kenjisan

Football refs infiltrated

The election results have taught me one important thing: the referees of the NFL have been taken over by a liberal conspiracy. Illegal motion my ass. That shit was rigged.

Sources of debate

I didn't watch the debates last night, but I have read a lot about them this morning. I found it really funny reading these two articles back-to-back:
Bush rips Iraq flip-flops - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics
Iraq Takes Center Stage in Debate (washingtonpost.com)

These are the lead articles from The Washington Times and The Washington Post, respectively. For a millisecond, I thought that these two papers were going to even attempt to stay unbiased in their reporting of the debate... at least in the main article. Sadly, I was wrong. What I find interesting (but not surprising) is that the Times makes no attempt to stay unbiased.

Of course, this may be my scewed perspective since I hate Bush and everything he stands for. Oh wait...

E-voting paranoia

This is my response to davextreme's Nationwide "Computer Ate My Vote" Day post, where he outlined all the reasons e-voting (i.e. touch-screen voting machines) are a bad idea.

While I share many of his anxieties, I think it's a bit nearsighed to dismiss e-voting machines before they've had much chance to mature.

First of all, this wouldn't be the first national election to use them. In the 2000 presidential campaign, approximately 25 million registered voters had access to touch-screen voting machines. Whether this gives validity to the subject or not is questionable, but it's important to note that these machines aren't a brand-new thing.

Once these machines are perfected, the advantages will far outweigh the drawbacks. As one article from the Boston Globe mentioned (As e-voting grows, calls for paper trail delay cards' demise):

The machines can be programmed to display ballots in numerous languages with adjustable font sizes for the visually impaired. People with disabilities, particularly blind voters, using audio prompts from a headset, can vote without assistance, unlike with other technologies that require paper.

The article goes on to discuss that most e-machines being developed now have a built-in paper back-up system, allowing for a possible recount if such a thing is necessary.

All of this is there to streamline the process of voting, making it more accessible to a wider audience. There is no conspiracy to hijack election results. I agree with Dave that there's still a lot of room for improvement: making the voting software open source for public scrutiny, creating a more reliable paper trail in the case of a recount. But it's kind of silly to stick to a system that has its fair share of problems (ballot stuffing, lost ballots, hanging chads, etc.), just because it's the way we've always done it before. From a USA Today article (Remember chads? They've hung around) comes an interesting factoid: "One in eight [voters] will be using the same type of punch-card voting machines blamed for many of Florida's problems."

As you can see, I'm for it. So is this website: electionline.org.

Follow up: Senators listen?

Turns out that Senator John Warner is now "undecided" on the marriage amendment issue.

Here's a link:
ediblemouse: It does do some good...

Again, here's where to speak out:
www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/senate_oppose_fma2

Time to make a splash

This is mainly for those of you reading this post from Everyone, since the LJ crowd got it first from Stephen (The Grand-Duchy of Brandonshire - First of a few updates today (I think)). The Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment is July 15th, I think. If you oppose such an amendment, then you can tell your senator by going here. Based on the quick, form-letter response, I'm not sure how much good this'll do, but it's almost effortless, so you might as well.