Skip to content

Acceptable risks

What is it about American election officials? Are they all corrupt, or are they simply incapable of seeing the obvious. Check this out:

Voatz, a mobile voting app that’s already been used in several elections in the United States, has more than a dozen critical security flaws, according to a newly released audit. The audit also shows Voatz publicly refuted an MIT report that found flaws in its app even after it received confirmation that it was accurate.

The audit, which was prepared by cybersecurity firm Trail of Bits for Voatz and Tusk Philanthropies, which has partnered with Voatz on some of its pilot voting projects, found 48 technical vulnerabilities, 16 of which were “high-severity issues.”

The audit notes that many of the vulnerabilities Trails of Bits reported to Voatz were only partially fixed, unfixed, or considered by Voatz as acceptable risks.

“Voatz doesn’t make any sense as it’s currently designed. Architecturally, it trusts a central server with everyone’s votes,” Matthew Green, a cryptographer and computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University not involved with the Trail of Bits report, said. “A person who compromises that server or any of the client-side software has virtually free reign over an election.”

Green added: “If this was a hot dog stand, it would be closed by the health department.”

Acceptable risks! Amazing.

Is there anyone too blind to see that conducting elections over the internet is an invitation to steal said elections? Paper ballots, counted by a machine in no way connected to the internet is so much obviously safer. I suppose a mobile app would be more convenient, but there are multiple ways to make our present voting system more convenient. There is really only one conclusion one can draw from the fact that such an app would be utilized anywhere: that the state officials involved wantelections to be stolen, because they expect their political party (guess which one?) to benefit from the theft.

An open letter to Democrats in Congress

Dear Democratic Congresspersons:

Back at the beginning of the Obama Administration, Rahm Emanuel had this to say:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

The Obama Administration, Rahm helping to lead the way, then proceeded to let a serious crisis go to waste.

Republicans don’t make that mistake. They are not going to let the corona virus crisis go to waste. A person who cared about other people would see this crisis as an opportunity to improve our deeply ineffective health care system, which is currently charging people thousands of dollars just to get tested; a test that should be free. But Republicans only care about some people, and they are using the crisis to steer money into the hands of the rich, the same way they use every crisis.

As I’ve mentioned before, the Republicans play the long game, and they are doing it again in connection with their proposal to stimulate the economy by temporarily reducing or eliminating the payroll tax. There are many ways to get money into people’s pockets other than touching the payroll tax. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, you can just give people money, which has been done before in the form of tax rebates. An even better approach would be to forgive student debt, which would enable those burdened with crushing educational debt to spend that money on other things. After all, if you can print money to save Wall Street, you can print it to save people.

Reducing the payroll tax means draining money from the Social Security Trust Fund, thereby enabling future Republicans to argue that the system is bankrupt and is a Ponzi scheme anyway, so it should be privatized. It’s the Holy Grail they’ve been aiming at for years, and if Democrats can’t see that undermining Social Security is the point of the proposal, then they have not had their eyes open.

So please, Congressional Democrats, do the smart thing and tell Trump and his minions to shove it, and pass a rebate or debt relief bill.

The latest: So far, so good

An Open Letter to our friends, the Bernie Bros

Dear Bernie Bros:

It has now become clear that Joe Biden will enter the convention with a majority of pledged delegates and will not have to rely on Super Delegates to get himself over the top.

Just a few weeks ago, Bernie’s folks were arguing that the nomination should go to whoever gets to the convention with a plurality of delegates. A majority is more than a plurality. Only a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Some non-foolish consistency is now in order.

For my own part, putting Tulsi aside, I would have preferred almost any of the other serious contenders to Joe, for reasons I have spelled out in previous posts. I suspect that many of the votes cast for Biden were cast with noses firmly clasped by those who were convinced by our media that he was the only electable choice. Nonetheless, he will be the candidate, and he is preferable to the crypto-fascist that occupies the post currently. And no, he is not senile, as Russia and the genius would like us to think, and as many Bernie Bros are parroting, just as some embraced the Hillary email non-scandal in 2016. Biden sometimes puts his foot in his mouth, but by any reasonable standard one would have to say that the genius hardly ever takes his foot out of his mouth. This charge is particularly ironical, considering the fact that the moron Joe is running against is himself quite likely in the beginning stages of dementia. Bernie Bros: keep in mind, when they accuse us of something it’s because they’re doing it themselves. You could look it up.

Already, the pure of heart, Bernie supporters all, are announcing on various social media platforms that they will not vote at all if they cannot vote for Bernie.

In 1980 the pure of heart voted for John Anderson or Barry Commoner, which gave us Ronald Reagan and the beginning of the march toward fascism/kleptocracy/autocracy (take your choice, I’ll stick with fascism from here on) that has reached a temporary zenith under he whose name I shall avoid mentioning in this post.

The pure of heart gave us George W. Bush in 2000 and a regime that pushed us even farther toward fascism, by, among other things, stacking the courts with judges who are perfectly happy to see our system of elections warped by voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering. Perhaps the factual basis for no Supreme Court decision has been so effectively refuted by history as the assertion by the Roberts Supreme Court, while eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, that the Act’s preclearance protections were no longer needed because those Southern States were now totally uninfected by racism. The result has been voter suppression of staggering dimensions. And bear in mind that the guy who wasn’t pure enough for those folks in 2000 was Al Gore, who was warning about climate change even before it became clear, as it now is, that it is the major issue of our times.

The pure of heart helped us get losses in Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016, paving the way for what is, in all but name, a fascist regime. Our concentration camps may not boast ovens, but they exist nevertheless, and we have destroyed the lives of countless children who cannot even understand what is happening to them. Stephen Miller, the man most responsible for these abhorrent policies, is an out and proud Nazi. Right now we are hearing that the most important thing about an oncoming plague is managing economic loss, one of the tools for doing so being stealth destruction of social security. A loss in 2020 for the Democratic nominee will pave the way for a permanent fascist state, which may, like Rome did for a while, maintain the trappings of a Republic. Justice Ginsburg can’t live forever, and when she goes the Republicans will solidify their hold on a court system now dedicated to legalizing any unconstitutional or statutorily illegal act committed by a Republican. Voter suppression will be condoned in deed if not in word, while gerrymandering has already gotten a free pass. Our only hope on this score is that a Democratic congress and a Democratic president can pass voter protection laws to at least attempt to redress the impending destruction of the Republic.

If you doubt that we will be in for a dictatorship if we don’t stop the incumbent, consider that the entire Republican Party is now comfortable with a level of criminality in the executive (providing it’s a Republican executive) that makes Richard Nixon, the man who resigned because his party would no longer back him, look pure as the driven snow. If the yellow one is re-elected, he will do whatever he wants without consequence, even if the Democrats get control of the Senate. They’ll never get two thirds, and that’s what it takes to convict him, providing the Supreme Court doesn’t rule impeachment of a Republican unconstitutional. Already people are getting worried, with good reason, that he’ll use the corona virus crisis, a crisis largely of his own making due to a late and incompetent response, as a reason to “postpone” the election.

drop here to insert above

No aphorism is more true than this: the perfect is the enemy of the good. If Herr Trump is reelected, it will quite likely be by the slimmest of margins. Every person with a pure heart who does not vote will have, in effect, cast a vote for the would be dictator. This is especially true in those states (otherwise known as swing states) that are well stocked with, but not overwhelmed by, whackjobs.

drop here to insert below

It comes down to this: It’s Joe Biden or the end of American democracy. I’m no fan of Joe, but I’ll take Joe if that’s the choice. Once he’s in, it will be our job, Bernie and his followers included, to push Joe into doing what’s needed to save the country. It’s a sad fact of life, but you prove nothing by taking a holier than thou position and paving the way for dictatorship.

Update: On the demential issue. Watch the videos here. Bernie and Joe are both old men, but neither of them have dementia.

No Need for Obviousman!

We don’t get Non sequitur on our comics page, so I don’t know if Obviousman is still out there, exercising his super power of pointing out the obvious, but he would certainly feel he has a rival in this federal judge:

A federal judge on Thursday sharply criticized Attorney General William P. Barr’s handling of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, saying that Mr. Barr put forward a “distorted” and “misleading” account of its findings and lacked credibility on the topic.

Mr. Barr could not be trusted, Judge Reggie B. Walton said, citing “inconsistencies” between the attorney general’s statements about the report when it was secret and its actual contents that turned out to be more damaging to President Trump. Mr. Barr’s “lack of candor” called into question his “credibility and, in turn, the department’s” assurances to the court, Judge Walton said.

The judge ordered the Justice Department to privately show him the portions of the report that were censored in the publicly released version so he could independently verify the justifications for those redactions. The ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking a full-text version of the report.

The differences between the report and Mr. Barr’s description of it “cause the court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller report to the contrary,” wrote Judge Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Driftglass often notes that the liberal super power is memory, but spotting the obvious has to come in a close second. Now that a federal judge has pointed out the obvious is it possible that this rather obvious observation will now be simply stated as fact in the non-Fox media?

It’s not easy to fall in love

Linda Ronstadt was wrong, it’s not easy to fall in love. At least not when the person you have to fall in love with is Joe Biden. This is a fate I predicted would befall me, but still it is hard work (I just hope the rest of the predictions-for this year anyway-pan out) . The situation brings to mind the following exchange from Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Gondeliers among Casilda, a Duke’s daughter betrothed against her will, and her parents, the Duke and Duchess.

Casilda. Well, whatever happens, I shall, of course, be a dutiful wife, but I can never love my husband.

Duke. I don’t know. It’s extraordinary what unprepossessing people one can love if one gives one’s mind to it.

Duchess. I loved your father.

Duke. My love — that remark is a little hard, I think? Rather cruel, perhaps? Somewhat uncalled-for, I venture to believe?

Duchess. It was very difficult, my dear; but I said to myself, “That man is a Duke, and I will love him.” Several of my relations bet me I couldn’t, but I did — desperately!

Someday, it now seems likely, I will be saying to myself: “That man is the nominee of my party and the only hope of getting rid of Donald Trump, and I will love him!”. Several of my friends will likely bet me that I can’t, but I will-desperately.

Democratic strategists look on the bright side!

I always profess to look on the bright side, but the thing is the side you’re looking at has to be bright. Check this out for seeing brightness in dark corners. 

A little background first. The Supreme Court has decided to take a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. It is practically a given that the court will grasp at an absurd little straw to do so. At the request of the criminal’s DOJ, it has agreed to put off a decision until after the election.

Okay, here comes the bright side, brought to you by the Democratic consultants who specialize in losing elections:

Democratic strategists say that in some ways, the fact that the Supreme Court won’t make its final decision until after November 2020 may be the worst possible scenario for Republicans.

Democratic candidates can remind voters that casting a ballot for Trump or down-ballot GOP nominees could wipe away protections for preexisting conditions, and take health care away from 21 million people, according to a New York Times report on the impact of fully repealing the ACA.

“Trump — and the Congressional and Senate Republicans who have been supporting him — got cold feet about their lawsuit to take away everyone’s health care but the Supreme Court just guaranteed that it will be front and center right before the election,” Eddie Vale, a Democratic strategist, said in an email Monday.

Polling already shows health care is the most important issue for voters this fall — especially swing voters who may help determine the victor.

Yes, according to Democratic strategists, the fact that the Supreme Court is doing precisely what Republican strategists want it to do is good for the Democrats!

These people, one would assume, should have some elemental grasp of psychology to do their jobs, but then, if you specialize in losing, I suppose it’s entirely optional. There may be some intelligent species that has evolved somewhere where there is an electorate that follows the Supreme Court calendar and would be aware of the significance of upcoming cases and would be more impressed with the fact that their health care might be taken away than they would be by the fact that it has been taken away. Even on such an alternate planet, it would be necessary for the political party seeking to take advantage of such a threat to come up with a way to alert the electorate to the threat in a way that would get through to that far more evolved electorate. Earth is not that planet and the Democratic Party is not that party. The Democrats are terrible at messaging, but they would certainly be better if they were talking about a fait accompli. 

I’m not rooting for an adverse decision, though I am expecting one. I’m just saying that from a political perspective it would be better for the Democrats if it came around September than in late November. After all, that’s what the Republicans think, and there’s excellent reason to think that they’re right.

The End is Near

His politics weren’t so great, if I’m not mistaken, but T.S. Eliot got it right when he wrote this:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper.

Maybe “whimper” should be in the plural, but we can put that aside. The latest whimper is yet another sign that our judiciary has decided that there are one set of rules for Democrats, and no rules for Republicans:

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight.

In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

On Mr. Trump’s instructions, Mr. McGahn defied a House subpoena seeking to force him to testify about Mr. Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation. The House sued him, seeking a judicial order that he show up to testify, and won in district court in November.

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.

“Far reaching” isn’t the half of it. This is a declaration by Republican appointed judges that Republican presidents are subject to no limits. They can do as they like without consequence. Make no mistake, had the case concerned a Democratic president the outcome would have been different. The courts have now been so packed with Republican appointees that they are secure in the knowledge that they can get away with a double standard without consequence to them, at least in the short term.

In the long term, this decision, along with its brethren already decided and yet to come, paves the way for a dictatorship in which even those judges may find that they are deemed unnecessary by a president wielding untrammeled authority. Trump alone is too incompetent to have established that dictatorship on his own, but he has been enabled by a party more intent on retaining power and supporting autocracy than preserving democracy.

Our last hope is that we beat him in November. That’s why it’s so infuriating that we continue to hear people on “our side” insist that they will stay home unless their candidate gets the nomination. 

Taking the long view

You have to hand it to the right wing. It takes the long view

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a hugely consequential case that could fundamentally change the rules governing when people with religious objections to a law may ignore that law.

Fulton asks whether religious organizations that contract with Philadelphia to help place foster children in homes have a First Amendment right to discriminate against same-sex couples. It is also the first case the Supreme Court will hear where a religious group claims the right to violate a ban on discrimination since Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation gave reliably conservative Republicans a majority on the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in Fulton include Catholic Social Services (CSS), an organization that used to contract with the city to help find foster placements for children but that effectively lost that contract after it refused to comply with the ban on discrimination. CSS claims it has a First Amendment right to continue to do business with the city even if it refuses to comply with the city’s anti-discrimination rules.

The City of Philadelphia argues that it cannot contract out with a third party to behave in a way that the constitution forbids the state itself to behave. That argument makes total logical sense. The city will lose.

It follows as the night the day that if a group or individual can discriminate against a gay person because their religion demands it, then they can discriminate against any other group because their religion demands it, with the possible exception of discrimination against Republicans. My prediction is that even the loathsome Clarence Thomas won’t discuss the obvious ultimate objective when they rule in favor of the plaintiffs in Fulton. To the extent they do, they will airily dismiss the possibility with some sort of specious nonsense they can ignore in future cases.

But, as the Wicked Witch said, “all in good time”. Once the gays have been taken care of the rule will be extended to some other outcast group that is not racial in nature. After that, the ultimate goal, a religious right to discriminate against people on the basis of race. And really, to take it just a bit further, didn’t we go a bit overboard with the incorporation doctrine? What’s the harm in letting the Southern States have established religions. After all, it worked fine before the civil war.

Bernie angst

A rambling sort of post, but it’s the best I can do.

Sometimes you have to wonder about the memes out there. We are supposed to believe, at the moment, that Bernie is almost a sure thing because he won a caucus in a state in which, if I’m reading the charts right, around 10,000 people participated. Chris Matthews is upset, and has compared Bernie to the Nazis, and the Democratic establishment is scared to death, because only a centrist can win, like one almost did last time! I still don’t think Bernie will get the nomination, but if he does the people who are supposed to be on our side should be good little boys and girls like the Paul Ryans of 2016 and get behind him.

The bitterness from both sides is ridiculous. I’ve even had to cut down on my guilty pleasure at the Palmer Report, which is taking a never Bernie stance, just as I’ve cut back on Down with Tyranny, which pretty much takes a Bernie only position.

I’m not convinced Bernie has any sort of lock on the nomination,but if he were to get it, contrary to the thinking among the punditocracy, I think he can win, provided the Democratic Party gets behind him. Once again, recall that all the experts said Trump couldn’t win, but he did. Bernie ran strong against Hillary in exactly those states that she lost in the general by a whisker, so there are good arguments to be made that he can win the general election. Sure he’s got baggage, but they all do, and if they don’t, the Republicans will make stuff up. I disagree with Krugman, who says Bernie shouldn’t call himself a socialist. It’s a little late for that, as he hung that moniker on himself about 40 years ago. If he disavows it now, it just gives Republicans a talking point. Rather than that, were I him, I’d point out that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, workers compensation benefits, public libraries, and public schools, to name just a few of the things we take for granted, are socialistic, as the Republicans pointed out about many of them when they were first passed.

Speaking of socialism, now that I’m on Medicare, and my wife and I have navigated the rocky waters of picking a supplemental plan, it has occurred to me to wonder why none of the candidates, including Sanders, has proposed expanding Medicare for people already getting it. Why should I have to get a supplemental plan at all? Why doesn’t Medicare cover dental? Why doesn’t it cover eye exams? Why is the prescription drug benefit so crappy? (We know the answer to that one; it was a giveaway to Big Pharma) Not only would expanding Medicare get you votes from seniors, it would make the idea of Medicare for All more attractive to younger workers, who often rightfully complain about the possibility that they’ll have to trade a better medical plan for Medicare. And of course, it would be cheaper in the long run, though the pundits can’t understand that a dollar paid in taxes is the same amount of money as a dollar paid to insurance companies. Plus, assuming we take the Senate, it’s something that could actually pass, assuming that the Senate bucks Bernie and gets rid of the filibuster.

Bernie’s not my first choice, but I think he can win provided that the Democratic Party doesn’t do to him what it did to George McGovern. Back then, Big Labor, epitomized by George Meany, took a pass on the Democratic candidate, because he was against an unnecessary war. Lots of mainstream Democrats were luke warm at best. McGovern might not have been able to win in any event, but that election marks the beginning of the decline of the union movement and the middle class, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence. This one, if we lose it, will have much more serious consequences. The constitutional order will be destroyed and we will have a dictator in all but name.

There’s only one issue

I’m not a Michael Bloomberg fan, though I’ll vote for him if need be, but I give him credit for one thing. He seems, more than any of the other candidates, to understand that the central issue in this election is Donald Trump. Sure, better medical coverage, anti-trust enforcement, Green New Deals, are worth talking about, but Trump should be front and center. In the end, if we’re going to win, it will be by making the election about the stable genius.

Not only do some of the presidential candidate not seem to understand this, but the party nabobs don’t seem to have a clue. It was always a given that the Senate would acquit Trump. Yet to all appearances, the House Democrats appear to have taken that acquittal as proof that they should let up on their investigations, as though beating the drums on Trump’s perfidy should stop now that he’s been acquitted in a sham trial. I don’t seem to recall the Republicans shutting their mouths about Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes, which paled next to Trump’s, and, as an historical reminder, the Democrats lost the next presidential election, or, at the very least, it was close enough to enable the Republicans to steal it.

I very much doubt there will be presidential debates this year, as I doubt Trump would risk debating anyone but Biden. But I have this fantasy of those debates happening, and the Democrat using all of his or her time simply listing, one after the other, all the heinous and criminal things Trump has done. Besides keeping him on defense it would drive him crazy and he might have a meltdown right then and there.

Afterword: The above was written as a draft yesterday, before the debate, during which I understand Bloomberg bombed in response to Warren attacks. That brings up another debate fantasy. It would be nice if every person on the debate stage made opening remarks to the effect that everyone standing on the stage (as well as almost anyone in the audience) would make a better president than the criminal currently occupying the White House, and that whatever happens, he or she will support the person who comes out on top.