YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT on local candidates seeking CSCC endorsement

Here's your chance to share your thoughts about the candidates we saw at the September 6th meeting.

Three local candidates are seeking CSCC endorsement. They are:

John Showers, incumbent candidate for Union County Commissioner
Jim Buck, candidate for East Buffalo Township Supervisor
Fred Greenawalt, candidate for Kelly Township Supervisor

The endorsement vote will conclude at CSCC's October 11th meeting. We will send an e-ballot at least one week before the meeting. All voting members (those who have donated $20 or more to the organization in 2007) may vote either by e-mail or in-person at the meeting (Oct. 11, 7:30, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg).


Here's some information to guide you as your think about this endorsement process:

ENDORSEMENT PHILOSOPHY

from CSCC's by-laws

13.2.1) The debate about whether or not to endorse a candidate should be guided by the question of whether or not it would tend to further CSCC’s philosophy and mission as stated in section 1 of these by-laws.

Here is Section 1:
1.1) Philosophy: CSCC seeks to empower its members to participate in the democratic process in order to realize our shared, progressive vision of a society that is stronger, freer and more just.

1.2) Mission: To that end, CSCC will help to recruit, train and elect local, state and federal candidates who share our progressive vision.


NOTES
All three of these candidates appeared and took questions at the Sept. 6 CSCC meeting.
All three also appeared at the CSCC land use forum back in March.

We invite you to SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS about these candidates through this public blog.

W is now 0-3 in making historical analogies for Iraq occupation

The following commentary is the work of John Peeler. I'm posting it here on his behalf. For those keeping score, Bush has tried analogizing the Iraq occupation to WWII, Vietnam and now Korea. He's 0 for 3. Will Greneda be next?

Grasping at Straws:

Iraq and the Korean Analogy

John Peeler

President Bush has recently been arguing that our mission in Iraq ought to be seen as equivalent to our maintenance of troops in South Korea for more than fifty years. That he would resort to such a pathetic analogy is a measure of his desperation to lock in American commitment to a war that has lost the support of the people.

The decision to put American troops in South Korea was to defend an established government in response to a massive invasion from North Korea. It was in the strategic context of the early Cold War and the prevalent doctrine of containment of Communist expansion. The war in Iraq was an invasion BY US of another country, for the purpose of overthrowing a government objectionable to us, and replacing it with one more to our liking.

Although American troops carried the major burden in the Korean War, the defense of South Korea was conducted under United Nations authorization. The United States failed to get such authorization for invading Iraq in 2003 (in contrast, both the 1991 expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of its Taliban government, were UN-authorized).

The core of Bush’s argument is that since the Korean Armistice of 1953, the United States has maintained a military presence in South Korea for more than fifty years, to deter renewed attacks from the North. It is asserted that we should expect a similar long-term commitment in Iraq. In South Korea, though, our continued presence has been steadily supported by popular majorities and by a succession of increasingly democratic governments. In Iraq, all available public opinion surveys show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, regardless of sect or ethnicity, want us out, now. Some elements of the political elite and the government obviously want us to stay, because we put them in power and they would have to leave with us if we left.

It is of course important to remember that South and North Korea were client states set up by the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively, after World War II, and the failure to unify them was a reflection of the Cold War (very much like East and West Germany or North and South Vietnam). Neither the South Korean regime nor that of the North was much more than a puppet in 1950, when war broke out. Over time, South Korea has become a prosperous industrial democracy.

Bush argues that Iraq could evolve in a similar way. There is a remote chance that he will be proven right, but the realities of a country divided along ethnic and religious lines, and immersed in a region suffering enormous, violent conflicts, justify extreme skepticism about Iraq’s democratic prospects.

Our continued presence in South Korea is intended to deter attacks by North Korea. In Iraq, notwithstanding overdrawn assertions of a threat from Iran, the fundamental mission is, and would remain, to protect Iraqis we favor from those we oppose. Those we favor will be a small minority. The longer we stay, the more the majority of Iraqis will oppose us. This is not a posture we will want to maintain for fifty years. We would be occupying a hostile country.

Amusing use of media and consumer tropes

This youtube clip is spot on in its skewering of the spin and marketing approach to discussion of the war and the "surge."


Enjoy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqaA4-gz58I

A few lessons learned

Thanks to the 25 (or so) people who came out for the CSCC meeting last Thursday (9/6/07). Thanks also to John Showers (incumbent running for Union County Commissioner), Jim Buck (candidate for East Buffalo Township Supervisor), and Fred Greenawalt (candidate for Kelly Township Supervisor)--who came and took our questions. Special thanks to Eric Epstein who came from Harrisburg to talk about the politics of energy deregulation and what to do next.

Among the lessons learned, from my perspective: don't assume there's no need for air conditioning in September in Pennsylvania. The room at the Baptist church in Lewisburg (more people to thank!) worked fine for our group, but air conditioning or a few fans would have been a good idea. Eric Epstein said that he's been in some hot churches, but none hotter than that room.

There was also a big lesson to be learned the kind of presentation we heard. In the Q&A several people asked a variation on the question, "What should we do?" For Eric Epstein, the answer seems to do everything right now starting with calling your legislators and asking them to extend the rate caps. Though he acknowledged that much of what he shared was "Inside Baseball"--the stuff that the insiders know about public hearings, legislative process, etc.--he didn't seem to appreciate how far removed from our experience his experience is. We as a group are still talking about incremental steps to try to build a coalition and reframe big issues; he's focused on trying to do the small and the big things all at once, from keeping poor people from having their electricity or gas cut off in the middle winter to influencing big policy decisions. For someone who's been extremely active in politics for 30 years, it's probably hard to imagine not being well-informed on public issues of all sorts.

I thought the most far-reaching insight was his observation that the environmentalists and alternative fuels advocates have lost interest in protecting the poor from the whims of the large power companies now that they have funding for what they want to do ($100 million split five ways, I believe he said.). In effect, a coalition has started to split, and it plays to the advantage of the already powerful energy companies (who got a lot of what they wanted).

In short, I learned that I have a lot to learn, from learning the definition of "stranded costs" and the diffference between PPL and PP&L to understanding the way the regulatory commissions work (and their names and acronyms).

Loren

HR 811 good for Pennsylvania

The following is an opinion piece by the person I trust the most when it comes to analyzing voting integrity issues and legislation, Mary Beth Kuznik, executive director of VotePA. Mary Beth has been closely involved with the writing and passage of HR 811 (aka the Holt Bill, so named for its principal sponsor, Rush Holt). Here's what she has to say about this piece of proposed legislation that is slated to get a vote on the House Floor this week (ie the first week of Sept.).

"Pennsylvania is truly the Keystone State in many ways. Geographically,
we are centrally located where the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, southern
New England, and The South all meet. In culture and business our
diversity reflects the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania has two
world-class major urban centers, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, but
agriculture remains our #1 industry. We have one of the highest numbers
of over-65 seniors of any state but we are also home to millions of
young adults and growing families. We have descendants of the original
settlers with family in the region for hundreds of years living in the
same communities as recent immigrants from around the globe.

Politically Pennsylvania is also a keystone in that we are one of the
most swinging of the swing states. We are deep blue in some areas, ruby
red in others, and no party or candidate can take a win in Pennsylvania
for granted. As such, with our 21 electoral votes we are one of the
most targeted states – by media, candidates, and just perhaps by those
who might want to perpetrate an election fraud.

In response to the Help America Vote Act, Pennsylvania has deployed a
hodgepodge of some eleven different voting systems. Of our sixty-seven
counties, only nine have chosen a solid, non-blended system of optical
scanner and accessible ballot marker, and many of those counties tend
to be smaller in population. All through the purchase process for HAVA
compliant machines vendors were fiercely pushing their higher profit
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems throughout the state. A full
fifty-four counties, including the huge counties that contain
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, ended up purchasing paperless DREs, some
of which are currently the most notorious machines for lost votes and
bad design.

Like many of the so-called swing states, Pennsylvania has been unable
to come to grips with the reality that our voting systems are basically
insecure and unverifiable. Even after numerous reports of serious
problems our county and state officials still parrot soothing words,
proclaiming that we have had three “smooth elections” in 2006 and 2007
since the introduction of the new machines.

Pennsylvania’s Department of State has taken the position that all
currently available voter-verified paper printer options for DREs
violate the secrecy of the ballot and thus are illegal under our
Pennsylvania state constitution. Our key voting system examiner,
Michael Shamos, is nationally notorious as one of the few remaining
computer scientists who discount the need for paper verification by
voters. Our Governor Ed Rendell personally votes in Philadelphia on
ancient, failure-prone, paperless Danaher 1242 machines and he has many
times publicly stated how well he likes “the buttons.”

Amidst this atmosphere of denial and lack of knowledge our state and
local officials have seemingly gone out of their way to avoid
purchasing “old fashioned” optical scan systems and the fully legal
voter-marked and verified paper ballot they would provide.

As if all this were not bad enough, Pennsylvania and its counties are
facing a severe budget crunch and financial deficit. It is extremely
unlikely that officials will designate additional state or local funds
to improve Pennsylvania voting systems unless they are compelled to do
so and full funding comes from federal sources to fix the mess created
by HAVA. Although there are several bills proposed in the Pennsylvania
General Assembly regarding voter-verified paper ballots and related
issues, none are likely to move at all in our state unless and until
the issue receives federal level resolution and funding.

With all these factors in play, Pennsylvania election integrity
activists highly anticipated Congressman Rush Holt’s latest incarnation
of his “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.” The finished
bill was introduced in February and carries many innovations that would
provide changes Pennsylvania needs. No bill is perfect but the basic
premise of HR 811 is sound, and makes great sense for a swing state
like Pennsylvania.

HR 811 provisions such as standards to end conflicts of interest
between vendors and testing labs, payments for lab fees through a
third-party governmental escrow account with public disclosure of test
results, public disclosure of software code, requirements for emergency
paper ballots to allow voting in the event that the machines fail,
strengthening chain of custody of voting machines with no more
“sleepovers” of machines at insecure private homes, prohibition of
wireless devices in machines, and preservation of a private right of
action will all go far to improve our situation.

Of course the biggest and most publicized change HR 811 would provide
is the requirement for voter-verified paper ballots on all voting
systems, with routine manual audits of all federal elections. This is a
most desperately needed protection in a highly targeted swing state
like Pennsylvania. The ideal goal here would be to get rid of paperless
DRE machines and replace them with more accessible, auditable,
recountable, and affordable optical scan systems.

Some activists have criticized HR 811 for its lack of language that
would reach that goal by directly banning the use of DRE machines in
federal elections. But from our lobbying efforts among the Pennsylvania
delegation in Congress and in our state legislature, many members of
VotePA are keenly aware that any bill containing an outright ban of DRE
machines is very unlikely to pass.

HR 811 would have the more politically palatable effect of disallowing
DRE machines through the back door, the same way that the original HAVA
“banned” our beloved Pennsylvania lever machines. The requirements for
voter-verified paper ballots in HR 811 would mean that our state would
have to get paper. But our Pennsylvania Constitution’s requirement for
a secret ballot would make it virtually impossible that any of the
currently available DRE / roll printer systems could be used to comply.
Thus, as of now this would mean replacement of DREs with currently
available voter-marked paper ballot systems using optical scanners and
highly accessible ballot markers.

We know that our Pennsylvania budget crunch meant that our state
legislators, election officials, and many others are deeply concerned
about the funding of any changes made to our voting systems. With no
state or local funds available, they are reticent to replace the DRE
machines our state has recently spent so much to purchase. But HR 811
intends to fully fund the changes it mandates, with over $300 million
earmarked for changes in fiscal year 2008 alone, and more beyond that.

In May, an excellent version of HR 811 was reported out of the
Committee on House Administration and was headed for the House floor.
Unfortunately congressional leaders chose to make additional changes to
the bill in negotiation with certain interests, and the resulting
Manager’s Amendment that will be introduced on the floor of the US
House is not as strong. It allows certain delays that were not in the
reported Committee markup, and contains other provisions that are less
functional and less cost effective than the earlier version.

Despite these changes, VotePA still considers the good in HR 811 to far
outweigh these weaknesses. With its tremendous initial support hard-won
through the work of thousands of activists over three Congresses, HR
811 is still the only vehicle that has the impetus and attention to
bring the issue of election integrity to the national forefront and
make changes for the better in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Further delay to look for more ‘improvement’ or the perfect bill will
risk 35 million voters having to throw their presidential votes down
paperless DRE machines come November of next year. Without HR 811,
hundreds of millions of votes will be counted electronically with no
audit whatsoever in this all-important election to choose our next
President and the 111th Congress. And additional delay will buy time
for DRE manufacturers to come up with more “band-aid” add-on products
that will be pushed to keep DREs in place and further line their
company pockets at taxpayer expense.

As one of the most targeted swing states, Pennsylvania simply cannot
afford to face the 2008 presidential election at the mercy of paperless
DRE machines in fifty-four of our most populous counties.

To prevent these disturbing scenarios and to improve the accuracy of
our elections and public confidence in them, we believe that supporting
and passing HR 811 is the right thing to do for Pennsylvania and for
all of our nation."

-- Mary Beth Kuznik