Tuesday, September 23, 2003

This Dude Can Write. Just check out AccordionGuy.  I suck at wording together put backwards ass suckage compared to this guy. 11:36:12 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

When the Adults Are Away... David Adesnik might be out of his league, guest blogging on Volokh this week.  Setting aside the spelling errors we'll assume are typos, he proceeds with this quote: David on Volokh:  In a heartening display of unity, the NYT also made it sound as if Annan had nothing good to say about US foreign policy. But what about the following quote from his speech? As Annan said, there is an urgent need for the [Security] Council to regain the confidence of states and of world public opinion, both by demonstrating its ability to deal effectively with the most difficult issues and by becoming more broadly representative of the international community as a whole, as well as the geopolitical realities of today. The Council needs to consider how it will deal with the possibility that individual states may use force preemptively against perceived threats. Its members may need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorization of coercive measures to address certain types of threats; for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction. Wo-wo-whoa! Is Kofi Annan saying that the Security Council should consider authorizing pre-emptive action in certain cases? Sounds like it to me. You can also read it exactly the other way -- the Council needs to figure out how it's going to deal with individual states that use force preemptively.  Period.  There is nothing surprising about this: The Council can and has authorized the use of force in many situations.  Iraq's situation does not constitute pure preemption, either...the UN's been in there heavily for some time, and past offenses are well known.  Annan's point is that the Council needs to agree on use of preemptive force, and that to avoid a train wreck in the future (like the current situation), criteria need to be in place so the discussion doesn't degenerate or be unilaterally avoided by a member state's leadership (The Bush). 5:45:52 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Motives. THE HATRED SWELLS: "Please tell me, Andrew: why are you keeping track of Bush hatred? Are you on the administration’s payroll? Do you report those who are critical, make sure they don’t work in this town (America) ever again? There's nothing lower than a lapdog anyway, but a lapdog for the moral cretins that are the Bushies is a gutter-level low. Disgusting and pathetic. Yes, many of us "hate" Bush and company, and for precisely the reasons Susan Lenfesty mentions. We are on a metaphorical flight into a metaphorical building – and yes, somebody besides Bush can analogize 9/11 (although Bush doesn’t analogize 9/11, he explicitly cites it, and for political gain). It's absolutely repulsive the way people like you lay curled at the feet of this wanna-be dictator (his own words, bespeaking dreams) and bark at the ones who question him and his policies. Don't even begin to think that American casualties in Iraq keep any of them up at night. For these monsters, it's a harvest of souls...or, monster food." ALRIGHTY THEN: This email is not atypical of many I get about Bush. (And, of course, I've been plenty critical of some aspects of this administration, especially on fiscal and cultural matters). I just don't think Bush is maliciously intent on destroying the fabric of the country. In fact, I think the president has done a pretty good job of responding boldly to some of the gravest crises the country has ever faced. But the intensity of the desire to see him defeated - by whatever means and whoever benefits - is a real phenomenon. It's stronger and more widespread than the antipathy to Clinton in, say, 1996. It will propel the coming electoral cycle. I don't really think Bush is maliciously intent on destroying this country.  I think he is blindly, incompetently implementing policies designed by others that may result in that destruction.  I do not perceive him to be a strong leader.  I haven't seen a single speech, a single appearance, or a single document written by Bush that persuades me of his abilities.  We're supposed to take Bush's competence on faith, on the word of those who surround him.  They tell us he's really plugged in, that he really knows what's going on, and then they wrap themselves very quickly in the flag.  Bush's promotional appearance on Fox was fairly typical -- they spent a half hour playing up Bush's "regular guy" image, and succeeded brilliantly.  He's a regular guy, and spectacularly underequipped for the job. Bush's character should be driving the next election cycle.  The evidence out there right now is pretty bad -- when Clinton was in the re-election cycle, he was in a great economy, and things were going pretty well for the average guy.  Now they're not.  If the election cycle wasn't being driven by these issues, I'd be surprised.  With Clinton the Right went after him for "moral outrage", more or less.  In this election cycle, it's "economic outrage".  And baby, we all know that it's the Economy, Stupid. Bush is surrounded by people who either think the American population is too dumb to understand what they're doing, or they're being deliberately deceitful about their true motives.  Bush is responsible for his subordinates -- if they're doing it, he has to take the fall.  This is going to be a real tough election cycle for him.  He may win it, but it's going to be very bruising.  His Presidency is in tatters -- downward spiralling economy, pariah status in the international sphere, deep mistrust of him and his policies, and helping him through all this, when he needs the clearest advice he could possibly be getting, are people who, to a man (and woman), know that they are the ones really running the country.  I still remember the dinner I had before the 2000 election...there was a Republican election strategist there, day job running campaigns.  A few glasses of wine later, he said that he and his colleagues knew that Bush wasn't qualified, that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.  But he was their knife. He sure is. 2:21:17 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Fixing Electronic Voting. Interesting article on Slashdot about Electronic Voting...read through the links, especially this one.   It strikes me as incredible that the "technical" people writing these emails are engaged in such Mickey Mouse chatter, and so interested in just cranking out something, anything that will work.  I just don't see how electronic voting is really all that hard to engage in...as long as you have your priorities straight. There are two primary things we want to accomplish with EVotes -- first, we want to make the voting process easier to engage in.  Second, we want to make the counting process more efficient (less costly).  We would also like to reduce the error rate, to the extent that we are able. A touch screen voting interface, big and clear and nice, is exactly what we need to help walk people through the process.  We can't, though, rely on the software in these machines.  One read through the memos above should convince you as to why -- these people just have no idea what they're doing.  Basic?  Access databases?  Windows?  My god.  What this says to me is that we simply cannot get away from paper.  So what we want is a system that makes paper easier to use, leaves a paper trail for auditing and verification purposes, and provides ample opportunity for error checking by the voter and by election officials. We use the touch screen to answer questions.  At the end of the voting session, the system prints a "vote" and electronically tabulates the results.  The voter verifies that his printed vote matches what's on the tabulation screen.  The voter then folds his paper vote and deposits it with election officials in a good old fashioned ballot box. We can then use the electronic tabulation to check quickly on the results -- this is quite efficient.  We will also engage in a substantial amount of verification, by counting the paper votes by hand and verifying this against totals learned electronically.  The paper always wins, in this system.  We do not necessarily need to count all of the paper votes -- we can use random sampling. It seems like a win in both directions, for me.  Risks include unacceptable printout quality (printer wear), and insufficient random verification. 11:14:50 AM     | comment [] | trackback []