30 April 2007: Remote Voting—Who’s Counting?

This evening’s edition of Voice of the Voters, hosted by Mary Ann Gould and Lori Rosolowsky, focused on the pros and cons of remote voting, that is, both vote by mail (vbm) and Internet voting.

     The nationally known roster of guests included Barbara Simons, of the National Workshop on Internet Voting; Charles E. Corry, of the Equal Justice Foundation; and Gentry Lange, director of the No Vote By Mail Project.

     Dr. Corry, first to be interviewed, pointed out that vbm ballots are counted by computerized machines; citizens can send in as many as they want to [theoretically], thereby using this modernized system for ballot stuffing. Moreover, the ballots are counted in unsupervised back rooms.

     The advantages of this system are that it removes pressure from the voting process—voting can begin as many as ten days prior to election day; there is no need to hire and train election judges; the cost is less; the turnout improves; and this system is more convenient—it is possible to vote at a kitchen table rather than wait in long lines in the rain.

     But another problem with vbm is that 25 percent of the population in this country move every year. The ballots, therefore, don’t always reach registered voters, and each ballot must be accounted for. Moreover, one third of the electorate is disenfranchised in that those who missed a previous election may not receive another mailed ballot. In this regard, systems of course vary throughout the country as to the category of election missed: county, state, federal, whatever.

     An audience questioner wanted to know how those voting from home can deal with coercion, that is, vote buying and selling and electioneering. There is no protection, as opposed to the polls, where it is supposedly present. [Vote buying and selling can occur in any scenario imho—MNS]

     But is there not more pressure in the voting booth, where a voter may have to make quick decisions about issues he or she was previously unaware of?  asked Lori. Does vbm allow for more voter education? Well, yes, said Dr. Corry, but consider that over the final two weeks before an election, things can happen after one’s ballot has been sent in that can alter a candidate’s portfolio altogether. Scandals can occur, for instance. A candidate might die.

     And what of all the rejected ballots? Ten to twenty percent of mailed-in ballots are returned; the database that contains address changes is not used.

     Mary Ann noted ruefully that more and more localities seem to be moving toward vbm. Does this harbinger more voter fraud? The interesting answer was that the higher up the municipality hierarchy, the more difficult it is for voter fraud to succeed.

     Gentry Lange, another EI activist who resides in Washington State, now opposes this system that seemed more desirable when compared with the issues surrounding black box tampering, hacking, and malfunction. He thinks it would make more sense to carry paper ballots, already filled out, to the polls.

     In King County, WA, alone, six thousand votes were rejected, and half of these were simply tossed out. Lange nonetheless favored vbm until he witnessed the rejection of his friends’ votes. Moreover, he realized that there was no privacy possible in the absence of polls and secret ballots. Most people in King County oppose vbm, he said. The ballots must be folded and thus easily jam the machines that count them.

     Eighteen bullet points at novbm.com, the Web site of the No Vote By Mail Project, sum up all the reasons vbm is not the ultimate in twenty-first-century voting solutions.

     And if we look to our legislators for solutions, said Mary Ann, how can we better educate them to act effectively on our behalf? Are there legislators leading the fight against vbm? What of the problem that ballots can be received after election day as long as they are mailed on that day or postmarked no later than that date? This can protract the counting process right into the day certification is required.

     Mary Ann waxed sentimental about the community aspect of voting at the polls on a quasi-holiday, a chance to discuss issues and mingle with neighbors and friends.

     Barbara Simons wrapped up the show by discussing her interest in Internet voting. In 2002 she learned from her Stanford colleague David Dill that Silicon Valley was about to purchase paperless machines. They warned against it, unheeded, though a paper they subsequently wrote in opposition to expatriate and military absentee voting via the Internet was more influential. Three weeks after publication, this project was dropped. There was no way to keep the ballot secret and no way to verify that a vote had been received and counted.

     In Geneva, Switzerland, she said, there is Internet voting, but experts are laboring to make the system more secure. And as to the future of such a system, no large program can be free of bugs, nor free from outside hackers and inside employees corrupted into manipulating votes and totals.

     And so, said Mary Ann, our voting system is out of control. It is even difficult to audit a vote. Manual audits are necessary, said Simons—the closer the vote count, the greater the audit must be.

     What questions must we ask? To be sure, how easy is a system to audit? An optical scanner is far easier to audit than a voter-verifiable paper trail. But any sort of remote voting is insecure, she continued. We are moving in the right direction, slowly.

     Paperless voting is on its way out. Both precinct- and central-based optical scanners are preferable to it.

     Why try to fix a system that isn’t broken? Gentry Lange had asked. His question might actually apply to SCOTUS, the recent victory of Indiana’s stringent law that requires picture i.d.s of voters, at the Supreme Court level. In other words, since Indiana can’t produce evidence of one instance of voter fraud, what’s it all about, anyway? Why is it a consideration at all? And yet experts predict that such legislation, which already exists in other states, will spread even farther.

©27 April 2008: Politics and Religion

politics:

I made a special trip north last week to witness the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania on the 22^nd. I expected a lot of flap about the Bucks County commissioners’ refusal to consider the introduction of paper ballot systems to replace their push-button, ineffectual toys. I expected national attention to a sort of scandal of epic proportions, the future of our voting system sloughed off, but as one of the heads of the Coalition for Voting Integrity has reiterated, election integrity has no sex appeal.

     I sped into Doylestown, the county seat, at what I thought would be a strategic time to catch the action, close to lunchtime, but the streets were empty. I first came to Obama headquarters, where they attempted to sit me down at their phone bank or canvas, so I left and next arrived at the Democratic Party office, which was empty. I bought a button, “Another Proud Democrat,” and so costumed came to the local polls, where there was dismal silence and a friendly Republican who tried to chat me up charismatically while the Democrats turned away. Then I dropped the name of a fellow CVI’er also an active Democrat, and at least inspired a bit of friendliness among my fellow partisans.

     Not much action today, they said. So, feeling silly, I left with an empty reporter’s pad and drove to my former hometown, Yardley, where a Republican and Democrat stood outside the polls making uneasy conversation. The Democrat was glad to see me while the Republican scowled. It turns out that he is married to a member of the borough council.

     We rapped for a while about local events and gossip that had occurred in my absence. The vote in Yardley had so far that day exceeded all previous records—five hundred before noon, as opposed to the average ninety who usually showed.

     Still no blog really, though a harbinger of what was occurring throughout the state, record voter turnout, thanks in part to Obama’s appeal to previously disaffected youth, and thanks in part to Hillary Clinton’s well-advertised roots in the state and her appeal to the oppressed working class and senior citizens. Pennsylvania has more senior citizens than any state except Florida.

     Pennsylvania is also the swing state with a record amount of push-button and touchscreen voting machines, which guaranteed all the glitches that did occur, from votes counted backward to trouble booting up machines, the resulting long, impatient lines of would-be voters, and other routine problems that DREs occasion.

     And so thence, according to a pattern emanating from New Hampshire, where Hillary won in all precincts with optical scanners while Barack won where votes were hand-counted—Hillary won by a margin bordering on 10 percent. Recall that she needed double digits to qualify for further campaigning.

     I think that both candidates should begin to campaign against McCain, and the one who proves to be more effective should receive the nomination.

++++++

religion:

On April 20, at the Friends Meeting of Washington, fifty Quakers, Jews, Christians, hybrids, and others gathered to hear a panel of six Muslim women of diverse origins inform them and answer many many questions.

     Mimi, co-organizer and native of Vietnam, was joined by colleagues who regularly speak around the Washington, DC, area: Rahima, Alexa, Ola, Sumiyeh, and Hajar, a Mexican American. All are married to Muslims but only one was born and raised Muslim, and she had lived in England before emigrating here.

     Ola began the event with “Islam 101,” for audience members unfamiliar with her religion: Muhammad issued the last testament with the Qu’ran, which is the word of God from cover to cover. Islam means peace through submission and submission through faith.

     At this point, the audience already had questions, including “Why, if there is so much love among all religions, is there not peace among us?”

     Holy cow.

     The best answer among these extremely well prepared panelists was that there is evil in the world. Added Hajar, according to the Qu’ran those who turn away from God will meet with scourge.

     One-sixth of the world’s population is Muslim. The majority of Muslim men “like” jihad.

     But the teachings are perfect and the shari’a system of law is perfect.

     An Iranian member of the audience said that hatred does not proceed from religion, that the Jews, for example, who live in Muslim countries are welcomed there and well treated. Politics is what engenders conflict.

     Ola continued Islam 101 at this point. There are five pillars of Islam: God, prophecy, pilgrimage at least once to Mecca, fasting, and prayer five times a day.

     Jesus is important in Islam. In the Qu’ran he commands Muslims to emulate his apostles in their support. There is a longer account of Jesus’ birth in the Qu’ran than in the Gospels.

     Said Sumiyeh, the family is important in Islam. Men and women are equals but not identical (their relationship was later described by Olla as balanced)—and because of this stereotyping occurs that women are considered inferior. In fact, as in Orthodox Judaism, they are considered more spiritual than men. They have the right to education, owning property, and choosing their spouses. A little-known fact is that Muslim men have a dress code also, but “there are not too many men’s fashion magazines,” she reported to an amused audience.

     Women are the bedrock of family life. Hajar finds Muslim life very liberating. She converted to Islam eight years ago and during the subsequent time has known the greatest peace of her life. She is married to an Egyptian.

     Mimi, a convert from Buddhism, recounted that amid four different African countries she visited, the feeling was that Muslims were bad, cannibals. She said that such issues became politicized after 9/11, including the impression that Muslim women are victims.

     Muslim women have voted since the fourteenth century. They had the right to serve in the government and divorce (they receive their dowries back also), as well as serve in the military, short of driving tanks. Some led battles.

     It is up to us to get together to deny the wishes of fanatical governments, was the conclusion of the panel discussion.

     During the question-and-answer period that followed, we learned that Muslim women dress so modestly to emulate the Virgin Mary and of course to be like her. Said Ola, the man of the family works and the proceeds go to the family, but the wife can save money to use for herself. Negligent husbands are imprisoned. Said Hajar, attorneys inspect mosques several times a year to be sure women are treated well.

     Charity is required of Muslims several times a year, as are social action and good works.

     A member of the audience pointed out similarities with Judaism: strict dietary laws, humane killing of animals as food (prayers are recited during this ritual), and the taboo against eating milk and meat together. No pork is allowed and meats must be well cooked to eliminate the consumption of blood.

     Another member of the audience who has lived in the Arab Middle East noted the pragmatism of these dietary laws (and recall how in the Middle Ages the Jews avoided the Plague)—for instance, it is forbidden to eat already-dead animals except if one is starving in the desert and comes across one.

     And, surprisingly, on the hajj to Mecca women are not allowed to wear veils. Both sexes dress in white and become indistinguishable from each other.

     Though traditionally Jews and Muslims have dwelled together in harmony, Zionism created a schism between the two religions and now, in addition, Sunnis no longer marry Shi’a.

     Women in Saudi Arabia are most restricted and those in Iran considered most equal to men—they are allowed to attend the Olympics, for instance.

     Though at this point in the most interesting discussion I had to leave early, discussion lasted another half hour. Afterward, the panelists went into the meeting room to pray, and the audience was encouraged to observe the ritual and join in, while the women explained each step of this five-times-a-day pillar in their lives.

©

18 April 2008: Hilary Won, But Obama Will Win, and then . . . McCain?

“Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences.”

Paul Krugman and David Brooks both wrote in today’s New York Times about the humanization of Barack Obama from “We can!!!” to “We will.”

     The above quotation is from Brooks’s op ed (sometimes he does make sense). Indeed, the ABC news commentators are taking a lot of flap from the Progressive authorities I usually agree with. They find the debates hosted by Cable stations CNN and MSNBC lots better.

     At this nadir in the debate history of the current Democratic showdown, despite the two important primaries to follow, the word is that we watched the last Democratic candidates’ debate last night.

     Another word is that even if he did poorly last night, Obama will win the nomination.

     But precisely what we need is someone superhuman to take over the hardest job in the world. Someone who doesn’t buckle under with fatigue. Someone who sparkles with self-possession even toward the end of this harrowing fight for the Democratic nomination.

     One thing we must own up to: despite all this sympathy for Barack and huge cloud of obfuscation encompassing media ineptitude and Barack’s self-revelatory fatigue, poor guy, maybe, just maybe, Hillary won the debate last night and no one wants to admit it.

     According to Krugman, Obama may well win the nomination but will have a hard time up against McCain, not because both will tire more easily than Hillary, but because one in five Democrats have said they would prefer McCain over Obama, who is statistically behind in many of the key states that would put him over the top in November.

     We heard earlier that Obama was the one out of two who could squash McCain. Now we have cause to wonder.

     But it is not up to this obscure blogger to speak about next November—rather, all I want to say is that Hillary did better last night. She won the debate.

Period.

Paragraph.

End of blog.

©

17 April 2008: Hopping Around with Hope

Even as Hill and Bam-Bam were duking it out on prime time ABC, with Stephanopoulos out in left field still smarting from Travelgate, there was much to take in on Renaissance Radio also, where three different EI affiliates from three different regions were interviewed.

     From Georgia, Garland Favorito of VoterGA.org spoke of their lawsuit that challenges the legality and constitutionality of electronic voting (compare New Jersey’s lawsuit still pending). From Florida, Ellen Brodsky of the Broward Election Reform Coalition discussed the “Mystery of Broward County,” that is, the turnout of 110 percent of their electorate in 2006. From Pennsylvania, Sara Haile-Mariam spoke encouraging words about “youth on the ground” in anticipation of the April 22 primary that the whole country will be watching, even CNN.

     Strait, this evening’s host, first cautioned voters on how best to deal with the Danaher DREs, how best to try to get the vote counted and not lost in cyberspace. Press the button decisively and make sure to examine the screen carefully to be sure you’ve voted for those you want in office. Then don’t leave before pressing the green “vote” button, or else your vote will be discarded by others to clear the screen.

     Garland Favorito, the first guest interviewed, recalled that Georgia was the first state in the country to sprint to DREs after the Florida catastrophe in 2000, and the only state to use the same machine throughout—in this case the Diebold Accuvote DS R6.

     There was one problem with the sprint: Georgia’s constitution requires secret ballots and audit trails, neither of which the Diebold DREs supply.

     Georgia’s new secretary of state agrees with Favorito’s group and supports its lawsuit. The defense, led by the state’s attorney general, hinges on the definition of “ballot,” challenging that those gestures “touched” into cyberspace create a ballot of sorts.

     The constitution also requires a verifiable vote, which the Diebolds in question can’t provide, coughing up when requested a carbon copy of the tabulated result.

     Begun in 2006, the lawsuit is due to be settled in the next few months. And then, said Favorito, there is bound to be an appeal to Georgia’s supreme court by either side, something his side won’t be able to support without pro bono legal assistance.

     The suit is against the state, not Diebold, which has remained remarkably distant from this activity. There’s no need for technical expertise in this case, Favorito clarified. But if his side wins, the nation will know.

     Details are available at voterga.org. They want to hear from people all over the country and fundraise also, if possible.

+++++

     To the tune of the new song “Stop Me Before I Vote Again,” Ellen Brodsky of the Broward County Election Reform Commission, spoke of the “110 percent turnout” recorded by the same machines, ES&S Ivotronic, that plagued Sarasota two years ago. The machines have a long history of counting backward, she said.

     The reason for the 110 percent turnout? Other precincts’ votes were combined in the report turned in after the election. Brodsky’s group challenged these results to a chilly reception. No testing of the machines was carried out, but there was the consolation that Broward County was not alone in this quandary, which was reported elsewhere also.

     Re the complicated and long-desired introduction of optical scanners to replace the Ivotronics and their peers, contracts with vendors vary throughout the state, including performance bonds. Benchmarks also vary.

     Broward County, if you haven’t guessed, suffers from the worst voting problems in the state, whereas the neighboring Miami-Dade enjoys the best situation, including a responsible supervisor of elections working hard to train voters and poll workers in time for the November election.

     The best county falls short though, said Jim, lacking a good performance bond.

     Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act also falls short. Audit data requested from the 2006 election has not yet been provided despite their two-year struggle. Thousands of votes had been lost even when the information was finally provided, because of missing files.

     The state is trying to cover up such poor election administration, said Brodsky. Her group plans to work closely with the secretary of state toward better outcomes in the future. Pro bono lawyers are hard to come by, she added, though Volusia County is lucky enough to have one.

+++++

     At this point, Jim repeated his advice to listeners from Pennsylvania about how to tame the DRE beast if at all possible, and supplied some names and numbers, which can all be accessed at saveourvote.com and voiceofthevoters.org. Mary Ann Gould will also be happy to answer election-day questions. She can be reached at 215-357-5026.

     Lori Rosolowsky next interviewed Sara Haile-Mariam, a graduate student of activist and author Mark Crispin Miller at NYU. In her report, “Youth on the Ground,” this vibrant and enthusiastic young activist spoke of her pre-primary work in the state, which included voter registration, door-to-door canvassing, and “phone begging.”

     In contact with people from all backgrounds and ages, Sara reported enthusiasm among youth but little interest in election integrity. She said she found more undecided voters than in the past because of the lengthy head-to-head race between Obama and Clinton.

     Sara admitted to being a recent convert to these issues, drawn out by Obama’s candidacy.

     She lamented the media’s concentration on identity politics rather than policy, based on the assumption that the voters are dumb. “Stereotyping doesn’t work,” she said. People are crossing lines to choose their candidates.

     Sara decided on a career in journalism early in life, when she learned in school that journalists are the “watchdogs of society.” Their performance these days is, to say the least, disappointing, with their emphasis on controversy and their attempt to manipulate opinions, denigrating their public.

     Lori’s advice was to seek out alternative media sources.

     There is not enough attention to transparency, said Sara, despite the recent GAO report that emphasizes its importance. We must pressure politicians to pay attention to these and the many other problems of the election integrity movement. We can work most effectively at the grassroots level. The recent belittling of the value of exit polls is another issue of importance, where there is the need to “change the mindset.”

     The problems afflicting us now will take generations to fix, Sara concluded. Youth are energized and mobilized to confront them head on.

     “We must be that one America.”

2 April 2008: No Foolin’, but Helpless, Helpless, Helpless

The day after April Fool’s Day was no laughing matter for two congressional committees voting on voting bills.  The Universal Right to Vote by Mail, HR 281, was passed by the House Administration Committee, so that those who wish to vote absentee—that is, on paper ballots—won’t have to lie anymore.

     So while Representative Susan Davis, who sponsored the bill, had cause to celebrate, HR 5036, Representative Rush Holt’s emergency bill that would reimburse any municipality that chose to opt out of touchscreen voting in favor of  paper ballots, passed out of the Committee on House Administration adulterated. Now, instead of providing for paper ballots, the bill will authorize hooking touchscreen machines up to printers, a measure that has caused so much trouble in New Jersey that an effort has mounted to postpone implementation until after election 2008.

     And even with “evidence” of who or what you have voted for, visible on paper rolling out of the printer, many voters forget to look. The concept is new. Think about it. We just flipped some levers, pulled a great big handle and presto the curtain opened and our vote was cast. Old habits die hard.

     Personally, I voted on an absentee ballot in DC last month, giving the reason that I wanted to vote on paper. I got it.

     If I had my way, we would never grow old, and Edwards, my candidate, would already be sparring with McCain and besting him hands-down.

     Back to John Gideon’s appearance on Voice of the Voters, broadcast Wednesday evenings from 8 to 9 on Renaissance Radio in South Jersey. He packed a lot into the program’s final five minutes.

     At that point my sound system was crackling, so I had to go to his daily newsletter to figure out what he actually said, but in other news, New Jersey’s problematic Sequoia touchscreens will finally be examined by Princeton University expert Ed Felten, famous for hacking into a touchscreen in less than a minute. Oh, the palace of lies erected by the touchscreen universe is collapsing like a sand castle attacked by high tide.

     But not yet in Pennsylvania, where VoV host Mary Ann Gould said that 25 percent of all the touchscreens in the nation are located. She urged all Pennsylvanians to vote and report any problems they experience. She mentioned two Web sites in this context: www.voteraction.org and www.voiceofthevoters.org. Pennsylvania is the state most at risk in the country, with no way to prove who voted for whom in most counties.

     Why is New Jersey, flooded also with touchscreens, less at risk? I figured this out myself. It’s not a swing state, leaning toward the blue most of the time.

     Having reported what I found most newsworthy this evening, I cannot bypass a rising star who was interviewed first, Clint Curtis. You have probably heard of him. A head programmer for Yang Industries in Florida, he was approached in 2000 by Ed Feeney, then the company’s chief lobbyist, to design a program for him that would apportion 49 percent of a given vote to one candidate and 51 percent to the other.

     Thinking Feeney was trying to prevent election fraud instead of invent the phenomenon of vote flipping, Clint produced the program. He next became a famous whistle blower, when he found out the real motive behind the requests by Feeney, who had since then become a Congressman in Florida.

     Clint took his case to Congress after Florida 2000, but the audience he aimed for shied away uneasily despite the overwhelming evidence.

     Today thanks to the efforts of some enlightened Republicans, Florida’s touchscreens are being hauled off to the junkyard in favor of optical scanners. But it’s not that easy to rid this nation of vote flipping. A programmer can set the percentages of victory and defeat in a touchscreen, said Clint. A programmer can activate the flip surrounded by a “lay” audience that would not suspect anything amiss, he continued.

     What happens on the screen doesn’t have much to do with what’s going on inside, he said.

     Mary Ann said that it’s time for the people to speak up. Abraham Lincoln said it better, she said, warning that one’s back to the fire will only occasion pain in the buttocks—something like that only, as I said, Abe said it better.

     And these Pennsylvanians then shifted to the impasse in Bucks County, where two of the three commissioners refuse to hear the incontrovertible evidence that they may as well vote by scratching on a pebble as on a Danaher 1242. With its dumb terminal and dependence on a central server, it represents the worst of all voting systems, said Clint.

     This scenario is worse than precinct-based tabulation, he said. With 90 percent of votes in Pennsylvania now paperless, there is no way to know if any of them is worth a scratch on a pebble, and this plight in a swing state could rock the nation, as did Florida and Ohio most famously.

     In a Lincoln-esque mood, Mary Ann called this situation “faith-based elections.”

     The power is with the programmers, not with the people, continued Clint. The commissioners really have nothing to worry about broken voting-machine seals, he said. First you perform an accuracy test and run the tapes and then seal the whole thing up. Magnets and power surgers . . . anything can affect the touchscreens.

     Remember the machines in North Carolina that reached a certain total and then began counting backwards? The fault was in the program—the wrong one was used. The backward-counted votes could be interpreted as undervotes also, Clint answered to Lori Rosolowsky’s question.

     And, back to Bucks County, where the two Republican commissioners argue that a paper trail resides inside their Danahers, Clint explained that a computer won’t generate a log—people do. The programmer owns every component of the voting system.

     An internal hack is worse than an external one, continued Clint. On a Danaher, the virus will attack the server. External hacks are performed with the network card, the famous black-box skullduggery.

     Helpless, helpless, helpless—remember that old sixties song? We must show up at the polls in stampeded proportions—united we stampede?

     Is the conclusion of the evening that the fate of the nation lurks within the brains and preferences of computer programmers?

     Not exactly. The power is still, somewhere, with the people, dormant and quiet as Mary Ann calls her home state. The truth will need some buckshot to emerge from this ethical swamp in the Buckeye State.

     This is the time, then, not to mourn for HR 5036, but to get everyone to vote absentee, I say. If the ballots get hacked, the hackers will have a hard time of it with all the election protection united against them. There will be mountains of paper ballots. We can distribute stamps. We can go door to door. We can fight racism and discrimination, as usual.

     But there’s no time to waste on tears right now, but think of the paper mountains and what a boost not only USPS will receive, but all of us, back to paper at last. Helpless, helpless, helpless let the opposition be, for a change, and stay that way.

©

23 March 2008: Take Back America IV

The loss of liberty at home makes us more vulnerable to the rest of the world . . .

Being a citizen is something we do.—James Madison

Silence is betrayal.—Martin Luther King

The second plenary on March 18 that I attended included Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Christy Hardin Smith, of Firedoglake.com, and David Cole, of the Georgetown University Law Center.

     Said Cole, among other things, Bush’s view of executive power revives the Nixon doctrine. For Bush, the only checks and balances exist within the White House—no other branch of government can check the president. When he said that Congress cannot review his actions, the same Supreme Court that put him into office rejected that decision.

     Conyers reminded the audience that the Court did overrule the voluntary desegregation of schools.

     The struggle for fair voting is still on, he said. Make sure that voting integrity is the first consideration until November 4. The Department of Justice is not doing its job, with its emphasis on a mere eighty-six cases of voter fraud documented since 2004. Caging and other forms of corruption as well as malfunctioning and hacked voting machines are virtually ignored—only two such cases have been prosecuted.

     Conyers wants to meet with the DOJ leaders weekly and receive weekly reports on what they are doing.

     Bring retroactive immunity to the phone companies for wiretapping for the government? “No way!!”

     Our distinguished attorney general still can’t figure out what waterboarding is, following Gonzalez’s distinguished precedent.

     Regarding the impeachment of Bush before November, we must prioritize electing Obama to replace him, unless Bush invades Iran.

     And regarding the Spitzer scandal, if he was number nine, who were numbers one through eight? Who was ten?

     And regarding the federal attorneys fired last year for refusing to discover cases of “voter fraud” that didn’t exist, what were the others doing, those kept on, that was so great?

     I have already mentioned the press conference that followed, announcing that the progressives as a coalition plan to spend  $350 million to recapture Washington. The issue I prioritized, which received such short shrift despite Conyers’s prioritization mentioned above, was election integrity, the subject of the last question from the press.

     Meanwhile, among the prominent organizations that spoke to the press, I was most struck by Page Gardiner, of Women’s Voices, Women Vote, who said that unmarried women comprise 26 percent of the voting population for the first time in history. Fifty-three million fall into this category, along with an equal number of married women.

     Most of these women favor progressive change. One-fifth of them lack health care protection.

     At this year’s primaries, the largest components of women and youth in history voted.

     The first session of the last day of the conference was entitled Bushed: Conservative Failure and the Danger the Legacy Lives On

     If the Republicans are happy about the wedge over the Michigan and Florida primaries dividing the Democratic party, consider Brad Woodhouse’s view that only 10 percent of conservatives consider themselves “pro-government.”

     The Bush legacy must be seen for what it is—not the failure of his ideology but his own failure. Woodhouse works for Americans United for Change.

     Added Jared Bernstein, of the Economic Policy Institute, job growth under the Bush administration grew at one third of its usual rate. He called this “yo-yo economics,” reminiscent of the situation in the 1920s. Real wages since 2000 have been flat. Government deregulation went too far.

     There is a need to restore faith in the government, to get the fiscal house in order.

     John Podesta, of the Center for American Progress, also a former aide to Bill Clinton, listed all the presidents considered abysmal in the past: Buchanan, who laid the foundations for the Civil War; Harding, considered, the most corrupt; and Nixon. But the unanimous decision is that Bush is the all-time worst U.S. president.

     He told us that government is a problem, but it has never been bigger since his time in office. His tenure illustrated that.

     According to Arianna Huffington, of Huffington Post, the question is how we allowed the right to take over.

     First, the media enabled it. Leftist positions are now mainstream. She compared this fiasco to Pericles’ Sicilian expedition, whose failure destroyed the democracy in Athens, the world’s first attempt at it.

     Moreover, the Republicans are not keeping us safe and the Democrats have shrunken back from doing anything about it. The fear mongering is fanned by the McCain campaign.

     But the era of the right has exhausted its course, with McCain as its Trojan Horse. Electoral corruption and tampering with voting machines were the principal factors that paved this destructive, eight-year-long tenure, now on its way out.

     Reflections on God and Country from the Left was the title of Norman Lear’s presentation. Now representing People for the American Way, Lear captured the hearts of the entire country with TV creations like All in the Family,  still a household word after decades.

     Introduced by his protégée Yara Peng, Lear said that two myths are needed by a nation, a national one and a religious one. But Congress has yielded to the Bushocracy’s “spitting” on the system of checks and balances. We must reinvent our reaction, disposing of the “fine word” liberalism.

     The real crime of the neoconservatives was to “hijack God.” Religious demagoguery became the norm. How could we be so spiritually repressed?

     No two relationships to God are alike. We are all seekers. He quoted the classical historian Louis Mumford that Rome fell through a leaching away of meaning, a barbarism from within rather than without. We must resurrect our nation.

     Quoting George Bernard Shaw, he continued that the will of the universe is to move toward perfection. We must be open to all of the miracles before us.

     The Internet is the most democratic entity we have ever conceived, but we must fight our way into the mainstream media. Let us not fear to move foreward.

     The minute I hear Arianna speak, he said, I realized the place of election protection in the neoconservative sphere; it is part of the huge machine, the mechanical starting pedal, so to speak.

     Note how election integrity finds its way into the discourse concluding the conference—ed.

     Not having had the chance to attend an event focused on the environment, at this late point in the conference I at least wanted to check into some of the thinking of another issue I totally support, universal health care.

     So I attended the session Health Care: The Politics of Winning, moderated by Roger Hickey, co-director of the conference and of the Campaign for America’s Future. He predicted that this is the year when we’ll finally acquire universal health care. “Fundamental change is needed that doesn’t threaten people,” he said.

     We must stand against special interests.

     Celinda Lake, author of What Women Really Want, said that 96 percent of voters in the 2006 elections had health insurance. The uninsured don’t vote. Many suffer because insurers refuse to cover those with “pre-existing conditions.”

     Cynicism toward the government is at an all-time high, said Lake. Health care is part of the American dream; there is a desire to build the best health-care system in the world. It should cover prevention as well. 66.75 percent of Americans support this, even with the necessary tax increase.

     Continued Bob Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, passage of universal health care is possible next year, but several needs precede it. There must be a Democratic president and increased margins in Congress; reference back to our fundamental values; absence of competition; opposition to private insurance; allies in the business community; enlisting of doctors and nurses; some Republican support; $150 million; agreement that there is a crisis in America.

     Louise Novotny, of Communications Workers of America, said that employers are trying to shed the responsibility of providing health care to employees. Millions of Americans want to join unions but can’t—since 1979, the number of unions has been cut in half, as have pensions and retiree coverage. Health-care costs are rising.

     There is a need to go outside of the bargaining table; for people to be trained how to lobby; for union programs to be rebuilt; for strong government control; for effective dialogue with members and others.

     Diane Archer, a co-director of the Institute for America’s Future, said that logic and reason play no role in Congress. The strengths of public insurance and limits of its private counterpart are missing from the debate.

     To get to the heart of what is wrong, she continued, we must make the private insurers tell us what we’re paying for—then we can get to the heart of the debate.

     With Roger Hickey having spoken to the presidential candidates, she said that she told both Democrats to guarantee their commitment to universal health care and to get members of Congress to talk about it. Public insurance is the only way to guarantee Americans good, affordable health care.

     There is an incredible movement going forward, said David Bonior, former head of John Edwards’s presidential campaign, as he began the closing plenary session, Taking Back America: Progressive Strategies in a New Era.

     Edwards drove the candidates’ debate, he said, on universal health care, poverty, the economy, and trade policies.

     Washington, DC, may be broken but hope remains. Unheard numbers of people are now politically active, he continued. The United States is ready for progressive change more so than ever before.

     There is an unprecedented opportunity to end the war, empower unions and environmental concern, and universal health care.

     We must re-establish our credibility in the world.

     Bonior called the Iraq war a great colossal disaster in history.

     We must rebuild the middle class and labor movements, he said. The progressive movement can’t exist without labor.

     We must work to conserve our natural resources and create millions of green jobs. Fifty million people now lack health insurance.

     Again, Edwards led the debate.

     Deepak Bhargava, of the Center for Community Change, asked who is on our bus? Who’s driving? Whom might we run over?

     The strength of outside movements really determines events. Will constituents continue after a Democratic win? We must not confuse the electoral road with the progressive bus.

     There must be targeted universalism that benefits all, especially poor people. The achievement level of politicians must be improved.

     We have a great historic opportunity to achieve change, all the components of the progressive agenda including poverty and racial injustice.

     The head of Planned Parenthood for America, Cecile Richards, called the conference the “annual renaissance weekend for progressives.” People are voting like rabbits this year. Progressives are ready to lead and the public is ready for us.

     Her dream is for twenty-four years of uninterrupted progressive leadership.

     Planned Parenthood has provided free reproductive care and health care for ninety-one years. The statistics are astounding, said Richards. Planned Parenthood is the most respected organization of its kind.

     We can’t elect McCain—he will name a fifth reactionary to the Supreme Court.

     Abstinence Only is a disaster, she concluded.

     Anna Burger, of the Service Employees International Union, a union leader also, said that permanent issues should finally find solutions.

     “Politicians have to be acceptable to real people,” she said. “They work for us.” We must educate voters about what their local officials do—it worked in the case of S-CHIP. SEIU is launching a movement for this purpose.

     No child should have to go to war because he/she lacks health care, she said, echoing Anton Gunn, the former head of Obama’s campaign in South Carolina. Without accountability, the neoliberals will take over.

©

22 March 2008: Take Back America III

Let no diversion break our spirit—Rev. Jesse Jackson

We’re winning the struggle here and around the world—Rev. Jesse Jackson

I have already mentioned the youth plenary Millennials Rising, a panel of defiant progressives eager to prove that they are capable of  taking up the torch, though I’d first send them to grad school for a few years.

     “Voting is cool again,” began Anthony Daniels, head of the National Education Association. In 2004 21.1 million between the ages of 18 and 29 voted; in 2008 that turnout has doubled.

     “It’s up to youth now to choose candidates. It’s our turn, our time. . . . We think we can change the world.”

     However, when it comes to heroes, Daniels looked back to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and the anonymous youth who died at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

     Next to speak was Anton Gunn, former head of the Obama campaign in South Carolina. He lamented how much of the youth in his state enlisted into the military in order to have their material needs taken care of.

     Diana Nguyen, of Declare Yourself, concerned with celebrity outreach, said that nobody is more excited than they are at the culmination and unity between celebrities and politicans.

     “Cool dies quickly,” she said, emphasizing the importance of voter registration, which “keeps kids interested in the US, in voting.”

     Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Boat, reminded the audience that it was youth who brought down Milosevic. It is important to be aware of the multitude of causes that motivate people and to be able to reach out to all of them.

     In 2003, the media began to shift its narrative away from youth’s apathy—1.2 million youths registered to vote at that time. Rock the Boat now has a one-page registration form to download and fill in.

     Carmen Berkley, vice president of the United Students Association, said that education is a right, not a privilege. She had to have to jobs at college in order to work her way through. “Voting is power,” she said, concerned with higher education and adding graduates to the workforce.

     When students have to drop out of college for lack of funds, the results are deplorable, she continued.

     Another main concern is that people of her generation comprise the largest group lacking health care and also the highest numbers serving their country.

+++++

Among the high points of my experience at Take Back America was the plenary session Progressive Movement in a Democratic Era: The Lessons of King and the Civil Rights Movement.

     Rev. Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow Push Coalition began the session speaking of the dynamics of change. He quoted MLK’s analysis: “Vanity asks the question ‘Is it popular?’; politicians ask, ‘Will it work?’, and morality asks, ‘Is it right?’”

     In all change, he said, there is tension with the status quo.

     His examples included the reactions of both JFK and LBJ to the civil rights movement: JFK’s initial opposition, RFK’s support, MLK’s Nobel prize, and LBJ’s materializing as much as he could of the movement’s aspirations, at the same time predicting the split in the Democratic party along the lines of racism.

     “Don’t forget how successful we were,” said Jackson, the battles won through coalition.Selma transformed America, redefined democracy, gave birth to the black vote, youth vote, students voting on campus, voting in Braille, affirmative action, and the EEOC.

     Added Roger Wilkins, nephew of the famous head of the NAACP Roy Wilkins, the civil rights movement defined his entire career.

     JFK did not understand the civil rights movement, he said. He considered it a political problem rather than a moral crusade. He thought that the participation of children was wrong, while Wilkins claimed that it provided a better education than did the Birmingham school system.

     What changed Kennedy’s mind, he continued, was the dignity displayed by 275,000 civil rights advocates marching on the mall in Washington. Even the Republican Everett Dirksen observed that “this is an idea whose time has come.”

     Jackson reviewed his own daring introduction of a group of poor people into a government cafeteria at lunchtime. “Feed these people,” he demanded. He and Ramsey Clark pushed for food stamps.

     And then perhaps the most striking quote of all, when Joe Califano took this issue to Wilbur Mills. “Don’t think that wars abroad don’t devastate the people here,” he said, referring to the Vietnam war.

     Taylor Branch, author of Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, observed that citizens’ movements change history.

     When the government is bad, he said, liberal is a dirty word. The civil rights movement redeemed Americans across the board. When the Berlin Wall came down, people sang its theme song “We shall overcome.”

     LBJ said that the Voting Rights Act should have  preceded Brown v. Board of Education.

     MLK did not blame LBJ for the Vietnam war; he said the movement would be most productive minus the demonization. Johnson was afraid of being called a coward, afraid of admitting to the UN that “we messed up.”

     Wilkins remarked that though people are skeptical that protest actions affect the government, it does listen even when it pretends not to.

     Said Jackson, MLK recommended substituting the war on poverty for the Vietnam war. He ultimately felt so attacked from all quarters that he considered quitting. Jackson compared the words of Jesus: “Let this cup pass from me.”

     “The only things that are certain are death, taxes, and change.”

     Jackson spoke of MLK’s unfinished business, the broken expectations that followed his “I have a dream” speech.

     “Never underestimate the power of the vote,” he said. A margin of 112,000 votes led JFK to victory.

[to be continued]

Take Back America II: Some Substantive Cuts

Something is happening in this country—Newt Gingrich

We must clear out the stables—Robert Borosage

And what if we win in November? Unlike Bush’s Shock and Awe, we must have a plan once we’re “there.”

     A primary pledge is to dive into universal health care as quickly as Bill Clinton tried his darndest to allow for openly gay males to enlist in the military. But today, instead of paying down the national debt, his signature achievement, the US government pays an interest rate of $2 billion on a debt Joseph Stiglitz has forecasted will advance into the trillions before the war has been fought (even over Bomb Bomb’s plan to remain “over there” for one hundred years?).

     Then there’s the funny story about how Bush, at a $20,000 per plate fundraiser in New York, conceded that our economy is in a “rough patch”? What to do about it? Funnel funding among his dinner guests and then see what happens? (There won’t be anything left to happen, and meanwhile the host of the leaches will be gone, and they will follow.)

     Such were the highlights of Robert Borosage’s opening address at the conference.

     Donna Edwards, candidate for Congress, followed up by adding that we must also have a plan beyond the anticipated exit from Iraq. Fire Halliburton for starters? Take good care of those poor veterans? Rebuild Iraq so that the structures and infrastructures don’t buckle under?

     Diane Archer, of Campaign for America’s Future, reminded us that the U.S. ranks 37^th in the world, behind Morocco and Chile, in terms of quality of health care. “Our health-care system is a failure,” she said. Forty percent of Americans have no or insufficient health insurance. Even if one third of all Americans opt for public health care and taxes are raised, this country will save $80 million.

     Van Jones, of Green for All, introduced the concept of the green economy which, like the New Deal, will create a massive number of new jobs, but relevant to cleaning up the ecology before it’s too late. After the Democratic victory, we must abandon the policy of sink or swim and progress to the theme that Brothers and sisters, we are all in this together!!  Take America forward!!

     Congress should regain its oversight of war. At least, last weekend, it stood up against the opposition on the issue of media consolidation. (But there is a bipartisan consensus in that area, which may have helped.)

     The second plenary I attended, The Crackup of Conservatism, began with a brief film in which a Barbie doll complained to a Ken doll of lead poisoning. The issue of toxic imports from China provides more evidence of the failure of conservatism, reversing a century of progress.

     Corporations spend millions on sweetheart deals and advertising, while ignoring workers’ rights and environmental protection. 1.6 million US jobs have been outsourced overseas, 2.1 million have gone to China, and our trade deficit is now at $233 billion.

     CEO wages are now 364 times those of workers. Rising costs of health care and gasoline are direct results of NAFTA.

     Walmart employees in China earn 54 cents an hour, work sixteen hours a day, suffer from neglected on-the-job injuries and there is no protection for corporate whistle blowers and a pitifully low amount of inspection of imports to this country.

     Cliff Schechter, a once and future MSNBC commentator, rehearsed McCain’s complete sellout to the neocons, after building up a reputation as a maverick throughout the years. He has even come out in favor of torture.

     Kirsten Sinema, state representative and Democrat from Arizona, ended this session on a hopeful note. The religious, corporate, and imperialist groups are more united than ever, supported by the media. Both Obama and Clinton are worlds ahead of McCain. They must stop fighting. Polls project that either Democratic candidate will defeat McCain by only a few points.

     We must embrace the moderates, she said.

     The third plenary I attended, Media Reform and High-Speed Internet for Everyone, heralded the Internet as the most important aspect of the media’s future. Said Josh Silver of Freepress.org, computers and televisions are merging, while use of radios and newspapers is descending.

     We are, however, way behind most of the rest of the world in terms of broadband speed.

     Commissioner Adelstein of FCC, a surprise last-minute addition to the panel and in complete agreement with Josh Silver, added that the Internet must become a higher national priority. There is a need for government leadership. We should be number one in this area as we are in telecommunications. [Noam Chomsky would wryly agree, as evident in his recent article “We Own the World,” justifying all Bush II initiatives as defensible based on this premise.]

     All the international competition is based on government leadership. He listed the tapped and untapped benefits of Internet use and added that Congress can do much to further efforts in this direction.

     However, we must also, keep options open for conventional media, he concluded.

     Only half the US is connected to the Internet, continued Debbie Goldman, of Communication Workers of America. Fully 60 percent of the public agree that the government should rule Internet policy. There is life-saving information in the areas of education, the economy, and public safety, for starters. There is bipartisan support for these advances.

     Julius Stenakowski, senior telecommunications advisor to Barack Obama, introduced the concept of “horizontal” Internet issues, which he says are key to the solutions of US “problems.” He called Obama “the first twenty-first century candidate.” It is critical to alter secrecy that isolates the Bush administration from us “rabble” [quotation marks mine].

     All government data should be placed on line, along with federal earmarks, and public input should become a matter of course. A chief technical officer should oversee this new dimension of Internet communication.

     Via the Internet, and reminiscent of Howard Dean’s campaign, one million donors have contributed to Obama’s campaign—small amounts that have, however, added up.

     Susan Ness, a former advisor to Hillary Clinton, outlined Hillary’s broadband vision:

     Staunch advocacy of diversity in media ownership and net neutrality; universal access to the Internet; competition without censorship; opportunities for recovery from the worst economic crisis in decades.

     The US ranks fifteenth globally in Internet advancement and this situation is one of Hillary’s top priorities to address and improve. She encourages business investment in the growth of the Internet.

     She suggests $100 million in grants to low-income families, including the 25 percent that live in rural areas and supports e-9/11 and emergency responders to these calls.

     She wants her country to regain its global scientific leadership. She wants to spend $50 million on energy research.

     Steve Abbott of the Communications Workers of America in Iowa shifted the concentration to the nuts and bolts aspects of the Internet.

     He advocates fiber-based broadband as providing an enormous number of kilobytes per second (kbps). Broadband has been used successfully to educate handicapped people, including those with autism. In health care, specialists from far off can monitor and comment on surgery in progress.

     Abbott advocates spending $13 billion to provide broadband to all, which will return invaluable benefits.

     The Europeans call our broadband capacity, which costs more than theirs, “snail service.”

     I asked my only oral question of the conference: Why give out Internet to illiterate people who won’t know what to do with it?

     The answer, of course, was to provide the needed education first, a massive effort in itself.

[more to follow]

21 March 2008: Taking Back America

Having spent three days at the annual conference Taking Back America, I have two notebooks to transcribe, a daunting task. Let me begin with a generalization I wrote for my sponsoring organization, mediachannel.org, which featured it last Thursday:

"More than three thousand Progressives from all over the country are in attendance at Washington, D.C.’s fifth annual Take Back America conference.  Sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future (www.ourfuture.org), the event was launched by Robert Borosage, co-director and co-founder of the K Street strategy center.

"The theme of this year’s conference is “Progressives Rising: 2008, A Sea-Change Election.” Subjects of the conference include health care, the economy, energy and the climate change, national security, and of course the 2008 elections, on which the coalition of organizations, including the AFL-CIO, plan to spend millions. The sea change Borosage celebrates will alter the conservative and then neoconservative surge ushered in by Ronald Reagan, he said, for the first time since then.

"Among the many participating organizations, some of the largest were represented at a press conference on Tuesday, including, besides the Campaign for America’s Future and the AFL-CIO, Women Voices, Women Vote; MoveOn.org; Rock the Vote; ACORN; and the National Council of La Raza.

"It is hard to say where celebrity ended and energy and dedication began, but among the most prominent attendees were the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Jim Webb, Donna Brazile, Roger Wilkins, and Robert Greenwald. Many of the participating organizations had booths; there was a small store of recently published progressive books, and some of the authors are present to sign them.

"The three-day event will end Wednesday with a march from the Omni Shoreham Hotel to the White House."

     To begin from the end of this extract, one thousand stalwart souls did march, not all from the convention, to the White House on that rainy afternoon. Some of them committed civil disobedience, using mock police tape to seal off the entrance to the IRS. Other forms of cd were committed throughout the country as well as in Washington.

     During those three amazing days, the first of which began with a personal greeting and smile from Rev. Jesse Jackson, I had several continuous issues. The first was why do we have to take back America? How did we ever lose it? Why has the new era, “our time,” supposedly just dawned because this time perhaps the Democrats will once again dominate Capitol Hill? Didn’t we win in 2000 and 2004?

     Next I wondered why the issue of election integrity received such short shrift—a few sessions and workshops—when the vote is at the root of our democracy. The issue is simply “not sexy,” to quote some of the most dedicated members of the movement. At the press conference that occurred at the center of the event, the last question concerned election integrity. There was silence among the representatives of the largest progressive organizations. Finally and guiltily, Karen Ackerman of AFL-CIO, an ally of the progressives rather than a progressive organization in itself, answered that measures were being taken: they have worked in alliance with [election integrity?] in 2004; had trouble with alliances and funding in 2006. But in 2008, they have a number of resources, and a number of commitments to protect the vote. In twelve states and thirty cities they are working for a sufficient number of ballots and voting machines and also concerning themselves with the machines’ functionality.

     Foundations are homely things but highly functional. You know, like concrete blocks stuck into the earth, always there first before the chrome and the steel and the glass. And session after session urged us all to get out the vote and spoke of near-victories by Progressives. But in the vocabulary of this most polluted of all times in voting history, “near-victory” means “repressed landslide” when applied to Democrats. When they do win, you can be sure of a perfect storm even the most competent hackers can’t weather. We talk so much about the founding fathers, the origins of this country—how can we ignore Tom Paine, who wrote that without the vote there can be no democracy?

     Youthful progressives, those twenty-nine and younger, have great faith in hip hop’s ability to take over and keep things rolling. At their plenary Millennials Rising: Young Voters Revitalizing Democracy, I wanted to tell them we need their energy and moxie to preserve everything they plan to accomplish through their vote. I was one of only three or so boomers present, scribbling furiously, wishing they were better educated. They are mired in the present without context, the fault of our educational system that is so eclipsed by others throughout the world.

     Look what happens when even an educated illiterate runs this country. Not that the kids were illiterate at all. They had their social science vocabulary intact. They were all mired in debt from their undergraduate regimes, but oh you kid, someone tell them that they are perfect fodder for graduate school grant money. They are as smart as any of us boomers, but need water to become our longed-for bloomers? Well, successors anyway.

     I raised my hand to provide some context for all the voting and running for office they plan, but kids lined up to take the mike, so I left in despair, praying for miracles. It’s so hard to study. Why can’t they acquire wisdom the way that Solomon did, by simply asking God for it?

     I know that the above sounds callous and sour. There is much more to review that will be more uplifting.

+++++

I noticed throughout that the terms liberal and progressive were used interchangeably, though on the first day Rick Pearlstein, of the hosting organization Campaign for America’s Future, lamented the relative demise of a term that used to describe us, liberal. Rick attributed this decline to the press.

     I asked a classicist what the difference between the two terms are, and he said liberal came first, but that he considers liberals to the right of progressives.

     Like a true classicist, pedantically and predictably I will resort to origins. I delved into The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and somehow emerged with some vision left—the figures are so small that the “fine print” among them must be read with heightened magnification beyond that of a conventional glass.

     Liberal is the older term, but not by much, appearing in text in a political context for the first time at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Progressive appears closer to the end of that century.

     Liberal, which first appeared in print in 1801, is defined by OED as “freedom from bigotry; open minded; open to new ideas or proposals of reform (the opposite of conservative).”

     Progressive  is defined by OED as “favouring [sic], advocating, or directing one’s efforts toward progress or reform.” It first appeared in text in 1889. It encompasses those who are liberal or reforming.

     So if we trust OED, progressives are more active, liberals more sedentary.

     At the conference, it struck me that the speakers were using liberal as other than profanity, attempting to restore its respectability. But at the written level, beginning with page 2 of the official pamphlet of events and participants, progressive appears far more often.

     At a session called Arguing Our Case: Pros and Cons, I actually found a discussion of the two terms. For lack of time, this discussion was delivered so rapidly that I am sure you will find inaccuracies in what follows.

     The speaker said that progressivism, liberalism, and populism are part of a common project. Liberalism couldn’t exist without progressives. Liberalism is part of a long tradition [it has always somehow or other embodied the concept of freedom].

     Consistent with OED, the speaker said that progressivism deals with concrete issues, fighting against the Republican dominion over society; it is more pragmatic.

     Progressivism is committed to the common good and pragmatic solutions. Liberalism is more theoretical.

     Modern liberalism, the speaker said, emerged from progressivism. Thomas Jefferson is more than once called progressive by his biographers and the scholarly tradition.

     Liberalism diffuses religious tension, respecting tolerance and the First Amendment; progressivism embodies a specific set of Christian values. In this way the two concepts are reciprocal.

     He referred to the Progressive era as “moralistic and utopian.”

     After the New Deal, liberalism was connected with the Democratic Party. Progressivism kept the whole legal system honest.

     Liberals focus on individualism while progressive correct the excesses of individualism.

     Progressives are more focused on the American national spirit. Liberals are associated with governmental action while progressivism had its origins at the municipal level.

     In terms of foreign policy, liberalism is more internationalist while progressives fight over this country’s role in the world and are anti-imperialists.

     Progressives today comprise a strong minority. Progressivism means “moving forward and open minded.”

     Today 40 percent of Americans are unfamiliar with the term progressive. But progressives are viewed more favorably; liberals less so.

     Progressive history connects past values to present ones.

     In another perspective on this subject, Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, said that LBJ was the last president to call himself a liberal. Celinda Lake, of Lake Research Partners, said that the term progressive is more popular; Democrats prefer the term because it can encompass Republicans, while the term liberal tends to polarize.

[to be continued]

19 March 2008: The Skeptical Patriot

Voice of the Voters began instead of ended with John Gideon’s segment, so that across-the country news could be guaranteed airtime. News there is, as always: in New Jersey the Sequoia DREs, a chronic bone of contention, were found to produce inconsistent results between their internal paper record and their software. The company first agreed to refer the problem to Princeton University’s Ed Felton and Andrew Appel, but then reversed its decision and threatened legal action if the experts did investigate.

     New Jersey’s attorney general did not push for resolution of this well-publicized issue. The same Sequoias are used in two Pennsylvania counties.

     In other good news, Secretaries of State Jennifer Brunner (Ohio) and Debra Bowen (California) both received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award.

     Mimi Kennedy, founder and head of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) made her second appearance on the program this evening, interviewed by Lori Rosolowsky. The subject this time was poll working and involvement in general.

     Mimi said she became a poll worker as a critic about how votes are counted, needing to understand how things work from the inside. She took the course twice to polish her abilities and ran a primary in Los Angeles with four working under her.

     Her motivation, of course, was patriotism. In the true self-critical spirit of the United States (remember that from before election 2000?), she was exercising what she termed skeptical patriotism, as contrasted, for instance, with complacency with the way things are and unquestioning trust in the authorities in charge.

     To become a poll worker, said Kennedy, go online to the site of your county registrar; there is a great need for poll workers. You will find a list of training classes along with the wheres and whens and should also obtain course materials.

     Poll working is a healthy step in the right direction “toward a more perfect union.”

     Lori asked about what good could possibly come from the continued use of DREs. The skeptical patriot had a good answer: poll workers record incidents of malfunction; these add up, ammunition to strengthen arguments to junk this category of machine. The hotlines that receive these reports are set up by the political parties and nonprofits.

     On the birth of PDA in 2004, Mimi said that it grew out of the Democratic National Convention; both Jim Hightower and Tom Hayden are board members. Their motivation was to continue that curious American habit of faith in the future and our influence to shape the best of worlds for our children. They wanted to penetrate the party structure, turn it away from neoliberalism to progressivism.

     And more on efforts to restore integrity to our voting system once there has been the change to paper ballots: transparency is imperative—there should be a substantial audit percentage. Mimi reminded listeners of the Double Bubble Trouble in the Los Angeles primary—how forty to ninety thousand votes were lost because of young voters’ misunderstanding of the ballot format.

     The Coalition of Voting Integrity’s indispensable researcher Madeline Rawley was a featured caller who discussed her experience as a poll watcher and also reported on the most recent county commissioners’ meeting this morning, which lasted three hours.

     Evidently there was a suggestion to switch from the fiercely disputed touchscreen system to vote by mail, perhaps a cynical comment from one of the commissioners. Madeline spoke of the importance of the voting experience, the meeting of friends and neighbors. For Lori, voting at the local polls is a form of athletic absorption for a confessed non sports fan.

     Jim said that his efforts to become a poll worker have so far received no response. Madeline said that the job is hard, requiring long hours and little pay; there should be two shifts instead of one from dawn to midnight. The average age of poll workers is 72, Jim added. There is not enough effort to recruit new workers. Perhaps in Jim’s case there is too much awareness of his skeptical patriotism.

     Jim emphasized the importance of ascertaining that you are registered to vote in this critical year. Pennsylvanians have until March 24 to register for the April 22 primary, an event that is certain to draw national attention.

     Further on today’s commissioners’ meeting, Madeline said that State Representative Jim Clymer stood up to voice his support for Commissioners Martin and Cawley—he too finds that the Danaher DREs are unproblematic, a wave of the future. Members of the Coalition for Voting Integrity asked to meet with him to discuss the issue further.

     In other news, the owner of Electec, which provides Bucks County with its Danahers, was caught napping when he misinformed a questioner about the voting process on his full-faced machines. His conception of the format was incorrect.

     Commissioner Diane Marseglia again requested approval of a resolution in favor of HR 1536, reminding her fellow commissioners that they would be reimbursed for the expense of switching from the DREs to optical scanners.

     They again refused.

(c)

16 March 2008: Iraq, St. Patrick’s Day, and a Milestone

The day of Shock and Awe, March 19, 2003, a small area in Princeton was attacked by a vicious, brief hale storm, the units of which were as large as gold balls. The new, modern building where I was volunteering for a fundraiser was damaged—that’s how bad it was. In that very hour the attack began. People within the radius of a mile experienced nothing comparable—not even rain or winds.

     St. Patrick’s Day is supposed to be a day of luck, but consider this: the expression “the luck of the Irish” was coined ironically, because the Irish immigration to the US stemmed from a tragic famine one hundred fifty years ago.

     The milestone alluded to in the title of this blog was to my move to DC, a shot in the arm, a triumph amid my aging years and a light amid the torpor of those years before I came here.

     Not to belittle the dear friends and family I left—just to say that I was languishing among them, which was probably clear to them. If not, then I’m a good actress.

     DC is far from perfect. I have yet to obtain gainful employment. But hope hovers at the bottom of the anniversary of so many milestones associated with this day.

     The shamrock has become a symbol of luck, especially the four-leaf variety.

     I spent months before Shock and Awe militating against it along with hordes of peace people the world over. I remember February 15, when millions demonstrated in a gesture of solidarity. A month later, the countdown had started for the latest genocide, but the first in the twenty-first century.

     And of course the motivations were camouflaged as the latest US effort to spread democracy throughout the world, to eliminate a ruthless dictatorship, to rob it of its supposed weapons of mass destruction how? By employing our own weapons of mass destruction. Did an eye for an eye ever accomplish anything accept blindness?

     I could review the real origins of this way: the greed and power grab it represented and how it had actually been planned years earlier in a document called the Project for a New Century (PNAC), if not earlier than that, when the milestones of the late sixties generated their opposite, the even-later sixties and the Republican domination that followed in the next few decades.

     That’s when a former Supreme Court Justice wrote a paper that mapped out the politics of the next few generations.

     I’m not calling the Democrats angels or the Republicans demons.

     I’ve resorted before to human nature as the root of all the good and evil that history has bred—human-written history that is so biased toward the upper classes.

     Is there a way to transcend it? Can there be such a thing as peace that represents more than the absence of war? Than war beyond its boundaries to keep the peace within the borders in question?

     Answer me that. We’ve transcended so much else—can we transcend the bounds of human nature? Will we evolve before we destroy the uncivilized civilization that defines our lives?

     We’ll need luck—the shamrock as a positive symbol, and a miracle—the hale storm transformed into a positive omen, and, I suppose, the Messiah—as opposed to Shock and Awe, or as its positive inverse, shocking and awesome as it will be. More than that, we the people must move from an environment of torpor to one of action.

     And so we are passing through so many significant days--soon, also the 4,000th U.S. military death will occur. Hope persists at the bottom of the barrel—without which we wouldn’t live.

     But consider the victims in Darfur and the Congo and Iraq and Afghanistan and soon, perhaps, Iran. Theirs is a will toward survival that dwarfs ours, every day of the year.

©

13 March 2008: I Wrote This about That: “Where’s the Outrage?”

There was a blockbuster article at the top of opednews.com yesterday, nearly in the position an article of mine (see directly below) occupied the day before yesterday. Only it was by a far more prominent writer, Rabbi Michael Lerner (in this article), who in my opinion and that of many of my progressive colleagues, really hit the mark.

     Rabbi Lerner objects to the demise of Eliot Spitzer’s political career because he was caught in the act of adultery. Another blogger rightly points out that all those pols in Washington revealed as clients of another prostitute ring have been forgotten.

     The rabbi also writes that while the world is seething in desperation for all sorts of reasons, an instance of adultery, even by a prominent official, should be on the back page of some section in newspapers, rather than, as in yellow tabloids, positioned front and center on page one.

     This is nothing new in the United States, nor other countries, who undoubtedly laugh uncontrollably at our news priorities. Remember the wife and mistress seated together at one of the former French prime ministers’ funeral? I heard the same from a dear friend in Argentina: not “where’s the outrage?” but “why the outrage?”

     With all the condoned corruption committed by the Bush administration and its corporate, gas-guzzling cronies, where’s the outrage? Because it suits those people just fine to oust another Democratic leader, another bastion of integrity who has incurred the hatred of many a Wall Street mogul.

     But then the rabbi ends with something even more cutting than “where’s the outrage?”: a long paragraph asking why no one has protested, no one spoken out in protest, no one demanded impeachment not of Spitzer but probably of his enemies, or in any case, a “moral majority” that is silent when it should roar?

     Well, I wrote this about that to the editor of opednews.com, a page I recommended heartily that he read:

"The premise that we ignore far worse evils than promiscuity by focusing on such scandals and forgetting the rest that are infinitely worse is right on the mark. We let the corporatocracy get away with infinitely more than a bit of infidelity. Let? Can we do otherwise? That's a good question. That leads to 'Is democracy dead or alive?'

"But I plunge into infinite despair when I read such false generalities as "That there is no outcry for these government officials and corporate leaders to resign immediately or be impeached, that there is no moral outrage at the entire system that produces this impact, is America's ethical perversity. Rabbi, please read some of the other articles published at opednews.com. We progressives have been screaming and howling about this since time immemorial. Progressives and other ethical dissenters anyway.

"Rabbi, please read the Internet seething with progressive outcries—they’re at least as ubiquitous as the opposition. Rabbi, there’s a long tradition that we’re following that dates back to the Old Testament prophets, if not farther back"[last sentence added today, I admit]"

     The rabbi expresses progressive sentiments without reading those who would, and have now supported him. And who am I, another progressive, to be so self-righteous, caught often uninformed about crucial issues?

     I read protest about the skewering of Spitzer in Mark Crispin Miller’s News from the Underground earlier in the day, and that changed my mindset immediately. But what’s there to do? Keep reading the Internet, looking for far finer and better-read authorities to reveal more—to arouse more outrage, reveal more neoconservative footprints, and realize that once again it’s probably too late to do more than Pandora did: to hope that next November we’ll be given reasons to hope that such atrocities are reduced to a minimum and that the public’s starvation for scandals can be otherwise directed, more positively.

©

10 March 2008: My Assignment: To Laud Both Candidates

OpEdNews has given me the assignment of lauding Hillary Clinton because the page has been accused of being too pro-Obama.

     I think it is time for all of us—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—to start lauding both candidates in anticipation of all the fodder we are feeding to the Republicans for McCain to use against us once the real campaign begins.

     Otherwise, what will we have after the primaries? Two Democratic candidates like tired dogs in the summer, hating each other, having split the party entirely—oh, what a feast for Bomb Bomb. A wrecked Bam Bam or a decidedly downHill.

On Hillary: her accomplishments are too numerous to list. Like Obama, she practiced law, but for a longer time, in Arkansas, serving also as first lady of that state. In Arkansas, she had a good opportunity to mingle with conservative southerners (Arkansas is a red state). As first lady of the United States, she traveled even more extensively than Obama did, accompanying her husband in most of his expeditions in this country and especially abroad.

     Hillary attempted to establish universal healthcare in this county early in the Clinton regime and promises to do so more successfully if elected president, as does Obama in a first-time effort, with a record that supports this concern as well as campaign promises as one of his top priorities. Hillary’s focus has been the well being of children and women in this country, translating this concern into numerous acts—see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633 for a very biased comparison of legislation sponsored by her and Obama. Might we blame sexism for the fact that so much more of his legislation addressing issues similar to hers were passed?

     Since her 2000 election to the U.S. Senate, Hillary has co-sponsored or authored the following legislative acts that were passed:

• legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed
• legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves
'
• legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program
• the Children's Health Insurance Program
• legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism
• the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act
• legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools

     She was re-elected as senator of New York by a margin of 67 percent.