California Recall Ruling is more than you think
by JohnHuang2
Three weeks before voters too dumb for punch-card balloting are scheduled to punch their ballots in "California's historic recall, a federal appeals court (Monday) postponed the Oct. 7 election, ruling that the use of older punch-card ballot machines would disenfranchise those voters, especially poor and minority citizens," the Washington Post reports this week.
Deep-thinking analysts note deep-thinkingly that postponement enhances Gray Davis's "chances for keeping his job."
'Darn! Where was that Court when I needed it?' Saddam Hussein wonders wistfully.
"A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the American Civil Liberties Union that the use of punch cards in six urban counties would subject voters there to a greater likelihood that the ballots would be misread or discarded as happened during Florida's election fiasco in the presidential vote in 2000," added the Post. If poor and minority voters in these six urban counties vote next month, poor and minority voters will be disenfranchised.
Liberals now believe the use of older punch-card ballot machines is inherently racist.
The machines hotly deny the charge.
But there's more to this ruling than that. Far more. This decision is more than just politics and law. In fact, it may have escaped most pundits, but it appears the Court has broke new ground -- trailblazing into scientific discovery.
The Court says the voting system Californians have used for decades is no good and it would be terribly unfair to recall a governor who's no good under such a system. Why is it suddenly no good and unfair? Well, something really freaky happened in these six urban counties since last November, the ruling suggests: In these counties, poor and minority voters, whose I.Q.s were adequate in November for using 'older punch-card ballot machines' to re-elect Gray Davis, have since suffered a drop of 30-40 I.Q. points on average. Man, I hate when that happens! No one has yet pinpointed a cause, but the steep I.Q. drop has rendered poor and minority voters in these six urban counties unable to read punch-card ballots, the court decision suggests. Moreover, three weeks is hardly enough time to expect poor and minority voters, with diminished intelligence, to locate polling stations in these six urban counties, much less decide whom to vote for, or whether or not to recall the wonderful governor. Moreover, given their severe physical disability, dead voters will certainly need more than a month to trudge to the booth (though there's always the absentee ballot).
In its wisdom, the Court understands how grossly unfair it is to expect California to build democracy and hold elections sooner than war-torn Iraq, especially with this hideous affliction sweeping these six urban counties. In ruling that poor and minority voters in these six urban counties are too stupid to vote, the Court has come under fire for racism.
The Court hotly denies the charge, noting that while it believes minority voters in these six urban counties are currently too stupid to vote, the Court didn't think they were too stupid to vote last November. It isn't 'racist' to say there's a massive intelligence failure among poor and minority voters in these six urban counties, says the Court.
But therein lies a silver-lining: If the Court ruling withstands legal challenge, "the most likely date for the recall would move to March 2004 -- when every county in the state is scheduled to have the newer electronic touch-screen ballot machines in use." Pause for a moment and think about that, folks. Touch-screen ballot machines are trickier to use than punch-card ballot machines. Far trickier. This suggests the Court sees the condition of diminished intelligence and capacity among poor and minority voters as only temporary, ending sometime around next March -- just in time for the next elections! Isn't that wonderful? But more than that, by March, poor and minority voters in these six urban counties will actually be smarter than they were last November! Indeed, moving from simpler, punch-card balloting to high-tech touch-screen balloting -- a system these six urban counties have never used before -- should be a cake-walk.
 |
In a related development, Democrats, citing "security experts," charge that high-tech touch-screen balloting is no good either because the system can be easily rigged. "Worms and viruses already have crippled computers around the world. Now computer security experts warn that hackers could cripple democracy itself," screams the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "They say hackers," especially racist hackers out to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, "could rig the touch-screen voting machines that states are buying to replace error-prone punch cards like those that tainted the 2000 presidential elections," the paper adds. Democrats like Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio demand an investigation into the racist touch-screen system.
"Kaptur fears that hackers," especially racist hackers with links to evil Republicans, "or even the voting machine companies themselves, could conspire to rig elections" -- a claim the voting machines immediately challenged.
To drive her point home convincingly, Kaptur powerfully provided no evidence for the charge. The voting machines declined to be interviewed for this article.
You may reach Rep. Marcy Kaptur via email at: MarcyKaptur@LaLaLandForDemocratsWhoBelieveInBlackHelicopterConspiracyTheories.gov.
Summing up, a Left-wing court in San Francisco postpones an election because it thinks black and latino voters in six urban counties are too stupid to use punch-card ballots to vote but they weren't too stupid to use punch-card ballots to vote for Gray Davis back in November, so the court decides voters too stupid to use simple punch-card balloting are smart enough to use high-tech balloting they've never used before but the high-tech balloting is better because it has a lower error-rate which is almost the same as the error-rate with punch-card balloting which is already below the national average, but that's not the point because, says the court, punch-card balloting is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean politicians elected by punch-card balloting are unconstitutional, it's just that recalling politicians by punch-card balloting is unconstitutional and disenfranchises voters voting under such a system, based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment which produced the Bush V. Gore decision which liberals slammed at the time as election theft that disenfranchised minorities in Florida but Bush V. Gore is indispensable, say liberals, as a safeguard to keep minorities from being disenfranchised and thwarting election theft....
I hope it's all clear now.
Meanwhile, the chaos in Baghdad continues. A 41-year-old bystander was "killed by a stray bullet early Friday when an off-duty police officer exchanged gunfire with and wounded two men who he claims tried to steal his sport utility vehicle outside a downtown nightclub," NBC5.com reports. The Chicago Tribune says violence intensified over the weekend, with five men "killed in shootings Saturday and Sunday in" Baghdad, "according to police."
Oops! The Chicago Tribune and NBC5.com reports were local crime stories out of Chicago, not Baghdad. Apologies if my getting Chicago confused with Baghdad caused any, er, confusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sky is Falling! Sky is falling! Part III
"Americans are expressing rising dismay with U.S. casualties in Iraq, declining confidence in the Bush administration -- and growing doubt whether the war was worth fighting," ABC News reports.
"Bush's own ratings have suffered in tandem with these concerns," says ABC News. "His approval rating for handling the situation in Iraq has fallen by 17 points since the end of April, from 75 percent then to 58 percent now. His overall job approval rating is down to 59 percent, matching its lowest since Sept. 11, 2001, in ABCNEWS/Washington Post polls.
Oh, no! I goofed again! This ABC News report dates back to July! July 11 to be exact, its headline blaring, Rising Doubt: President Facing New Challenges of Credibility and Casualties.
Okay, lemme try again...
"President Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 52 percent, close to the lowest level of his presidency, says a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, released Friday," The Associated Press reports.
AP: "'We're right back where we started,' said Frank Newport, executive editor of The Gallup Poll. 'The public perceives the economy is poor. We don't see any sign of consumer pickup in our data. There's little question that Iraq is not helping and is probably hurting (Bush)."
The "poll of 1,025 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday" of last week, "after the president's nationally televised address on Iraq," the AP notes.
However, after plunging Monday, Tuesday and early Wednesday of last week, Bush's ratings have since bounced back, the dramatic rebound beginning in the afternoon hours of Wednesday, September 10. During the early morning hours that day, the President's job approval rate was 52 percent, as CNN-Gallup reported. But by early Wednesday afternoon, the President's job approval rate soared to 58 percent, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post Poll. The morning-to-afternoon turnaround in Bush's numbers seemingly caught most analysts, who predicted the Bush meltdown would continue, by surprise.
But wait! A Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll, taken Tuesday and Wednesday (Sept. 9-10), indicates the Bush rebound began in earnest on Tuesday, not Wednesday, a whole day earlier than I thought two minutes ago in this column. hmmmm. Since the CNN-Gallup and Fox News Opinion-Dynamic survey periods overlap, this raises serious questions. Was there ever a 'Bush meltdown' last week to begin with? CNN-Gallup pegged Bush at 52 percent early last week. The pundits wrote Bush off for dead. Fox News Opinion Dynamics pegged Bush at 58 percent early last week. The pundits said that poll doesn't count because the pundits wrote Bush off for dead. But CNN and Fox can't both be right. Then, to complicate matters even further, ABC News-Washington Post, in a poll conducted Wednesday-Saturday (Sept. 10-13), pegged Bush at 58 percent. By my math, that's 2 against 1.
"We're right back where we started," said "JohnHuang2," executive spammer of Free Republic. "The public still perceives the Democrats as poor alternatives. We don't see any sign of political pickup in our data for Democrats. There's little question that Iraq and the War on Terror is not helping and is probably hurting them." ;-)
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
