"The Earth is round. Two plus two equals four. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for President and Vice President of the United States" Smartmatic v. Fox

Smartmatic, a maker of election technology is suing For News for knowingly broadcasting lies about their company for financial gain.  

Fake news is not new. In a post about Misleading Headlines I wrote about serious problems rife in the US from 1898 when there was a circulation feud between the Hearst's and the Pulitzers.  

But Fox News goes well beyond headlines.  The  whole story is often totally made up.  The First Amendment has been interpreted to give a lot of leeway for legitimate news media to make honest, even sloppy  mistakes.  

However, as you read the allegations in this case (and based on everyone's personal experience either with Fox News directly or on the ever-present clips on different social media) it's clear that Fox has often pushed the protections of the First Amendment to the point that they are actually causing harm to people and companies and endangering democracy, by labeling fiction as non-fiction.

Distinguishing Free Speech from Slander and Libel

So how do we balance free speech and slander and libel?  There have always been laws against slander and libel.  Smartmatic is claiming that Fox and its on air spokespersons not only made patently false claims, but they knew that they were doing it, and in doing it they did Smartmatic irreparable harm, for Fox's financial gain and to help reelect Trump.  

Findlaw outlines the key elements of libel (written) and slander (spoken).

To prove either type of a defamation lawsuit, plaintiffs must prove the following elements:

• The defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
• The defendant made the defamatory statement to a third party knowing it was false (or they should have known it was false); and
• The publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.

It's clear Smartmatic's lawyers know these basic principles of the law and there charges go well beyond claiming damage to Smartmatic and intended gain for Fox.  I'd note I had some personal education on this topic when an attorney sent me an email threatening to sue me if I didn't take down a post the speculated about whether his client was a scam.  Fortunately I had access to a great Alaskan First Amendment attorney who wrote a letter in response.  

Here's a link to the suit Smarmatic filed.  And excerpts below are taken from the documents filed today.

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

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

SMARTMATIC USA CORP., SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V., and SGO CORPORATION LIMITED,

Plaintiffs, -against-

FOX CORPORATION, FOX NEWS NETWORK LLC, LOU DOBBS, MARIA BARTIROMO, JEANINE PIRRO, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, and SIDNEY POWELL,

Defendants.

The basic narrative of the case is that Fox knowingly made up facts defaming their company for Fox to gain a bigger audience and it did great damage to the company. 

INTRODUCTION1

1. The Earth is round. Two plus two equals four. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for President and Vice President of the United States. The election was not stolen, rigged, or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable. [emphasis added]

2. Defendants have always known these facts. They knew Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 U.S. election. They knew the election was not stolen. They knew the election was not rigged or fixed. They knew these truths just as they knew the Earth is round and two plus two equals four.

3. Defendants did not want Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to win the election. They wanted President Donald Trump and Vice President Michael Pence to win re-election. Defendants were disappointed. But they also saw an opportunity to capitalize on President Trump’s popularity by inventing a story. Defendants decided to tell people that the election was stolen from President Trump and Vice President Pence.

The Table of Contents gives you the general narrative of their case.  I'll give you just a taste of what's there.  Again, the link his here.

 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................................................... 12

1. Smartmatic’s Role as an Election Technology Company ..................................................... 13

   1. Smartmatic grew from a small start-up into a successful multi-billion-dollar
      enterprise. ....................................................................................................................... 14

   2. Smartmatic’s success was built on its reputation for secure, reliable, and auditable election technology and software. .................................................................................. 18

   3. Smartmatic had a relatively small, non-controversial role in the 2020 U.S. election. ... 19

      1. Los Angeles County introduced a new Voting Solutions for All People initiative for the 2020 U.S. election................................................................................................ 19

      2. Los Angeles County selected Smartmatic to contribute election technology and software to the Voting Solutions for All People initiative. ....................................... 22

      3. Smartmatic’s involvement with Los Angeles County was a success. ....................... 23

   4. Smartmatic quietly celebrated its success in Los Angeles without knowing what was coming from Defendants. ............................................................................................... 25

2. Defendants’ Disinformation Campaign Against Smartmatic ................................................ 27

   1. Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell created a story about Smartmatic. ................................... 30

   2. Fox Defendants joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software. .................................................................................. 32

   3. Defendants engaged in a widespread disinformation campaign against Smartmatic and its election technology and software. ............................................................................. 34

   4. Defendants used multiple platforms to spread disinformation....................................... 57

   5. Defendants presented their statements about Smartmatic as facts, not opinions ........... 67

3. Defendants’FalseStatementsandImplicationsAboutSmartmatic......................................78

   A.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic’s election technology and software were widely used in the 2020 U.S. election..................................................... 79

   B.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Dominion used Smartmatic’s election technology and software during the 2020 U.S. election................................................. 84

   C.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic fixed, rigged, and stole the 2020 U.S. election for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.............................................................. 92

   D.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic sent votes to foreign countries for tabulation during the 2020 U.S. election. ............................................................... 102

   E.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic’s election technology and software were compromised or hacked during the 2020 U.S. election. ....................... 106

   F.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic was previously banned from providing election technology and software in the United States. ............................... 112

   G.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic is a Venezuelan company founded and funded by corrupt dictators from socialist and communist countries...... 115

   H.  Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic’s election technology and software were designed to fix, rig, and steal elections. ................................................ 122

IV. Defendants Acted with Actual Malice and Ill Will Towards Smartmatic........................... 132
    A.    Defendants had no support for their statements and implications regarding
Smartmatic. ................................................................................................................... 133
Defendants did not have sources to prove something that did not happen.............. 134
Fox Defendants eventually admitted they had no basis for their statements and implications about Smartmatic. ............................................................................... 135
Fox News knew its anchors and guests lacked a basis for their statements and implications about Smartmatic. ............................................................................... 143
Defendants purposefully avoided learning the truth about Smartmatic and its election technology and software. ......................................................................................... 147
B.  Defendants had access to information showing their statements and implications about Smartmatic and its technology and software were factually inaccurate....................... 148
Defendants knew Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not widely used in the 2020 U.S. election (and were not used in contested states). ................. 149
Defendants knew Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not used to fix, rig, or steal the 2020 U.S. election. ................................................................... 160

That's enough to get you started.  The Roberts court has given a lot of deference to the First Amendment, but it seems this case is going to help the draw some lines.  And if the Plaintiffs are successful, there will be a new weapon against fake news.   This could be an important step in the fight against fake news.  

Election Thoughts 4: Evangelical Trumpers And Al-Qaeda Members Aren't All That Different

I'm reading The Black Banners by Ali Soufan.  Soufan was born in Lebanon and came to the US with

his parents as a child.  After college he applied to the FBI and finished a graduate degree while waiting to hear back.  

Because he's a native Arabic speaker he got involved with anti-terrorism as soon as he got into the FBI and through the training program in November 1999. 

I was struck by this passage.  Soufan is writing about how they prepare for interrogating Al-Qaeda suspects.  At this point in the book, he's in Yemen tracking down the men who blew up the USS Cole in Aden.  

"Al-Qaeda members commonly had the same problems with time-lines that Yemenis did.  Part of the reason is cultural:  in the West we are trained to think in a linear manner, and we learn that the truth can be arrived at by following a series of logical steps.  Al-Qaeda members, however, are greatly influenced by conspiracy theories, and they suspend their critical thinking.  Rather than logic, they have a culture based on relationships and impressions, and there is considerable willingness, on their part, to accept conspiracy theories to explain certain events. Bin Laden capitalized on this by reiterating long-standing assertions that America, Israel, and the West were trying to subjugate the Arab and Muslim world and destroy the Islamic faith." (p. 266)

Surely this description of beliefs in conspiracy theories which interfere with logic sounds very familiar to the die-hard Trump supporters.  

And the idea of a "culture based on relationships and impressions" also corresponds to people who hero worship Trump and know truth through a sort of impression.  

So they are easily convinced by their leader that, say, Democrats have stolen or faked millions of votes.  Or however many Trump suggests.  And the fact that Trump's details vary from hour to hour doesn't matter either.  

Here he discusses the need to focus on details of time and whereabouts:

"Concomitant with pledging bayat to their leader, and in preparation for the possibility of capture by Western intelligence, al-Qaeda operatives are trained to come up with a false narrative that follows linear thinking;  but they find it hard to stick to lies when questioned in minute detail.  A key part of successful interrogations is to ask detailed question related to time and whereabouts.  Such questions are easy for a detainee to answer if he is telling the truth, but if he is lying, it is hard for him to keep the story straight.  Often Badawi would not lie completely but give a partial lie.  By zeroing in on the details, we could see where he was lying.  I would point it out, he would correct himself, and slowly we'd get the full picture." (p. 226)

The FBI has an advantage over most of us.  They get to interrogate suspects over hours and days even and to focus on factual details until the suspect trips himself up (and so far the suspects have always been male in the book.)

We, on the other hand, deal with fleeting exchanges, at best, with Trump cultists.  We don't have the luxury of pinning them down in most exchanges.  But I put down this idea of getting details because I think it's more effective than yelling and demeaning.  "Tell me exactly how Biden tampered with the votes in Pennsylvania and how you know this."  At worst you're being respectful, at best you may cause some recognition that they have no facts.  

The best rebuttal is getting more votes nationally and in enough states to win the electoral college and to have lawyers who know the law and how to argue it and who don't  hold press conferences in garden supply stores that have a name in common with giant hotel chains

 [Think of this post as notes jotted down so I don't forget.  Even more than usual.  I know this comparison of similarities between Al-Qaeda and Trump cultists is pretty limited, but I want to get this passage down before it gets lost in the 500+ pages of this very compelling  book, that shines a light into the shadows of bin Laden's terrorist network as well as the security agencies in the US government.]

 

Election Thoughts 2: What Gives the AP (Associated Press) The Right To Call The Election?

 Actually, anyone has the right to call the election at any time.  Whether anyone pays any attention is another matter.  Here, from the India Times, are the details of how the outcome is officially determined. (It's interesting that the first answer to my Google question was the India Times.  Does this have anything to do with a) India being the second most populous country in the world and b) Kamala Harris being the new vice president?):  

"On December 14th, the members of the Electoral College will meet in their respective state capitals to formally vote for the position of president and vice president. On January 6th, 2021, electoral votes will be counted before a joint session of Congress, where the president of the Senate will formally announce the election results."

So, I guess my answer would be that AP can call the election because they have the history and reputation for accuracy and even-handedness that gives them the credibility necessary to be listened to. The AP style manual sets the standard for AP reporters around the world and many other non-AP media use it even if they stray on some points here and there.  

The "ABOUT THE AP' page says:

"The AP's mission is to get it first but first get it right, and to be the first choice for news, by providing the fastest, most accurate reporting from every corner of the globe across all media types and platforms"

I checked the Table of Contents of my 2015 copy to see what they said about calling presidential elections.  Nothing really. 

The index sends us to "election returns" which just gives us technical standards (ie "Use figures with commas eery three digits starting at the right and counting left.")  It also sends you to "vote tabulations" but that too is is just technical standards for what words to use, use numbers for totals, etc.  

I can't find anything on how they call  elections in the Style Manual, but I did google and found this explanation "EXPLAINER: Why AP called the 2020 election for Joe Biden" on AP's website.  It goes into detail how they did it.  

For more about the AP, here's their "Our Story" page.  It covers their 

• Mission,
• History, 
• News Values and Principles, 
• Leadership, 
• Corporate Archives
• Brand

 I'd note that the "Stylebook" (pages 1-296) of the manual is made up of entries in alphabetical order like a dictionary.

I'd also note it says that nothing in the Style Manual may be reproduced without permission.  I've got the picture of the manual and table of contents as part of a news story here.  And a very brief quote.  I'm hoping this isn't in violation of their rules.  

Drive Up Recall Dunleavy Station

Gathering petitions during a pandemic isn't easy.  Without the pandemic, the Recall Dunleavy folks would have turned in their petitions by now and we'd either be having a special election, or it would be going on the August primary ballots.

But as I went to pick the groceries I'd ordered online, I passed the IBEW and other union offices and there was a drive up petition signing space - with everyone masked.  They have stations in Fairbanks and Sitka too.

But when I pulled into the curbside pickup space at Carr's (Safeway), I notice another signature gatherer.

I asked the person who was bringing out my groceries if she knew what he was gathering signatures for.  She didn't, but said she'd check.

She said it was term limits.  I looked that up, but couldn't find anything local, but there is a national term limit petition.

Anyway, he was NOT wearing a mask and approaching everyone coming out the door.  He is standing outside, so I guess even the Mayor's new mask policy that goes into effect Monday doesn't affect him.

Alaskans Can Choose Ranked Choice Voting This Year

Well, that's ambiguous.  Alaskans can't actually choose a ranked choice ballot.   But we have a ballot measure coming up that, if passed, would change our voting to ranked choice.

You mark your first choice #1, your second choice #2, etc.  And if your first choice comes out last, then your 2nd choice candidate gets your vote.  That way, if there are two candidates you like, you can vote for them both.

I was reminded of this the other night when Hasan Minhaj promoted Ranked Choice Voting on his Netflix show Patriot Act.  But I know that not everyone has Netflix.  What to do?  I haven't figured out how to put up clips from Netflix.  Minhaj is brilliant. If I were still teaching public administration classes, I would use his shows as homework assignments for a number of classes.  Though there is a profanity warning.  (Is that still an issue at universities today?  Berkeley students fought that back in 1965.

But there's a good synopsis of some of the key points on this Youtube based on the show.  Watch it.  If you're an Alaskan, share it with everyone you know to let them know this can be ours.  Maine already does this.  This clip captures the essence of the show, but if you have Netflix, go look at the whole episode.

Examples Of Being Prepared

The Anchorage Municipal election is April 4.  But no need to postpone this one because it's a mail-in election.  The ballots came by mail and get returned that way.  There will be some drop boxes around town who want to do it that way and there will be some actual voting spots - like the library - if people need to vote on election day.  At least that's how it worked this time.  I suspect there will be a lot more pressure on people to just vote by mail and no need to go out in public spaces.  Because things are going to be a lot worse by April 4 than they are now.


And the Alaska Democratic primary is coming up also.  That too will be by mail.  Plus it will debut ranked choice voting in Alaska.

No need to agonize between your two favorite candidates - you can vote for both of them.  A ballot initiative to change Alaska to ranked choice voting will be on the next statewide ballot.  

When people think ahead and work on how to do it right, communities can move forward to find better ways to do things.  And with the virus right now, having the mail-in vote solves most of the problems we would have had.  

[I started working on a post highlighting the biggest bullshit in the COVID-19 Task Force press conference this morning, but decided we're overdosing on that and something positive was a better choice.  Also my temp dipped down into the mid 97s today - closer to my normal of 96,8 - but it's back up into the 98s.  But that's an improvement.   And my coughing is lessened.  Feel better physically and mentally today. Hope you're all feeling good, self-isolating, and taking advantage of the enforced break.]

Fact Checking The Truman Socialism Meme

This post follows up yesterday's on Bernie Sanders.  I saw this poster the other day:

I had two immediate thoughts:

1. Socialism has been a Republican scare word for a long time
2. Did Truman really say this?

A quick google search found that both Snopes and Professor Buzzkill say yes, it's really from Truman.  But Buzzkill also tells us he's relying on Snopes.



So I went to the Harry S Truman library (online) and found an itinerary of his train trip in New York which puts him in Syracuse on October 11, 1952.  (It's always a good sign to have a place and date with a quote.)

 I found another  page called:

The Old President as Campaigner, 1952-1972

The speeches listed were for much of Truman's whistle-stop train campaign for Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson for president in 1952 against General Eisenhower.  But mostly in the west, then back to Ohio.  Even to Buffalo, New York.  But nothing on Syracuse.  So I looked at a couple of the other speeches to see if maybe he had repeated this thought on the trip and found this one that had the theme of Republicans calling public dams socialism.

From the Harry S Truman library, document called Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Oregon and California
October 3, 1952

All over the West, now, we are checking floods and turning water into storage places, where it can be used to make power and to irrigate the land. That is what we are doing here at Shasta. That's what will be done soon at Folsom Dam. We are doing the same thing at Bonneville and Grand Coulee, at Hungry Horse Dam in Montana where I stopped the other day, at the Tennessee Valley dams back East, and at Boulder Dam in the Southwest.
I call it Boulder Dam, but the Republicans prefer the title Hoover Dam. They changed the name, back in the 80th Congress--and that's the only contribution to the power field that the 80th Congress made.
You know the Republicans puzzle me sometimes. They are always saying that when we build these dams to produce public power, that's socialism. But they still wanted to name that dam for President Hoover. So there it stands on the Colorado River, a magnificent monument to "creeping socialism," and the name of it is Hoover Dam. Now, I think that's kind of funny.  (emphasis added)

The Syracuse Speech wasn't on the page of rear platform remarks.

So I put Syracuse October 10, 1952 into the Truman Library website's search.  And pulled up Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks New York.    It matches the itinerary above and starts in Buffalo with the first stop in Batavia, New York at 10:35am, then goes to Rochester, New York at 11:30am.  Next is what I was looking for - Syracuse, New York at 1:25pm.  And it continues for the rest of the day this way.  The rain stops, he gives a speech, then train heads off to the next stop.  And the speeches aren't the same.  Even though there were no social media to catch candidates making the same speech everywhere.

Here's the whole Syracuse speech from that page: (I've added emphasis to get to the issue of socialism as a favorite Republican slur.)

"[3.] SYRACUSE, NEW YORK (Near station, 1:25 p.m.)
I am happy to be here today again. You gave me a wonderful reception 4 years ago, even if it was raining cats and dogs all the time I was here.
This year, I am not campaigning for myself. I am out working for a new man on the Democratic ticket, my good friend Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Adlai Stevenson has an outstanding record of public service. He is a man the people can trust.
I understand that you people here are really to be congratulated. I am told that Thomas Corcoran is the first Democratic mayor your city has had in 24 years, and I congratulate you on it.
Now this year you have a chance to follow that excellent example by sending Arthur McGuire to the House, and John Cashmore to the Senate to really represent you in the Congress as you should be.
I have been traveling for 2 weeks now, through about 20 States. I have seen a lot of this country, and I can tell you this great Nation of ours is in good shape. Never has there been as much growth or so much activity as there is today. That is true up and down this land of ours, just as it is here in this great State of New York.
Private enterprise is confident of the future. Large and small businesses are enjoying good profits. Their customers have money, because we have good farm prices and good wages, and steady jobs for all who want them.
We have almost forgotten that there can be such things as mass unemployment, bank failures, dollar-a-day wages, and 30-cent wheat. Those things have long been banished, along with the Republicans who brought them upon us.
Now, what is the reason for this confidence and this prosperity? It is very, very simple. The programs of the Federal Government in the past 20 years have made America a land of individual security, and at the same time a land of tremendous opportunity.
In these 20 years the Democratic Party has shown that individual security and opportunity go together. They must be worked for together, and the Democrats know how to do it.
The Republican Party in Congress has opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country. The Republican Party has blindly turned its back on the tradition of public action for the public good.
I wonder why they have done that? Well, it is because the Republican Party has become a collection of special interest groups. A special interest group, by definition, can never see beyond the limits of its own greed for the almighty dollar.
The insurance companies, back in 1935 and 1936, couldn't see anything in social security beyond the fact they would not be writing the insurance policies. So they were against it--and they got the Republican Party against it.
The utility companies couldn't see anything in our great public power projects beyond the fact that private companies would not make a profit on the power. So they were against these projects, and automatically the Republican Party came out against them, too. Al Smith and Franklin Roosevelt taught you people all about that, many years ago.
The real estate lobby couldn't see anything in low-cost public housing beyond the fact that houses were going to be built and their members would not make any money out of them. So they were against public housing, and automatically the Republican Party came out against public housing.
And so it goes, down through the whole list. The policies of the Republican Party are the total of all the negative attitudes of all the special groups that put money into and pull the strings for the Republican Party.
Now, this year, the special interest groups that are in the Republican Party have as their candidate a man who has been in the Army and out of civilian life for over 40 years. Until last June, he had lived the specialized life of the soldier, under orders all the time.
The great issues that mean bread and butter to a lot of us, have passed him by completely. He has had the cares of an Army officer, but not those of a civilian trying to make a living. He has never met a payroll in his life, nor carried a precinct--and he doesn't know a special interest lobby when he sees one.
Now this is just the kind of man the special interests can move in on, and take over. And that is exactly what they have been doing. The General told the Republican Convention in July that he would lead them on a "great crusade." But he did not tell them what the crusade was going to be about.
Like all good generals, he was waiting for his objective to be set by higher authority. He was ready to lead the troops, but he didn't know what the campaign was for. That was a problem that he as a military man had never had to decide for himself before, so the Republican Old Guard moved in and wrote his orders for him.
The directive was drafted by Senator Taft at that famous breakfast in New York City a few weeks ago. Senator Taft left that meeting and told the press what the General stands for. Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping socialism." Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That is what he means.
Now, it is a sad thing to see this man led around by those of little faith and no vision. It is a sad thing to see this man betraying his principles, deserting his friends, all for the sake of the votes he hopes to gain from Taft and Jennet and McCarthy.
This campaign has already demonstrated that a military man should stick to his profession. We do not need any additional proof.
I can think of no worse combination in the White House than a military man, ignorant of all our problems, surrounded and controlled by the most backward-looking politicians in our national life.
My friends, don't turn the country over to that Republican combination. Look out for your own interests. You are the Government. The Constitution of the United States says the power of the Government in this great Nation of ours shall rest in the people. And when you exercise that power, you can only do it by votes.
When you go to the polls on the 4th of November and exercise the power of government-which is in you--you must look out for your own interests, you must look out for the interests of this great Nation, you must look out for the interests of the world as a whole--the free countries as a whole, for which we are now responsible.
I urge you--study the issues. Read the record. Read the record of both parties-the Republicans in the Congress and the Democrats in the Congress--because they are the ones that make the policy. It is not made on the stump.
The record I am pointing to is a record that has been in your interest. The record these gentlemen are talking about doesn't exist--for they haven't any record, except what is bad for the people.
Go to the polls now and exercise your authority as the power in the Government. Send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government.
Thank you very much."

So there it is.  From the Truman Library itself.  (By 2024 are people going to create fake websites to archive fake speeches?  Maybe, but I'm fairly confident this is the real thing.)

I'd note that at the stop at Utica (all the speeches are at the same link) he talks about a graduate of Utica's Hamilton College, Ambassador Jessup:

While Ambassador Jessup was on an overseas assignment aimed at curbing Soviet expansion, he was viciously attacked by Senator McCarthy. That was in 1950--which was not a presidential election year. In that year, the president of Columbia University, who is now the Republican candidate for President of the United States, sprang to Jessup's defense. This is what he wrote in 1950 to Philip Jessup, a member of his own faculty who was being unjustly attacked-and I quote from the General's letter:
"No one . . ."--this is a quotation from General Eisenhower's letter--"No one who has known you can for a moment question the depth or sincerity of your devotion to the principles of Americanism." That is the end of the quote.
Now the president of Columbia University knew in 1950 that McCarthy's attack was false and without foundation, just as McCarthy's attacks on other loyal public servants have been. If he needed any further proof of the kind of man McCarthy is, he certainly found it in the vile attack McCarthy made on Gen. George C. Marshall. . .

The Republican candidate knows, or he ought to know, how completely dishonest Joe McCarthy is. He ought to despise McCarthy, just as I expected him to--and just as I do.
Now, in his bid for votes, he has endorsed Joe McCarthy for reelection--and humbly thanked him for riding on his train.

Not unlike the change among current Republican Senators who vilified Trump before the nomination and now are his most loyal supporters.

I also noticed this discussion of immigration that is still very topical today.

 In Buffalo, New York, October 9, 1952

". . . This National Origin Quota System is a Republican invention. It was conceived and written into law under a Republican President and a Republican Congress in the 1920's. It is based on a discredited and un-American theory of racial superiority. That theory considers the so-called Nordics from England and Northern Europe to be superior to persons born in Italy, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Poland, or any other country of Southern or Eastern Europe. It's all wrong.
Now the Republicans took full credit for this discriminatory policy. They boasted of it, as one of their achievements, in their 1932 platform.
It is, of course, necessary to regulate the flow of immigration and to have some kind of limitation on numbers. It is also necessary to exclude undesirable individuals. But I think it is un-American to exclude a qualified, worthy individual just because he comes from Poland or Italy or Hungary. And that is exactly what happens under this Republican law.
The policies of the Republican Party haven't changed very much since they wrote this law in 1924. Let me prove that to you.
After the Second World War, I wanted to do something to help the millions of uprooted and homeless persons in Europe. At my urging, the 80th Congress adopted the Displaced Persons Act. That was necessary to get around the restrictions of the National Origin Quota System, and let a substantial number of those people in. But the 80th Congress [Republican] wrote in to the Displaced Persons Act provisions that deliberately discriminated against Catholics and Jews. "

You can listen to the whole speech here.  This quote starts about 12:15 on the audio.   An interesting contrast to speeches today.

Alaskans For Better Elections Now Have Petitions To Collect Signatures To Change Alaska's Elections To Ranked Choice Voting

A group called "Alaskans for Better Elections" has gathered enough signatures to get an initiative approved.  They've received enough valid signatures, however the Lt Governor, on the advice of the Attorney General has said the initiative was not valid because it covered more than one topic.  Alaskans for Better Elections has appealed that decision and a judge agreed with them.  The State is asking that the group should not be allowed to collect signatures before their appeal of the judge's decision is heard by the Supreme Court.

But this tweet suggests that the judge didn't buy the argument to delay the collection of signatures and the initiative petition to change how Alaskans vote and how large campaign contributions are reported is now available for signatures.  You can visit the website here..

Look who just picked up 500 petition booklets to get help get more open, transparent, and fair elections in our great state! Who is ready to sign? #alaska #akleg #RankedChoiceVoting #elections pic.twitter.com/htUuexf20A

— jason (@jgrenn) November 1, 2019

And, as I see it, the only reason to delay the collection of signatures would be to keep the initiative off the ballot, since they need to collect enough signatures before the Legislature goes back into session in mid-January.  Let them start now and if the Supreme Court agrees with the Lt. Governor's finding this initiative is invalid, they'll stop collecting signatures.  What's the big deal?  Unless you don't want them to get enough signatures in time.

What's the Difference  Between Initiative And Petition?
Initiative is the document that outlines what changes are wanted Petition with a summary of the initiative is what people sign

BUT, MORE IMPORTANT, what's the initiative going to do?


The initiative has three components, according to their website::

• End "Dark Money" in Alaska Elections
• Open Our Primaries to All Alaskan Voters
• Form Ranked Choice Voting Elections

Dark Money
Their counter to the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v allowance of unlimited campaign contributions is basically this:

"All individuals and committees will have to immediately disclose the name and the true source of all donations over $2,000."

 Primaries

Right now, the state funds primary elections.
The Republicans choose to make their primary open to Republicans and people who are not affiliated with another party.
The Democratic primary is open to all voters and includes candidates from various parties (except Republicans) and independent candidates.
Voters must pick either the one party ballot or the other.

The ballot initiative would change that.  There would be one primary and all candidates would be listed for each office.  And this is supposed to work because of the third component of the initiative.

Form Ranked Choice Voting
Their website explains it this way:

In a ranked choice voting (RCV) election, voters are able to rank candidates in order of choice - 1st choice, 2nd choice, and so on. When the votes are counted, if a candidate has a majority of 1st choices, they win - just like today. But if no candidate receives a majority of 1st choices, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and voters who ranked that candidate 1st have their vote instantly go to their 2nd choice. This process continues until a candidate is elected with a majority of voters’ support.

Their website explains all this in a little more detail, but still in an easy to read format.


Here's the text of the initiative.  I promise that fewer than 5% (that's probably high) voters will read the whole thing.  It's 25 pages long.  Basically, it goes through the existing Alaska Election statutes and rewrites them to enact the changes they want.  Section by section.

The disclosure requirement seems like a good idea, just so voters know in a timely fashion who is making large donations to support a candidate.

The primary change is technically necessary to make the ranked choice voting work.

And ranked choice voting is designed to elect the candidates they support most, by allowing their second, third, etc. choice be known.  This should end two similar candidates splitting the vote between them and allowing a third, but less popular candidate to win.  It also means that two Republicans or two Democrats could end up on the final ballot.  This happens in California's new system, but they don't have ranked voting, just a combined primary.

Votes have been counted by machine for a while now.  But double checking by hand counting was pretty easy.  Checking the accuracy of the voting machine programs will be much harder if this initiative wins.  That means we'll need some sophisticated procedures to make sure the machines are programmed correctly and aren't tampered with.

Their website says Maine already does this and a number local governments do too.

One more thing.  Alaskans For Better Elections has all their disclosure documents on their website.  They also disclose that their three biggest donors are organizations Outside of Alaska.  That's not necessarily bad (unless your against a candidate or an initiative).  In this case, they seem to be getting money from national organizations that support the idea of ranked choice voting, but otherwise don't have a substantive interest in Alaska politics.  I'm guessing they aren't interested in exploiting our election for their financial gain.  Just to support their vision of fairer elections.

The three biggest funders are (the links go to Ballotopedia or Influencewatch descriptions:

Action Now - John and Laura Arnold Foundation
Represent Us
American Promise - Jeffrey Clements

Let's Get Beyond The Politics of Impeachment And Brexit - Wos - Canguro And Argentina Upcoming Election

[This post is not what you were expecting.  Nor me.  It began as a way to step back and remind folks that there's more than US and UK politics happening in the world.  While we were in Argentina this summer we learned a little about their presidential elections.  I thought I'd offer bit of Argentine politics for folks.  That led me to the political trap video that's near the bottom, which is worth a post all of its own.  It's very catchy, even without understanding the lyrics.  Be sure to watch it.  Will this sort of thing be part of the US election in 2020?  I've also added the lyrics and a translation.]

I don't see much coverage of the Argentine presidential election this October.  On our visit in June and July people all agreed they were being squeezed by high inflation and life was getting harder.  Argentina is a country with a history much longer than the US and in the early 1900s was one of the wealthiest in the world.  People are sophisticated.  They have free health care and university education.  Current President Macri has imposed harsh economic restrictions.  People we talked to were not shy in voicing their opinions for one candidate or the other.

From AS/COA (Americas Society/Council on the Americas)

"Argentina’s first-round vote on October 27 will see the election of president and vice president, and nearly half of congressional seats (130 deputies and 24 senators). While President Mauricio Macri is in the running for a second term, Argentines chose who else will appear on the ballot in the August 11 primary elections, known as the PASO. The main obstacles to the pro-business president of the Together for Change coalition are Argentina’s economic recession and a peronist front. He polls behind center-left Alberto Fernández, who's running mate is former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
Some 33 million Argentines are eligible to cast the compulsory vote, which will go on to a November runoff if none of the presidential candidates wins at least 45 percent, or 40 percent with a 10-point margin over the runner-up."

From Forbes:

"On September 29 the Argentine province of Mendoza will elect its governor and renew one-half of its bicameral legislature. Mendoza is Argentina’s fifth most populous province, and one of only five provinces (out of 24) currently governed by a member of President Mauricio Macri’s Together for Change alliance. A Together for Change victory in Mendoza would provide a glimmer of optimism for a dignified loss by Macri in the October 27 presidential election against Peronist Alberto Fernández (and against Fernández’s vice presidential nominee, former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) as well as provide hope for some Together for Change down ballot success in congressional races. In contrast, a defeat would foreshadow a potential shellacking on October 27 and demoralize the Together for Change forces even more than they already are. . ."

This article was written by "Mark P. Jones[who] is the Joseph D. Jamail Chair in Latin American Studies and the Director of the Center for Energy Studies’ Argentina Program at Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy."

That, of course, gives me a chance to post some Mendoza pictures from last summer I didn't post yet.

 The fountain in the huge Parque San Martin

Vistante Winery - Mendoza is the center of the Argentine wine industry

Mendoza is also a center for olive oil.  This picture is from the Pasrai olive oil factory.











And here's a more personal reporting style that leads this post in a different direction from Americas Quarterly:

"BUENOS AIRES - “He can’t stop coughing/working 12-hour-long shifts/he makes two meager coins a day to support a family of four/and don’t talk to me about meritocracy, don’t be funny, don’t screw with me/because without opportunities/that mierda doesn’t work.”
It’s hard to miss the frustration driving the lyrics of “Canguro,” a song written by 21-year-old Argentine trap star Wos, whose criticisms of the status quo under President Mauricio Macri have struck a chord with many. Debuting just days before the August primary election that delivered a blow to Macri’s reelection prospects, the song quickly climbed the charts and has racked up over 44 million views on YouTube.
Wos is among a cohort of young public figures who have used popular culture and social media to mobilize opposition to Macri among youth. The demographic has been hit particularly hard by the recession under the current government. In the second quarter of 2019, unemployment among ages 14 to 29 rose to 18.6% for men and to 23.4% for women, according to the latest government figures."

Here's Wos' video.  With the introduction above you can get a good sense of the power of this song even without understanding Spanish.  It says it has 50 million hits since August 8.  That's about six weeks.




And here's a version with the lyrics as he sings.

Here are just the lyrics from Genius.com.  I've added a Google Translate English version in purple.

[Letra de "CANGURO"]

[Intro]
Hoy no voy a salir y voy a quedarme en la' nube' donde nadie sube

[Estribillo]
(Uah) No vengas a molestar, dicen que está todo mal‚ bueno
(Uah) Yo estoy más que bien acá y no te pienso ni mirar‚ ciego (Ciego)
Vamo'‚ repriman la mierda que tienen guardada en el pecho
Traguen y callen hasta estar desecho', párense siempre derecho
"Cállenlo, sédenlo‚ que haga lo que quiera, pero sáquenlo" y
"Cállenlo, sédenlo‚ que haga lo que quiera, pero sáquenlo"
Ey, háganme caso, ¿o no tienen claro que soy el rey?
Háganme caso que soy la ley, dame mis blíster', mis Parisiennes, wah


["CANGURO" lyrics]:
[Enter]
I'm not going out today and I'm going to stay in the 'cloud' where nobody goes up

[Chorus]
(Uah) Don't come bother, they say it's all wrong ‚well
(Uah) I'm more than good here and I don't even think about you ‚blind (Blind)
Vamo '‚repress the shit they have in their chest
Swallow and shut up until you are wasted ', always stand straight
"Shut it up, know it‚ do what you want, but take it out "and
"Shut it up, know it‚ do what you want, but take it out "
Hey, pay attention to me, or are you not sure that I am the king?
Listen to me that I am the law, give me my blister ', my Parisiennes, wah

[Verso 1]
Patada de canguro, golpe duro
No vamo' a parar con esto, negro, te lo juro
Traje cianuro pa' meterle' en el trago
Cinco minuto' acá y ya estamo' causando estragos
Un mago nos quiere hacer desaparecer
Pero esta plaga rara nunca para de crecer
Somo' de los pocos locos que andan buscando placer
Y aunque quieran vernos roto', no damo' brazo a torcer
No para de toser, trabajando doce hora'
Cobra dos moneda' al mes pa' mantener cuatro persona'
Y no hables de meritocracia, me da gracia, no me joda'
Que sin oportunidades esa mierda no funciona
Y no, no hace falta gente que labure más
Hace falta que con menos se pueda vivir en paz
Mandale gas, no te perdás, acordate dónde estás
Fijáte siempre de qué lado de la mecha te encontrás


[Verse 1]
Kangaroo kick, hard hit
I'm not going to stop with this, black, I swear
Cyanide suit to get him in the drink
Five minutes 'here and I'm already' wreaking havoc
A wizard wants to make us disappear
But this weird plague never stops growing
Somo 'of the few crazy people who are looking for pleasure
And even if they want to see us broken ', I don't dare' arm to twist
He doesn't stop coughing, working twelve hours'
Charge two coins' per month to 'keep four people'
And don't talk about meritocracy, I'm funny, don't fuck me '
That without opportunities that shit doesn't work
And no, you don't need people to work anymore
It is necessary that with less one can live in peace
Send gas, don't get lost, remember where you are
Always notice which side of the wick you found


[Verso 2]
Dice: "What up? Esto pega como coca"
La gente baila loca, el cuello se disloca
La droga en lo' dedo', que vaya de boca en boca
Sentís como te choca, esa vaina subió la nota
Salto como una pulga, empezó la purga
Largo todo fresco como un PXXR GVNG, hijo de…
Otra vez con sed entre fiebres y migraña'
Vuelvo a soñar con un viejo en el medio de una montaña
Me miró y me dijo: "De la vida nadie se salva
Y eso de la juventud es solo una actitud del alma"
Qué virtud extraña, ahora me queman las entrañas
Mi mejor conversación la tuve ayer con una araña
No sé qué hora es, ni me interesa
Acá siempre son 4:20, y estamo' de la cabeza, con simpleza
Birra barata y mala en lata, má' la planta santa esa
La que calma el cuerpo y te lo desestresa
El hood está de fiesta, el culo se te tensa
Entiendo que te molesta, la empatía te cuesta
Y si ahora gritamo' y cantamo' en modo de protesta
Es porque preguntamo' bien y nadie nos dio una respuesta
Se creen dueños, salgan del medio, lo digo en serio
Fuera la yuta que meten al barrio, le tira a los pibe' y le mata los sueño'
Bueno, juego, del underground, del agujero
Estamo' agitando de nuevo, sacando pa' afuera a eso' carroñero', ñero

[Verse 2]
He says: "What up? This hits like coca"
People dance crazy, the neck dislocates
The drug in the 'finger', that goes from mouth to mouth
You feel how it hits you, that pod raised the note
I jump like a flea, the purge began
Long all fresh as a PXXR GVNG, son of ...
Again thirsty between fevers and migraine '
I dream again of an old man in the middle of a mountain
He looked at me and said: "No one is saved from life
And that of youth is just an attitude of the soul "
What a strange virtue, now my insides burn
I had my best conversation yesterday with a spider
I don't know what time it is, nor interest me
It's always 4:20 here, and I'm right in the head, simply
Cheap and bad canned birra, plus the holy plant that
The one that calms the body and unstresses you
The hood is partying, the ass tenses
I understand that it bothers you, empathy costs you
And if now I shout 'and sing' in protest mode
It's because we asked 'well and nobody gave us an answer
They believe they own, get out of the way, I mean it
Out the jute they put into the neighborhood, he throws the kids 'and kills them the dreams'
Well, play, underground, hole
I'm 'waving again, getting out' that scavenger 'outside, ñero


[Estribillo]
(Uah) No vengas a molestar, dicen que está todo mal, bueno
(Uah) Yo estoy más que bien acá y no te pienso ni mirar, ciego (Ciego)
Vamo', repriman la mierda que tienen guardada en el pecho
Traguen y callen hasta estar desecho', párense siempre derecho
"Cállenlo, sédenlo, que haga lo que quiera, pero sáquenlo" y
"Cállenlo, sédenlo, que haga lo que quiera, pero sáquenlo"
Ey, háganme caso, ¿o no tienen claro que soy el rey?
Háganme caso que soy la ley, dame mis blíster', mis Parisiennes, wah

[Chorus]
(Uah) Don't come bother, they say it's all wrong ‚well
(Uah) I'm more than good here and I don't even think about you ‚blind (Blind)
Vamo '‚repress the shit they have in their chest
Swallow and shut up until you are wasted ', always stand straight
"Shut it up, know it‚ do what you want, but take it out "and
"Shut it up, know it‚ do what you want, but take it out "
Hey, pay attention to me, or are you not sure that I am the king?
Listen to me that I am the law, give me my blister ', my Parisiennes, wah

Who Signed Petitions To Recall Dunleavy? Here Are Some Folks Who Did Today In Anchorage

I got there a little before 5pm.  There were lots of folks already.

Vic Fischer, one of the writers of the Alaska Constitution and one of the sponsors of the recall petition being interviewed.








And below are some of the people who signed this evening.  Mostly I left out faces.  For those whose faces are in here and want them out, my email is in the upper right.  Let me know.  I've also blurred signatures that I thought might be legible on petitions.

Big Bright Vernal Equinox Moon Greets Us After Move To Amend Panel

After attending a  panel discussion on "The 28th Amendment" we walked out to see this giant moon pushing up over the mountains and not quite out of the clouds.

Here it's a little higher and we're out of downtown.

I'm still fighting my camera when the auto settings can't figure out what to do.  The manual settings just aren't intuitive and I use them so rarely.  The moon wasn't - as I remember it - so yellow.  

The panel was interesting and very civil.  The basic concern is with the impact of Citizens United and the problems of unlimited money from corporations and other non-human entities on elections in the United States.  The key objection I heard was that by limiting constitutional rights to human beings (Citizens United ruling was based on their First Amendment Right to free speech) organizations will be stripped of important rights, such as due process.  In response, Dr. Sharman Haley (standing at the mic in the picture) argued that such organizations are created and sanctioned by states and it is there, not in the constitution, that their rights should be established.  At least that's what I understood.  

To learn more, check out  Move To Amend.  

Another idea that was raised to make elections less contentious was ranked voting.  Dr. Haley argued that first, this would eliminate the need for primaries.  And second,  if candidates want to win, they have to be listed second on a lot of ballots.  Thus taking an extreme stand will likely lose them the election.   There's more on ranked choice voting here.