Zappini

From: Jason Aaron Osgood
To: Erica C. Barnett (barnett@ thestranger.com)
Subject: Fast-Lane Fallacy
Date: Monday November 28, 2005

Hi Erica Barnett-


You wrote:

Promises like these have been alluring cities since at least the 1960s, when bus manufacturer General Motors began aggressively pushing BRT as an alternative to rail.

The purpose of BRT has always been to eliminate mass transit. From Wikipedia's entry
General Motors streetcar conspiracy (which has the best rumors on the internets):

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to a contention that General Motors (GM), acting in conjunction with several other companies and through the National City Lines (NCL) holding company, illegally acquired many streetcar systems in various cities around the United States, dismantled and replaced them with buses for the express purpose of promoting the automobile.

There was even a public television documentary about this travesty. It's sad that a "progressive" city like Seattle, filled with "progressives" like Richard Conlin, keep falling for the same old tricks. Am I the only person who's seen "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"


Cheers, Jason Aaron Osgood / Seattle WA

This a pretty good interview with Kristina Hill, Acting Seattle Monorail Project Board Chair.

[Lois North] had gone around and talked to the elected officials—Ron Sims, Paul Schell, Ed Murray—and she came to the conclusion that there was no support for it in the establishment. She said, you will never get this built because the elected leadership was not going to allow it to be built.

This has always been apparent to me. It's amazing to me that no politician played hero and adopted the monorail. It was a freebie. Unlike Sound Transit. I applaud Ron Sims for going to the matt for Sound Transit. Too bad the monorail didn't have similar sponsorship.

Just to be clear: I have no sympathy whatsoever for the anti-monorail positions. I've tried to keep an open mind. To learn what they know. Because I've been wrong before. But after inspection, it's always just been a gripe list. Too loud. Too ugly. Will hurt my business. Sadly, the criticisms were always counterfactual.

Two actual problems with the monorail project were the loss of bidders (from 3 down to 1) and the financing package. I've worked in the A/E/C field. Having a single bidder is really bad. But I was willing to hold my nose. Because even if the monorail was 5 times more expensive, it'd still be half the cost of light rail.

Alas, the financing package was a show stopper. Even for me.

And it just pisses me off. We have two new stadiums. My tax dollars subsidize everyone else's sprawl. We give away land to the rich. (EMP anyone?) We're seriously considering a trolley for parasite Paul Allen. The suburbs monkeyed endlessly with light rail. But when Seattle decides that it'll buy itself mass transit, thank you very much, the NIMBYs have a field day. It's sick. Talk about opportunity costs.

There is one silver lining in all this, if very, very thin. Initially, my support for the monorail was mostly motivated by my disgust with the lack of progress on Sound Transit's light rail. (The remaining balance of my motivation was my desire to give the suburbs the finger for holding up light rail.) I figured if we have two mass transit projects, it'll increase the odds of something actually happening. Maybe I'm misreading history, but Sound Transit didn't get its shit together until the citizen's "revolted" by floating the monorail.

Even with Sound Transit's light rail, we're still a long way from having a mass transit like San Fran's BART, Portland's MAX, or Vancouver's SkyTrain. I gotta tell ya, when Juli and I were in Portland recently, seeing their MAX system caused me to seriously consider moving down there. I was working in Portland in the early 90s. It's great to see how MAX has matured and been woven into the fabric of Portland.

Happily, the anti-monorail loons will now throw their energies into ensuring Sound Transit criss-crosses our metro region. So in 15 years, 10 years after Peak Oil, our residents will have the convenience of mass transit happy in the knowledge that we're tackling global warming head on.

Yea, right.

(I grew up in Kemper Freeman Jr's Bellevue. A town that has never wavered from the belief that the solution to gridlock is more pavement.)

To: Becky Bartindale (bbartindale@ mercurynews.com), Lisa Krieger (lkrieger@ mercurynews.com), Larry Caldwell (lcaldwell@qsea.org), Associated Press (info@ap.org), letters@mercurynews.com
From: Jason Aaron Osgood
Date: Sunday Nov 27th, 2005
Subj: Evolution Site Under Fire


Hi Becky Bartindale, Lisa Krieger-


I hope you both enjoyed your holiday turkeys as much as I enjoyed your article on the Caldwell's fight against The Age of Enlightenment. Parts of which made it to news.yahoo.com. That's quite the gift. I hope the Caldwells are grateful for the exposure. Maybe some Christmas cards, even.

We'll all busy. I can only imagine that journalisming is hard, hard work. What, with all the cutting and pasting and all.

But, honestly, don't you think you could have squeezed in a small mention that the Caldwells have their own website? Quality Science Education for All, whose apparent sole purpose is to file frivolous lawsuits against the institutions trying to prepare our children to succeed in the 3rd millennium. I also think it would be truly clever to mention that the Caldwells make a habit of doing this kind of thing. Repeat offenders, if you will.

I've heard that another part of journalisming which is hard, hard work is research. I just recently heard about the internets and google. Incredible! In just under 2 weeks, I was able to find rumours about the Caldwells for myself.

But, see, now I'm all confused. Your article says the Caldwells are not proponents of intelligent design. But they work alongside the posterboys of intelligent design (The Discovery Institute). So what's that mean? I generally don't fall for guilt by association. But with these levels of guilt, it's hard not to associate.

And, really, how, exactly are intelligent design and creationism different? I've read a bit about this. If there's a difference, it must be pretty small, because I haven't found it. Not like unitarians and trinitarians, or the followers of Peter vs Paul, or even protestants vs catholics. Now those are actual differences, with meaning and import. Not some cynical branding exercise to evade Constitutional legalities.

Thank you for your time. I eagerly await your next effort(s) at journalisming. I'm especially anxious to learn about the Caldwells next attack against reason.


Cheers, Jason Aaron Osgood / Seattle WA

Mark Crispin Miller spoke at Seattle Townhall last night. He's promoting his new book Fooled Again. The book is an engaging layperson's guide to the stolen 2004 Presidential election. Summarizing the works of Rep Conyers, Wasserman, Fitrakis, etc. The talk included some current events, a quick summary of the book, a call to arms, and a healthy Q&A session.


[Note: Mark Crispin Miller is speaking again tonight at University Bookstore and tomorrow night at Elliot Bay Books. See below. Highly recommended.]


Of course, Miller started with his version of the "Kerry Told Me He Now Thinks the Election Was Stolen" story, covering the events before and after.


Miller then listed some of the many Republicans and conservatives who opposed Bush prior to the 2004 election. Like Clinton impeachment champion Bob Barr, now consultant to the ACLU.


The Bush Team are not conservatives, they're radical. Bush's "strong support" is now 22%, +/- 4%. Miller noted that 18% also supported Bush on the Terry Schiavo mess. These are the same hardcore people.


We're all children of the Cold War. We thought that was the big fight. It was just a historical blip. Both capitalism and communism were results of the Age of Englightment. But the fight over the Enlightment continues, with the liberal democratic believers in progress on one side and the misogynistic, misanthropic, intolerant, anti-progress theocrats on the other.


The United States of America was a product of the Enlightment. Pursuit of happiness. Separation of church and state. The Bill of Rights. Democracy. Etc. We all need to relearn Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Most religious types, who came to America to escape religious persecution, have been historically Jeffersonian. For instance, the Baptists used to support the separation of church and state. Until they tasted the apple of power in the 1980s.


Traditional conservatives are products of the Age of Enlightenment: coherent, rational, worldly. Miller, a self-professed independent, said "conservatives" love him. Assuming the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have any meaning any more. What we're facing now are the children of Nixon. They're not conservative. They're religious zealots bent on destroying democracy. They're cryptofascists. We no longer live in a democracy.


The fundamentalist evangelical (Dominionist) doctrine justifying the destruction of the earth comes from a very narrow reading of Genesis. They're doing it on purpose.


Miller also mentioned the 10 million Christian Zionists. The hardcore supporters of Isreal. The ones currently doing missionary work in Iraq, trying to save souls and sometimes getting killed for their efforts.


I think it's fair to say that people are very upset and disappointed that (establishment) Washington Democrats won't touch the issue of stolen elections. Miller says the locals, activists, and grassroots have "the fire in the belly". There's a disconnect between national and locals. The national leadership is the problem. For some reason, the subject is taboo. Miller lists all the scandals, lies, atrocities, and criminality of the Bush Administration and GOP that we accept as true. But to steal an election!? No, that could never happen here.


People want to know why the Democrats remain silent. Miller gives three reasons. Many Democrats are essentially Republicans. Infiltrators and impersonators, really. It's an old trick. He listed "Democrats" from Ohio and Florida, like the butterfly ballot lady, who are Republicans that ran as Democrats.


Corruption is the second reason. Bev Harris and others have exposed many Democrat and minority leaders who are on the payroll.


Lastly, and probably the biggest reason, is denial. Stolen elections is just too huge to comprehend and accept. Anyone in an elected position is emotionally invested in the status quo, unwilling to examine their own perhaps unscrupulous actions, and can't face the facts.


One question was "How do we change a broken election system using the broken system?", a reference to the failed Reform Ohio Now initiatives. Miller said circumstances do change, the elites fighting each other, and as we get active on the local level, opportunities will present themselves.


Miller advised not to think about the whole problem all at once. It's just too much and you won't bother getting out of bed. Focus on what you can do right here, right now. Work towards the goal in small steps.


Miller also said that a system canoot exist without support from the people. The Soviet Union failed because the people's lack of faith in the system finally reached a tipping point. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many guns they have if the people are opposed.


Miller on Michael Medved


Miller will be on Medved's program on KTTH 770AM Seattle today at 1:00pm. (I think it's syndicated.) Medved likes to play "gotcha!" with his liberal guests. Miller encouraged us to call in. 206-421-0770 or 1-800-465-8770.


I'll probably ask why the Ohio GOP won't permit inspection of the ballots, machines, etc. Or maybe if the burden of proof is on us to prove fraud, or for the government to prove the process is open, fair, and verifiable.


Miscellany


Project Censored ranks Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage at number 3 for 2006.


Thanks to everyone who took the poll yesterday. 87% believe the election was stolen. Remember Brad Friedman's advice: Be the media. You've read the reports. You know the facts. You've seen the results. Do not let the pollyannas, doubting Thomases, and deniers dissuade you. Find each other. Talk to each other. Educate each other. Attend the public hearings. Protest. Get out and get active. Speak truth to power.


Carl Shatski of Pirate TV on Seattle Community Television taped the event. But I can't find a URL and I don't think they stream stuff online. Stay tuned.


Upcoming Mark Crispin Miller Events


Seattle:
Nov 11 University Book Store, 7pm
Nov 12 Elliot Bay Books


Portland:
Nov 14 Powell's Books, Hawthorne, 7:30 pm


Minneapolis:
Nov 15 Magers & Quinn Booksellers, 7pm


Wisconsin:
Nov 21
University School of Milwaukee, College Prep School, talk to 300-400 students, 1:00 pm (Schwarz to sell books)
Harry W. Schwartz, 7pm


Chicago:
Nov 22 Barbara's, 7:30 pm


Baltimore:
Nov 26 Creative Alliance, 7:30 pm


Washington, DC:
Nov 29 Politics & Prose, 7pm


Philadelphia:
Nov 30 Robin's Books, 7pm


(Cross-posted on dailyKos, WashBlog.)

From: Jason Aaron Osgood

To: Trova Heffernan (Office of the Secretary of State, Washington State)
To: Arvid Hokanson (KUOW)
To: Jeff Hansen (KUOW)
To: John Hill (KUOW)
To: Ariel Burnett (KCTS)
cc: Christine Mrak (Your Vote Counts)
cc: Susan Gilmore (Seattle Times)
cc: Juli Pettingill

Date: Nov 5, 2005
Subject: "Voter ID" vs "Photo ID"


Trova Heffernan, Everyone-


I apologize for the delayed followup.

Both Juli Pettingill and I contacted both KUOW and KCTS about the
OSOS's voter education ads. I saw the ad on KCTS (10/31 7:30pm). I
heard "photo id". I don't have a recording of the ad, so I haven't
been able to replay it for closer inspection.

(The text from the current ad is shown below.)


Juli Pettingill wrote:

> Again, I realize you are saying voter id, but I bet people
> are hearing photo id.

I've spoken to at least 10 other people about this. Everyone heard
"photo id". Juli's point is valid.

This issue troubles me. As poll worker during our 2005 primary, every
single voter thought they had to present photo id. Perhaps because
the original ads said "photo id"? Note that a number of groups issued
complaints. (Links below.) At which time the OSOS changed the ad.

Also, can someone tell me what "voter id" is? Much better would have
been some wordsmithing to include 2 or 3 examples of acceptable
identification.


Trova Heffernan wrote:

> since this is a script read by other folks, their pronunciation of
> the words (and how someone interprets it) is really difficult for
> us to address.

I disagree. The OSOS chose the wording and paid for the ad. You
certainly have the means and responsibility to correct any mistakes or
misunderstandings.

Having done user interface design, technical writing, and student
broadcasting, I know how hard it is to be understood. However, when
the message is misunderstood, that's my responsibility, not the
listener's (user's, reader's, etc.). And when the issue is something
fundamental, like a citizen's voting rights, I think getting it right
is pretty important.

Thank you for your time. I hope my feedback was constructive.



Cheers, Jason Aaron Osgood / Seattle WA


---

Text from ad:

SUPPORT FOR K-U-O-W COMES FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
NEW STATE AND FEDERAL VOTING REFORMS ARE IN PLACE ACROSS WASHINGTON.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, VOTER IDENTIFICATION IS REQUIRED AT THE POLLS AND
VOTING EQUIPMENT AND BALLOT INSTRUCTIONS IN MANY COUNTIES HAVE
CHANGED. INFORMATION ABOUT THESE CHANGES FOR EACH COUNTY IS AVAILABLE
ONLINE AT "VOTE DOT WA DOT GOV".


Links about the previous ad:

2 groups object to ad about bringing ID to vote
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002452897_voterid26m.html

State voter ads draw bipartisan flak
http://theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050826/NEWS/508260303

Voting rights advocates demand pulling of misleading ad
http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4028&

Collection of links from the news medias:
http://www.wslc.org/reports/08-26-05.htm

###

Andrew Gumbel is promoting his book Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America. Our (as yet unnamed) grassroots election reform group was well represented at Andrew Gumbel's Seattle Townhall appearance.

I really enjoyed this event. Gumbel is a very good speaker. He was able to say an awful lot, without notes, and make it all coherent. I also like his approach and style. To the point without pointing fingers.

Gumbel engages in what may be called "comparative democracy". He traces the history and differences between the USA and other mature democracies. For any one who didn't know: the USA is out of whack with democratic norms. So much so that we do not meet the Carter Center's requirements for international observation.

The root cause is our two-party system. They have gamed the system to ensure their own continued dominance. Not news, but Gumbel does a great job of explaining the history, mechanics, and consequences.

We have a highly decentralized election system, with over 4,000 different jurisdictions. With no accountability or uniform standards. With conflicts of interest (e.g. election vendors giving money to those who certify voting machines). With no congressional oversight. In contrast, everyone else has centralized elections administration. Most everywhere else also has public financing of elections, equal access to the media, proportional representation, etc. Gumbel was careful to note that while everywhere has problems (e.g. fraud, corruption, corporate influence), ours are much larger.

Gumbel compared how the tight elections of Florida 2000 and Washington 2000 were resolved. Florida was extralegal, no holds bared, and undermined confidence in our election system as well as the integrity of our democracy. Gorton and Cantwell in Washington agreed to play by the rules and accept the results. Of course, come Washington 2004, Rossi and Gregoire fought as though we were in Florida.

Note that in 2000, Florida and Washington were using essentially the same equipment. The problem was not the machines. As always, it was the rules, procedures, and the commitment to uphold democracy.

The history of surpressing the vote is very interesting. Up to the industrial revolution, the USA had 80% turnout. Then, fearing a loss of power to the labor movement, both parties worked to reduce the vote. Arcane rules, gerrymandering, etc. I was surpised to learn this was the start of the secret ballot and the origin of complicated ballots, all the better to confuse and disenfranchise.

The biggest reason for low-turnout, however, is that our races are not competitive. Why vote if your vote doesn't matter?

David Brewster (of Townhall, MC for the night) mentioned that British Columbia is experimenting with redistricting rules which maximize competitiveness over other criteria. (Compare that to the half-baked "reform" notions put forth in California, Ohio, and elsewhere. You can see we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.)

Gumbel noted "the falacy of the technological fix". In other words, the rush to buy new voting gear as a cure-all to a current procedural mess. He recounts a history filled with many such silver bullets. From pull levers to punchcards to optical scanners. Every system has its problems, vulnerabilities. The better systems are low-tech (e.g. paper ballots, manual counting) and consequently highly verifiable.

Much, much more was said. Seattle Channel was present to tape the event. Alas, once again, I haven't been able to find any URLs. When they post the content, I'll update with URLs. So please bookmark this entry if you're curious.

Lastly, mark your calendars: Mark Crispin Miller will be promoting "Fooled Again" at Seattle Townhall Nov 10th (link). Our group will be present and handing out literature.

Alan Kay is one of the big brains. This is a pretty good interview.

The thing we liked least about Java was the way it was implemented. It had this old idea, which has never worked, of having a set of paper specs, having to implement the VM (virtual machine) to the paper specs, and then having benchmarks that try to validate what you’ve just implemented—and that has never resulted in a completely compatible system.

It's not too bright to disagree with someone like Alan Kay. He's a whole lot smarter than me. And has a great deal more experience. And he's more likely to be right.

But I disagree that the Java language and virtual machine specs were a mistake.

Rather, I think the specs are brilliant. The well defined interfaces permit experimentation and variation. The phenomenon was discovered (or maybe just well articulated) by David Parnas and explained in Design Rules.

Yes, Squeak runs everywhere as is. But Java has many more implementations. And the Java ecology is much richer (including the CLR and Mono here). There's a great deal more research and experimentation. The rate of progress is most impressive.

The reason the [Burroughs B5000] line lived on ... was precisely because it was almost impossible to crash it, and so the banking industry kept on buying this line of machines, starting with the B5000. ...

Just as an aside, to give you an interesting benchmark—on roughly the same system, roughly optimized the same way, a benchmark from 1979 at Xerox PARC runs only 50 times faster today. Moore’s law has given us somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 times improvement in that time. So there’s approximately a factor of 1,000 in efficiency that has been lost by bad CPU architectures.

I skim read about the Burroughs B5000. It's stack-based. It made me think of the Java CPUs. Where the JVM bytecodes are used for the CPU's opcodes.

Of course, there's a lot more to the B5000.

But I got to wondering. If the B5000 is such a great idea, there should be a virtual machine for it. Then, if the idea has merit, someone can implement the idea in hardware.

That'd be one of the benefits of having specs to clearly define the interface between the app and the core.

Yahoo Mail-


I now have to do that Gotcha thing when I send an email from my Yahoo Mail account to my own Yahoo Group. Huh?

That's so beyond annoying. About 1/3rd of the time, I get it wrong. Is it a big 'A' or a warped '4'? Who knows?

Note that I've had my Yahoo Mail account for SEVEN years. I also bought the Yahoo Mail Plus upgrade (hoping the spam filtering was better, haha). So I'm pretty sure that I'm not a spam zombie or what have you.


Cheers, Jason Aaron Osgood / Seattle WA