Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Quebecois Deux

I got a reply for my last post “Quebecois” from a friend of mine; he raised some very good points so I felt I had to respond. Kudo’s Andrew!

The metaphor that Quebec is a colicky child is an apt one. Every time the question of sovereignty is defeated by referendum it is put on the back burner until politicians both old and young can viably resurrect it. The difference in opinion that you and I have on this issue is I am a realist and you are admittedly an idealist. You speak of us (the French and the Anglos) as Canadians collectively, that have to tough it out and find some sort of compromise. Well I tell you that the only one doing the bending is the Anglos. Case is point: When the Charter of rights and Freedoms was voted on and enacted in 1982 under the Constitution Act, all the provinces and territories voted except one. Quebec abstained. Interestingly enough, the only two times in history that the notwithstanding clause from section 33 of the Charter was used since the enactment was once by Saskatchewan (to prevent third party picketing, I believe) and once by Quebec (to support their language police and French first policies), this notwithstanding clause has a time limit of 5 years, yet every time the limit has expired it has been renewed. Quebec didn’t want the Charter, yet it uses the Charter to further it’s own ends. Quebec has a history of using Canada to further it’s own ends.

If the rest of Canada treats Quebec irrationally, then I say it is because Quebec treats us irrationally. It is our reaction to playing the exhaustive game of diplomacy. If you examine the situation, there is only one party that is actively seeking to undermine the relationship between Canada and Quebec and that is Quebec. The rest of Canada has already swallowed much of its pride in an effort to appease the French. I ask you, what is your second language? Indeed what is the second language of any Canadian outside of Quebec? If your native born to Canada, chances are your second language is French. The only ego left in this country resides in the Quebecois and it is their agenda that drives this country.

That being said, I don’t resent having to have learned French when I was in school, indeed I pursued it of my own accord after I left. I think the French have a lot to offer in the way of culture and we Canadians have definitely benefited from having a more European slant on the world. What I do resent is having made the gesture, as all Anglos have, is to have it spit back in our face. Like what we are doing is not good enough. That is disrespect plain and simple. Work with the French I will, work for the French I will not.

Sunday, March 27, 2005


The Americans don’t like the French this much is plain. Freedom Fries and Freedom Kisses, that’ll show them. I think though that those of the United States of Jesusland don’t have the right to complain. After all are the French on the verge of tearing their country apart? This is a real threat from our neighbours to the East. The last election has given the Bloc a solid majority in their belle province. They outnumber the NDP for seats by a vast margin. One shudders to think. With the election the separatist movement has raised its ugly head again.

Why are they so fired up to tear asunder our confederation? It isn't like we beat Quebecers or pelt them with rotten fruit when they walk down the street, lock them in closets when we hear them speak en francais. We do none of these things. In fact we struggle, we the tres stupide anglais, to learn their frustrating language, with their baffling gender designations for inanimate objects and equally confusing myriad of conjugated verbs, where the only rule is that there is definitely not just once exception, but two or three

The politicians seduce the younger generation with lies of a better life as a sovereign country. Aren't they sovereign in all but name anyhow? Quebec is Canada's tantrum-throwing child, the one that screams in the malls when he doesn't get what he wants, and Canada plays the part of the worried mother at the end of her rope, trying desperately to please Quebec, just to get him to shut up for....

But Quebec does not shut up; instead Quebec makes more and more outrageous demands. Quebec sets the tone of our country, holds itself up as an example to the world. In what other country could a rich and gifted people, grumble and threaten succession for the smallest disagreement. Alberta has followed Quebec’s lead, rattling its saber every time it disagrees with Ottawa. It is times like these that I envy how the US used to be. Not anywhere in the States prior to last November’s election would you hear of such talk of succession, it happened once, and they fought a war over it to keep the country united. It was called the Civil War. Such was the States resolve to keep together what was forged. I wonder if Canada has the same resolve. That was the problem from the beginning, Canada has coddled Quebec too much and it needs to stop. We should institute an open door policy, in proper Canadian fashion, those that want to leave Canada, can leave. Leave they will, but as a Canadian citizen I will not condone them taking one square foot of Quebec. As a citizen and a taxpayer, drawing upon a corporate vocabulary, I am a shareholder in Canada, thus a shareholder in Quebec as well. Does the will of a vocal minority prevail over the well being of a silent majority? Quebec is leading Canada down the road to chaos and dissolution with their selfishness. Quebec does not belong to Quebecers. Quebec belongs to Canada.

Landry said back in 2003 that sovereignty would be a reality in 2005. What Landry and most separatists fail to realize is that they are fighting the wrong people. Tell a separatist to go back to France and he or she will reply, "But we are not like the French from France." What makes the Quebecois so unique that they no longer feel apart of France? Could it be that they are French-Canadians? Could it be that the freedoms they've enjoyed and the culture they've assimilated makes them what they are today?

Sovereignty in 2005, indeed. I believe that soon after both economies collapse and our new official language will be...American.

Free Will vs. Fate

Well the premise is simple…

Free-will states that we make all of our own choices with no outside intervention whatsoever...while predestination states that all of our choices aren't really choices at all

Ok, so it starts like this...

Are you familiar with the Many Worlds Hypothesis (think Sliders)?

Many World Hypothesis states that for every choice or path a piece of matter or energy can make, it not only chooses one path but rather all paths. In choosing all paths, it causes the universe to split and in each universe the piece of said matter or energy takes and different path.

If we accept this hypothesis...

Every choice you make causes a split, a spin off go to Starbucks and have to choose between a cappuccino and a coffee, that causes a split.

In theory there are an almost infinite number of people.... each person in each universe a fully conscious being capable of making decisions. An infinite number of copies of you making an infinite number of decisions…get your head around that.


No one copy can make the exact same decision as another copy...if that were to happen then the split would cease and the universes would collapse back into one instead of two or more...not a bad thing necessarily...but I digress.

In any given situation, in any given place in space and time, there are an almost infinite number of choices for you to make, but I say almost infinite, because only the highly improbable can happen...not the impossible.

So to cut to the chase...

At any given moment you have an almost infinite number of people making an almost infinite number of decisions, but each decision that is used up is a path that cannot be used by you, the person in this universe. Thus it is other versions of you that are limiting your the choices you make aren't really choices at is process of elimination

The cap off to this discussion is...

Scientists don't know why we are conscious...they have no idea how to replicate consciousness...artificial intelligent experiments have failed...because it is not the complexity of a system that makes intelligence...there is something going on in our brains at the quantum level. It could mean that we are subconsciously and simultaneously aware of ALL are different selves thus we influence and are influenced by all of them.

Quantum theory explains the same thing as Many World's but on the subatomic scale.

Quantum Particle Theory: a particle can only take one path in this universe, but if a myriad of paths are available, then not only can they take it, they must take it. The particle does this through the Splitting into many versions. We don't see this because of something called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (briefly stated: you can know the speed, or the position of a particle...but never both at the same time...the act of observing the particle changes it's state). So the particle splits into many versions, fulfilling each path, but the act of observation collapses it back into one particle and one path, the path it took in this universe.

Particle physics, indeed physics of any kind requires an outside observer...the nature of our minds and consciousness makes it possible to collapse these possibilities into the single reality we experience.

Thus establishing the link between the nature of consciousness and quantum behaviour of particles. Applied on a larger scale to the Many World's hypothesis, also explains why we could have a link between our many different versions of ourselves, and how information can be passed between isolated universes.

So the next time you play the lottery, even if you don’t win, take solace in the thought that many different versions of you did win all because you chose to play.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Jessica Marie Lunsford

She was found after more than three weeks after she was snatched from her bedroom. She was found only 150 yards from her home.

What have we learned from this? That the people you need to watch are the people in your neighbourhood that see your kids everyday and have their schedules nailed down to a T. Any predator who hunts other people must be in a position to watch people and places. No predator wants to get caught so they'll hunt where they feel most comfortable, in their own backyard.

John Evander Couey was a 46 year old convicted child molester. A 46 year old piece of trash. Since he was a previous offender he probably thought that since he was weak once again he would go back to jail if she talked. So he did what any slow thinking neanderthal would do, he killed her, thinking his probelms would be solved.

He violated his probation by not telling officials that he was moving to that mobile home where he later snatched Jessica. It was as easy as that for him. Pick up and move and not tell anybody. Had he not killed anybody, how long would it have taken for anyone to notice that he violated his parole?

We need some common sense when paroling these high risk sexual offenders. These people are driven by the most basic of drives. If Catholic priests aren't immuned to these calls what makes these lowlife scum think they can resist? You can't expect to accept a pedophiles word that he will remain celebate because he (or she) has served their time. No amount of psychotherapy is going to quell those urges.

A viable solution? A twofold suggestion, first to microchip them with a GPS. That way their movements are tracked no matter where they go. If they remove the chip or jammed the reception, they immediately go back to jail. Second suggestion is chemical castration (or physical), get rid of the hormones that lead to these urges. They forfeited their rights to procreate when they decided that children were acceptable sexual surrogates. Chemical castration should be voluntary and felons that undergo the treatment should have their sentences reduced. Those that don't want to undergo it should get the maximum sentence (life preferably).

What happened to Jessica was a failure of the justice system. Sometimes serving your time isn't enough, there needs to be more focus on the "aftercare" when a felon gets out.

It's Dangerous being a North Korean

I was watching on CTV tonight about North Koreans being executed in front of a firing squad. Their crime? Trying to flee the country.

The North Korean government thinks it is a good idea to shoot these people to make an example out of them to prevent others from fleeing the country. Does anyone see the logic in this? You want your country men to stay so you kill them?

No doubt they were executed under the guise that they were committing some sort of treason. The type of treason that they would fear and loathe their own country so much that they would flee for their lives to escape i, not the kind that affects national security. There is something wrong with a government that has to exercise lethal force on those citizens that don't want to be there.

Many try to flee to China. If the Chinese authorities catch them they dpeort them back to North Korea, which is a virtual death sentence. China is no shining example of civil liberties itself, but to prefer fleeing to China over remaining in North Korea means that things are getting out of hand.

So why doesn't the US or the UN address this issue? They are concerned with NK abandoning their nuclear ambitions without giving thought to it's oppressed citizens. In a way, I hope NK rebuffs the six way talks and the US is left with no choice but to invade and overthrow their government. I doubt that it would happen though, because unlike Iraq the NK military has some serious weapons backing it up and even if they don't have many nuclear weapons yet (1 and counting), they could still manufacture dirty bombs and ionize thousands of US troops at a time (while inflicting even greater casualties among its own civilians, but as we have seen, the NK government doesn't care about it's citizens).

And last I checked, NK doesn't have any oil.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The Right to Choose

It amuses me to no end to watch anti-abortion protesters, especially the men. A man who demands that we outlaw abortions and “save the children” is a man who does not know what the fuck he is about. An old saying is “ walk a mile in another’s shoes” is certainly appropriate. Until a man is forced to bear an unwanted child to term he cannot in good conscience prevent a termination. If a man is in a relationship with a woman and she wants to terminate the birth then the man has only one thing to say “Yes Dear”. If he was so keen on having offspring then he should be with a like-minded woman and stay the hell out of other women’s business. That being said a woman shouldn’t take precedence over a man if the man doesn’t want the child and never intended to have one. Women from time memorial have used the “baby” trap to ensnare a man. A woman, who wants to have a kid, should find a like-minded man, or be willing to give up claim on that man’s earnings. I think both a man and a woman should have the right to choose an abortion.

There is little basis to argue against the morality of abortion. The bible is mostly silent on the issue. The passages that are present regard the fetus as less than a full human. “Consecrate your firstborn unto me…” ring a bell? Remarkably, the most virulent opponents of abortion are the churches themselves. But the church has a history of opposing the wrong things. Like for instance, evolution, the heliocentric view of the solar system, the fact that the earth is round. It is more about control than about saving lives.

I’ve adopted a term for the pro-life group; I refer to them as pro-birth. The reason I refer to them as such is because they only care that the fetus makes it out of the woman’s body and after that it is no longer their problem. They seek to take away a woman’s options and offer no viable alternatives themselves. If they have their way, women will once again be at the mercy of men and all of the equalities they’ve fought for will vanish one by one. Why? The only reason women can sustain the freedoms they’ve gained is because they can compete on the same scale as a man can. They don’t have to become a mother if they do not choose, they don’t have to take maternity leave and cripple their career. Taking away abortion (and birth control in general, as most pro-birthers are opposed to anything that interferes with fertilization) takes away that choice. It wouldn’t be long until woman were once again viewed as second class citizens that are only working till they get a husband and can remain at home to be barefoot and pregnant. It would be a step backwards.

So what viable alternative exists for abortion? A popular idea I like to espouse is force all pro-birthers to adopt two unwanted children each. To make them take responsibility for the children that they are forcing women to bear into this world. Of course they would say that the pregnant women weren’t taking responsibility by having sex. I say to them, that these women are taking responsibility by having abortions. The alternative is to become a single mother and draw upon state welfare to supplement her income, or to give her child up for adoption after bearing it for 9 months, hardly a fulfilling prospect. Abortion isn’t an easy choice, not by any stretch of the imagination. To think otherwise is just ignorant.

So to return to my point, what is a viable option to abortion? Perhaps we should force the man and woman to take responsibility? Hardly makes for good parenting, does it? An unwanted child doesn’t just ruin one life, it ruins three lives. In fact I wouldn’t think it would be to far a stretch that people should be licensed to have children. If you’re not emotionally, mentally and financially ready to have kids you should be chemically sterilized (temporarily, fully reversible) until you are. That would solve the abortion debate once and for all. It wouldn’t take much, the government could offer some tax incentives to encourage undergoing the process and when you do have kids you get the child tax breaks. Would people consider that an infringement on their rights? I think it would be freeing. The religious right could no longer proselytize about the promiscuousness of the younger generation (ok I lied they’ll always bitch about that), but the issue of irresponsibility would be forever put to rest. You don’t have a kid until you get licensed.

Robert Blake

Robert Blake just got acquitted on his wife’s murder. So the jury doesn’t think he did it. I’ve lost my faith in jury’s. OJ is still walking around today and they still haven’t “caught” the guy who did it. Incidentally didn’t OJ say he wouldn’t rest until the real killer was caught? He must be hunting all over the golf course for this guy.

This is how much jury’s suck. A friend of mine had jury duty and almost all of the jurists were in favour of convicting this guy when my friend spoke up and said, “Hold up!” The evidence presented didn’t really lend credence to convicting the guy, but some brainiacs on the jury said they were going to convict solely on the basis that the prosecutor said the evidence was good enough and the guy was guilty. Hello, he is a prosecutor that is his fucking job to say that the defendant is guilty. He wouldn’t be a good prosecutor if he said that he had a shitty case now would he? Your job as a jurist is to examine the evidence and make a critical decision as to whether the defendant is guilty or not. Yes it takes some brainpower, but you should make the effort because you would want another jury to take the time and do the same for you if you were on trial. Thankfully my friend got the rest of them to think and argued for the evidence. The guy got off thanks to my friend, but he would’ve been convicted because the damn jury was too lazy to do their duty.

It brings up a good question though…if the police thought he did it, and the DA thought he did it and they are both wrong… who the hell killed Bonny Lee Bakley? In the space of time it took Robert to walk back into the restaurant to fetch a gun he “accidentally” left behind someone came along and popped a cap in his wife? Where are the other suspects then? Where are the motives? If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it is usually safe to say it is shit.

Mad Cow Conundrum

I just went grocery shopping.

It got me to wondering…Canada hadn’t been able to export beef to the US for over two years, but yet we still pay the same for beef now (adjusting for inflation) as we did before the ban began.

My question is, when a farmer sells a 500 pound cow for $1.80, how is it I’m still paying 20$ for a steak? Where is the supply and demand logic in that? Who exactly is fucking we the consumers and we the farmers? The meat packing plants? The retailers? Isn’t it price fixing if one or the other conspired together to keep beef prices high and make a killing (literally) in the meat market?

What should have happened is beef prices should have plummeted as farmers, meat packers and retailers tried to dump the excess beef, and other meats should have risen, as the demand for alternative sources of protein would have distributed the burden on them (the chickens, the pigs, the fish).

I remember reading awhile back that there was an inquiry into this, but so far no one has gone to jail, no blame was cast. Makes me wish sometimes that I were a vegetarian.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Good Quote

"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously."

-Galen Strawson, British philosopher, literary critic.

Dems and Libs Pay Heed

The divide in America is painfully clear. Republicans snipe at Democrats over every little thing and the Democrats retaliate in kind. The Red-Blue divide has never been more prominent. What has also become painfully obvious is that the Republicans and their evangelical allies hold the upper hand.

Democrats need to withdraw and regroup, they need a new strategy, but most of all they need to lay low.

Here is the reason why: Republicans are right when they say that the constant finger pointing and cries of fraud will drive the mainstream away from the democratic party. Republicans will seize upon any reason to demonize the Democratic Party; it is imperative that you don’t give them one.

I, too, have read the theories and conspiracy tales of a stolen election and although compelling, none of them are definitive! Republicans won’t accept anecdotal evidence, or links from websites that are not mainstream. They will not read it, and they will laugh at you and tell you to get a tin foil hat.

I feel your frustration but there is a better way. Cease your public displays of bitterness and hatred towards Bush and his administration; many people interpret this as hatred against America. This means public protests, blogs, and on message boards especially. Do not insult Republicans or Christians even if they insult you. Show only courtesy and win them over with kindness.

Continue to fight the good fight, but do so quietly and under the radar. Without concrete evidence of voter fraud (something that will stand up in a court of law) then Bush is your president, like it or not. You can’t change that for another 4 years. Focus your energies either into finding that evidence (quietly) or on election reforms (which are desperately needed). You can’t fight the Republicans on their own level, they are masters at mudslinging and if you fight fire with fire, you will lose even more than you have already lost.

Instead you must work on developing a good defense. Take the high road, defend yourself from slander but make no accusations yourself. The truth, if it is on your side, will win out. Focus on being the best human being you can be, be selfless and giving. The little guy remembers the people that intercede on their behalf, and to have that gratitude can be very rewarding.

Do not oppose the Republicans for the sake of opposing them, chose your battles wisely and be damn sure you can win decisively. People remember victories not losses.

Do not be baited by Republicans, I cannot stress this enough. They want to draw you out so they can twist your words. Never get into a political argument with a republican, they cease to hear the moment you open your mouth.

Be hard on yourself and harder on your party, harder than even the republicans could be. Only by acknowledging mistakes and swiftly correcting them will you gain the people’s respect. No party is perfect, but at least you can say with all honesty that you are striving to be better and do better for the people. If a Democrat is guilty, hang them out to dry and don’t look back.

Good PR can carry the day. Do not focus on what the Republicans are doing wrong, rather focus on what you are doing right. The public gets enough negative slants from the media without the Democrats adding to it.

Look for compromise when you can. The Democrats are in no position to be demanding anything. There is a holy war going on make no mistake, and like it or not the Bush administration has dragged half the country along for the ride. By trying to work together you’ll be in a better position to salvage what is left after four years elapses.

Never lose focus of who you are and what you represent and never be ashamed to tell people when asked that you are a democrat. What you represent is a better tomorrow and a stronger united America and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

Essay to America

It has been several months since the election happened and still the taunting and the insults have not slowed down on either side. Republicans favourite words are lies, spin and bullshit, while democrat’s chant rings of liars, cheaters and stealers.

You’ve both lost sight of what made your country great. At one time America was a beacon of light for the rest of the world. America stood for freedom, stood up to those that would trample on the free world through force. America meant something.

Then 9/11 happened. That is the day that the cancer in the image of America began to grow. America become less about freedom and winning over enemies by being a living example to the world of what freedom and democracy could do and more about security and racial profiling, looking over their shoulders for terrorists who could be anywhere and were everywhere.

America had the sympathy of the world when 9/11 happened. You were a fallen comrade who the rest of us were only too honored to help out after all you’ve done for us. We didn’t question when you went into Afghanistan, indeed we went with you to bring a madman to justice. He eluded us all. That did nothing for your growing need for security.

America then fell to bickering amongst it’s own citizens, with the Democrats calling Republicans murderers, Republicans retuning the favour by labeling Democrats traitors. America, instead of bringing democracy through peace, began a plan to bring democracy at the end of the barrel of a gun. Forced democracy is no democracy at all. Remember how your democracy got started. Your early countrymen had such a hunger for freedom and liberation that they fought for democracy, not against it. It wasn’t forced on you; you adopted it of your own free will after your victory. It was that will to be free laid the foundation for great advances in civil liberties. The end of segregation, women’s rights, human rights, the end of discrimination, all lofty goals to aspire to and attain. It helped build your country’s reputation when other countries still didn’t know the meaning of the word liberty.

Today America is a country that stands divided against itself. Terror is on the verge of winning, ladies and gentleman. Not because terror has more guns or bullets, or men or martyrs, but because they have sullied the American dream and turned the greatest champions of freedom and liberty against it. America’s own citizens are now terror’s weapons.

Terrorists can never touch a happy and peaceful people. They only have power through fear. 9/11 was the vehicle and now America is infected with fear. Osama knew that he could never fight the American military machine, but he could trick the US into trying to stomp out terrorism worldwide, forcing them to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations. Osama always intended to embolden the Muslim population against the US and starting a war between the US and a Muslim country was just the way to do it. Some would say that there are more terrorist in training now then ever, because to the Muslim world, the US is perceived to be a threat to their way of life like never before.

When republicans call down democrats, when atheists deride Christians, when whites insult blacks, when gays heckle straights, you are showing the world that you are not united behind your country. Your intolerance towards each other speaks of even greater intolerance towards the rest of the world. Such intolerance also betrays the very foundations upon which your country was built. All personal issues about the election aside, you are all Americans. Deeper than that, before race, religion and political affiliation, you are human beings. Find your common ground again.

The National Debt

Seems that the US and many other countries are wrestling with debt. I am taking a course in income tax and it talks about three ways to eliminate debt, and the pros and cons of each.

Retire Debt: Issue enough money to pay off the entire debt.

Con: It will cause economy to collapse by runaway inflation.

Increase Taxes: Bring in more revenue to pay down the debt.

Con: The people might revolt.

Reduce Government Expenditures: Use the excess saved to pay down the debt.

Con: What programs get cut and do they have enough power to vote you out? The most vulnerable programs are for those people who do not have a voice.

It never mentions a fourth option. From what I gather, governments run up a deficit because they spend more than they bring in, so they have to borrow the balance from private banks at interest. A majority of tax revenue today goes to maintaining interest payments. It is the single biggest expense.

My idea is simple. Restrict a government’s ability to borrow. If a government needs more money for a project it should ask the people it taxes for the money, not borrow it. Unpopular programs would never receive funding, as often a government will borrow the money to fund something just because they don't want to be held accountable. The government borrows money from banks based on our ability to pay, so shouldn't we have a say? Governments should only be allowed to borrow in the case of emergencies.

Also there is an attitude in government that if they bring in X amount of dollars in revenue, they have to spend X amount of dollars. They treat the money like it is burning a hole in their pocket. It should be that some money should be held in a reserve (if it isn't applied to the national debt) for emergencies so the government doesn't have to borrow. A rainy day fund if you will.

So is this workable? I think yes.

To pay off the debt you already owe, it could be legislated that every annual budget returned has to make a minimum payment on the debt (the principle portion in excess of the interest portion). A small tax could be instituted (1%-2%) that goes solely to provide funds to make this principle payment. And with the government’s ability to created new debt restricted by law (either by borrowing from banks or issuing T-Bonds) the debt will eventually become a bad memory.

I think the problem stems from the lack of accountability when an administration leaves the reigns of power. They can run the debt sky high, but after two terms it is no longer "their" problem. Then the guys that come in after are left with an option to either A) clean up the mess by making a lot of people very unhappy, or B) borrow or issue bonds for 8 more years and pray that nobody notices. Most administrations want a second term so they'll most likely chose B.

Interesting Voting Facts in the US

Did you know....
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

11. Diebold is based in Ohio.

12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.

13. Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of General Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States.

14. Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, but in reality, anyone could do it.

17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.

18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.

20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

For any of you wanting the sources, they are centralized here.

Friday, March 11, 2005

1st Post

Allow myself to introduce...myself. For those that know me already my name isn't necessary and for those that don't know me, well I'm too paranoid to share it with you. Just Kidding. I am Stew. Just Stew. For now.

For the past 10 years I've been on a journey, to where I don't know, but the important thing is what I've discovered. I've discovered that I don't know everything. I've also discovered I'm not as smart as I once thought. But I've also discovered I know alot more than most and that I'm damn opinionated.

I'm tired of posting on Yahoo Message boards where the masses of ignorant people try to shoot me down with half-baked logic. I wanted a forum where I could post freely my ideas and have them appreciated or criticized in a civil fashion ( or not). Mostly, because like all humans, I want to talk about things I want to talk about.

Many of my articles will be about politics, economics, world issues, religion. These things interest me because of the influence they have on all our lives. I may post stuff that you find offensive, well that is too bad. I've never believed in censorship and if you don't like what you read, then you don't have to read it. It is as simple as not clicking the url to get to my blog.

You are free to comment on what I write. These are my opinions and I want your opinions in the spirit of encouraging dialogue. Don't expect me to change my way of thinking, however, if I'm clearly wrong I'll usually admit it.

So look for my posts!