10/26/2004
Conspiracy Time Part II...
So, part I was about how the problems with out voting system were only made worse, not better, since 2000.
In addition to what I mentioned earlier we now have stories like the whole group of people who volunteered to help a county register new voters and then turned to be a team of moles trained to make sure only voters of their party got registered. The other applications went to the Great Heap.
What's part II then Kiki? I'm glad you didn't ask:
If: The gov't was well aware of the glaring problems in our election process (little thing called the 2000 Presidential Election).
And: They've done (in Ash's words) "Jack and Sh**" about it since
Then: There are only two explanations for this...
a) It was incompetence
b) It was intentional
I go with the latter. People make the mistake of thinking a conspiracy theory rests on a far flung network of folks working in concert. Not always. In fact, not usually. It's a few people or groups working independently towards the same goal, sometimes without even knowing it.
The two major parties don't want a fair, transparent system because then YOU CAN'T CHEAT. They've been cheating since before any of us were born (fact). Do you really think they want to stop now? So, when the chance comes to fix things (post 2000), they make sure to give the appearance of giving a damn while not doing a thing. It's not that the RNC and DNC have a secret phone line where they agree to bog down change, it's more like the poker player who doesn't point out the cards in the other guy's vest because that will bring up the ones in his own boots.
Could even politicians be that incompetent that they really tried to fix things and this is the result? How about campaign finance reform? McCain-Feingold made things worse for God's sake. Just look at the 527's. Whenever they try to fix something, it gets worse!!!
If our leaders are really that incompetent, we should start a revolution tomorrow (I would but I have work). That's where we're at friends. The fox watches the hen house while the farmer watches The O.C..
Good luck fixing all that.
|
So, part I was about how the problems with out voting system were only made worse, not better, since 2000.
In addition to what I mentioned earlier we now have stories like the whole group of people who volunteered to help a county register new voters and then turned to be a team of moles trained to make sure only voters of their party got registered. The other applications went to the Great Heap.
What's part II then Kiki? I'm glad you didn't ask:
If: The gov't was well aware of the glaring problems in our election process (little thing called the 2000 Presidential Election).
And: They've done (in Ash's words) "Jack and Sh**" about it since
Then: There are only two explanations for this...
a) It was incompetence
b) It was intentional
I go with the latter. People make the mistake of thinking a conspiracy theory rests on a far flung network of folks working in concert. Not always. In fact, not usually. It's a few people or groups working independently towards the same goal, sometimes without even knowing it.
The two major parties don't want a fair, transparent system because then YOU CAN'T CHEAT. They've been cheating since before any of us were born (fact). Do you really think they want to stop now? So, when the chance comes to fix things (post 2000), they make sure to give the appearance of giving a damn while not doing a thing. It's not that the RNC and DNC have a secret phone line where they agree to bog down change, it's more like the poker player who doesn't point out the cards in the other guy's vest because that will bring up the ones in his own boots.
Could even politicians be that incompetent that they really tried to fix things and this is the result? How about campaign finance reform? McCain-Feingold made things worse for God's sake. Just look at the 527's. Whenever they try to fix something, it gets worse!!!
If our leaders are really that incompetent, we should start a revolution tomorrow (I would but I have work). That's where we're at friends. The fox watches the hen house while the farmer watches The O.C..
Good luck fixing all that.
|
10/21/2004
Conspiracy Time Part I...
No, not my rapidly approaching favorite holiday but the dreaded presidential 'election.'
At this point it's readily apparent that we will have absolutely no idea who really wins this election. Think about...
-the rampant fraud we've seen thus far (in FL they were busted trying to disenfranchise people who turned out not be felons, people have been caught paying homeless to regiter/vote)
-the fact that our election process wouldn't qualify under international standards of what a fair election is
-the opinion (e.g. fact) that our technological savior from another Florida scenario is even scarier than hanging chads (many without a paper trail and it's been proven you can change vote counts with a mouseclick if you have the right access... people who work for private corporations have that access and we know how trustworthy they are)
-the code behind many voting machines is proprietary so we, the people, have no verification that it works much less that it's fair.
Again, we will have no accurate idea how the populace voted in this election. I know that sounds like hyperbole but it's true. We'll know that a lot of people voted for the loser and that a lot of other people voted for the other loser. That's it. Biased lawyers, technocrats, judges and other assorted swine will pick the next president in a winner take all game of 'Play dirty, act pious.'
Welcome to America 2.0
|
No, not my rapidly approaching favorite holiday but the dreaded presidential 'election.'
At this point it's readily apparent that we will have absolutely no idea who really wins this election. Think about...
-the rampant fraud we've seen thus far (in FL they were busted trying to disenfranchise people who turned out not be felons, people have been caught paying homeless to regiter/vote)
-the fact that our election process wouldn't qualify under international standards of what a fair election is
-the opinion (e.g. fact) that our technological savior from another Florida scenario is even scarier than hanging chads (many without a paper trail and it's been proven you can change vote counts with a mouseclick if you have the right access... people who work for private corporations have that access and we know how trustworthy they are)
-the code behind many voting machines is proprietary so we, the people, have no verification that it works much less that it's fair.
Again, we will have no accurate idea how the populace voted in this election. I know that sounds like hyperbole but it's true. We'll know that a lot of people voted for the loser and that a lot of other people voted for the other loser. That's it. Biased lawyers, technocrats, judges and other assorted swine will pick the next president in a winner take all game of 'Play dirty, act pious.'
Welcome to America 2.0
|
10/19/2004
This Week Will Be Brimming With Procrastination High...
It's like runner's high, except it comes from putting things off so long that it all hits critical mass. Suddenly you're facing a tidal wave of work. The tidal wave you ignored while playing on the beach. The roar got louder and louder but you told yourself it was nothing. Now you're looking up a 90 ft wall of water and every single drop has your name on it.
So you jump into a flurry of activity in hopes that your wild flailing will keep you afloat. We'll see. I've got the rest of this week to get four temps and 7,000 legal documents over to another building without negatively impacting the business. Proper planning time = two weeks. Kiki planning time = 0 minutes and counting.
|
It's like runner's high, except it comes from putting things off so long that it all hits critical mass. Suddenly you're facing a tidal wave of work. The tidal wave you ignored while playing on the beach. The roar got louder and louder but you told yourself it was nothing. Now you're looking up a 90 ft wall of water and every single drop has your name on it.
So you jump into a flurry of activity in hopes that your wild flailing will keep you afloat. We'll see. I've got the rest of this week to get four temps and 7,000 legal documents over to another building without negatively impacting the business. Proper planning time = two weeks. Kiki planning time = 0 minutes and counting.
|
10/13/2004
The Bank I Work For Has A Job Officially Known As 'Tickler Officer'
As you can imagine, this is a little disconcerting. Why would a major corporation with 50,000 employees need some to be Tickler Officers? What type of training does that involve anyway? How would you make that look good on a resume? The questions just don't stop.
|
As you can imagine, this is a little disconcerting. Why would a major corporation with 50,000 employees need some to be Tickler Officers? What type of training does that involve anyway? How would you make that look good on a resume? The questions just don't stop.
|
10/11/2004
There's A New Woman In My Life And Her Name Is Miss Packman...
Laura got me this wonderful, old fashioned, joystick and all video game. It has 5 old school games but the marquee one is Miss Packman.
This, for some reason, was THE game for quite sometime in the primitive 80's arcades. Maybe because it was the first sequel game of all time, who knows? Anyway, I've burned countless, and I do mean countless, hours sitting before this small, plastic idol.
I've taken long lunches, lost sleep and sat on the footstool until my back hurt. I almost threw it across the room today but it wouldn't survive such a trip.
She's been frustrating me of late but I got the 'current' last laugh today when I finally passed 70,000 points. 70,000 meaningless points. God I hope the batteries on this thing run out soon.
|
Laura got me this wonderful, old fashioned, joystick and all video game. It has 5 old school games but the marquee one is Miss Packman.
This, for some reason, was THE game for quite sometime in the primitive 80's arcades. Maybe because it was the first sequel game of all time, who knows? Anyway, I've burned countless, and I do mean countless, hours sitting before this small, plastic idol.
I've taken long lunches, lost sleep and sat on the footstool until my back hurt. I almost threw it across the room today but it wouldn't survive such a trip.
She's been frustrating me of late but I got the 'current' last laugh today when I finally passed 70,000 points. 70,000 meaningless points. God I hope the batteries on this thing run out soon.
|
10/07/2004
Dick Cheney's Disasterpiece Theater...
Dick Cheney was a very impressive man Tuesday night. He wanted to give the 'you need someone as smart and in control of things as me during these times' vibe and he did. He was going against an expert trial lawyer (boo, hiss) but he came off as the winner of a relatively close slugfest according to the pundits.
Then the floor vanished:
1. His biggest attack of the night was telling Edwards he's never seen him before (hint, you don't show up much at the Senate). It left Edwards, the supposedly slick lawyer looking like a dear in the headlights.
Problem: The media is having a field day showing multiple pictures and video of the two of them together.
Result: You just handed the other side a bat with three free swings.
2. He denied ever linking 9-11 type terrorism with Saddam. Now this gets into tricky semantics but, once again, the media is having a field day throwing his own video clips back at him.
Problem: He's on the defensive, the place he did a solid job of keeping Edwards in during the debate.
Result: Paired with #1 and 3, it looks bad.
3. After Edwards' predictable Halliburton attack, he responds by telling people to go to factcheck.com, a non-partisan site that proves he's innocent.
Problem: He meant to say .org and inadvertently sent 100 hits a minute to a virulent anti-Bush/Cheney website (short version of the story).
Other Problem: The website he meant to send people to puts up an article saying "Cheney and Edwards malign facts," specifically mentioning that Cheney's wrong in saying they exonerated him and he didn't even get their name right. Ouch.
Somebody did not do their homework for that night. Edwards was, of course, full of crap too (stop smiling like a freaking idiot dude) but Cheney handed him a free pass with his over the tops gaffs. This (Bush on Thursday and now this) is classic "Winning team fumbles and now we've got a game on our hands."
|
Dick Cheney was a very impressive man Tuesday night. He wanted to give the 'you need someone as smart and in control of things as me during these times' vibe and he did. He was going against an expert trial lawyer (boo, hiss) but he came off as the winner of a relatively close slugfest according to the pundits.
Then the floor vanished:
1. His biggest attack of the night was telling Edwards he's never seen him before (hint, you don't show up much at the Senate). It left Edwards, the supposedly slick lawyer looking like a dear in the headlights.
Problem: The media is having a field day showing multiple pictures and video of the two of them together.
Result: You just handed the other side a bat with three free swings.
2. He denied ever linking 9-11 type terrorism with Saddam. Now this gets into tricky semantics but, once again, the media is having a field day throwing his own video clips back at him.
Problem: He's on the defensive, the place he did a solid job of keeping Edwards in during the debate.
Result: Paired with #1 and 3, it looks bad.
3. After Edwards' predictable Halliburton attack, he responds by telling people to go to factcheck.com, a non-partisan site that proves he's innocent.
Problem: He meant to say .org and inadvertently sent 100 hits a minute to a virulent anti-Bush/Cheney website (short version of the story).
Other Problem: The website he meant to send people to puts up an article saying "Cheney and Edwards malign facts," specifically mentioning that Cheney's wrong in saying they exonerated him and he didn't even get their name right. Ouch.
Somebody did not do their homework for that night. Edwards was, of course, full of crap too (stop smiling like a freaking idiot dude) but Cheney handed him a free pass with his over the tops gaffs. This (Bush on Thursday and now this) is classic "Winning team fumbles and now we've got a game on our hands."
|
10/01/2004
The (Not So) Great Debate...
A radio show caller had an excellent point. Can you imagine a job interview where the candidates themselves get to decide on the rules, boundaries and questions (essentially)? Also, the employer has no say *whatsoever* in those decisions.
As someone who interviewes and hires people, I can say that'd be a pretty ridiculous way to pick somebody. It goes against all common and business sense. ThankGod I don't have to hire people that way. Instead, I'm just supposed to PICK THE LEADER OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH that way.
Does anyone else think our form of gov't, as intended, is now on the equivalent of life support?
Facts about the debate:
-It was sponsored by (drum roll) major corporations. As the ones ponying up the money, you better believe they had a say in things. But that's just conspiratorial craziness so don't let it bother you. The common sense definition of conflict of interest just doesn't apply here.
-The Commission on Presidential Debates is run by both major parties so the job applicants really are the ones setting the rules.
-Participants are forbidden from taking part in any other debates except those sanctioned by the CPD, because the two party strangle hold can never be tight enough.
-They can't ask each other questions because (both guys) "I'm strong enough to lead the free world, but not to take questions from my opponent"
-Candidates are forbidden from using notes, charts or other tools... Because we don't want to confuse the issues with facts!
Review of the Debate:
Kerry won, no question (although I didn't think by too much- pretty dull affair).
Kerry- Being a democrat, he was (of course) too wimpy. I thought there would be some real uppercuts and roundhouses in there but instead a few stiff jabs were the toughest he got. He plays scared even when he's on the attack. No fighter's instinct. I'm surprised the media is giving him the credit they are on aggressiveness.
Bush- There's a reason this man avoids unplanned questions and true press conferences like the plague. He took too long to answer, repeated himself way too much and looked almost Gore-like in his respones to Kerry's jabs. Worst of all though, he completely avoided answering some questions and would default to saying something he had said before (usually a Kerry quote).
So, one guy can't be aggressive enough for a debate, but he will be for a war?
The other can make real-time warfare decisions that affect millions, but not ones on how to answer a simple question?
Great.
|
A radio show caller had an excellent point. Can you imagine a job interview where the candidates themselves get to decide on the rules, boundaries and questions (essentially)? Also, the employer has no say *whatsoever* in those decisions.
As someone who interviewes and hires people, I can say that'd be a pretty ridiculous way to pick somebody. It goes against all common and business sense. ThankGod I don't have to hire people that way. Instead, I'm just supposed to PICK THE LEADER OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH that way.
Does anyone else think our form of gov't, as intended, is now on the equivalent of life support?
Facts about the debate:
-It was sponsored by (drum roll) major corporations. As the ones ponying up the money, you better believe they had a say in things. But that's just conspiratorial craziness so don't let it bother you. The common sense definition of conflict of interest just doesn't apply here.
-The Commission on Presidential Debates is run by both major parties so the job applicants really are the ones setting the rules.
-Participants are forbidden from taking part in any other debates except those sanctioned by the CPD, because the two party strangle hold can never be tight enough.
-They can't ask each other questions because (both guys) "I'm strong enough to lead the free world, but not to take questions from my opponent"
-Candidates are forbidden from using notes, charts or other tools... Because we don't want to confuse the issues with facts!
Review of the Debate:
Kerry won, no question (although I didn't think by too much- pretty dull affair).
Kerry- Being a democrat, he was (of course) too wimpy. I thought there would be some real uppercuts and roundhouses in there but instead a few stiff jabs were the toughest he got. He plays scared even when he's on the attack. No fighter's instinct. I'm surprised the media is giving him the credit they are on aggressiveness.
Bush- There's a reason this man avoids unplanned questions and true press conferences like the plague. He took too long to answer, repeated himself way too much and looked almost Gore-like in his respones to Kerry's jabs. Worst of all though, he completely avoided answering some questions and would default to saying something he had said before (usually a Kerry quote).
So, one guy can't be aggressive enough for a debate, but he will be for a war?
The other can make real-time warfare decisions that affect millions, but not ones on how to answer a simple question?
Great.
|
