11/27/2005
Mr. Bruce McPherson
Secretary of State
Executive Office
1500 11th St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Secretary McPherson;
I’m writing and sending this –my review and comments on the ‘California Use Procedures’ associated with the certification hearing of 11/21/2005- as I want to believe Nghia Nguyen Demovic, who says you read all comments. They are in addition to the comments already submitted to you on 11/17/2005 regarding the voting system. Unfortunately, my experience in interacting with your staff regarding differing issues leads me to the perspective that they are arrogant, incapable of seeing a bigger picture than their vested self-interests, are sloppy in their analyses, and are unwilling to admit to their mistakes. So I don’t believe they will forward all comments on to you that are submitted.
First and foremost is the fact that these ‘final draft’ ‘California Use Procedures were NOT received at least 45-days prior to the 11/21 nearing as specified by the APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A VOTING SYSTEM OR SYSTEM COMPONENT. Either vendors comply with your office’s procedural specifications or such specifications do not mean anything.
The 'Use' procedures posted on the SOS site spell out these 4 conditions explicitly: (as indicated in the settlement specified in the Alameda Superior Court Case RG03 128466)
"The instructions necessary to configure a Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (DESI) GEMS Server are described in the document “Instructions for GEMS and EMP Configuration” and shall be implemented. The instructions are written for a technician who has experience and competency with using the Windows Registry Editor, Windows Administrative Tool, and BIOS setup functions. The configuration requirements are as follows:
1.) ALL network services and network ports are to be turned off, except those EXPLICITLY required to run the GEMS software;
2.) the “autorun” feature in Windows is to be disabled;
3.) the boot order is to boot from the hard drive first; and
4.) the BIOS is to be password protected to prevent changes to the boot order.
If this procedure is implemented on a DESI California customer server, this
information must be communicated in writing to DESI’s Compliance Officer no
later than one week after implementation. "
BUT the vendor goes on to talk about local area network connections re firmware 2.0.12 on the high speed central tabulator and provides a network diagram showing DHCP services being used (network services not "explicitly required to run the GEMS software") AND two 'static ip' addresses which is another example of a network service and network port'. NEITHER are "explicitly required to run the
GEMS software", a DATABASE software program.
The 'Use' procedures state:
"4. Election Setup and Definition
The following procedures are unique to California and should be set in the GEMS database.
On TS options tab – Disable print Barcode
On OS options tab – Reject Overvoted races and All races blank voted
On OS options tab – Use report 195/196US and version 196
NO characters (“&%) shall be used in race or candidate names"
BUT the consultant's reports states as part of his 'Conclusions' , "4. The ABasic Report file should be restricted to 195 US.abo, Version 1.15, and information provided to confirm the correct (unmodified) file is in use." This, obviously, raises questions of what exactly was tested by the Staff and Consultant. And given the large discrepancy of version number -1.15 versus 196- it would appear as though the vendor is intending to supply a system that has different software than that which was tested. This was the original reason they’re system was decertified.
The 'Use Procedures' state:
4.5. Logic and accuracy testing of system and components
Testing of election logic involves both data testing - ensuring accuracy of cast ballots, and system testing to ensure that data logic is consistent as it is transmitted from one component of the system to another - as it is downloaded onto memory cards, as ballots are cast, and as results are uploaded to the GEMS host computer application.
-----------------This section's specifications do NOT specify ANY error rate that must be achieved nor does the specifications of the L&A test deck(s) meet the 2002 VSG standards for such ACCURACY testing.
For AccuVote-TSx precincts
“In a polling location where there is only one AccuVote TSx – it is advisable that the poll
workers encourage other voters to use the TSx unit in order to protect anonymity.”
-------------------------------------This is nothing but marketing hype and should be removed, especially in view that HAVA only requires that ONE MACHINE PER PRECINCT be available for disabled voters. Voter anonymity is not-and shouldn't be- tied to the usage of a machine.
"The AccuVote VIBS is designed for use by voters with a wide variety of disabilities”:
---------------------This whole section reads like a marketing brochure from the vendor and needs to be re-written to address usage, not promote the vendor's products.
From AccuVote DRE precincts section: "In order for that ballot to be retrievable, the provisional voter is processed and assigned a voter ID number. The voter’s provisional ID number is stored in the voter access card by the poll worker along with the voter’s precinct and ballot style information. The voter proceeds to the AccuVote-TSx Ballot Station, inserts the voter access card, votes and casts the ballot, and returns the voter access card for re-use by the polling place.
The provisional ballot is recorded but not added to the result totals. Should the provisional voter’s ballot be determined to be eligible for counting by the Election Board during the post election canvass, it would be identified in the election system by the provisional voter’s ID number, and retrieved and added to the election result totals."
--------------------This violates the 'secrecy of the ballot' provisions of the Election Code.
Section 5.7. Closing the polls and vote reporting: "While holding the YES and NO button on the front of the AccuVote at the same time, insert the Ender Card into the AccuVote. This will initiate the FINAL Results Tape that will print automatically. If the tape does not print, call the Election Official immediately. The printed tape will include both the ZERO TOTALS TAPE and the FINAL RESULTS TAPE. The precinct board shall tear the tape from the AccuVote and return it to the Election Official as specified."
---------------------This needs to reflect the need for two copies of the ZERO TOTALS TAPE and the FINAL RESULTS TAPE, one for the Election Official and one to be posted at the precinct.
"The AccuVote-OS Central Count may be configured with multiple AccuVote-OS Central Count units linked to the GEMS server in either the local area network configuration or using Windows Remote Access Server RAS)."
-------------------Again, the vendor is ignoring the court order so that they may present a system that appears to be more than it actually is; iterating, neither a local area network nor a RAS Server is explicitly required to run the GEMS software. GEMS is a DATABASE and does not need such communication facilities to 'run'.
There are NO procedures mentioned or described to address the system vulnerability described by "Note that the Central Count Server console is modeless, that is, it may be accessed at the same time as the GEMS main window. The election status cannot be changed as long as the console is active." How is such monitored if the 'window' where the election status is shown is hidden? What can be done to the system when the election status is 'not active'?
E.C. 14310 states, "(c) (1) During the official canvass, the ELECTIONS OFFICIAL shall examine the records with respect to all provisional ballots cast."
------------------- But the “Use Procedures” do not address this restriction at all.
Nor do the Procedures indicate how Provisional vote tallying associated with this system integrate with the Election Code specification "(d) The Secretary of State shall establish a free access system that any voter who casts a provisional ballot may access to discover whether the voter's provisional ballot was counted and, if not, the reason why it was not counted."
In the Use Procedures section "8.10. Backup and Retention of election material", the memory/pcmcia cards are not specifically mentioned and must be, per Dept. of Justice rulings and admittance by the Secretary of State's staff that such cards are used to tabulate votes. Nor do the Procedures address the security needed to store such cards in a secure manner for the time references specified by law.
The 'Use Procedures' "Election Security Plan" states "Election Officials shall verify and submit a statement to the Secretary of State that no DAO capable program has been installed or resides on GEMS server. DAO programs include but are not limited to MS EXCEL, MS ACCESS, and other Visual Basic programs designed to work with Direct Access Objects."
----------------------------Again –as I have mentioned this in an election complaint- this is an impossible task for Election Officials because this voting system relies upon Microsoft's Windows Operating system in the GEMS Server and Internet Explorer is integral to the Windows Operating System and IS a "DAO capable program". There are multiple 'hacking' programs that use the Internet Explorer to access the database engine used for GEMS.
Yet, again, the vendor ignores the terms of the court ordered settlement and references networking in the "Election Security Plan"; "All network connections, including the GEMS network, should be local." Such network connections are NOT "explicitly required to run the GEMS software. GEMS is a DATABASE and does not need such communication facilities to 'run'."
"The specifics for understanding and implementing these items can be obtained from your Diebold representative." ---------------------------This would indicate the vendor is fostering dependence on itself; such steps -not explicit values associated with the steps- must be public knowledge; only by public examination of the steps the vendor is describing can the public be assured that such steps effectively address the goals specified:
"10.2.1. Essential and non-essential services and ports
· All network services and network ports are to be turned off, except those explicitly required to run the
GEMS software; (again, GEMS is a DATABASE and does not need such communication facilities to
'run'.)
· the “auto run” feature in Windows is to be disabled;
· the boot order is to boot from the hard drive first; and
· the BIOS is to be password protected to prevent changes to the boot order;
The 'Use Procedures' under "Security of Votes" states "Ballot Tally Software — Ballot Tally software for early voting shall be escrowed according to Chapter 6 of Division 7 of the California Code of Regulations."
BUT there is not any such 'Division 7' (the CCR's are all prefaced as 'Title' and there is not a Title 6 in the CCR's; http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/ ).
Perhaps more to the point, The Secretary of State has already stated how such software is to be escrowed and this document does not reflect that decision.
Additionally, the 2002 Voting Systems Standards Guidelines that Secretary McPherson has indicated MUST be implemented by any new voting system application for certification state:
"2002 VSG Section 4.2.2 Software Integrity
Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or INTERPRETED code is PROHIBITED, except under the security provisions outlined in section 6.4.e. This prohibition is to ensure that the software tested and approved during the qualification process remains unchanged and retains its integrity. "
6.4(e) states, "After initiation of election day TESTING, no source code or compilers or assemblers shall be resident or accessible."
The Diebold PCMCIA/memory card architecture relies on interpreted code, executing logic on the memory card by passing memory card code through the interpreter. This is confirmed by the vendor and the Secretary of State's Staff report. Unless the Secretary of State was intentionally misleading the public when he announced that all new system applications would meet these guidelines, it appears as though the vendor does not listen to what the Secretary of State mandates.
In a strange bit of irony, the 2002 Voting System Standards Guidelines promulgated by the Federal Election Commission sets a failure tolerance so low that 10 percent of the voting machines are allowed to fail on the first day of use. Would you buy a TV set if you knew there was a 10 percent chance it would stop working the first day? This is good use of taxpayer money?
The 2002 Voting Systems Standards Guidelines, Section 4, Software Standards, sub-section 4.2.1 states "Software associated with the logical and numerical operations of vote data SHALL USE a high-level programming language, such as: Pascal, Visual Basic, Java, C and C++. The requirement for the use of high-level language for logical operations does not preclude the use of assembly language for hardware-related segments, such as device controllers and handler programs. Also, operating system software may be designed in assembly language."
And one does not need to be a computer expert to understand that ANOTHER item forbidden in the 2002 Voting Systems Standards Guidelines, "nonstandard computer language" is being used. Diebold decided to make up its own language, calling it "AccuBasic." Only Diebold uses it, no one else in the world. The ITA’ s defenders explain that the AccuBasic language is similar but different to the C++ computer language. That's like saying French is Portuguese because the languages are "similar."
Between the failure of the vendor to adhere to the rules and regulations associated with an APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A VOTING SYSTEM OR SYSTEM COMPONENT,
The lack of sufficient testing to ensure the system meets the 2002 Voting Systems Standards Guidelines for accuracy as well as the system being in violation of the same guidelines,
The AVPM not being easily accessible or viewable, the AVPM being based on thermal paper which is very susceptible to heat alteration,
The continued arrogance shown by the vendor in ignoring the settlement terms of the Alameda Superior Court Case RG03 128466,
The rejection of the system by disabled advocates in the November 21st hearing,
The rejection of the system by ALL voting activists,
The inability of the system to meet HAVA guidelines for disabled access,
The discrepancy noted with the ballot files (.abo files) between the consultants specifications and what the vendor specified in the 'Final draft' of the 'Use Procedures,
And the lack of the 'Use Procedures' to fully address usage
all scream that this is not a system to be foisted upon the citizens of California. And given the Vendor's ignoring of the 'rule of law' as evidenced by the settlement regarding the usage of uncertified software and ongoing ignoring of the settlement conditions specified by that court case, this is a vendor that should be banned from doing business in California as it has shown it's inability to be trusted as an honest purveyor of goods and services.
Bruce Sims
4744 ½ Terrace Dr.
San Diego, CA 92116
CC: Senator Debra Bowen
Assemblyperson Tom Umberg
Assemblyperson Lori Saldana
Senator Christine Kehoe
Assemblyperson Shirley Horton
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata
Senator Jackie Speier
Assemblyperson Mark Leno
City Attorney Mike Aguirre
Governor Arnold SchwarzeneggerCurrent Mood:  cynical |
11/17/2005
Mr. Bruce McPherson
Secretary of State
Executive Office
1500 11th St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Secretary McPherson;
This is a follow-up to my letter of 11/12/2005 regarding the voting system certification hearing on 11/21/2005. It will also serve as my public comments regarding the hearing based on the documents which were posted on 11/14, 7 business days after the hearing notice was posted on your office’s website. These comments will also be submitted via the email link for public comments.
At the time of the posting of some of the documents associated with the testing (consultant, staff, and Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAB) reports), text was also posted stating your intentions and making the statement “As Secretary of State he is the only official given the responsibility by law of approving or rejecting voting systems for use in California.”
While I applaud your willingness to take the responsibility given to you by law, I would hope you consider all the citizen activists, while acting on their acceptance of the need for engagement in meeting their civic responsibilities, as being just as committed to the integrity of the voting process as you or any of your staff is.
And recognize that the sentiments expressed by the preamble of the Ralph Brown Act are the honest reflection of those who are fully committed to the democratic process. “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Unfortunately, your staff seems to not be willing to accept that premise. I make this statement given that all the documentation submitted to your office –such as the Independent Testing Authority (ITA) reports, even though not for the system tested, or manuals associated with the system – are not also posted so that the public can be fully informed. This is in contrast to the statement about you posted at the time of the limited documents “He is also committed to maintaining voter confidence in the voting systems used in California.”
This is especially disturbing in view of the caveat issued on the “APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A VOTING SYSTEM OR SYSTEM COMPONENT”, namely “Please note that all information you submit, once received by the Secretary of State’s office, will be considered a public document.” Yet such documents were not provided for the public to examine.
Your office’s website/page: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm
has an embedded link titled '2002 Federal Voting Systems Standards' that if one clicks on it, one is taken to a page telling you that the page you requested doesn't exist and you'll be redirected in a few moments and you end up on the FEC home page. If you do a search using '2002 Federal Voting Systems Standards' you get 75 hits, but no document spelling out the standards; if you use the " " for 'advanced/specific' search you get 'no results'.
In the meantime, they are easily found on the web using the same search string of '2002 Federal Voting Systems Standards’ (resulting in the number 1 hit on google being http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html )
My comments begin with the expression of absolute wonderment and consternation that this hearing is being held at all. The VSTAB report focused on hardware failure and came to the conclusion that “Under one possible interpretation of the standards, the failure rate observed
during these tests was more than 10 times higher than permitted by federal standards (which require a 163-hour MTBF). The failure to detect this fact during the ITA’s testing process appears to be due to serious defects in the testing methodology specified by Federal standards.
One lesson of this analysis is that the testing performed during the Federal
Qualification process is apparently inadequate to ensure that voting machines will be reliable enough for use in elections.” And THEN the VSTAB was not permitted or involved at the September “volume testing” in San Diego!!
Further, the 2002 Voting Systems Standards state “A typical system operations scenario consist of approximately 45 hours of equipment operation, consisting of 30 hours of equipment set-up and readiness testing and 15 hours of elections operations. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with this requirement, a failure is defined as any event which results in either the:
“Loss of one or more functions” or “Degradation of performance such that the device is unable to perform its intended function for longer than 10 seconds.”
BUT NEITHER of the ‘volume tests’ came close to the sustained “15 hours of elections operations”. While the VSTAB report stated “These calculations provide evidence that the failures observed during the July 20th test are serious. It is hard to escape the conclusion that any system with failure rates this high is not ready for use in an election.” But your staff’s report, despite not conforming to the federal standards for ‘volume testing’, judged the system was acceptable.
Yet both the consultant and staff use such Federal testing (the ITA reports previously mentioned) as a significant part of the justification for their recommendation to approve.
And NO ONE tested to see if the voting systems met the Federal error rate standards specified in the 2002 Voting Systems Standards (as developed by the Federal Election Commission), namely “that a voting system have an error rate matching the FEC standards of a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions, with a maximum acceptable error rate in the test process of one in 500,000 ballot positions” -http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html –
which means that in order to properly test this system for 'Logic and Accuracy' a card deck of ballots, using the last 'special' election in San Diego (53 ballot positions) as a template for 'ballot positions', would consist of 187,736 cards; the maximum size card deck used for the Logic and Accuracy tests -in San Diego- per Charles Wallis, It Director for the San Diego Registrar of Voters, is 400 cards. Even the 'acceptable' error rate would indicate that such testing consist of 9,434 cards, over 23 times the maximum number of cards used for Logic and Accuracy testing in San Diego. The ‘volume testing’ performed by your office staff, the consultant, and the VSTAB consisted of a little over 100 ballots with NO mention of ballot positions. But given 100 machines and each machine having 100 ‘ballots’ cast upon it –as specified in the staff report- and each ballot having 20 positions or less (confirmed with a system testing person) would result in 200,000 ballot positions, far less than the number of positions REQUIRED by Federal standards. And given the aforementioned deficiency in the Federal testing process –recently documented in the General Accounting Office (GAO) and NIST reports- the ITA’s also didn’t test to see if this system met the specified standard.
And even though it states on your office’s website “All systems will be subject to volume testing as defined by established Secretary of State standards prior to certification in California.", I cannot find published ANYWHERE such established standards re 'volume testing'.
And given that you are committed to “maintaining voter confidence in the voting systems used in California.”, being put into a position where you could approve a system that does NOT have proof of it’s accuracy by meeting the Federal standards that you said would have to met back in August, probably is not comfortable. Especially for someone who wants to run for the Secretary of State office in another election.
The issuance of the NASED qualification number prior to reception of the ITA reports also raises questions regarding the Federal qualification process. The NASED number –even though it isn’t the one issued for the system tested and your office is apparently still waiting for such ITA reports- was issued in June but the ITA reports are dated in August. Federal rules indicate that “The certification number must be issued after the ITA report”, so the proper procedures were not followed in the Federal qualification process and one can only speculate in a non-positive manner as towards why such occurred.
Adding ‘fuel to the fire’ is the consultant’s statement "The new NASED number was issued 11/10/05 for these components with BS Firmware 4.6.4. Final test reports for this release version have not been received from either the hardware or the software ITAs." Again, a violation of the associated Federal rules for the qualification process and raising the question of why this hearing is being held.
The APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A VOTING SYSTEM OR SYSTEM COMPONENT” states that "FINAL draft procedures-referencing California Procedures for Use- MUST be received AT LEAST 45 days prior to the VSP Panel meeting in which the item will be considered.
Obviously, since these ‘California Procedures for Use’ are still in ‘draft’ state as indicated by your staff’s report, this is a violation of the application process and by itself argues against any certification of this system at this time. And such were only posted for public review in the latter part of the day on 11/17, 4 days before the hearing. And consisting of 69 pages to be reviewed and commented on.
The VSTAB report also states “Risks. In general, we are concerned that the prevalence of software failures during the June 20th test may indicate software quality problems in the TSx. It is possible that these failures are a sign of a large number of other latent software defects. The fundamental barrier to analysis of these software errors is the lack of access to source
code for the TSx. With access to this material, it would be possible to identify the cause of each software failure, diagnose the defect in the software, and ascertain the magnitude of the defect. Lacking source code, though, we have no way to perform such an independent evaluation. This is a very unsatisfying position to be in.”
That the VSTAB has NOT had the chance to examine the source code, even though depositing it is a pre-requisite to State certification and you having the authority have the VSTAB examine it, just screams of a rush to judgment that is inconsistent with your stated goal of “making certain that only the most reliable, secure, and accessible voting systems are sold for use in California”.
Another aspect that begs the question of why this hearing is being held is the inability of the system to meet HAVA requirements for the disabled. And even though the VSTAB reports ignores such, the consultant reports says to approve the system even though the consultant states “At this time, I do not have sufficient guidance to identify if the system is fully HAVA compliant pending a determination of what levels or types of support are sufficient.”
Your staff report states “Those voters who are blind or so limited in vision that they cannot read the AVPM record essentially cast their ballot without further verification after the audio summary is reviewed. There is no capability to independently read the AVPPM audit record for blind voters.” AND “The magnifying lens may not be practical for users requiring its use.” AND “There are no separate features supporting physically disabled voters other than the ability to remove the screen from the voting booth
configuration and bringing it closer to the voter in different orientations. In this mode, the AVPM is disconnected and no AVVPAT records will be available for audit.”
And then your staff has the incredible gall to suggest –BASED ON THE VENDOR’S RECOMMENDATION- that the physically disabled “may use mouth-sticks, taking advantage of the touchscreen sensitivity.” How about soliciting the input of those that are disabled in such a manner? And it was the ‘touchscreen’ sensitivity that led to the software changes that reduced but did not eliminate the problems associated with the first ‘volume testing’; if usage of such ‘mouth-sticks’ was going to be acceptable to those disabled, it would only make sense to be testing whether or not the usage of such ‘mouth-sticks’ causes an issue with the machines.
The consultant states, “The current suggestion (in addressing the visually impaired but not blind voter) is that commercial full page magnifying sheets may be used, but this was NOT tested. It is not clear whether the magnifying sheets are to be provided as part of the DESI contracts or at the direct expense of the jurisdiction.” And the issue(s) of the cost of the Counties providing election services, using these machines, to the Cities is not even mentioned anywhere. For instance, if it takes an hour to do the Logic and Accuracy testing on one DRE, San Diego County would have to spend 1275 person-days testing before EVERY election in order to comply with California law. And, of course, such costs would be passed onto the Cities as part of the ‘service’; wonder how many voters are in the cities and whether they’d appreciate your approval of a voting system that increases the cities’ costs?
Also, your staff indicates in their report “Two services which were expected to be stopped by the changes were not successfully stopped; DESI needs to provide a further revision to the procedures to complete the requirement.” This references the fact that the system is still in violation of a court order but your staff says go ahead and approve it anyway. (Calif. Superior Court Case No. RG03 128466)
Absentee voting is a significant portion of votes cast in recent elections and is a growing trend that is encouraged by election officials. Yet, absolutely NO testing of the functions associated with such ballot tabulation was done by the VSTAB, consultant or your staff.
In response to Caren Daniels-Meade’s memo “Physical Security and Communication Plan Templates” sent out on 9/23/2005 because “very few of these reports have been filed”(referencing election observer, physical security and communication plans), San Diego responded to “Do vendor employees ever handle voting equipment?” by indicating ‘yes’. The ‘yes’ answer indicated, “vendor employees, under County Supervision, assist in central count tabulation of absentee ballot process”. Given the significant amount of absentee ballots, it is not fathomable why such is allowed as such would present an opportunity to the vendor to alter the machines. How will absentee ballots be handled in this voting system? Will vendor assistance be needed? If so, what protections are offered the public that such employees be completely above reproach? The San Diego ROV doesn’t conduct background checks on poll workers (in an age when employers reject applicant’s because of poor credit) and has no control over whom a vendor employs or dispatches. Additionally, San Diego indicated that vendor employees ‘are allowed to handle voting equipment pre-election’.
This is a violation of the process of ensuring election validity of the worst sort because it is at this point in the election processes that vote results can be most easily manipulated. It is with certainty that I can say the vendors do NOT provide personnel at a loss to themselves. Are these machines so complicated that County or State personnel can’t operate them by themselves? That sounds more like an addiction than a voting system. And perhaps more to the point, why does ANY election official need assistance from someone trying to sell something?
OBVIOUSLY, the system is NOT HAVA compliant; why is your office holding a certification proceeding when the voting system is NOT meeting your publicly announced standards, when the conditions set forth in the Application have NOT been met, when the voting system has yet to comply with a court order almost a year old, when the accuracy of the voting system has NOT been tested to the 2002 Voting System standards, when the public has not had an opportunity to review all the documents associated with the voting system(they are public documents per the Application), when documents listed by the vendor as being associated with the voting system usage are being ‘revised’ and have not been received by your office, when the source code has NOT been examined by the VSTAB to determine if there are issues associated with the program coding that would make their presence felt at a later time, when the maintenance costs associated with such voting systems has NOT been part of the evaluation and what impact that would have on cities, when public comment has ALREADY been voiced regarding the un-satisfactoriness of the thermal printer avvpat, and when the vendor has already demonstrated it’s untrustworthiness and lack of reliability in providing a DRE system?
You indicated in your October 5th press release that you would NOT ‘consider
voting systems unless the vendors or products have” using a past tense verb, (that is further confirmed by the same tense being used in the points raised) yet this hearing is being held DESPITE points 3,4,5 and 10 NOT occurring.
This fact, besides the ongoing willingness by your staff to have the necessary documentation ‘dribble in’ and then come in again and again certainly raises questions of your staff’s commitment to the policies and procedures you have established and their relationship with the vendor community.
I strongly urge you to NOT approve this application and include various statements made in the reports posted on your office’s website and succinct comments below my signature.
Sincerely,
Bruce Sims
4744 ½ Terrace Dr.
San Diego, CA 92116
CC: Senator Debra Bowen
Assemblyperson Tom Umberg
Assemblyperson Lori Saldana
Senator Christine Kehoe
Assemblyperson Shirley Horton
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata
Senator Jackie Speier
Assemblyperson Mark Leno
City Attorney Mike Aguirre
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
My comments on statements from the VSTAB, Consultant, and Staff reports:
Two services, which were expected to be stopped by the changes, were not
successfully stopped; DESI needs to provide a further revision to the procedures to complete the requirement.------this means the system is still in violation of a court order but the staff says go ahead and approve it anyway.
The remaining 23 Report files INSTALLED with GEMS 1.18.24 have NOT been validated for use.--------but there’s still a hearing?
NONE of the below documents are posted for public inspection despite it
being very clear in the "Application for approval of a voting system or component" that ALL information submitted will be considered a 'public document'. (This is documentation provided your office but was NOT provided to the public AND also violates the Application AND your October 5th press release:)
1. [SVF0515] Freeman, Certification Test for the Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (DESI) GEMS 1.18.22/AV-TSX 4.6.1 Voting System Including the AccuView Printer Module, 15 May 2005
2. [SOSPROC] Diebold Election Systems, Inc., State of California PROCEDURES
Required for Use of the Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-TSx Electronic Ballot Station [Draft], 28 Mar 2005. (More recent draft procedures have been submitted but came in too late to be included in this report.)
3. [Ciber-Org] Ciber Report, Software Functional Test Report Diebold Election System GEMS 1-18-24, Original Report Version 1.0 created 8/03/05, .3 Aug 2005
4. [Ciber-Add] Ciber Draft Report, Software Functional Test Report Diebold Election System GEMS 1-18-24, Addendum 1 for GEMS 1-18-24 created 9/30/05, changed 11/4/05.
5. [AVTSX-4.6.2] Wyle Report No. 48619-06, Hardware Qualification Testing of the Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-TSx DRE Voting Machine With AccuView
Printer Module (Firmware Release 4.6.21), May 17, 2005.
6. [AVTSX-4.6.3] Wyle Report No. 52501-01, Change Release Report of the Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-TSx DRE Voting Machine With AccuView Printer Module (Firmware Release 4.6.3), November 2, 2005
7. [AVTSX-4.6.4] Wyle Preliminary Report No. 52501-01, Preliminary Change Release Report of the Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-TSx DRE Voting Machine With AccuView Printer Module (Firmware Release 4.6.4), November 2, 2005
8. [Services] Diebold Draft Instructions, Instructions for Setting GEMS and EMP Server Configuration Pursuant to Paragraph 6.3.y of Superior Court Case No. RG03 128466, 1 Aug 2005.
9. [Admin] DESI Manual, GEMS_1.18_Election_Administrators_Guide_Revision_9.0
“6. Documentation
a. GEMS 1.18 Users Guide, Revision 12.0
b. GEMS 1.18 Reference Guide, Revision 8.0
c. GEMS 1.18 Election Administrators Guide, Revision 8.0 [9]
d. GEMS 1.18 Server Administration Guide, Revision 3.0.
e. GEMS 1.18 System Administrators Guide, Revision 6.0
f. AccuVote-TSX Hardware Guide, Revision 8.0
g. AccuVote-TSX Pollworkers Guide, Revision 4.0 [5]
h. Key Card Tool 1.0 Users Guide, Revision 2.0 [Key Card Tool 4.6 Users
Guide Rev 1.0]
i. Voter Card Encoder 1.3, Users Guide 2.0 [1.0?]
j. VCProgrammer 4.1 Users Guide, Revision 4.0 [VCProgrammer 4.6 Users
Guide Revision 1.0]
k. AccuVote-OS Hardware Guide, Revision 6.0
l. AccuVote-OS Pollworkers Guide, Revision 3.0
m. AccuVote-OS 1.96 Precinct Count Users Guide, Revision 3.0
n. AccuFeed 1.0 Hardware Guide, Revision 1.0
[Note: the references in brackets [] are updates that have been listed by DESI but were not provided as part of this test.]”
"which feeds past a view port where the voter can review the printed record of their ballot choices." -------------And what does a blind voter get to verify their vote?
"The VVPAT canister is sealed before the polls are opened and are removed sealed at the end of the election until the VVPAT records are needed to perform an audit." --------------------And what kind of seal is this?
"The new NASED number was issued 11/10/05 for these components with BS
Firmware 4.6.4. Final test reports for this release version have not been received from either the hardware or the software ITAs."--------------- So a NASED number was issued without the reports being recieved?
*AVPM unit revision was not recognized in the hardware or software ITA testing. Discussions with the hardware ITA indicate that the modification was probably tested but does not appear to have been included in the documentation to the hardware ITA as a different model. This revision of the AVPM is critical to this test and certification and needs to be recognized in the final certification." ------------The phraseology indicates the decision to certify has already been made, e.g., "needs to be recognized in the final (I'm not aware of any other certification except 'final') certification."
“4. Magnifying lens. From the [SVF0515] report “The magnifying lens may not be practical for users requiring its use. The limited focused field of view in the paper view window left edges and top/bottom elements in the paper view window distorted. Overhead and side lighting created areas of glare and shadow adding to the potentially difficulty for reading the ballot. The magnification level appeared to meet current expectation for the degree of magnification but we do not have a basis for accepting or rejecting the adequacy of this feature except public comment.” -----BUT there has been NO public comment on this because the public has NOT been able to see this voting system in order to make any meaningful judgment.
“13. ABasic Files. AccuBasic report files are used to configure AccuVote-OS and AccuVote-TS report contents and printing in precinct count mode. They are actually loaded into the memory cards for the AV-OS and AV-TS where their logic is executed.”-------This ADMITS the Hursti hack validity !! That the 'Staff' would now admit to such, whereas they wouldn't when certifying the Diebold AccuVote-OS system, firmware 1.96.4, would seem to indicate they are 'learning as they go' (or are intentionally deceptive) and as such, cannot be considered a valid authority for judgment of such systems. Makes a shambles of the idea that there is no "executable on the memory cards".
“At the current time, the Federal testing only uses one of these files and does no source code review, leaving this to the states to verify. Within our state testing, we only verified the reports for the same file, 194US.abo, revision 1.15, and have checked the source files. Since the source file is not reviewed in the Federal testing, we have no absolute verification that the installed file found in the witnessed build (forwarded by Ciber) was
created from these source files but signature information in the .abo file matches what would be expected from the source file.”----------Without such verification, it is nothing but a 'best guess' estimate.
I offer the following suggestion to address this issue:
If an application that includes proof of federal certification, (i.e. copies of the United States Election Assistance Commission [EAC] approved
Independent Testing Authority [ITA] reports and certification number
issued by the EAC), then a manifest document can then be created which holds the PCA information. The manifest file must contain the file names, expected file locations, file sizes, CRC-32 values, MD5 fingerprint values, and SHA1 fingerprint values of each executable held in escrow. Executable is defined as any EXE, DLL, COM, OCX, JAR, or ABO file.
A county can create a similar manifest for the county's machine. By comparing the 2 manifests it is possible to state with certainty the system at the county is certified.
This can be presented as a reasonable procedure to insure only certified software is delivered to the counties by a vendor. It is vendor neutral.
This system meets all the HAVA requirements that are defined and testable within the Federal Voting System Standards-2002.----------------This is a completely false statement; just one example is the HAVA requirements that specify that a voting system have an error rate matching the FEC standards of a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions, with a maximum acceptable error rate in the test process of one in 500,000 ballot position.
"Throughout the election, the AccuVote-OS tabulates votes on the
memory card as the ballots are fed individually by the voter." -------this means, despite previous staff reports that such cards do NOT need to be retained, that the DOJ definitions regarding devices that tabulate votes and are not ROM based MUST be retained as part of the voting record.
"Wyle Laboratories has successfully completed federal qualification testing of the AccuVote-OS Model D, firmware v. 1.96.6, to the 2002 Federal Voting System Standards. We have received copy of the final report, dated August 4, 2005."-------again, why is this not report posted for public examination given it being very clear in the "application for approval of a voting system or component" that ALL information submitted will be considered a 'public document'. Additionally, this report is NOT what was considered by the consultant in the documents he used.
"Finally, Wyle Laboratories completed federal qualification testing of both Key Card Tool, v. 4.6.1 and VC Programmer, v. 4.6.1, to the 2002 Federal Voting System Standards. We have also received a copy of the final report of that testing, dated August 4, 2005.5. VCProgrammer v. 4.6.1" --------yet the 'staff' states "VCProgrammer is a PC based software application" and Wyle is NOT a NASED approved software Independent Testing Authority; only Ciber and Systest are approved software vendors; Wyle can only evaluate firmware and the VCrogrammer is NOT a rom based 'software'(firmware).
http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDApprovedSystems1.03.pdf
"11. §104 (d): Certification tests shall promote public confidence that the system is easy to use or ‘voter friendly.’
The proposed system is at least as user-friendly as the currently certified Diebold systems." ------BUT that doesn't mean the public thinks that the system is 'user friendly'.
12. §104 (e): Certification testing shall demonstrate that the system creates an audit trail showing both that the voter was able to vote for the candidate or for or against a measure of his or her choice and that the system correctly and consistently interpreted the voter’s votes.
The system meets this requirement. The AccuVote-TSx configured with the AccuView printer module provides an AVVPAT.--------this 'staff' recommendation ignores, completely, the issues brought up by the consultant and Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board.
The 'staff' report states "A review of the appropriate Elections Code sections was conducted." and goes on to state regarding EC 15360 "The system meets this requirement." --------------This has to do with the 1% manual audit in the official canvas and NO testing or process to address this was done in the procedures documented during the trials of this system. If people can't view the avvpat easily, what is the election official to do? Buy a stronger magnifying glass? How many voters will get tired of waiting to vote because those who have voted are having problems viewing the avvpat?
The staff report mentions EC 19320 but ignores EC 15004.
The staff report mentions EC 19321 which specifies what an election official shall do but then the staff report says that the voting system meets the requirement; this is but one example of the shoddiness of the staff report. The 'staff' report cites at least 12 election codes that are election official/poll worker dependent and says the 'system meets this requirement'.
The staff report cites "The Retention of Voting Documentation (42 U.S.C. 1974 through 1974e) statute applies in all jurisdictions and to all elections in which a federal candidate is on a ballot." -------------yet it does NOT, again, mention the memory cards which are used to tabulate votes; the staff report further quotes "In addition, it is the Department of Justice’s view that the phrase “other act requisite to voting” requires the retention of the ballots themselves, at least in those jurisdictions where a voter’s electoral preference is manifested by marking a piece of paper or by punching holes in a computer card." Given the preponderance of absentee voting on paper card based ballots, it is remarkable that the staff report ignores both the absentee ballot and memory card issue and certainly brings up the issue of why they now want to abide by DOJ guidelines when they didn't before; see the procedures for a component of this system, the AccuVote-OS system firmware 1.96.4.
15. 504 (c): A copy of the approved Qualification Test results released directly to the Secretary of State by a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL).
Draft copies of the ITA reports have been received. Final copies of those reports will be secured before the system is certified. ----------Why is there a hearing when the final reports haven't been received or the public been given the opportunity to exam these reports?
16. §504 (d): A review, if applicable, of transcripts or other materials from prior meetings or hearings on the proposed system, procedure, or modification, either in whole or in part.
The relevant documentation has been reviewed. ----------So why haven't the procedures been revised to reflect the 'new' perspectives?
20. §504 (h): A review of any effect the application will have on the ease and convenience with which voters use the system.
The proposed system is more voter friendly than the currently certified Diebold systems. -----------Says who? What members of the general public were solicited for their input regarding this item?
21. §504 (i): A review of any effect the application will have on the timeliness of vote reporting.
The proposed system will not delay the reporting of election results relative to the currently certified system. -------------This COMPLETELY IGNORES the issue of viewing the avvpat for the 1% manual recount (which is completely invalid statistically for determining if the voting results are reflective of the total vote.)
On October 20, 2005, an “open house” demonstration of this system was held at the Secretary of State headquarters for invited representatives of the accessibility community, as well as county elections officials and members of the VSTAAB to observe and review this system with Secretary of State and vendor staff. Participants included:
• sixteen elections staff representing nine counties,
• four representatives of the accessibility community,
• two representatives of the VSTAAB, and
• various members of the Secretary of State staff.------------and absolutely no one of the general public or voting activist organizations; the arrogance is astounding and the Secretary of State AND his staff need to read the preamble to the Ralph Brown Act before they become so confident in their actions.Current Mood:  discontent |
What ?!? You mean you didn't hear about any of these from the news sources you read or watch? Doesn't that make you think that maybe you're being lied to?
http://www.sfbg.com/39/49/cover_censored.htmlCurrent Mood: discontent |
If you consider yourself a 'progressive' or 'liberal', please read and reflect on this interview about what is effecting your representation:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1545251
If you're not, please pass this on to those you know who do consider themselves such and hope they wake up a bit.Current Mood:  contemplative |
Three weeks on a new job, voting issues, election reform activities, a 'stuff' have got in the way of posting but this article is so 'point on' I had to put it out there despite the desire to 'take a break'.
Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:34:38 -0700
The article below appears in the current issue of Harpers and was written
by Lewis H. Lapham
www.harpers.org/LewisLapham.html
Knowing the source of this piece makes it all the more disturbing. It is not every day that the editor of a respected national magazine publishes an essay claiming that America is not on the road to becoming, but ALREADY IS, a fascist state.... or words to that affect.
To help prepare you for what follows, here are the final sentence from this piece.... [I think we can look forward with confidence to character-building bankruptcies, picturesque bread riots, thrilling cavalcades of splendidly costumed motorcycle police.]
On message By Lewis H. Lapham Harper's Magazine, October 2005, pps. 7-9 "But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 4, 1938.
In 1938 the word "fascism" hadn't yet been transferred into an abridged metaphor for all the world's unspeakable evil and monstrous crime, and on coming across President Roosevelt's prescient remark in one of Umberto Eco's essays, I could read it as prose instead of poetry -- a reference not to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or the pit of Hell but to the political theories that regard individual citizens as the property of the government, happy villagers glad to wave the flags and wage the wars, grateful for the good fortune that placed them in the care of a sublime leader. Or, more emphatically, as Benito Mussolini liked to say, "Everything in the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state."
http://organicconsumers.org/Politics/harpers101205.cfmCurrent Mood:  drained |
| » He still thinks people believe him !! |
|---|
"President Bush said Thursday the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts."
Yeah,right, and there are WMD's in Iraq, al-qaeda and Hussein are in cahoots, and the mission was accomplished (it's just that the 'mission' wasn't what the world had been told it was).
And since he brings up:
"The White House said the other seven attacks included plans to:
_ Bomb several sites in Britain in mid-2004.
_ Attack Westerners at several places in Karachi, Pakistan, in spring 2003.
_ Attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners in 2003.
_ Carry out a large-scale bombing in Britain in spring 2004.
_ Attack ships in the Arabian Gulf in late 2002/2003.
_ Attack ships in the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow part of the Persian Gulf where it opens into the Arabian Sea, in 2002.
_ Attack a tourist site outside the United States in 2003.
why doesn't the reporter also mention the fact that terrorist actions/incidents have been steadily increasing since the invasion of Iraq?
Suckass AP: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12836934.htm
AND HEY, PAY ATTENTION ! PLEASE COMBAT A NEW AND URGENT THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICA'S ELECTIONS! GO HERE: http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=1
It is absolutely amazing that it would be a Republican who would introduce this legislation. And I bet if you investigated, you would see the hand of Diebold's CEO shaking Rep. Feeney's hand. Not even a thought to the obvious association that the CEO's/heads of all the election machine companies are staunch Republican's; Remember Diebold's CEO assuring Bush he would carry Ohio?
Oct. 6th, 2005 @ 07:52 pm
|
| » Dems pursue Ohio election system overhaul while Congress seeks to cut food aid for poor |
|---|
"In Ohio, unions and citizens groups calling themselves Reform Ohio Now are promoting the election overhaul measures as necessary to restore people's faith in state government."
Now how do you get the 'Dems' in the headline out of that?
By the person who calls himself a reporter using the 'well known' individual to be the main quote source:"I think the biggest argument for these amendments happens to be the fact that the Republicans are out there saying, 'Well, we don't have a problem,'" said Paul Tipps, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party."
Seems obvious why the American public as a whole is basically clueless.
Anyway, here's the article: http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2783600p-11399010c.html
"Ohio voters will be asked if bipartisan boards - instead of elected officials - should draw lawmakers' districts and oversee elections and whether campaign contribution limits should be lowered. The state where some voters waited up to seven hours to cast ballots last November also will decide if everyone should be allowed to vote early by mail.
Authority over elections would shift from the secretary of state to a nine-member board. Last year, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was criticized for being an honorary chairman of Bush's Ohio campaign and accused of trying to suppress the vote with rulings on registration forms and provisional ballots, a charge he denied."
And the Georgia Senator who stole the election from the vietnam vet who had lost 3 limbs and been in responsible Federal role before is the main proponent against closing loopholes in farming subsidies in favor of cutting aid to the poor and those farmers who are taking care of the environment. Fucking amazing !!
"Under orders to cut agriculture spending by $3 billion, Republicans in Congress have proposed reducing food programs for the poor by $574 million and conservation programs by $1 billion, The Associated Press has learned."
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2782037p-11398399c.html
Oct. 5th, 2005 @ 08:25 pm
|
| » Bill would relax rules against secret military police spying on Americans |
|---|
Dear Senator Feinstein:
It is with absolute disbelief that in reading about "legislation approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee and publicly released this week", I read "Although the bill was endorsed unanimously by committee members, two Democrats expressed concerns with the privacy provisions in written comments attached to the legislation. Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon said they considered the military intelligence provision a mistake. Pentagon operatives "should be required to tell United States citizens in the United States who are not suspected of any wrongdoing that they work for the government," the senators wrote."
Since you are NOT mentioned as having any concerns and "the bill was endorsed unanimously by committee members" AND you are a committee member, I can only think-based on your actions,not words- that you hold the Constitution in disrespect when it comes to the thought of 'terrorism'. AND that all of your questions to John Roberts about 'privacy rights' were disingenuous at best.
If you do not vote to rescind this 'military intelligence provision', be sure I will do my best to inform voters of this outrageous abdication to the principles of freedom inherent in the U.S. Constitution.
Determinedly,
Bruce Sims
San Diego, CA
You may accept politicians that lie (wish you wouldn't);
You may accept politicians that are corrupt (wish you wouldn't);
But can you accept politicians that are incompetent?
Oct. 4th, 2005 @ 08:29 pm
|
| » odds, ends, outrages, same old shit another day |
|---|
Well, tomorrow starts a new job (finally) and my 'activism' and keeping track of the insanity will diminish in favor of the struggle for the legal tender. I currently have one public records request into the Secretary of State's office, two election complaints in there as well, a PRR regarding SD and voting machines, and a resolution that was presentd to the SD City Council I want acted on. I'm also pushing for community interent and with google offering free broadband access to San Francisco, I pushing SD to do a similar thing. Add to that the garbage bills being presented in the Congress to further solidfy corporate ownership of both media and conveyance of media, and trying to keep up and work in a challenging position,and it's all a bit overwhelming.
So I'll relax a bit and hope others 'keep the fire' going.
Anyway, here's some thing that struck me. First, there is actually a U.S. Congressional Republican who thinks Joe McCarthy was an 'american hero';egads, how do such people get elected? The guy is really a fruticake, denying a black woman the opportunity to have a post office named after her for giving her life to the betterment of the community that post office is in; fucking amazing this guy is alive:
"Lee, in a statement after the vote, blasted King, saying his "campaign of innuendo and unsubstantiated 'concern' is better suited to the era of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover than today's House of Representatives."
To which King responded: "I think that if Barbara Lee would read the history of Joe McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/28/MNGF8EV3UB1.DTL
Then there's Homeland Security arresting vegans because they are protesting ham;so a special FBI unit for REALLY outrageous porn(they'll leave the usual stuff alone tho) and now the threat to the U.S. is vegans protesting ham; good grief:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_sues_Homeland_Security_for_arresting_spying_on_vegans_who_protested_0922.html
And not only did Iraqi oil go unaccounted for under the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' (read the U.S. and Bremer) to the tune of approximately $4 BILLION but the fields,wells, infrastructure is worse off now after 2+ years of occupation than before the invasion, such isn't getting better:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10421.htm
And now the taxpayers are being flagrantly ripped off in the Katrina recovery:
"U.S. paying a premium to cover storm-damaged roofs" http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12776024.htm
And the 'trailer communities' are also screwed up:
"FEMA's temporary trailer homes under scrutiny" http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12774947.htm
SOSAD
Oct. 2nd, 2005 @ 08:22 pm
|
| » Haroon Aswat…FBI agent threatens ex USDA federal agent, now staff reporter for The New Criminologist |
|---|
Haroon Aswat – the man British Police believe was behind the London bombings – was working for MI6, it has been confirmed by leading U.S. and French intelligence asset/agents.
Now an FBI agent in Seattle – name removed for security reasons, but can be published at the drop of a hat – has demanded that former USDA federal agent, Dr Janette Parker, stop talking to the British media about how the FBI obstructed their own top terrorism investigator, John O’Neill in his enquiries.
http://www.newcriminologist.co.uk/news.asp?id=-1677497717
So you have British Special Forces acting as terrorists in Basra,Iraq and the main person New Scotland yard wants being allowed top leave the country while working for British intelligence; hells bells, it's not something rotten in Denmark but something rotten in Britain !!! When will the limeys quit copying the yanks ??
Sep. 29th, 2005 @ 08:08 pm
|
| » Read this, then weep, then get damn angry |
|---|
On 12 April 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Erbil in northern Iraq handed over $1.5 billion in cash to a local courier. The money, fresh $100 bills shrink-wrapped on pallets, which filled three Blackhawk helicopters, came from oil sales under the UN’s Oil for Food Programme, and had been entrusted by the UN Security Council to the Americans to be spent on behalf of the Iraqi people. The CPA didn’t properly check out the courier before handing over the cash, and, as a result, according to an audit report by the CPA’s inspector general, ‘there was an increased risk of the loss or theft of the cash.’ Paul Bremer, the American pro-consul in Baghdad until June last year, kept a slush fund of nearly $600 million cash for which there is no paperwork: $200 million of this was kept in a room in one of Saddam’s former palaces, and the US soldier in charge used to keep the key to the room in his backpack, which he left on his desk when he popped out for lunch. Again, this is Iraqi money, not US funds.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n13/print/harr04_.html
Sep. 28th, 2005 @ 02:58 pm
|
| » Worth reflecting on |
|---|
A Chinese proverb says, "The beginning of wisdom lies in calling things by their right name." Perhaps it follows that the beginning of ethics is choosing to live consistently with revealed wisdom.
Sep. 28th, 2005 @ 11:35 am
|
| » "Our day will come" |
|---|
The old recording by Ruby and the Romantics came to mind when I read that Delay had been indicted and was stepping down. Doesn't dismantle his 'network' but does put a crimp in it and bring 'guilt by asociation' for those accepting money from his orgs. Drier isn't much better but the clout of Delay's 'hammer' is much less. And GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, has already been named as being among the 13 most corrupt politicians by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington so his being named as someone who may assume "Some of the duties" doesn't bode well for any real change of modus operandi by the House of Ill Repute.
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/09/29trmpac.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092805delay_wr,0,4726954.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Sep. 28th, 2005 @ 10:45 am
|
| » Boycott Matisyahu !! |
|---|
There is an artist getting airplay with a song called 'King without a Crown'. The artist 'Matisyahu' (born Matthew Miller in White Plains,NY) is a hasidic jew, belonging to the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of judaism.
While the lyrics of 'King without a Crown' reflect the commonality of the mystical aspects of most religions, the association by 'Matisyahu' with the Chabad-Lubavitch sect is shown by his usage of the word 'Moshiach' which means 'messiah' and is used to emphasize the diiference between a judaic concept of a 'messiah' and the christian concept of 'messiah' as embodied in Jesus.
Additionally, the usage of the word 'HaShem' as a reference to his god is in keeping with the idea that the four letters of god's name (in judaism) never be uttered.
See here: http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm#Jesus
Why is bringing attention to Matisyahu's religious association so important?
Because the Chabad-Lubavitch sect is a primary purveyor of Zionism and Matisyahu has not -and cannot without abandoning his religious crutches- spoken out against the philosophy that permits the taking of anothers land and sustenance in the name of religion.
(Does the history of North and South america come to mind by the way?)
The evidence for this assertion can be found at:
http://www.chabad.org/default.asp
especially if one clicks on he 'Torn Together' link on the left hand side of the 'home' page.
The music is 'hot' and excellent,especially the guitar playing by David Duggan on 'King without a Crown' (as an aside, see the rhythmic flow of ABC's 'King without a Crown' http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/abc/3084.html and other similarities) BUT the words are also part of the song. And the disdain for marijuana makes a complete joke of the 'reggae' aspect put forth. Reggae is the music of Rastafarians and marijuana a sacrament http://www.rism.org/isg/dlp/ganja/resources/lieblich.html and Matisyahu's marketing association with reggae is blasphemous to the Rastafri religion.
So between the disrespect Matisyahu shows for the Rastafari religion and the unwillingness (indeed,as pointed out earlier, he cannot renounce the Zionism without renouncing his religious association) or lack of sensitivity to other oppressed peoples (and no matter what the history, Palestinian's, currently, are oppressed by Israel) , the purchase or playing of Matisyahu's music -or going to a show- is effectively a subscription to the same disrespect of another's religion and approval of Zionism by the bigots who wish for the Rapture and the rabbi's who cannot recognize their own Torah teachings, and the same disrespect of another's religion by mullahs that refuse to see the Quoranic teachings of tolerance of others as being meaningful.
So call your radio stations and tell them not to play 'King without a Crown' until Matisyahu speaks out against the subjugation and bankrupting of the Palestinian people. And tell ormusic.com and jdubrecords.org and 'hasidicreggae.com that you won't be buying anything associated with Matisyuahu until he speaks out against the subjugation and bankrupting of the Palestinian people.
Sep. 27th, 2005 @ 06:30 pm
|
| » Dissolution of faith in governance; guess what it leads to? |
|---|
"That is just what Fourth Generation opponents strive for, a systemic breakdown in their state adversary. The danger sign in America is not a hot national debate over the war in Iraq and its course, but precisely the absence of such a debate – which, as former Senator Gary Hart has pointed out, is largely due to a lack of courage on the part of the Democrats. Far from ensuring a united nation, what such a lack of debate and absence of alternatives makes probable is a bitter fracturing of the American body politic once the loss of the war becomes evident to the public. The public will feel itself betrayed, not merely by one political party, but by the whole political system."
Now think about how many people actually vote out of all those eligible; think how people see the Bush Administration about katrina and the scandals and prevarications;look at the calls for use of the military in domestic emergencies(and remember how many National Guard, those that are supposed to be state militia but are now considered backup for the Pentagon) and the push to keep the "Patriot Act" (anyone ever notice how the Congress is in the habit if misnaming legislation ?), the media being nothing but mouthpieces for government press releases and the political agendas of their corporate owners, and there certainly is enough evidence for such feelings of betrayal by the American public.
"That in turn is a warning for the U.S., and it is one both Ambassador Freeman and Georgie Anne Geyer pick up on:
Then Ambassador Freeman . . . came to the core of the problem. The "party adversary system" in America has broken down. "Patriotism" is confused with accepting whatever policy the government lays down. There is no national discussion on the war at all. More telling was the lack of debate even in Congress over the war: "This is not," he averred strongly, "just a political problem; it is a systemic breakdown in America.""
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind76.html
Sep. 25th, 2005 @ 09:31 pm
|
| » Still more idiocy,waste of money, and disregard for people |
|---|
If you actually need any more evidence of the incompetent, non-coherent reasoning exemplified by the Bush Administration, see this:
" Two days after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to issue emergency vouchers aimed at helping poor storm victims find new housing quickly by covering as much as $10,000 of their rent.
But the department suddenly backed away from the idea after White House aides met with senior HUD officials. Although emergency vouchers had been successfully used after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the administration focused instead on a plan for government-built trailer parks, an approach that even many Republicans say would concentrate poverty in the very fashion the government has long sought to avoid.
A similar struggle has occurred over how to provide healthcare to storm victims. White House officials are quietly working to derail a proposal by leading Republican and Democratic senators to temporarily expand Medicaid. Instead, the administration is pushing a narrower plan that would not commit the government to covering certain groups of evacuees.
There's plenty more in the piece.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-policy23sep23,0,2491921,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Sep. 25th, 2005 @ 05:27 pm
|
| » Why we have to get out of Iraq |
|---|
Reasons why we need to get out of Iraq (and the idea that Bush has is that doing so somehow says the U.S. has been 'defeated' is complete bullshit and goes right back to the reasons why the Bush Administration plunged the U.S. into an illegal war; what getting out of Iraq REALLY means is a repudiation of Bush's actions and it is THAT he can admit to):
"The first reason to get the ground troops out now is that they are being fatally brutalized by their own treatment of Iraqi prisoners."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050924-0427-prisonerabuse.html
"The second reason is that the ground troops are not accomplishing the mission given them, and are making things worse rather than better."
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-09/24/article02.shtml
See http://juancole.com/
And another reason, a very salient point, is the the U.S. CANNOT continue dumping dollars into an enterprise called the 'Defense' Department which cannot account for the expenditures:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/NEWS/509230329/1002/NEWS01
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Pringle0918.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler09202005.html
when so much infrastructure repair and maintenance and social needs are not being met. The U.S. is currently so totally dependent on the goodwill of foreign nations in the buying of it's debt that any change of attitude regarding such buying of debt will plunge this nation to third world status (except, of course, it's weaponry) so quick people won't know what the hell happened.
Can we really wait to change the policy by impeaching the Bush Administration after the 2006 elections (IF those elections are honest -currently doubtful- and result in the Republican's losing their majority in the House of Ill- Repute) ???????
Sep. 25th, 2005 @ 09:08 am
|
| » Where Stories Go to Die: Page A23 |
|---|
Is it any wonder the public isn't expressing outrage? How can they when such news is buried in the leading DC news source? Bush may 'steal the Dem's thunder' by spending tons of money, but if there isn't any accountability for the money, what's the point except to keep ripping off the middle class of the U.S.?
"The Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism, limiting Congress's ability to oversee spending, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report released yesterday."
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1145
Sep. 23rd, 2005 @ 06:52 pm
|
| » You Can't Handle the Truth |
|---|
Over the past 24 hours, seven people have checked into hospitals here with telltale symptoms. Rashes, vomiting, high temperature, and cramps: the classic signs of smallpox. Once thought wiped out, the disease is back and threatening a pandemic of epic proportions.
The government faces a dilemma: It needs people to stay home, but if the news breaks, mass panic might ensue as people flee the city, carrying the virus with them.
A shadowy media firm steps in to help orchestrate a sophisticated campaign of mass deception. Rather than alert the public to the smallpox threat, the company sets up a high-tech "ops center" to convince the public that an accident at a chemical plant threatens London. As the fictitious toxic cloud approaches the city, TV news outlets are provided graphic visuals charting the path of the invisible toxins. Londoners stay indoors, glued to the telly, convinced that even a short walk into the streets could be fatal.
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1148
The Katrina/Rita coverage wasn't as sophisticated as above but the same idea was happening; deceive the public for the purposes of the politician's.
The insistence on an UNINFORMED public by the U.S. and State governments is why the idea that this country is a democracy is so flawed as to be ridiculous.
Sep. 23rd, 2005 @ 06:39 pm
|
| » House OKs Faith As Head Start Hiring Issue |
|---|
"The House voted Thursday to let Head Start centers consider religion when hiring workers, overshadowing its moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances.
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5296269,00.html
SEE !? Those elected (and both Dem's and Repub's voted for passing this)
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2745145p-11329112c.html
have no respect/understanding for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and that tells you just how much their words are worth.
Sep. 22nd, 2005 @ 04:48 pm
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
urrightto's journal