- luv-talk - luv.asn.au

Fw: new message
by luv-beginners＠luv.asn.au 24 Apr '16

24 Apr '16

Hello! You have a new message, please read <http://www.yattermatters.com/bond.php?wpt> luv-beginners(a)luv.asn.au

1 0

California voter idiot-trap (was: petitions)
by Rick Moen 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

There's been an idiot-trap for California voters, in operation for, oh, call it a half-century. The _Los Angeles Times_ just ran a story checking on the 3% of registered California voters currently falling for that trap, highlighting some now-embarrassed celebrities who did the dumb thing. http://static.latimes.com/american-independent-party-california-voters/ It has to do with the concept of 'voting independent', and a minor and extremely far-right party whose name is 'American Independent Party' (hereinafter, 'AIP'). Ah, you're way ahead of me, right? Almost every California voter since 1968 who ever registered AIP, did so in the mistaken belief he/she was registering 'independent'. I've known about this trap for a long time. Here's the way I explained it in 2008 to the Ex-VA Linux Systems mailing list: A few years ago, while researching the "County Political Parties" entries in http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/household.html, I uncovered something that might amuse: Ever wonder about why the "American Independent Party" (ex-George Wallace) remains on all California partisan-office ballots, even though there's been no such party organisation in the state for 30+ years? It's because a Bircher outfit called "Constitution Party" (primarily in Colorado, Montana, and western Pennsylvania) kept it on the ballots (as a sort of brand name) to function as an _idiot trap_. That is, it's listed solely in order to attract votes from citizens attempting to vote "independent" but unclear on the concept of how that actually works. Said voters see the word "independent" in close association with nationalism, mark that entry, and never realise they've voted for a party -- and Constitution Party gets their vote. In this way, Constitution Party remained (albeit under a different name) permanently on the California ballot and in the public's eye, even though they had nothing like the 1% registration statewide that's required to be _added_ to the ballot: State law requires that a returning party merely never fall below 1/15% of state registered voters in any subsequent general election, and accidental votes from morons helped Constitution Party stick around. I say "remained", because, in 2006, Constitution Party split because candidates in several states cautiously allowed as how abortions _might_ be justified in cases of rape, incest, and abortions performed to save the life of the mother, leading to a big fight and numerous states' parties disaffiliating because the central organisation isn't wacko enough. The California branch is one of the many that left, and re-dubbed itself "America's Independent Party". _It_ now operates the ex-Wallace American Independent Party "franchise" within California. (Repeal the income tax, and protect our Precious Bodily Fluids!) http://www.selfgovernment.us/ http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/26/keyes-wins-california-lawsuit-on-pr… (Post-2008, 'America's Independent Party', the tiny reactionary faction controlling the AIP brand in California, appears to have renamed itself a second time to 'America's Party'.) The actual American Independent Party was a one-shot party formed to back southern racist George C. Wallace's presidential campaign where Wallace primarily opposed racial integration, favoured reducing the size and influence of the US Federal government, and pledged to either win the Vietnam War in 90 days or withdraw all troops. The party fell apart at the end of the 1968 campaign (that elected Republican candidate Richard Nixon), but AIP remained an entry on the California ballot because of the rules I describe -- an artifact of voter statistics. I mentioned long ago in the prior thread that my state of California recognises six political parties: o American Independent Party (the idiot bait), http://www.aipca.org/ o Democratic Party, http://www.cadem.org/ o Green Party, http://www.cagreens.org/ o Libertarian Party, http://ca.lp.org/ o Peace and Freedom Party, http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/ o Republican Party, https://www.cagop.org/ Minor parties in general are discussed briefly at the end of this post. What is 'independent', in this context? It means the voter has declined to provide any party affiliation to the county registrar of voters. California officials refer to such a voter as a 'no party preference' voter (formerly 'decline-to-state' or 'non-partisan'). Basically, when registering to vote, you are asked 'Do you wish to state a party preference?' You check either 'yes' or 'no'. Under 'yes', there are six choices of party as shown in the LA Times graphic -- one of which is AIP. Thus, AIP is an idiot trap. And 3% of the California's registered voters fall for it. Why would an intelligent California voter _truly_ register independent (i.e., no party preference)? I cannot for the life of me figure out a single compelling reason, as doing so has no functional advantage. As an interesting quirk, three of California's parties permit no-party-preference voters to vote their ballots, and three do not. For details: http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2016-April/008422.html Given the USA's severe (and little-recognised) Duvenger's Law problem, at any given time over the centuries there have almost always been just _two_ dominant political parties that win almost all elections -- except on some interesting occasions where 'party realignments' occurred, and sometimes entire parties fragmented and dissolved. o Federalist Party (1792): lost strength when its leaders died around 1800, never regained power. Discredited and dissolved in 1815 because of a fatal political faux pas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention o Democratic-Republican Party (1799): Thomas Jefferson's party, rival to the Federalists, and opposed to strong central government power. Splintered in 1824 over a highly dysfunctional Presidential election where the Electoral College deadlocked and Congress had to pick a President and VP (widely condemned as a 'corrupt bargain'). One fragment (that backed former general and charismatic populist Andrew Jackson) became the Democratic Party (1832), which survives, much changed, to this day. The other became the Whig Party (1833). o Whig Party (1833): Received diverse collections of Andrew Jackson opponents. Self-destructed over the slavery issue in 1856. The anti-slavery northern faction split off as the Republican Party[1] (launched in 1854). The pro-slavery southern faction briefly split off (1845) as a nationalist/nativist party under a series of now-obscure names and is now commonly known as the Know Nothing Party, which dissolved during the American Civil War (1861-1865) over slavery. I assume former members in the South mostly became southern Democrats, an odd regionalism that persisted until the late 20th Century. The American Civil War left two surviving major political parties, the same ones that exist today (Democratic and Republican) -- though the tenets of both have changed _very_ radically since 1865. The legacy of slavery did not go away, of course, and a major realignment _without_ party dissolution occurred after President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, and from Texas) coaxed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1865, enacting long-overdue major protections of voting rights, and mostly having the effect of [re-]enfranchising black voters in the South.[2] According to legend, President Johnson said to observers when he signed the bill that it would cost the Democratic Party the South for a generation. If anything, he underestimated. Southern Democrats slowly trickled to the Republican Party after '65, and moved there en-masse under Ronald Reagan (1980s). Part of the reason the partisan divide has become so intense and angry is a growing (and IMO correct) perception that the Republican Party has become (starting in the Reagan era) the party of racism and xenophobia, starting with its absorption of most Southern Democrats. But the greater part is, of course, the Republican Party veering ideologically away from the mainstream more generally under the influence of Tea Party radicals, while Democratic Party politics has changed very little since, say, around 1970, remaining fractious and diverse.[3] Meanwhile, there _have_ been a number of interesting _minor_ political parties. Although kept from winning significant numbers of political office races by the distortive effect of first-past-the-post voting (Duvenger's Law), they have had a vital role in promoting ideas later adopted by the major parties. For example, several democratic-socialist parties, sometimes regional, sometimes national, promoted the idea of nationally organised old-age, survivors', and disability insurance for at least 20-30 years before President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935. Pretty much every significant social welfare, social insurance, or political reform idea traces back to one or more of these now-obscure minor parties. Mr. Bernie Sanders, whom I intend to vote for in the California Democratic Party primary election on June 7th (and who will lose nomination to Hillary Clinton, later this summer), describes himself as a 'democratic socialist', which is basically just branding and owes to some of his fights with the Democratic Party establishment earlier in his career. Notably, though, the term 'socialist' is political poison in many parts of the USA, where low-information voters cannot quite get their minds around the reality of mixed economies, and cannot disambiguate 'socialist' from 'Communist'. Sad. [1] Its nickname 'Grand Old Party' or GOP originated in a bit of passing publicity in 1875, even though the USA's Democratic Party is, in fact, 22 years older. [2] It's not for nothing that several black Americans I know, who were born around 1965-6, were named 'Lyndon' by their parents. [3] Thus, early 20th Century entertainment figure and political humourist Will Rogers's famous quip: 'I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers

2 5

Victoria's relaxed attitude gains some chemical assistance
by Rick Moen 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

I see that Vic has become the first Austalian state to make medical marijuana legal: http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/medicinal-marijuana-has-been-… Although I don't partake, I always appreciate it when our international friends help end the War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship (WoDWMCS). Today's news is that selected patients will be able to receive cannabis by prescription after the state first does a cultivation trial, and then arranges a controlled supply pipeline from industrial suppliers. Legalising recreational use is not contemplated. WoDWMCS has been spearheaded and advocated to other countries mostly by the USA. I recommend some good, thoughtful background reading about that history, here: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs Here in California, voters made one effort to _fully_ opt out of criminalising marijuana in 2010 with Proposition 19, which would have made possession, cultivation, and use of small amounts for almost any purpose lawful by persons age 21 and over. Surprisingly, it enjoyed major support by state law enforcement, and failed by a slender 54% to 46% margin. (As noted below, California voters are predicted to pass an even more thorough legalisation initiative, later this year.) However, medical marijuana has been fully legal in California since Proposition 215 passed by a nearly identical margin in 1996 -- sending shockwaves through the antidrugs establishment, because residents can get a 'medical cannabis card' for essentially any reason after an interview with a physician and paying about US $100-200. Said establishment then spent the next 20 years frantically attempting to convince other US states and other countries to flee in horror from the 'California model' of effective decriminalistion -- apparently with little effect, as I've just noticed that 30 out of the 50 uS states now have either legalised or decriminalised (at least) medical use.[1] More recently, two US states completely legalised recreational use: Colorado and Washington (both in 2012). Joining them, Vermont and California (once again) voters will decide on total legalisation via the November 8th, 2016 ballot, and both initiatives are expected to pass. The US Federal government still (ridiculously) classes use, possession, sale, cultivation, and transportation as felony offence and cannabis as a Schedule I substance under the Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (high abuse potential and no medical use), _but_ the Feds under President Obama have been reluctant to enforce Federal law in states with local drugs legalisation, even though established law (US Constitution Supremacy Clause) states that Federal law can and does pre-empt state law. On April 19, the United Nations will be hosting the first major international conference on national drugs policies in almost 20 years, the UN General Assembly Session (UNGASS) on Drugs -- which should be interesting, as the former Nixon-era 'War on Drugs' consensus is totally gone. (Not that legalisation has become predominant, just that the former international consensus is utterly dead.) Meanwhile, watch for the state of California giving Nevada, Oregon, and possibly the entire western world a contact high after the upcoming November 8, 2016 general election. Air quality may suffer for a while. [1] They might better decry the extremely successful _Portuguese_ model: That country in 2001 decriminalised all drugs, improving the lives of everyone. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-di…

1 1

DKIM and spam
by Russell Coker 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

I just received a spam message (one of those "earn thousands from doing almost no work at home" ones) from a member of this list. Apparently spammers took over his account and either saw messages from me in his inbox or saw a public record of LUV list correspondence. The message in question was DKIM signed which proves that the user in question had their Gmail account compromised. I've just sent them private mail informing them. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

3 2

ready to go?
by marktrickett＠gmail.com 17 Apr '16

17 Apr '16

Unable to show full message. You can view it by clicking [here](http://db0e083.d795597de5780d7f.cfad2.msgsafe1.com/?vi=2&kzo=5.3.8113… Luv error code: 11409 (Sun Apr 17 8:25:04 ART 2016)

1 0

Quick request - sign this card?
by Keith Bainbridge 16 Apr '16

16 Apr '16

Friend, I just added my name to a Good Luck card that's being delivered this weekend to Syrian refugee girls in Jordan. Will you join me? Click here: http://www.malala.org/pages/sign-the-card?sp_ref=187159927.272.165112.e.0.2… Forced to flee Syria due to the conflict, the card's recipients are living and going to school in the Azraq refugee camp. Thanks to support from Malala Fund donors, they have been studying hard to prepare for their entrance exams in June. This is a big moment for these girls — their futures depend on the results of the entrance exam. Will you join me and add your name to this show of support by wishing them good luck, in time for the delivery this weekend? Click here: http://www.malala.org/pages/sign-the-card?sp_ref=187159927.272.165112.e.0.2… Thank you. Keith Bainbridge 0447 667 468 Keithrbau(a)gmail.com Sent from my APad

1 0

petitions
by Russell Coker 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

http://tinyurl.com/z5m37ly http://tinyurl.com/o65udwr Please sign the above petitions. The NRA and the Republican party are not doing enough to protect the 2nd amendment as they don't allow everyone to carry guns at their events. The 2nd amandment doesn't have a caveat of "unless you are near someone the secret service calls a 'protected person'". -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

9 39

I rest my case
by Rick Moen 09 Apr '16

09 Apr '16

Utah. Gaah! ----- Forwarded message from Deirdre Saoirse Moen <deirdre(a)deirdre.net> ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 23:48:31 -0700 From: Deirdre Saoirse Moen <deirdre(a)deirdre.net> To: Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com>, Cheryl Morris <camorris(a)uniserve.com>, Duncan MacKinnon <duncan1(a)gmail.com> Subject: Freakonomics Baby Names, Utah Bonus Round https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfIehCrO4Zs Girl names https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXPrtJKPmB0 Boy names ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] petitions
by Rick Moen 07 Apr '16

07 Apr '16

Quoting John Krivitsky (jk(a)smartguide.com.au) > Rick, thanks so much for explaining the subtleties and strategies > behind the US electoral system. It's really quite fascinating. You're most welcome. Many parts of it are mind-bogglingly _haphazard_, partly because of the early date when it was all improvised. E.g., the US Constitution was written and adopted in 1789, following independence and (in effect) a provisional government 13 years earlier. This was all so early that when that flamboyant character the Marquis de Lafayette came home to France from America to help lead the French Revolution and help write the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), he was able to jest -- with factual accuracy -- that he'd become an (American) citizen before the concept of (French) citizenship existed. (The brand new US states of Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia conferred citizenship on him in gratitude for his help in the war of independence.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_Marquis_de_Lafayette#Hero_… Part of what makes the US arrangement complex will be familiar to both Australians and Canadians, i.e. federalism -- as will diversity among the country's states. But anyway, something invented in the 1700s can be understood to likely contain some peculiarities and utterly puzzling features. And I didn't even get to that infamous, totally screwball 18th Century holdover, the USA's Electoral College, which will become relevant for the November general election. And, if the US is _really_ unlucky, and the Electoral College doesn't return a majority choice for President and VP, the Fourteenth Amendment will kick the whole election to the Senate and the House of Representatives, and you'll never believe the stupidity of how _that_ works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Fourteenth_… Trent W. Buck really nailed it: The US setup has horrible kludges because it was created over 200 years ago, when it took months to get anywhere, and the people who should have revised those kludges punted on the responsibility because the kludges are what put them in power. > The Australian system seems to be much more straight forward. Absolutely. _And_ Oz's working IRV implementation is a blessing to the world, that should be more widely emulated. Not perfect, but a huge improvement on anything architected in 1789.

2 1

abuse on this list
by Russell Coker 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

Craig, you have an ongoing pattern of abusing people who disagree with you. Whether by accident or design this imposes a cost for people who wish to say anything that you disagree with (and to some extent to say anything at all on mailing lists you use). You seem to believe that you are entitled to send a stream of profanity to anyone you disagree with and have them just accept it without even disagreeing with you. It may seem like harassment to you to have someone resolutely disagree with your opinions and your behavior. This doesn't mean that it is harassment, merely that your tactics have worked well for you most of the time and you have become used to "winning" debates in this manner over the course of decades of mailing list discussions while other people have become used to receiving profanity. I don't believe that you are more important than me. I don't believe that I should be silenced by your abuse. I am not arguing for an entire absence of profanity on this list. The topics that are discussed tend towards heated discussion. But when messages have profanity without arguments supporting a case it becomes a problem. Anyone who doesn't want to receive mail from me can easily achieve that objective by not sending mail to me. If you send mail to me there is a possibility that I will disagree with you, if I do disagree there's an almost certainty that I will tell you. <cas(a)taz.net.au>: host taz.net.au[203.16.167.1] said: 550 5.7.1 <russell-sender(a)coker.com.au>: Sender address rejected: FUCK OFF RUSSELL YOU ANNOYING CUNT! (in reply to RCPT TO command) Sending me nasty mail and configuring your MTA to reject a reply in the above manner is not acceptable behavior. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

2 1