Hi CB,
Be honest, Ray, if you can. Sorry I have to phrase it like that, but I must.
Must is an interesting choice of words. In brass knuckle politics, honesty is the first thing that gets tossed out the window. Ample evidence of that is available to any observer. What we are left with is spin, posturing, positioning, muscling, threats, intimidation and bullying.
I believe we've seen ample examples of all of these features of the human behaviour complex over the past month.
Was I stretching things a bit about Miami-Dade? Well I don't think it's any more far fetched to say that than for Judge Sauls to come to the conclusion that there was no reason to look at a single ballot in a case expressly brought to examine ballots. BTW, there's an interesting biographical sketch of Judge Sauls at: nytimes.com
He's had about 30% of his decisions reversed, according to the article. Slightly leading Judge Nikki Clark, who gets overturned about 25% of the time. :)
Now, I'm not going to tell you one way or the other what might be the result of the actual count, for the first time of the 9,000 or 10,750 undercount ballots in Miami-Dade. Heck we can't even get a staight answer out of the media about how many ballots there are in question, for criminy sakes. How can the Republicans argue that there is no doubt as to whether or not counting these ballots will have an impact on the election results? Can you tell me that? Can you say with certainty that these ballots might not make a difference? And can you honestly tell me that Barry Richard and Sanders Sauls haven't willfully and purposefully disregarded the language in Section 168 of the FL election code that states that if the is a doubt as to the outcome of an election, that a hand count is mandatory?
I'm sure you've got it but for others, here's the section of Florida code I'm refering to:
leg.state.fl.us
The important text that Judge Sauls disregarded reads:
Title IX:102.168 Contest of Elections......
Para (3)......"The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:
<snip>
(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
My comments about the statistical possibility about Miami-Dade seem trivial in the face of the whopper that Judge Sauls has just tried to sell to America. I was going to say something disparaging about In-judicious Sauls, but I'm biting my tongue.... :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OT: The new Einstein, at least in his own mind. CB, I read a really interesting article today as I'm weaning myself off the thrilla in vanilla, this chap, Stephen Wolfram, is a Ph.D. physicist, owns a very kuhl software company called Mathematica and he's writing a book that he claims will be as revolutionary as Newton's "Principia" or Einstein's "Theory of Relativity". This is a lot more fun for me than reading law codes. :)
forbes.com
JoeBob sez check it out!
Best, Ray :) |
