Electronic Voting Machines Cannot Be Trusted

The electronic voting machine pictured above is like the ones that are used here in Potter County. Potter County voters do not have the option of using anything else. You either vote on this machine or you don't vote.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, then you know how I feel about this machine. I simply don't trust it. It does not have a paper trail, which means there is no way to double-check the election results.

Frankly, it does not matter whether the election workers are honest or not, if the machine malfunctions, there is no way to ever be sure the votes have been counted correctly.

I know that the county uses these machines to speed up the vote count. However, there are other ways to do this. There are other electronic counters that actually count paper ballots, and can report the results of an election just as quickly. Also, if there are ever any questions about the electronic count, the paper ballots are there and can be hand-counted.

Voters and candidates can trust a machine that counts paper ballots, because these ballots can be re-counted. But how can anyone trust a machine with no paper trail of any kind? I don't care how great you think these computer voting machines are, they just can't be trusted.

Machines malfunction. That is just a fact of life. Voting is too important to be trusted to a machine prone not only to malfunctions, but also to hacking.

We must get rid of these machines and get a system the voters can trust, even if we have to go back to handcounting ballots. PDiddie over at Brains and Eggs has written an excellent post on this matter, and I urge you to read it.

What good is a system that can't be trusted?

Noriega Campaign Is Off And Running

State Rep. Rick Noriega officially kicked off his campaign for for the United States Senate last Saturday. He spoke before the Sun City Democrats, making the case for replacing John Cornyn. Lt. Col. Noriega also laid out the reasons we must withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Three others have filed for the position in the Democratic primary, but only one of them showed up at the event -- teacher Ray McMurrey. McMurrey is trying to paint Noriega as the candidate picked by the "party bosses". He could not be more wrong.

Noriega was not picked by party leadership, but instead was convinced to run by a groundswell of support from the grassroots of the Democratic Party. He has that grassroots support because ordinary Democrats see him as a candidate with enough substance to actually beat Cornyn.

I know that I couldn't care less who the party leaders support. I support Noriega (and have been sending him monthly donations) because I really believe he is the best possible Democratic candidate in 2008. I also think he'll make a great senator. Thousands of others believe the same.

There are two other candidates. One (Rhett Smith) has lost races for governor and mayor of San Antonio when he ran as a Republican. I can't consider his candidacy as a Democrat as anything but a joke.

The same goes for perennial candidate Gene Kelly. The 81 year-old candidate runs in every election, but does no campaigning. He simply relies on having the same name as the famous actor and dancer. Surely, voters have figured out by now that the dancer is dead, and the politician with his name is not serious.

It would be good for Noriega to defeat these opponents in the primary without a runoff. That would show that he is truly the best candidate to oppose (and defeat) Cornyn.

I don't think Lt. Col. Noriega will have much problem in South Texas where he is well known. But I urge my Democratic brethren here in North Texas to climb on board the Noriega Express. Talk to your friends and family, and send a few dollars his way if you can. It's important.

It's important because we must beat Cornyn, and Noriega is the man who can do it.

Fox News Is Unfair To Ron Paul

Fox News has claimed to be "fair and balanced", but most people know they are little more than a public relations organ for the Republican Party. They have never been either "fair" or "balanced", and this last weekend they again proved that.

It turns out they do not represent all Republicans, but only those Republicans that hold corporatist views. They showed this when they shut Ron Paul out of the GOP Debate in New Hampshire.

Most of the time when a candidate is not included in a debate, it is because the candidate doesn't have enough money or support to compete with the rest of the field. But that was not true of Ron Paul. He was polling equal to Guiliani and better than Thompson, both of whom are included in the debates. Paul also raised over $20 million in the last quarter -- easily enough to keep him competitive.

No, Paul was not excluded because he's not competitive. He was excluded because he doesn't go along with the Republican establishment corporatist viewpoint, and his own views are starting to get some attention. That scares the hell out of the establishment Republicans. Huckabee scares them in the same way, but after his win in Iowa there was no way they could exclude him.

By excluding him, Fox News and the Republican establishment were hoping to convince voters that Paul is a fringe candidate and not worthy of consideration. I doubt if the move will have the desired result. Paul's supporters are a pretty loyal group, and the exclusion may actually get him some backlash votes from people who think the exclusion was unfair.

In fact, the backlash may have already begun. The state Republican Party withdrew it's support of the debate. Their withdrawal statement said, "The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums. The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the Fox forum on Sunday evening....it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum."

Once again, Fox News shows how unfair and unbalanced it really is.

HPV Vaccinations Are Rising

Last year, Gov. Perry acted out of character and actually did something that would help the citizens of Texas. He mandated that all young girls in Texas receive the HPV vaccine to protect them from getting the HPV virus and possibly cervical cancer.

Of course the right-wing nuts in Texas got upset. To them, if you protected a girl from getting the virus, that meant all the young girls would immediately run out and have sex. The idea was stupid, but that's never stopped the right-wing before.

The Republicans in the Texas legislature reacted to the weird concerns of their right-wing base, and overturned the governor's mandate. But it looks like the controversy raised by the governor's action may have gotten the word out about the vaccine.

Doctors at the Uinversity of Texas Medical Branch Pediatric Clinic say that since the controversy, parents seem to have gotten the word about the vaccine, and they are coming in to request their daughters be vaccinated -- currently they are averaging about 60 vaccinations a month.

UTMB vice chair for clinical services Chris Turley said, "It's really kind of an interesting thing -- the controversy has really helped us get the word out. We really do have moms coming and asking for it....People forget about the tetanus shot because it's been around forever, but they come in knowing about this and wanting it for their daughters."

So while the governor wasn't able to protect all the young Texas girls because of the actions of his Republican cohorts, it looks like his actions may have at least helped many of them.

Maybe a new legislature in 2009 can protect the rest.

Kucinich Should Be On Texas Ballot

The Texas Democratic Party says Dennis Kucinich will not be on the party's primary ballot in March. Kucinich did file the necessary paperwork, but would not sign a loyalty oath to support the party's nominee in November. This whole thing seems rather silly to me.

Is it really the business of the party in Texas to demand loyalty from a national candidate? To me, that would seem to be more a matter for the national party leadership, if such an oath is proper at all.

The party needs to do away with this loyalty oath nonsense. That sounds more like something George Bush would do anyway. I have a long history with the Democratic Party, having been an elected precinct chair and a delegate to the state convention 5 times, but I would never sign a loyalty oath to any party.

Once in a while a nutjob slips through the primary process (LaRouche supporters, etc.) and no one should be forced to support them just because they're running on the Democratic ticket.

What is the purpose of a primary anyway? Is it so the state leaders can tell voters who they can and can't vote for? Or is it to determine who the rank-and-file voters of the party want as their candidate? I hope most of us would agree that it's the latter.

I urge the Democratic leaders to do away with the archaic loyalty oath, and place Kucinich on the ballot. It would be the fair and democratic thing to do -- and isn't that what Democrats are supposed to stand for?

DMN's Choice Upsets The Racists

The Dallas Morning News seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest of racists with their pick for "Texan of the Year". They picked illegal immigrants for their 2007 Texan of the Year, and that seems to have upset a lot of right-wingers.

Since making the choice, there have been over 800 blog postings and 150 letters to the newspaper criticizing the choice. Most of these people act like they haven't read the editorial, but are simply reacting to the headline. They act like the newspaper has come out in favor of illegal immigration.

In truth, the paper did not take a stand either pro or con on the question of illegal immigration. In choosing their "Texan of the Year" each year, they are simply trying to point out who has had the greatest impact on our state during the year.

I think their choice was an excellent one. Illegal immigrants were in the news here in Texas all year long. If not the immigrants themselves, then the reaction to them by right-wing racists. Stories about amnesty, the new laws in Farmer's Branch, and the expensive and ridiculous border fence were in the news throughout the year.

The editors of the Dallas Morning News made a good choice, and it would behoove the right-wing to actually read the editorial before making ridiculous accusations.

Thoughts About The Iowa Caucuses

Iowa didn't contain any real surprises on caucus night, but it did have some interesting results. My candidate, Bill Richardson, didn't do too well. The polls had him at about 12% and that seems to have been pretty accurate. In many precincts he came up just short of the 15% necessary to get a delegate.

So what did his delegates do? Most of them went to Obama, who turned out to be the night's big winner. I have to admit that Obama did better than I expected. Maybe America really is ready to elect a black president. That's something I've hoped for, but never expected to see in my lifetime. Obama's victory coming in a very white state (with only a 2.5% black population) gives me hope for America's future.

Edwards can also be considered a winner last night. Without spending anywhere near the money his major opponents spent, he finished second with 30% and edged out a victory over Clinton.

Clinton has to be considered the big loser of the night. She was in first place there a month ago. She spent heavily and campaigned hard in Iowa, only to finish in third place. After this result, Clinton really needs to do well in New Hampshire.

But the biggest winner of all last night was the Democratic Party. Iowa is generally considered to be a "red" state -- after all, it voted for Bush in 2004. But last night, they doubled the turnout in the Republican caucuses, and also doubled their own turnout of four years ago. It seems that Independents and new voters turned out for the Democrats in large numbers. If this holds true in other states, it could bode very well for a huge Democratic victory in November.

Having said all that, I realize that this was just one rather small state making their statement. There is a long way to go, and anything can happen. But it was an interesting start to the primary season.

"Aggtownz Fights" Leader Sentenced To Prison

A little over a year ago, the police in Arlington (Texas) arrested several young people (most of them teenagers) who were filming fights among teenagers and selling the videos on the internet. Some of the fights were staged and others were attacks on innocent and unsuspecting youngsters. The videos were titled Aggtownz Fights and proved quite popular among many teenagers.

One of the young men arrested pled guilty to Engaging In Organized Criminal Activity and received two years probation. Two others pled guilty to Aggravated Assault and received a sentence of three years in prison. That left only the leader of the group -- Michael Jackson (pictured above).

On Thursday, Jackson pled guilty to an unrelated crime -- robbery. He committed the robbery after the group had been arrested for the video. The prosecutor asked for Jackson to be sentenced to the full 20 years possible for the crime. But after viewing the video, Judge Gallagher sentenced him to 12 years in prison. He has a possibility of being paroled after three years.

This now closes the Aggtownz Fights saga, and I'm sure the people of Arlington are glad to put it all behind them. This was a bit of negative publicity the city didn't need.

Is Brimer Running Scared Already ?

After the Senate District 10 political shenanigans of the last couple of days, I have to wonder if the Brimer campaign is already running scared -- before the primary has even been held. Does Senator Brimer believe he might lose in a head-to-head election confrontation with Democratic candidate Wendy Davis?

Davis is a good candidate and popular in the district. Maybe that's why Brimer's political consultant, Bryan Eppstein, is trying to get rid of her before the general election campaign even begins.

Eppstein has an "in" with the Fort Worth Fire Department. He represented them in their battle to get collective-bargaining rights from the city. That made it easy for him to label Wendy Davis as an enemy of the Fire Department, and talk three supposedly Democratic firemen into writing Tarrant County Democratic Chairman Art Brender and claiming Davis was violating the law by running.

There is a state law that prevents a sitting council member from running for the state legislature. Davis resigned her council seat in August, but was required by law to continue representing her district until her replacement, who has already been elected, could be sworn in.

It now looks like Eppstein and the firemen may have been trying to split hairs by invoking the state law. Brender took the matter to the Secretary of State's office. The Secretary of State has put the matter back into Bremer's hands as the filing authority for the primary election of District 10.

A spokesman for the Secretary of State said state law is not clear on whether the eligibility was OK when Davis resigned or whether it was OK only after her replacement was sworn in. He said the matter was one that Brender would have to decide.

Wendy Davis has done nothing wrong. Everything she has done was open and above-board. Her resignation was accepted by the council last August. Brender should end this matter by declaring Davis eligible to run for the senate seat. He should not let a political consultant for the Republican opponent misuse state law to save his candidate's job.

Tarrant County has recently become known for Republican dirty tricks. This is just one more. If Brimer wants to keep his job, let him win it in a fair election.

Evidently, he's afraid he won't be able to do that.

Another Embarrassment For Texas Justice

This is starting to reach embarrassing proportions. We learned yesterday that another Texas inmate has been found to be innocent using DNA tests. Since 2001, at least 30 inmates of Texas prisons have been freed because they were innocent of the charge they were sent to prison on.

Charles Chatman was convicted of rape in 1981 and given a life sentence. Twenty-six years later, new DNA tests prove his innocence.

It is starting to look like our court system here in Texas is deeply flawed. How else can we explain that in the last seven years, 30 innocent men have been freed from our prisons? This is far more than in any other state.

It's even scarier when you consider that Texas also leads the nation in executions -- by a long shot. Doesn't it make you wonder how many men on death row might also be innocent (or already executed men might have been innocent)?

If Chatman had been given the death penalty instead of a life sentence, he would have been executed long ago. Executions may take quite a while, but none take 26 years.

It is time for Texas to follow New Jersey's lead and outlaw executions. With this many inmates being found to be serving sentences for crimes they did not commit, there is simply no way to justify continuing to execute prisoners.

The chances are too great that an innocent man will be executed because of our flawed and unfair court system. That would be unforgiveable.

Moffat To Run In District 98 As Democrat

Texas House District 98 covers the northeastern part of Tarrant County, and includes Colleyville, Grapevine, Southlake, Keller and part of north Fort Worth. For three terms, Republican moderate Nancy Moffat represented the district. About 10 years ago, she was defeated in the Republican primary by rabid right-winger Vicki Truitt, who currently represents the district.

Now Moffat has filed to run again for District 98 Representative, but this time she filed to run as a Democrat. Moffat said, "It wasn't so much that I left the Republican Party as much as it was that the party left me. They're all about the wealthy, and I want to be for the little guy and the middle guy."

Moffat has told Tarrant County Democratic chairman Art Brender that she supports children's health insurance, opposes school vouchers and opposes Speaker Craddick. She also says she is "OK" with the pro-choice position (whatever that means).

Now don't be misled -- Moffat is no liberal. She is a moderate at best. But if she truly supports the above positions (especially anti-voucher and anti-Craddick), then I am happy to have her running as a Democrat and I hope she can win the race.

This is the reddest area of Tarrant County, and many times the Democrats have not even been able to field a credible candidate in District 98. Moffat is a credible candidate, and has an outside chance of actually beating Truitt. That's good enough for me.

Welcome to the Democratic Party Nancy Moffat!

Bible Doesn't Give Immunity For Rudeness

Fort Worth's public transportation system is known as "The T". Last Saturday morning, a bus driver for The T kicked a woman and her children off the bus for disruptive behavior. The woman had been reading to her children in a very loud voice.

The driver asked the woman to lower her voice, and she told him "no". Then she continued her loud reading. The driver said rules against loud behavior are posted on every bus, and the other passengers were looking at him like "Are you going to enforce the rules or what?" Since she would not cooperate and obey the rules, the driver stopped the bus and escorted the woman and her children off.

That sounds like the driver was given no choice, and acted within the rules. But the woman saw it differently. The book she was loudly reading from was the Bible. Evidently she thinks that since it was the Bible, that makes her immune to the rules that ALL bus passengers must obey.

The woman called several local TV stations and claimed she had been persecuted because of "religious speech". A spokesman from The T said she was not thrown off the bus for reading the Bible, but for loud and disruptive behavior.

This woman was in the wrong, and had no right to be rude to the other passengers. She has to obey the same rules as any other passenger -- regardless of whether she was reading from the Bible or another book. This is not discrimination.

I'll bet she would have been the first to complain if a fellow passenger was reading too loudly from the Koran!

NOTE -- The T did go the "extra mile" in this instance. The driver called his supervisor, and the supervisor took the woman and her children to their destination -- church. Personally, I think this is more than she deserved.

Happy New Year

HAPPY NEW YEAR !

To all our wonderful readers and to our fellow bloggers. We hope each and every one of you have a joyous and prosperous 2008.

Musharraf Should Resign

When democracy candidate Benazir Bhutto was killed in Pakistan last week, most of the presidential candidates in the United States tried to outdo each other claiming how they would be the best one to deal with the dangerous situation created by the killing. All but the candidate with the most foreign policy experience -- Bill Richardson.

Richardson cut right to the heart of the problem and immediately said that President Musharraf should resign and turn over power to a coalition government. Richardson was absolutely right. Guilty or innocent, Musharraf will always be tarred by the murder of Bhutto. He was teetering on the brink before the murder -- there is no way he can continue to rule Pakistan now.

Most of the people in Pakistan believe Musharraf is responsible for Bhutto's death. This is not an unreasonable belief. The only evidence we have that he's not responsible are his own words, while there's much more to lead one to believe he is responsible.

First, there is his refusal to provide adequate protection for Benazir Bhutto. She knew she was in danger, and had asked him to provide protection. The fact that he refused to authorize the protection can only mean that he either could not see the danger she was in (unlikely, since everyone else could see it), or he wanted her death.

Second, are the words of Benazir Bhutto. She told her followers and others that if she were to be killed, "Musharraf will be responsible". She knew the current Pakistani president was a constant danger to her safety.

Third, the government headed by Musharraf has lied about her death since it happened. They still refuse to admit that she was shot prior to the explosion. First, they tried to say she was hit by shrapnel from the bomb. Then they changed that story to say she hit her head on the car when she fell. Neither story is true. British Channel 4 News has footage which shows a shooter before the expolsion.

Fourth, on the day she was killed, Bhutto had an appointment with two American politicians she trusted -- Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pennsylvania) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island). At that meeting she was going to hand over evidence that Musharraf was using Pakistani intelligence to fix the coming election.

U.S. aid money was being used to print fake ballots supporting Musharraf, that would be introduced into the election to swing it in favor of Musharraf. She was giving the evidence to Spector and Kennedy because she did not trust the Bush administration, which has cast its lot with Musharraf.

She may well have been wise not to trust the Bush administration. They have been quick to jump on board with Musharraf's accusation that al-Queda was responsible for Bhutto's death, even though there is no evidence of this at all.

The citizens of Pakistan blame Musharraf for Bhutto's death -- even those who were not supporting her. There is rioting going on there. Musharraf cannot hold on to power there. If he tries, it will just prolong the violence and put Pakistan's future in peril.

Musharraf should resign and turn power over to a coalition government. It is the only hope for peace in that troubled nuclear power.