Fixing Ohio's Voting System

Apparently we have 'security issues' with our electronic voting systems in Ohio. At least that's what our Secretary of State is telling us:

"It was worse than I anticipated," the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. "I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others."

At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers

***

Ok. Let's talk about this...are we after a system that is foolproof? Because I'd be willing to bet that no such system exists...after all, there will always be idiots who are willing to go to the extremes: theft of ballots, falsification of ballots, dead folks voting, people voting twice and perhaps the 'easiest' - bribery & payoffs.

Beyond that...we are talking about our neighbors. We are insinuating that our neighbors want to pervert our democracy! Because that's who works at your voting precinct. Not the big, bad people from 'the other party' - but your neighbors. The people who are out there in the morning sending kids off to school, that guy who mows his lawn in the diagonal pattern and that lady that baked cookies for the mailman - those people work in your voting precinct.

I won't speak for you - but I know my precinct volunteers. One of them lives down the street from me...she's a nice old lady. I don't believe for a minute that the thought of tampering with the card readers (or ballots, or lock boxes, or anything for that matter) has ever crossed her mind...or will ever cross it.

I trust my neighbors. I believe that they trust me. If you can't say the same...there isn't a voting security system in the world that can ally all of your fears. And I'm truly sorry for you.

Fixing Baseball by the Start of Spring Training

Commisioner Selig, Senator Mitchell and Players' Union Leader Donald Fehr were all on Capitol Hill today. The tone of today's committee meetings was nearly a complete 180 from the tone of the meetings three years ago; today's meetings were almost congratulatory in nature.

To be sure, MLB and the Players' Union have re-opened their collective bargaining agreement several times and Baseball now has the toughest anti-doping policy among all of the US & Canadian professional sports leagues. Cause for a pat on the back? Yes. Are they done? No.

Selig and Fehr want to put all the questions to rest before Spring Training opens in just over a month. Selig and Fehr have agreed to adopt many of Sen. Mitchell's recommendations outlined in his report. In his opening statement, Selig vowed to develop a program "to require top prospects for the major league draft to submit to drug testing before the (amateur) draft." Plus Fehr and Selig have reached an accord allowing for 'no advance warning' of drug testing at the ballparks. They went on record saying that it is MLB's goal to have those policies in place by Spring Training.

But to truly restore the image of Baseball after the black eye that it has given itself - the administration and monitoring of these anti-doping policies should be handed over to a trusted third party. This is something that Selig has so far resisted in interviews, saying that Baseball can 'handle this internally'. I'm calling BS; handling things internally is how we arrived at today's situation.

I say hand the testing and monitoring over to the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA); the USADA manages in- and out-of-competition testing for athletes in the U.S. Olympic Movement including Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic athletes. The USADA is experienced, it is trusted and the USADA is transparent. When it comes to restoring the luster of the game - letting the light in may be just what we need.

Senator Clinton Cried Today...

Ok, to be perfectly accurate, she had 'wet eyes'.

In any event I heard two stories on NPR today that, in my opinion, are related...and bode poorly for our country.

The story about Senator Clinton becoming emotional after being asked by Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer, "...how do you do it? [...] How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

Sen. Clinton replied that, "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards." She said this with a tremble in her voice and a tear in her eye.

The second story was actually earlier in the day, but the piece on Senator Clinton sets the stage well for it. The story was on NPR's Talk of the Nation and was discussing, among other topics "Political Branding". One of the points made by the panelists was that after Gov. Huckabee's and Sen. Obama's won the Iowa Caucus, the other candidates were seeking to change their brand and messaging'. Many callers wanted to know what I was thinking - aren't they really just saying whatever people want to hear?

Which brings us back to Senator Clinton, today; she was one of the 're-branders' mentioned in the Talk of the Nation discussion. Specifically, she's re-branding herself to be more in line with what Obama is saying. Nothing really shocking, there...he's doing well...she wants to be doing well. All good, right?

No. Not in my book. If she was actually as passionate about her message as she claimed today, she wouldn't change it. She would be stoked about her message....her goals...her vision. Instead, she's stoked about taking power. Lest anyone think that I am just bashing her - I'm not. John Edwards and Mitt Romney are also hopping on the 'change' bandwagon. To me, that says these folks care more about getting into office than they do about why they are getting into office.

Whether you like these candidates or not - there is a problem. Compounding that problem is a shortened (compressed) primary season and LOTS AND LOTS of money. When all is said and done, I'm concerned that we will have glossed over why we are picking candidates to run for President.

So...why are you?

Brought over from the old site - 8/3//06

In the 1960's & early 70's, NASA sent a series of missions to Mars (and Venus) under the Mariner program. Of the probes headed to Mars, Mariner 3 failed on launch, Mariner 4, 6 and 7 turned up craters. No Marianas Trench, no Olympus Mons, nothing...except a surface that looked like our moon. Then Mariner 8 had a second stage failure that ended the mission before it could ever reach Mars.

NASA just kept launching and looking. Then, Mariner 9 hit the jackpot. The valleys, the volcanoes what looked like ancient rivers....it was all there. Mariner 9 *is* the reason that kids, today, think they want to go to Mars.

Now think about our own times. If we had found nothing on 3 previous missions and had two failures, to boot, do you think that Congress would give NASA more funding to go on what is, to a casual observer, a wild goose chase? Would you be supportive of continued exploration in the face of these facts? What wonders still lie undiscovered simply because we gave up looking for them, too soon?

Brought over from the old site - 8/8//06

I was listening to the news, this morning, and heard that BP lost a fair chunk of its supply because of a corroded section of pipeline. Apparently it may take up to three months to repair.

It will be interesting to see, over those months, if BP's direct costs (buying oil, shipping it to refineries, etc.) go up. One would expect that the pipeline was being used because it was cost-effective. That being said, one would further expect that (normalizing for the quantity sold, of course) the cost of doing business (raw materials and shipping in particular) will rise and the profit margin will fall during this quarter. Perhaps not massively, but losing a pipeline that supplies 2% of all US oil consumption would certainly make a measurable impact.

Brought over from the old site - 8/21//06

What does it take to be a "good citizen" in a democracy? Following the laws? Sure. Voting? Yep. How about displaying the flag? Many people do that. One thing that I never hear mentioned, though, is talking about ideas. Fundamental to every decision making process in our nation is the discussion that precedes that decision. Knowing and understanding the various points of view that feed any debate is critical to arriving at the most ethical and mutually beneficial outcome. That understanding can only come from talking with our fellow citizens.

That said, too often we only converse with those that hold opinions similar to our own. Many of us view those that hold different views as "wrong", "our opponents" and "stupid". Think about the news, think about congressmen and women who have recently spoken about an issue, think about comments that you have made. Isn't it time that we start viewing each other as citizens, instead of opponents?

We would all do well to move outside of our comfort zone and talk with "those people". Find out why they think what they do. Tell them why you feel like you do. You may find that you agree on more than you think.

Brought over from the old site - 9/30/06

The two-party system that has come to be the norm for the United States has always been one of my least favorite aspects of our culture. It naturally polarizes groups of people, but recently that polarization has become more acute. Why is it that we feel that our views are unilaterally correct and our "opponents" are 100% wrong in all that they do? Such a position defies common sense, yet we cling to it. Do you ever ask yourself why that is? Do you ever ask anyone else?