|
|
|
Volume 1 Issue 210 Today’s News and Views Wednesday, July 26, 2006 |
|
Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc. |
|
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
|
|
Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2569 Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 322 Figures provided by the Iraq Coalition Causality website |
|
Remember
Who Made This MESS! |
|
Support Our Troops IMPEACH Bush/Cheney |
|
Rep. Louise Slaughter's report "America for Sale" (pdf document) |
|
Click on Play, then place cursor on Player and right click, select play in Theatre Mode. this is a one hour and thirty-nine minute long movie and well worth watching. - Harold, ed. |
|
|
Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views |
|
Sign the ACLU's Petition against torture! We demand our country back. |
![]() |
![]() |
The Not Your Soldier Project gives youth the tools we need to stop the military invasion of our schools and our communities. Not Your Soldier Action Camps bring together young people who are heavily targeted by military recruitment. At the camps, youth learn how to take action to fight military recruitment, the poverty draft, and the corporations that profit off of war. In 2006, Not Your Soldier will be hosting a national camp for youth and adult allies. >>Go to the Pick a Camp section to find out more! If you're interested in hosting a regional Not Your Soldier gathering, find out more here. Not Your Soldier National Days of Action are coordinated days of creative, non-violent direct action where youth take leadership and tell recruiters, "We are Not Your Soldiers!" >>Sign up for our action alert e-mail list! Parents: have questions? Check out Info for Parents, and our FAQ's to find out what the camps will be like. copyright 2005 Not Your Soldier. |
|
Today's News and Views |
|
|
|||||||||
|
Tech Trouble in the Voting Booth By Zachary A. Goldfarb Last year, a report called "Asking the Right Questions About Electronic Voting" took a look at the issues surrounding the move by most of the country's election jurisdictions to electronic voting machines. The report's theoretical approach contrasted with the often bitter dispute about the security of the technology between activists and voting-machine vendors. The report's authors -- a committee of National Research Council experts, including prominent computer scientists and two former governors -- then turned their attention to this year's elections. What they found, according to a council analysis released yesterday, is not reassuring: "Some jurisdictions -- and possibly many -- may not be well prepared for the arrival of the November 2006 elections with respect to the deployment and use of electronic voting equipment and related technology, and anxiety about this state of affairs among election officials is evident in a number of jurisdictions." More than a third of all of the nation's 8,000 voting jurisdictions will use new voting technology for the first time this year, according to Election Data Services. "This is a moment of truth for electronic voting," said panel co-chairman Richard L. Thornburgh, a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania and U.S. attorney general. "You've got a lot of people who are working for the first time with the new technology. It should impart a greater note of caution than what you might normally attend to a regular election." Thornburgh said the analysis is a "caution sign, not a stop sign, but not a clean bill of health for a technology that everyone recognizes there may be problems with." The new voting technology includes optical-scan and touch-screen machines. In 2004, only 10 to 15 percent of jurisdictions had replaced old voting machines. Widespread efforts to replace outdated voting machines came after passage of the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which set new standards and procedures. Concerns about the new technology -- largely about alleged vulnerabilities to manipulation -- were raised nearly as soon as the machines were rolled out. So far, in this year's primaries, the problems have been related to the machines breaking down or being used incorrectly by election officials. For example, optical-scan machines used in a May primary in Cuyahoga County in Ohio could not read the ballots because the black lines separating sections were thicker than on ballots elsewhere in the state, and the fill-in ovals were in a different place, a review recently found. The result was a long delay in ballot counting. Numerous other localities have experienced problems, most notably the delay in results of a March primary in Cook County, Ill. The National Research Council analysis notes several potentially problematic areas. Some states may be unable to comply with the 2002 law's deadlines for upgrading technology, meaning it is not yet clear whether they will use old or new technology this year. There are questions about whether voters will be able to use the new equipment without confusion, and whether there is enough time to train poll workers. "When organizations roll out technology, they do it in a small way. They do a lot of testing and prototyping. We're doing it in one fell swoop and that creates certain kinds of risks," said Herbert S. Lin, a senior research scientist who served on the staff of the committee. Among the report's recommendations is that jurisdictions run tests on Election Day on randomly selected machines. Dana DeBeauvoir, clerk of Travis County, Tex., home to Austin, is credited with implementing one of the most comprehensive plans for Election Day. She'll do no fewer than three tests on her voting machines to ensure they are giving accurate results. "You're always looking for the latest threat. That's not paranoid," she said. "That's good scientific method. We're dealing with voting systems that are scientific instruments." © 2006 The Washington Post Company |
|||||||||
Words of Power |
|||||||||
Monday, July 24, 2006Hard Rain Journal 7-24-06: Five Stories about the Reality of Global Warming, Is Continued Denial Criminally Insane?Hard Rain Journal 7-24-06: Five Stories about the
Reality of Global Warming, Is Continued Denial Criminally Insane? |
|||||||||
That Raise Might Take 4 Years to Earn as WellThose with bachelor's degrees are finding their incomes stagnate despite a growing economy. By Molly Hennessy-Fiske Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet QuotaMarshals Say They Must File One Surveillance Detection Report, Or SDR, Per MonthPOSTED: 9:49 pm MDT July 21, 2006 UPDATED: 10:56 pm MDT July 21, 2006 DENVER -- You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they're reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it. The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they're required to submit at least one report a month. If they don't, there's no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments. "Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal. These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system. "Do these reports have real life impacts on the people who are identified as potential terrorists?" 7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski asked. "Absolutely," a federal air marshal replied. 7NEWS obtained an internal Homeland Security document defining an SDR as a report designed to identify terrorist surveillance activity. "When you see a decision like this, for these reports, who loses here?" Kovaleski asked. "The people we're supposed to protect -- the American public," an air marshal said. What kind of impact would it have for a flying individual to be named in an SDR? "That could have serious impact ... They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious," said Don Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta. He lost his job attempting to change policies inside the agency. That's why several air marshals object to a July 2004 memo from top management in the Las Vegas office, a memo that reminded air marshals of the SDR requirement. The body of the memo said, "Each federal air marshal is now expected to generate at least one SDR per month." "Does that memo read to you that Federal Air Marshal headquarters has set a quota on these reports?" Kovaleski asked. "Absolutely, no doubt," an air marshal replied. A second management memo, also dated July 2004, said, "There may come an occasion when you just don't see anything out of the ordinary for a month at a time, but I'm sure that if you are looking for it, you'll see something." Another federal air marshal said that not only is there a quota in Las Vegas for SDRs, but that "it directly reflects on (their) performance evaluations" and on how much money they make. The director of the Air Marshal Service, Dana Brown, declined 7NEWS' request for an interview on the quota system. But the agency points to a memo from August 2004 that said there is not a quota for submitting SDRs and which goes on to say, "I do not expect reports that are inaccurate or frivolous." But, Las Vegas-based air marshals say the quota system remains in force, now more than two years after managers sent the original memos, and that it's a mandate from management that impacts annual raises, bonuses, awards and special assignments. "To meet this quota, to get their raises, do you think federal air marshals in Las Vegas are making some of this stuff up?" Kovaleski asked. "I know they are. It's a joke," an air marshal replied. "Have marshals in the Las Vegas office, I don't want to say fabricated, but 'created' reports?" Kovaleski asked. "Creative writing -- stretching a long ways the truth, yes," an air marshal replied. One example, according to air marshals, occurred on one flight leaving Las Vegas, when an unknowing passenger, most likely a tourist, was identified in an SDR for doing nothing more than taking a photo of the Las Vegas skyline as his plane rolled down the runway. "You're saying that was not an accurate portrayal of a potential terrorist activity?" Kovaleski asked. "No, it was not," an air marshal said. "It was a marshal trying to meet a quota ..." Kovaleski said. "Yes, he was," the air marshal replied. Strange said he didn't have a quota in the Atlanta office when he was in charge. "I would never have done that ... You are going to have people reporting every suspicious looking activity they come across, whether they in their heart feel like it's a threat, just to meet the quota," Strange said. Strange and other air marshals said the quota allows the government to fill a database with bad information. A Las Vegas air marshal said he didn't write an SDR every month for exactly that reason. "Well, it's intelligence information, and like any system, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out," the air marshal said. "I would like to see an investigation -- a real investigation conducted into the ways things are done here," the air marshal in Las Vegas said. Although the agency strongly denies any presence of a quota system, Las Vegas-based air marshals have produced documents that show their performance review is directly linked to producing SDRs. Do you have a question or comment on this story? Call us at 303-832-TIPS or e-mail us. Previous Stories:
Copyright 2006 by TheDenverChannel.com. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
2003 High 177 2004 High 157 2005 High 161 2006 High 159 2003 Low 133 2004 Low 135 2005 Low 143 2006 Low 151 Record High 182 Record Low 57 24 Sept 01 12 Dec 93 |
|||||||||
|
copyright Harold P. Donle 2006 proud member of Veterans for Peace |