Traditional American Values?

Having recently been a candidate I was exposed to meeting a lot of different and interesting people.

I made it a point to be honest with people about who I am what I believed in. Believe it or not the most negative responses I got were not about my having had deferred adjudication when I was 17, but rather my lack of religious belief.

I was actually a bit shocked about the number of “looks” I got when I told people I am an atheist. Although people seemed to get over it pretty quickly after discussing my stand on religion and religious tolerance. But it was that initial “look” that really surprised me.

Now I have a good idea as to why.

A new study was just published:

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study
What: U of M study reveals America’s distrust of atheism
Who: Penny Edgell, associate professor of sociology
Contact: Nina Shepherd, sociology media relations, (612) 599-1148
Mark Cassutt University News Service, (612) 624-8038

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) --
American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

I have found it important to make an effort to understand other cultures and beliefs. I have delved into learning about different faiths and religious history because we do have a rich diversity of religious and cultural difference in this country.

I value religion and especially the freedom of religion this country has. Other parts of the world, like Afghanistan, have strict Islamic law where right now a man is on trial for converting to Christianity and is facing the death penalty. A person such as myself would also be executed for my lack of belief.

I am bringing this topic up because I believe that people are basically good and tolerant. That awareness is a key to understanding and that by raising awareness I believe some of these prejudices can be overcome.

After all, we are not so different.

As atheist we believe in things like:

• Peace, happiness, community, truth, goodness, beauty, and liberty; these are attributes of human awareness. We must fight for and protect them.
• Marriage, family and commitment.
• Religious liberty and freedom.
• The Separation of Church and State.
• Justice and forgiveness.
• Fairness and competition.
• Hard work and just reward.
• Helping others by giving a hand up, not a hand out.
• Education and continuous learning.
• Science and the Scientific method.
• We believe in Government for the People by the People.
• Humankind must protect the elderly, children and foundlings, or they will not be protected.
• Man must hear and help man.
• We are accountable for and must face the consequences of our actions.
• Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable situations.
• Cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world.
• We must work to achieve our personal goals now or never.

Again, are we so different?

Hopefully this will help to raise awareness and help bring about more understanding. By having a dialog we can continue to have and increase the mutual respect and tolerance that all humans deserve.

What They Aren't Telling You About The eSlate (...continued)

When I originally wrote this article it was more of a personal quest in understanding what is going on with eVoting and the eSlate equipment. I have heard dozens upon dozens of personal accounts and hear say about what is wrong, the things that go wrong and tales of inaccurate accounts or people being denied access to voting because of computer errors with eSlate.

I could find no one single source for information nor could I validate that the information was in fact accurate. So I took it upon myself to research this issue from the perspective of someone that has spent half of his life in Information Technology.

The following article and supplemental follow-up material are the result of that search to date.

This follow-up is in four parts:

1. The original Article (March 2006)
2. Q&A With Steve Raborn - Fort Bend County Election Administrator (March 2006)
3. Comments on recent Articles in the News regarding "problems" with eSlate
4. The Smell Test regarding Hart Intercivic - Follow the Money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1:

What They Aren't Telling You About The eSlate

When it comes to the issue of eVoting & eSlate, the voter is not getting the whole story.

There have been numerous claims of security vulnerabilities, concerns over exclusive access to the systems and a plethora of rumors of past exploits of the eSlate system.

I have personally spent close to 20 years in information technology. I have a total of nearly 10 years’ experience in security-related processes from credit card fraud control to intrusion prevention.

Is there really anything to be concerned about regarding the Hart InterCivic eSlate system?

According to several information technology publications that specialize in security, Hart InterCivic is testing its own equipment and refuses to participate in third-party peer-reviewed security testing to validate its claims.

In a recent article in Computer World magazine, Marc L. Songini wrote:

“… That’s about whether the verification and validation processes these machines go through are woefully inadequate or not. The e-voting companies aren’t volunteering their systems for independent audits and analysis.”

Is the security in e-voting up to the standards that business executives would demand in their applications? “No way.” “Definitely not.” “Five years ago, yes, but in the current climate, no.” “These guys are betting their critical business processes on software.” “They need to consider who might do harm to that system.” “This level of rigor isn’t applied to e-voting systems.”

I contacted Hart InterCivic and spoke with Gary Gandy, the sales representative for Texas and Fort Bend County, about some of the issues that have been raised about the company’s systems.

What efforts have been made to provide affordable printers for the eSlate systems?

Gary Gandy responded: “The printers are currently available,” adding, “several other states already require a paper trail by law.”

A paper trail in Texas is an issue that has to be addressed by the secretary of state. Legislation was previously drafted but never went anywhere. Because Texas does not require the paper trail, the printers can not be purchased. The state of Texas has also failed to require the latest version of eSlate software that will allow for printing and better security.

Gerry Birnberg, Harris County Democratic Party Chairman, stated “I also do not understand the point about counties not being able to purchase Hart printers. While they are not required to do so at the present time, there is no legal prohibition against their doing so if they want to and if Hart InterCivic’s is willing to sell them to them. A county can use systems which provide voter verifiable paper trails if it wants to, even though the Texas Legislature has not yet required that it do so.”

Convention Strategy Chair John Behrman of Harris County stated “Hart’s VVPAT (voter verifiable paper trail) ‘solution’ only works with its v6 software, which is neither available nor certified for use in Texas. In any case, no elected official from either party has challenged any of Hart’s commercial misrepresentations or monopolistic practices. Hart is the darling of Democratic elected officials who have, simply, no understanding whatsoever of the technical or economic dimensions of procuring, using, maintaining, depreciating, or replacing engineered goods.”

How much would the printers cost?

Mr. Gandy did not know off the top of his head but stated approximately $1,000 to $1,200 each.

What other efforts are there to allow for independent audits and recounts?

Gandy stated “Harris County has previously done this. We would have to talk to Harris County about how that recount was performed.”

Birnberg stated “From my perspective, there is, effectively, no such thing as a recount of electronic voting machine tallies not accompanied by a voter verifiable paper trail. It amounts to no more than asking the machine to regurgitate the figures it previously spit out, but there is no way to check or ‘recount’ the accuracy of the tally at that point – without a paper trail.”

Behrman stated In the two most recent instances of probable cause to investigate first-degree felony vote-tampering in Harris County, the technique of “recovering” cast vote records that were corrupt or unreadable at the Central Counting Station also removed the possibility of forensically examining those records as originally recorded. If the votes had not been tampered
with before, they had been after county officials hastily “recovered” them.

Behrman went on to state “In any case, without VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail), there simply is nothing of an original nature to recount. What you see vanishes the moment you press the red button unless you take a camera into the voting booth – a crime in Texas. “

Birnberg stressed the importance that the “Jimmy Carter/Jim Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform specifically recommended retrofitting electronic machines with printers and requiring them on all electronic machines in the future. Also, this is not that partisan an issue – the platform of the Republican Party of Texas specifically calls for a prohibition on all electronic voting machines and systems which do not include a voter verifiable paper trail.”

What has been done to resolve some of the issues seen in 2004?

The problems of reliability with entire daisy chains of systems freezing when one system hangs:

According to Gary Gandy “This is possible but interruption would be brief. Just remove the offending node, reset the system (reboot), the interruption should be very slight and brief, a few minutes at most.”

Malfunctions that deprived voters of their votes:

According to Gary Gandy, “this is not possible; the voter enters an access code (PIN). If the unit malfunctions and a reset is required the system automatically prints what nodes (eSlates) are attached by serial number and lists ‘aborted access codes,’ then the person could re-vote.” These interrupted votes are called “Spoiled Ballots.” The voting judges are fully trained on this issue and the process to allow re-votes. The system is real-time and all activity is recorded. If a voter has a spoiled ballot they need only compare their access code with the automatic print out after a reset to be allowed to vote.

Has the eSlate been through any independent third-party security testing?

Gary Gandy answered this question “yes.” This was done by Symantec @stake Consulting Services and a copy of the report can be downloaded from Hart InterCivic. The consulting started in the fall of 2003 and according to the report itself it is dated as being published on Dec. 7, 2004.

Unfortunately, back in 2004, many of the issues and concerns about security and paper trails were too difficult to implement by the November elections. Some of the concerns allegedly appear to have become reality in that election.

While those concerns appear to have been true in 2004 why are we in 2006 where the same concerns still exist? Hart InterCivic has had two years to develop solutions to the problems and some progress has been made. If concerns about paper trails and auditing are still valid, where are those solutions today?

In my conversation with Gary Gandy, I learned the responsibility lies with the Texas Legislature and the Texas Secretary of State. They failed Texas voters in getting legislation passed that would require a paper trail. Without validating the Version 6 of the eSlate and proper legislation, Hart InterCivic can not sell their solution in Texas.

In the executive summary section of the report it is noted “Symantec @stake consultants advised Hart in making significant changes to the latest version of the eSlate system code and the Hart development process.” In the overview documentation it is stated “The media attention and conflicting expert commentary make the task of securing a DRE voting system particularly challenging.”

The security is challenging, not impossible. The report cites some excellent examples of high-level recommended security practices. If these practices are in fact in place it would seem to be a good process. The problem I see with the report is that they were engaged by Hart InterCivic a year before the reported problems back in 2003. The problems were reported about six weeks before the report was published.

The report is also centered around security design in the development phase of the software. When it comes to security testing, Symantec basically recommended self-testing and internal processes.

This security testing is in fact not a report on testing results, nor is it a documented testing procedure. This report reveals that there is no independent third-party testing of the products for security vulnerabilities, nor does it recommend independent third-party testing.

The “About Hart InterCivic” section on the last page of the report sounds far too much like marketing. The report states, “Hart InterCivic’s name stands for exceptional expertise, absolute accessibility, and trusted transactions. Hart InterCivic is a leader in providing products and services that help redefine the relationship between state and local governments and the citizens they serve.”

For information on how all of this applies to Fort Bend County, read this question-and-answer session with county Elections Administrator Steve Raborn.

Steve Raborn has provided a highly detailed document that provides information about security procedures in Fort Bend County.

What is the final tally?

E-voting is the way of the future. Therefore it is essential to have a system that can be audited by a paper trail. Americans have the right to vote and the government has the responsibility to provide a system that allows for everyone to vote, can be audited and allows for recounts that are separate from the electronic system.

According to Marc L. Songini “There should be much more severe security-testing requirements. The key is, you need to raise awareness that these vulnerabilities do exist and can be exploited, and you need a way of measuring security.”

Based on my conversation with Raborn and others, the Fort Bend County Office of Elections is doing the best job that it possibly can with what equipment it has and the laws and rules that it has to operate under.

The fact is that the secretary of state and our Texas Legislature have failed us in not passing legislation requiring a VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail). As long as these requirements do not exist, a lot of the vulnerabilities of the electronic voting system will remain in place with no method for proving or disproving the validity of the system.

The legislature must pass a bill requiring a VVPAT for elections, and require independent third-party security testing of eVoting systems that passes an independent peer-reviewed security testing procedure that evolves with the technology. The state of Texas has failed to approve Version 6 of the eSlate softwhere, which supports printers and is more secure; without that approval no county in Texas can purchase the latest version of eSlate.

Hart InterCivic has a good testing process on paper. It is strictly a high-level internal process with no outside or independent validation of these processes. This is like the fox writing the security procedure for the hen house. The procedure is nice, but is without an independent
third party audit to validate that those procedures in fact work and the results can be measured.

Until Hart InterCivic volunteers its equipment for independent testing, no one will ever know if the eSlate system is in fact secure. Until there are changes in the testing procedures and our state representatives take care of our voting concerns, no one can claim for certain what votes were in fact cast.

Part 2:

Steve Raborn Answers Questions About Fort Bend County's E-voting System

Fort Bend County Election Administrator Steve Raborn participated in a recent question-and-answer interview about the county’s eSlate voting system, with Prescott Small, a Stafford information technology professional.

Q: Have you heard of some of the complaints that occurred in Travis and Harris Counties?

A: Vaguely aware of some of the issues reported but not fluent in them. The machines are specifically designed so that ballots could not be lost.

Q: Does your office train polling place operators on how to handle “Spoiled ballots” in the event of a malfunction?

A: We prefer to call them Cancelled booths. Spoiled ballots are a legally defined term. Reasons for canceled booths are wrong precinct or wrong party (primary) . As long as the ballot is not cast the booth can be canceled.

Q: What is the current version of the software of the eSlate voting system that Fort Bend County has?

A: Fort Bend County uses System Version 3.3.

Q: Could you tell me some about why Fort bend has to use the eSlate voting system we currently have and not the version 6 that is currently available?

A: Any time a new version is released the system needs to be certified on a national level. Texas typically will not certify before a version is certified on a national level. The new versions can not be used until the state of Texas approves them. Til then it is illegal.

Q: Are you aware that sversion 6 supports printers and allows for a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you personally have any concerns about the systems?

A: I have no concerns about security, accuracy or reliability. There is room from improvement for the ease of use in setup at the polling place, since a lot of the polling judges are not as comfortable with computer equipment and set-up as some other people. The serial port plugs also can be a problem because pins can get bent requiring repairs or replacement, and can cause
delays in getting a polling opened.

Q: Do you have any further comments you would like to share?

A: Even though versions of the eSlate system are currently available that allow for VVPAT, the state of Texas would not be able to legally use such a system. Even if we had the paper trail today, those pieces of paper could not be used in a recount because Texas law would not allow for it. The laws of the state of Texas has to change before any type of paper trail could be allowed.

Overall satisfaction with the product is high. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being excellent, Steve Raborn rates the eSlate system an 8.5.

Steve Raborn’s county has in place a system for monitoring progress and reliability in the eSlate system. They log every call regarding the eSlate system and categorize them. They have reviews of the calls, analyze what went well and what could be done better. They implement those changes and then repeat the monitoring process the next time, Raborn said.

The measurement of their success is that they saw a significant decrease in call volume this last primary because of the changes they made and enhancements in the training for the setup of the systems.

Part 3:

Comments on recent Articles in the News regarding "problems" with eSlate:

Recently there was more news that is current and challenges the credibility and reliability of the eSlate system from Hart InterCivic as well as other eVoting systems.

As published on March 9th in the Star Telegram from Fort Worth, TX:

An undetected computer glitch in Tarrant County led to inflated election returns in Tuesday’s primaries but did not alter the outcome of any local race, elections and county officials said Wednesday.

The error caused Tarrant County to report as many as 100,000 votes in both primaries that never were cast, dropping the local turnout from a possible record high of about 158,103 voters to about 58,000.

Because the errors added votes equally for each candidate, the glitch did not change the outcome of Tarrant County races but narrowed the margin of victory in some statewide races. In the close Republican primary race for Texas Supreme Court, for example, incumbent Don Willett edged past former Justice Steve Smith by only about 1 percentage point with the corrected vote tallies.

Also according to John Covell, a vice president with Hart InterCivic:

The problem stemmed from a programming error by Hart InterCivic, which manufactured the equipment and wrote the software for the local voting system. The system is designed to combine electronic early voting results and totals from paper ballots on Election Day.

The error caused the computer to compound the previous vote totals each time the election totals were updated throughout the night, rather than keep a simple running total, officials said.

“The system did what we told it to do,” said John Covell, a vice president with Hart. “We told it incorrectly.” The program was designed specifically for Tarrant County, and no other counties reported similar problems, elections officials said.

How do we know those votes that were tallied were as the voter intended?

What definitive proof is there?

Granted Fort Bend County uses a different system than Tarrant County and the outcome was “not affected.” This clearly shows that Hart InterCivic’s software is not full proof.

This issue isn’t only about Fort Bend County and eSlate. These problems exist all over the United States and with all of the eVoting equipment manufacturers. There are hundreds of reported incidents across the United States, including reports of successfully hacked systems.

When the votes exist solely as 1’s and 0’s inside the hardware of a computer system how can an audit be valid?

If the system repeatedly gives the same results that does not validate the intent of the voter, it only validates what is inside that system.

Let’s use a 5 pound box of apples analogy:

You have a Box labeled as being 5 pounds of apples. So you count the apples and come out with 25 apples. I can not be certain that I have 5 pounds of apples without a scale. The count is irrelevant without a proper means of validating the intent. In this scenario the intent was to have 5 pounds of apples in the box. The count of what is in the box is irrelevant because we do not have an external method of validating that the intent of 5 pounds was met and recounting has no value

These problems have occurred over and over while Hart InterCivic states that the machines are designed to not allow for errors. Yet we have a specific example where errors have occurred because the machines are "designed to work this way."

…The conventional wisdom was all wrong,” said Wagner, a member of the panel that reviewed the Diebold machines. “It was possible to subvert the memory card without detection.”

No one can not decisively prove voter intent.

My biggest concern is If we have a situation where there is one big error at the wrong place and wrong time causing major negative affects in an election it could completely destroy voter confidence in electronic voting.

The public trust is earned very slowly over time, yet that trust can be completely forfeit overnight. All that the voters demand is confidence in the electoral system. If the Voters loose confidence it will take many years to earn that trust back

As long as these reports of over-votes, lost votes and such continue to arise people are going to be concerned. While I definitely have some doubts in the quality of programming of the equipment I do not have any major concerns about the hardware, other than what Steve had previously pointed out about the cable connections and ease of use in setup and break down.

The integrity of the software is what is at the “heart” of the issue.

Until there is a state mandated VVPAT and independent 3rd party auditing of the equipment and the software then voter confidence will not be very high and could be subject to continuous decline.

With this additional knowledge I have even less confidence in the Hart InterCivic system. They have sold the State of Texas millions of dollars worth of equipment, our tax dollars. They admit it is buggy and yet we can not get the software updated because the legislature has to approve it and certify it first. So most counties are operating with software that is years out of date.

This incident is just more proof that we need a VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail).

To answer Steve Raborn’s question: Who are “They”?

That would be Hart InterCivic (and other EVoting companies), the Secretary of State, the Mass Media, the Texas State Legislature.

Personally I don’t think Steve Raborn has held anything back. In fact he will communicate quite freely when asked questions.

One of the bigger problems seems to be that people don’t ask the questions that need to be answered.

Part 4:

The Smell Test Applied to eSlate:

The smell test is still a great and valid method for seeing is some things should be questioned.

It is just amazing the information that can be found:

RES Partners, which invested in Hart’s second and third rounds, is an entity that represents Richard Salwen, retired Dell Computer Corporation vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary, who had also worked with Perot Systems and EDS. Salwen is a heavy contributor to George W. Bush and the Republican Party. (1)

Maximus Inc. is a gigantic privatizer of social services. It cuts deals with state governments to handle child-support collections, implement welfare-to-work and oversee managed care and HMO programs. A Wisconsin legislative audit report found that Maximus spent more than $400,000 of state money on unauthorized expenses and found $1.6 million that Maximus couldn’t properly document. These unauthorized expenses included a party for staff members at a posh Lake Geneva resort; $23,637 for “fanny packs” to promote the company, with the bills sent to the state; and entertainment of staff and clients by actress Melba Moore. Maximus settled for $1 million. (2)

Maximus jumped into the smart-card business and soon afterward entered the elections industry through an alliance with Hart InterCivic.

Tom Hicks, the biggest investor in Maximus/Hart InterCivic, whose voting machines are used in Orange County, bought the Rangers from Bush for many millions more than was paid for the team a few years before by the soon-to-be governor and president, thus in effect financing his various political campaigns. Until recently, Hicks has had an office at the Longworth Building in D.C. close to GOP allies. (3)

(1) – Austin Business Journal, 8 November 2001; “Investors cast $7.5M vote for Hart InterCivic.”

(2) – Global Energy Business, 1 August 2001; “CAES: Ready for prime time” 34 Vol. 3, No. 4”

(3) – CBS News, December 14, 1999; “Stars owner Hicks to buy Rangers for $250 million”

Politicians, Illegal Aliens, Billions of Dollars and a Truckload of Bull

In December the house passed a bill that Senator Bill Frist endorses. They now want to escalate the status of Illegal Alien to a Felony offense.

The bill they have been referring to is HR 4437, otherwise known as The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

The text as referred to Senate Committee:

I am confused. How does changing the degree of an existing crime help anyone?

If illegal aliens are already illegal, how does making them MORE illegal change anything?

I could not find an answer for this one in the bill.

Will it provide the funding to enforce existing laws that currently aren't enforced?

According to the bill they will assess civil penalties of between $500 and $20,000 against employers for each illegal immigrant they hire and criminal penalties of up to $20,000 per illegal immigrant hired and up to six months in jail for engaging in a pattern of employing illegal workers.

Will it provide for more man power (funding again) that doesn't currently exist?

According to the bill a total of 15,400 people will be added: 4,400 Border Patrol agents over six years to the 10,000 Congress provided for in the intelligence reform law passed in 2004, and 1,000 more immigrant smuggling investigators over the next five years.

The bill includes the “One Face at the Border” initiative which is aimed at unifying the inspection process that travelers entering the United States have to go through. Instead of making three stops – an Immigration Inspector, a Customs Inspector and an Agriculture Inspector – travelers would meet with a single primary inspections officer who was specially trained to do the job of all three.

In my opinion this sounds more efficient and a way to reduce cost. The question I have is how it will be implemented? I have been through customs in our airports more times than I care to count. I could say that I definitely like a single stop a lot more than 3 stops after spending 9 or 12 hours on a plane the very last thing I want to do is stand in line for 30 minutes to 1 ½ hours. While I understand that security is necessary – your level of understanding degrades rapidly while standing in that line.

Another thing I see throughout the bill is the phrase:

“Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as expeditiously as practicable, develop and implement _____________”

Develop and Implement?

As expeditiously as practicable?

What about the money?

Let's spell this out real simple. I want you to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible on TASK A. I am giving you no money to do it.

How much do you think will get done?

At least they have provided for ‘accountability”. Well if you consider only worrying about things that cost more than $20,000,000 accountability that is:

“Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall review each contract action related to the Department's Secure Border Initiative having a value greater than $20,000,000…”

Did you know that this bill specifies that the Department of Homeland security will be responsible for reimbursing owners of private property that have their property damaged by illegal aliens along the boarders?

SEC. 112. REPAIR OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE ON BORDER

Subject to the amount appropriated in subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reimburse property owners for costs associated with repairing damages to the property owners' private infrastructure constructed on a United States Government right-of-way delineating the international land border when such damages are--

(1) the result of unlawful entry of aliens; and

(2) confirmed by the appropriate personnel of the Department of Homeland Security and submitted to the Secretary for reimbursement.

(b) Value of Reimbursements- Reimbursements for submitted damages as outlined in subsection
(a) shall not exceed the value of the private infrastructure prior to damage.

That’s right, the “conservative” federal government is taking on the responsibility of basically insuring private property at tax payer expense. Remember Bill Frist and Tom DeLay have been touting the importance of this bill.

See for yourself how your elected official voted.

They are providing for the detection of radiological materials at ports, sort of.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deploy radiation portal monitors at all United States ports of entry and facilities as determined by the Secretary to facilitate the screening of all inbound cargo for nuclear and radiological material.

Authorization of Appropriations - There is some funding authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection (a) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007

Now remember this means that it will only be detected after it has already arrived at and is sitting in a major U.S. port facility. Also, it is only funded till the end of 2007.

While I do not in anyway dispute this statement: “The United States is engaged in a Global War on Terrorism.” I adamantly believe it to be true. However, by placing this exact statement in a bill that would be signed into law could be a legal problem that needs careful consideration.

Would this statement as drafted in SEC. 118. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS of HR 4437 in fact act as a legal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress in compliance with the War Powers Act?

That this would give the extremely broad powers of placing the United States in a Declared State of War with whomever the Whitehouse feels it is at war with? This would in turn suddenly grant very broad powers to the President?

While this vast bill has some useful recommendations there seems to be very little provisions for funding in it. The only funding provisions are what I listed above. So it once again comes down to what good are laws if they are not funded nor enforced.

You can write tougher laws, but a bluff is just a bluff. Without taking actions on existing laws, writing new ones does nothing but waste money, time and paper. This legislation has some areas that really concern me, some that seems logical and the rest is all election year hot air. The good parts of this bill could probably be reduced to 1 or 2 pages.

A Closer Look at Definitions:Conservative Vs. Liberal

One definition of conservative is that it means to favor traditional views and values. But it also means having a tendency to conserve; preservative.

Liberal tends to mean not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. It also means to be generous in amount; ample.

The democratic party is liberal in the sense that we are progressive and forward thinking. We think about the future and plan for tomorrow.

The Democratic party wants to reduce federal spending while the Republicans have continuously increased spending and raised the amount of debt the nation is allowed to have.

How is that “conservative?” Is this a “traditional value?”

The Republican party has grown federal government to a size larger and more expensive than it has ever been in American history.

How is that “conservative?” Is this a “traditional value?”

The Democratic party wants to reduce the amount of debt the Unites States has, particularly with China and India.

How is that “liberal?” Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

The Democratic party wants more CONSERVATIVE use of natural resources like timber, coal, oil & gas. We want more fuel efficient cars and less pollution in the air. We seek sustainability and independence.

How is that “liberal?” Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

The Democratic party seeks to reduce the amount of dirty money and the corruptible influence by lobbyist and corporations that contribute huge sums of money to campaigns in both parties for access and undue influence.

How is that “liberal?” Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

Democrats hold the traditions of our founding fathers and the constitution inviolate and seek to protect those rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those same rights that every American soldier has fought for and some even died for.

How is that “liberal? Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

The democratic party believes in a strong military that is properly trained, properly equipped and has the resources they need and deserve if they ever have to go to war to be able to fight without worry about the welfare of their spouses and children being properly taken care of, that they will have the best possible medical care in the world if needed, they will have the benefits to care for their needs if disabled in combat or service to their country and their families will be properly cared for if they are killed in the line of duty.

How is that “liberal? Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

We demand that our government officials not commit felonies in their day to day activities or use their political offices for personal gain. We ask that they do not lie to us nor steal from us.

How is that “Liberal?” Are lying and stealing considered to be “traditional values?”

The democratic party wants to improve the quality of education and healthcare for children.

How is this “liberal?” Is this some new non-traditional value?

On a personal note we subscribe to a 100% renewable green energy company to provide our electricity and drive a hybrid vehicle to reduce the amount of gasoline we consume.

How is that “liberal?” We are conserving resources and reducing pollution by reducing our Co2 footprint.

People use liberal like it is a dirty word. Maybe we should be using conservative like it is a dirty word. After all by definition a conservative is resistant to change. If what we see today in the Republican Party is what they demand we keep for “conservative values” then the only answer is change.

I am a democrat and considered a liberal.

Why?

Because I am progressive and not bound by traditional attitudes?

Guilty as charged, and proud of it.

It seems to me that Republicans are really the Neo-Bourgeois, while Democrats are really more Progressive onservative.

For Education: The Writing is on the Oil Well

By Prescott E. Small

American education has to become more competitive yesterday.

As published in Discover Magazine, January 2006:

The performance of U.S. students in middle and high schools on international math and science exams is below the average of 38 other countries. Even advanced American math and physics students score near dead last among students in 20 tested countries, the panel reported. Since 1990 the number of bachelor's degrees in engineering has declined 8 percent; in mathematics, 20 percent. While 32 percent of U.S. students graduate with degrees in science and engineering, the figure in China is 59 percent.

With the American economy so dependent on oil and oil related products it is absolutely imperative that America stop lagging behind in education and take the lead once again.

With countries in the Middle East like Qatar having vast oil and natural gas deposits making a huge effort today to start the transition of their economy from an oil based one to a knowledge based economy should be a significant warning sign to the United States. These people have some of the largest oil reserves in the world and they are aggressively planning for an economy not based on oil.

As was stated in April 7, 2006 issue of the journal Science “This small Persian Gulf emirate is preparing for life after oil and gas by pouring wealth into education and research”

For example:

In Education City in Qatar the RAND-Qatar Policy Institute has helped Qatar to make tremendous changes in the country's educational institutions. And Qatar Science and Technology Park will be an incubator where private companies can partner with government agencies and academic institutions, developing research into commercial applications and driving Qatar and the region toward a diversified, knowledge-based economy.

What American Institutions are participating?

Prominent signs indicate the presence of educational heavyweights, including Weill Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and Texas A&M.

It is also noted in the journal Science that “Qatar's primary and secondary schools, which have begun to dispense with traditional rote learning, Al-Hajari reports, replacing it with curricula designed to stimulate creative and independent thinking. And it extends to Qatar University, which was founded in 1977 and is independent of Education City.”

Why should we as Texans, or Americans for that matter, worry about Qatar?

The fact is that America is ranked 39th world wide in math and science education. Consider that Texas was just ranked, as a state, 24th in a country that was just placed as 39th.

Countries like Qatar, Singapore, China & India are readily getting some of the best researchers that have been educated and trained in America to relocate to their countries.

For example the Journal Science Reports that:

Texas A&M is setting up joint research with the oil industry and studies related to clean air, while Weill Cornell will concentrate on biomedical projects relevant to local health problems. (Diabetes Research)

To accelerate the process, (Qatar) plans to bring interested scientists from Weill Cornell's New York base and recruit postdocs. For his part, (Qatar) hopes to lure back expatriate Arab scientists currently flourishing in the West. "Many diaspora researchers are interested in going back if the infrastructure is there," says Hassan. To capitalize on the research, the Qatar Foundation is building the Qatar Science and Technology Park right next door to Education City.

Already, big players in industrial R&D, including GE, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil, have signed up and are waiting to move in.

What is happening?

• Foreigners are coming to America and getting education and training and then exporting that knowledge and experience out of the country.
• American researchers and educators are leaving America to be able to do the research that they are either denied or do not have funding for in the United States.
• The drain is affecting the quality of education and research in America.
• America is loosing it’s competitive edge in a global economy in the area of research to product development.
• The quality of educational facilities in the United States is falling below that of the competitive countries, as are the salaries and benefits which lure our leading researchers away.

These well funded research facilities are in countries that do not hold back development and research in controversial areas like Stem Cell Research. In fact they encourage it and fund it. These countries are leaving the United States behind and will reap the financial rewards and the health benefits of such research before the United States. They will generate jobs and wealth. The Unite States will just lose.

In an article from February 24, 2006 in the Journal Science:

“At an elite science high school in Dallas, Texas, President George W. Bush told the assembled students that the United States "needs a workforce strong in engineering and science and physics" to remain the world's top economic power. His words would seem to bode well for precollege activities funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the only federal agency with an explicit mission to improve science and math education. But 3 days later, the president unveiled a 2007 budget request that would cut--for the third straight year--a 4-year-old program at NSF aimed at doing exactly that.”

"If the (Education and Human Resources) EHR budget stays flat, there's no hope of accomplishing what corporate America says is needed to improve the U.S. workforce,"

In his Sate of the union Address on January 31, 2006 President Bush Stated:

"And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science."

However, on February 27, 2006 President Bush comes out and announces his plans for the budget: (Washington Post By Mike Allen and Peter Baker 02/07/06)

"President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents."

These problems that are highlighted above are at the heart of the problem.

Now get into the “No child Left Behind” program which has altered public education and forced it into a rote learning model by demanding testing performance at the sacrifice of building critical thinking skills.

According to Wikipedia Rote Learning is defined as: a learning technique which avoids grasping the inner complexities and inferences of the subject that is being learned and instead focuses on memorizing the material so that it can be recalled by the learner exactly the way it was read or heard. In other words, it also means learning just for the test.

For a Texas school to achieve the academic acceptable rating (the lowest passing standard)

According to the TEA's own 2005 Accountability Manual:
Schools must have passing rates of:
50% percent in Reading Tests
50% in Writing Tests
50% in Social Studies
35% percent in Math tests
25% percent in Science tests

The aspects of learning that involved critical thinking and questioning what is being taught are dieing on the vine so that we reflect an acceptable passing rating as defined by the TAKS test standards for Texas.

I find it horrifying that such low standards are required of students to pass the TAKS test in order to get an academically acceptable rating for the entire school.

No single student would be allowed to pass a single test with a 60%, 40% or 35% grade. The Government is telling us Schools are getting better and more schools are meeting the acceptable rating than they were two years ago. The only reason that is true is because they have lowered the standard and created loop holes that specifically allow for test scores of minorities to be excluded in the reporting.

Our schools are being forced onto a path of intentional failure by placing the appearance of demands and accountability without funding. The current administration in Washington and our representatives across the United States all talk about how important education is but their actions of undermining those initiatives by cutting the money out of education only speak to their real agenda of forcing public education to fail so that they can privatize education.

This agenda is being achieved at the sacrifice of this generation of children that are in school today. The damage that is being done will take decades to repair. Our economy will suffer and the quality of life for your children might actually be less than yours for the first time in American history.

As a nation we need to stop wasting time with foolish projects like School Vouchers and we need to stop spending money and resources on trying to get intelligent design into science classes. These distractions only drain valuable resources and time from the educational system while exasperating the problems at the expense of the education of our children. We need to fix the problems – not create new ones.

We need:

1. To hold elected officials accountable for sacrificing education.
2. Better pay for teachers.
3. More Teachers.
4. Better resources for education.
5. Properly fund “No child Left behind”
6. Modify “No Child Left Behind” to promote critical thinking.
7. Abandon the method of Rote Learning.
8. Increase funding for “Head Start”.
9. More involvement of higher learning institutions through the entire educational life of a child.
10. To spend more money on students per year than we do on prison inmates. ($13,000 per prisoner vs. $6,000 per student)
11. Stimulate more research in higher education.
12. Open up Stem Cell research and other programs to lure the leading minds.
13. Restore incentives to bring the brightest and most talented researchers to America.
14. To be number 1 in education world wide.
15. For Texas to lead the United States in education as well.

I can think of no greater investment for our future than our children and their education.

Intelligent Design and the Decline of American Education

Intelligent Design and the Decline of American Education

Intelligent Design is not a theory:

"One requirement of science is that it makes specific predictions, which can be tested in a laboratory." states geologist Robert Hazen "Another requirement is that it does not rely on supernatural or miraculous processes."

The primary case that intelligent design promotes is that life and the universe have systems that are so complex that they can only be explained by a creator. The very essence of that theory is completely un-testable. The only test that stands up is if we can not explain complex systems scientifically then they must have been designed by some form of intelligence.

If it was designed by "a creator" a single being or entity; whether that be God, an Alien or the Giant Spaghetti Monster then we are left without testing. The implied protocol for testing is to give up and stop researching because the answers to the question are to difficult to explain.

It is this conclusion that brings me to the "bigger problem" that Intelligent Design is just a symptom of.

Why continuing to push this non-theory on public education is irresponsible:

While this attitude and the answers themselves are unacceptable they do bring attention to the bigger problems in public education.

The problems we are faced with in our schools is the declining quality of education that our children receive today. The entire history of our Country has been built on the foundation that the children had a better life than their parents.

This was reflected in:

• The child would have a better education than the parents.
  
• The child would have better health care than the parents.
  
• The child would have a better, safer job than the parents.
  
• The child would have a nicer house than the parents.
  
• etc...

These things are no longer true of this generation coming out of our High Schools today.
The whole concept of "No Child Left Behind" is false and misleading at best. The children are now receiving training to pass a test that measures progress. The bar for that progress was only getting lowered so that the appearance was that children are improving when, in fact, they were not.

Only recently have demands for more stringent testing been met in Texas. The TAKS test has been made more difficult in recent years and as a result we can see where the quality of education was really heading.

According to an article in the Dallas Morning news dated December 15th, 2005:

The Texas Education Agency identified 821 campuses across the state Thursday where students will have the right to leave if their parents are dissatisfied. That's nearly double the number of campuses last year – 420.

...

The state's annual school performance ratings in August showed the number of "academically unacceptable" schools nearly quadrupled this year based on poor TAKS scores. A handful of factors were cited for the lower test scores and lower school ratings, including that students had to get more answers correct and, for the first time, special education students' test scores were included in overall passing rates.

Large numbers of students had trouble with the science and math sections of the exam even though only a minority of students – 25 percent in science and 35 percent in math – were required to pass those sections for their school to be considered academically acceptable.

If what we are seeing is true, then the idea of further decreasing the quality of education, especially in the sciences, is not only irresponsible it is immoral.

According to an article being published in the January 2006 issue of Discover Magazine:

The performance of U.S. students in middle and high schools on international math and science exams is below the average of 38 other countries. Even advanced American math and physics students score near dead last among students in 20 tested countries, the panel reported. Since 1990 the number of bachelor's degrees in engineering has declined 8 percent; in mathematics, 20 percent. While 32 percent of U.S. students graduate with degrees in science and engineering, the figure in China is 59 percent. Fewer grads means less research.

Science Watch, a review of the Web research tool Essential Science Indicators, found a decline in U.S. representation among the world's published scientific papers, dropping from 38.5 percent in 1990 to 33.3 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, the Asian-Pacific share increased and "will likely outstrip that of the United States in six or seven years." Such declines may be reflected in the business of science; the National Academies reported the U.S. share of global high-tech exports fell during the last two decades from 30 to 17 percent, and its share of manufactured goods dropped from +33 billion in 1990 to –24 billion in 2004.

I believe America is a first rate country with more rights and privileges than just about any country in the world. There is no excuse for us to be ranked 39th in the world for education. As an American the idea that there are 38 other countries with a better quality of education just infuriates me.

What have our government officials been doing that they have fallen down on the job to such a degree?

We can not just blame one political party for this. For our educational system to have become so badly damaged has taken years if not decades of neglect to get to this point. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat this issue needs to be a top priority in America starting yesterday.

In order to fix the problems we need to focus on the real issues. We need to stop talking about Intelligent Design and focus on what needs to be done to get the best quality of education in the world for our children.

How can we do it?

We need to change our priorities. If our children are truly what is important then we need to put our money where our brains are going to be tomorrow.

• Instead of taxing the citizenry to build bigger and better sports arenas, how about using that money to build bigger and better schools?
• How about increasing teachers salaries so that the income of a teacher is appealing to the most talented people?
• How about tax or financial incentives for retired or semi-retired professionals to come and teach our children?
• How about increasing the financial rewards for students that do well in school and actually paying for them to attend college?
• How about looking at the 38 countries that have us beat in the quality of education to see what they are doing right?

There have to be a few thousand other things we can do to help our children get the best education possible. In my opinion all we have for education these days is excuses.

The other big question that I have is what will happen to our economy in 30 years if American becomes 50th in education worldwide? Who will own America then?

No Fair, Trial for Tom DeLay

I have to say that Tom DeLay’s attorney is right. Tom DeLay will not get a fair trial.

However, I have to disagree with his logic.

The reason Tom DeLay is not getting a fair trial is because of the unfairness and inequity that is being forced upon the citizenry of Texas and the United States.

For example:
If you or any other person in this county were charged with a felony you and your family would have to come up with our own money while making significant sacrifices to get a decent attorney.

In order to hire a big gun Like Dick DeGuerin – The majority of us would have to sell our homes and still come up short of funds.

How many United States citizens would have Vice President Dick Cheney travel across half of the country to aid in a legal defense fundraiser?

Tom DeLay’s Trial is definitely not fair – it is not fair to Texans or any other American.

Prescott E. Small
Stafford, TX