An “I’m still here” open thread
Bookworm on Nov 08 2008 at 9:26 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Between soccer, martial arts, soccer, martial arts and errands (yes, it’s been that kind of day), I haven’t thought of anything to blog about and I haven’t had either the time or energy in any event.
Also, we’re in the lull. There’s just not that much to blog about when the big news is that Obama made a mean-spirited remark during his first press conference and then apologized. It was either a neophyte’s error or a sign of things to come — we’ll find out, so there’s no use commenting. It’s wait and see time.
As for Rahm Emanuel — that’s also a wait and see. As Richard Baehr said in an email, Emanuel a religious Jew, reasonably observant, and has tight ties to Israel, but his politics probably march in lockstep with the Clinton administration, which is to say that, while he’s committed to Israel’s survival, he believes it can be achieved by getting her to concede and concede and concede. In any event, as Baehr also pointed out, Emanuel is an administrator, not a policy maker. When it comes to policy, Obama’s other appointees (especially Secretary of State) will be much more interesting. Nevertheless, it looks as if Obama plans to run a tight ship, and that’s always a good thing administratively. So, we’ll see.
I don’t know when I’ll blog next, but I suspect it may not be until Sunday afternoon. I’m still working on a new project I hope to unveil in the next couple of weeks, and it’s sucking up a bit of my mental energy, not to mention my time.
For the time being, consider this an open thread and have at it!
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
33 Responses to “An “I’m still here” open thread”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ll be wandering through the desert with ya.
Thoughts for tomorrow…
http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/in-search-of-apollo-creed.html
Here’s another one…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/11/your-mission-if-you-choose-to-accept-it.html
Oz said she had never seen proof of voter fraud. Now we apparently have proof that it exists…and guess what! it seems to be in favor of Democrats! What a shock!
This is the first of a three part series. Second and third parts are linked at the bottom of the article.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022024.php
suek -
In regard to your comment in #4, I always thought that the argument that voter fraud is not a concern when the “only thing” that is happening was voter registration fraud was a dangerous one for those who want us to believe that the bigger concern is with the deliberate tampering of voting machines, which, while something for us to address to promote voting integrity, still has not been proven to have happened.
It’s a little like telling a homeowner that she shouldn’t be worried if someone dressed like a thief is standing at her front door, trying to break into her home because it doesn’t mean that an actual theft is going to happen.
Deana
Deana…
I could see voter registration fraud as not a concern in two instances: first, that photo identification is produced with every vote, and second, that there is a national voter list that can insure that a person can only vote in one precinct.
You know about how likely those two are about to happen!
A national voter list could also be used in conjunction with a legal citizen list to ensure that all voters were legal, but that means a national ID card. How repugnant is the idea of a national photo id card? My original SS card has written (ok…printed) across the face of it “Not to be used for identification”. I remember when SS numbers were made mandatory for working (I’m not exactly sure about this – I was in my late teen years, and not particularly interested in politics at the time) and the government assured us that we would never become “just a number” like in the USSR, and that they were not going to be used for identification. I know that my kids original cards don’t have that on them. We _are_ all listed as “numbers” in the national computers. Ok.. so life has changed. Maybe it’s time for a national ID. As far as I know, all drivers licenses are photo ids…so why not a SS card with a photo? Use them to limit the privileges for illegals – although O will probably legalize all the immigrants anyway – by giving the various privileges of citizenship only to those who can prove citizenship by way of an ID card. Heck – even Costco has photo IDs! I’d even go for a fingerprint imbedded in a magnetic strip or something similar. Military ID cards have all sorts of info imbedded in them, so it _can_ be done.
Either that or scale things down so that personal identification is a factor instead.
suek,
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
DHS has expanded the definition of port to include areas such as canal access and rail container yards.
This is a photo id card that has a chip embedded within, to be scanned upon entry in protected areas.
The card cost $139.50. The cost includes a background check by DHS. I have one.
When I vote, I have not been asked for any id.
There is no reason for any vote fraud to occur, and ensuring id is a basic step in prevention.
>>The cost includes a background check by DHS.>>
Do they really _do_ a background check? Or is it a bureaucratic check off?
Post-Election-Withdrawl-Syndrome:
The feeling of general depletion and emptiness in the few days after a presidential election. Caused by the sudden withdrawal of any campaign coverage, sound bites, or pictures of babies being kissed. May be accompanied by aimless clicking on news websites looking for something to read.
*NOTE: This condition has been observed in people whether their chosen candidate won or not.
Wife, to her Doctor: “I’m worried about my husband. Ever since the 4th, he’s just been sitting at home wandering the New York Times and CNN for hours on end.”
Doctor: “I wouldn’t worry about it. He probably just has an acute case of PEWS. He should be back on his feet by the end of the week.”
always thought that the argument that voter fraud is not a concern when the “only thing” that is happening was voter registration fraud was a dangerous one for those who want us to believe that the bigger concern is with the deliberate tampering of voting machines, which, while something for us to address to promote voting integrity, still has not been proven to have happened.- ” Deanna
1.
The DOJ has been looking into voter fraud for years, with little to show for it.
2.
The purge of U.S. attorneys is said to have resulted in the DOJ’s eagerness to root out voter fraud (when those asked to prosecute voter fraud found no evidence such fraud had occured, they were fired).
If people are voting illegally, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but it’s not as if the DOJ hasn’t been trying to prosecute such cases for years.
But as for election fraud? After watching the effort to combat widespread election fraud this time around, however, (like finally forcing Mike Connell to testify the day before the election) I’m happy to see that only a few states have produced questionable results.
I’m also hoping that this gets resolved and Americans never again vote on machines without a paper trail. (though I’m not holding my breath).
>>The purge of U.S. attorneys is said to have resulted in the DOJ’s eagerness to root out voter fraud<<
“Is said?” By whom?
It’s a little like telling a homeowner that she shouldn’t be worried if someone dressed like a thief is standing at her front door, trying to break into her home because it doesn’t mean that an actual theft is going to happen.- Deanna
I worry about things I see as real concerns. Voter registration fraud is illegal, for sure, but it’s only a threat to our democracy when phony people vote. And it’s not as if the DOJ has been alseep on the wheel on this one, given that it’s actively been trying to weed out and prosecute voter fraud for years.
That said, news that the U.S has been funding as Russian Institute that’s been working closely with Iran on its nuclear program might raise an eyebrow or two:
>>The purge of U.S. attorneys is said to have resulted in the DOJ’s eagerness to root out voter fraud<< me
“Is said?” By whom? _Cm
By election law attorneys and those testifying in this case.
Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 14, 2007; Page A04
“. . . It has been clear for months that the administration’s eagerness to launch voter-fraud prosecutions played a role in some of the firings, but recent testimony, documents and interviews show the issue was more central than previously known. The new details include the names of additional prosecutors who were targeted and other districts that were of concern, as well as previously unknown information about the White House’s role.
The Justice Department demanded that one U.S. attorney, Todd P. Graves of Kansas City, resign in January 2006, several months after he refused to sign off on a Justice lawsuit involving the state’s voter rolls, Graves said last week. U.S. Attorney Steven M. Biskupic of Milwaukee also was targeted last fall after complaints from Rove that he was not doing enough about voter fraud. But he was spared because Justice officials feared that removing him might cause political problems on Capitol Hill, according to interviews of Justice aides conducted by congressional staff members.
“There is reason for worry and suspicion at this point as to whether voting fraud played an inappropriate role in personnel decisions by the department,” said Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law specialist at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.
The behind-the-scenes maneuvering to replace U.S. attorneys viewed as weak on voter fraud, from state Republican parties to the White House, is one element of a nationwide partisan brawl over voting rights in recent years. Ever since the contested 2000 presidential election, which ended in a Florida recount and intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, both political parties have attempted to use election law to tip close contests to their advantage.. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html
Obama’s backing down already…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm
>>”The behind-the-scenes maneuvering to replace U.S. attorneys viewed as weak on voter fraud…>>
This says to me that the attorneys were not prosecuting or not investigating fraud cases – but doesn’t tell me which. It says that they were replaced for that reason – or efforts were made to replace them. Many unanswered questions….but why would you have a problem with that? That seems to me like a good thing. Voter fraud _should_ be prosecuted.
Many unanswered questions….but why would you have a problem with that? – suek
I don’t have a problem with US attorneys being directed to look for and prosecute voter fraud. I do, however, have a problem with U.S. attorneys being fired for looking into voter fraud and not finding any prosecutable cases.
>>I do, however, have a problem with U.S. attorneys being fired for looking into voter fraud and not finding any prosecutable cases.>>
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President – he can fire them for wearing ugly ties. Not advisable, perhaps, but legal.
The second half is that you assume that they are being fired for not finding what isn’t there. The assumption on which firings are based is that fraud _is_ there, and for whatever reason – political patronage or inertia – they aren’t really looking for it – they’re putting on the back burner.
I really don’t know which of the two is true, but even if you are correct, the President can fire them for whatever reason he chooses. Why do you have a problem with that?
The second half is that you assume that they are being fired for not finding what isn’t there- suek
I’m not just assuming it, it’s what fired attorneys and election lawyers are saying.
You can listen to David Iglesias here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=95489844&m=95510938
“the President can fire them for whatever reason he chooses. Why do you have a problem with that?”
First of all, there was a poitical agenda, urging US attorneys to look and find people guilty for partisan reasons. It’s an abuse of power. And secondly, a special proescuter has been hired to find out whether or not Gonzales should be charged with a crime.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/34415
Oz:
I politely told you yesterday that when you enter a conservative website and you yourself are clearly hostile to the ideas most of the people there hold, if you want to change them to your way of thinking it’s best to quote from their own truth texts.
Yet you persist in citing sources leftist like NPR and Citizens for Ethics, dogs that don’t hunt among knowledgeable conservatives.
In fact, it’s interesting what the Citizens for Ethics lists as the other blogs it thinks its visitors should take a look-see at:
AMERICAblog
Atrios
Buzzflash
DailyKos
FireDog Lake
Glenn Greenwald
Huffington Post
MyDD
Raw Story
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Scrutiny Hooligans
Think Progress
TPM Muckraker
Washington Monthly
A line-up that includes some of the screwiest, hardest-left blog sites in America.
Way to inspire our trust in your arguments, Oz.
>>First of all, there was a poitical agenda, urging US attorneys to look and find people guilty for partisan reasons.>>
It’s a political position. Guilty of what? If you bring charges, there has to be a trial. If I only bring charges against one party, that’s not a good thing, but it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Next time around, the other party is in power, and they’ll bring charges against the “out” party.
Don’t forget, Clinton fired _all_ the US Attorneys – and hired back those he chose to hire back. What’s not political about that?
It’s a political position. If you don’t like that, then work to change the system.
“Don’t forget, Clinton fired _all_ the US Attorneys – and hired back those he chose to hire back.”- Suek
That was Bush’s fault, not firing all of the US Attorneys, which in hindsight, he should have done.
Bush, simple, naive fellow he was, was actually trying to be bipartisan.
It will be interesting to see what Obama does.
“Voter registration fraud is illegal, for sure, but it’s only a threat to our democracy when phony people vote.”- Ozzie
Anything that undermines even the perception of fair elections is a threat to democracy, Ozzie. When people lose confidence in the electoral process and the justice system, the country is lost. Everything else can be fixed.
suek #8
The process involves fingerprinting to insure accurate background checks.
The process also takes anywhere from 3 weeks to 6weeks. Being prior military, my fingerprints were already in the system, making the process quicker for me.
Brian…
“Shadow Warriors”…good read (Timmerman).
As I recall, it used to be called the “spoils” system…when a new president was elected, everybody got replaced by the new administration. It’s been replaced more or less by the civil service – which means that in large part, the administration no longer controls it’s administration. Low level bureaurocrats control the doors – the ins and the outs. Not a good thing, imo, because in reality, you almost cannot hold an administration responsible for either the good or the bad if the bulk of the system is administered by people who have no loyalty to the CEO.
I’m thinking now about that “volunteer” program Obama wanted (I understand it’s been scrubbed from his website). Can you imagine the sticky mud a program would get into if it were to be staffed by unwilling teenagers? …shudder…!!
Ozzie will never propose solutions for fixing our archaic, obsolete registration and voting system.
It gets very tiresome to me to read all the whining, complaining, and endless cut and pasting, and never see any kind of a proposal for a solution.
Registration fixes: Free Voter ID, widely available
Voting fixes: A verifiable paper trail, and audits that match up the local votes AND their paper trail with precinct totals as registered at each state voting headquarters.
Free voter id is costly, and so is the level of auditing on the voting side. But restoring the integrity of our registration and voting system is worth it, I think.
Because Ozzie would only accept a system that benefits liberals and Democrats, she’ll never offer anything that is a true improvement. Because Democrats genuinely want the system to be gamed.
Because Ozzie would only accept a system that benefits liberals and Democrats, she’ll never offer anything that is a true improvement. – Mike
First of all, (not that it matters what I’d accept or wouldn’t accept), the idea that I’d only be in favor of a election reform that benefits liberals and Democrats is flat out wrong.
But yes, so far, I’ve not seen any evidence of voter fraud, despite the DOJ’s attempts to weed it out, while Clint Curtis’ testimony and other evidence points to election fraud.
And once again, while it’s certain wrong and illegal, voter registration fraud is not as grave a threat as voter fraud or election fraud.
That said, free voter I.D cards and a mandatory paper trail (which I have suggested) would be great.
Would that I were able to wave my wand and make these things happen, Mike.
Ozzie,
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/nov/09/mn-sen-coleman-count-the-ballots-cast/
The Democrats are trying to steal a Senate seat in Minnesota. The Coleman campaign is trying to block the counting of 32 ballots because they were riding around with a Democratic election official for 3 days. Surely you can trust those right?- rock
I’ve been reading this on other sites, Rock, which have a decidely diferrent take than Redstate.com does.
I could post information from bloggers who will contend that the Republicans are trying to steal this and other elections, most notably in Alaska. (even Nate Silver says the Alaska’s Numbers dont add up, and he’s turned out to be one of the winners in this election)
For every bit of information you find on a right wing blog, there is a left wing blog that counters it.
I’ m not saying that Democrats don’t engage in funny business, I’m saying that from what I’ve seen, after years of following this, election fraud is more problematic than voter registration fraud.
Once again, I’d like paper trails and free voter I.D., but, unfortunately, I dont have a say.
Ozzie,
They link to an AP story, hardly right wing.
Ozzie (24 and 26)
>> Once again, I’d like paper trails and free voter I.D., but, unfortunately, I dont have a say. >>
I appreciate the clarity and forthrightness of this declaration, Ozzie, especially as to both the front end of registration and the back end of voting. If we can all get enough people to agree, perhaps something can get done.
I worry about things I see as real concerns. Voter registration fraud is illegal, for sure, but it’s only a threat to our democracy when phony people vote. And it’s not as if the DOJ has been alseep on the wheel on this one, given that it’s actively been trying to weed out and prosecute voter fraud for years.
So… Stalking is only a crime and a threat to people if the stalker actually harmed his target… Oz’s view on reality is rather fantastic: fantastically disastrous and cruel.
“Real concerns” don’t involve breaking the law. She’ll be concerned when real people start dying and being hurt. But then, will that truly be real to Oz? I doubt it.
(not that it matters what I’d accept or wouldn’t accept)
There goes that nihilist philosophy again. It doesn’t matter what she does, the world will burn anyways while she watches in fascinated entertainment.
This was interesting…wonder how accurate it’ll be…
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-obama-will-do-first-in-first-100.html
I know this sounds insensitive, but I’m hoping the first crisis Obama will have to face is how to kiss Iran’s boo boos after Israel bitch-slaps it sometime before January 20.
Whoah! Look at this. No doubt this will be quashed by Obama – until the absolutely safe disposal is solved..never mind what France has done…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos