According to the latest state board of elections numbers, Democrat Scott Murphy is leading the special Congressional election vote count by 25 votes over Republican Jim Tedisco out of over 155,000 cast. The numbers may have changed yet again by the time you've read this.
Apparently, the Tedisco people are upset that ballots from soldiers in war zones might not arrive in time to be counted. Tedisco insists idea that American citizens might be disenfranchised on a technicality is 'shameful' and an 'embarrassment.' His hypocrisy is exactly what you'd expect from someone with Tedisco's used car salesman-like reputation.
But there's something that's bothered me about this whole recount thing. We've seen probably over a dozen different vote counts publicized. And this is just from the relatively non-controversial voting machines. There is human error involved and that election night voting totals processed by tired poll workers might change as their work is re-checked is understandable. I get this.
But common sense suggests that AT SOME POINT, officials should be able to check the voting machines twice in a row and get the same totals. If you tried balancing your checkbook 10 different times and got 10 different results, wouldn't you keep doing it until you were able to replicate one of them? If the totals keep changing from static machines, then how can anyone be sure that the final total is the right one?
In a close election, the count from the voting machines is supposed to be the easy part. If "results" change this often from unchanging voting machines, what's going to happen during the counting of absentee ballots, when the two campaigns are going to use the flimsiest excuses to try to get opposition votes disqualified?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Medical conscience discussion
One of the interesting ethical questions of late is whether doctors should be able to refuse treatments and pharmacists medication based on their moral or religious code.
This issue in the US, not surprisingly, is usually framed around issues relating to abortion. This fascinating piece from Radio Netherlands Worldwide shows that this issue is far broader than simply abortion rights vs anti-abortion. It's very much worth a listen.
I'd also be interested in what readers think.
Should doctors, nurses and others who give treatment be able to refuse certain practices based on their moral or religious code?
Should pharmacists be able to refuse to dispense medication for the same reason?
The debate is usually framed as Christian medical professionals being forced to do things their religion objects to. But I'd like to turn that on its head. If your answer was yes, would your position be affected by any of the following hypothetical situations?
-A Muslim EMT arriving the site of a car crash, sees that the seriously injured victim is wearing a cross necklace and deciding it's against his beliefs to treat the victim;
-A rape victim getting a doctor who refuses to treat her because he believes her scantily clad dress and drunk state was immoral and that thus she was at fault for her situation;
-A gynecologist so strongly opposed to teen pregnancy that s/he won't treat a pregnant teenager unless the girl agrees to have an abortion.
Please leave your thoughts on these issues.
This issue in the US, not surprisingly, is usually framed around issues relating to abortion. This fascinating piece from Radio Netherlands Worldwide shows that this issue is far broader than simply abortion rights vs anti-abortion. It's very much worth a listen.
I'd also be interested in what readers think.
Should doctors, nurses and others who give treatment be able to refuse certain practices based on their moral or religious code?
Should pharmacists be able to refuse to dispense medication for the same reason?
The debate is usually framed as Christian medical professionals being forced to do things their religion objects to. But I'd like to turn that on its head. If your answer was yes, would your position be affected by any of the following hypothetical situations?
-A Muslim EMT arriving the site of a car crash, sees that the seriously injured victim is wearing a cross necklace and deciding it's against his beliefs to treat the victim;
-A rape victim getting a doctor who refuses to treat her because he believes her scantily clad dress and drunk state was immoral and that thus she was at fault for her situation;
-A gynecologist so strongly opposed to teen pregnancy that s/he won't treat a pregnant teenager unless the girl agrees to have an abortion.
Please leave your thoughts on these issues.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tales of the Apocalypse
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
According to Morality in Media [sic], one of the battalions in the Theocracy Brigade, the fact that Iowa Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage occurred on the same day as the deadly shooting spree in Binghamton was no coincidence.
According to another always reasonable conservative Ann Coulter, any problem in society, including rape and murder, can actually be traced back to single moms.
Thus... getting married causes mass murder. Not getting married causes mass murder. Getting divorced causes even more mass murder.
I think I'll remain a bachelor!
Though it did give me an idea. I know many conservatives deny the reality of climate change and its human component. But I think many of them could be persuaded if told that climate change was actually caused by gay marriage!
We already know that gays caused Hurricane Katrina. So blaming them for broader climate change isn't much of a leap.
According to Morality in Media [sic], one of the battalions in the Theocracy Brigade, the fact that Iowa Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage occurred on the same day as the deadly shooting spree in Binghamton was no coincidence.
According to another always reasonable conservative Ann Coulter, any problem in society, including rape and murder, can actually be traced back to single moms.
Thus... getting married causes mass murder. Not getting married causes mass murder. Getting divorced causes even more mass murder.
I think I'll remain a bachelor!
Though it did give me an idea. I know many conservatives deny the reality of climate change and its human component. But I think many of them could be persuaded if told that climate change was actually caused by gay marriage!
We already know that gays caused Hurricane Katrina. So blaming them for broader climate change isn't much of a leap.
All citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Planet Albany blog reports on a predictable turn of events.
Republican Congressional candidate Jim Tedisco spent weeks being silent about his henchmen disenfranchised 7000 American citizens who wanted to vote for Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall. Now suddenly, Tedisco has had a change of heart and is outraged at the possibility that military absentee ballots might not be counted.
Electoral law was to be followed to a T, no matter how absurd and undemocratic, when it meant disenfranchising citizens that wanted to vote for one of his opponents. But now when it comes to a group that he thinks will be largely supportive of him, electoral law is to be thrown out the window.
As one of the 7000 who was told my voice was irrelevant, I have some sympathy for the citizens who are soldiers and want their votes counted but would be happy to see Jim Tedisco (as well as Laurie Kelly Sickles and liar Don Neddo) tarred and feathered. The ONLY reason I want Scott Murphy to win is because it will keep this disgraceful embarrassment who embodies everything that people hate about politicians from representing me. The ideal situation would be for Murphy to win one vote, the vote Tedisco couldn't cast for himself because he doesn't live in the district.
Planet Albany blog reports on a predictable turn of events.
Republican Congressional candidate Jim Tedisco spent weeks being silent about his henchmen disenfranchised 7000 American citizens who wanted to vote for Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall. Now suddenly, Tedisco has had a change of heart and is outraged at the possibility that military absentee ballots might not be counted.
Electoral law was to be followed to a T, no matter how absurd and undemocratic, when it meant disenfranchising citizens that wanted to vote for one of his opponents. But now when it comes to a group that he thinks will be largely supportive of him, electoral law is to be thrown out the window.
As one of the 7000 who was told my voice was irrelevant, I have some sympathy for the citizens who are soldiers and want their votes counted but would be happy to see Jim Tedisco (as well as Laurie Kelly Sickles and liar Don Neddo) tarred and feathered. The ONLY reason I want Scott Murphy to win is because it will keep this disgraceful embarrassment who embodies everything that people hate about politicians from representing me. The ideal situation would be for Murphy to win one vote, the vote Tedisco couldn't cast for himself because he doesn't live in the district.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
I'll have cotton candy for dinner
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
If I see one more "news" story on Gov. Paterson's poll ratings, I'm going to puke. I understand that the media is addicted to polls in the same way boys are addicted to Mountain Dew or Red Bull. I understand that the technique of lazy editors and reporters treating polls as news stories instead of doing real work isn't going away any time soon. But it's pathetic how polls and horse race "analysis" seem to be suffocating actual journalism on stories and issues that actually matter to ordinary people. Aside from Paterson, his rival Andrew Cuomo and their staffs, what real people are truly affected by Paterson's 19 percent rating in the latest poll a year and a half before the election? Polls are basically part of the infotainment plague infecting the news media. They are a distraction. Sound and fury, signifying very little. It's nice to have a little dessert with your meal. But when dessert becomes your main course, then it becomes unhealthy...
If I see one more "news" story on Gov. Paterson's poll ratings, I'm going to puke. I understand that the media is addicted to polls in the same way boys are addicted to Mountain Dew or Red Bull. I understand that the technique of lazy editors and reporters treating polls as news stories instead of doing real work isn't going away any time soon. But it's pathetic how polls and horse race "analysis" seem to be suffocating actual journalism on stories and issues that actually matter to ordinary people. Aside from Paterson, his rival Andrew Cuomo and their staffs, what real people are truly affected by Paterson's 19 percent rating in the latest poll a year and a half before the election? Polls are basically part of the infotainment plague infecting the news media. They are a distraction. Sound and fury, signifying very little. It's nice to have a little dessert with your meal. But when dessert becomes your main course, then it becomes unhealthy...
Monday, April 06, 2009
When 'Never Again' happened again
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Today is the 15th anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide during which at least 800,000 people were murdered. It was one of the world's worst atrocities of the century and certainly the worst to be covered during the age of cable news television. It occurred a year, almost to the week, after politicians and dignitaries in Washington solemnly promised 'Never again' while inaugurating the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Rwanda's New Times newspaper has an editorial on the commemoration.
Global Post has a good three part series...
-Part 1: Many Rwandan survivors only now starting to confront their trauma
-Part 2: One community works for forgiveness
-Part 3: TBA
In 2004, I wrote a long series of essays for my Africa blog Black Star Journal on the occasion of the 10th anniversary which gave a lot of information and background about the genocide.
They are as follows (yes, I know the some of the images do not work anymore):
-Ten years later (an intro)
-Pre-genocide history
-How the genocide unfolded
-Myths and realities about the genocide (Part 1)
-Myths and realities about the genocide (Part 2)
-The genocide's orphans
-Hate media and their role in the genocide
-International law and American law on genocide
-Post-genocide justice
-The post-genocide government
-Lessons and conclusions
Today is the 15th anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide during which at least 800,000 people were murdered. It was one of the world's worst atrocities of the century and certainly the worst to be covered during the age of cable news television. It occurred a year, almost to the week, after politicians and dignitaries in Washington solemnly promised 'Never again' while inaugurating the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Rwanda's New Times newspaper has an editorial on the commemoration.
Global Post has a good three part series...
-Part 1: Many Rwandan survivors only now starting to confront their trauma
-Part 2: One community works for forgiveness
-Part 3: TBA
In 2004, I wrote a long series of essays for my Africa blog Black Star Journal on the occasion of the 10th anniversary which gave a lot of information and background about the genocide.
They are as follows (yes, I know the some of the images do not work anymore):
-Ten years later (an intro)
-Pre-genocide history
-How the genocide unfolded
-Myths and realities about the genocide (Part 1)
-Myths and realities about the genocide (Part 2)
-The genocide's orphans
-Hate media and their role in the genocide
-International law and American law on genocide
-Post-genocide justice
-The post-genocide government
-Lessons and conclusions
Thursday, April 02, 2009
More tragicomedy in Albany
Sometimes when I read the political news, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the hypocrisy.
In the 20th NY Congressional district special election, Republican Jim Tedisco, who was trailing Democrat Scott Murphy after election night by 59 votes, is now apparently ahead by 12 votes, according to Politickerny.com.
Updated: After more re-counting Friday, the race is apparently now an exact dead heat.
"We want total openness and transparency, and let the chips fall where they may. We feel secure when the ballots are counted we will win," Tedisco said. The transformation in The Grandstander's attitude in now demanding that no voter is disenfranchised is remarkable. I'm sure many wish the Eureka moment had come three weeks earlier, when his henchmen were disenfranchising thousands of citizens.
Even more amusing was the spin put on the race by the national GOP. The Times-Union quoted National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, "Jim Tedisco has closed the gap in a district that has come to exemplify Democratic dominance in the Northeast in recent elections."
Democratic dominance?!
As Planet Albany blog pointed out, the 20th is the most Republican congressional district in New York state.
How much so?
As of last November, Republicans had a 70,000 voter ADVANTAGE in the district's enrollment.
A 70,000 advantage in enrollment translated into (so far) a 12 vote lead for a well-known state politician against a businessman who was completely unknown in his own town of residence.
If a matchup of two candidates with these respective qualities can result in a virtual dead heat in a district with these enrollment demographics, then it shows how thoroughly discredited the GOP brand is after eight years of Bush-Cheney... even in a place that's been represented by Republicans in the House of Representatives for approximately 114 of the last 120 years.
This is the last place in New York state that should be under 'Democratic dominance.'
But there's plenty of hypocrisy in our state legislature too. Both Governor David Paterson and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith came to office on the promises of reform and transparency and then proceded to shove through what most everyone has called the most secretive budget process ever in New York... no small insult given the recent history of the place.
Of course, the shoving through is not quite done yet because two Democratic senators have been in and out of the hospital. With a narrow 32-30 majority and no lieutenant governor to break any ties, Smith needs every single vote to pass the budget bills. He just better hope he can increase his majority post haste, in case the one indicted for allegedly slashing his girlfriend's face with broken glass is convicted.
But Senate Republicans have been even more hypocrtical. First, they were whining about the slow pace of democratization of the chamber by the Democrats... a chamber the GOP controlled non-stop for over 40 consecutive years. Now, they're snivelling about the allocation of budget resources, again blaming the Democrats for acting like... them.
Senate Republicans are unhappy that they're getting just $8 million of the $85 million available for member items in their chamber. That is about the same level the Democrats received when the Republicans were in charge, a top Senate Democratic official said.
You can't make this stuff up.
Accordingly, The New York Daily News (a surprisingly decent source of reporting on state news) is running a series of Albany entitled State of Shame. The most recent piece is here and it has links to previous pieces.
In the 20th NY Congressional district special election, Republican Jim Tedisco, who was trailing Democrat Scott Murphy after election night by 59 votes, is now apparently ahead by 12 votes, according to Politickerny.com.
Updated: After more re-counting Friday, the race is apparently now an exact dead heat.
"We want total openness and transparency, and let the chips fall where they may. We feel secure when the ballots are counted we will win," Tedisco said. The transformation in The Grandstander's attitude in now demanding that no voter is disenfranchised is remarkable. I'm sure many wish the Eureka moment had come three weeks earlier, when his henchmen were disenfranchising thousands of citizens.
Even more amusing was the spin put on the race by the national GOP. The Times-Union quoted National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, "Jim Tedisco has closed the gap in a district that has come to exemplify Democratic dominance in the Northeast in recent elections."
Democratic dominance?!
As Planet Albany blog pointed out, the 20th is the most Republican congressional district in New York state.
How much so?
As of last November, Republicans had a 70,000 voter ADVANTAGE in the district's enrollment.
A 70,000 advantage in enrollment translated into (so far) a 12 vote lead for a well-known state politician against a businessman who was completely unknown in his own town of residence.
If a matchup of two candidates with these respective qualities can result in a virtual dead heat in a district with these enrollment demographics, then it shows how thoroughly discredited the GOP brand is after eight years of Bush-Cheney... even in a place that's been represented by Republicans in the House of Representatives for approximately 114 of the last 120 years.
This is the last place in New York state that should be under 'Democratic dominance.'
But there's plenty of hypocrisy in our state legislature too. Both Governor David Paterson and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith came to office on the promises of reform and transparency and then proceded to shove through what most everyone has called the most secretive budget process ever in New York... no small insult given the recent history of the place.
Of course, the shoving through is not quite done yet because two Democratic senators have been in and out of the hospital. With a narrow 32-30 majority and no lieutenant governor to break any ties, Smith needs every single vote to pass the budget bills. He just better hope he can increase his majority post haste, in case the one indicted for allegedly slashing his girlfriend's face with broken glass is convicted.
But Senate Republicans have been even more hypocrtical. First, they were whining about the slow pace of democratization of the chamber by the Democrats... a chamber the GOP controlled non-stop for over 40 consecutive years. Now, they're snivelling about the allocation of budget resources, again blaming the Democrats for acting like... them.
Senate Republicans are unhappy that they're getting just $8 million of the $85 million available for member items in their chamber. That is about the same level the Democrats received when the Republicans were in charge, a top Senate Democratic official said.
You can't make this stuff up.
Accordingly, The New York Daily News (a surprisingly decent source of reporting on state news) is running a series of Albany entitled State of Shame. The most recent piece is here and it has links to previous pieces.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Bold predictions
The Congressional special election, minus 1/3 of the candidates, was held yesterday. With all the precincts counted, Democrat Scott Murphy led Republican Jim Tedisco by 25 votes out of almost 155,000.
Despite microscopic margin, bloggers are brazenly declaring that their guy is sure to triumph. Poststar.com's Will Doolittle confidently declared 'Murphy will win.' Planet Albany's Bob Conner was less categoric but more bold in predicting that Tedisco was 'likely to win a clear majority [emphasis mine] of the absentee ballots.'
Obviously, it's possible that either of them might be right. But in a race where special election day voting resulted in a margin of a mere 0.017 percent difference between the candidates, I'm not sure how anyone can be as confident as either commentator.
An elections' expert tells me that, barring the proverbial October Surprise, absentee voting generally mirrors the Election Day results. But the key word here is 'generally.' Given the microscopic margin, it would take only a tiny shift to change the final result.
Not accounting for write-ins, if Tedisco wins 50.1 percent of the absentee ballots, he loses the race.
If he wins 50.2 percent of the absentees, he wins... by two votes.
Despite microscopic margin, bloggers are brazenly declaring that their guy is sure to triumph. Poststar.com's Will Doolittle confidently declared 'Murphy will win.' Planet Albany's Bob Conner was less categoric but more bold in predicting that Tedisco was 'likely to win a clear majority [emphasis mine] of the absentee ballots.'
Obviously, it's possible that either of them might be right. But in a race where special election day voting resulted in a margin of a mere 0.017 percent difference between the candidates, I'm not sure how anyone can be as confident as either commentator.
An elections' expert tells me that, barring the proverbial October Surprise, absentee voting generally mirrors the Election Day results. But the key word here is 'generally.' Given the microscopic margin, it would take only a tiny shift to change the final result.
Not accounting for write-ins, if Tedisco wins 50.1 percent of the absentee ballots, he loses the race.
If he wins 50.2 percent of the absentees, he wins... by two votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)