Ralph Nader Takes on Gallup Poll's Black Box

October 5th, 2008
Posted by Toby Heaps at Nader 2008 blog

We do fairly poorly on the Gallup poll, generally registering less than 1 percent (or about 5 times less than the recent WSJ poll). This is probably because they don’t mention Ralph Nader’s name in the question–just Obama and McCain.

So I phoned up Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief (609-924-9600), and asked him if they had any kind of objective threshold which we could strive toward so that Ralph Nader’s name could be included as part of the primary question.

His answer: “No. We use our internal judgment to decide. We do some open-ended questions and variety of other criteria, and then our editorial team makes a decision.” I asked if there were any ballpark levels of support in the open-ended question they looked to as a threshold, and he repeated his mantra, that it was subject to “internal judgment criteria,” and then jumped off to take another call.

He was kind enough to leave me with his e-mail to follow up. Anyone who wants to let Newport know what you think of his internal judegment, please call him or e-mail him at frank_newport@gallup.com."

Thanks to Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report for bringing this entry to my attention.


Here are a few other articles of interest:

Why does the latest poll by the Pew Research Center report that drilling for domestic oil has jumped to the top of Americans' energy priorities? Maybe because Pew didn’t ask respondents if they want the nation to invest in clean energy and efficient cars, instead. So suggests this poll (pdf) by Belden Russonello & Stewart, released last week.
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BRS-Omnibus-Poll_07-22-08.pdf

Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

Polling itself is unpredictable. Polling affects elections. It's sort of like this thing "you can't drop a stone in the same river once [sic]"—as soon as you poll it, you've changed it. What should we really make of polling in this election? http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2111

Polling is a business; the interest of pollsters is not to educate the public.

Presidential Election Process Flaw Illustrated

Here live and in color, (when I watched Newshour this evening) we find beautifully performed and clearly illustrated, the problem with the current presidential election process in America. There are only 2 parties acknowledged, and they make up their own rules about who gets the nomination and how, not the American people. Corporations and special interest groups are free to contribute and bring power to bear on decisions that are made for the country. As indicated below, the Democratic Party rules say that the delegates make the decision, and some 'Super' delegates even get more than the average leverage with their vote. Most Americans, if you ask them, confuse their rights to vote and peoples rights to run for president with democratic or republican party rules. These two parties can make up any rules they want regarding their candidates and their procedures and they do. These rules, as indicated below, do not ensure the ingrained American 'One person One vote', or 'Every Vote Counts'. It does ensure that numbers are crunched and manipulated until the favored candidate comes out on top no matter the actual number of American votes obtained. Does that sound right to you?

If you are a member of one of the parties, write, call or email to let them know you want actual member votes counted. Take the time to listen to some of the third party and independent candidates and their issues, if they are your issues give them some support! Most of all learn your rights. Learn that the D and R parties are not the only game in town, their candidates don't have to be your candidates, at the very least take the time to make the changes within your party to ensure your vote and every single vote is actually counted, and every single candidate has a chance to be seen, heard and on the ballot.

"REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, the race isn't remotely over. And with all due respect to Governor Romer, the key indicator that is the clear indication of Senator Clinton being the best candidate for the general election is that she is now, as of last night, ahead in the popular vote, when you count Florida and Michigan, which we absolutely need to make sure that we do, because the Democratic nominee should be selected by voters in all 50 states.
And at the end of the day, when we look through the Electoral College map, the way we add up to the 270 Electoral College votes that we need is by winning the states that are swing states and by getting ahead in the popular vote. And that's how we get electoral votes.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. More people have gone to the polls in America -- more Democrats have gone to the polls in America to cast votes for Hillary Clinton than for Senator Obama. And that is the measure that we should be using to decide who is our best foot forward in November.

GWEN IFILL: Governor Romer smiled when you said that.

ROY ROMER: It isn't the measure that we've all agreed on in the Democratic Party. The measure we've agreed on is, who has the most delegates?
And we ought not mislead the country. This is a contest that has rules, and the rules are, who has the most delegates? And those delegates have spoken." PBS

PolitiFact | A service of the Obama Campaign

A few weeks ago I added the Politifact gadgety thingy to my homepage, as I had come across an interesting article and took a few moments to look over a few of their headlines and thought it might be interesting. And in fact they are interesting, the site itself is well laid out, newsy and not extravagant. I've bookmarked a few of their articles, referred to them for info etc. It began to occur to me recently however, that the frequency of the name Obama over Clinton in the 6-7 headlines that come across the little reader was, well, getting more frequent. Over the next few days I kept my eye on those headlines and also began to notice they were leaning a bit to the Obama not Clinton. Questions and controversies from the headlines sure, but picked and parceled so the Clinton questions whether they turn out to be true or half or pants on fire, always seem to end up with Clinton looking bad, and Obama but not Clinton looking put out and wronged. Today I clicked on a headline from the RSS feed, Focus on the Facts I think, another article letting us know someone had maligned Obama, not Mrs Clinton. So I decided to head to their front page to see what that was like.

Obama word count 20
Clinton word count 9

Obama Pictures 7
Clinton Pictures 3

Rezko - 0

Needless to say, I am deleting the gadgety thingy as I don't need this sort of "Truth".


April 26, 2008 Update:

A couple of links to similar stories:

MediaMatters March 08 Why Politifact Really Emerged

Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul

Nader Advocates Tools of Democracy

Andrew Cross, Daily Vidette Staff

"You have to have a thirst for justice" Ralph Nader, author, attorney and presidential candidate, said while addressing students, faculty and community members on Monday evening.
"You have to have a sense that you matter, that you count," Nader continued, advocating the importance of being an engaged citizen."

How do you know your Independent run is having an impact? Major party candidates pick up one your primary platform issues.
Unfortunately for this candidate however, he's 2 strikes and a foul down on the count. He's been caught saying one thing to the American people about his stand on NAFTA, and reassuring Canadians it's all just campaign talk. Now he's been caught saying one thing to endear himself to a special interest group while trying to tell the American people of "what he really meant". Nothing new here, politician willing to say anything to anyone to get the ticket. I'm considering the Wright deal the foul ball, in case your keeping tally.
There are many people living in big white houses on the hill that have bet their future against impeachment. If this were any other period in time, they might have been right. But these people have caused the deterioration of our country's good name. We as a people are kind, generous, compassionate, hopeful and forgiving. They have set in motion actions that are counter to that which we hold dear and the hope we have in our hearts for the future of our country and our ideals. They have compromised the Constitution of these United States, breaching a trust that touches the heart of every single person living in America today. Politics are one thing, if poor judgement were the only issue here they would be safe in their assumptions. But the situation they find themselves in today, the situation they thought they would never see, which no doubt gave them their courage, is nothing so petty as that. The lines that have been crossed need to be addressed.

Our reputation MUST be restored for us to proceed interacting with the world outside our door. Our confidence must be restored for us to once again begin doing the great things this country is capable of. Our constitution must be restored to the liberty ensuring document that has MADE this country the leader it has been in the past and the leader it will be, MUST be, in the future.

Nader behind in fund-raising - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported this afternoon that he had raised $321,700 by the end of February, including $40,200 from his own pocket and a quarter of his total take from California residents."

Seems like prudent planning to me as, the real fight isn't likely to get under way for a few months. It also is a useful statement that speaks to the OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money being spent by the R & D parties at a time when we are all looking to tighten our belts if not being forced to do so. One shouldn't need to spend that kind of money to be a part of the process. Speaking of that, one certainly shouldn't be required to prove voter support based on dollars raised. The fact that the word democracy has become somehow interchangeable with capitalism is perverse. How is it that people who can't afford to send money to a campaign no longer have the right to support a candidate and have it count? (speaking of minimum donations per state to qualify for matching funds)


I went here for information on public funding of presidential elections, this is where the disappointment began. First is the fact that the only instances in which the word 'Independent' is used is when referring to expenditures not candidates. Each section stated time and again 'party candidate', 'major party candidates' as well a 'minor' and 'new' party candidates. No where is there a section for or direct information on 'Independent Candidates'. One small section titled 'Eligibility for Public Funds' finds itself parked fully halfway down this page titled 'Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure', carefully placed after 7 other sections that only refer to parties, committees and conventions. No where on this official government site for information does it make clear the standards and requirements for independent candidates. It does note that this page is intended for students, public information and reporters not candidates or committees, and that those groups should consult chapter 11 campaign laws. (no handy link provided)
This same government provided site finds a page titled 'Chapter 1: Primary Matching Funds' that notes "18. The requirement that candidates be affiliated with a political party has raised constitutional questions. Some have argued that it discriminates against independent candidates. For a discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2." Again, this is the only remark on independent candidates.

This 'Chapter 2' finds that "eligible candidates" are, by definition, the nominees "of a political party for President and Vice President."11 and that '11' is noted as 26 U.S.C. Sec.9002(4). It goes on:

Thus, on its face, the statute would appear to preclude public funding for independent candidates. On the other hand, Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16): a political party is "an association, committee, or organization which nominates a candidate for election to any Federal office whose name appears on the election ballot as the candidate of such association, committee, or organization."
Applying this definition in Advisory Opinion (AO) 1980-3, the Commission determined that the Citizens Party would qualify as a political party once it received verification from any state that a candidate would appear on the ballot as a nominee of the party. Subsequently, in AO 1980-56, the Commission concluded that Barry Commoner, the Citizens Party's Presidential nominee, could qualify for post-election funding as a new party candidate even if he was not listed as the party's nominee on some states' ballots. The Commission noted that Mr. Commoner was registered with the FEC as a candidate of the Citizens Party, and that the statute required only that the candidate (not the party) receive five percent of the vote to qualify for public funds. Similarly, in AO 1980-96, the Commission confirmed that the various organizations sponsoring John Anderson's candidacy would qualify as political parties for purposes of the public funding rules. Therefore, Mr. Anderson, as the nominee of these parties, could qualify for post-general election funding if he received more than five percent of the vote.12
Although the Anderson opinion did not address the issue, some Commissioners felt that he should have been declared eligible for funding as an independent candidate. Commissioners John Warren McGarry and Frank P. Reiche filed separate statements supporting such a finding. Mr. Reiche argued that the Anderson campaign was "dedicated to the election of an independent candidate" and should not have been required to "cloak [itself] with the appearance of political party formality" to qualify for public funding. Both Commissioners cited legislative history and the U.S. Circuit Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo to support their case. The Circuit Court stated that independent candidates should be subject to the same eligibility requirements as other candidates:
If these provisions would in fact operate to prevent independents from obtaining public funding, no matter what their showing, or if they would require that independents go to the trouble of creating election party machinery in order to obtain public funding, then they would raise serious constitutional questions. . . . But the statute does not command that interpretation.13

In 1981, the Commission formally asked Congress to consider clarifying whether an independent candidate could qualify for general election funding.14 In trying to find the verdict, opinion or decision I did find more questions :

3. In Buckley v. Valeo, the circuit court opinion suggested that failure to fund independent candidates could raise constitutional questions. 519 F.2d 821, 887 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The Supreme Court, in its subsequent decision, did not explicitly rule on this issue.
4. Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16).


Lets see if I can find more... Should it BE his hard????

The above article refers to "(The Commission's 1993 legislative recommendations are included in this report as Appendix 2.)" as a "more complete discussion", no where on that page does the word independent appear. On the public info page it was noted that they fall back to the definition of candidate found in 26 U..SC Sec.9002(4) please note this is different than the definition cite noted just above as 4.

H.R. 2817 in it's current incarnation's summary in part says "6/21/2007--Introduced.
Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to set forth specified expenditure limitations for House of Representatives general elections.
Permits additional expenditures by eligible major party, third party, and independent candidates."

Here are the details pertaining to independent candidates from the bill detail page:

`(2) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE DESCRIBED-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In this section, an `eligible candidate' is a major party, third party, or independent candidate in a House of Representatives general election who presents to the Commission petitions containing the signatures of individuals eligible to vote in the election (as verified by the Commission), except that the highest funded candidate in the election may not be an eligible candidate for purposes of this section.

But this page really only refers to 'house of representatives general election' and only eludes to presidential elections when discussing numbers of backers compared to previous elections excluding presidential elections. This bill is still active, but I am not sure if it is pertinent to my search.

I've been working on this for hours now, with no real results. I'm going to give it a break now... if anyone can end my misery and send me a link to pertinent information regarding the current congressionally acceptable definition of "Independent Candidate" as it pertains to public campaign funding well....I'll visit your site three times a day until the elections are over.

What Independent Voters Want

• We’re tired of two parties whose priority is acquiring and maintaining power rather than serving the people who voted them into office.
  
• We have no problem voting for someone who has no chance of winning.
  
• We vote for the person and not the party.
  
• We seldom vote a straight, major-party ticket.
  
• We are not undecided. We have decided to be independent.
  
• We believe that a diversity of opinions stimulates healthy debate.
  
• We want dialogue, not diatribes.
  
• We want a government that follows the will of the people instead of one that manipulates it.
  
• We care as much about what happens on every other day as on Election Day.
  
• We want Ralph Nader to keep on running, even if we don’t vote for him. We probably need to apologize for that.
  
• We are anti-party, and yet we welcome third-party voters and candidates to join us under the independent umbrella, because they’re also outsiders.
  
• We believe the United States is better than this.

A pretty big whopper on it's own:

mw Says: "While people may actually like to think of themselves as “Independent”, what they do in a voting booth is one hell of a lot more important than what they tell pollsters about how how they label themselves."

When the parties take the measures they have to keep people off the ballot, leaving no other names there but their own we have little choice as to what we do in the voting booth save not voting at all. Looking at the falling numbers of voters, I'd say they have made one hell of a loud statement!

Another:

mw Says: "The way to read this, is that when an “independent” tells a pollster which way they “lean”, they are actually saying “this is how I vote”. "

What part of the writers statement didn't you understand? "nor are we “party-leaning.” The polls you are referring to do not have real questions and a real category for people who are not of one party or the other, in order to give indication of our issues we answer in the manner which will get our points across. It is the pollsters and people like you that push us into a lean, that force us into your mold of leaners.

So here is OUR definition, every person on your census that hasn't registered yet to vote, every person who has registered and hasn't recently voted, every person who recently removed themselves from the R or the D party and every single person who votes on issues not party affiliation, THOSE people are your Independents. That is how many, exactly, you need to consider Independent Voters.

Mccain Closer to Bush than Democrats

"On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain's people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy: 'He wants to see the use of nukes.'"

To Grist.Org and Glassbooth.Org

Thanks For the Add!

I've looked and looked for sites with 2008 US presidential race 3rd party candidate information. They are few, far between and most are of marginal quality as I've noted in previous blogs. These folks have recently added Ralph Nader to the pack of three, Grist having posted a phone interview covering most of the major issues and placing Mr. Nader on their "How Green is your Candidate" chart. Glassbooth.Org (I believe they recently opened their doors to cover this election so I'm giving them a huge break) has gathered up a series of videos covering Mr. Nader speaking on the major issues and organized them nicely with the other candidates. I am waiting rather impatiently for them to add him to their "Election 2008 Candidate Quiz".


Grist.org's Compare the Candidates How do the candidates compare on green issues? Check our chart.

http://www.glassbooth.org/ Presidential Candidate Quiz and Candidate information with Video

A listing (#'s 4-9) of various candidate quizzes

Defining 'Change': Ralph Nader about his Presidential platform on Energy and the Environment

An interview with Ralph Nader about his Presidential platform on Energy and the Environment
By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Feature 19 Mar 2008:

"Going forward, what sets your environmental platform apart from the other candidates'?


I'm basically promoting a massive conversion from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. I'm not talking about corn ethanol, which has a very poor net energy- and water-usage characteristic. I'm talking about industrial hemp. I'm talking about plant life that can be efficiently converted to fuel -- like sugar cane, agricultural waste, cellulosic grasses, and certain kinds of biomass that can be grown with a spectacular ratio of energy inputs to outputs. I'm talking about a very fundamental remodeling of our economy -- a conversion from industrial-age, 19th-century technologies like the internal combustion engine to renewable, sustainable technologies of efficiency and production. We should have vehicles that get well over 100 miles per gallon. As Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have shown, we can create far greater efficiencies in the use of our natural resources, whether it's copper, iron, oil, gas, timber, you name it."


These are the kind of bold words that define the kind of change we as a nation are looking for. We've all known for a long time now that someone is going to need step up and admit out loud and accept responsibility for initiating what must be done. It is a daunting task, but one that will reap the best benefits for our country's overall health, sustainability and national morale.
The major corporations that could have been, over the past 10 years or so, preparing for this day by developing many already proven technologies have instead spent their time purposefully not doing this sometimes going so far as to purchase patents just to set them on shelves. There is still time for these companies to jump on board, if not make way for the new companies willing to fill the need. The money will shift, there will be new 'major corporations', the jobs will remain and life in the US will move along without them, a victim of the very consumer driven economy they helped to create.

Please click on the title to read the complete interview with Mr. Nader

03/20/08 EDIT
A couple of links that will not only support Ralph's plan, but offer interactive models and scenarios that you can check out yourself :

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

http://www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourself/

Nader means Change - For Real

Nader will run for president

Feb 24: Ralph Nader announces his third bid for the White House while speaking with NBC’s Tim Russert of “Meet the Press”.

Why Not? Hillary grew up as a Corporate attorney for WalMart of all places, WALMART! Yeah yeah, working for the poor's favorite store but look at what Walmart has done from a legal, or attorney's view point! If any corporation is going to be able to take advantage of her Walmart will be the one. Walmart has one of the worst records for a company it's size as far as it's employees are concerned, you know, The People. She is a corporate attorney.

Why Not? Barack grew up in Hawaii. So what you say? Lovely people with values. Yes, except Barack didn't spend much time with The People. He lived in a large expensive house and went to private schools. There is a huge wasteland of toxic goo under the Great Lakes causing low birth weights and excessive still births in the Chicago area...gosh I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? Personal gain trumps The People I guess.

Why Not? John tells us he is disgusted by the status quo in campaigning, lobbyists are bad he says. But only if he doesn't need a private jet ride somewhere I suppose. That makes him an ok guy, doesn't it? It was only PAX tv I guess, they are religious how can that be bad? Well, when the owner of Pax (before it was Pax quite yet, it was Paxon Communications then) was buying up all of the local stations (hey, isn't there an FCC rule about that?) he could get his hands on, he ran into a little trouble. He asked his friend John (in person, turns out despite John's denial http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022308C.shtml ) to write a letter to the FCC on his behalf. Not only did John do this for him, he did it twice, the second to the employees as opposed to the head when his initial letter to him got no response. The head of the agency wrote back to John letting him know he had crossed the line and his letter was "highly unusual". A subsequent review by the FCC General Counsel's Office determined that McCain had violated the commission's ex parte rules. But here is the kicker, the part we should all be paying attention to: Five days after McCain's second letter, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to approve the deal. The commission also imposed a condition prohibiting Cornerstone from "proselytizing." Cornerstone would not agree to those terms, and the deal collapsed.

proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb: 1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Proselytize is formed from proselyte, "a new convert, especially a convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system, or party,"

from Greek proselutos, "a proselyte, a newcomer," from pros, "toward" + elutos, from eluthon, "I came."

If the word of the day is "CHANGE" there is no better way to describe what Nader can do for us!
Oh, you didn't really mean change? You meant to just lean a little, no REAL change is needed... You are ok with the way things are going? You have accepted that hillary barack and john are really different enough? Click on the Photo caption to listen to what Nader has to say.

Looking for change? Really?

Democracy not = to Capitalism

Democracy is not the same as Capitalism

Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dēmocratia, from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people; see dā- in Indo-European roots + -kratiā, -cracy.]
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

[Origin: 1850–55; capital1 + -ism]
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary


n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


Yet we do seem to have merged the two into some abhorrent mutant. The point of democracy is to level the playing field, everyone has a voice. Today it seems, more than ever, only people with money have a voice. Many a public policy has been made based on the popularity of an issue or item and this information is based on dollars spent. Many people follow the the two major political party's lead simply because they believe that if they raise that kind of money, many people must agree with them, they can't all be wrong. In basis, this theory will hold a little water, but in fact it will sink in the end as just a few very wealthy people (relatively) contribute huge amounts of cash.

I have a bit of renewed hope with the onset of the internet, we have our voices back. But I am sure there were people just as revitalized by the printing press, the radio and the television. Those mediums did do a lot to bring information to the masses, from hometown to around the world and so did do a lot to raise our voices. The state of those mediums today, all in the hands of the wealthy few twisting, slanting and outright banning certain topics, well... lets just try to get as much from this new medium while it is in our hands.

Recently I went in search of online campaigns for the 2008 US presidential elections. What I found was dismal. The 2 major party's sites were of course flashy, and state of the art but were still really just giant commercials. Not very connected to the people they should have been addressing. The other parties, what I found of them online, were at the bottom of a very deep chasm if the D&R's were on the hill. The Green party's news feed hadn't been updated since dec7'07, spelling errors were noted by me and that's saying something! Ad promo's were dated 2006, including audio and video selections. Nothing from '07/'08 at all. It was hard to find the current candidates and the party seemed very unorganized. Their principals are something I find a lot of people are interested in but with the current mindset of "capimocracy", without the trappings the big money buys, people think there can't be many other people that agree with them, they must be wrong and so am I. In a discussion on the topic with a friend a few days ago, that was the answer he gave. "If people agreed they would put their money behind it".

My folks are on a fixed income, they did a little saving and are pretty well off in retirement however their idea of a donation to the party is about $25. My sister works in health care and has children/grandchildren, though she was recently able to become a homeowner in lieu of a renter she doesn't have it in her budget to make more than a $10-$20 donation. I have another sister who is recently divorced after 15 years and while she was able to head back to school and start a new career she is back in a renting situation and also couldn't afford to donate much more than $50-$100. My friend has 4 children, last year she was in a position to start a business and build for her family's future. She took a huge chance and did a great job, until flooding closed her down for 2 months. One week or maybe even two closed would have been hard but recoverable, 2 months were not. She lost her business and in course her home. She is now an hourly employee and a renter. She cannot afford to donate anything to a political party. Another friend attends a church for recovering addicts. Most have just come from stints in rehab, or are children of addicted parents. Most are unemployed all are renters, mostly of a room in someone else's home. My next door neighbor was injured on the job. He was unable to return to work. He applied for various programs to assist him in keeping a roof over his families head and food in their stomachs. Unemployment runs out, L&I disputes and meetings and hearings go on forever. He lives with his parents now. He cannot afford to donate to a political party this year.

These are the good stories. There are plenty of people who never were as lucky as these, and won't be in the future. There are plenty of good people in circumstances that don't allow them to donate hard earned money to make their valid, hard earned opinions known. Because they can't afford it, does that make them less worthy of a vote? Abraham Lincoln, while his family began relatively affluent, ultimately lived on public land after the death of his mother and issues with land ownership. I doubt he would have had money to spare for a donation to a political party in those days, do you think his opinions were invalid because he didn't have extra cash? Really?


I'm all for capitalism, don't get me wrong. It is not the same as democracy, it should not be mixed up in democracy. If you tend to think, as the mainstream (media) would have you think, that people who make money are smarter and so their votes are of higher quality then please read the above again. We have the opportunity, perhaps only for a time, to take control and have our voices heard regardless of our ability to pay! Set aside time each day to do a little research on your politicians, local and federal. Spend a little more time writing down your thoughts opinions and ideas. Take just a few more moments to make contact with other people to discuss the issues. Donate some time (perhaps taken from watching commercial laden television, trying to convince you your life is not complete unless you have a summer home, or a second car or? requiring you to work more and spend less time at home with family and on issues that effect your family) to spread the word, at meetings and on the internet. Your life is unique, your opinion counts, make sure you are heard!

Isaiah 1:15

One of the questions in a survey taken recently gave me a rare opportunity to try to summarize the major difference for me between the Democrat and Republican parties. The biggest difference for me has long been the R's reluctance and even refusal to develop and fund social programs. A quick look at history, even from an under-educated point of view, tells us that most countries/empires fall to civil unrest stemming from vast gaps in social status. A few haves controlling the mostly have-nots. Even when the have-nots did not openly rebel, low morale bred lack of support in times of national need leading to the downfall of many civilizations.In the few moments I took to ponder my answer for the survey, I considered how religion has been playing it's role in the last few presidential elections. How it seems the R's have claimed religion as theirs. How this seems strange to me, the R's have never been the 'go to guys' in my mind for 'turning the other cheek' or 'forgiving one's trespass'. Then I suddenly had my one word answer. The biggest difference between the parties, for me, is Charity.

I had long been perplexed at governments failure to learn from the past, especially since it has repeated so many times, but now found myself appalled with the realization that so many R's wave the Christian Banner without representing main Christian values. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers for the injustice. He gave aid and comfort to those others would not approach. I was reminded of Isaiah recently and the following seems almost to have been written in explanation of my issue with the R's waving the Christian flag:

Isaiah 15
9 When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!
16
Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil;
17
learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow.
18
Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool.
19
If you are willing, and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land;
20
But if you refuse and resist, the sword shall consume you: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken!
21
10 How has she turned adulteress, the faithful city, so upright! Justice used to lodge within her, but now, murderers.
22
Your silver is turned to dross, your wine is mixed with water.
23
Your princes are rebels and comrades of thieves; Each one of them loves a bribe and looks for gifts. The fatherless they defend not, and the widow's plea does not reach them.
24
Now, therefore, says the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah! I will take vengeance on my foes and fully repay my enemies!
25
I will turn my hand against you, and refine your dross in the furnace, removing all your alloy.
26
I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as in the beginning; After that you shall be called city of justice, faithful city.
27
11 Zion shall be redeemed by judgment, and her repentant ones by justice.

I'm not a religious person, I'm barely spiritual, and don't believe religion has a place in politics especially US politics. We have a near perfect list of rules to work with that make it so whatever your religion we can live together fairly and safely with the same opportunity. If you fly a religious banner at me I'm going to expect you to live up to your claim, and R's, you have a bit of work to do.

A Better Idea for Microsoft's $45 Billion

So I'm browsing over my home page, a compilation of RSS feeds from various sources (I tend toward off-mainstream news sites in an attempt to 'de-slant' the corporate news sources) regarding world and local news, business and social/cultural over the past few days and I've come across a few articles that were interesting on their own, but viewed all together they gave me an idea. Let me start from the beginning:

The first article was Microsoft: $44.6B for Yahoo , not terribly interesting on it's own but the first thing I thought was, wow, that is way too much money. Until recently I used Yahoo services extensively for personal and social web pages, and a few of their other interactive type services, but did not use their search engine. I never have really. I put them to a side by side test once a few months ago with google when it occurred to me to be a bit more loyal, but yahoo search really doesn't compare for quality results. If the search engine is the main goal of the purchase, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not paid to know anything about any of that.


Next came Lawmaker Worried About Lack Of D-Block Bidding In FCC Sale which peaked my interest, but I couldn't tell you why. It was very much more interesting than you may think however, due to the mass exodus by television broadcasters from analog to digital signals next year. Interesting.


Then the final two, Chinese Begin to Protest Censorship of Internet informs us that while there is a horrible oppression taking place, there is also a huge potential customer base in need of an inventive internet provider. A quote from Pan Liang: "Many people don't know that 300 years after Emperor Kangxi ordered an end to construction of the Great Wall, our great republic has built an invisible great wall," he wrote. "Can blocking really work? Kangxi knew the Great Wall was a huge lie: Just think how many soldiers are needed to guard those thousands of miles."


And finally the kicker FCC Prods Cable companies in Tiff with Indie Programmers which outlines yet another huge market willing to pay for air time. Independent programming is more popular than ever!


If you haven't guessed yet, I think it would be MUCH more wise to spend that cash to secure the newly available, slow to sell Block D! Sure, there are issues with the whole idea as I found out while poking around for info on this blog:License White Space for Backhaul? Google says No but I think it would be a whole new ball game with that kind of cash behind the deal. It opens wide a shiny new frontier for developers while securing a huge multi-media customer base.