Mc Mike's Journal
Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2011, 04:50 PM
Number of posts: 2,639
Number of posts: 2,639
- 2016 (170)
- 2015 (5)
- 2014 (2)
- 2013 (11)
- 2012 (68)
- Older Archives
Lemme guess, his whackjob nazi dad was buddies with Curt LeMay.
Posted by Mc Mike | Tue Dec 6, 2016, 01:21 PM (0 replies)
First, here's a list of phone numbers posted by Madam45, to 17 Blue State A G offices:
It doesn't hurt to call.
Here's a form letter request to PA A. G. Bruce Beemer's office, with contact info included. It can be shortened or altered to personalize it, and I can cut it to a stripped down version as a sub-post here.
It can't hurt to e-mail, either.
(E-mail was titled it "Citizens Request Your Office take Action in the Supreme Court")
Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Attorney General Beemer,
I spoke to your office staff by your 717 787 3391 office phone number today, Tuesday 12/6. H got E to assist my inquiries. E recommended that I get in touch with your office via snail mail or e-mail, if I desired a written response to the concerns I raised with her verbally.
My name is ______ ________, I’m a PA citizen and voter. I called your office regarding the legal opinion piece that Law Professor Lawrence Lessig just wrote, entitled “The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College”. Here’s a link to the article:
The argument is simple. The Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision favored the Equal Protection of voters argument put forth by Bush’s counsel. This occurred when the GOP candidate was 500,000 votes behind in the popular vote total.
The Winner Take All rule that 48 states observe to assign their Electors in the Electoral College is not in the Constitution.
It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?
I understand E’s statement that the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office is non-partisan, and I agree with that policy. But I can’t help but notice the number of times the Attorneys General in GOP-controlled states went to court against our sitting Dem president, who won 6 to 9 million more votes than their candidates. I also notice that our Dem candidate is more than 2.5 million votes ahead of her opponent in the current popular vote count for this election.
As a citizen whose legal rights you protect, I’m requesting that your Office go to the Supreme Court and file a hearing request, immediately, before the Vote Certification deadline, that protects my Equal Protection rights and challenges the disproportionate assignment of GOP electors to the Electoral College by our state. It would be nice if our state took a prominent position on this, but there are 16 other large population blue state AGs that could also join us.
Please send me a response to my request. If I get an automated reply, I’ll need to call your office again for a different e-mail address, because time is of the essence here.
Thank you for your time and attention.
___ L_____ St.
Pgh., PA 152__
P.S. I pointed out to E that the GOP candidate is not only millions of votes behind, but also seems like someone who’s name must have been mentioned coupled with the word "indictment" 150 times by this State’s AG office, for his involvement with Philadelphia organized crime associates. It seems like an Equal Protection challenge to unconstitutional Elector Apportionment in the Electoral College is the least that can be done, to benefit current and future enforcement of law at the state level.
Posted by Mc Mike | Tue Dec 6, 2016, 12:19 PM (1 replies)
Posted by Mc Mike | Sat Dec 3, 2016, 11:29 AM (0 replies)
Our area has not performed a recount. If they started one, they must have done it stealthily, without informing a recount petition affidavit filer like me. It's possible that they ran all the Master PEB carts through the central tabulator again, but that would not address the recount request's substance at all. And they haven't informed me they've planned, started, or completed a recanvass like that.
I talked to Allegheny County's Manager--Balloting and Returns Office yesterday, spoke to Michael there at 11:55 am. I asked him to take my e-mail and phone number so that I could get more quickly informed if a recount would occur, instead of getting informed via mail, as his boss told me he intended to do, because we're headed toward the deadline. Michael seemed to be sympathetic, and took my info. I asked what the delay was, and he told me the court case was keeping things on hold. We're a Dem area, so I would not expect they would be hostile to having an accurate recount, but they may not want to do the extra work. Who knows, though Michael got fired up (against tRump) when I talked to him about how lousy dRumf is, as a potential US "leader" and human being.
My mail was unusually late yesterday, I checked for it at 4 pm and it still hadn't arrived. At 5:40 pm I saw that I had a huge package from the gop lawyers Meyer Unkovic Scott (they've teamed up with Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and Hippel's firm), containing a copy of every county precinct's notarized and signed affidavit page, along with the plaintiff filing from dRump lawyers to stop the recount. It told me I was "hearby notified to appear and be heard" in court, "the hearing will be held at 11:00 a.m., this Friday, December 2, 2016 before Joseph M. James".
So the gop team sent me a phone book sized notice, a full ream of paper, via priority mail on 11/30, instead of next-day mail. And I usually get mail before noon, but got this after 4 pm. I got this notice to appear 6+ hours after the listed time to appear, on the day of the hearing. I called Carl from the Greens at 5:50 pm, and he said that they had a lawyer in court for it, so I didn't void my petition to recount by not having appeared.
The Greens are in the loop about all info I have, and apparently there hasn't been a recount in Allegheny County. The gop is trying to run out the clock, and sleazily avoiding their legal obligations to inform people, while pretending that they're fulfilling those legal obligations. (Another post-er to this site, elias7, commented that since the repugs are pretending that there was voter fraud this election and millions of illegal voters voted against poor orange hitler, there's no reason for them to oppose the recounts so strongly, instead of demanding a nationwide recount. Their behavior is strange, doesn't seem to jine with their stated beliefs.)
The gop is still in court fighting the recounts in all 3 states today, I saw it on CBS's local affiliate today, during the 7:30 am news segment. If there's one thing the gop and dRumpf know how to do in government, it's hire lawyers and abuse the legal system.
Buried in the hundreds of pages of copied affidavit petitions is the notice that a voting machine recanvass for certain districts will occur Monday 12/5 at 10:00 am, room 601 County Office Building, 542 Forbes Ave. And there's a copy of the temporary restraining order from Judge James ordering 1) the recount to be suspended until the 12/2 hearing, and ordering 2) that the gop petitioners shall give due notice of the hearing and a copy of the gop petition (to stop the recount) to all the electors who filed for recount, by first class mail at least 2 days before the hearing, and shall proof (sic) of such notice before any appeal is sustained.
They just had to mail it 2 days before the hearing, we didn't have to receive it 2 days before the hearing, or even get it before the hearing was over, at all.
County Elections hasn't informed me about the 12/5 non-recount recanvass, but I'll try to horn in on it, pretend I thought the notice from the gopers meant I was supposed to show up to the recanvass, feign ignorance, etc.
Posted by Mc Mike | Sat Dec 3, 2016, 10:38 AM (13 replies)
(Re: dRumpf's Ed Secretary pick)
The DeVos family are Birchers, and Birchers founded the CNP:
"I write about DeVos’s own history as a founding member of an organization called the Council for National Policy (CNP). The CNP is a secret organization that makes the Masons look like paparazzi-hungry starlets. Formed and launched by the elite of the John Birch society, Dick DeVos is a two-time CNP President. Another leading member of the CNP was a fellow Michigan-based billionaire by the name of Edgar Prince. In what can only be described as a royal coupling, Edgar Prince’s daughter, Betsy, married Dick’s son, Dick Jr. Edgar Prince’s son, Erik Prince, would become CEO of the infamous Blackwater corporation. Blackwater is the company of private mercenaries, hired to help occupy Iraq, Afghanistan, and even post-Katrina New Orleans. Famous for rolling through Baghdad in black SUVs, rock music blaring, and making 100 times the pay of a US soldier, they are the outsourced army as rampaging fraternity. Since 2000, Blackwater had received $505 million in government contracts, two-thirds of which came in no-bid contracts. This isn’t a vast right-wing conspiracy: it’s been an openly incestuous and highly beneficial coupling between the DeVos/Prince clan and the Republican Party."
Both Kellyanne Conaway and Steve Bannon were CNP members, (and both worked for trump's biggest contributor, hedge fund vulture Robert Mercer, before moving into drump's campaign):
" Now, the dominionists are running Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
As it happens, Donald Trump has just appointed Stephen K. Bannon and Kellyanne Conway to head his faltering presidential campaign.
Both are listed 2014 members of the most powerful and influential dominionist organization in America, the Council For National Policy.
We know this because, conveniently (for secular America at least ), last May 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center made public an official 2014 membership directory of the secretive, far right, dominionist Council For National Policy.
It was a startling intelligence coup — for years, fragmentary lists of the CNP had sporadically emerged. Now, here it was — the official CNP handbook.
While Bannon was just a CNP member, Conway was listed as being a member of the CNP Executive Committee.
Joining her in that august group were Kenneth Blackwell, Tony Perkins of the (virulently antigay) Family Research Council and reigning matriarch of the religious right Phyllis Schafly — who helped kick start the movement in the early 1970s with her scorched-earth campaign to stop the Equal Rights Amendment.
As the SPLC describes of the CNP membership list featured in the booklet,
“The list is surprising, not so much for the conservatives who dominate it — activists of the religious right and the so-called “culture wars,” along with a smattering of wealthy financiers, Congressional operatives, right-wing consultants and Tea Party enthusiasts — but for the many real extremists who are included.” "
The DeVos family founded the Mackinac Center in Michigan, which invented the right wing "Overton Window" concept that Glen Beck pretends is a leftist tool, in a standard exhibition of repuglinazi projection:
"The Overton Window: Moving Policies from "Unthinkable" to Enacted
The Overton Window is a tool used to visualize policy positions along the political spectrum. It was invented by Joseph P. Overton, a Mackinac Center scholar and Vice President, in the mid-1990's and has "gained national currency" since 2003. In the Center's own description, it is designed to provide a spectrum which visualizes policies acceptable to the public with the various ends of the spectrum representing 'unthinkable' policies and the middle representing a policy that would be widely well received by the public. Any policy which would be deemed acceptable or desirable by the public is "in the window". The concept also holds that legislators can only act within the window out of their duty to constituents. According to the Center, the window is also finite and can be moved. The Center advocates action by think tanks and other non-political figures which would "shift the window", bringing policies that would once be thought of as radical or unthinkable into the realm of possibility, allowing legislators to enact them. Consequently, policies once looked upon acceptable or desirable would move out of favor with the public."
And, the current progression of events -- the wildly unpredicted and bizarre flipping of a large number of states all in favor of the repuglinazi candidate; the scattered and disorganized response by different Dems and progressive groups all pursuing and advocating different tactics; the last second haphazard attempts to get a recount; the delay in action and confusion about states' "passed election deadlines"; the court cases stalling the recounts; the continued dueling news reports, that intersperse details on the one hand about the repug "victor's" unfitness for office and criminality, with his pronouncements on the other hand about which bircher / CNPer / Mackinac member / rightie repuglinazi mutant he's tapping for his administration -- those events mirror the "Overton Window" strategy perfectly.
Oh, and by the way, Fuck Glen Beck.
Posted by Mc Mike | Fri Dec 2, 2016, 03:23 PM (13 replies)
This repug strategy described in the o.p. matches another one they pulled this election. On the stump, dRumpf and his flunky mouthpieces kept saying, over and over again, that there was top secret info in Sec Clinton's e-mail, which she endangered by using an unsecured server to transmit and store the info with. They kept screaming and crying that she had irresponsibly risked our enemies getting ahold of all these "important national security secrets".
Then, the orange nazi made a campaign pronouncement to mass media that he wanted our most dangerous foreign enemies to hack into her e-mail server, to get the "important national security secrets and publish them openly in media". Non-repug Americans were prompted to say "the 'loyal' opposition repug party candidate is calling for an enemy foreign government to commit felony crimes against the US."
Then, the dRumpf repugs screamed triumphantly "A HA! There ARE national security secrets! We just got you to admit it! Or else why are you criticizing our tubby bald hitler for making that statement?"
It was a supremely stupid and lying attempt to reframe the issue, but they got some mileage out of it anyway, and publicly acted like they won some great victory. Nobody who's dwells in reality believed there are national security-endangering secrets on that server that could be revealed, after the umpteen repug investigations came up empty. But based on constantly screaming lie number 1 for months, they pretended that everyone had acknowledged that lie was 'true'.
Then they had their candidate tell the world "Based on the idea that the first lie I've been repeatedly bellowing is true, I invite a dangerous threatening enemy government to commit felonies and espionage, and interfere in our nation's elections electronically, so they can prove my lie is 'true' and benefit me." And when they pretended that we were upset about that blatant, broadcast treason because we 'all believed lie # 1', they were stating lie # 2.
Of course, it's a given that the repugs are going to lie all the time, over and over again, and be given free reign to do so in repug-plutocrat-owned mass media (though the public 'owns' the public airwaves, that's why the FCC exists, and the public paid for all cable t.v. connectivity. I'm unsure, but I'd guess that the public paid to launch the satellites used by satellite t.v.). It's a given that the repugs are going to scream lies at the top of their lungs, all the time, because that's all they have to run on. Reality is very unfriendly to their policy positions and "oh so deeply held" belief systems.
And of course, it's also a given that their zealous brain damaged followers will uncritically accept and believe any and every one of the lies that their leaders state to demonize their political opposition. But what they did with this one-two lie punch was catch some people on our side flat-footed, or make those people have to engage in a long winded nuance filled discussion of the overall crazy lying situation they set up.
As soon as we do nuance, we tilt the playing field in their favor, because the media wants to limit statements by political people to very quick punchy soundbites spoken with righteous aggressive apparent conviction, whether they're true or not. (But we'll get to hear our area's NFL coach explain winning or losing strategies for 2 minutes on the same newscast. Go figure.)
It wasn't easy to address the false framing that mass media let the repugs make on the issue, in a simple way. A few people tried to do so by saying "If we are to accept the premise that you believe your lie number one is 'true', then having your candidate invite a dangerous enemy to get our top secrets is a treasonous action.", while avoiding a more direct and confrontational statement like "There are no secrets, and it's treasonous to ask the Russians to get our secrets with felony hacks and publish them, even though there are no secrets to get."
They used their framing to try to put us into a no-win situation, to pretend that we were so desperate to point out and hold onto the idea that drumpf was committing treason that we therefore "had to concede" that lie # 1 "was true". They pretended it could only be treasonous to ask the Russians to hack our elections if lie # 1 was true. Lie # 2 is that we conceded that we believed their first lie. Lie # 3 is that we "hypocritically contradicted ourselves", that there could be "no dRumpf treason" without lie # 2 being true.
The simplest way of stating and framing our case would be to say "They're horribly foul and treasonous liars, and they told 3 different lies on this issue. It's easy to prove what complete liars the repugs are."
In the issue this o.p. is discussing, lie # 1 is that the elections are being rigged, against dRumpf. Lie # 2 is that any Dem partisan said that the elections are un-riggable, completely on the up and up, because we said his claims the elections were rigged against him were ridiculous obvious lies. Lie # 3 comes from that fanged repuglinazi scag, that "Dems are contradicting themselves", we said the elections couldn't possibly be rigged, now we lost and are saying they were rigged. "Dems are sore losers! They're laughably ridiculous!"
This triple lie follows the exact same pattern as the "unsecure server -- invitation to russian hack -- Dems contradict themselves and got caught lying" campaign moves by the repugs.
Political observers have often stated that dRumpf and repugs constantly engage in projection. When they scream accusations about some crime their enemies are pulling against the poor repugs, they're actually talking about some crime the repugs are themselves pulling against the same "enemies" they're accusing.
The nuanced position about his projective "rigged" accusations was best stated by Prez O: that dRumpf was behind in all the polls, that the election contest hadn't even been held yet, and he was crying that he already lost. And he predicted that it was by future cheating that the theft was going to happen, with no evidence to support his charge.
Media let him make that evidence free accusation. As long as media let him say those lies without pushback, it created a "he said she said" situation, where both versions of "reality" were "equally valid", the media reported the controversy to let the American people decide.
Mass media assisted dRumpf when they asked all the candidates whether they would peacefully accept the results, since orange hitler had continually mouthed off that there would be no peaceful transition of power if his deranged violent stupid armed alt-reality-dwelling alt-right followers were unhappy with the results. Which just meant they wouldn't accept any result that didn't show they won.
No election ever saw our media asking our politicians and their backers whether they'd abide by our Constitution and Democracy if they didn't like the results, but we got to see that this election.
And it was all based on the continually, repeatedly screamed lies of "everything's rigged against poor dRumpfenfuhrer!" that the repugs got free airtime to broadcast, over and over again, in mass media. Lies that were made up and stated with zero evidence offered (or asked) to substantiate them. Simplistic lies that could be stated loudly, aggressively, with fake angry conviction, in a 30 second sound byte, without nuance.
There was never any committment given by any candidate, never any question put to any candidate, that said "If it is blatantly obvious that there were illegalities committed against you, which result you winning the election but official pronouncements being made that you lost anyway, will you knuckle under and crawl away?" The question wasn't asked that way because corporate mass media doesn't do nuance, either.
The elections always could have been (and were) rigged by repugs against the American voting public, in a million ways. A ton of Dem activists and political reporters pointed out all those different ways -- VRA dismantled, dozens of new anti-voter laws made by repugs after the repugs gutted the VRA, Citi United's unleashing of unlimited dark money spending, multitudes of disenfranchisment actions against Dem voters by repug officials in charge of elections, slanted corporate media pushing pro-repug lies, FBI public interference in the election against Dems while FBI ignored blatant chargeable offenses committed by dRumpf, obviously mis-sampled slanted polls reported as gospel by media, US intel uncovering foreign hacks into state elections databases, repugs mobilizing a bunch of wingnuts to threaten anti-dRumpf voters at polling places, tons of vulnerabilities in the unsecured repug owned electronic means of recording the ballots, ETC -- all that rigging blatantly occurred while repugs screamed ridiculous and unsubstantiated accusations of it being rigged against them, pointing the accusation at their opponents, blowing a huge smokescreen to obscure all those well documented repug rigging moves. And a billion dollars of free media coverage was given to the repug while he and his flunkies screamed constantly, on the media, about how the media was rigging it against him.
The elections were rigged. People on our side always said it looked dangerously like they were being rigged. And we never said we'd accept the results no matter how much evidence existed that they were rigged to put the orange supremacist in charge of our country.
That pretty much answers orange hitler and his fanged sidekick's 3 lies on this issue.
Posted by Mc Mike | Fri Nov 25, 2016, 09:06 PM (0 replies)
All the votes are stored with no paper, electronically, in a secure flash card for each machine and on the Master PEB cartridge, but they can be displayed on a computer screen, post-election. That's useful if there are voters who have data points they're willing to openly offer. (I voted on machine 1 in my precinct/district, ~ 12:30 pm, voted one at a time for all Dem candidates save one, wrote in a name for my unopposed Dem state rep, and voted against the raising Judge age initiative. So there should be a vote stored, on the district/precinct Master cart for Ward 19, District 28, City of Pittsburgh, from machine 1 at 12:30 that shows those exact preferences recorded. That vote should also be stored on machine 1's flash card. If there isn't a vote for Hillary Clinton for Prez and "Gi Gi Sullivan" for PA State Rep on machine 1 at ~ 12:30, that is evidence of felony election tampering that benefitted the repug prez candidate. The machines are called DREs, Direct Recording Electronic, they're supposed to record, store, then transfer the actual ballot cast by each voter to the Master cart.)
We sign in to vote on a paper voter certificate card, kept alphabetically in a box that looks like an old library card catalogue. There's a paper district binder that has an alphabetical list of registered voters with photostat copies of the voters' signatures, which they submitted when they registered to vote for the first time, or when they moved to a new polling district and re-registered. The poll workers write every voter's name on two separate but identitical paper district check in lists, numbered in the order that they checked in to vote. The voter certificate card has a ticket connected to it that is detached, we take it to the poll worker at the machines, they take half the ticket and put it into an envelope hanging on the side of the machine we will vote on, and give us the stub. (I keep mine, some people toss theirs, or lose them, whatever.)
So there's a bunch of paperwork that could be used for verification. The signed voter certificate cards can have their signatures checked against the district register's signatures. The 2 identical district voter check in lists can be crossed referenced with the signed voter cert cards. The voter cert cards' ticket stubs in each machine's envelopes show exactly what signed-in registered voter voted on that particular machine. They're random in the envelope, not kept in any order, to respect the privacy of each voter's vote, in case the voter is afraid to say who they voted for.
IF things were kosher at my poll, there's going to be 524 signed cards, with signatures that substantially match the signatures in the district register (may be a few less, because some ballots were cast absentee, but those ballots have a signature also.) There are going to be 524 (minus absentee #) v cert card tickets divvied up into the envelopes for the 3 machines. The two identical district check in lists will show 524 (minus absentee vote number) names that match with the signed v cert cards. If any of that paperwork doesn't jine, something irregular occurred at the district/precinct level, and it's evidence of election fraud.
With no interference, I bet I could single handedly verify the vote count in my district in less than one day.
And any recount effort could include outreach to district voters listed as having voted, that verifies that they cast a ballot. I'd be more than happy to go door to door on my own time, while not engaged in official recount efforts, in the district I vote in and used to represent as Dem committeeperson, to verify with the listed (checked in) voters that they cast ballots.
In this election, my district/precinct showed both an unusually high (81%) turn out rate (10% higher than the county average) and a "preference for dRumpf" rate that was 14 - 19% higher than the two neighboring polls I worked for election protection, in the neighborhood next door, 3 miles Southeast from me. My polling place was more than a half hour later in completing the poll closing process than the 2 polls I worked, and there was not a crowd of voters visible inside the polls who had not voted yet, but had been in line at 8 pm and were therefore eligibly waiting inside the locked poll to vote. My district/precinct is a Dem stronghold that had zero dRumpf signs visible this election, though there were several (7) visible 3 precincts away from me, 1.5 miles Northwest. When I was a Dem committee person in this district in 2011, there were 486 Dems registered and 141 R s.
Looking at the district paperwork, in a recount, won't do anything about an electronic vote flip on the precinct level, it won't show if there was a hack in the county election dept's central tabulator, it won't show if there was electronic manipulation at the state level where the counties' sent their tabulated results totals to get the overall state results. But, aside from checking the voter datapoint I offered (the actual unique ballot choices I openly admit to making), in past recount efforts there was evidence of electronic irregularities exposed during the recount process.
In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), for the '04 election recount, there was evidence exposed that a bunch of extra votes had been added for li'l bush. The random audit showed that there was a long run of voters in a row for bush, then a shorter run of voters for Kerry, then another long run of voters for bush, etc. (Conyers Report, What Went Wrong In Ohio? Page 88, paperback edition.) The odds of something like that happening would be the same as flipping a coin 20 times and having it come up tails every time, then flipping it 10 more times and having it come up heads, then flipping it 25 more times and having it be tails, with the resulting totals being recorded as 45 tails, 10 heads. The statistically-nearly-impossible long runs of identical voter preferences showed a lazy and not very sneaky attempt had been made to pump up the repug candidate's vote totals in a Dem stronghold area.
Posted by Mc Mike | Fri Nov 25, 2016, 01:21 PM (0 replies)
Just another "rahowahhh!" from american nazis with hurt fee fees. They're the real victims here, how dare you be intolerant of their nazi style intolerance?
Exact same playbook as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ors.
Bircher repuglicans, all.
Posted by Mc Mike | Thu Nov 24, 2016, 09:50 AM (0 replies)
" In March 2011, as protests over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposal to effectively end public sector collective bargaining continued to grow in Wisconsin, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy issued Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for three Michigan Universities, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Michigan State University. The request targeted any emails containing: “collective bargaining,” “Wisconsin,” “Madison,” “Scott Walker” or “Maddow.” The requests target labor studies faculty at each school. USA Today wrote that Mackinac's "demands for professors' e-mails about Wisconsin's public employee labor strife is causing an uproar among some who suggest the Freedom of Information Act requests aim to intimidate pro-labor dissenters and stifle academic freedom."
The FOIA request was very similar to one submitted by the Republican Party of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin-Madison historian William J. Cronon during the same week, after the professor had published a blog post questioning the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Governor Walker's anti-union legislation. Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote " there’s a clear chilling effect when scholars know that they may face witch hunts whenever they say things the G.O.P. doesn’t like."
Like the Wisconsin GOP's request for Cronon's emails, Mackinac's request posed some concerns for university professors because the request could be an attempt to quell political opposition. In a New York Times article, Director of Academic Freedom for the American Association of University Professors, Greg Scholtz, said, “We think all this will have a chilling effect on academic freedom. We’ve never seen FOIA requests used like this before.” "
Posted by Mc Mike | Thu Nov 24, 2016, 09:42 AM (0 replies)
Having made a fearless self inventory of the "My Posts" section of my account, I came up with 19 ghost posts in 16 days, prior to the site crash. Links are provided as a courtesy, no need to click on them all, but they're offered as proof. A description of the anomaly associated is provided before each link.
10/23, post # 46, out of 45 total posts, there’s a post # 48
10/24, post # 79, out of 78 replies, there’s a post 81
10/24, post 36, out of 69 re s, there’s a post 80
10/26, post 7, to a tossed member:
10/27, 30 out of 39, o.p. er is t.s ed, there’s a post 40
10/27, 5th out of 5, doesn’t show up on the thread
10/28, 7th of 5, same op as previous link above, and also doesn’t show up on thread
10/29, to tossed nazi repug
10/31, no anomaly, I posted to someone who should almost CERTAINLY be tossed
11/2, 115 out of 114, a post #129, shows, to a post er who ghosts their own re s
11/3, 1, to someone who ghosted their o.p.
11/2, 32 out of 76, there’s a post 82 showing, my post 32 doesn’t show in the thread
11/3, 57, same thread as above, doesn’t show in the thread
11/3, 17 out of 15, a post 16 shows, my 17 doesn’t show in the thread
11/3, same thread as above, should be a ghost
11/4, 3 out of 1, in my own op
11/4, 29 out of 32, a post 34 shows, my 29 doesn’t
11/7, 7 out of 10, doesn’t show in the thread, a post 12 shows
11/7, 10 of 10, same op as above, doesn’t show in thread
That’s about it. 19 ghost talk posts in 16 days. 2 don’t count, because one’s an ATA, I assume the site managers have their own reasons; and the other one’s not a ghost.
So what’s the point? Obviously, cleaning up the site is going to create anomalies. Whatever the repug yahoos did while they were attacking the site is going to cause problems with some op s and subthreads once they’re cleaned up. But every one of the 17 cases was one where I stated opposition to a repug move, and it drew the attention of someone who's now a ghost. Or someone posted something that I thought should be opposed, in order to oppose repug spin or framing. And that post er is now a ghost.
Everyone else on this site has the same 30 day “my posts” window they could look at and count up the pre-hack anomalies, just by looking at the blanks in the “Post I replied to” column. Nobody needs to spend time analyzing and compiling the links to the actual posts as proof. If they do analyze their own ghosts, they might see some of the infiltrator post-ers who seem to be connected to the site hack, though. May see what those people were saying, what way they were trying to steer or de-rail conversations to help the repugs, and what specific subjects those people felt the need to weigh in, on.
Is 17 in 16 days a high score? Do a lot of members here have me beat, in that regard? Please DU this poll
Posted by Mc Mike | Mon Nov 21, 2016, 12:23 PM (0 replies)