 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 13, 2007 at 16:43:52
by Barbara Simons (Posted by JGideon) Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
The attack by Mark Crispin Miller on Rush Holt is an uncomfortable reminder of other propaganda pieces that I've seen. When I was in high school, I analyzed a speech by Father Coughlin, a virulent anti-Semite who had a national radio program in the 30s. In his hit piece on Rush Holt, Mark Crispin Miller uses some of the same tactics that Coughlin used. Here is a list of some of Miller's tactics, followed by quotes from the Miller article: Claims of omniscience (Mark Crispin Miller seems to know what Rush Holt thinks and
Guilt by association:His [Holt's] various reforms would not prevent such further theft. If they did, you can be sure the Busheviks themselves would be attacking him and HR 811 with their usual ferocity. That they aren't doing so should make quite clear that they don't fear his bill, because it poses no real threat to their ongoing efforts to subvert American democracy.
feels):
First of all, he [Holt] has no fear that Bush & Co. will steal more elections in the future because he has convinced himself they have stolen no elections in the past.
More guilt by association + mind reading:
If he knew about the vast extent of BushCo's fraud, he wouldn't have come up with such a porous bill; and the same goes for most, if not all, of HR 811's remaining supporters.
An implicit accusation of corruption:
As Paul Lehto has informed me, it just so happens that a company called Avante International appears to be headquartered in Holt's district, and that Avante is positioned to make money if Holt's bill should pass and the machines should all be fitted out with "paper trails."
Another suggestion of corruption, or at the very least incompetence. I find the following especially offensive, given Holt's long history of working against secret software:
In other words, companies like Microsoft, Diebold and ES&S had problems with the early version of Holt's bill; and Holt himself not only listened to them, but obliged them, so that his "election reform" bill would now make our system even more undemocratic than it is already. Of this development Holt's office made no public mention, as if those private companies' dictation of the law was no big deal.
Does Miller really think that Holt was happy with having to compromise? Where was Miller years ago when Holt started trying to make our elections more secure and accurate?
Ignoring reality and past history.
The quote below demonstrates either naiveté or a willful ignoring of political reality. I have never seen a single piece of legislation where the key author consulted more with members of the community than Holt has with the various incarnations of his bills. The legislative process requires strategizing to a) retain as much of the good stuff as possible against some very powerful and well-financed opponents and b) get a decent bill passed.
So why on earth would Holt or his staff person, Michelle Mulder, consult with known opponents? And, yes, people like Miller have made Holt's and Mulder's task much harder.
And this, Holt's counsel says, is not Holt's problem. In fact, it's/ our/ fault, for not having "lobbied very heavily" for our position (which would have been a little hard, since Holt's people have consistently refused to talk or listen to the bill's opponents).
Guilt by association, an unidentified accuser, and an attack over an irrelevant issue.
I guess that the fact that Holt believes that impeachment (presumably of Bush or Cheney or both - the "friend" quote isn't clear) will not succeed in a Congress in which Republicans have the power to stop any legislation in the Senate (by defeating cloture votes) is additional evidence that Holt is not to be trusted.
From a friend re: Monday's meeting with Rush Holt about impeachment:
The meeting today (Monday) with Rush Holt went badly. He agreed they did all these wrong bad awful things. But said nothing could be done about it. That it couldn't be proved, that it was a non-starter. Told us the people needed to be educated. We told him current polls, he did not believe it. Said they were doing hearings to educate. Denied it was Congresses job to do this. Denied that it was a party line. Linda as very calm and praised his leadership. We said not one word about the controversy over the voting - but that was clearly there. He said he got a flood on the blogs after our forum. I was very confrontational and gave back every argument and documented with the latest polls. We all disagreed with his analysis, he even told us to get other friends. He said we were in a bubble, No one he knows thinks the way we do.
Miller also quotes emails from Mulder out of context and presumably without
permission. That's a nice touch.
Whatever your position on the Holt bill, the Miller article is a nasty piece of propaganda.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Editor |
|
|
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
Americans have the right to see how the vote is counted
92% of us believe we have the right, and DRE's are easily hacked and manipulated besides being notoriously unreliable. Before any more voters get disenfranchised, we need to go back to hand counted paper ballots, or at worst op scans with open source code. Holt does not provide this- a paper trail is not ballots- and it makes the EAC permanent- Holt is a disaster for democracy. Whose afraid of having government be accountable to the people? by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1112 comments [57 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 14, 2007 at 12:46:52 AM  (0+)
|
|
of course, anyone who wants to vote on a DRE, can have that
option by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1112 comments [57 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 14, 2007 at 12:48:35 AM (0+)
|
|
this proves
OpEdNEws is a VERY open forum. I disagree with Barbara Simon. I don't even like her, yet here's her article, posted, I hope, with permission, by a third party. Yep, she's really got the wrong picture on the Holt bill. But then again, with a huge conflict of interest, as a computer technology advocate who is very involved with advocating FOR the use of computers, it's hard to imagine her saying that computers just don't work for voting. Period. That's my opinion. The only thing they're good for is printing out paper ballots that voters check to be sure are acceptable, and then hand in as the official vote of record. by Rob Kall (954 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2089 comments [49 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 14, 2007 at 9:44:16 AM (0+)
|
|
a couple of comments
Dr. Simons works PRO BONO on this issue, unlike many people or organizations. There is no conflict of interest here. Simons worked hard to get the League of Women Voters to quit supporting paperless voting. This was a major effort. She has worked hard to assist activists in different states in their efforts to get paper back in their elections. As for the accusation that Rush Holt has been working on this issue for all these years, in order to help Avante - that doesn't make sense. I wonder if any congressman, or any state legislator for that matter - will want to deal with this issue going forward, given what is going on now? It seems we heard about this Avante thing here minus the accusations against Holt about a year ago. Avante appears to be more interested in trying to collect from other vendors on zillions of patent lawsuits than trying to sell their machines. Paperless voting continues to spread, with some states unable to fight it off. Then many others have no audits. Paperless Pennsylvania - will be keeping their paperless computerized voting machines for a long long time - since there is nothing to make officials deal with paper. It is doubtful that PA will have any luck in changing state law, they just purchased loads of the paperless computers. Further, PA's SOS and lawmakers get advice from "experts" like Professor Michael Shamos and Glenn Newkirk, both paperless proponents. Then there's poor old Tennessee. Tennessee just bought a slew of paperless machines, they (their election officials and county commmissioners) will fight to keep them. They have no law, and none in sight. No Luck Georgia - Georgia has introduced laws, but every time a bill had a chance of passing, another group came along and shot it down. SO they have no law, but might get some new paperless Diebold machines when these wear out. Virginia fairs a little better, because they at least set a moratorium on further purchases of DRES. But - they still have many years to go on the ones they JUST BOUGHT. Hart Intercivic will get to truncate candidates names again, and more. South Carolina has 100% paperless DRES, and no state legislation in sight. Many other states are locked into paperless voting too, and meanwhile, internet voting is spreading its seeds right here in the USA. Florida is going to have the toilet paper DRE for disabled voters in many counties. IN Miami Dade, that means at least 750 toilet paper DREs in that county alone. Also, since Florida has early voting, they face some pushback from election officials who will want to use DREs for that. They will argue that they NEED DREs for early voting, in order to accommodate so many different ballot styles in one location. Maryland - Lamone's Lemons are the rule. Meanwhile, there is an effort to pass early voting in Maryland - that ought to help Linda Lamone keep her beloved Diebold DREs. Further, Maryland has a budget shortfall of about $1 Billion - and if they don't find the funds to purchase optical scanners by 2010, then their law expires, and paperless voting remains. Secret software in New Hampshire - New Hampshire is running a significant part of its elections on Diebold optical scanners using secret software and programmed by GEMS. The state outlawed straight ticket voting, which increases the burden on the part of the state that still hand counts ballots. New Hampshire probably hand counts more ballots than any other state, but then - this state has a population about the size of Cuyahoga County Ohio, and only 1/3 is using HCPB. What will happen if we have another election with paperless computers? Perhaps this is our future - if it isn't stopped: Bye Bye Ballot Box - Hello Internet Voting? Meanwhile, Internet Voting is spreading in other countries, and rearing its ugly head in the United States. An Internet Voting Company has set its roots in San Diego California, with former EAC Chairman Paul DeGregorio as its CEO. Michigan Dems have internet primaries already, Hawaii is having some local elections via the internet, and the Democratic National Committee recommended holding the 2008 Presidential Primary via the Internet. What is to stop Internet Elections? FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SECURITY EXPERTS URGE U.S TO ABANDON INTERNET VOTING PLAN Online System Could Easily Allow Vote Tampering, Computer Scientists Say "A federally funded online absentee voting system scheduled to debut in less than two weeks has security vulnerabilities that could jeopardize voter privacy and allow votes to be altered, according to a report prepared by four prominent researchers invited to analyze the system. All experts in cyber-security, they say the risks associated with Internet voting cannot be eliminated and urge that the system be shut down." But the threat keeps coming back, and there needs to be a law against internet voting, or anti democracy forces will keep pushing and pushing their way in. And the threat of paperless voting continues to grow. by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 15, 2007 at 3:03:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Rob is Right!
The amazing thing about Barbara Simons "counterattack" upon MCM's article on Holt and HR 811 is that she uses her credentials as a computer expert as springboard but delivers her headlines as if she were a psychologist, or a "know it all", like the Father Coughin she notes in her first paragraph! Rather than utilizing the skills from her own field, as expected, to rebut MCM, these are the bolded header lines. 1) Guilt by association: 2) Claims of omniscience (Mark Crispin Miller seems to know what Rush Holt thinks and feels): 3) More guilt by association + mind reading: 4) An implicit accusation of corruption: 5) Another suggestion of corruption, or at the very least incompetence. I find the following especially offensive, given Holt's long history of working against secret software: 6) Ignoring reality and past history. 7) Guilt by association, an unidentified accuser, and an attack over an irrelevant issue. Maybe I should be thankful that she did not bury me in the minutiae of extraneous technical details and speculation upon the long term effects of some overly technical text from HR 811, as evidenced in comment #4. My conclusion is that Ms Simons must feel that when the gun powder in one's technical expertise barrel has run out and one can no longer rebut someone's position with one's stock-in-trade, then one must choose to take the path that the every commoner knows. Just charge at the opponent, bite his ankles, continuing chew and hang on while hoping to win. So I suppose there is merit in ad hominem attacks. They are certainly simple to understand. by Phil Lindsey (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Sunday, Jul 15, 2007 at 9:21:59 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
