Z/Web

The media isn’t biased, eh? I don’t normally watch the news or read newspapers or magazines because I don’t like the bias, but for current election coverage I did tune in to see how the different networks were reporting on the Election 2004 mess. Wow, it was actually painful. Fox News made it sound like it was impossible for Kerry to win: he’d literally have to win every single remaining state and get all the provisional ballets in Ohio and even then the numbers didn’t quite add up. But on CNN they showed Kerry and Bush in a dogfight with almost identical electoral votes and had analysts who were pointing out what a tough road Bush had ahead and that once Kerry won Ohio it would be almost impossible for Bush to win! Dang, I hate this politicking and the divisiveness it creates. It was ridiculously easy to see the bias in the networks. I tuned to CBS to see Dan Rather viciously attack a Republican analyst, interrupting the guy’s spin with his own comments and conclusions, simply because it was obvious Dan didn’t want to hear that Bush had won. Why bother to have the guy on if you aren’t going to listen to what he has to say? I found it quite distasteful. On the other side, Fox News shows “Democrats” who agree with Republicans (i.e. a Dem who says that Bush won).

On another note, on several channels I saw reporters deny their own polls and surveys. The reporter would reveal a new poll that showed that the number one concern of voters were moral and ethical issues, but then the reporter would dismiss that and point that that was ridiculous and obviously the voter’s main concern had to be the war and terrorism and security! What war are they talking about? That silly little skirmish in Iraq? Please.

As to the whole “who won” issue, the media was at fault for encouraging it. Obviously controversy provides ratings, so the media purposely encouraged the concept that we didn’t know who won the election. In reality the numbers were clear that Kerry couldn’t win Ohio but still a number of networks wouldn’t call the election. If they had, perhaps Kerry would have conceded earlier like in a normal election. But with the precedent of 2000 before us, the media jumped on the slightest whiff that that could happen again. Instead of being responsible, the media hurt the country but promoting indecision and confusion.

Regardless of which side of the political line you fall on, you’ve got to admit that voting in this country is messed up. That’s putting it politely. Here we are the most technologically advanced country in the world and we can’t even figure out how to get people to vote electronically? That’s ridiculous. I’d fire the president and every single politician currently in office until that is fixed. Just fix it. No excuses. It’s absurd that we can’t know the count for days, and it’s absurd the incredible hassles we force people to go through to vote. For instance, I drove way out of my way and ended up at the wrong polling place — apparently it’d been changed since the last time I voted. At the new polling place there was no parking. I had to drive around the parking lot until a space opened up. Then there was a long time. Nothing like waiting five or six hours as in some states (ridiculous), but the entire process did take close to forty-five minutes (driving, parking, waiting, voting, etc.). That’s just too long, especially for young people who find it a drag waiting four minutes for a microwave dinner to cook. The bottom line is we need a uniform system that’s the same nationwide, we need a technological solution that eliminates errors and gives us a quick and accurate count, and we need a way to vote via the Web, cell phone, and other simple technologies so that voting is more convenient.

Okay, I abhor politics but all this griping about the “war” with Iraq has got me irritated and I’ve just got to say my piece. Opinions to follow. You’ve been warned.

First, note that I put “war” in quotes. That’s because call this thing with Iraq a war is a joke. We’re talking Mike Tyson in the ring with a three-year-old with his ankles chained together. This is a skirmish or battle, not a war. That the media gives it this much attention is just because it’s easy news for them, and the footage of explosions and missiles launching is high ratings. Yes, there will be (and have been) coalition casualties. But were talking hundreds, maybe thousands. Not hundreds of thousands. This is not a war. This is a battle. A war is something that will last for years. This will be over in months.

Second, the “anti-war” protests really bug me. That’s mostly because they are supposedly against “war.” That makes it sound as though if you don’t agree with them, you are pro-war. Who was ever pro-war except for Gengis Khan or Hitler? War is horrible: people die. No one should be pro-war. Now there are many reasons to be against the decision of the U.S. to invade Iraq, but to be against it because you’re anti-war is just stupid. Would you have been against the U.S. entering WWII against Hitler? (If so, most of the world would be speaking German today.) War might be an ugly thing, but this country was founded on war, and I’m proud and grateful to be a recipient of the freedoms I have today because of the blood sacrifice those farmers and pioneers made. Having a military force to protect society is one of the only excuses for a government to exist. If you’re against us attacking Iraq, please say that. Say why (you think it’s about oil, Bush Junior finishing what his dad didn’t, political ratings, Saddam’s a good guy, etc.), but don’t just be “anti-war.” I hate that.

Finally, you may be wondering which side I fall on. The truth is I don’t know. The truth is my opinion doesn’t matter. Bush has attacked without my advice and will continue to do so. Do I like Saddam? Hell no! I thought it was absurd we left him in power after Desert Storm. Really dumb. Now we’re having to go back in and finish again, only this time he’s rebuilt, rearmed, and possibly has weapons of mass destruction he’ll use. The whole thing’s a mess but the bottom line is it doesn’t effect me directly and until it does I’ll refrain from having that much of an opinion. I am sick of the debate, though, and the attacks on our brave soldiers who are risking their lives to do their job. I’m glad that we’re actually attacking instead of sitting around talking about it for nine months. Maybe this will be over soon and we can concentrate on problems in the U.S. that actually effect Americans.

If the events of Tuesday, the Eleventh of September, 2001, had been scripted in a film, they would have been scoffed at as unrealistic. That four teams of terrorists could manage to hijack four different American planes at the same time is unbelievable, let alone that they could manage to crash almost of all of them into major U.S. targets.

The physical events are distant from me, but like most Americans, I’m affected. I’m saddened by the loss of life and property, and horrified that people exist on this earth who find joy in such destruction, especially when they attempt to justify their actions via religion. I’m angry at their arrogance to dare do this, and even angrier at Americans who dare claim that we somehow deserved this. No nation on earth deserves this, no matter what they’ve done. I’m nervous at the future: I’ve never lived through a war (I won’t count the Gulf War as a real war), but it looks like we may be heading that direction (as soon as we can identify an enemy).

The ray of hope through all this, and most touching to me personally, has been the response of nations throughout the world. In Europe, Champions League soccer matches were postponed in the wake of the tragedy, an unprecedented gesture. Weekend matches will feature a moment of silence preceeding the games. To see our allies and friends from around the globe unite in their sympathy is heartwarming; I only hope that American will respond in kind when it’s our turn (not that an American baseball game would ever be postponed for another country’s disaster).

Why did Al Gore lose Florida? Greed.

You see, Al Gore didn’t want to hand count all the votes. He just wanted to hand count extra ballots (undervotes, the ones missed by the machines) in a few select counties where he thought he had the most to gain. Right there that’s unfair and the U.S. Supreme Court would undoubtedly throw out the results. But even that wasn’t enough for Gore. He saw that just counting the undervotes normally wouldn’t get him enough votes (most undervotes are real undervotes, i.e. people who didn’t vote for President), so he came up with this scheme to count every dimple or microscopic mark on a chad as a vote. To “interpret the will of the people” as it were.

Regardless of which side of the selective hand recounts and dimple debates you find yourself on, the key point is that the issues are controversial and brought the ire of the Republicans (and quite a few fair-minded Americans). That was Gore’s mistake. To actually think he could get away with such one-sided policies is shockingly arrogant. Of course the Republicans would fight him, delay the process, and eventually win. Gore will whine and complain about underhanded tactics or lack of time, but the end result is the same: Bush is the new president.

But just think how things could have been: if Gore had called for a statewide hand recount on Nov. 8 using the established Florida (non-dimple) standard, the Republicans would not have had a leg to protest on. The American people would have rallied around the vice-president, supporting the “count all the votes” concept. Would Gore have won? Who knows? At least with those standards and a statewide recount it would have been fair. But Gore didn’t want fair:he wanted a guaranteed win. He wanted an advantage. But by playing the game the way he did, seeking an unfair advantage, he only generated controversy, opposition, and the resentment of the general public. Very sad, and he deserved to lose on those grounds alone.

(Note: I wrote this last Friday morning, but postponed posting it until tonight after the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision.)

Let me just say this: the United States Presidential Election should not be decided on a technicality (this ballot is flawed, the voter was confused, or this absentee ballot doesn’t have a postmark) or by a court (supreme or any other).

Courts should make rules about how an election can be run, or determine if there was fraud or a violation of those rules, but they should not be deciding who wins the election.

I write this on Saturday, long before any decision has been made in this matter, and I am growing irritated by this process. The longer this continues the more it polarizes the country. The hand counting of ballots is an example of something that will tear this country apart: frankly I don’t believe the Democrats who say there is no fraud or flaw in the process, and I don’t believe the Republicans who imply that Democratic counters with long fingernails are surreptitiously punching Gore holes in ballots. Both are extreme views. But the hand counts open us up to that and turn this election into a partisan battle. What the Gore camp has never proven is that there is any reason for hand counting millions of ballots. For hand counts to be needed, the Gore camp must prove that there is bias in the machine count. Just because the machines rejected some ballots does not invalidate the election: there’s no evidence to show that the machine didn’t reject just as many Bush ballots as Gore ballots. That’s the whole point of machines. They may be wrong, they may even be wrong on a lot of ballots, but those errors average out in favor of all the parties. Unless Gore wants to argue that Gore voters are dumber than Bush voters and thus more likely to fill out ballots in such a way as to confuse the machines, there is no reason to suspect that a statewide hand recount would produce any different result than the machine count (barring any mischief, of course). Sure, the exact numbers might be different, but overall, the results would be the same.

So, you say, if Bush will win anyway, why not go ahead and do a statewide manual recount? Four reasons:

1) A manual recount will take a very long time. Currently it looks like it will take until after Thanksgiving to finish the counts already in progress, and that’s for just 1.7 million votes. Most likely those counts aren’t valid anyway, since every precinct is applying its own rules to the counting process, and without consistent standards, a court will throw out the results. That could mean it would take into next year just to count the ballots, not even getting into the dozens of lawsuits that are guaranteed to follow.

2) A manual recount is incredibly messy. We’re just seeing the tip of iceberg so far. Both parties have lots of lawyers and are going to go to extraordinary lengths to press their cases, and with the hand count process so complicated, irregular, and full of human error, it could literally take months or even years to figure out the mess. For instance, though the counting process is monitored by a Democrat and a Republican, on questionable ballots — the only ones that matter — the arbiter is the local canvassing board, which in Democrat counties, is made up of a majority of Democrats (and presumably the reverse in Republican counties). Both sides have a lot to lose in the hand count process, but Gore, of course, has no other option (he has already lost on the machine count).

3) It’s against the law. Now I know to most lawyers laws are just technicalities, but they do matter. There are rules to this game. Florida law says a party must request a hand count within 72 hours of the election. That time has long past and while Gore requested hand counts in certain Democratic counties, Bush did not. Accepting the results of hand counts in just the Gore counties would be patently unfair and America would not stand for that. The hue and cry would drown out the voice of any court in the nation that tried to support that crazy idea. If Gore wants “every vote to count” it must literally be every vote: Republican as well as Democratic. Sure, the Florida Supreme Court could determine that a statewide hand recount is necessary, but that’s more time, more complexity, and more expense for Florida. A statewide recount would be almost as complicated as a new election! Frankly, my feeling is that if hand recounts are ordered, that means that they must be more accurate than machine counts, and therefore, every state in the country must recount all their votes by hand. After all, we must count every vote. I am serious: why is Florida the only state that gets special attention? Doesn’t my vote in California count? New Mexico was won by less than 500 votes. A number of other states were also narrow victories. If Florida gets a hand recount, every state should do the same. It’s only fair. In fact, all future elections should be decided by hand counting: I mean, if we can’t trust machines with this election, why should we trust them in future elections? (Note: A nationwide hand recount, of course, would require a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Florida Supreme Court, which only has jurisdiction in Florida.) I say this only so the Florida Supreme court understands the seriousness of their decision: they could be writing election law for the new century.

4) There is no need for a manual recount (we have the results already). In short, Bush won. He won on election night. He won on the recount. He won after the absentee ballots came in. Enough. Let’s be done with it. Half of American didn’t vote at all, and of the half that did, they were evenly split between the two parties. That means America will accept either of these men as President. All we need is a good reason. If Gore cannot prove that there was any fraud or bias in the machine count, then he has lost. That has to be the standard on which the Florida Supreme Court decides whether or not to accept the hand recounted ballots. Gore needs to just pack up and bow out gracefully, and begin planning his 2004 campaign.

Let me conclude by saying that America will not tolerate this indecision much longer. It’s divisive, irritating, and insulting to our Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and every American who loves this country. I had hoped this mess would be over this weekend and I was distressed to find out it was not. The Florida Supreme Court has no business in this case, unless it is to simply uphold the law and rule that the hand counts were without cause and will not be included in the final tally. I pray that is what will happen, and quickly, because if it does not, we are going to see a long, technical, and extremely partisan legal battle, regardless of whatever the votes say. Remember, the longer this goes on, the more reluctant each candidate is going to be to bow out, especially if it goes on long enough to damage the person’s political career: he might see this as his only chance to be President and risk everything. If you thought Iran-Contra or the Clarence Thomas hearings or Bill Clinton’s impeachment were bad, you haven’t seen nothing yet. This is getting ugly, really ugly, and we’ve only seen the eyebrow of the monster.

Okay, I’ve just got to say something about this silly election. First, understand that I’m a disenfranchised voter. I’m one of the twenty million who voted for Perot, after all. Some might say I was crazy to vote for Perot, but before that, I’d never bothered to vote (though I was eligible). So Perot got me motivated. This election shows exactly why so few Americans bother to vote: it’s all partisan politics.

Now, a day or so ago, I was ready to say, “Flip a coin and get it over with!” After all, with the vote being 50-50 (and forget that nonsense about Gore winning the popular vote; the votes aren’t all in, and his lead is so slim as to be statistically nil), the country really doesn’t care which one gets put in. But then Gore began this dangerous, arrogant business of legally challenging the result, which has the potential of tearing the country in part. It could literally lead to riots and violence (look at the sit-ins and demonstrations in Florida, which right now are peaceful). People on both sides think they are morally right and that’s dangerous. So now, with Gore pulling this kind of legal maneuvering, I say, pull the plug on Gore and give the White House to Bush. (It’s not going to make any difference anyway, as there’s no mandate.)

Then last night MSNBC played a clip from Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. To demonstrate what a creep Gore is, Rush pointed out class by talking about how Missouri Senator and former Govenor John Ashcroft had reacted to “losing to a dead guy.”

First Ashcroft congratulated the people of Missouri for their compassion, then said he lost “because I simply didn’t get enough votes,” and he called Mel’s wife and told her sincerely, “I hope this win will ease the pain of your loss at least a tiny bit.” Then he refused any legal challenges to his loss (there are many who said he had grounds to overturn the result) and said he wouldn’t support anyone else making any legal challenge.

Contrast that to Gore, who’s going to keep the country in limbo for a few weeks while he desperately digs into graveyards for votes, stirring up the country and antagonizing the whole repub/demo thing. The hand-counting of ballets sounds extremely subjective: the counters are allowed to guess at the person’s intention

Enough! The votes are in, call the election, and move the country forward.

Wow, what a hilarious turn of circumstance! Last night when I went to bed Bush was President-Elect. Today he’s not, and we won’t officially know until tomorrow. Plus, Gore could win the popular vote while Bush wins the White House. Only in America.

Okay, I’ve got to vent a bit. If I hear another idiot talking head say that this election proves that “every vote counts” I am going to scream! This election proves the exact opposite. My vote didn’t count squat. If I lived in Florida, yes, my vote might have made a difference, but not in California. Enough of the Electoral College, folks! It’s out dated, insane, and incredibly lame. It’s time for one vote = one vote. No wonder so few people vote in the country. Not only is registration an incredible hassle (I’m still voting in a city I haven’t live in for seven years, because that’s where they have me registered, and whenever it’s election time it’s always too late for me to change it), but our vote doesn’t count anyway! I want to be able to vote on the Internet! I want my vote to count! I want to start my own country!

I really hate politics. I hate the bickering, the divisiveness, the arrogance, and the dishonesty. Generally, when I bother to vote, I vote for “None of the Above.” That said, I have lot of political opinions (especially in regards to government reform). I tend toward the abolition of all government. I hate big brother. So I haven’t paid much attention to the presidential race. I don’t like Bush and I can’t stand Gore. Nader’s too much of an unknown, and no one is even in the running. I missed the earlier debates, but tuned to most of this one. Here’s what I thought.

Gore initially surprised me with his knowledge of facts and figures. Whereas Bush was very general, “This is going to cost a ton of money,” Gore was specific: “This will cost 53% more than 1% of the top tax bracket.” Of course I have no way of knowing if anything he said was accurate (I found out later that some was not), but it sounded impressive. But my initial warming toward Gore (which surprised me) quickly evaporated as Gore abused the debate rules. He continuously ignored calls for time and kept right on speaking, and near the end of the debate actually disobeyed Lehr’s command to not rebut and instead answer a different question, going off on a long rebutal. When he finally got around to the question, Lehr canceled it, saying “We’re moving on,” but he never gave Bush a chance to rebut Gore’s unauthorized rebut! (BTW, I thought Lehr was biased toward Gore, a moron, and a complete wimp. You could see him there waving his hand and stammering “T-t-time, Mr. Vice President,” but he never once cut Gore off, though he cut Bush off several times.) In short, Gore was a jerk, while Bush handled himself with dignity. My estimation of Bush (which had been pretty low, considering his father), rose considerably.

What I don’t like about politics came out early in the debate. Why did Bush refuse to answer Gore’s accusation about non supporting the Dingle-whatever bill (something with patient rights the Demos support and the Repubs don’t)? Bush kept ignoring the question, even though Gore pushed it several times. Either Bush supports the bill, in which case he should say so, or he doesn’t, so he should tell us why, or he’s never heard of the bill, and he should say that. Just ignoring it was dumb. There were lots of games like that. For instance, Gore seemed to have trouble understanding English. Bush said he supported “affirmative access,” not quotas (he explained affirmative access is a Texas program for encouraging ethnic diversity in schools and business). Gore said he wasn’t for quotas either, but he supported affirmative action (he didn’t say what that was). Bush came back saying “If affirmative action is not quotas, then I’m for it.” Then Gore pushed again (violating the debate rules by asking a direct question, not part of a rebuttal), “Well, do you support affirmative action?” Huh? These guys were agreeing and yet they were still arguing! Grrrr. Stupid, stupid. And what was the deal with numbers? Numbers should be easy to compare, right? One’s bigger or smaller, it’s simple! So why did they get into a silly “My plan’s cheaper, yours is more expensive,” “No, my plan’s cheaper, yours is more expensive!” It was like hearing two-year-olds argue!

The final straw for me was regarding taxes. I’m a tax hater, so I like Bush’s tax cut plan. Gore did a whole thing about how Bush’s plan is going to give tons back to the wealthiest 1% of America. Bush explained, “Everyone, wealthy or poor, is going to get a tax cut. You can’t give everyone a tax cut and not not give the wealthy a tax cut.” Makes sense to me. Sounds fair, too. I have nothing against the wealthy. I hope to be one of them someday. Why shouldn’t they get a break like anyone else? What’s the point of being wealthy if the government just takes more of it away? But Gore’s counter really struck me as being so Washington I wanted to barf. He just repeated himself, saying “See! I told you so! Tax cuts to the wealthy!” What a moron.

When it came to education — an issue I see as being one of the most important — I could not support Al Gore. When a tiny private school, with 100th of the funds per student as a public school, can do a better job educating, it tells me that money isn’t the problem. The problem is bureaucracy. Gore wants to increase that bureaucracy by expanding the school system. Some of his ideas were good: I support standards and accountability, but Bush had a good point when he said that there were no consequences for bad schools. Bush claimed he wanted schools to be local, saying programs like vouchers should be up to the individual states. I can’t support Bush on that. If there’s one thing that should be standardized across the country it is schools. As someone who went to a different school for nearly every grade level, I had a “Swiss cheese” education, where different schools taught me the same thing and neglected other (mostly this was true in history and geography, where schools typically alternated between teaching national and international and I got one of the twice and none of the other). Anyway, I feel very strongly that schools need standards, teachers should be tested, and schools should all be the same, whether you go to school in Colorado, Connecticut, or California. One idea I think should be implemented: if I was President, I’d pass a law that says “No non-teaching personnel at a public school can make more money than the lowest paid teacher.” Bingo. Wouldn’t that solve a LOT of problems in our schools?

Conclusion: I hadn’t planned to vote for Bush, but after seeing him in the debate, I think I could. That doesn’t mean I will, but I could. I do know that I wouldn’t vote for Gore if you paid me: his arrogance, politicizing attitude is exactly what turns me off to politics. While I don’t agree with Bush on many issues, he seemed like a reasonable man. With Gore I felt he’d shove laws down my throat whether I liked them or not (which is exactly why I don’t like government).