by American military filters. Or, at least, that's what they hope for. Military"truth", military"music", military"justice", military"intelligence"...none of them bear any relationship to the real concepts.
What bravery will be next? Is there an old folks home the Crusaders will occupy? How about an orphanage? The mosques go without saying.
For more commentary, please see McBlog
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman."It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric." Ms. Devenish could not say why the"rumpling" was rectangular.Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
Websites, such as isbushwired.com" have been established as clearinghouses"for discussion of whether President Bush uses an earpiece through which he's fed lines and cues by offstage advisers." Others more bluntly ask "What's Hiding in His Back?". The story was officially broken by Indymedia and has since been analyzed to the point of exhaustion by anti-Bush bloggers. Other than the photos, the rumor is supported by a part of the 1st debate where Bush states,"let me finish," even though neither Kerry nor the moderator was interrupting in any manner. As Dave Lindorff wrote in an article entitled"What's the frequency, Karl?" which appeared in CounterPunch,"Even weirder was the president's strange outburst. In a peeved rejoinder to Kerry, he [Bush] said, `As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh -- Let me finish -- The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at.' It must be said that Bush pointed toward Lehrer as he declared `Let me finish.' The green warning light was lit, signaling he had 30 seconds to, well, finish."
The most interesting treatment I've found so far comes from Cryptome.org which analyzes the device for remote promoting most likely to have been used and gives a good break down of the technology from an expert's POV. The site also offers 28 time-stamped video images of Bush's back during the 1st debate.
Also of interest is Cannonfire, the blog-home of Joseph Cannon who is credited with being the first person to speculate about a"wired Bush". His Oct. 10th entry consists of confirmation from an interpreter for Bush who confirms that the President uses"an earpiece to assist him in communicating intelligently with others." This would certainly explain earlier photos being unearthed by avid bloggers which also show bulges in Bush's back.
The consensus in the blogosphere seems to be that Rove wants to put an end to"Bushism" - those embarrassing slips of grammar, context, and reality that pepper W's photo ops. The ramifications for debate #3 are interesting. If Bush was wired for the 1st debate and for the 2nd one as well - which an AP photo seems to indicate - then it may well become an issue prior to the 3rd debate. That is, the Kerry people and the moderator may insist that Bush be verifiably wireless. In the 3rd debate, we may finally meet the unadulterated, unfiltered Bush.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
2) Why I think Edwards will be increasingly viewed as the winner...Both men made errors but some of Cheney's statements make him look very bad. For example, the most damaging blow to Edwards came when Cheney stated that in all his years in the Senate he had never met Edwards before stepping on the stage for the debate. Cheney was referring to Edwards' record of non-attendance. it took CNN about ten minutes to find a 2001 photograph of Cheney and Edwards together. As the AP Wire states:"In perhaps the most awkward blooper of the evening, Cheney told Edwards to his face that they had never met before the debate, despite evidence they had. Edwards' campaign later provided a transcript of a February 2001 prayer breakfast at which Cheney began his remarks by acknowledging the North Carolina senator. The campaign said the two also met when Edwards accompanied the other North Carolina senator, Elizabeth Dole, to her swearing-in ceremony."
As for the images projected by the two men, I agree with the assessment of the anti-war site TruthOut:"Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory. He seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to Edwards' optimistic day." But I do not trust my own evaluation on this issue as I thoroughly detest Cheney.
Blogger Marc Perkel offers a good analysis of how the VP debate is being generally perceived. He writes,"BTW, It's interesting to see that Fox News has it more accurate than Microsoft NBC. Fox seems to know that Cheney got his ass kicked and trying to explain that. Microsoft NBC thinks Cheney won it in spite of the reality that Republicans are very unhappy tonight about the job Cheney did. The numbers I'm looking for is the audience size. How many people actually watched it because if the audience was high - then that's good for Kerry. That means that people were interested and that they got to see it first hand for themselves. What's interesting is that Microsoft NBC seems to disagree with its viewers. 70% give it to Edwards and 30% for Cheney. So I would say that Microsoft NBC is losing the debate with it's viewers. So - are all these online polls wrong? Do Democrats have more computers than Republicans? I agree that online polls are less scientific that GOP manipulated polls - but when it's so slanted in favor of Edwards - there has to be some reality there. CNN changed the question on their web site. Instead of asking who won - now they are asking if the debate will help you decide. CNN doesn't want to call it for Edwards who was winning 85 to 15 percent when CNM pulled the poll. I'm seeing far less polls tonight than I did last thursday. I see less that 1/3 of the polls last week. Seems to me that the news media doesn't want us to vote online any more because the voice of the people must be suppressed. CBS News running 87 Edwards - 20% Cheney. Fox News - with 119,000 votes Edwards winning 53% to 46%. And Fox is heavily biased towards Republicans. What this says is that Republicans know Edwards won it. Thanks to Fox for being a little more honest than NBC."
How important is the Edwards' victory? Not very, tho' any advantage shoud not be discounted in such a tight election. In the final analysis, I think the VP debate will be the most interesting by far of the four scheduled debates but also the least important by far.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
For those who are curious about an evaluation of the debate from a less partisan source, the German Spiegel Online (article in Englsh) offers a fair overview. It is interesting that Spiegel zeroes in on how uncomfortable, angry etc. Bush appeared on occasion. The broadcaster clearly decided to scrap the pre-negotiated"rule" that the camera would focus on the party who was speaking and never go to the other party to register his response to what was being said. Bush lost *a lot* of points due to his peevish reactions, including an audible sigh of exasperation which was reminiscent of Gore's collossal mistake in that first 2000 debate during which he reacted with visible/audible disbelief at some of Bush's statements. It will be interesting to see if the camera work in the second debate goes according to the negotiated agreement. I'm sure the Bushies are furious and will be throwing temper tantrums aimed at the media...but they will do it behind the scenes, of course, because they will not publicly admit that Bush looks bad when he is caught being candid.
It is interesting to speculate on the role bloggers will play in the after debate spin. An email from the Democratic National Committee declared,"We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you [bloggers] will play a big role." Meanwhile the Bushies set up"a network of Web sites to carry instant analysis of tonight's debate. The 'Debate Feed' will provide the GOP spin in real time to as many as 5,000 conservative Web outlets, according to Wired News." The stated goal:"Our rapid response effort is based on the premise that no attack or no misstatement will go unchallenged," Meanwhile an offshoot of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center has provided Fact Checker that critiques the accuracy of both debaters. For a sample of bloggers' responses, click here.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
For more commentary, please see McBlog
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
For more commentary, please see McBlog
Now in 2004, in an article entitled"The Thought Police and the American Community Survey," John W. Whitehead writes of a new census threat to privacy -- the American Community Survey."Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey is taken every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And at 24 pages, it contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including a person's job, income, physical and emotional health, family status, place of residence and intimate personal and private habits....The questions, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has said, are 'both ludicrous and insulting.' For example, the survey asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc."
Again, compliance is mandatory but this time the authorities are baring real teeth. Whitehead notes,"For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance." What are the chances that the cash-strapped government won't pursue this easy source of revenue? Slim to fat.
For more commentary, please see McBlog
Remember Diebold, the company whose CEO promised to "help Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to Bush? Perhaps we're learning how. Black Box Voting has discovered a backdoor in the Diebold vote tabulators:
"Manipulation technique found in the Diebold central tabulator -- 1,000 of these systems are in place, and they count up to two million votes at a time."
By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created. This set of votes can be changed, so that it no longer matches the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the bogus vote set. It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully mitigate the risks.
...The GEMS central tabulator program is incorrectly designed and highly vulnerable to fraud. Election results can be changed in a matter of seconds. Part of the program we examined appears to be designed with election tampering in mind." [Emphasis added.]
I've just searched Google News and Yahoo News for"Diebold tabulator." Although Black Box Voting released this nine days ago, among the"major" (print & TV) media, only the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune have picked up this story. (CNN did mention it in their Daily Blog Roundup, but that's hardly front page coverage.) I learned about it from The Inquirer, a computer news site in the UK.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
The man is desperate to avoid hecklers who might make him look bad in front of rolling cameras. For more commentary, please see McBlog.
