Alexandra Ottaway's Blog
About the Author
Current Events
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:58 AM Size: 19 KB
June 29, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Betraying the Planet
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason - treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe - a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable - can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing - that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves - the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation - may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking - if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided - they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it - and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists - a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I'm almost reluctant to mention the deniers' dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill's economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?
Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole - but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
June 29, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Betraying the Planet
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason - treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe - a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable - can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing - that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves - the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation - may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking - if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided - they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it - and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists - a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I'm almost reluctant to mention the deniers' dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill's economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?
Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole - but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
LINK
Basically this is a fascinating and complex NY Times
article which deals pretty even-handedly with
conservative critiques of Obama's handling of
the budget while he tryies to rescue the economy.
It has a surprise ending.
Basically this is a fascinating and complex NY Times
article which deals pretty even-handedly with
conservative critiques of Obama's handling of
the budget while he tryies to rescue the economy.
It has a surprise ending.
More Health Care Scare
June 11, 2009
Could a public insurance plan spell the end of private insurance companies?
Summary
A new ad from Conservatives for Patients' Rights says that a public health insurance plan now being proposed in Congress "could crush all your other choices, driving them out of existence, resulting in 119 million off their current insurance coverage."
That's misleading. The 119 million figure comes from an analysis of a plan that would mirror Medicare and be open to every individual and business that wanted it. But that's not the type of public plan President Obama has proposed. Nor is such a plan gaining acceptance on Capitol Hill.
The author of the study says that while some have backed the Medicare-like proposal, using the 119 million number "overstates the impact of what now is being considered."
The ad also falsely cites the New York Times as the source of a statement that what's being proposed would leave no consumer choices and "government in control of your health care." The Times didn't say that at all. The newspaper was just quoting claims made by insurance companies and members of Congress.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site: LINK
June 11, 2009
Could a public insurance plan spell the end of private insurance companies?
Summary
A new ad from Conservatives for Patients' Rights says that a public health insurance plan now being proposed in Congress "could crush all your other choices, driving them out of existence, resulting in 119 million off their current insurance coverage."
That's misleading. The 119 million figure comes from an analysis of a plan that would mirror Medicare and be open to every individual and business that wanted it. But that's not the type of public plan President Obama has proposed. Nor is such a plan gaining acceptance on Capitol Hill.
The author of the study says that while some have backed the Medicare-like proposal, using the 119 million number "overstates the impact of what now is being considered."
The ad also falsely cites the New York Times as the source of a statement that what's being proposed would leave no consumer choices and "government in control of your health care." The Times didn't say that at all. The newspaper was just quoting claims made by insurance companies and members of Congress.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site: LINK
FactCheck.org
Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation
May 28, 2009
Republicans puff up the impact of a cap-and-trade program on the average family's energy costs.
Summary:
Leading Republicans are claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a "massive national energy tax." But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived.
Republicans say they base their figure on a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But one of the authors says that the GOP's use of the study is "simplistic and misleading" and that it ignores key provisions designed to cushion the impact on consumers. The author puts the true added cost of a cap-and-trade system at closer to $800 a year.
Obama himself once said energy costs would "skyrocket" under his plan, but the GOP's partisan claim of a $3,100 per household cost increase is far higher than figures produced by other studies. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the average cost per household to be between $98 and $140 per year, based on the Democratic cap-and-trade bill working its way through the House. Even the conservative, pro-Republican Heritage Foundation figures the average family would see its energy bill increase by $1,500 a year, less than half what the GOP claims. A Congressional Budget Office expert recently estimated the cost per household at an average of $1,600 a year, but that figure doesn't account for energy rebates Obama has proposed giving to consumers. If the government did use revenue from cap and trade "to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household," the CBO expert said, "lower-income households could be better off."
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
LINK
Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation
May 28, 2009
Republicans puff up the impact of a cap-and-trade program on the average family's energy costs.
Summary:
Leading Republicans are claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a "massive national energy tax." But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived.
Republicans say they base their figure on a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But one of the authors says that the GOP's use of the study is "simplistic and misleading" and that it ignores key provisions designed to cushion the impact on consumers. The author puts the true added cost of a cap-and-trade system at closer to $800 a year.
Obama himself once said energy costs would "skyrocket" under his plan, but the GOP's partisan claim of a $3,100 per household cost increase is far higher than figures produced by other studies. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the average cost per household to be between $98 and $140 per year, based on the Democratic cap-and-trade bill working its way through the House. Even the conservative, pro-Republican Heritage Foundation figures the average family would see its energy bill increase by $1,500 a year, less than half what the GOP claims. A Congressional Budget Office expert recently estimated the cost per household at an average of $1,600 a year, but that figure doesn't account for energy rebates Obama has proposed giving to consumers. If the government did use revenue from cap and trade "to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household," the CBO expert said, "lower-income households could be better off."
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
LINK
WSJ, does have some great news but you do have to be wary.
The criticisms they're making of Sotomayor, i.e., that Obama is overreaching,
that she is an activist judge who is only concerned with her own ideology,
not very smart-- are almost all the same criticisms dems had of the Bush admin,
just linguistically turned against them. I never cease to be surprised, because
I can't get it through my head that the GOP has even now yet to learn that Obama
succeeded with his election due to substantial policy differences and not merely
from beating Karl Rove at a language game.
The criticisms they're making of Sotomayor, i.e., that Obama is overreaching,
that she is an activist judge who is only concerned with her own ideology,
not very smart-- are almost all the same criticisms dems had of the Bush admin,
just linguistically turned against them. I never cease to be surprised, because
I can't get it through my head that the GOP has even now yet to learn that Obama
succeeded with his election due to substantial policy differences and not merely
from beating Karl Rove at a language game.
From Fact Check.org:
Government-Run Health Care?
April 30, 2009
A conservative group's ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Summary
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:
The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."
The ad quotes a Canadian doctor who has been critical of his country's system, but leaves out the fact that the doctor has praised other government-funded systems, such as those in Austria and France.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site
LINK
Government-Run Health Care?
April 30, 2009
A conservative group's ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Summary
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:
The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."
The ad quotes a Canadian doctor who has been critical of his country's system, but leaves out the fact that the doctor has praised other government-funded systems, such as those in Austria and France.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site
LINK
From Yes! Magazine, an open letter to President Obama, by Ellen Brown
Path to a New Economy
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3394
Path to a New Economy
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3394
Frankly, I'm not sure what I think about Google and copyright issues,
but I'm also not sure we can have our cake and eat it, too:
You can't exploit Google to promote yourself[Dow Jones is just now
figuring out that you have to have local news(hyper-local) to really make it work],
be tremendously proud about doing it, and then turn around to say that
Google is a "tape-worm", as Robert Thomson does here:
LINK
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10213336-93.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
To be fair, he probably did not expect this to be heard up in NY/New England.
Those days are unfortunately gone-- when you could tailor your speech to your audience:(
So again, not sure what I think, but wish Thomson had made a more convincing, logically valid argument than calling Google "a tapeworm". It makes you think. No wait. It doesn't!
Anyway, Google wrote back:
LINK
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10213903-93.html
What do you all think?
but I'm also not sure we can have our cake and eat it, too:
You can't exploit Google to promote yourself[Dow Jones is just now
figuring out that you have to have local news(hyper-local) to really make it work],
be tremendously proud about doing it, and then turn around to say that
Google is a "tape-worm", as Robert Thomson does here:
LINK
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10213336-93.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
To be fair, he probably did not expect this to be heard up in NY/New England.
Those days are unfortunately gone-- when you could tailor your speech to your audience:(
So again, not sure what I think, but wish Thomson had made a more convincing, logically valid argument than calling Google "a tapeworm". It makes you think. No wait. It doesn't!
Anyway, Google wrote back:
LINK
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10213903-93.html
What do you all think?
Attacks on DOJ Nominees Signal Right's Judicial Nominations Strategy
Right-wing political and legal organizations have unleashed a coordinated campaign of over-the-top attacks on the qualifications, records, and fitness of President Obama's nominees for important positions in the U.S. Justice Department. Deputy Attorney General nominee David Ogden has been the prime target of the Right's wrath, but Solicitor General nominee Elena Kagan, Associate Attorney General nominee Thomas Perrelli, and Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen have also come in for their share of criticism.
The rhetoric used in the attacks, documented extensively on RightWingWatch.org, suggests that the campaign may be less about actually stopping any of these nominees and more about getting right-wing activists, pundits, and lawmakers warmed up for similar attacks on eventual Obama nominees to the federal judiciary, and in particular to the U.S. Supreme Court. Right-wing leaders want to tarnish the image of Obama to strengthen their hand when they try to block his judicial nominees. But the deceptive and distorted nature of the attacks should signal to senators, journalists, and others the importance of questioning the credibility of those charges when they come.
--from People for the American Way Read More »
Right-wing political and legal organizations have unleashed a coordinated campaign of over-the-top attacks on the qualifications, records, and fitness of President Obama's nominees for important positions in the U.S. Justice Department. Deputy Attorney General nominee David Ogden has been the prime target of the Right's wrath, but Solicitor General nominee Elena Kagan, Associate Attorney General nominee Thomas Perrelli, and Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen have also come in for their share of criticism.
The rhetoric used in the attacks, documented extensively on RightWingWatch.org, suggests that the campaign may be less about actually stopping any of these nominees and more about getting right-wing activists, pundits, and lawmakers warmed up for similar attacks on eventual Obama nominees to the federal judiciary, and in particular to the U.S. Supreme Court. Right-wing leaders want to tarnish the image of Obama to strengthen their hand when they try to block his judicial nominees. But the deceptive and distorted nature of the attacks should signal to senators, journalists, and others the importance of questioning the credibility of those charges when they come.
--from People for the American Way Read More »
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNCdBiTozpQ
Everybody, I know it's my own brother but I LOVE this! Happy Martin Luther King Day
and have a great Inauguration tomorrow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hVOwspH3Ew
and have a great Inauguration tomorrow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hVOwspH3Ew
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
Hey, Everybody! Wall Street Journal has a new Op-Ed, "Krugman's Recipe for
Depression". Anybody want to take a crack at it. I did but doubt my submission
to the "Forum" will be published there. I'll try to recall it right here:
Unions are a tough and delicate problem but Paul Krugman makes
some good points. While history is important we also want to "Be Here Now",
and in the '00's, one of the big problems is the banks were just bailed out with no strings
attached, they were expected to lend and now they are not lending.
I probably will come back to this later in more detail, but should anyone decide to take
this up, Have Fun! Read More »
Depression". Anybody want to take a crack at it. I did but doubt my submission
to the "Forum" will be published there. I'll try to recall it right here:
Unions are a tough and delicate problem but Paul Krugman makes
some good points. While history is important we also want to "Be Here Now",
and in the '00's, one of the big problems is the banks were just bailed out with no strings
attached, they were expected to lend and now they are not lending.
I probably will come back to this later in more detail, but should anyone decide to take
this up, Have Fun! Read More »
BEFORE ELECTION DAY
1. Check your registration. Even if you think you're registered, you may not be. Check online at www.CanIVote.org.
2. Vote now. Check if early voting is possible in your state. If youÂ're voting by mail, check carefully where you need to sign, how to seal the envelope, and how to mark the ballot. And note: Some ballots require extra postage.
3. Practice your vote. Electronic voting machines can be difficult to use. Verifiedvoting.org is preparing links to video demos of how to vote on the machine you will find at your polling station. If you'll be using a paper ballot, check out the sample included in your voter pamphlet.
4. Find out whoÂ's in charge. Make a phone list of your county and state election officials-it may save valuable time on Election Day if you need to get registration verification or other information.
ON ELECTION DAY
5. Vote early. Avoid the frustration of long lines. Also, if you encounter problems, you'll have time to sort them out and may be able to help others.
6. Take your government-issued ID and your cell phone, if you have one. If you have problems, or see problems, call a hotline immediately (see point #9). You may not need ID to vote, but it's best to have it. If you have trouble with your registration, ask for a provisional ballot.
7. Avoid Straight Party Voting, if it's an option in your state. Vote for each race individually, even if it takes a little longer.
8. Verify your vote. If youÂ're voting on an electronic voting machine, check the review screen to make sure it reflects your vote. If the machine produces a paper record, check as you go along that everything is working correctly. If not, speak to a polling attendant-donÂ't leave until youÂ're sure your vote has been properly recorded.
9. Document and report. If you encounter difficulties, or see others experiencing difficulties (excessive lines, voter harassment, malfunctioning machines, etc.), make a detailed record. Get all the facts you can-location, names, specific problem.
The best way to report problems is to call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683), which has volunteer lawyers in 15 locations standing by to provide rapid-response assistance. You can also contact your party of choice. We have more suggestions here.
AFTER ELECTION DAY
10. Call your candidate. If there are questions about an election result, urge your candidate to ask for an audit. Ask how you can help.
11. Call your election officials. If you have concerns, let your county and state election officials know, and monitor their response. Ask them not to certify the election before all challenges and recounts are finished. And send a copy of your message to your local newspaper editor. If you're confident about the election result, thank the officials for a difficult job well done.
INTO THE FUTURE
12. Work for fair, transparent elections. 66% of Americans don't trust the electronic voting machines many of us will be voting on this November. Join the movement for election reform in between elections. Use our YES! Tools to find out how.
Yours for democracy,
Fran Korten
Publisher, YES! Magazine
www.yesmagazine.org
1. Check your registration. Even if you think you're registered, you may not be. Check online at www.CanIVote.org.
2. Vote now. Check if early voting is possible in your state. If youÂ're voting by mail, check carefully where you need to sign, how to seal the envelope, and how to mark the ballot. And note: Some ballots require extra postage.
3. Practice your vote. Electronic voting machines can be difficult to use. Verifiedvoting.org is preparing links to video demos of how to vote on the machine you will find at your polling station. If you'll be using a paper ballot, check out the sample included in your voter pamphlet.
4. Find out whoÂ's in charge. Make a phone list of your county and state election officials-it may save valuable time on Election Day if you need to get registration verification or other information.
ON ELECTION DAY
5. Vote early. Avoid the frustration of long lines. Also, if you encounter problems, you'll have time to sort them out and may be able to help others.
6. Take your government-issued ID and your cell phone, if you have one. If you have problems, or see problems, call a hotline immediately (see point #9). You may not need ID to vote, but it's best to have it. If you have trouble with your registration, ask for a provisional ballot.
7. Avoid Straight Party Voting, if it's an option in your state. Vote for each race individually, even if it takes a little longer.
8. Verify your vote. If youÂ're voting on an electronic voting machine, check the review screen to make sure it reflects your vote. If the machine produces a paper record, check as you go along that everything is working correctly. If not, speak to a polling attendant-donÂ't leave until youÂ're sure your vote has been properly recorded.
9. Document and report. If you encounter difficulties, or see others experiencing difficulties (excessive lines, voter harassment, malfunctioning machines, etc.), make a detailed record. Get all the facts you can-location, names, specific problem.
The best way to report problems is to call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683), which has volunteer lawyers in 15 locations standing by to provide rapid-response assistance. You can also contact your party of choice. We have more suggestions here.
AFTER ELECTION DAY
10. Call your candidate. If there are questions about an election result, urge your candidate to ask for an audit. Ask how you can help.
11. Call your election officials. If you have concerns, let your county and state election officials know, and monitor their response. Ask them not to certify the election before all challenges and recounts are finished. And send a copy of your message to your local newspaper editor. If you're confident about the election result, thank the officials for a difficult job well done.
INTO THE FUTURE
12. Work for fair, transparent elections. 66% of Americans don't trust the electronic voting machines many of us will be voting on this November. Join the movement for election reform in between elections. Use our YES! Tools to find out how.
Yours for democracy,
Fran Korten
Publisher, YES! Magazine
www.yesmagazine.org
Beyond Diebold: 10 Ways to Steal This Election
From caging to robo-calls, a MoJo field guide to vote-blocking tactics.
Sasha Abramsky
October 20, 2008
Tactics to deny Americans the right to vote are as old as, well, the right to vote. Democrats have been at fault in the past-take the literacy tests Southern states used to deprive blacks of their suffrage from the Civil War up through 1965. Today's shenanigans-which still target minorities and vulnerable first-time voters-are more often designed to stifle Democratic turnout, perhaps never more than in 2008. "This is obviously an important election, and the turnout may break records," says Rice University sociologist Chandler Davidson, who has studied vote suppression, "so there is every reason to expect these tactics will be employed."
Card the Centenarian
Arizona's Proposition 200, passed in 2004, makes would-be voters prove their citizenship with a passport, birth certificate, or other federal ID, but poor and elderly citizens often lack such proof. One 97-year-old woman who cast her first vote for fdr in 1932 had to wage a nine-month campaign to regain her voting rights after relocating from Kentucky. Lawyer Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy Network, part of a coalition suing to disable Prop. 200, says activists are dubbing Arizona "the state of Darwinist democracy. If you've got the stamina and an insatiable desire, you just may be able to register and vote before you die."
Similar battles are playing out in Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Utah, and Indiana, which saw its ID law upheld by the US Supreme Court in April, despite evidence that up to 43,000 citizens lacked the necessary ID-including a dozen retired nuns turned away from the polls during primary season.
sleaze meter: 8 out of 10 Fighting fraud is just a pretext for "a purely partisan effort, " says Neil Bradley of the aclu's Voting Rights Project.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah.
Playing With Matches
Four states-Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and South Dakota-only let residents register if their Social Security or driver's license numbers can be matched with entries in a state database. If you register as "Bill" but the database says "William," or if a data-entry clerk sticks a typo in your name or birth date, tough luck.
sleaze meter: 3 Incompetence may be bipartisan, but critics argue that there will be more typos in the names of Hispanics, immigrants, and black women.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and South Dakota.
Prior Restraint
Felon disenfranchisement is the mother of all anti-suffrage tactics. When George W. Bush took Floridaby a few hundred votes in 2000, more than 600,000 state residents had been barred from voting because of prior offenses. Florida has since made it easier for some ex-felons to regain their rights, and several other states have tinkered with their laws. Even so, more than 5 million Americans will be unable to vote this fall because of felony records.
sleaze meter: 9 Because of disproportionate drug law enforcement, as many as 1 in 8 black men nationwide is excluded from the political process.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Florida.
Papeles, Por Favor
Starting in 2004, Sheriff Terry Johnson of North Carolina's Alamance County used county election rolls to investigate the citizenship of 125 voters with Hispanic-sounding names.
sleaze meter: 9 Even the current Justice Department told him to back off.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in North Carolina.
Mom, I Wanna Come Home
In Statesboro, Georgia, citizens challenged the voting status of 900 Georgia Southern University students, claiming they weren't legal residents of the college town.
sleaze meter: 7 Using similar logic, local officials grilled 18 students from Elizabeth City State University, North Carolina, a historically black college, after they'd voted in a special election in the fall of 2007.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Georgia and North Carolina.
Armed and Dangerous
Kentucky Republicans have been challenging the voting status of black residents in a variety of ways for decades. In 2004, following a contentious gubernatorial election, a voter-advocacy group reported that party members had "planned and organized what they hoped would be a well-publicized effort to place white Republicans primarily at black Democratic polling places, ostensibly to protect against vote fraud."
sleaze meter: 11 "The appearance of people ostentatiously videotaping voters in line, or wearing official-looking uniforms, sometimes including sidearms, is another widely used tactic," notes sociologist Chandler Davidson.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Kentucky.
Counting Crows
In 2007, a group called the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (cera) unsuccessfully sued the state of Montana, arguing that polling places should be removed from the Crow Indian Reservation to prevent fraud. Native Americans in other states have also reported intimidation; allegations include gop poll workers copying down license plate numbers and following voters home.
sleaze meter: 9 From a cera dispatch: "When a separate government controls one minority, and its individual minority (Native American) voters can be coerced into bloc voting, that minority becomes a renegade 'swing' vote."
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Montana.
When a Robo Calls
Malicious robo-calls during the 2006 congressional elections sent would-be voters to the wrong locations or harassed them at all hours. In California's 50th District, residents got late-night calls that seemed to be from Democrat Francine Busby; when people hung up, the computer redialed up to 14 times. (Busby lost.) Expect more of the same in November: "The price point has decreased so that anyone can set up these calls from their basement," says robo-call watchdog Shaun Dakin.
sleaze meter: 10 Does the expression "ratfucking" ring a bell?
Leave a comment about voting conditions in California.
Political Hacks
High-tech voting continues to wreak havoc across the country. Monitors expect huge lines this November in Ohio's poorer precincts, some of which have bounced from one flawed technology to another; voters in Cuyahoga County will be on their fourth system since 2004, notes Dan Tokaji, an associate law professor at the Ohio State University. In 2006, touch-screen machines in Sarasota, Florida, came up 18,000 votes short during a congressional race that was decided by fewer than 400 votes. In 2007, University of California researchers successfully hacked into three state-sanctioned e-voting systems, compelling election officials to abandon the pricey machines. And during this year's gop primary, e-voting machines failed in 80 percent of the precincts in South Carolina's Horry County.
sleaze meter: 4 Voting experts largely agree that poor neighborhoods fare worse in the face of such meltdowns.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in California, Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina.
Weapons of Mass Mailing
The Jim Crow-era trick known as "caging" has been revived by 21st-century gop operatives. Mass mailings go out to low-income areas, and if a letter is returned as undeliverable, the party uses it to challenge that voter's eligibility. Besides intimidating voters, the challenges create mayhem at polling stations. Caging has been reported in Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, among others.
sleaze meter: 9 Measures to outlaw the practice have never made it out of committee in Congress.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Sasha Abramsky is the author of a Ford Foundation report on the nation's voting infrastructure due out this month.
http://motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/11/outfront-10-ways-to-steal-an-election.html
From caging to robo-calls, a MoJo field guide to vote-blocking tactics.
Sasha Abramsky
October 20, 2008
Tactics to deny Americans the right to vote are as old as, well, the right to vote. Democrats have been at fault in the past-take the literacy tests Southern states used to deprive blacks of their suffrage from the Civil War up through 1965. Today's shenanigans-which still target minorities and vulnerable first-time voters-are more often designed to stifle Democratic turnout, perhaps never more than in 2008. "This is obviously an important election, and the turnout may break records," says Rice University sociologist Chandler Davidson, who has studied vote suppression, "so there is every reason to expect these tactics will be employed."
Card the Centenarian
Arizona's Proposition 200, passed in 2004, makes would-be voters prove their citizenship with a passport, birth certificate, or other federal ID, but poor and elderly citizens often lack such proof. One 97-year-old woman who cast her first vote for fdr in 1932 had to wage a nine-month campaign to regain her voting rights after relocating from Kentucky. Lawyer Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy Network, part of a coalition suing to disable Prop. 200, says activists are dubbing Arizona "the state of Darwinist democracy. If you've got the stamina and an insatiable desire, you just may be able to register and vote before you die."
Similar battles are playing out in Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Utah, and Indiana, which saw its ID law upheld by the US Supreme Court in April, despite evidence that up to 43,000 citizens lacked the necessary ID-including a dozen retired nuns turned away from the polls during primary season.
sleaze meter: 8 out of 10 Fighting fraud is just a pretext for "a purely partisan effort, " says Neil Bradley of the aclu's Voting Rights Project.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah.
Playing With Matches
Four states-Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and South Dakota-only let residents register if their Social Security or driver's license numbers can be matched with entries in a state database. If you register as "Bill" but the database says "William," or if a data-entry clerk sticks a typo in your name or birth date, tough luck.
sleaze meter: 3 Incompetence may be bipartisan, but critics argue that there will be more typos in the names of Hispanics, immigrants, and black women.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and South Dakota.
Prior Restraint
Felon disenfranchisement is the mother of all anti-suffrage tactics. When George W. Bush took Floridaby a few hundred votes in 2000, more than 600,000 state residents had been barred from voting because of prior offenses. Florida has since made it easier for some ex-felons to regain their rights, and several other states have tinkered with their laws. Even so, more than 5 million Americans will be unable to vote this fall because of felony records.
sleaze meter: 9 Because of disproportionate drug law enforcement, as many as 1 in 8 black men nationwide is excluded from the political process.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Florida.
Papeles, Por Favor
Starting in 2004, Sheriff Terry Johnson of North Carolina's Alamance County used county election rolls to investigate the citizenship of 125 voters with Hispanic-sounding names.
sleaze meter: 9 Even the current Justice Department told him to back off.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in North Carolina.
Mom, I Wanna Come Home
In Statesboro, Georgia, citizens challenged the voting status of 900 Georgia Southern University students, claiming they weren't legal residents of the college town.
sleaze meter: 7 Using similar logic, local officials grilled 18 students from Elizabeth City State University, North Carolina, a historically black college, after they'd voted in a special election in the fall of 2007.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Georgia and North Carolina.
Armed and Dangerous
Kentucky Republicans have been challenging the voting status of black residents in a variety of ways for decades. In 2004, following a contentious gubernatorial election, a voter-advocacy group reported that party members had "planned and organized what they hoped would be a well-publicized effort to place white Republicans primarily at black Democratic polling places, ostensibly to protect against vote fraud."
sleaze meter: 11 "The appearance of people ostentatiously videotaping voters in line, or wearing official-looking uniforms, sometimes including sidearms, is another widely used tactic," notes sociologist Chandler Davidson.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Kentucky.
Counting Crows
In 2007, a group called the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (cera) unsuccessfully sued the state of Montana, arguing that polling places should be removed from the Crow Indian Reservation to prevent fraud. Native Americans in other states have also reported intimidation; allegations include gop poll workers copying down license plate numbers and following voters home.
sleaze meter: 9 From a cera dispatch: "When a separate government controls one minority, and its individual minority (Native American) voters can be coerced into bloc voting, that minority becomes a renegade 'swing' vote."
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Montana.
When a Robo Calls
Malicious robo-calls during the 2006 congressional elections sent would-be voters to the wrong locations or harassed them at all hours. In California's 50th District, residents got late-night calls that seemed to be from Democrat Francine Busby; when people hung up, the computer redialed up to 14 times. (Busby lost.) Expect more of the same in November: "The price point has decreased so that anyone can set up these calls from their basement," says robo-call watchdog Shaun Dakin.
sleaze meter: 10 Does the expression "ratfucking" ring a bell?
Leave a comment about voting conditions in California.
Political Hacks
High-tech voting continues to wreak havoc across the country. Monitors expect huge lines this November in Ohio's poorer precincts, some of which have bounced from one flawed technology to another; voters in Cuyahoga County will be on their fourth system since 2004, notes Dan Tokaji, an associate law professor at the Ohio State University. In 2006, touch-screen machines in Sarasota, Florida, came up 18,000 votes short during a congressional race that was decided by fewer than 400 votes. In 2007, University of California researchers successfully hacked into three state-sanctioned e-voting systems, compelling election officials to abandon the pricey machines. And during this year's gop primary, e-voting machines failed in 80 percent of the precincts in South Carolina's Horry County.
sleaze meter: 4 Voting experts largely agree that poor neighborhoods fare worse in the face of such meltdowns.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in California, Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina.
Weapons of Mass Mailing
The Jim Crow-era trick known as "caging" has been revived by 21st-century gop operatives. Mass mailings go out to low-income areas, and if a letter is returned as undeliverable, the party uses it to challenge that voter's eligibility. Besides intimidating voters, the challenges create mayhem at polling stations. Caging has been reported in Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, among others.
sleaze meter: 9 Measures to outlaw the practice have never made it out of committee in Congress.
Leave a comment about voting conditions in Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Sasha Abramsky is the author of a Ford Foundation report on the nation's voting infrastructure due out this month.
http://motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/11/outfront-10-ways-to-steal-an-election.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 9, 2008
Last month, when the U.S. Treasury Department allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, I wrote that Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, was playing financial Russian roulette. Sure enough, there was a bullet in that chamber: Lehman's failure caused the world financial crisis, already severe, to get much, much worse.
Paul Krugman's Blog is called "Conscience of a Liberal"
The consequences of Lehman's fall were apparent within days, yet key policy players have largely wasted the past four weeks. Now they've reached a moment of truth: They'd better do something soon." in fact, they'd better announce a coordinated rescue plan this weekend," or the world economy may well experience its worst slump since the Great Depression.
Let's talk about where we are right now.
The current crisis started with a burst housing bubble, which led to widespread mortgage defaults, and hence to large losses at many financial institutions. That initial shock was compounded by secondary effects, as lack of capital forced banks to pull back, leading to further declines in the prices of assets, leading to more losses, and so on," a vicious circle of deleveraging. Pervasive loss of trust in banks, including on the part of other banks, reinforced the vicious circle.
The downward spiral accelerated post-Lehman. Money markets, already troubled, effectively shut down. one line currently making the rounds is that the only things anyone wants to buy right now are Treasury bills and bottled water.
The response to this downward spiral on the part of the world's two great monetary powers: the United States, on one side, and the 15 nations that use the euro, on the other , has been woefully inadequate.
Europe, lacking a common government, has literally been unable to get its act together; each country has been making up its own policy, with little coordination, and proposals for a unified response have gone nowhere.
The United States should have been in a much stronger position. And when Mr. Paulson announced his plan for a huge bailout, there was a temporary surge of optimism. But it soon became clear that the plan suffered from a fatal lack of intellectual clarity. Mr. Paulson proposed buying $700 billion worth of troubled assets, toxic mortgage-related securities, from banks, but he was never able to explain why this would resolve the crisis.
What he should have proposed instead, many economists agree, was direct injection of capital into financial firms: The U.S. government would provide financial institutions with the capital they need to do business, thereby halting the downward spiral, in return for partial ownership. When Congress modified the Paulson plan, it introduced provisions that made such a capital injection possible, but not mandatory. And until two days ago, Mr. Paulson remained resolutely opposed to doing the right thing.
But on Wednesday the British government, showing the kind of clear thinking that has been all too scarce on this side of the pond, announced a plan to provide banks with �£50 billion in new capital: the equivalent, relative to the size of the economy, of a $500 billion program here, together with extensive guarantees for financial transactions between banks. And U.S. Treasury officials now say that they plan to do something similar, using the authority they didn't want but Congress gave them anyway.
The question now is whether these moves are too little, too late. I don't think so, but it will be very alarming if this weekend rolls by without a credible announcement of a new financial rescue plan, involving not just the United States but all the major players.
Why do we need international cooperation? Because we have a globalized financial system in which a crisis that began with a bubble in Florida condos and California McMansions has caused monetary catastrophe in Iceland. We're all in this together, and need a shared solution.
Why this weekend? Because there happen to be two big meetings taking place in Washington: a meeting of top financial officials from the major advanced nations on Friday, then the annual International Monetary Fund/World Bank meeting Saturday and Sunday. If these meetings end without at least an agreement in principle on a global rescue plan; if everyone goes home with nothing more than vague assertions that they intend to stay on top of the situation, a golden opportunity will have been missed, and the downward spiral could easily get even worse.
What should be done? The United States and Europe should just say, "Yes, prime minister." The British plan isn't perfect, but there's widespread agreement among economists that it offers by far the best available template for a broader rescue effort.
And the time to act is now. You may think that things can't get any worse, but they can, and if nothing is done in the next few days, they will.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 9, 2008
Last month, when the U.S. Treasury Department allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, I wrote that Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, was playing financial Russian roulette. Sure enough, there was a bullet in that chamber: Lehman's failure caused the world financial crisis, already severe, to get much, much worse.
Paul Krugman's Blog is called "Conscience of a Liberal"
The consequences of Lehman's fall were apparent within days, yet key policy players have largely wasted the past four weeks. Now they've reached a moment of truth: They'd better do something soon." in fact, they'd better announce a coordinated rescue plan this weekend," or the world economy may well experience its worst slump since the Great Depression.
Let's talk about where we are right now.
The current crisis started with a burst housing bubble, which led to widespread mortgage defaults, and hence to large losses at many financial institutions. That initial shock was compounded by secondary effects, as lack of capital forced banks to pull back, leading to further declines in the prices of assets, leading to more losses, and so on," a vicious circle of deleveraging. Pervasive loss of trust in banks, including on the part of other banks, reinforced the vicious circle.
The downward spiral accelerated post-Lehman. Money markets, already troubled, effectively shut down. one line currently making the rounds is that the only things anyone wants to buy right now are Treasury bills and bottled water.
The response to this downward spiral on the part of the world's two great monetary powers: the United States, on one side, and the 15 nations that use the euro, on the other , has been woefully inadequate.
Europe, lacking a common government, has literally been unable to get its act together; each country has been making up its own policy, with little coordination, and proposals for a unified response have gone nowhere.
The United States should have been in a much stronger position. And when Mr. Paulson announced his plan for a huge bailout, there was a temporary surge of optimism. But it soon became clear that the plan suffered from a fatal lack of intellectual clarity. Mr. Paulson proposed buying $700 billion worth of troubled assets, toxic mortgage-related securities, from banks, but he was never able to explain why this would resolve the crisis.
What he should have proposed instead, many economists agree, was direct injection of capital into financial firms: The U.S. government would provide financial institutions with the capital they need to do business, thereby halting the downward spiral, in return for partial ownership. When Congress modified the Paulson plan, it introduced provisions that made such a capital injection possible, but not mandatory. And until two days ago, Mr. Paulson remained resolutely opposed to doing the right thing.
But on Wednesday the British government, showing the kind of clear thinking that has been all too scarce on this side of the pond, announced a plan to provide banks with �£50 billion in new capital: the equivalent, relative to the size of the economy, of a $500 billion program here, together with extensive guarantees for financial transactions between banks. And U.S. Treasury officials now say that they plan to do something similar, using the authority they didn't want but Congress gave them anyway.
The question now is whether these moves are too little, too late. I don't think so, but it will be very alarming if this weekend rolls by without a credible announcement of a new financial rescue plan, involving not just the United States but all the major players.
Why do we need international cooperation? Because we have a globalized financial system in which a crisis that began with a bubble in Florida condos and California McMansions has caused monetary catastrophe in Iceland. We're all in this together, and need a shared solution.
Why this weekend? Because there happen to be two big meetings taking place in Washington: a meeting of top financial officials from the major advanced nations on Friday, then the annual International Monetary Fund/World Bank meeting Saturday and Sunday. If these meetings end without at least an agreement in principle on a global rescue plan; if everyone goes home with nothing more than vague assertions that they intend to stay on top of the situation, a golden opportunity will have been missed, and the downward spiral could easily get even worse.
What should be done? The United States and Europe should just say, "Yes, prime minister." The British plan isn't perfect, but there's widespread agreement among economists that it offers by far the best available template for a broader rescue effort.
And the time to act is now. You may think that things can't get any worse, but they can, and if nothing is done in the next few days, they will.
People were worried that home prices have fallen.
But the housing crisis hit partly because housing prices
had gotten to high in relation to people's real incomes.
Don't wages have to come up?
I know, I know: "Employers can't afford to raise wages."
It seems like they'll never do it, and the last wage-increase
in Congress took NINE years!
How odd that no one even mentions that aspect
of the bailout and recovery.
But the housing crisis hit partly because housing prices
had gotten to high in relation to people's real incomes.
Don't wages have to come up?
I know, I know: "Employers can't afford to raise wages."
It seems like they'll never do it, and the last wage-increase
in Congress took NINE years!
How odd that no one even mentions that aspect
of the bailout and recovery.
Posts By Month
Posts
