Brin: New Ohio 'Jim-Crow' Law to Disenfrachise Voters
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1607In House Bill 3 has already passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is about to be approved by the Republican-dominated Senate, probably before the holiday recess. Republicans dominate the Ohio legislature thanks to a heavily gerrymandered crazy quilt of rigged districts, and to a moribund Ohio Democratic party. The GOP-drafted HB3 is designed to all but obliterate any possible future Democratic revival. Opposition from the Ohio Democratic Party, where it exists at all, is diffuse and ineffectual. HB3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and _makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio_. When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over. The GOP is ramming similar bills through state legislatures around the US, starting with Georgia and Indiana. The ID requirements in particular have provoked widespread opposition from newspapers such as the New York Times. The Times, among others, argues that the ID requirements and the costs associated with them, constitute an unconstitutional discriminatory poll tax. But despite significant court challenges, the Republicans are forcing changes in long-standing election laws that have allowed citizens to vote based on their signature alone. Across the US, GOP Jim Crow laws will eliminate millions of Democratic voters from the registration rolls. In swing states like Ohio, such ballots are almost certain to be crucial. The proposed Ohio law will demand a valid photo ID or a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck or a government document with a current address. Thousands of Ohio citizens who are elderly, homeless, unemployed or who do not drive will be effectively disenfranchised. Many citizens, for example, rent apartments where the utilities are paid by landlords. In such cases, the number of people living in utilities-included apartment rentals could actually determine an election. ... HB3 will also reduce voter rolls by ordering county boards of elections to send cards to registered voters every two years. If a card comes back as undelivered, the voter must rely on a provisional ballot. But tens of thousands of provisional ballots were arbitrarily discarded in 2004, and some 16,000 are known to remain uncounted to this day. HB3 also imposes severe restrictions on voter registration drives. It allows the state attorney-general and local prosecutors wide powers to prosecute vaguely defined charges of fraud against those working to sign up voters. The restrictions are clearly meant to chill the kind of Democratic registration drives that brought hundreds of thousands of new voters to the polls in 2004 (even though many were turned away in Democratic wards due to a lack of voting machines). Those electronic machines will also be exempted from recounts by random sampling, even in close, disputed elections like those of 2000 and 2004. ... The federal General Accountability Office (GAO) has recently issued a major report confirming that tampering with and manipulating such machines can be easily done by a very small number of people. Charges are widespread that this is precisely what gave George W. Bush Ohio's electoral votes, and thus the presidency, in 2004, not to mention the suspicious referenda outcomes in 2005. HB3 will make it virtually impossible for any challenge to be mounted involving any votes cast or counted on electronic machines or tabulators---meaning virtually every vote cast in Ohio. Indeed, HB3 will raise the cost of mounting a recount from $10 per precinct to $50 per precinct. ... Such an effort might also result in official retaliation. In 2004, Blackwell and Ohio Attorney-General Jim Petro---both of whom are now Republican candidates for governor---tried to impose stiff financial sanctions against attorneys who filed a legal challenge to the seating of the Ohio electors who gave George W. Bush the presidency. The Ohio Supreme Court disallowed the sanctions after the challenge was withdrawn. But HB3 would make such a federal election challenge illegal altogether. -- Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued _1206.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Fruit
I am going to agree with Julia here and finish my response to Dan about Iraq. On 12/7/05, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, would it have anything to do with the energy companies in question having helped write the deregulation legislation in CA? (Doug?) Julia possibly about to regret getting into this Yeah, I regret getting back into the Iraq part. I am not sure what you mean here. Which of my statement are you denying or feel my views are incorrect. That most of the Cheney team - shorthand - did not plan for years to take over Iraq? The strongest paper that I saw at the project for a new American Century suggested that we actively support a rebellion in Iraq...up to the point of preventing a slaughter if the Republican guards attacked the rebellion. There was a seperate report that supposes or proposes that a new Pearl Harbor would galvanize Americans toward their goals. You seem to be unaware of Wolfowitz presenting a proposal before Congress calling for the invasion of Iraq's Southern oil fields in 1998 purely for the oil for the US. Wolfowitz long advocated for the Iraq invasion, partly on the basis that Saddam Hussein controlled a lot of the world's oil. In 1998, he advocated the creation of a liberated zone in Southern Iraq, and the creation of a provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes, in testimony before Congress. Saddam's supporters in the Security Council—in particular France and Russia—would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq. The neo-cons were interested in Iraq for oil, not as a commercial product but as a strategic commodity. There has been a series of reports with the usual suspects names on them advocating this precise policy since not the 90's but since the 70's. That Cheney did not meet with the oil company executives before the war began to divvy up oil contracts for Iraq? I don't think that happened. OK i already answered this part of Dan's incredible post earlier by citing 3 domestic reputable sources, two Bush administration officials and the BBC and providing links to the maps. I also provided four books titles .No response from him, but moving on... That the CPA was intent on securing American long term contracts? The members of the CPA were mainly concerned with bugging out. snip An independent groups that monitors UN foreign policy issues has a large collection of news articles on US contracts in Iraq. They start with This report, by the Institute of Policy Studies, investigates the revolving door between the Bechtel Group and the Reagan administration that drove US policy towards Iraq in the 1980s. The authors argue that many of the same actors are back today, justifying military action against Iraq and waiting to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction. and continue... The Bush administration has added to the profound international divisions surrounding the US war against Iraq by deciding to invite only American companies to bid on contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Several of the companies that have been invited to bid have important connections to the Bush administration, the Republican Party, and the Pentagon. (New York Times) Richard Perle's resignation as chairman of the Defense Policy Board raises questions about US economic involvement in postwar Iraq. According to a report by the Center for Public Integrity, at least 10 of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board are executives or lobbyists with companies who have contracts with the US Defense Department and other government agencies. (Guardian) According to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years. Two members of Congress have asked the General Accounting Office to investigate how the Bush administration is awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. (New York Times) Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary received Iraqi oil field contracts without competitive bidding... Bechtel Group won the contract to rebuild Iraq without open competitive bidding A contract to improve Iraq's public health system was awarded to a research and consulting firm, Abt Associates Inc, from MassachusettsHalliburton's KBR, closely linked to Vice President Dick Cheney, was given exclusive contracts in Iraq, including renovating presidential palace to be used by the US. The company was also given the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program that will set up, cater to and care for the
'The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, '
The Nobel Prize in Literature 2005 who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture Excerpts I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s. The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.' Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch. Innocent people, indeed, always suffer. Finally somebody said: 'But in this case innocent people were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?' Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said. As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply. I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.' The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution. The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated. The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador. I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships. Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief
Re: Alternate energy and prices
At 11:07 PM Wednesday 12/7/2005, Dan Minette wrote: I was thinking about the claim that I discount the feasibility of alternate energy sources such as ethanol, wind, and solar power, because I'm so biased by what pays the bills. If that is true, wouldn't the facts start to contradict me? For example, ethonal has been highly subsidized by the government for years. But, with crude oil prices going up from the 10-20 dollar range in the 90s to the 50-60 dollar range this year, why isn't ethonol now cheaper than gasoline? (I actually think I know the answer to this, and it's very ironic). Well, then, don't keep the rest of us in the dark . . . (In the dark. Get it? :P ) -- Ronn! :) Someone asked me to change my .sig quote, so I did. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate energy and prices
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:03 AM Subject: Re: Alternate energy and prices At 11:07 PM Wednesday 12/7/2005, Dan Minette wrote: I was thinking about the claim that I discount the feasibility of alternate energy sources such as ethanol, wind, and solar power, because I'm so biased by what pays the bills. If that is true, wouldn't the facts start to contradict me? For example, ethonal has been highly subsidized by the government for years. But, with crude oil prices going up from the 10-20 dollar range in the 90s to the 50-60 dollar range this year, why isn't ethonol now cheaper than gasoline? (I actually think I know the answer to this, and it's very ironic). Well, then, don't keep the rest of us in the dark . . . The production of ethonol is highly energy dependant. There are arguement over whether there is a small gain in energy by using ethonol or whether inefficiencies in the process result in more energy being used to produce a gallon of ethonol than is available in a gallon of ethonol. As a result, the cost of ethonal is closely tied to the price of fossil fuels. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate energy and prices
At 09:39 AM Thursday 12/8/2005, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:03 AM Subject: Re: Alternate energy and prices At 11:07 PM Wednesday 12/7/2005, Dan Minette wrote: I was thinking about the claim that I discount the feasibility of alternate energy sources such as ethanol, wind, and solar power, because I'm so biased by what pays the bills. If that is true, wouldn't the facts start to contradict me? For example, ethonal has been highly subsidized by the government for years. But, with crude oil prices going up from the 10-20 dollar range in the 90s to the 50-60 dollar range this year, why isn't ethonol now cheaper than gasoline? (I actually think I know the answer to this, and it's very ironic). Well, then, don't keep the rest of us in the dark . . . The production of ethonol is highly energy dependant. There are arguement over whether there is a small gain in energy by using ethonol or whether inefficiencies in the process result in more energy being used to produce a gallon of ethonol than is available in a gallon of ethonol. As a result, the cost of ethonal is closely tied to the price of fossil fuels. That was what I thought. -- Ronn! :) Someone asked me to change my .sig quote, so I did. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
