Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: SICKO di Moore

Il cinema d'impegno di genere documentaristico è stato proprio resuscitato
da Michael Moore. Il suo ultimo "film", Sicko, un'odissea nel ridicolo
sistema sanitario privatistico statunitense ha infatti colpito nel segno
quanto i precedenti prodotti del cineasta di Flint, Michigan.
Le recensioni al documentario le trovate un po' dovunque. Io mi limito a
dirvi che, avendolo visto ieri, sono ben contento di avere scelto il Canada
per fare il mio Ph.D. Anche in questo film non poteva mancare il paragone
con "il vicino a nord", dove intervista vari canadesi che spiegano la bontà
del sistema sanitario locale, così diverso e distante da quello americano al
punto da attirare dei cittadini statunitensi che, pur di usufruire del
servizio gratuito, fingono di avere delle relazioni sentimentali stabili con
cittadini canadesi amici loro. E stavolta Moore si spinge anche oltre
oceano, per intervistare un po' di espat statunitensi che vivono in Regno
Unito e Francia e illustrano le grandissime differenze rispetto agli Usa.
Un passo molto bello è quello nel quale una cittadina Usa dice: "In Francia
lo Stato ha 'paura' del popolo e quindi gli viene incontro in termini di
servizi sociali per far sì che non scenda in piazza. In Usa, invece, è il
popolo che ha paura dello Stato federale". Eh, forse una Rivoluzione
francese e qualche secolo di socialismo avranno pure significato qualcosa,
vero cari americani?
Ma del resto abissali sono anche le differenze con il Regno Unito, nel quale
gli ospedali (che sembrano hotel a 5 stelle) hanno un servizio di cassa per
rimborsare ai pazienti il viaggio fatto alla struttura medica.
Peccato che Moore non abbia voluto fare un salto anche in Italia, dove
avrebbe trovato un servizio sanitario di alto livello - il secondo al mondo
come qualità stando a una classifica mostrata nel film - per quanto riguarda
i servizi erogati gratuitamente, ma con un livello tremendo di qualità delle
strutture che ospitano ospedali e ambulatori.
Incredible il lavaggio del cervello che, dai tempi di Nixon, la destra
americana è riuscita a operare ai danni del proprio popolo. La locuzione
"sistema sanitario socializzato" è diventata un sinonimo di Unione Sovietica
e depressione, laddove lo stesso tipo di organizzazione è invece rimasto in
vigore per il sistema bibliotecario, quello dei pompieri e quello scolastico
fino al college.
Il film termina con una genialata: il tentativo di Moore di far visitare
alcuni pompieri eroi dell'11 settembre, ormai passati di moda, dalla
struttura medica del campo di concentramento di Guantanamo, dove batte
bandiera Usa. Quello di Guantanamo è infatti l'unico ospedale pubblico
statunitense che ospita strutture di primissimo livello le cui cure sono
completamente gratuite. Il battello degli eroi disperati viene respinto alla
frontiera ma per fortuna i nostri eroi trovano ospitalità nel sistema
sanitario dell'isola di Cuba, dove vengono trattati come qualunque altro
cittadino cubano: con cura e rispetto della persona.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

quanto i precedenti prodotti del cineasta di Flint, Michigan.
Quindi zero.


ahahahahaah!!!!! Moore ha venduto MILIONI DI COPIE dei suoi libri e ha
ricevuto l'OSCAR per uno dei suoi documentari!!!!
Qui negli States è uno dei commenatori politici più seguiti! Vera stella del
giornalismo politico ha denunciato e denuncia i gravissimi malanni della
democrazia americana, prigioniera delle lobby delle armi e del petrolio,
vittima di clamorosi brogli in Florida e in Ohio che permisero la "vittoria"
di Bushetto.
ZERO quindi è l'informazione di "pennello d'oro" che dà corpo al proverbio
"non è tutto oro quel che luce"....;-))))
aloha!
e.


Qui negli States è uno dei commenatori politici più seguiti! 
Poveracci allora quei sottosviluppati che hanno bisogno di santoni
manipolatori e furbacchioni come Moore (o come analoghi... grilliani)
che monopolizzano le buone cause e l'indignazione e la trasformano in
una macchina da lucro che ha l'effetto collaterale di addormentare
ancora di più gli spiriti critici e la coscienza.
L'indignazione che gente come Moore o  Beppe G. sollevano è una specie
di rito. E' un esorcismo. Ci sono loro, i santoni dell'indignazione,
che la sollevano e la consumano monetizzandola.
I bambascioni che gli danno retta alzano la testa per un'oretta o due,
giusto il tempo dello spettacolo o al massimo dello SMS che manderanno
agli amici tornando a casa,  e poi ritornano in fila come le pecore
che devono essere (se hanno bisogno di santoni/pastori). E in fondo è
anche giusto così. Ritornano a mangiare merda nei loro uffici,
convinti però di essere diventati molto furbi. Non li disturba più di
tanto il fatto di essere stati manipolati - seppure per un ipotetico
"fin di bene" - con argomentazioni farlocche, comunicazione dove ogni
cosa è predisposta per ricostruire la dicotomia "noi che siamo belli e
abbiamo ragione / quei bastardi che sono cattivi e rovinano il mondo"
e costrutti retorici sensazionalisti (ma d'altronde LE IENE vanno
molto di moda e va di moda il vendere insieme ad un prodotto
comunicativo già l'effetto che questo deve provocare, ossia
l'indignazione del "giusto" di fronte alle "soperchierie")
Se Moore usasse delle argomentazioni non-manipolative (cosa che non
fa, praticamente ai suoi film manca giusto il "Biri -biri - fu - fu -
Incrediiiiiibbiiiiiile!" di Striscia la Notizia), allora sì che
farebbe un servizio all'intelligenza dei suoi spettatori, invece di
mortificarla. Con Moore siamo ad un livello appena appena superiore a
quell'altro coglione che ha mangiato per due mesi solo McDonald per
farci vedere che è ingrassato (purché ovviamente paghiamo il
biglietto!). Ma grossomodo siamo da quelle parti.
Siamo dalle parti della manipolazione. E con la manipolazione si
diventa, piano piano, COGLIONI e PECORONI.

 diventa, piano piano, COGLIONI e PECORONI.
Temo che sia tu a far parte di queste categorie che citi e che probabilmene
non abbia letto i lbri di Moore, carichi di date, di rove, perfino di
documenti uffiacilai che la CIA declassifica dopo un certo numero di anno.
basterebbe l'elenco elle guerre fatte dagli States, le loro motivazione, la
loro conuzione, chi ci ha guadgnato... per spaventare qualsiasi lettore
dotato di un barlume di senso morale.
In ogni modo tutte le grandi menti di questo Paese, dai premi Nobel ai premi
Pulitzer, dai premi Oscar ai medagliati Field, con standing ovation da 10
minuti, apprezzano moltissimo il lavoro di Moore: quindi il tuo diprezzo
ricade su di te, tapinello.
aloha


ricade su di te, tapinello.
Michael More, dopo il suo documentario Fahrenheit 9/11 nelle elezioni
del 2004  Bush si guadagno' la Casa Bianca, e ora abbiamo Sicko,
speriamo bene anche per la prossima volta nel 2008.
Luciano.

di Bushetto.
Clamorosi brogli 'ste palle, tu c'hai il cervello inquinato da piu' di
mezzo secolo di politica italiana, ecco perche' parli cosi'.
Luciano


Il tapinello depicol non manca mai di aggiungee la sua chicca di cacca: a
lui non frega assolutamnte nulla ceh Bush abbia scippato con la frode la
Casa Bianca ad Algore e men che meno gli frega dello stato tragico della
sanità sattunitense!
Lui non legge, lui non vede, lui non sa. Però gli piacere sparare cazzatine
e sloan.
L'idea poi che un giornalista per quanto bravissimo e letto possa modificare
i risultati di una elezione di 250 milioni di persone è talmente cretna che
non va commentata!
E come quando dicevano che Travaglio denunciando che Berlsuconi era un
delinquente, gli aveva fatto vincere le elezioni!!!
Travaglio OVVIAMENTE si era limitato a fare il suo lavoro di cronista e
aveva detto quello che era. Poi ognuno fa quel che vuole e in quanti avranno
sentito Travaglio? Un milione, due milioni? E quanti avranno creduto alle
prove invece che alle menzogne del delinquente?
SICKO denuncia la situazione deforme della sanità USA: lo fa con cifre alla
mano, la cofronta con quella canadese e con alcune di quelle europee. Sono
dati INOPPUGNABILI.
Ma a quelli come il tapinello depicol non interessa la realtà!
Loro credono o nel creazionismo o nell'Idiot Design, votano i guerrafondai,
approvano la pena di morte e la lobby delle armi.
Ogni tanto un ragazzino acchiappa un mitra o un bazooka e fa una strage: ma
loro dicono che la libertà di porto d'armi sta scritta nella Costituzione e
non si cambia.
I nativi li hanno già sterminati, gli assalti ai treni sono diventati
rarissimi, i cowboy si limitano ad accompagnare le mandrie, Clint è
diventato decrepito e non riesce più ad estrarre la pistola, si va sulla
Luna, c'è Internet e i cellulari, vediamo l'intero pianeta con la TV , i
grattacieli glieli buttano giù con un temperino e un aereo passeggeri, ma la
lobby delle armi sostiene che tutto è com'era nel 1776.
Quando si dice "conservatori" eh????
Forse rimetteranno la schiavitù, daranno medaglie a quelli del KKK, e
insegneranno nelle scuole che un dio burlone nel 4004 a.C. creò il Sole e la
Terra e la Luna nascondendo nelle viscere della Terra le ossa pietrificate
dei dinosauri.... (ai bushemi che le stelle siano soli, che siano miliardi,
che le galassia siano a loro volta miliardi, che qello che accade su un
pianetucolo come il nostro sia del tuto insignifcante per l'Universo, non
passa neppure per la capa: loro si sentono al centro del creato, oggetti
primari di un Idiot Design....
Son fatti così.


Son fatti così.
Un bel delirio non c'e' che dire, comunque se non ti piace nessuno ti
obbliga a comprare, puoi sempre andare altrove.
Luciano

 obbliga a comprare, puoi sempre andare altrove.
Delirio il fatto che la Terra è un pianetucolo quasiasi sperso in una
immensità che tu non riesci a immaginare?
;-)
Sì, anche i nazisti dicevano che i lager di sterminio non erano affari che
potessero riguardare quelli a cui non piacevano: se non ti piacevano i forni
e i gasamenti potevi sempre andare altrove....(magari molto in fretta, ma
insomma....)
Tu non ragioni più depicol: che ti succede?


ernesto wrote:
:: Il cinema d'impegno di genere documentaristico è stato proprio
:: resuscitato da Michael Moore. Il suo ultimo "film", Sicko,
:: un'odissea nel ridicolo sistema sanitario privatistico statunitense
:: ha infatti colpito nel segno quanto i precedenti prodotti del
:: cineasta di Flint, Michigan.
Fino a quando negli USA la professione di Medico sarà la più ambita sarà 
sempre cosi.

 strutture che ospitano ospedali e ambulatori.
E non ti sorge il dubbio che le due cose siano collegate?

Dopo dura riflessione, depicolzuane ha scritto :

co 'questo non c'è speranza...lascia perdere, è tempo perso!


Povero depicol! lui non sa nulla neppure del paese in cui vive! Lui non sa
nulla dei controlli fatti che danno per ovvia e sicura la vittoria di Al
Gore nell'elezioni del 2000.
Il apino non sa mai nulla ma è convinto di sapere tutto.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
Battlefield Florida
A Chat with Lance deHaven-Smith
Al Gore really did beat George W. Bush in 2000. Six years on, this is still
a problem?
by Julian Pecquet
After spending 36 days in the fall of 2000 in thrall to politicians, pundits
and the press, Americans probably thought they knew all about the hanging,
dangling and pregnant chads that helped decide the presidential election.
Turns out, those chads only distracted attention from much more grievous
breakdowns during the 2000 election.
At least that’s what longtime Florida political observer Lance deHaven-Smith
believes. His most recent book, The Battle for Florida (University Press of
Florida, 2005), looks at the twilight of democracy in Ancient Greece and
draws disturbing parallels with the institutions in Florida and the nation
during the 2000 election and up until today.
 
For the past 25 years, deHaven-Smith has been one of just a handful of
observers of Florida’s elections and politics. And while most of his
colleagues don’t go as far as he does in finding fault with Florida’s
elected officials, none question his stature as respected researcher who can
be counted on to provide the press with timely and pithy appraisals of just
about any development in the colorful world of Florida politics.
For this book (his ninth), deHaven-Smith compiled legal documents,
statistical analyses and public records, and flavored them with his
interpretation of what it all means.
Despite having grown up in the South—deHaven-Smith lived between Florida and
Georgia until his departure for graduate studies at Ohio State—his expertise
in the Sunshine State’s election trends was greatly a matter of chance.
In 1981, the year he came down to teach at Florida Atlantic, the young
political scientist was one of the nation’s top experts on a massive
training program for poor people until one fell flick of a bureaucratic pen
in Washington changed their life, and his.
“It eliminated my subject matter,” he says, laughing now. “I started
studying Florida public opinion and politics. I had gone to Ohio State,
which is a big school in voting research and public opinion research, but it
was all at the national level.”
The other fortuity was that he came down to Florida in the first place.
“I had another job offer at Case Western in Cleveland,” he says, “and then I
went down to interview—this was in Boca Raton. It was in February. They took
me to breakfast at a hotel where we ate outside by the intracoastal canal. I
mean, it was right in the middle of winter, Ohio weather was terrible, and
there I was, outside. So, sign me up.”
There, he immersed himself in Florida politics, under the tutelage of the
famed John DeGrove, a nationally recognized expert in growth management.
DeHaven-Smith moved on to FSU in 1994, where he headed the Reuben Askew
School of Public Administration and Policy from 1995 to 1998.
Research in Review caught up with the professor while he was waiting for
people to check out his book—and simultaneously sighing in relief that it’s
hardly garnered any attention, yet.
“I think if it would have come out a year earlier, it would have,” he says.
“I’m kind of glad it didn’t, though, because of all the right-wing critics.”
—J.P.
 
RinR: One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the
focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president)—the hanging,
dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads—was misplaced. Instead, you explain
that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of
Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on
election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were
in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for
president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the
election?
LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that
Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where
all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most
decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore
in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that
were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots
were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes,
where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody
looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it
made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge
Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by
the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much
attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then
Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was
voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of
those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an
analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight
largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on
46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only
17,000.
RinR: For your research, you merged this set of data with detailed profiles
of Florida’s electoral precincts. What did you find?
LdHS: One of the things I found that hadn’t been reported anywhere is, if
you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black
precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida,
these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history
of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on
technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark.
So you can understand why African Americans would be so careful, checking
off Gore’s name on the list of candidates and also writing Gore’s name in
the space for write-in votes. But because of the way the vote-counting
machines work, this had the opposite effect: the machines threw out their
ballots.
RinR: One of the reasons, you argue, that the most popular candidate ended
up losing the election is because so many Americans favored partisan
rhetoric over an unbiased search for truth during the recounts in 2000. How
do you explain this?
LdHS: As far as I can tell, it’s the way societies work. One of the things
we’ve learned with public opinion research, the most fundamental finding of
public opinion research of the past 50 years is that the masses follow the
elites.
Most people don’t have time to learn about all these things, and they look
to a particular person that they trust. It may not be the president, it may
be Jesse Jackson, you know, it could be Rush Limbaugh, it could be somebody
who’s not in government, but they look at that person and defer to that
person. It’s a normal thing.
I don’t see that changing. It really is a matter of elites being willing to
be committed to democracy and the rule of law and the rule of reason.
RinR: And this can be a problem because?
LdHS: Unfortunately, the history of democracy is that leadership philosophy
is eroded as the competition between elites becomes more intense. That’s
what happened with Athenian democracy; that’s what happened in the Roman
Republic. So you look at our system today; you see our elites doing it, and
you know we’re in big trouble. It’s in my lifetime that this has happened,
that elites have begun to put winning ahead everything else, ahead of truth
and country.
When Watergate was prosecuted, there were Republicans in Congress that were
after Nixon. They thought what he was doing was unconscionable, and today
that’s not the case. Today, Democrats stick with Democrats, and Republicans
stick with Republicans. They don’t care what their party leaders have done.
Just in my lifetime, I’ve seen this civic culture go from something that’s
respectful of democracy to something that is manipulative of it.
The problem is if you let this go uncorrected, the Democrats are going to do
something worse later, and then the Republicans. It’s just an arms race
almost, and it will just tend to degenerate.
RinR: How does the 2000 election fit into that view?
LdHS: I think my book is at times rather blunt about the illegalities I
think that were committed and the political motives that ran rampant.
I wish I could say, “Well, we’ll leave it alone; we won’t look at it because
it would shake people’s confidence in our society.” But I’m afraid the elite
discourse—unless it’s corrected, unless elites start recognizing that they
have a responsibility to maintain a democracy among themselves—we’re going
to have a big problem.
RinR: So, what’s the overarching theme of The Battle for Florida?
LdHS: It really tells a simple story in some ways. It essentially says that
the people responsible for administering the election had a conflict of
interest and that they, in a variety of ways, prevented the recount from
being conducted.
I go into explaining…why would it operate like this? One factor that drove
it this way is essentially that the Republicans are on the losing side of a
huge demographic trend in this state: an increasing minority population. And
they know this—it’s not a secret.
One reason there was administrative sabotage of the recount was because a
number of steps had already been taken to try to lock in the Republican
control of Florida in the face of these demographics that are running in the
other direction.
The other thing the book looks at, in addition to the long history leading
up to this event, is also what came out afterwards, what was done, were
problems corrected, what investigations were conducted? And the story there
is, gee, there was really very little investigation, amazingly little, given
the importance of the election and the controversy.
Frankly, I would never have written this book had there been any careful
investigation done afterwards. That was what shook me after the election, I
was expecting people would go into it, find out what had happened and
straighten out the problems so it wouldn’t happen again.
RinR: But Florida’s 2001 Election Reform Act has been described as a model
for the nation. They banned the punch cards; they gave $6 million for voter
education; and they’re requiring computer systems to let voters know, once
they’re in the booth, if they’ve voted too many times or failed to cast a
valid vote. Are you saying those changes are just cosmetic?
LdHS: They were worse than cosmetic. They focused on the technology, which
was not the real problem. The problem was you just had partisans running the
system at every level, even on the Supreme Court. It was everywhere. So if
you wanted to correct this system, you’ve got to get that partisanship out
of the process. And that was not done.
And the touch-screen system—it’s a terrible thing that’s being done with
this technology, because you can’t double-check it. You have no paper trail
on it.
RinR: Aren’t the new machines supposed to let you know if you didn’t cast a
valid vote?
LdHS:: No, that’s one of the problems. It’s obviously not letting people
know. There was a special election in the spring, where only one contest was
on the ballot. I think it was the spring of 2004, in Palm Beach County where
several hundred voters came…and turned in ballots that didn’t register a
vote. [Robert] Wexler, a congressman there, sued to try to get the
touch-screen machines either decertified or require a paper ballot because
he said, “People aren’t going to come out for this one thing and not cast a
vote.”
It shows that the machines have got a problem. But the state wouldn’t act.
RinR: There’s been a profusion of books and essays already written about the
election. What do you bring to the table?
LdHS: For one thing, I study Florida politics and know the law. I’d been
director of the local government commission several years earlier, which
looks at all the local governments and how they’re staffed, how they’re
organized, what their financing is.
I had also been the executive director of the cabinet reform commission in
1996. What both of those commissions ended up exposing was a fairly arcane,
poorly understood cabinet system and inter-governmental system that is
really how our elections are run, how our law-enforcement policies are
implemented, road planning, things like that—things people don’t think that
much about.
So I knew about all that. I was in Tallahassee. I got to watch a lot of the
election controversy itself. And I had the political science background on
the demographic trends, the election trends. So I really had a unique
combination of background experiences and subject matter expertise and then
plain old luck in being … in the capital city of the state where it
happened.
RinR: Throughout the book, you repeat that Florida’s election law—especially
the rule that no vote “shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear
indication of the intent of the vote”—is in fact much more straightforward
than was made out during the controversy. So then, who do you fault the most
for making it all seem so murky?
LdHS: I would say [then-Secretary of State] Katherine Harris in terms of
murky—in terms of what the law intended and what it meant. There was a
contradiction in the law. What it said was you have to get the recount done
within a very short time, and it just wasn’t possible. But that’s not
uncommon. You just have to interpret it with common sense.
Part of what was going on was the stakes were really high; the people
involved were very inexperienced; Harris didn’t know [Attorney General Bob]
Butterworth; they were not cordial. But if it had been a group of leaders
who had been around for a while, they would have sat down and easily said,
“Well, here’s a way to resolve this problem.” But that wasn’t the aim of the
people involved. The aim was from the beginning to stop the recount.
Yet if you looked at the law and if you looked at the case law, what Florida
had consistently said was if you can count the votes, you must count the
votes. You cannot penalize the voters for mistakes that the administrators
make or that the law may make. You really have to give the voters the
advantage.
 
RinR: Throughout The Battle for Florida, you claim the law was bent out of
shape to satisfy partisan goals. Does that mean you think some of the
actions by Florida’s elected officials merit a legal investigation?
LdHS: Yes, absolutely. To me, I think what this election teaches us is,
first of all, we need to strengthen the penalties for election tampering and
we need to return to an earlier understanding of “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” We’ve gotten to the point today where we’re looking for
smoking guns all the time. And the truth is that these officials take an
oath of office to uphold the constitution, and that oath is a broad
requirement that they enforce the laws with good intentions.
But there wasn’t even a cursory investigation of the events, which points to
another legal requirement…that we develop some kind of mechanism to
investigate the government. We have the government investigating itself, and
inevitably it’s unlikely you’re going to get much investigation.
If you look at the last 40 years at government investigating itself, the
only time we’ve gotten aggressive investigation is when one party controlled
Congress and the other party controlled the executive branch. (During)
Watergate, it was Democrats investigating a Republican; Iran-Contra,
Democrats investigating a Republican; Monica Lewinsky, the Clinton
impeachment, Republicans investigating a Democrat. There, you get some
aggressiveness. But otherwise, you really have a system that’s not
accountable because it won’t investigate itself. And if it investigates
itself, it exonerates itself.
RinR: Isn’t that just human nature?
LdHS: Absolutely, and that’s what our institutions are designed to do: Take
the human beings with all their best and worst and structure them in a way
that we can produce a democratic, responsible government. We’ve come a long
way. I mean, if you think about it, secret balloting is a relatively new
invention. In Reconstruction, when blacks were first voting, they did it in
public. You had a specific ballot that you took in for a particular
candidate, and they knew who you were voting for.
It’s all part of the historical developmental process where we try to make
our government more democratic, more responsive, more transparent. But we’ve
still got a long way to go.
RinR: What about recount procedures? Have those been clarified?
LdHS: There are now specified standards. So let’s say we need to have a
recount: You would now have standards that would be uniform across the state
as opposed to under the law in 2000, (when) the election commissions at the
local level were supposed to determine that.
But the reality was (in 2000) people were using rules of thumb. Now…the law
specifies what the requirements are.
RinR: How do you think your political beliefs influence your views? You call
yourself an independent, right?
LdHS: Certainly when I came to Tallahassee in 1994, I viewed myself as part
of a professional leadership class in the state. There was a group of
professional, ex-politicians – [Former Governor] Reubin Askew would have
been one—of people who were knowledgeable and active and interested and not
really partisan.
But state politics changed. When [Gov. Lawton] Chiles beat Jeb Bush by
60,000 votes, it was one of the closest elections up to that time. I
remember Chiles saying that he had never experienced a campaign like that.
Jeb Bush had brought in a Washington-style, highly effective, highly
professional campaign and nearly beat him. Chiles was a legend in Florida,
an incumbent governor, and he almost got beat.
By 1998, Jeb Bush…went about really consolidating authority, and it became a
very partisan system. And at that point, frankly, my political orientation
quit mattering. What started mattering to me was having a democracy, having
a government that was actually responsive.
One of the things I would hear a lot is people would say, well, if the
Democrats were in, they would do the same thing. And I thought about that,
and…my conclusion…is “hell no, they wouldn’t.” I know the Democrats; I know
Reuben Askew. That guy would have been an absolute maniac about being
technically and legally and ethically straightforward and correct in the
application of the law. If there had been a recount under his
administration, he would have been bending over backwards to make sure it
was right.
(But) today, the belief in the truth, that there (even) is a truth, has
pretty much vanished across the board. It’s not just Democrats; it’s not
just Republicans. But it’s been replaced by cynicism.
RinR: Finally, I’d like to go back to the “big picture” theme of your book.
You call for an unflinching search for truth in the tradition of the Ancient
Greeks who questioned everything. But Socrates, the top truth-searcher of
the day, was put to death for constantly prodding citizens to examine
whether their convictions were grounded in a firm foundation of
facts—suggesting he was “too democratic” to live in a Republic. Two thousand
and some years later, what makes you think a majority of Americans—or
anybody else, for that matter—want to stare their democratic shortcomings in
the face?
LdHS: I’m not sure that they do.
After Socrates was executed, Plato, his student, went out to the countryside
to buy a piece of land. He bought it from the family of a war hero named
Academus. … And the academy today is called that by virtue of this decision.
The reason Plato went out of town is, he realized the town people didn’t
want to hear that their beliefs about the gods were myths, that their
institutions were founded somewhat arbitrarily, that they didn’t know what
they were talking about when they said they wanted justice.
You’d like to hope that in the 21st century people would be mature enough,
but I don’t know. This is a turning point potentially for us. If we don’t
recognize the disorder, I don’t think we have many years left of democracy
in the United States.
I’m not entirely convinced that it’s not too late, even as we speak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tutti i brogli delle elezioni Usa
Tratto da Adista Notizie n. 87 - 11 dicembre 2004
Le elezioni presidenziali Usa 2004? Una colossale frode ai danni dei
cittadini americani, di fronte alla quale i piccoli "maneggi" della Florida
nel 2000 sono state bazzecole. Ne parla un articolo di John Andrew Manisco
pubblicato sul sito 
www.reporterassociati.org
, che spiega la strategia
dolosa con cui Bush ha vinto le elezioni. Nel 2000 Bush vinse in Florida
grazie alla Corte suprema, per lo più repubblicana, che bloccò il
riconteggio delle schede perforate (proprio nel momento in cui Bush era in
vantaggio di un soffio). Due anni dopo, la legge "Help America Vote Act" ha
reso la frode elettorale molto più facile: privatizzazione del processo
elettorale e adozione di sistemi elettronici che non lasciano traccia
cartacea. E le quattro compagnie private incaricate sono tutte legate a
Bush. In alcuni Stati, hanno denunciato numerosi cittadini, l'elettore
votava Kerry ma il computer registrava il voto per Bush; sei deputati hanno
chiesto un'indagine formale dopo aver constatato che alcune macchine
contavoto aggiungevano voti inesistenti (93.136 in una sola contea
dell'Ohio). In Florida, si è presentata nell'ufficio elettorale della contea
di Volusia Bev Harris, impegnata da anni sul fronte dei brogli elettorali.
Ha chiesto i nastri originali di ogni macchina, controfirmati dai funzionari
del seggio. Ebbene: dapprima le sono state mostrate copie dei nastri non
firmate, poi, di fronte alle sue proteste, le è stato intimato di uscire.
Ciononostante si è data da fare e ha scoperto sacchi della spazzatura
contenenti i nastri originali firmati. Il risultato è che, affiancando dati
ufficiali e nastri, risultano in tutti i seggi centinaia di voti in più per
Bush. Infine, la questione degli exit poll che avevano previsto un vantaggio
per Kerry negli Stati chiave: in tre contee fortemente democratiche della
Florida Bush ha ricevuto tra i 130.000 e i 260.000 voti in più del previsto.
E negli Stati chiave della Florida, dell'Ohio e della Pennsylvania, tutte le
differenze tra exit poll e voto finale erano a svantaggio di Kerry: cosa che
può verificarsi con una probabilità su 250 milioni.
--------
ernesto


Gore nell'elezioni del 2000. Il apino non sa mai nulla ma č convinto di sapere tutto.
Puoi raccontare la balla dei brogli quanto vuoi, ma i fatti sotto
lenti d'ingrandimento sono testardi, e i fatti ti smetiscono.
Luciano


Speri male. Le leggi attuali gli impediscono un ulteriore
mandato.

Tu non ragioni più depicol: che ti succede?
Mi succede che dopo un campeggio di un paio di giorni e una mangiata
di vongole fresche fresche appena pescate sono pronto di nuovo a
sbugiardarti come prima.
Luciano



Lo so...io spero che non ci vada uno o una di sinistra :)
Luciano

 Luciano
Ne devi mangiare parecchie di cozze e di vongole
prima di arrivare a sbugiardare Ernesto.
PS: ti ricordo che Michael Moore e' piu americano di te
--CJ 

PS: ti ricordo che Michael Moore e' piu americano di te
Mica ci vuole tanto gia' che io non sono americano :)
Luciano

 Luciano
Questo li si capisce dai tuoi post: sai poco e niente degli Stati Uniti. Ci
vivi ma come molta gente che vive in Italia nulla sai di quanto succede ai
piani ali, fino al punto da ignorare che и ormai ben accertato che Bushetto
aveva perso le elezioni contro Al Gore!!!
Bush passerа alla Stroia come un truffatore e un assassino di 300 mila
iracheni, tra cui 50mila bambini col risultato di avere innescato una guerra
civile senza fine, rinfocolato il terrorismo ma arricchite le lobby delle
armi e dei petrolieri a spese del popolo americano derubato delle vite dei
suoi giovani e di miliardi di dollari.
Gli americani, quelli veri, anche quelli storditi dal vile attentato alle
Torri, ormai esecrano Bushetto: se poi uno pensa che tutti quei morti,
americani e iracheni, non ci sarebbero stati senza i brogli del fratello di
Bush, governatore della Florida, davvero si incazza!


 Luciano
SE SOLO IGNORANTE, DISINFORMATO E TESTONE.
Visto che spero tu sappia leggere l'inglese, ti prego di leggere
l'articoleto qui sotto (dovresti farcela, è breve) e non dire più stronzate
su Bushetto, ladro della presidenza, assassino di 300 mila iracheni e 3500
ragazzi USA (già più delle vittime delle due torri!).
Jeb Bush blamed for unfair Florida election
Civil rights commission says minorities were disenfranchised by governor's
'gross dereliction' in ignoring problems
Special report: the US elections
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday June 6, 2001
The Guardian
Thousands of black electors in Florida were disenfranchised in last
November's election by an electoral system tainted by "injustice, ineptitude
and inefficiency" a leaked report by the US civil rights commission says.
It accuses Governor Jeb Bush, the president's brother, and his secretary of
state, Katherine Harris, of "gross dereliction" of duty, saying they "chose
to ignore mounting evidence" of the problems.
The eight-strong commission, whose report will be published on Friday, found
that black voters were "10 times more likely than white voters to have their
ballots rejected", and pointed to the use of a flawed list of felons and
ex-felons to purge the voting rolls.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20% of Florida's total population is black but half the prison
inmates are black.
"It is not a question of a recount or even an accurate count, but more
pointedly the issue is those whose exclusion from the right to vote amounted
to a 'No Count'," the report says.
But the commission failed to find "conclusive evidence" that there was a
conspiracy among Florida officials to disenfranchise voters.
Republican-appointed members distanced themselves from the conclusions and
expressed anger that it had been leaked before they had seen a final draft.
Aides to Governor Bush and Ms Harris criticised the leak too. A spokeswoman
said that since the election the governor had approved a raft of reform
measures aimed at improving the state's voting system.
Russell Redenbaugh, one of the Republican appointees, told the New York
Times: "There are a number of people who are so displeased with the outcome
of the election that they would do almost anything to cast a cloud over the
legitimacy of the election and the legitimacy of this administration."
After more than a month of haggling over recounts and the intervention of
the supreme court, George Bush was declared winner of the presidential
election in Florida by 537 votes.
The report says the tiny margin was overwhelmed by the numbers of
disproportionately minority voters denied the right to vote by the flawed
database of felons, and the widespread use of outdated voting technology in
black and Hispanic districts, where the resources to correct mistakes were
scarcest.
In an extract quoted by the Washington Post, the report says: "Despite the
closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement and
not the dead-heat contest that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida
election."
The felons list was put together by a private company, Database Technologies
(DBT), which has conceded that it was riddled with mistakes but says it
warned the Florida authorities to check it before using it.
Ms Harris's office said that was the responsibility of elections supervisors
in the state's 67 counties, but many local officials said they lacked the
means to verify it.
Some opted not to use the list at all, which allowed some ex-convicts to
cast votes illegally. But in counties where the list was used, many voters
with clean records found themselves barred from voting because they shared a
name with a convict.
The commission found that poor counties with high minority populations were
more likely than wealthier white ones to use inefficient voting systems
which rejected a higher percentage of ballots.
Some Hispanic and Haitian voters were not given ballots in their native
languages or provided bilingual assistance.
The report criticises Ms Harris's decision to reject a budget proposal to
spend $100,000 on educating voters.
The Florida attorney general's office said it was investigating the
allegation of civil rights violations and would give "due consideration" to
the commission's report.
The commission is expected to call for a US justice department inquiry.
"The report underscores officially what most of us have known all along,"
Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of
Coloured People, told the Washington Post.
Barbara Arnwine, who runs the Lawyers Committee of Civil Rights Under Law,
said the report confirmed her organisation's findings.
"I was absolutely shocked by the scale of voter denial and the
disenfranchisement of black voters." The action of the state authorities was
"a violation of the fundamental trust that we all give to state-elected
officials to protect our right to vote".
--------------------------------- GOT
IT???????????????--------------------------------
aloha


Jeb Bush blamed for unfair Florida election
A queste cazzate ho gia' risposto qualche tempo fa.
Luciano

Questo li si capisce dai tuoi post: sai poco e niente degli Stati Uniti.
Se lo dici tu :)
Luciano


LO DICO E LO PROVO: infatti con un turno da cameriere o commesso di sei ore
non si vive, bisogna farne due. Il che significa lavorare 12 ore al giorno.
Le banche sono aperte anche di domenica in molti posti e i nativi, ahimè
sono stati sterminati!
E tu sei sepolto nella tua IGNORANA TOTALE e accusi gli altri di dire
falsità. Aggiornati.
Aspetto le altre "smerdate" povero depicol: mi ricordi le scimmiette dello
zoo di los Angelese che si cacavano in mano e poi tiravano in alto lo sterco
facendosi la doccia.... Vuoi insistere? Dài, che ci divertiamo tutti...
ernesto



LO DICO E LO PROVO: infatti con un turno da cameriere o commesso di sei ore
non si vive, bisogna farne due. Il che significa lavorare 12 ore al giorno.
Le banche sono aperte anche di domenica in molti posti e i nativi, ahimè
sono stati sterminati!
E tu sei sepolto nella tua IGNORANZA TOTALE e accusi gli altri di dire
falsità. Aggiornati.
Aspetto le altre "smerdate" povero depicol: mi ricordi le scimmiette dello
zoo di los Angelese che si cacavano in mano e poi tiravano in alto lo sterco
facendosi la doccia.... Vuoi insistere? Dài, che ci divertiamo tutti...
ernesto
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/


Scusa depicol, ma tu sei un oriundo semianalfabeta e non puoi rispondere
assolutamente nulla alle prove mastodontiche che ormai puoi trovare dovunque
e che dimostrano la TRUFFA DELLA FLORIDA.
Quindi tu puoi chiamare "cazzate" la realtà, ma sono cazzi tuoi.
Per chi è intressato ai fatti:
http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html


facendosi la doccia.... Vuoi insistere? Dài, che ci divertiamo tutti...
Aspetti? Eccoti servito, avevi scritto:
"Resta comunque il fatto assolutamente noto e banale che in USA le 
imposte si pagano come e più che da noi"
Sei capace di portare qualche dato a sostegno di questa tua cazzata?
Fino adesso hai fatto una magra figura.
Luciano
ps...last but not least, dimmi pallonaro, dove si trova l'isola di
Mihau? O e' stato un errore di battitura anche quello? heheheheheh!


http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
Le chiamo per quel che sono, cioe' cazzate, cazzate che come ho detto
sopra avevo commentato punto per punto qualche tempo fa e che non mi
va di ripetermi.
Luciano

 Luciano
Qualcuno ha commentatao a questo prorpsito, poareto. ;-))
ernesto


 Luciano
cazzi tuoi, cazzi tuoi, cazzi tuoi: io ho cercato di aiutarti, di
informarti, se non vuoi leggere e capire cazzi tuoi, cazzi tuoi, cazzi
tuoi...;-))))
alooha!


depicolzuane ha detto questo lunedì :

non esiste la sinistra negli usa
MA QUANTO SEI IGNORANTE!?

la forca poi risultati innocentei (...oh, very sorry!), eccetera.
Veramente per tutti quelli che scelgono una lieta convivenza invece
che la criminalita' o il terrorismo.
Luciano

MA QUANTO SEI IGNORANTE!?
La sinistra USA non e' uguale uguale a quella italiana ma esiste, e va
dal nome Democratic Party, stessa cosa con la destra, non e' uguale
uguale alla destra italiana ma esiste, e va dal nome Repubblican
Party, anche tu oggi hai imparato qualche cosa, no charge.
Luciano

TU SEI MATTO.
Se lo dici tu :)
Luciano


http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
Balle, tu non sai perche' Al Gore fu bocciato dagli elettori del
Tennesse, in casa sua, nel suo Stato e quanto pare nemmeno l'autore di
quel libro (la vittoria in Tennessee gli avrebbe guadagnato la Casa
Bianca senza la Florida) eppure li' sta la chiave della sua sconfitta,
in Tennessee, ed e' proprio a causa di quella bocciatura in casa sua
che Al Gore non si candido' alle elezioni presidenziali del 2004,
questo Gore lo sa, e sara' il suo inferno in terra come lo e' per Ted
Kennedy la vicenda di Chappaquiddick.
Luciano