Hacking the voting machines

There's now proof of how easy it can be for someone to alter the results of an election by hacking into the electronic voting machines.

When Maryland decided to buy 16,000 AccuVote-TS voting machines, there was considerable opposition. Critics charged that the new touch-screen machines, which do not create a paper record of votes cast, were vulnerable to vote theft. The state commissioned a staged attack on the machines, in which computer-security experts would try to foil the safeguards and interfere with an election.

They were disturbingly successful. It was an "easy matter," they reported, to reprogram the access cards used by voters and vote multiple times. They were able to attach a keyboard to a voting terminal and change its vote count. And by exploiting a software flaw and using a modem, they were able to change votes from a remote location.

Verified Voting.org, an advocacy organization working toward getting voter-verifiable paper receipts added to electronic voting machines - which would allow each voter confirm that their vote has been recorded accurately and creates a paper trail that can be used to recount votes if necessary - has listed several examples of miscounts and other questionable results at their website, along with a great deal of other information on problems with the way electronic voting systems currently work.

As I've said before, this is not something that should be considered a partisan issue. Republican votes can be stolen just as easily as Democratic votes, which can be stolen just as easily as votes for Independent or 3rd party candidates. Everyone is at risk from this. The hell we went through following the Florida debacle is minor compared to the hell these machines - as they are currently used - can cause. In Florida, we at least had the possiblity of recounting to votes to determine if the results were correct. That option does not exist with these machines.

Now that Maryland has proven that the machines are vulnerable to outside attacks, it is inexcusible for any politician to oppose the addition of voter-verifiable paper reciepts to these machines. It's not hyperbolic to say that the future of democracy in this country depends on it. It's a fact.

How not to impress the ladies

Watch out for the icebergs

That about sums it up...

Evidence that Saddam had disarmed is found

The Washington Post is reporting that David Kay, until recently the head of the Iraqi Survey Group, has said that while working in Iraq, he found evidence that Saddam Hussein had at least partially disarmed during the 1990s.

The discovery means that inspectors have not only failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but also have found exculpatory information -- contemporaneous documents and confirmations from interviews with Iraqis -- demonstrating that Saddam Hussein did make efforts to disarm well before President Bush began making the case for war.

Kay noted that the fact that Hussein did not present proof of disarmament to the US or UN when threatened with war indicates, to him, that Saddam may have been "bluffing about his weapons capabilities to maintain an aura of power." Apparently, Saddam was more afraid of being attacked by his neighbors if he provided proof that he had no WMD than he was that we would actually go to war against him.

I'm sure that most conservatives will maintain that Saddam's choice to lie to us in spite of our threats, along with their late-found interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people (who, admittedly, may eventually get a better country out of this mess than they started with, but it doesn't look to be anytime soon), justify the war, but personally, this discovery shows precisely why the UN Inspectors should have been allowed to continue with their job before the war ever began.

Part of why I still have such a problem with the war in it's entirety is that, realistically, very little changed about Iraq - or the conditions that existed for the people living there - between the end of the first Gulf War and the beginning of the second. So far, the most significant change seems to be that Saddam did destroy many of his weapons and we ran a bombing mission that likely got rid of most of the rest. We had no new information indicating that Saddam had (or had obtained) any WMD between the time of the bombing run and the start of the war, and yet suddently it was an absolute necessity that we attack Iraq. So necessary that we couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs.

Before arguing that the war was necessary for the good of the Iraqi people, and that Saddam was a murderous tyrant who was filling mass graves, keep in mind that many of those mass graves were already filled or being filled when we still considered him an ally. The fate of the Iraqi people meant nothing to our leaders back then. It meant nothing when we waged the first Gulf War and encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam before abandonding them - essentially handing Saddam new bodies to add to his graves. Their fate meant nothing to us for the twelve years between Gulf War I and Gulf War II. It only began to mean anything to our leaders when they started running out of reasons (or had the reasons they were offering shown to be weak or false) to attack them now. Remember also that the people now live in a war-torn country where there are frequent acts of terrorism which are happening in response to our being there.

Next time you hear President Bush make his claim that at least now, we can be sure Saddam won't be giving WMD to any terrorists, keep in mind that - had we allowed the inspectors to do the work they were sent there to do - we'd have known that without having to sacrifice 500 of our soldiers, plus the countless others of our troops who have been injured - physically or mentally - in this war. There was evidence to be found. President Bush and his administration simply weren't willing to take the time to look for it.

Quick! Somebody get me a thesaurus!

Disposable heroes

Colbert King has an excellent piece today about what President Bush left out of his State of the Union address.

Last Tuesday night was an opportunity for George W. Bush to eulogize the fallen, a chance for him to tell their families what their sacrifices mean to the nation -- a time for the president to help heal broken hearts. That didn't happen.

Yes, in his long address to a joint session of Congress, Bush offered a few words of praise for the skill and courage of the men and women in the military. He delivered a line about "sorrow when one is lost," and shared a self-serving recollection of himself landing on the deck of a carrier in the Pacific Ocean and his Thanksgiving Day fly-in to Baghdad. There was also a pledge to supply the troops with all the resources they need to fight and win. But victims of the Iraq war, as well as their moms, dads, spouses, children, neighbors and friends, deserved more than what they got from the president.

Instead of a moment of silence for those who have paid the ultimate price, they heard presidential pitches for prescription drugs and a new immigration law, and a denunciation of steroids and gay marriage. Instead of hearing the president recognize the preciousness of young lives expended far from home, they got a plea to put Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. Instead of telling the country why it should remember what the dead and dying stood for, Americans were given an earful on child tax credits, the death tax and cuts in taxes on capital gains.

This is one of the things that consistently has angered me over the last year with the administration. I simply cannot fathom how a man can send so many young men and women off to die on false pretenses in a virtually pointless war and then stand before the nation and expend more effort worrying about steroid use and inheritance taxes than he does on caring about what happens to valiant individuals who are willing to put their lives on the line for this nation. President Bush speaks of himself as a righteous man, but sometimes I have to wonder if he even has a soul at all.

Dean

I've been having a really hard time figuring out who of the Democratic candidates I support. Realistically, I'm not sure it matters, since I don't think Kansas is holding primaries this year, but it IS something I've given some thought to.

There are things I like about Dean, but having just watched tonights "The Daily Show", I think John Stewart has summed up quite well at least one of the things that has made me hesitant about him: "You know, here's the problem. With this guy you never know if you're going to get 'Smeagol Dean' or 'Gollum Dean'. You just don't know."

Of course, there's more to it than just that, but Dean's volatility does unsettle me somewhat. I'm also not sure I like the way he's made it so transparent that his starting to talk about his faith is a way to attract southern Democrats. It's a reasonable strategy (though I find it troublesome when any candidate make his faith an issue in regards to whether he should be elected or not), but being so obvious it is just a bit crass - and probably none too bright. If I thought a candidate was only talking about his faith in an attempt to get my vote, I'd feel like he was being a bit too patronizing.

A more substantial concern I have with Dean is his keeping some of his gubernatorial papers sealed. I've spoken many times about how much I dislike Bush's secrecy and disagree with his decision to keep papers from his gubernatorial term in his father's Presidential library, where it will be harder for citizens to get at them, along with the executive order that prevents many of the documents from both President Reagan's and the first President Bush's terms from being made public. I don't care for that kind of secrecy from a Democrat, either, and it makes me very uncomfortable with Dean.

Should Dean wind up being the Democratic candidate, I will vote for him as President, and I will support him during the campaign. But even though I'm still not sure who would be my first pick, I'm pretty sure it won't be Dean.

A satire taken too seriously

SignOn San Diego's James Goldsborough has pointed out yet another deception regarding the War on Iraq. While not as serious as the "we know they have WMDs" deception, the "we know he has ties to al-Qaeda" deception, the "we're considering war as a last resort" deception, the "we consider Iraq to be a threat because of 9/11" deception, the "he's trying to get uranium from Africa" deception or the "they'll great us with hugs and flowers" deception (among others), we now have the "oh, it's not a big deal that the Iraqi people are resisting us, the Germans did the same thing after World War II" deception.

Back in August, Condoleeza Rice gave a speech comparing the behaviour of the Iraqi resistance fighters to the German resistance "werewolves" following the fall of Hitler in 1945. Her point was that just as the German resistance had come to nothing, so would the Iraqi resistance, and so people didn't need to worry about it much. Goldsborough noted that the comparison to Germany had surprised him.

History barely mentions the werewolves, who never posed a security problem. Antony Beevor, in his "The Fall of Berlin, 1945," mentions werewolves only as a demented idea in the mind of propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels and dying with him in Hitler's bunker on May 1, 1945.

Goldsborough wrote a column about the speech, and several angry readers sent him a copy of an article, allegedly from Reuters in 1945, describing the problems the military was having with the German werewolves. Donald Rumsfeld also made use of the German comparison, and several papers cited the Reuters dispatch as confirmation of what Rice and Rumsfeld were saying. Goldsborough quotes the first part of the Reuters article, as follows:

WASHINGTON DC (Reuters) Aug. 12, 1945 – President Truman, just a few months into his young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with some calling for his removal from office.

"Over three months after a formal declaration of an end to hostilities, the occupation is bogged down. Fanatical elements of the former Nazi regime who, in their zeal to liberate their nation from the foreign occupiers, call themselves members of the Werwolf (werewolves) continue to commit almost-daily acts of sabotage against Germany's already ravaged infrastructure, and attack American troops. They have been laying road mines, poisoning food and water supplies, and setting various traps, often lethal, for the occupying forces."

Sounds almost tailor made for use as a comparison to current reports about the Iraqi resistance, doesn't it? Turns out it was a piece written by Rand Simberg, a guest columnist for Fox News, as his idea of how the modern media might have reported on World War II, were they to be transported back in time.

The article itself, which was originally published in July, doesn't appear to have been written with malicious intent, but as it so often seems to happen on the internet, people quickly take a quote, comment - or as in this case an entire article - out of context and try to use it to justify positions, beliefs, actions and statements that it really doesn't support at all.

It's not apparent from Goldsborough's columns on the issue whether Rice and/or Rumsfeld's statements were actually based on the satirical report or not, but it *is* a fair question to ask. If we have people in charge of the Defense Department and the National Security Council who either don't bother fact checking material before basing speeches on it or who are unfamiliar with the concept of fact-checking in general, then we have a very serious problem. I don't know about anyone else, but if someone gave me an article, saying it was from 1945, I'd want some kind of verification that it really had been written - and published - back then, and that it was an accurate reflection of what was happening at that time, especially if it was going to be used to help support a speech.

[Edited to add this note] One problem I do have with Goldsborough's columns on the Reuters story: In his column today, he points to the Fox News article as the source of he false story - but the way he presents the information makes it sound like the article was initially written - and published by Fox - to allow for the kind of deceptive comparisons as Rice and Rumsfeld have made. Yet at the top of the Fox article, it very clearly states that it is a speculative piece written to illustrated how the author thinks today's journalists might have written about Germany immediately following the fall of Hitler. While it's good to finally have the source of the story identified and available to use to help refute claims being made based on it, I don't appreciate the way he went about it, which is little better than presenting a quote out of context.

[Edited 1/18/04 3:49pm - cleaned up a couple of typos and finished a sentence that I'd left hanging = no change in meaning or context, however.]

It's a thought....

Good question

To the moon?

The Associated Press is reporting that President Bush is likely to announce plans next week for returning to the moon, establishing a "permanent presence" there and an eventual manned trip to Mars.

You know, I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I absolutely love the concept of manned space exploration. My earliest memory is of my mother taking me outside the night Neil Armstrong took mankind's first steps on the moon and pointing up to it so I'd know where he was (I was 4 at the time, so watching it on TV wasn't making much of an impression.) Hell, I've been to Star Trek conventions and still have my homemade uniform. So you'd think this kind of an announcement would be something I'd find absolutely thrilling.

Well, it's not. It's not that I don't want us to achieve things like a permanent presence on the moon or travel to Mars, it's just that I think we should make fixing a few things here on Earth first a higher priority.

The deficit facing the children and grandchildren of this generation are horrific - and most likely, they'll start feeling the pinch of those deficits right about the time their moms and dads start retiring - and the Social Security payments they've been counting on to help cushion their own investments (many of which lost considerable value when the 'dot com' bubble burst or as a result of one of the many scandals such as Enron, in which the wealthy perpetrators made off with millions and the employee-victims found their retirement investments to suddenly be worthless) through their retirement years could very well dry up by then.

Bush's tax cuts - which were designed to primarily benefit the already-wealthy - don't do anything to help make it easier for the average citizen to save up for their own retirement, and if the Republicans get their way and privatize Social Security, the plan itself will become meaningless, since it will be subject to the same whims of the economy that individual retirement savings are. I know some recently retired people who have discovered first hand how devastating it can be to have your retirement savings suddenly lose a significant portion of their value when the economy goes sour, and had they not had the cushion of Social Security, I don't know if they'd still be able to live in their own homes.

Theoretically, a program like new moon landings, a permanent base and trips to Mars could help provide new jobs (something this nation desperately needs as the current "jobless recovery" isn't helping too many of the working-class people who need help the most), but I'm not sure if it can provide enough new jobs to justify a price-tag that would likely be in the trillions.

The other issue to consider, of course, is the matter of whether Bush and his administration are even competent enough to be able to pull such a plan off. As badly as they've mismanaged the war in Iraq (listening only to people who agreed with their own pre-conceived notions of how the war could be waged on the cheap and firing those who warned that it wouldn't work, only considering "intelligence" that backed their theories and desires instead of intelligence that actually represented the real situation and so on), if I were an astronaut-wannabe, I'd be scared as hell to climb into any kind of a space vehicle designed and built under plans developed by this administration's appointees.

If (Gods forbid) President Bush gets re-elected, and if (in spite of my doubts) his economic plan leads to us actually having a budget surplus again, and if his administration starts demonstrating some kind of competence in carrying out their plans, I would likely support his desire for America to start exploring space again. Until then, though, as much as I would personally love to see it happen, I think it has to wait. The "Baby Boomer" generation - which makes up a sizable chunk of the population - is starting to retire now, and we've yet to see the full impact of Bush's ill-advised tax cuts. I just don't see any way in which such exploratory plans make any sense now.

Managing labour

'Full cooperation' should mean full cooperation

Now that the Valerie Plame investigation has been turned over to a special prosecutor and John Ashcroft has recuse himself from any involvement in the case, it looks like we're starting to see some progress - at least on the Justice Deparment's end of things. It's not so clear what's happening from the White House end of things.

The Justice Department has started asking administration officials to sign a form stating that they want journalists to cooperate with the investigation and to not claim journalistic privilege when questioned by authorities. Bush's press secretary, Scott McLellan, isn't saying, however, whether Bush feels those who are asked to sign the forms need to or not.

McClellan said Bush has directed his aides to "cooperate fully in this investigation." Citing an ongoing investigation, however, he would not say whether the president thinks that extends to signing the forms.

"That's asking a specific question about matters that should be directed to the career officials at the Department of Justice," McClellan said. "The president has always said that leaking classified information is a serious matter, and certainly no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than he does."

Ok. Bush says his aids should "cooperate fully," but then won't say if part of that full cooperation includes actually cooperating with the investigation. Sure. That makes sense.

If the aides are not guilty, then there should be no harm in signing the releases. Bush has often said he doesn't want to see leaks coming out of the White House, and that he considers leaks to be a serious matter. Releasing journalists from any pledge of confidentially might help accomplish that. Unless, of course, Bush means that he only wants to stop the leaks that he doesn't approve of - and that the leak of Plame's status as an undercover operative is one that he has no problem with.

Bush is not another Hitler

I've heard about the two ads (out of roughly 1,500 entrants) in MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest that imply that Bush is "another Hitler." I'm very glad to see that neither of them made the finals.

I have a big problem with the way we so easily make comparisons to Nazis and Hitler these days. I'm sure anyone who's been on an e-mail discussion list or message board where a moderator has tried to actually enforce the rules has heard one or more participants accuse the moderator of being a Nazi, or comparing them to Hitler. On the show "Sienfeld," there was a long running joke about the "soup Nazi." And more and more over the last few months, I've heard people comparing Bush to Hitler.

When we start comparing mailing list moderators or soup chefs to the Nazis, we trivialize who and what the Nazis were. No mailing list moderator is going to round up people who write off-topic messages, use them for medical experiments, torture and abuse them, starve them, and/or finally gas them to death by the millions. And while there may be aspects of Bush's personality that might remind some of Hitler (such as his claim that God is telling him to go after Saddam), I honestly do not see America heading to the point where we're going to have concentration camps filled with people being killed at the hand of President Bush for no reason other than their race, religion, beliefs, etc. Yes, I think Bush is extremely dangerous and could well lead America from being a democracy to being a facist state, but turning a country into a facist state alone truly does not come close to matching the vileness of what the Nazis did and stood for. The thing is, when we use Hilter comparisons and Nazi metaphors in such a superficial way, we run the risk of forgetting just how awful what they did was.

I will say that I believe there are valid comparisons to be made between the economic and political tactics that Hitler used in turning Germany into a facist state and some of the economic and political tactics Bush has used, and I think it's more than fair to show the similarities in how each of them has used the power of their office. That, however, is the limit of the comparisons between them, and its very hard to explain those similarities in a 30-second ad.

As for implying that Bush is "another Hitler", unless you can honestly imagine him building concentration camps and killing millions of Americans, don't do it. Bush is bad, yes, but Hitler was far worse. Just as comparing a message-board moderator to a Nazi trivializes just how evil the Nazis were by turning them from mass-murdering, torturous butchers into people who believe in strictly enforcing the rules, bringing Hitler down to Bush's level trivializes just how evil a man he was. And when we stop looking at Hitler and the Nazis as perhaps the greatest evil force in history, it makes it easy to forget just how bad what they did was - and that is simply something we cannot afford to do.

Article edited at 3:30pm 1/6/04 to correct number of ad entered into MoveOn.org's contest to 1,500 instead of 15,000. I regret the earlier error

The 'Bush in 30 seconds' ads

I decided to take out some time tonight to view each of the Bush in 30 Seconds ads that have been named finalists in MoveOn.org's contest. I've seen a few comments about the coming though here, mainly from conservatives complaining about MoveOn promoting too much hate, so I thought I should see them for myself. Below are my reviews on each one - you can see all of the for yourself at the link above.

Child's Pay

I sort of liked this one. The ad uses the imagery of children doing adult jobs to bring home the point that it's our children and grandchildren who will be paying off the deficit that Bush has created. While the metaphor doesn't necessarily make a whole lot of sense if you think about it too much (is the ad's creator suggesting that kids will have to take working at hard-labor jobs in the future to pay off the deficit?), the initial impact the ad has is pretty good. C+

In My Country

The point the ad is trying to make is good, but it has one major flaw: The "catch" is so painfully transparent, that I'd be surprised if anyone who saw it couldn't tell within the first few seconds exactly where the ad is going. The actor has gotten less than a sentence into his monologue when I thought "Oh, ok. We're going to compare America to the 'evil' Arabic countries we're trying to bring democracy to. Next." I had no interest in the rest of the ad, because I didn't need to. The point its trying to make is a good one, but this isn't the way to try and make it. D -

Polygraph

This one didn't really provoke much of a reaction, good or bad, really. I was a little bothered because a couple of the sound bites used struck me as having been "shortened" a bit, putting them into a slightly different context, the most notable one being the comment from the State of the Union address where Bush said that "The British have learned" that Saddam is trying to obtain uranium. By dropping off the part about the British, it makes it sound like Bush claimed Saddam had uranium. As we all know, that's what he wanted all of us to think he was doing, but he wanted to make the claim deniable, so he blamed it on the British. When we, then, turn around and use only the shortened version, we open ourselves up to criticism from the right claiming that we took the line out of context. The thing is, whether the British are mentioned or not, we now know that Saddam wasn't trying to obtain uranium, so either way, the statement is still a lie. Using the fuller version, though, is more defensible, which, in my opinion, needs to be considered when making an ad like this. D

Bring 'Em On

One of the better ones. It, too, uses the shortened quote, which I'd rather not see, but the impact of the rest of the ad is strong. The quickly changing pictures down in the corner really helps bring home how many have died in this war. B

What Are We Teaching Our Children

This one is really good. The kids do a great job of delivering their lines, and it's a nice touch to watch all of the parents faces turn from pride to horror as they hear what their children are claiming. The individual points are well made. All-in-all a very good ad. A

Imagine

Not bad. The actors are all likable and the message is strong. For some reason, though, it comes off - to me at least - as being a bit "overwrought," which diminishes it's effectiveness overall. C

Human Cost of War

An excellent ad. The use of the muted images behind the moving text give them a strong impact by making them seem even more somber than they already are. The "count up" on the number of soldiers killed in Iraq is effective, and the tagline - "Lies: The Real Weapons of Mass Destruction" is just beautiful. The sound bites from the State of the Union Address all seem to be presented appropriately, and the ad just hangs together very well. This would be an extremely effective ad. A+

Wake Up America

A cute idea, but the voice of the announcer on the radio is a bit too hard to hear, which blunts the message considerably. If it can be re-produced with a clearer voice, I'd give this one a "B". C

Desktop

The music struck me as a bit odd, but overall, I liked this one. The way the focus sort of jumped around on the "are you sure you want to delete these items" message box was a bit distracting, but when the tagline "what's next?" came up, I found myself agreeing with it. This one could be effective for people who are still undecided. I also like that it touches on a number of the many reasons why Bush is bad for America. B+

Army of One

The cuts to soldier's benefits and pay is an excellent topic, and I liked the the "If we can support our troops, why can't Bush" line a great deal. The narrator's voice, though, was somewhat distracting, and the final image of a flag-draped coffin and the question "or is this what they mean by an 'Army of One'" seemed a bit puzzling to me. I'm not quite sure how that fits in the context of the rest of the ad. But it's not a bad effort, and with a bit of work, could probably be quite good. C

Bankrupt

This one goes for a play on the MasterCard "priceless" ads, and mostly succeeds. It doesn't seem to have the same kind of "grabbing" resonance that some of the others have had, and it may just be that the "priceless" thing has been overdone enough that it's losing it's punch. C

Hood Robbin

Another favourite. The "stealing from the poor to give to the rich" message is made without it actually having to be said, and there's almost a bit of a humorous feel to the whole ad which makes it more interesting. The music sets the perfect tone. Well done. A

Leave No Billionaire Behind

Like "Child's Pay", this one uses the image of children to make a point about the size of the deficit - but this one also ties in the fact that those who are already rich are the ones benefiting from the tax cuts that are creating the deficit. The kids emptying out their piggy banks and taking money up to the billionaire at the teachers desk is a memorable image, as is the guy holding up his money and saying "thanks kids." A

Bush's Repair Shop

Very well made point about how Bush so often says one thing and then does another. The imagery is good, also. I like the metaphor of taking a car in for repairs and having the tech beating it up and breaking parts on it to illustrate what Bush as done for the country. The narrator's voice on this one was a bit distracting also, but the message was strong enough to keep my interest. B+

Gone in 30 Seconds

Not a bad effort, but something just doesn't quit hang right. I know they're trying to simulate an odometer and speedometer, but when the narrator says "three point three million" and the number on the screen is 3300000 there's a momentary disconnect while my brain visualizes the decimal point so that they match, and it broke my focus for the next point. B-

Info on Alex Lifeson's arrest

As most of you have probably noticed, I'm something of a Rush fan. You may also have heard that Alex Lifeson (legally, Alex Zivojinovich), their lead guitarist, was arrested New Year's Eve in Florida after a fracas with the cops. Since this is mainly a political site, I've not been posting about the situation here, but thought I'd at least post links to the information I do have, in case anyone's interested.

I run a Rush fan site named La Villa Strangiato - The Rush Fanlisting. At that site, I'm compiling a list of news articles and other information (including a link to some video footage of Alex answering questions as he's leaving the jail, comments from a Rush fan and reporter who lives in Naples and has been gathering information on the situation and the text of arrest reports for Alex's son and daughter-in-law who were arrested with him.)

Additionally, I've posted an Open Letter to Alex, his family and bandmates to let them know that fans are thinking about them and wishing them well during this time. The text of the letter itself is actually short (something of a miracle coming from me, you know,) but I think it gets the message across:

Over the years, you have given us so much joy with your music that you and your loved ones have become important to us as well, and we - your fans - want you to know that we are thinking of you in this difficult time and wish only the best for each of you. It is also our hope that this situation will be resolved quickly, fairly and justly for all involved, so that you can get back to your normal lives and doing what you - and we - love so much - your music. Thank you for all that you have given us over the last 30 years - here's to 30 more, eh? :)

If you agree with the sentiment expressed, I hope you'll consider signing it. I plan to leave it posted for a few weeks and then will print it out and send it to Anthem Entertainment.

There are a couple things I do want to mention. As much as I admire Alex, and will likely give him any benefit of the doubt, I do not feel that he should be given any special treatment in how his case is handled. I know that at least one of the charges carries with it the possibility of a substantial sentence, though hopefully the fact that this is a first offense (this guy's been a rock star for 30 years, and this is the first arrest for anyone in the band that we know of) might be able to help mitigate some of that (as it would for any other first-time offender under the same circumstances), but if this goes to trial, the trial is handled fairly and he's convicted, then off he goes. It would be a tragic end to what has been an incredible career, and not hearing him play again would be a huge disappointment, but if he did what he's accused of, he's going to have to face the consequences for it. I'll just hope they deliver fan mail in the state pen. *grin*

Secondly, I have to say that I am not impressed with the reporting coming out of the Naples Daily News so far. One of the local TV stations has posted the raw footage of Alex being interviewed as he's leaving the jail. John Henderson, the reporter for the Daily News who is covering the story, took some quotes from those interviews and reported them out-of-context in a way that might make Alex look worse to some people. That he did this once, of course, leads me to question if he's done it with other comments in these articles as well.

Unfortunately, most of the stories being carried by CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and others through both the Associated Press and Reuters appear to have been taken largely from Henderson's stories.

Just so that you can judge how serious you think the "out of context" aspect is, here is what I noticed: In an article posted to the website after Alex was released from the jail, Henderson writes:

Asked whether he felt the arrest was fair, Zivojinovich replied: "Absolutely not. That is a matter of opinion. They didn't like the way we were dancing, apparently."

And here's the transcript of what was actually said according to the tape (I listened to it several times to make sure I have this correct):

Male Voice: Did you say you were treated unfairly at the Ritz? Did I catch
that right?

Alex: No. The question was "Was I treated fairly though out the whole thing"

Man: Right

Alex: meaning from here (the jail).

Man: Were you treated fairly at the Ritz with the arrest?

Alex: I think absolutely not. That's a matter of opinion.

Woman: They were saying that you guy were just out of hand...

Alex: They didn't like how we danced, apparently.

So what Henderson presents as Alex saying he thought the arrest itself was unfair was actually Alex saying he thought the way he was treated with the arrest was unfair, and then he tacks on the answer to a different question as if it were all made as a single statement in answer to one question.

I mention this because I was able to notice this example because I'd seen the tape. As I've mentioned here before, I consider presenting things in the proper context to be important, and if I were to catch this kind of a out-of-context representation in an article (even if the change of context worked in favour of the side I support - for example, since some of Paul Wolfowitz's quotes were presented somewhat out of context - making them sound more damning to the pro-war stance - in a Vanity Fair interview, if I need to refer to those quotes, I always refer to the DOD transcript of that interview rather than the Vanity Fair article, to make sure that context is not an issue ), I will generally try to avoid using that author as a reference for future posts, try to determine if quotes and statements in articles by the author are presented in the proper context before using them, or at least caveat it with a notation that I tend to take what this person says with a grain of salt.