http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:06:38 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/24/200638.php Mac DivaI recently had reason to give a mini-lecture on civil rights history at someone's weblog. I started at the beginning because the participants were not students of any kind of history. I believe that discussion was a waste of time. However, I do wish to share some of the material with folks who might appreciate it. ~ The Civil War ended in 1865. Slaves in all parts of the U.S. were freedmen at that point. The Thirteenth Amendment made the freedmen citizens of the U.S.~ Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) affirmed segegrgation of blacks* in American life under state laws. No whites, native or immigrant, have ever been subjected to racial segregation. During World War II, black soldiers in the South were segregated. Their German prisoners of war were not.~ Brown v. Board of Education (1954) made segregated schools unconstitutional. But, years passed before meaningful enforcement occurred. Desegregation failed in much of the U.S. due to white resistance. ~"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Places of public accommodation are hotels, motels, restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums, and concert halls. . . .Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public facilities because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Public facilities are facilities owned, operated or managed by state or local governments, like courthouses or jails." (Department of Justice web site.) ~ Black people were largely deprived of participating in the electoral franchise until after the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Their ability to influence how badly they were being treated was extremely limited. False imprisonment, being driven out of town and even death were the penalties to be paid for challenging white power. So, nearly a hundred years passed between the end of slavery and achieving and maintaining any meaningful political rights. ~ Title VII passed in 1964, but was immediately challenged. Actual enforcement took until the 1970s. Until then, blacks discriminated against in employment had no legal recourse.*I am using the word 'blacks,' but all people of color in the U.S. were subjected to segregation and discrimination.I have found it useful to have facts like these on hand during conversations about civil rights. Often people who oppose equal rights for all Americans have little or no understanding of the history that led to practices such as affirmative action. I believe you will find having such information available useful, too.What's the art?A detail from the Confederate Constitution. It protected slavery in perpetuity.Note 1: This entry also appeared at Silver Rights.Note 2: Enjoy a mixed grille of fine blogging at Mac-a-ro-nies. Politics22614@blogcritics.org Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:06:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/23/184045.php Mac DivaWhen I read about the hunter in Wisconsin who shot eight people yesterday, I visualized the news item as a blog entry. As other bloggers can attest, it becomes habitual to do that after you've had the weblog habit for a while. I even had a headline: "Hunter bags 5, maims three." The blog entry would have been simple. It might have taken one of two forms. A reminiscence about growing up around people who hunted, and, getting rid of the last gun I owned when I was in my early twenties. I could have talked about the bear that got away. Or, I might have blasted a myth: that hunting is a pure-hearted, safe sport. Actually, self-injury or accidental shooting of others is not unusual at all. Nor are drunken hunters who couldn't shoot straight if their lives depended on it. I would have sought and published statistics to support my claim. I thought the story was about an intoxicated or insane man who became so possessive of a hunter's roost that he shot anyone who came near it. But, today, the saga of the hunter who shot eight people took an unexpected turn. The Associated Press reports.HAYWARD, Wisconsin (AP) -- A man suspected in the killings of six hunters told investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of the victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents filed Tuesday.A judge set bail at $2.5 million for Chai Vang, 36, of St. Paul, Minnestora, who is suspected in the killings Sunday of six deer hunters and the wounding of two others.. . .Vang, a Hmong immigrant from Laos, was arrested Sunday about four hours after the shootings as he emerged from the woods with his empty SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle.Vang told investigators he didn't realize he was on private property when he climbed the tree stand, according to the probable-cause statement released Tuesday.A hunter approached Vang to tell him he was on private property, and Vang started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang said the hunters surrounded him, and some started calling him racial slurs.Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.That's when Vang told investigators he started firing at the group, and some fell to the ground and others tried to run away, according to the statement.Vang is said to have killed five people at the scene. Another died in the hospital. Two survived their wounds. Friends of the deceased and authorities portray the gunman as aggressive, pursuing and slaying unarmed men and a woman. They say only one weapon was on hand for the eight victims, and it may not have been fired.The St. Paul area has had tensions between its predominantly white population and immigrant Hmong for years. Conflicts have involved unusual courtship rites, hunting and trespassing. Chai Vang, a veteran of the U.S. armed forces, has a history of domestic violence. He waved a gun in one incident.It is premature to speculate about how this episode will go down in history. The number of casualties guarantee it some notoriety. Will it be man versus society or man versus himself? A sane man or one damaged by mental illness? Were the victims the innocents Wisconcin authorities describe them as, or did they harass and fire at Vang because of his race? Holidays give us more free time to ponder the things we read about or see on the news. As the crime of the week, the killings in Wisconsin will be one of the topics many of us will give at least some thought to. Initially, I thought it would be a simple tale of a hunter gone awry. It isn't.What's the art?A Simonov 7.62 mm Carbine (SKS).Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies. Culture22571@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:40:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/23/140348.php Mac DivaJohn Sylvester, the white talk show host targeted by a 'black' front group run by white conservatives, Project 21, has more to say. He has issued a fuller statement of his views regarding national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Sylvester was criticized by conservatives, most of them white, for referring to Rice as 'Aunt Jemima.' In his extended remarks, he says he regrets using that term if it offends African-Americans. Sylvester does not retract his criticism of Rice's role in the Bush administration.The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports."Every once in a while, the words I use on my radio program seem to create a controversy that take on a life of their own," Sylvester said in a statement issued Monday. "I'm concerned that I have offended many African-Americans by using a crass term to describe an incompetent, dishonest, political appointee of the Bush administration. I apologize," he said. . . .In his statement, Sylvester did not, however, apologize for "pointing out that while Condoleezza Rice has clearly enjoyed the American dream, she has allowed herself to be used as a black trophy by an administration who is working so hard to deny that dream to other African-American women." The statement pointed to what he called Bush's opposition to affirmative action and appointments of "judges who refuse to enforce the civil rights laws." I said in the previous entry that Sylvester's use of the term was crude, and that better ways of criticizing Bush's African-American appointees existed. Sylvester criticized two public officials who happen to be African-American for their participation in what he considers wrongheaded foreign policy. One could argue that focusing on how he believes they failed the American people in their roles in the administration would be a better idea than noting their status as tokens. Now that Sylvester has apologized, the piling on will likely increase. One liberal weblog, Another Liberal Blog, has already referred to him as an 'asshole." If this Sylvester guy is trying to derail Rice's confirmation, a goal I wholeheartedly support, he's not helping . Her incompetence as NSA has nothing to do with race; it has to do with incompetence. Lack of competence knows no racial boundaries. Likewise, Colin Powell's subservience has nothing to do with race; it's a character flaw. Plenty of 67-year-old career military and government officers swallow their consciences and convictions out of misplaced loyalty to their bosses. If Powell were white, we'd have no term like 'Uncle Tom' to refer to his lack of character. There are plenty of good reasons to hold both Powell and Rice in contempt without bringing race into the picture. That blogger is wrong. Though race is not the primary issue in the behavior of either Rice or Secretary of State Colin Powell, it is a factor in the role they play for the administration. Their being African-American is used as a form of Teflon to keep the corrupt policies they support from being criticized. Sylvester' error was not in mentioning the role race plays for the pair. It was in using crude terminology. The error is a minor one, in my opinion. Sylvester's two points:~ The Bush administration is wrongheaded in its foreign policy, and~ The Bush administration is hostile to the interests of people of color despite having two black appointeesare accurate.ALB has unwittingly given credence to Right Wing whites like Scott Hogenson of CNS, who tried to claim that Sylvester's faux pas is equivalent to joking about murdering blacks. It is important that thoughtful people keep the matter in perspective. John Sylvester appears to be a person who has long supported the aspirations of people of color. His critics, both white conservatives and their black cat's paws, are largely people hostile to black Americans -- unless the black Americans are Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell.What's the art?An image of Aunt Jemima, the icon associated with pancake mix.Read a history of Aunt Jemima at Ad Age.Note 1: This entry also appeared at Silver Rights.Note 2: Enjoy a mixed grille of fine blogging at Mac-a-ro-nies. Politics22559@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:03:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/23/100447.php Mac DivaA recent post by Eric Olsen at Blogcritics led me to revisit Project 21, a front group run by far Right foundations and the GOP. It claims to speak for African-Americans, despite the paucity of support for Right Wing politics among that demographic. About one percent of elected African-American officials are Republicans. Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for George W. Bush in the last election are white. Though Olsen took credit for the perspective in his entry, the meme originated at Conservative News Service, a far Right opinion site that bills itself as a source for news. Managing editor Scott Hogenson (pictured) wrote the entry.John Sylvester is brilliant. Sylvester, who hosts a talk show on a small radio station in Madison, Wisconsin, has managed to punch his own ticket and is now basking in his 15 minutes of fame. And all he had to do was use racial epithets to attack black Republicans. Specifically, Sylvester finds it appropriate to describe for his listeners National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as Aunt Jemima and Secretary of State Colin Powell as Uncle Tom. How progressive of him. "I'm not a racist," protested Sylvester, a white fellow who claims the reason he referred to Rice as Aunt Jemima was because, "her price of admission to the White House is being subservient." . . .Tom Walker, a general manager for the company that owns the station on which Sylvester is heard, is sticking by his guy. "He has the right to do it and say it," Walker was quoted as saying in a Nov. 20 report in The Capital Times of Madison. "As long as he isn't hateful and as long as he isn't racist, I'm fine with it." Walker is "fine" with this employee using racial slurs to degrade Rice and Powell -- nothing hateful or racist here, folks -- and appears to think Sylvester really is the stand-up guy he claims to be. But it's interesting how Sylvester is given the benefit of that doubt while any number of his less progressive colleagues were not. Hogenson goes on to compare Sylvester to Doug 'Greaseman' Tracht and Rush Limbaugh. Tracht has been in trouble for making racist remarks several times in his career as a broadcaster. In 1998, he caused an uproar by mocking the murder of a black man dragged to death behind a pickup by Texas racists. Josh Benton at Clipfile has the details.The most recent high profile shock jock to be fired was Doug "Greaseman" Tracht. Washington's WARW fired him in February after he played a record by hip-hop artist Lauryn Hill and remarked, "No wonder people drag them behind trucks," a reference to the murder of a black man in Texas. Three white men were convicted, two receiving the death penalty and one receiving life in prison Mr. Tracht had drawn fire in 1986 while working at another Washington station. He was talking about the national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., and said: "Kill four more and we can take a whole week off." That remark sparked protests and bomb threats to the station. Limbaugh, possibly a believer in 'scientific' racism, implied that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is black, does not belong in a thinking position. You know the reasoning: Black people are stupid and stupid people should not be quarterbacks. It is doubtful that anyone familiar with real civil rights issues would be swayed by Hogenson's hissy fit. In both of the episodes he attempts to associate with Sylvester, a white commentator was attributing a form of inferiority to people of African descent in general. Tracht was treating murdering blacks as amusing. Sylvester criticized two public officials who happen to be African-American for their participation in what he considers wrongheaded foreign policy. One could argue that focusing on how he believes they failed the American people in their roles in the administration would be a better idea than noting their status as tokens. But, I am not going declare references to the race of people in the public eye off limits. Both Powell and Rice have benefitted from conservative affirmative action throughout their careers. Neither of them would be in the position he or she is but for some degree of tokenism. To pretend that race is not an issue in how the White House uses Powell and Rice is to be disingenuous. Sylvester's point, though crudely made, is true: The Bush administration's prominent black appointees are welcome there for only as long as they play a subservient role. The same seems to be true of black Republicans, period. An African-American Republican in California gave up on the party after the head of the GOP there circulated an email claiming there was no problem with slavery, the problem was with Reconstruction.Matt Welch blogged the controversy. Shannon Reeves described how his fellow Republicans treat black members of the party.The notion that this country would be better off if my ancestors had remained enslaved, and considered less than whole people, is personally offensive, abhorrent, and vile. It is particularly offensive because my own party's vice chairman distributed this bigoted propaganda in an official CRP newsletter. . . .I am sick and tired of being embarrassed by elected Republican officials who have no sensitivity for issues that alienate whole segments of our population. Republican leaders who consort with the Council of Conservative Citizens, highlight stump speeches at Bob Jones University, reminisce about segregationist campaigns, and sympathize with the bigoted views -- and the very real possibility that others in our party affiliate with the Free Congress Foundation and groups with similar offensive ideology -- perpetuate broad public opinion that Republicans harbor racist and bigoted ideals. . . .Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise. People judge people by their experience of them, and by their actions, and when those actions do not match their words, actions become the more honest means by which to measure a person. He was fed up with being told to fetch and carry by white Republicans at party functions, anyway.Unfortunately, that is the reality of the contemporary GOP. Republicans are in no position to cast aspersions of racism at anyone.That brings us back to Project 21, the primary water carrier for this disinformation. As I've previously blogged in regard to the similar (perhaps same) African American Republican Leadership Council, the front group is funded and controlled by some of the most conservative forces in American politics. The Olin and Bradley Foundations have both supported the eugenics movement. Bradley is the financier of Charles Murray, the infamous author of The Bell Curve.Olsen, a Bush supporter, apparently does not care that he is promoting the views of conservative whites claiming to represent black public opinion. Indeed, he may prefer it that way. But, it does matter. If politically aware African-Americans were appalled with John Sylvester for voicing his opinion, they would say so. The fact that conservative whites are the ones complaining -- through their black mouthpieces -- speaks volumes. It says that white conservatives perceive blacks as tools to be used by whites. It also says they believe legitimate African-American public opinion should be ignored while their pretense of representing blacks should be taken seriously.Reasonably relatedMore from Scott Hogenson.•He promotes a study by eugenicists claiming crime can be reduced if black women are encouraged to have abortions.•He promotes Jesse Lee Peterson, a semiliterate black man conservative whites like to put forth as a leader for blacks. Peterson is best known for harassing Jesse Jackson. The far Right funds his activities.•CNS was never able to bring itself to directly address the Trent Lott controversy. Instead, a writer for the site penned a piece, five days after the remarks had become newsworthy, in which he claimed Lott's comments didn't count because the senator was seven years old when Strom Thurmond ran for president.It appears doubtful that Hogenson is genuinely concerned about racism.Note 1: This entry also appeared at Silver Rights.Note 2: Enjoy a mixed grille of fine blogging at Mac-a-ro-nies. Politics22546@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:04:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/20/040944.php Mac DivaWhatever happened to. . .that fellow who had human remains all over his property. Not all that long ago, the grim news everyone was talking about involved a crematorium owner who failed to incinerate bodies. Instead, he stored them on the grounds of the crematorium. Residing in a small house surrounded by the dead did not seem to bother him. The man disappeared from the news after serving a few months in jail, receiving death threats and being sued by survivors of the improperly disposed of. This week, the young Georgian will take responsibility for his failure to carry out his duties.The Macon Telegraph reports.ATLANTA -When former crematory operator Ray Brent Marsh pleads guilty Friday to dumping 334 bodies and passing off cement dust as their ashes, the victims' relatives and resident of a rural northwest Georgia community may still be left asking the question "Why?" Two years after the crime in Noble, Ga., shocked the nation, determining a motive remains elusive, and without a trial the answer may never be known. "You're not ever going to learn what occurred and what motivated it unless sometime down into the future Mr. Marsh will speak up," U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy told victims' families at a hearing last month where a class-action civil lawsuit against Marsh was settled. Marsh will reportedly be sentenced to 12 years in prison, with credit for time served, and, one assumes, good behavior. There are also charges pending against him in Tennessee.During the coverage of the episode, I read several articles about his behavior before and after he took over his invalid father's business. The symptoms described -- lethargy, lack of affect, inattention to details -- sounded like someone suffering from depression to me. Most people's bouts of the blues result in low libido, indifference to others and/or unpaid bills, not human remains strewn around their homes. An aunt who agreed to talk to the press says she thinks Marsh is mentally ill.A linebacker on the football team at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Marsh left school early in the mid-1990s to help run his ailing father's Tri-State Crematory in Noble. Marsh would later take over the family business, something relatives say was not his first choice. "I feel something went wrong with his mind because he was up and bold and popular on the campus and then pulled away from an institution and then got into an occupation that was solitary and depressing," said his 79-year-old aunt, Lorene Marsh. Marsh cremated 665 of 999 bodies he was responsible for. The rest were found haphazardly dumped various places on the family's land. I have mixed feelings when someone who is obviously seriously dysfunctional is treated as if he or she had the capacity to know right from wrong in civil and criminal cases. I think doing that ignores the reality of how the mind works and penalizes people for behavior they may not be able to control. One also has to consider the victims, of course. The fact the perpetrator did not intentionally do wrong does not mean the injury is any less real. Few defendants who plead not guilty by reason of insanity are successful in their defense. Jurors are skeptical or uncaring about their mental illness. However, I believe a judicial system that did not treat the mentally ill as if they are normal would be much more just. A person like Ray Brent Marsh needs treatment. Instead, he will be incarcerated. His mental problems will likely continue to fester.Note 1: This entry also appeared at Silver Rights.Note 2: Enjoy a mixed grille of fine blogging at Mac-a-ro-nies. Culture22432@blogcritics.org Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:09:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/20/035855.php Mac DivaIt is common for people who have not studied the history of the body to be rather dismissive of the role of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. On the surface, the role does not confer any additional powers. Doubters will point out that the chief justice gets only one vote like the rest. But, the zetetic know better. As is the case with many administrative jobs, there are hidden attributes to being chief justice. The most apt term to summarize them is, I believe, 'agenda setting.' Now that the current chief justice, William Rehnquist, is likely dying of thyroid cancer, the question of who will assume the role next is the object of much speculation. Dahlia Lithwick, writing at Slate, has explained why who is chief justice matters.The trick to understanding the chief justice's real role in shaping a court has to do with the myriad subtle ways in which any savvy administrator can effect vast policy changes. Having the authority to send around initial cases for discussion gives the chief justice tremendous power to shape the court's agenda, for instance, as does his power to introduce and offer the first vote at case conferences. Historically, some of the most powerful chief justices have exercised their influence by stifling dissent. In his first four years as chief justice, John Marshall (chief from 1801-1835) was so insistent that all opinions be unanimous that he simply authored all of them--save for those published per curiam (or unsigned)--himself. In those four years there was only one published dissent. As chief justice, William Howard Taft (1921-1930) espoused the same philosophy: Dissents fostered an appearance of uncertainty and were only a form of egotism anyhow, in his view. So over Taft's tenure, the high court issued unanimous opinions 84 percent of the time.The big stealth power for any chief justice lies in his ability to assign written opinions whenever he votes with the majority in a case. If he votes with the minority, the most senior judge in the majority does the assigning. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (chief from 1930-1941) regarded his opinion-assignment power as "a special opportunity for leadership" and, as a consequence, his "most delicate task." It doesn't sound like a big deal, but consider Warren Burger, chief justice from 1969 to 1986. In The Brethren, Bob Woodward describes Burger's assignment strategy as having two components: shifting his vote after conference so as to retain the assignment power (even if it meant voting against his originally stated views) and then assigning only lame opinions to his enemies. According to Woodward, Burger's strategy was to keep all the big criminal law, racial discrimination, and free-speech cases away from his ideological "enemies," as he called William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and William O. Douglas-- as well as to author all the unanimous opinions himself. That way it looked as if his wisdom was indisputable and his leadership unparalleled. Burger also did a tremendous amount of politicking as chief--giving policy speeches and attending conferences, as well as shamelessly pressuring the other justices to vote with him for blatantly political reasons.Lithwick notes that swing vote justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy will have had greater impact on case law emerging from the Supreme Court over the last decades. But, Rehnquist has also been influential. He has engaged in the usual agenda setting of activist chief justices. In addition, his reputation as a hidebound conservative has influenced the legal strategies of lawyers considering controversial issues everywhere. For example, advocates for extending the civil rights protections of the constitution to homosexuals have tried to wait out the sure to be hostile Rehnquist Court. The chief justice of SCOTUS shapes a court. That court shapes society. Reasonably relatedThe ailing Rehnquist had a troubling history before being appointed to the Supreme Court.Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies. Politics22431@blogcritics.org Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:58:55 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/18/161249.php Mac DivaTwo third-party candidates are performing a public service. Ralph Nader and David Cobb have sought recounts of ballots in the race for president. The recounts will test the accuracy of Diebold Election Systems, Inc. voting machines. By taking the initiative, the candidates for president bypass the issue of standing to challenge election results most citizens would face. They also get good publicity for themselves. But, nothing is perfect. I commend them for assuming the cloak of 'statesman.' The Pioneer Press has briefs.CONCORD, N.H. -- New Hampshire is about to become a test case for the accuracy of optical scan vote-counting machines because third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader has asked for a recount. The request covers 11 of the state's 126 precincts that use Diebold Inc.'s Accuvote optical scanning machines to count paper ballots. Depending on the results, Nader's campaign could ask for recounts in other states, a spokesman said. Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb has announced that his campaign has raised enough money to force Ohio to recount its presidential vote. The state allows candidates to demand recounts if they pay -- about $113,000 for a statewide recount. Cobb's campaign raised $150,000 in just four days. The money came entirely in online donations, his spokesman said, eclipsing Cobb's own fund raising for the entire election cycle. There are two controversies swirling around electronic voting. The paperless voting machines provided by Diebold are said to produce opportunities for error and fraud. Since there is no hard copy proof of voters choices, they, at the very least, open the door to skepticism. In addition, the computers Diebold uses to record the votes from paper ballots are said to be hackable or easy to program to produce a given result intentionally. The foremost critic of Diebold, Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, believes the use of Microsoft software makes the machines vulnerable. According to her and other critics, altering even a single line of code can change the way votes are counted. She believes that Diebold, which has links to the Republican Party, may have used its machines to tamper with ballots.Ironically, electronic voting machines were introduced as a reform. After the debacle of Election 2000, elections officials were wary of paper ballots, butterfly and otherwise. Touch-screen voting machines were thought to be more easily read and understood. But, by omitting any form of tangible confirmation, Diebold and its competitor, Election Systems & Software, Inc., have failed to make the voting process more trustworthy. The two recounts will be a check on accuracy, but questions about proof of individual votes and whether the software is hackable will remain.Reasonably related•Visit Black Box Voting online.•Bob Fritrakis of Common Dreams offers a detailed account of concerns about Diebold voting machines in an article titled "Diebold, Electronic Voting and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies. Politics22372@blogcritics.org Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:12:49 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/17/172101.php Mac DivaAs a longterm fan of The Practice, I awaited the debut of its spin-off, Boston Legal. eagerly. I expected to see James Spader develop his predictably unpredictable character, trial lawyer Alan Shore, more fully. But, after watching several episodes of David Kelley's latest legal vehicle, I am disappointed. There has not been much more development of Shore, but that is only one of the problems with the show. The Practice succeeded largely on angst-ridden hunk Dylan McDermott's skills as an actor. His character, angst-ridden hunk Bobby Donnell, was one of the most complex in a television drama ever. But, the ensemble cast was not far behind him. Steve Harris (Eugene Young) or Camryn Manheim (Ellenor Frutt) could carry an episode as well as the founding member of the small criminal law firm. Interesting things occurred whether Bobby was on-screen or not. Fans were transfixed by the lawyers' ability to make a way when all options seemed to be blocked by barriers. I believe Boston Legal is less than it could be because it lacks the strengths of its predecessor. Lesley Smith, writing at Pop Matters, has zeroed in on much of what bothers me about Boston Legal.Most egregiously, the show unrepentantly endorses and exploits traditional assumptions about lawyers: white privilege, boys are for business, girls are for sex, greed is good. The excesses go beyond the politically incorrect. Boston Legal is openly celebrates the privileges capitalism offers to a tiny minority, visible in their gleeful Olympian amorality in public, private, and professional life. By repackaging the morality of Enron, Halliburton, and widespread mutual fund mismanagement as frivolous eccentricity, the show valorizes the super-rich behaving super badly and getting away with it, over and over again. Moreover, the tenor here is quite different from earlier "rich folk behaving badly" shows which made unlikely heroes out of J.R. Ewing and Alexis Carrington. Those characters directed their venom at each other, or fellow competitors for family and business wealth. In Boston Legal , the venom sprays downwards, at everyone who is not "like us." Clients (blatantly less privileged, women, African Americans, and Latinos) are merely the means to money and fame, or better, notoriety. One of the first thing one notices about Boston Legal is that it is a white show. The diversity that one came to take for granted with The Practice has disappeared. The faces are as pale as those at the Republican convention. Vanilla is so much the flavor of the week, month and year that dark-haired Lake Bell (Sally Heep) stands out in the crowd. One could say that is reflective of a silk-stocking law firm. But, even the most exclusive law firm in a large city such as Boston would likely have a minority lawyer or two. More tellingly, in regard to both race and class, the people who make a law-firm go -- clerical staff, paralegals and investigators -- don't exist at Crane, Poole and Schmidt. Instead, the lawyers are shown doing their own research or interviewing clients themselves. A new associate might do that, but partners would not. Kelley has made a double faux pas by engaging in a failure of realism and missing an opportunity to avoid the cookie cutter sameness of the cast. In addition, he chose to ignore all of the talented non-white actors available when casting the show. Smith observes that women don't fare much better than the minorities and the insufficiently schooled in this legal drama as celebration of prosperity. The 'sleep your way to success' motif is played so often it appears to be the only one there is. Females may be present, but they are not really partners -- except in bed. In addition, all three of the women given recurring screen time are attracted to Alan Shore, which is unlikely. One suspects it is a way for them to 'earn' some attention. The effect is to make their interchangeability all the more apparent. The reviewer's parting words on this unsettling television drama are insightful.Those involved in the show describe it as "light" and "funny," as if it were just a frothy entertainment. And several reviewers celebrate its "loopiness," "fruitiness," and "La-La Land" wackiness. Nothing, however, can hide the fact that, despite its idiosyncrasies, Boston Legal is all too accurate in its portrayal of our cultural moment, in which the gaps between richer and poorer grow ever larger and social and political empathy grows ever more anemic. It's a cultural moment for which David E. Kelley seems to have discovered a particular affinity, both in the later seasons of Ally McBeal and here again in Boston Legal. Looking back, it appears that L.A. Law will eventually stand as his finest work. On that show, he showed sympathy for human fallibility and the frailty of aspiration. He also remembered that language could mean something more than the momentary reaction it produced, that "story" could accumulate into something other than a collection of vignettes, however witty or outrageous they may be. In the coming four years, I expect to see concerns about social justice increasingly trivialized. The kind of people who say that either there are no hungry folks in America, or that they deserve their fate, will be heard more loudly than ever, while the voices of those who are concerned about the more than 11 million households without sufficient food are ignored. A proposal to burden the low-income and middle-class even more by repealing the federal income tax and imposing a regressive national sales tax may go forward with the blessings of the Bush administration. Embryonic stem cell research will continue to be shelved as the national leadership pays homage to the anti-abortion movement. Women's wages will continue to shrink. Homosexuals, newly aware of where they stand with much of the population, will hesitate to assert themselves. I fear the suffering will be accompanied by a laugh track.In an episode of Boston Legal, lawyer Lori Colson (Monica Potter), purchases a handbag that costs several hundred dollars from a sales clerk at a ritzy boutique. Her way of celebrating a legal victory is to go buy something frivolous and expensive. The sales woman recognizes the name on Lori's credit card. She is the young rape victim whose case has been scrubbed due to the machinations of Crane, Schmidt and Poole. The lawyer looks unhappy when she leaves the boutique. But, that doesn't change anything. The lawyer is 'supposed to be' a winner. The clerk is 'supposed to be' a loser. So, things are way the way they are 'supposed to be.' Smith is right. Boston Legal reflects the world we live in now, without questioning the assumptions built in. Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies. Culture22331@blogcritics.org Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:21:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/16/214034.php Mac DivaI've been following the showdown for the governorship of Washington. The latest twist is a lawsuit by disgruntled Republicans. Democrats won the right to contact provisional voters by phone last week. Provisional ballots often haven't been signed, or the person may need to update residency information. If there is a problem and the voter is not heard from, his ballot is ignored. The GOP is perturbed because Democrats can make their votes count by correcting the problems. KGW-TV has been covering the conflict.A judge ruled Tuesday that King County should continue counting provisional ballots, despite protests from Republicans.Superior Court Judge Dean Lum refused to grant a temporary restraining order against the state's largest county, a stronghold of support for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire.The ruling affects less than 1,000 ballots, but the governor's race is so close that those ballots could make a huge difference. On Tuesday afternoon, Republican Dino Rossi led Gregoire by 236 votes, out of 2.8 million ballots cast. But, that's not all. A recount in a populous county is expected to increase the number of votes for Gregoire. The Seattle Post Intelligencer has the details.MONTESANO, Wash. -- Grays Harbor County will have to re-count all of its ballots because of a problem with a computer reporting system, The Daily World of Aberdeen reported Tuesday. County Auditor Vern Spatz said the re-count will likely add to Democrat Christine Gregoire's total votes for governor. Statewide, at last count, Gregoire was 158 votes ahead of Republican Dino Rossi, out of 2.8 million ballots cast. The deadline for counties to finish tallying ballots is Wednesday. "We do not have to rescan them, we could just rerun the report, but we don't want to have anybody have any doubts about this election," Spatz said. "We're going to take the time and effort to rescan every ballot in our office and generate new totals. It takes away any question." Rossi's earlier lead of between 2000-3000 votes evaporated soon after vote counting resumed after the Veterans Day holiday. Some sources now say Gregoire is ahead. With hundreds more votes to count, it is unclear which candidate will prevail. The law requires the state to certify a winner tomorrow. I am not going to try to guess the outcome.What's the art?A temporary site where voters could submit their ballots in Pierce County, Washington. Most Washingtonians vote by mail.Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies. Politics22305@blogcritics.org Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:40:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/16/204101.php Mac DivaIt is the kind of thing that makes you go, 'Huh?'What is an Apple iPod? An MP3 player and hard drive, a reasonable person would say. The savvy might add a measure of hipness, the in thing that whispers taste and bling-bling. The National Basketball Association says the iPod is a violation of its dress code.The Associated Press reports.NEW YORK (AP) - Vince Carter has to listen to his favorite tunes on his own time. The Toronto Raptors star was informed by the NBA that he no longer can listen to music on his iPod during the 20-minute warmup period before each game. Carter recently started listening to the music on his headphones, a violation of the league's rules on proper attire. When the NBA heard about it, the league called the Raptors. ``We informed them that he can no longer do that,'' NBA spokesman Brian McIntyre said Tuesday. Carter has said he listens to the music in order to focus before a game. I can't envision any way that a player listening to music on his iPod before a game causes a problem. Perhaps the NBA is a safer place now, but I think it would be hard put to be explain how.Note: My blog is Mac-a-ro-nies. Culture22300@blogcritics.org Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:41:01 EST