Values

Alright, ive run outta Hankies over this Election business so lets face some home truths.
Values won the election.
This is a re-occuring theme across most media outlets i venture to/inhabit/subscribe.
My issue is this
whose Value system can place Gay marriage as a greater concern than bombing the fuck outta Poor People/Arabs/Muslims?
Frankly its an insult that the phrase "Value Driven Voters" immeadeatly is associated with what I consider the Far right.
Its a fuckin hijacking really.
Is someone who is opposed to state sponsered terrorism really Values Deficient?Cos it appears thats what the powers that be would have you and i believe.
Rope, give this a bash mate, Im thinking youre gonna be far more eloquent at this...

Forums: The Bar,

The thing is is that "the sanctity of marriage between women and men" is something to value. Whether you hold the same values as those who voted in the US doesn't mean they're not about values.

i realise that morality is a relative concept, but for a voting majority of the population to 'value' the sanctity of an abstract concept like marriage above the sanctity of human life seems fairly misplaced.
I don't see Osama bin laden worrying too much on the US's policies towards homosexuals, he seems fairly focussed on the issue of US interference in the middle-east. And the US just voted in approval of this UN vetoed war, not only indicating that they value the concept of marriage, above Iraqi's right to live, but also by proxy [as i'm sure Mr Bin Laden will demonstrate] above and beyond their own right to live peacefully.
I realise there's a severe amount of misinformation handed to alot of those voters,
but from some comments i've read online recently from citizens of the US os Ass, I can clearly see where they are coming from. comments like

[in reaction to the UN veto]
//America bows to no king, what do we need the rest of the world for, they need us more than we need them

//what about the 100,000 Iraqis Saddam put in unmarked graves...

and the general idea that the US considered Iraq as some kind of real threat.
Although I've also read many comments from worried Democrat voters and i feel for them.

some of the sickest comments i've seen are people justifying this killing on the basis that they need to run their cars, fully aware of the human cost.

//whose Value system can place Gay marriage as a greater concern than bombing the fuck outta Poor People/Arabs/Muslims?
//

fair point, but it's also fair to say that most americans, being non politically minded, voted not on their contries international policy but on something that they could relate to. Bush is president, and it's all thanks to poofs wanting some lame token of acceptence from the general population.

Shouldn't they have equal rights?
It is a rhetorical question rdor so no need to answer.
Americans will have you believe that the USA was founded on the basis that all people were created equal and, so long as your actions don't hurt others, their govt will ensure freedom for all people.
OK so it is a crock of shit. They are one of a handful of countries who kept slaves and, even after the civil war, and the passing of ammendments 13, 14 and 15 to their constitution (The ones allowing freedom to black people) they continued to discriminate via 'Seperate but equal' standards for over half a century. They built freeways to keep the colours seperate, bullied and intimidated black neighbourhoods into virtual disenfranchisement, propogated the 'Sambo' myth and virtually unwrote black history. (Pick up an average US history book and compare volume of words with Mcarthy and Martin Luther King)
Women were largely disenfranchised, though it is far more subtle- They used to lynch black people for looking at white women and would often get away with it citing "lynch law' and throwing round words like 'miscegenation'. the women folk were just locked away under lock and key and given the occasional acid hit for 'suburban neurosis'. Of course then there is the glass ceiling (which I can only assume is not as prevalent in NZ but do not doubt still exists here).
I am going somewhere with this
end of pt 1

pt 2
Communists
America has had this idea for a very long time that it is their 'Manifest destiny' to be undisputed rulers of the pacific rim area. Everyone must listen to them and play by their rules, following their ideologies. These days Manifest Destiny seems to have grown in scope but the concept hasn't changed. No surprise that anarchists and communists were perceived as a threat. Lots of cases in US history of people being tried for crimes because they were a little too Italian or a little too communist etc...
Saccho and Vanzetti, who were tried for a burglary, and subsequently put to death. Fair enough if they did it? Yeah- but they were tried cause they were found to be Italians with socialist sympathies. Then there was attorney general A Mitchell Palmer who started a communist witchhunt in the 20s cause his gut was telling him there would be an uprising on May day- No uprising but the start of a very nasty trend carried through by Mcarthy, among others. Who remembers the PMRC witchhunts of the 80s?
Gore's wife trying to ban heavy rock and horror movies.
End of part two

I'm stopping myself around here cause books could, and have been written bout this point.
THE USA IS A VERY HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY PLACE!
For another angle on it read Mark Twain's 'The Man who corrupted Hadleyburg'
It is an allegory of this very point. People brought up in the belief that they are the most moral people on the plannet and in their arrogance behave in a very amoral way.
I don't see anything amoral about homosexuality.
I don't terribly want to know what anyone does in their own bedrooms- sexual behaviour is not the point.

As an aside- The supreme court officially gave people the right to privacy in the 1970s
I did know the name of the case but it escapes me at the moment and I'm not pulling out screeds of notes on American legal history to find it however I do remember it was just about the same time as the Roe vs Wade case (1973?)
A compulsion towards someone else and a need to love and be loved is the point.
Everyone deserves love.
Everyone deserves the right to find a loved one.- well, consulting partners of a similar age or consulting adults. There is a huge difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.
No one deserves to go through a pointless witchhunt at the hands of their own govt.
Too many gay people have suffered at the hands of their own govt in America fighting for an ideal of equality. They are not that far different from other oppressed minorities in that respect.
And besides.
If we choose to ignore discrimination we're just lining up to be the discriminators next target.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but the people you are referring to are making decisions about what they believe to be wrong or right. That's morality. If you think their morals suck poo, that makes them immoral according to you, not amoral.

Dunno if it was just a typo, but thought maybe this was worth clarifying?

//No one deserves to go through a pointless witchhunt at the hands of their own govt.
Too many gay people have suffered at the hands of their own govt in America fighting for an ideal of equality. They are not that far different from other oppressed minorities in that respect.
//

I've had more than my fair share of airspace on this - but marriage is not an individual right in the same the right to vote, freedom of religion, political belief.... Marriage evolved around and for relationships between men and women. I'm guessing most Americans still view it that way. Put crudely marriage stopped men from sewing their seeds and abandoning their children. It's also still the place where most people choose to have children. Gay marriage turns it into a a personal choice between any two individuals, whether or not you think this is the way it should be , it's hardley a big deal, not as though anyone s right to exist is in question, no 'witchhunts'

but it seems that 1000s if iraqi's right to exist is in question. just so the right wing can keep the marriage in a neat little cubby hole. definitions can change, and noone usually dies during such an operation

agreed, but then Kerry could have just said the same thing as Bush on the issue, and things might have been diferent

are you trying to be foals twin sister?

no i'm not foals twin sister... interesting, do you see the an anti killing stance to be overtly feminine? or perhaps you find my icon sexy and figured if you found it sexy, then it can't possibly belong to a male.

either way, why would kerry do that?
that makes no sense rdor....would you do that?
i don't think so

//but marriage is not an individual right in the same the right to vote, freedom of religion, political belief//

Don't know if I agree rdor. There are a lot of property rights tied in to marriage. My mother works in a rest home and sees a lot of very nasty things that happen when someone pops their clogs- families warring with each other over property. If someone loses their partner and they have no legal right to things accrued over many years together, perhaps made worse by one of the couple earning, and thus contributing less, does that not give them less of a legal stance than straight couples?

Also what's wrong in publically proclaiming ones love to another via a big party where rings are exchanged?

Yeah Jet spelling mistake. I'm a little tired at the moment and not running at 100%

The right to privacy was officially recognised by the US supreme court in a case known as Griswald vs Conneticut, something that just popped back into my head- useless info but still it could be on who wants to be a millionaire.

//no, it's the way you type your posts, the fiegn of having some all seeing eye over any issue.

that's all you can come up with?

point one, i no longer type my posts, i'm using one of these steve hawking mouthpieces and have been since may,

point two, don't take the slowness of my reply as an indication that i put anymore thought into you than slicing bread, it's just that bill gates and co designed one tool of a program and it took a while to amend

point three, in case you don't remember this either; Kerry focussed extensively on job loss/growth, the economy, and full medical coverage and it was your ilk [the right wing homophobes] who focussed on the gaybashing. and it was the gaybashing that won.

//no i'm not foals twin sister... interesting, do you see the an anti killing stance to be overtly feminine//

no, it's the way you type your posts, the fiegn of having some all seeing eye over any issue. I don't remeber your earlier posts being that way. Kerry didn't need to present voters with the choice of liberal versus conservative on social issues. A losing battle. Instead he should have focussed more on job growth, the economy, full medical coverage, things tha acutally matter more thatn gay marriage or; the right ot dispose of unwated humans.

personally i thought this whole 'values won the election' thing was more to do with the question of abortion than gay marriage.

church &/or state
shouldnt even feature in marriage

actually suspect results now point to more than the values of moral, but corruption of morals, exit polls on paper ballets line up with results, however exit polls on computer machines tell a very different story.

===============================================================

Originally Posted by MSNBC.com
NEW YORK— Here’s an interesting little sidebar of our system of government confirmed recently by the crack Countdown research staff: no Presidential candidate’s concession speech is legally binding. The only determinants of the outcome of election are the reports of the state returns boards and the vote of the Electoral College.

That’s right. Richard Nixon may have phoned John Kennedy in November, 1960, and congratulated him through clenched teeth. But if the FBI had burst into Kennedy headquarters in Chicago a week later and walked out with all the file cabinets and a bunch of employees with their raincoats drawn up over their heads, nothing Nixon had said would’ve prevented him, and not JFK, from taking the oath of office the following January.

This is mentioned because there is a small but blood-curdling set of news stories that right now exists somewhere between the world of investigative journalism, and the world of the Reynolds Wrap Hat. And while the group’s ultimate home remains unclear - so might our election of just a week ago.

Stories like these have filled the web since the tide turned against John Kerry late Tuesday night. But not until Friday did they begin to spill into the more conventional news media. That’s when the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that officials in Warren County, Ohio, had “locked down” its administration building to prevent anybody from observing the vote count there.

Suspicious enough on the face of it, the decision got more dubious still when County Commissioners confirmed that they were acting on the advice of their Emergency Services Director, Frank Young. Mr. Young had explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security.

Gotcha. Tom Ridge thought Osama Bin Laden was planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville. During the vote count in Lebanon. Or maybe it was Kings Island Amusement Park that had gone Code-Orange without telling anybody. Al-Qaeda had selected Turtlecreek Township for its first foray into a Red State.

The State of Ohio confirms that of all of its 88 Counties, Warren alone decided such Homeland Security measures were necessary. Even in Butler County, reports the Enquirer, the media and others were permitted to watch through a window as ballot-checkers performed their duties. In Warren, the media was finally admitted to the lobby of the administration building, which may have been slightly less incommodious for the reporters, but which still managed to keep them two floors away from the venue of the actual count.

Nobody in Warren County seems to think they’ve done anything wrong. The newspaper quotes County Prosecutor Rachel Hurtzel as saying the Commissioners “were within their rights” to lock the building down, because having photographers or reporters present could have interfered with the count.

You bet, Rachel.

As I suggested, this is the first time one of the Fix stories has moved fully into the mainstream media. In so saying, I’m not dismissing the blogosphere. Hell, I’m in the blogosphere now, and there have been nights when I’ve gotten far more web hits than television viewers (thank you, Debate Scorecard readers). Even the overt partisanship of blogs don’t bother me - Tom Paine was a pretty partisan guy, and ultimately that served truth a lot better than a ship full of neutral reporters would have. I was just reading last night of the struggles Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer had during their early reporting from Europe in ’38 and ’39, because CBS thought them too anti-Nazi.

The only reason I differentiate between the blogs and the newspapers is that in the latter, a certain bar of ascertainable, reasonably neutral, fact has to be passed, and has to be approved by a consensus of reporters and editors. The process isn’t flawless (ask Dan Rather) but the next time you read a blog where bald-faced lies are accepted as fact, ask yourself whether we here in cyberspace have yet achieved the reliability of even the mainstream media. In short, a lot gets left out of newspapers, radio, and tv - but what’s left in tends to be, in the words of my old CNN Sports colleague NickCharles, a lead-pipe cinch.

Thus the majority of the media has yet to touch the other stories of Ohio (the amazing Bush Times Ten voting machine in Gahanna) or the sagas of Ohio South: huge margins for Bush in Florida counties in which registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1, places where the optical scanning of precinct totals seems to have turned results from perfect matches for the pro-Kerry exit poll data, to Bush sweeps.

We will be endeavoring to pull those stories, along with the Warren County farce, into the mainstream Monday and/or Tuesday nights on Countdown. That is, if we can wedge them in there among the news media’s main concerns since last Tuesday:

Who fixed the Exit Polls? Yes - you could deliberately skew a national series of post-vote questionnaires in favor of Kerry to discourage people from voting out west, where everything but New Mexico had been ceded to Kerry anyway, but you couldn’t alter key precinct votes in Ohio and/or Florida; and,
What will Bush do with his Mandate and his Political Capital? He got the highest vote total for a presidential candidate, you know. Did anybody notice who’s second on the list? A Mr. Kerry. Since when was the term “mandate” applied when 56 million people voted against a guy? And by the way, how about that Karl Rove and his Freudian slip on “Fox News Sunday”? Rove was asked if the electoral triumph would be as impactful on the balance of power between the parties as William McKinley’s in 1896 and he forgot his own talking points. The victories were “similarly narrow,” Rove began, and then, seemingly aghast at his forthrightness, corrected himself. “Not narrow; similarly structured.”

sorry, I didn't mean to make the page go bung... I know how annoying it is to look at it when that happens.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked
by Thom Hartmann

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.

The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm, and noticed something startling.

While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking – the results seem to contain substantial anomalies.

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 9,676 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported that county size was a variable – this turns out not to be the case. Just the use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.)

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://us together.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm. Note the trend line – the only variable that determines a swing toward Bush was the use of optical scan machines.

One possible explanation for this is the "Dixiecrat" theory, that in Florida white voters (particularly the rural ones) have been registered as Democrats for years, but voting Republican since Reagan. Looking at the 2000 statistics, also available on Dopp's site, there are similar anomalies, although the trends are not as strong as in 2004. But some suggest the 2000 election may have been questionable in Florida, too.

One of the people involved in Dopp's analysis noted that it may be possible to determine the validity of the "rural Democrat" theory by comparing Florida's white rural counties to those of Pennsylvania, another swing state but one that went for Kerry, as the exit polls there predicted. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania analysis, available at http://ustogether.org/election04/PA_vote_patt.htm, doesn't show the same kind of swings as does Florida, lending credence to the possibility of problems in Florida.

Even more significantly, Dopp had first run the analysis while filtering out smaller (rural) counties, and still found that the only variable that accounted for a swing toward Republican voting was the use of optical-scan machines, whereas counties with touch-screen machines generally didn't swing - regardless of size.

Others offer similar insights, based on other data. A professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, noted that in Florida the vote to raise the minimum wage was approved by 72%, although Kerry got 48%. "The correlation between voting for the minimum wage increase and voting for Kerry isn't likely to be perfect," he noted, "but one would normally expect that the gap - of 1.5 million votes - to be far smaller than it was."

While all of this may or may not be evidence of vote tampering, it again brings the nation back to the question of why several states using electronic voting machines or scanners programmed by private, for-profit corporations and often connected to modems produced votes inconsistent with exit poll numbers.

Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since Election Day.

Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.

But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.

Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.

Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.

"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."

He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."

Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.

How could this happen?

On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.

That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.

"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?"

Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."

"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"

Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.

Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.

"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.

But, it's running on a Windows PC.

Hey Ya-

Going back to the morals call- yeah the Gay Marriage question was important in Bush's victory, but also the Abortion question...

In the second presidential debate, I thought Kerry gave a model answer on this, which you could easily use the same logic with to defend a liberal stance on Gay Marriage.

But oh, what a stink he caused- the negative press he got- clearly his answer went flying over the heads of most of middle america, and George W as well for that matter ;-)

(From the debate transcript)

:"...DEGENHART (Sarah Degenhart, member of the debate audience, puts a question to Senator Kerry): Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

..."

external link ]