Logo from Desktop Nexus.

I don't know that I have that many Linux/Ubuntu enthusiasts checking this blog, but I really believe that the Ubuntu Pocket Guide is nonetheless worth mentioning. Excellent resource. Check it out. It's available as a PDF or in Google Books.

Debate: 1AC

Hello everyone,

The big reason this blog has been incredibly... boring is because I've been too occupied with speech and debate to post here. Sorry. So I decided to post my 1AC so everyone could see what's going on.

Note to everyone who is competing in NCFCA and still reading: Yes, this is the complete case flow for Maisano/Morgan from Texas (R4). If you continue to read it, I'm going to make a simple request. I understand that I can't enforce this, but I'm trusting in your conscience. :-) So, if you read this, please post your feedback. You are welcome to use the evidence we've dug up here, but the same principle applies. Post your evidence against it.

So, in a word, if you are going to use this, please return the favor and post any information you may have that will help us improve. Everyone hates free-riders, right?

As a side note, you can check out my marvelous partner's blog at: Toni's Thoughts.

1. 1. Definitions
2. 2. Goal: Long-term Responsibility
3. 3. Status Quo
   1. a) Unfunded
   2. b) Ineffective
   3. c) Irrelevant
4. 4. Impacts
   1. a) Us: Wasted Resources
   2. b) India: Subsidizing Bureaucracy
   3. c) Future: Swindle Futurity
5. 5. Plan
6. 6. Advantages
   1. a) Math: Exponential Savings
   2. b) Moral: Responsible Policy

Americans are among the most generous people in the world. That policy should not change. But the United States federal government should significantly change its policy toward India, because our current irresponsible foreign aid policy endangers our future.

Today we will examine the long term consequences of the government's policy of shipping foreign aid to India. But first we need to make sure we're on the same page by providing a couple definitions in:

1. Definitions

Sources and further definitions are available upon request. Here are a couple to get us started:

United States-"country North America bordering on Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic oceans; a federal republic"

("United States of America." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/United States of America )

Significantly-"Having or likely to have a major effect; important"

(American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/significantly)

Change-"to undergo a modification of "

(Merriam-Webster Online Dict. 2008, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change)

Policy-As foreign policy consists of 'decisions and actions which involve to some appreciable extent relations between one state and others', it can be defined as 'the actions of a state toward the external environment and the conditions under which these actions formulated'.

(Prof. Mustafa Aydın (professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University, Turkey; as well as at the National Security Academy, Ankara, Turkey; was Research Fellow at the Center for Political Studies, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor) 2006, "Turkish Foreign Policy at the End of the Cold War; Roots and Dynamics", Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/dosyalar/MMTY/36 /1_mustafa_aydin.pdf)

Toward-"With regard to; in relation to"

(American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toward)

India-"A country of southern Asia covering most of the Indian subcontinent."

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/India)

Foreign Aid-"assistance (as economic aid) provided by one nation to another"

(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign%20aid)

In this case, we will be focusing on one goal. That's the second point we want to make:

2. Goal: Long-term Responsibility

So, in this round, we would encourage you to look at our policy on foreign aid and see if it is truly responsible, and if our plan can provide long-term benefits. But before we can look at the long term results, we need to see the current system's trajectory in:

3. Status Quo

Our argument here is that our policy of shipping foreign aid to India is simply irresponsible. There are three points to be made about foreign aid to India: We're spending money we don't have on a program that hasn't worked when there are perfectly valid alternatives out there.

a) Debt

This case specifically addressed economic aid, both in cash and in kind. According to the most recent report from the Congressional Research Service, we are sending India $74.1 Million annually.

Thomas Lum (Specialist in Asian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division). "U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients." October 8, 2008. Congressional Research Service, RL31362. http://opencrs.com/document/RL31362

Interestingly enough, the Department of the treasury reported that while giving India this money, we also owed them about $16.2 Billion in Treasury Securities.

United States. Department of the Treasury. Federal Reserve Board. "Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities." January 16, 2009. http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

In other words, we're donating to our creditor. Our children are the ones who will have to pay for it This is anything but a responsible policy, especially when you consider that foreign aid has not produced long term results.

b) Ineffective

After pouring money into India and other countries since the end of World War II, we have quite a bit of evidence on it's long-term consequences. For example a study in the:

Cristina Arellano (Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota), Aleš Bulíř (PhD. M.Sc., Associate Professor, Prague University of Economics), Timothy Lane (Ph.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor, University of California, San Francisco), Leslie Lipschitz (Ph.D., Director of the International Monetary Fund Institute). "The dynamic implications of foreign aid and its variability." Journal of Development Economics 88 (2009) 87–102. http://www.econ.umn.edu/~arellano/aidpaper.pdf

"The paper examines the effects of aid and its volatility on consumption, investment, and the structure of production in the context of an intertemporal two-sector general equilibrium model, calibrated using data for aid-dependent countries in Africa. A permanent flow of aid mainly finances consumption rather than investment—consistent with the historical failure of aid inflows to translate into sustained growth. Large aid flows are associated with higher real exchange rates and smaller tradable sectors because aid is a substitute for tradable consumption. Aid volatility results in substantial welfare losses, providing a motivation for recent discussions of aid architecture stressing the need for greater predictability of aid. These results are also consistent with evidence from cross-country regressions of manufactured exports, presented later in the paper."

Consumption, not investment. In other words, short term gratification, not long term responsibility. What about India specifically? Well, according to:

The Financial Times.
January 23 2008.
"Western donors wrestle with the contradictions of rising India." By Jo Johnson (B.A., M.B.A., Financial Times’ South Asia bureau chief). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3470229c-c9db-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html

"India does little to solicit aid and, sometimes, much to deter it. Ahead of Mr Brown's visit, Rahul Gandhi, a senior Congress party politician, hinted at the extent of corruption, claiming that only 5 per cent of development funds reached their intended recipients, down from 15 per cent when his father was prime minister.
His warning coincided with the release by the World Bank of a report that found "systemic fraud and corruption" in a flagship health programme and "suggested that other projects had been similarly compromised". The bank in the year to June 2007 provided $3.7bn in new loans to India, its largest borrower."

Even officials in the Indian government admit that foreign aid is being lost in a quagmire of corruption. So your 74 Million becomes 3.7 Million. With such a low rate of return, one must ask: Was it really need in the first place?

c) Irrelevant

As Indian economist Joydeep Mukerji said in response to that story in the Financial Times.

Joydeep Mukherji. (B.A., M.A. in economics, former economic consultant to the Asian Development Bank, works with credit ratings in Asia and the Western Hemisphere)."India’s aid donors reluctant to admit their irrelevance." Financial Times Letters, January 30 2008. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a0d5afc-ced5-11dc-877a-000077b07658.html

"Sir, Your article “Western donors wrestle with the contradictions of rising India” (January 24) implies that there is a contradiction between a booming India and the reality of mass poverty. The real contradiction is between aid donors who failed and their reluctance to acknowledge their irrelevance in an India that has finally learnt how to grow rapidly and reduce its massive poverty."

The Federal Government's foreign program is irrelevant because organizations on both sides of the ocean are more than capable of aiding India. The Index of Global Philanthropy 2008 shows that only about 12% of all American assistance comes through the government anyway.

The Index of Global Philanthropy 2008. Darrell Delamaide, Ed. Hudson Institute, Center for Global Prosperity, 2008. p 17-20. https://www.hudson.org/files/documents/2008%20Index%20-%20Low%20Res.pdf

So, because there are valid alternatives to US governmental spending that aren't in such a financial predicament, there's no reason to continue an Unfunded, Ineffective, Irrelevant program.

So it's obviously not a responsible policy. But why is this so important? That's the fourth observation:

4. Impacts

Our policy has three impacts. They are the impact to Us, to India, and to the Future.

a) Us: Wasted Resources

We can't afford to loose 95% on any program. This kind of waste does not meet long-term responsibility.

b) India: Subsidizing Bureaucracy

Joydeep Mukherji. (B.A., M.A. in economics, former economic consultant to the Asian Development Bank, works with credit ratings in Asia and the Western Hemisphere)."India’s aid donors reluctant to admit their irrelevance." Financial Times Letters, January 30 2008. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a0d5afc-ced5-11dc-877a-000077b07658.html

"Since the second world war, India has received more foreign aid than any country in the world. The money subsidised the creation of a corrupt, parasitic bureaucracy following anti-market policies typically advocated by well-meaning donors. The economy stagnated for nearly 40 years, compared with the dynamism of east Asian countries that relied on themselves and on markets more than on foreign aid."

So our policy actually makes Indians worse off by subsiding harmful bureaucratic tendencies.

c) Future: Swindle Futurity

We are swindling our future because this program is sponsored with deficit spending, money that is thrown to future generations - with interest.

Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. Lipscomb and Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 15. Memorial Edition. Washington, D.C., 1903-04. 23. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1340.htm

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

That's exactly what this policy does. It swindles our future.

If we are financing a program that doesn't help us, doesn't help them, and doesn't help the future, that program should obviously be stopped. That's our plan. We intend to phase out this irresponsible policy of sending aid and replace it with a sound investment in:

5. Plan

Our plan is really pretty simple. Here's the specifics:

the Agency and Enforcement: of this plan is the Federal Government of the United States. There are two mandates that this agency will carry out:

Mandate 1: Phase Out. Current government non-military aid sent to the India will be phased out. According to the Congressional Research service, this currently includes CSH (Child Survival and Health), DA (Development Assistance), P.L. 480 Title II Grants (In-kind food aid).

Mandate 2: Pay Debt. Funds freed shall be redirected to pay off Indian Securities.

Next, the Timeline: This plan will be phased in over the next two fiscal years, FY 2009 and 2010. Savings will begin in FY 2011.

Finally, we reserve the right to clarify this plan as needed.

6. Advantages

In short, we are allowing private charities to do what they do best, and establishing a solid foundation for our children's future. There are two ways this plan pays off; you could think of it as M&M: Math and Morals.

a) Math: Exponential Savings

See, the aid we finance through debt doesn't just increase at a constant rate. It is also accumulating interest, so it grows exponentially, a lot like cancer. So, starting with just $ 74.1 Million,
-In 10 years, we will not save $ 741 Million, we'll save almost a billion dollars.
-And in 20 years, we won't save $ 1.4 Billion, with interest we'll save 2.5 Billion.

The longer we save, the more we save. So now is the time to start making this long term investment. But there are other reasons to adopt this plan.

b) Moral: Responsible Policy

This is more than just a frugal policy, it is also a responsible policy.

Iqbal Z. Quadir (B.A., M.A., M.B.A., founder and director of MIT's Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship, formerly taught at Harvard University, and founder of Grameenphone, the largest cellphone company in Bangladesh) "Foreign Aid and Bad Government." Wall Street Journal. January 30, 2009. http://legatum.mit.edu/content-206

"In short, America should stop pouring billions into bureaucracies to buy short-term alliances and focus its efforts on bottom-up entrepreneurship. This would increase America's popularity, alleviate poverty, and promote real democratic change in these developing countries."

The government's current policy with India is nothing short of using our children's money to pay other countries for stuff they don't do. It not a responsible policy, and it turns out that it is not a necessary policy. So I urge you to do the responsible thing and affirm the resolution.

A Chrome Finish

Google Chrome is a significant browser for one main reason: Google. It's the first part of the name that gives this little bugger such a punch. Not to say that it doesn't have some very nice features. On the contrary, Google Chrome is a very nice research machine, there just aren't many new, impressive features.

So... putting aside the Google label slapped onto it, what are some important points to make about Chrome?

1) It's Only available for Windows SP 2 and Vista. :-(

2) Each tab is treated as a separate process. This is nice in that errors in one tab can easily be isolated and not effect other tabs. It's also annoying to have 15 "chrome.exe" running.
Very nice feature, but IE beat them to it. The Internet Explorer 8 beta actually used this feature before Google. So it's a nice feature, but nothing to rave about.

3) Chrome uses Safari's engine, Webkit. This means it's fast. Really fast. Nice, but the performance gains aren't that major. Opera is already smoking fast, even thought it doesn't yet have the same compatibility. One major failure in my experience was download time. It loaded pages very quickly compared to Firefox, but when it was downloading a file it was using about an eighth of the bandwidth that Firefox could have gotten. Beats me.

4) It doesn't have some very important (to me) features like RSS, extensions, etc. This will probably change, but there's no way it can compete with FF's extensibility.

I don't think it's time to switch over to Chrome, but it is a very nice browser to use as a sidekick.

So, to rap it all up: Chrome will have an appeal for newbies (rivaled only by Internet explorer) and be useful for experts and newbies alike.

If it gets you away from Internet Explorer, go ahead. But I wouldn't trash your other browsers if I was you.

Merry Christmas!

I think this post is self explanitory. Need I say any more?

> < > Brian

Browser Wars!

Well, I've received advice from many friends to start blogging again. I know I have almost no readers, but it still seems like quite a shame to leave this blog so empty.

So I'm starting a series: Browser Wars!

I'm a pretty hard core researcher, as some of you could probably tell. I've done a lot of work through speech and debate, and I even got a researching job. This means that I have LOTS of experience with web browsers and how to efficiently use them. I'll share some of the experiences and research on the browser powerhouses, and maybe some of those browsers that are "up and coming," not really powerhouses.

What a great time to start. Micro$oft has shown us, yet again, why you DON'T want to use Internet Explorer. According to an article from BBC news, this hack (which now has a patch, thankfully) would have allowed malicious hackers to take control of your computer and steel your passwords.

Very frightening, yet M$ doesn't think you ought to switch to a more secure browser, even temporarily:

"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.

He added: "We're trying to get this resolved as soon as possible.

Microsoft is completely in denial when it comes to how vulnerable their browser is.

Internet Explorer is not a solid wall protecting you and your data; it's Swiss Cheese. What's sad it that still boasts an overwhelming majority of web users.


All of that blue area was vulnerable to the attack for almost a week (from about December 13, when the hack was noticed, until this patch was released).

Hopefully I can convince you to leave the majority and you'll be a safer, smarter web user. Internet Exploiter's [sic] days are numbered, so stay tuned! In the meantime, check out one of my links, Browse Happy!

Brian's Voting Guide - Nov 6

Hello all,

Elections are approaching, and I'm not able to vote, so I've decided to help everyone else vote... like I would have.

Unfortunately, my debate partner voted before I had a change to straighten... I mean instruct her in sound voting procedures. :-) Oh well. For the rest of you:

1) Federal
> Vote third-party. The mainstream in both parties needs to know that if they toss the constitution out the window, we'll toss them out after it. And they'd better bring it back.

2) State elections
Several people are up for state election. I honestly don't have time to research all of them (who does?) so I'm just going with the recommendations of the Texas Home School Coalition.

3) Austin-Area
There are three pieces of voter-approved legislation on the ballot for Austin. The best resource I could dig up on these was the incredibly one-sided endorsements of the Austin Chronicle. (scroll down to the bottom) I make my own conclusions based on their rhetoric... I mean reporting.

a) Proposition 1
Yup

This amendment basically passes several measures that better insulates the city auditor from political pressures. Very important for that job.

b) Proposition 2
Nope

I do not agree with giving the Domain (or any other business for that matter) subsidies that the whole city has to pay for. BUT: once we've made the agreement, we need to honor it. The City signed a contract with the Domain, and we should hold to our word.

c) AIDS Tax Ratification
Nope

The City school system does not need more money, it needs to do better with the money it has. My Mom should know. She's spent a long time in the system as a teacher. More money is nice, but not needed. And certainly not at the expense of more property taxes.

Hopefully this quick overview will be helpful for you! If you beg to differ, are wanting more information, or just feel like saying something, leave a comment!

Independants: Unite :-\

I knew it all along. The media-created duopoly is nothing more than a scandal! It turns out that most Americans want an independent to become president, but don't believe they have a chance, when they actually do. In other word: we've fooled ourselves into believing that Independents don't stand a chance. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we don't give independents a chance, then they don't have one. I was very happy to find this story from perhaps the most partisan news organization on the block.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287190,00.html

Read the above story. My question to you is if you are one of those who would like to reach past partisan pandering and embrace a candidate who truly stands for what's good in this country.

As far as I can tell, there are three major independent options:
-Alan Keyes.
-Bob Barr.
-Chuck Baldwin.

Personally, I think I agree with Barr on the most issues, think Baldwin is the best guy (albeit he has no actual governmental experience), and would just love to elect Alan Keyes and surprise the media! :-) Really, I haven't developed a favorite, and probably won't need to.

Kung Fu Pander

At the end of this week, I got to watch two historic moments. No, not the new movie that came out. The acceptance speech of Barack Obama and the Vice Presidential choice of Sarah Palin. At some times, these moments made me laugh at the absurdity of the whole thing we call politics, at other times, it almost made me want to puke.

And I am going to protest. I have had enough of politics, instead of people, ruling this country. O-bomb-a's class warfare is gross. McCain's gender card is disgusting.

Historic moments; yes. Worthy of anyone's vote; no. Don't get me wrong. The first major party black nominee is a major event, as is a brilliant Republican strategy like nominating Palin as a VP.

Communist Class Warfare.

Barack Hussein Obama's speech show has has a very thorough grasp of Marxist political philosophy. All throughout his speech I heard stuff like "we shouldn't raise taxes on working people," and, somehow, rich people from Bill Gates to Bill O'Reilly are no longer considered "working."

The Communist Manifesto was in fact not a book dedicated exclusively to political philosophy. It was also dedicated to political strategy. Marx's idea for getting communism to infect a country was to get the poor people to basically become more and more jealous of the rich people. (he called it become more and more oppressed, but we all know what he meant.)

This is the time when we are going to decide whether people are human-doings or human-beings. Hopefully Obama isn't.

Hillary-ous Pandering.

Probably the most insightful thing I've heard on the elections was when I was talking to a friend at church who said something to the extent of "I don't pay attention to the campaigns; God determines who gets elected." Absolutely right. But I still think campaigns are useful for a little comic relief every now and then. For example, this:



"Senator Hillary Clinton... showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign."
~Sarah Palin

Wow. That's hillary-ous. Besides being another example of obvious kung-fu pandering, it is laughable to hear her talking about Clinton's "grace" during the campaign.

Door Number Three.

For those of you who actually value the constitution and are disgusted by both the policy, there are other options. Third Party candidates, prior to the civil war, where an incredibly viable alternative when majoritarian views overshadowed the truth. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and many others were elected as "third-party" candidates in their day.

Today, we actually have some good third party choices. World Magazine provided a brief introduction to three constitutional candidates, and then Ralf Nader (who knows where to put him?). So, google these three choices:
-Chuck Baldwin
-Bob Barr
-Alan Keyes

"But wait, Brian. I can't vote for these guys. I mean, if a pervert like Obama wins the elections, what will Americans do but cry?" Let's put this into perspective. Elections are short term accomplishments. Revolutions are long term processes. I think that was Ron Paul who said that. It's absolutely right. In the long term, an Obama presidency will be just fine, but comprising for the sake of expediency will not.

What if Obama Wins?

Every Reagan has his Carter. People and pundits need a glaring example of why we didn't choose socialism in this country. If Obama is elected he will NOT be able to fix the economy. He will NOT be able to restore peace to the world. Because presidents don't rule the government - yet. In fact, his liberal ideology will only make it worse if anything.

Joesph Farah has written a book entitled None of the Above, which expreses this generally spirit. He was absolutely right when he wrote this in a recent WND column:

"It is principally because of my strong belief in the Constitution that I am urging Americans this year not to vote for either major-party candidate – because neither Barack Obama nor John McCain understand, appreciate and revere the charter that serves as the very basis for our unique form of government. ...

"It's time for resistance. It's time for rebellion. It's time for radicalism. It's time to start saying "no" to the bad choices we are being handed by the system. It's time to change from a spirit of compliance to government to a spirit of obedience to higher to God and the Constitution that limits the authority of government."

Gross National debt.

I think the gross national debt is well... gross. I find it disgusting that politicians think it's ok to spend money on our problems and make our children pay for it. That is just wrong.

Some of you may have noticed that I added a Gross National Debt counter on the top of my page. I am incredibly surprise by the rate that it is growing. I literally see tens of thousands of dollars disappearing right before my eyes. The Gross National Debt is, at this second, .

So, why is borrowing so popular among the Feds? Well, first off, because it's popular among the people. We need to realize that the first problem with debt lies not with politicians, but with the public. To date, the average American has more debt than savings.

The second major reason that debt has increased is that it is probably the only major way government can create short-term economic growth. Instead of taking money from one area of the economy and giving it to another, government borrows money from the future. It's not much, but it lasts until the next election.

Now, I'm not all gloom and doom. There is a way out. There are three ways, in fact, to reduce debt and each come with their set of problems. They are to print money, to stop spending, and to start taxing.

I personally propose a three step process. This works for both individuals and governments.

STEP 1: Stop borrowing. It is NOT FAIR to make our kids pay for our mistakes. We ought to live with the consequences and not have a pity party. Ye, it's harsh; live with it.

STEP 2: Reduce spending. PEOPLE: I don't care if you're conservative, liberal, or whatever. I don't care whether it's as important as social security, babies without doctors, or terrorists running around in the sand with nukes: IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT THEN DON'T BUY IT! Pretty simple.

STEP 3: Pay off the debt. We ought to use surplus money, (some of which will come from taxes, yes, it's a crisis, Mr McCain.) to pay off this astronomical debt before it gets worse.

Our top priority IS NOT the state of the economy. It IS NOT national security. It IS NOT health care for everyone. It is the future. It is our children. We should stop having a pity party about how high inflation and/or taxes are, and start looking to what kind of mess we're leaving future generations. STOP THE GROSS DEBT!

Are Voting Systems Fair?

I prepared this post for some debate thing and then couldn't post it, so I'm posting it here. I think this is appropriate since I passed a bill at Patriot Academy intended to directly deal with these problems. The text of this bill is coming soon.

Are Voting Systems Fair?
POSITION: CON

OPENING STATEMENT:
Voting systems in the United States are not fair because...

I don't think the issue is whether they are fair or not, the issue is whether they are just. I contend that they are not because the electronic systems that are used in elections are not 1) secure and 2) open.


TALKING POINTS:
1) Secure

There have been a lot of studies that have found major security errors in various electronic voting systems. Five of these are documented on my blog here: http://brianfactor.blogspot.com/2007/11/01001000-01100001-01101110-01110011.html

Now I could enumerate the results, credentials, etc. but the bottom line is this: a voting machine just puts out a string of 1s and 0s that we know as binary. No matter how long or complicated we make this line, it will still be duplicated at some point. Security is just about making enough checks and verifications that we know when something has gone wrong.

2) Openness

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/testimony-house07.pdf

The above link is to Testimony before the House on source disclosure in voting. It was given by David Wagner, Professor of Computer Science at U.C. Berkeley. According to him:
"I am not aware of any computer security expert who suggests that we should rely upon the secrecy of the source code as a key part of our strategy for securing our elections26 ; this would violate basic principles of secure design27 ." (Wagner 7)
This is exactly what we are doing currently. We are relying on secretive corporate agendas to keep our election software safe. Bad idea.


CLOSING STATEMENT:
So, what should we do about it? I propose two policies, intended to address both of the problems I presented above.

1) Paper print-out

You would never make a major purchase without getting a receipt, would you? Of course not. Then why would you cast a ballot when there was no way to verify your vote? I believe that it must be REQUIRED that election systems have some kind of paper receipts that can be recounted.

I am not advocating just paper ballots! Paper ballots also have many problems, such as the likelihood of errors, which are addressed by electronic machines. However, if we combine electronic and paper voting, we get the best, most secure, and most open voting system possible.

2) Source disclosure.

When you buy a remote controlled car, you have every right to disassemble it and figure out how it works. As long as you don't copy the design, you aren't infringing on anyone's rights by learning about this device. For some reason, Diebold thinks that they can be held to a different standard. These industries need to realize that when they serve the PEOPLE, they must reveal to the PEOPLE what is going on.

Secrecy is not an option, so we ought to disclose how the software used in election systems actually works.

It is time that we send a message to all the government and cooperate interests involved. Elections are the PUBLIC'S business and should not be based upon secrecy. The public has a right to verify that voting systems that run our nation.