2004 Election

My my ...

...

"The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. "

...

"Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.
2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.
3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.
4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.
5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.
6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.
7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.
8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system. "

...
More here and here

Dating lunacy

http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/Dating/ArticleIV2.aspx?cp-documentid=39924&GT1=7116

 

"If a man suggests splitting the tab on a first date, the woman should pay -- then bolt. I don't say this is fair, especially if, for instance, the woman is a CEO and the man is a freelance writer. But it's the way it is, and any man who tries to worm out for the sake of saving a few bucks is a creep to be ditched. "

 

That may have been true in the day and age when men worked, and women stayed at home and took care of the children. He implies that men only ask women out, not the other way around. Clearly this person hasn't been dating much in the 21th Century. His last sentence indicates that he is unable/unwilling to see how the world has changed.

Today, women work just like men. If one truly believes in equality of the sexes, then things like the restaurant tab should be spilt evenly. Frankly I lose respect for a woman who doesn't even offer to pay part of the bill. I drop them like a bad habit.

 

But wait, it gets better ...

 

"For men, an early red flag about money may not start waving until the third or fourth date. A lot of women begin life as daddy's girls -- a few stay that way. They feel men should provide them with the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed to with other men who did just that. If you're a sugar daddy yourself, have fun. If not, back off. Over time you'll only be despised -- and dropped."

 

Gee, maybe women who act like that turn out that way because men like this guy keep buying them dinner, in addition to everything else in their lifestyle. Don't think there's a connection there?

 

The advice I'd give this guy is to stop treating women as playthings, or something so fragile. Women are people just like men, and as such should be treated as equals.

 

Maybe it's the water ...?

For as long as I can remember, I seem to have a face that people either ignore, or look at in disgust. And it's not just my face, people seem to take great pains to ignore me in meetings or put me on hold to talk to others.

 

There must be something in the way I look or carry on that somehow implies stupidity.

 

Even when I'm saying something useful or meaningful, somehow, it always gets ignored. I've lost track of the number of meetings I've been in where I'll suggest something, it gets ignored, then five minutes later, someone else invariably says the same thing, and it's considered a great idea!

 

And it's always the case, that when I show my ignorance on a subject, I usually have every person in the room looking at me like I just ripped a huge fart.

 

I don't claim to be the cleverest man in the world, but every so often in meetings or social gatherings I do think I come up with useful ideas or some witty repartee.

 

Maybe that's the problem, I try too hard. Or maybe it's that I have a very big face, and that makes me a big target. Maybe it's the water ...

 

 

 

 

Yankees lose, again

Despite all the bad things going on this year, we have one good reason to celebrate -

Steinbrenner's Yankees choked again. That's what, 5 years in a row. It must really get under Steinbrenner's skin that all that work he's done to get Republicans in office all these years, and yet ever since Clinton left office, they haven't won the bring prize?

 

Anyways ...

 

Here's some guy who gets the analysis wrong-

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9658414/

 

Uh dude, Torre and Cashman were the guys that built the team that won all those World Series in the 90's, remember? They were able to do so, because a certain owner stayed out of their way.

 

It's amazing how this guy can waste so many words, time, and energy focusing on what's not the problem. The owner is the problem. Pretty much everyone who follows MLB knows this. Except ... well ... apparently this guy.

 

Let's move on ...

Speed bumps - and the morons who try to avoid them.

I work out at a gym that has below-ground parking. People go in and out of this garage at break-neck speed. Consequently, the gym installled speed bumps before and after the entrance.

 

Yet a day doesn't go by where I see virutally the same people swerving to avoid such speed bumps, or partially going over them. 99% of the time, they do this by going into the oncoming lane.

 

Why are people so stupid? These are accidents waiting to happen.

 

Is it so necessary to be going so fast as to endanger not only oneself, but every pedestrian and other driver in the process with such stupidity? It's not my fault such idiots are late to their spinning classes that they must act like maniacs in their gas-guzzling SUVs or Road Rangers to find that parking stall closer to the walkthrough door!

 

Would it hurt to just leave a bit earlier, go over the speed bumps slowly, park a bit further away? Heck one might even find the walk a good exercise in of itself!

 

 

 

 

Bill Maher

While I wasn't a fan of his show, I don't think I could've said the following better:

 

" Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more.  There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that.  You can't start another war because you used up the army.  And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.  Listen to your Mom.  The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out.  No one's speaking to you.  Mission accomplished.

Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away.  Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team.  It's time.  Time to move on and try the next fantasy job.  How about cowboy or space man?  Now I know what you're saying:  there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in.  Please don't.  I know, I know.  There's a lot left to do.  There's a war with Venezuela.  Eliminating the sales tax on yachts.  Turning the space program over to the church.  And Social Security to Fannie Mae.  Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now.  Why?  Because you govern like Billy Joel drives.  You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal.  You're a catastrophe that walks like a man.  Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans.  Maybe you're just not lucky.  I'm not saying you don't love this country.  I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

So, yes, God does speak to you.  What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.'"

Katrina, Bush and race

"I was somewhat amazed (slap me stupid) when Bush replied to assertions by some that the Katrina response would have been faster if so many of the victims were not poor and black with this gem: "The storm didn't discriminate and neither will the recovery effort."  Technically the storm didn't discriminate, true.  Storms are neither conscious nor evil.  They simply blow in and destroy whatever, whoever, lies in their path.  But using this
technicality exposes once again the President's bewildered lack of understanding of the effects of the storm.

  As a causal force the storm did not discriminate, however, its effects were most certainly discriminatory. 
And the fault for that discriminatory effect lies not with the storm, but with a government that has allowed a
three-tiered society to become entrenched, and made it very difficult to cross over from the lower tiers to the
higher tiers; poor to middle class, middle class to the very rich.  Yes, it can be done--in fact, it happens
all the time--to a small percentage of very motivated individuals.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of the poor
stay poor, and raise poor children that stay poor.  So, to return to my point, Bush used a technicality to
ignore a huge societal problem exposed in the raw by the after affects of Katrina.  The poor were most certainly
discriminated against because they were left behind to face the wrath of the storm.  Furthermore, we saw the
faces of the poor in New Orleans and they did not represent the rainbow of color racial equality brings."

 

Ken Gunn