Miriam,
When I run your word, "Democdracy", google takes me to Democracy Now.
I guess that since it's your word, you get to define it.
Without revisiting my long, boring and oft repeated ramble, I only
talk about the two major Political Parties in the framework of an
American Oligarchy. History, even the doctored version which appears
in our Official History Books, demonstrates that the Sacred
Constitution was written with the protection of the Landed Gentry in
mind. Before FDR and the Great Depression, our grand fathers and
great grandfathers had a much keener grasp on this fact. A ground
swell of resistance was building, labor unions were organized, strikes
became more frequent, demands for changes in the laws that were set in
place by the ruling class for their protection, women gained the right
to vote, and on and on. The Ruling Class fought back, but their
highly toted Wonderland came smack up against the worst depression of
all the financial dips that had plagued the Oligarchy since its
foundation.
Just as the Working Class was on the verge of toppling the
Establishment, probably through a revolution, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt rode into Washington Town on his high stepping New Deal, and
saved the ratty necks of the Establishment. And they never thanked
him. Instead, Roosevelt's New Deal was proclaimed the Saving Grace of
the People. In fact, the New Deal set in place a holding pattern, a
pause in the unchecked greed of the Ruling Class, allowing the
Establishment to continue holding onto their flawed Capitalism. The
Empire was becoming the dominate power in this expansionist
government. During the next several decades America moved across the
Western Shores of the Pacific Ocean...more than already had been done,
and great fortunes were being made despite the improved standard of
living by the Working Class. The Second World War and the never
ending wars that followed, created even greater opportunities for
Greed to rake in the world's wealth.
And all this time there were far too many American Working Class
members who bought the Capitalists propaganda that "We" were spreading
democracy around the world.
Bit by bit the Empire and its Capitalists took back that which FDR had
given. What angered me back during those days when Labor Unions were
at the height of their power, that they spent their time pushing for
certain gains among American Workers, without lifting a helping hand
to bring the Workers around the World up to our standards. Instead,
some labor leaders began slipping into bed with the corporate CEO's.
Between sleazy, self serving union leaders, and indifferent workers,
who were kept dancing joyfully with distractions and glittery gadgets,
they came to believe the promise that this wonderful life would never
end.
Now we are living in the end times. That is, the end times of the New
Deal. And now we look to 2017 as the beginning of a "Final Deal", the
death blow to any hope of individual freedom.
If we were living back in 1900, I would say that we might have a ray
of hope for building a People's Government. But far too many of us
have been drugged with lies and turned upon one another, to ever hope
for a united people's takeover.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> I know. Everyone keeps saying we're about to lose our Democracy or we only
> have vestiges of it. I think it's long gone. I think we've been sold an
> illusion that is called, "Democdracy".
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:49 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law Draws
> Bipartisan Ire
>
> Miriam,
> Not only do I not hold out hope for the Democratic Party, in part due to
> the
> fact that it is no longer the Party of the Working Class, but I hold out
> little hope for democracy and freedom of speech in these 50 United States.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 12/29/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> For all of you to whom I sent blind copies of this, what the author
>> writes is one of the reasons that I hold out little hope for the
> Democratic party.
>> Miriam
>>
>> Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire Published
>> on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive Obama's Support for
>> International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by Stephen Zunes
>>
>> President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
>> The Israel Project/cc/flickr) Here's one way to look at it: The United
>> States was the only country in the fifteen-member U.N. Security
>> Council that did not support a resolution passed last week criticizing
>> Israel for continuing to expand illegal settlements in the occupied
>> territories.
>> On the other hand, the Obama administration refused to veto the
>> resolution-for which it is now drawing fire from both Republicans and
>> Democrats. This opposition has come despite the resolution also
>> calling on both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to prevent
>> violence against civilians, condemn and combat terrorism, refrain from
>> incitement, and comply with their obligations under international law.
>> The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
>> territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
>> settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
>> Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
>> signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of its
>> own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The United
>> Nations, through such measures as Security Council Resolutions 446,
>> 452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West Bank,
>> including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
>> belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in
> violation of this critical international treaty.
>>
>> A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
>> confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
>> illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
>> enjoined the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva
>> Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with international
>> humanitarian law."
>> Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978
>> and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian
>> settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."
>> But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
>> illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
>> Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
>> establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have
>> opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace."
>> "The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director George
>> Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on Israeli
>> settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map for Peace,"
>> which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed was
>> necessary to resolve the conflict.
>> Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking
>> the U.N.
>> resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
>> House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
>> resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel,"
>> declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to reverse
>> the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with
>> Israel."
>> Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
>> claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator Ted
>> Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a "systemic
>> agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
>> President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
>> resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different"
>> after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to
>> Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
>> Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
>> outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
>> Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
>> Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
> Administration.
>> Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senate
>> Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing, and
> confounding"
>> for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.
>> Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
>> "extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong and
>> unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews'
>> ancient and historic connection to the land."
>> Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
>> Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
>> policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat
>> of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely
> unacceptable."
>> These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is not
>> simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure.
>> Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now
>> joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the
>> administration to not veto the resolution.
>> And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
>> Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of
>> Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
>> settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
>> should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even the
>> Obama administration has ruled out.
>> And
>> more American Jews support the Obama administration's recognition that
>> Israeli settlements are bad for Israel that those who support them.
>> It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only
>> be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights and
>> international law, they are also willing to ignore their constituents
>> who support such principles. As a result, there will be little in the
>> way of checks and balances to deter Trump from his dangerous foreign
>> policy agenda.
>> C 2016 The Progressive
>> Stephen Zunes
>> Skip to main content
>> //
>> . DONATE
>> . SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
>>
>>
>> Thursday, December 29, 2016
>> . Home
>> . World
>> . U.S.
>> . Canada
>> . Climate
>> . War & Peace
>> . Economy
>> . Rights
>> . Solutions
>> . #NotNormal
>> . #NoDAPL
>> . Bernie Sanders
>> Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire Published
>> on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive Obama's Support for
>> International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by Stephen Zunes
>> . 1 Comments
>> .
>> . President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
>> The Israel Project/cc/flickr)
>> . Here's one way to look at it: The United States was the only country
>> in the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council that did not support a
>> resolution passed last week criticizing Israel for continuing to
>> expand illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
>> . On the other hand, the Obama administration Error! Hyperlink
>> reference not valid. to veto the resolution-for which it is now
>> drawing fire from both Republicans and Democrats. This opposition has
>> come despite the resolution also calling on both the Israeli and
>> Palestinian governments to prevent violence against civilians, condemn
>> and combat terrorism, refrain from incitement, and comply with their
>> obligations under international law.
>> . The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
>> territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
>> settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
>> Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
>> signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of its
>> own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The United
>> Nations, through such measures as Security Council Resolutions 446,
>> 452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West Bank,
>> including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
>> belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in
> violation of this critical international treaty.
>> .
>> https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017https://secur
>> e.actb
>> lue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017
>> A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
>> confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
>> illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
>> enjoined the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva
>> Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with international
>> humanitarian law."
>> Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978
>> and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian
>> settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."
>> But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
>> illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
>> Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
>> establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have
>> opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace."
>> "The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director George
>> Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on Israeli
>> settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map for Peace,"
>> which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed was
>> necessary to resolve the conflict.
>> Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking
>> the U.N.
>> resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
>> House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
>> resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel,"
>> declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to reverse
>> the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with
>> Israel."
>> Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
>> claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator Ted
>> Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a "systemic
>> agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
>> President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
>> resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different"
>> after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to
>> Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
>> Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
>> outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
>> Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
>> Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
> Administration.
>> Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senate
>> Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing, and
> confounding"
>> for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.
>> Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
>> "extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong and
>> unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews'
>> ancient and historic connection to the land."
>> Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
>> Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
>> policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat
>> of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely
> unacceptable."
>> These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is not
>> simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure.
>> Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now
>> joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the
>> administration to not veto the resolution.
>> And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
>> Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of
>> Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
>> settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
>> should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even the
>> Obama administration has ruled out. And more American Jews support the
>> Obama administration's recognition that Israeli settlements are bad
>> for Israel that those who support them.
>> It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only
>> be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights and
>> international law, they are also willing to ignore their constituents
>> who support such principles. As a result, there will be little in the
>> way of checks and balances to deter Trump from his dangerous foreign
>> policy agenda.
>> C 2016 The Progressive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Friday, December 30, 2016
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Re: [acb-l] Out of bounds is the call
All,
Responding to John's question, I am not against voter ID laws. What I
am, is For the right of all Citizens to vote.
Back in 1969, when I first joined the old Washington State Association
of the Blind, I expected that I had the right to speak my mind and to
vote for what, or whom I supported.
I also believed that as a member, I had certain responsibilities to
the Organization. Since that day I have held membership in local,
state and national organizations of the blind. During those 48 years,
I have always held one position or another, serving today as Secretary
of the Jefferson County Council of the Blind.
In my mind, membership in an organization calls for each member to
serve the organization, and to expect that the organization serves
them in return.
If this is true of the organizations we join, it goes double for our
"membership" in our nation.
My agreement with the United States of America is that as long as I am
a citizen, I will uphold my responsibilities, and I will expect my
government to protect me and defend my rights.
When my government denies any citizen, for any reason, the right to
vote, or makes that right nearly impossible, I consider it to be a
breech in my governments commitment to All of its citizens.
When I joined the Washington State Employees Union, I paid my dues and
had the right to attend meetings, speak my mind, and vote. When I
became director of the Training Center, the Union told me that as a
member of management I was no longer eligible to vote. I could still
pay dues and attend meetings, but no vote. I told the Union that
while I continued to support the right of public employees to
organize, I would not pay dues when I was denied the vote.
I feel the same way toward the USA. And I feel the same way toward
the ACB. True, we are organized around our convention, but our
convention is directed by the grass root nature of the ACB.
Each year I pay my dues, attend all chapter meetings, attend the state
convention, vote and speak my mind. I feel that I am a full,
participating member of this ACB organization.
Each of us needs to think seriously as to how we go about protecting
our grass roots, member driven organization, to ensure that the ACB is
always an open organization, standing with all members. And this
should be our desire for our American government, too. Our
citizenship must always be our ticket to all of the rights, privileges
and responsibilities of our nation.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/28/16, John Heim via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> Does all that mean you're against voter ID laws?
>
> I think we should start by agreeing to one simple fact: There is no
> evidence that voter fraud is a significant problem in this country.
> Quite the contrary, study after study has has shown that it is not a
> problem. All attempts to show that voter fraud is a significant problem
> have failed. Is that one fact or three? Well, one simple fact, voter
> fraud is not a problem.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/28/2016 10:53 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>> Voter ID laws affect blind and sighted alike. As subscribers to the
>> ACB list, we should be able to sort out the issues and come to some
>> sort of agreement on what we can demand of our state and federal
>> governments.
>> For openers, I see two major positions at odds with one another. Both
>> positions go back to the formation of our government. In
>> establishing the Oligarchy that we call The United States of America,
>> the Founding Fathers debated long and hard over just who should have
>> the right to vote. There was, and continues to be a fear of the
>> Masses. Some Founding Fathers felt that allowing the rank and file
>> citizens a vote, would create a threat to their view of democracy.
>> The final determination was that people who were over 21 years of age,
>> a landowner or possessor of a high level of wealth, male and White,
>> would be so invested in the new government as to work to protect it.
>> The belief that all citizens had a right to a say in their government
>> was the loser. Over the years some modification has occurred. We
>> added Women and changed the age to 18, and gave the right to vote to
>> all citizens. But the forces around the protection of the Oligarchy
>> quickly recognized the threat to their preferred position, and began
>> to find ways of limiting the vote. During the early years following
>> the Civil War, and continuing up to our current times, intimidation
>> was used to keep Blacks, non Whites and certain "undesirable" Whites
>> from casting ballots.
>> As long as we allow our right to vote to be restricted, we have no
>> claim to the line in our pledge of allegiance, which says One Nation,
>> Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice For All.
>> We blind men and women are among the most vulnerable of Americans. We
>> depend upon public services such as our Rehab Programs, and our SSI,
>> to underwrite our struggle toward independence. My own position is
>> that we should raise a single voice in support of the right of all
>> citizens to vote. Personally, I would include those persons
>> incarcerated. Serving time should not exclude a persons right to
>> vote.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 12/28/16, John Heim via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
>>> Carl, you say, "We can discuss how we can organize ourselves to
>>> meet and deal with those most pressing issues." Can we?
>>>
>>> I don't think so. I don't think we can even discuss something as clearly
>>> important to our cause as voter ID laws on this list much less something
>>> more tangential like pollution. I don't mean the moderator would tell
>>> us we're off topic. Pollution might be off topic but I believe Bob has
>>> already said that he thinks voter ID laws are on topic. What I mean is
>>> that people on this list aren't willing to actually discuss voter ID
>>> laws or anything else for that matter.
>>>
>>> On 12/28/2016 09:39 AM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>> First, this is Carl Jarvis. No one has done anything with me...that I
>>>> know of. Work, that old four letter curse, has kept us busy. Seems
>>>> like the older our population becomes, the more of us develop things
>>>> like Macular Degeneration. And the vision issues are complicated by
>>>> age related issues, like hearing loss, lack of strength, short term
>>>> memory issues, and crankiness.
>>>> So we've had our hands full, and not been able to do much on-list.
>>>> I think, in response to my old friend Kevin's remarks, we certainly
>>>> can bring most of our concerns around to focusing on blindness related
>>>> subjects. That is because we blind folk actually live on the same
>>>> planet, breathe the same polluted air, drink the same contaminated
>>>> water, and jockey for the same space as our sighted brothers and
>>>> sisters. What affects Americans in general, affects the Blind, too.
>>>> We don't need to rant on this list, that can be done on lists such as
>>>> Blind Democracy, but we can discuss how we can organize ourselves to
>>>> meet and deal with those most pressing issues. And if that is not the
>>>> purpose of the ACB list, then we can all move over to the ACB chat
>>>> list...assuming it's still up and running.
>>>> But my point is, we can all work together in defining problems and
>>>> developing possible solutions, without the need to agree on our
>>>> personal beliefs. We should be able to prove that as adults, we can
>>>> stay on the issue without resorting to name calling, or...as I
>>>> sometimes am prone to do, going off on a wild rant.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, a most happy and productive New Year wish from The Jarvis' to
>>>> all of you.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/27/16, Kevin Frankeberger <k_frankeberger@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think that is what Bob said.
>>>>> I'd love to respond to friend, fellow WA state resident Carl along
>>>>> with
>>>>> Alice, Ann P. and you too, Richard along with John and others. But
>>>>> such
>>>>> discussion has been called, "out of bounds" by our list moderator Bob.
>>>>> I do need to be careful as I am an appointed judge in our little
>>>>> county
>>>>> for
>>>>> our Board of Equalization. That said, our three County Commissioners
>>>>> certainly know of my more "left of center" political leanings. Still,
>>>>> I
>>>>> try
>>>>> to do my job without my own set of ethos impacted upon those who
>>>>> appear
>>>>> before us.
>>>>> Maybe with that thought we can move our discussions back to how we can
>>>>> move
>>>>> the needs of us blind to the forefront knowing the new political
>>>>> climate
>>>>> we
>>>>> are facing or, will face. That, with putting our own values or ethos
>>>>> in
>>>>> check until we know what we truly will face.
>>>>> I suspect we will have a lot of advocacy in front of us. As your
>>>>> resources
>>>>> might allow, a financial gift to ACB is needed now more then ever so
>>>>> we
>>>>> can
>>>>> pay to be heard...sad as that is.
>>>>> Best,Kevin with Tomasso
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Richard Driscoll via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>> To: Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net>; Carl Jarvis
>>>>> <carjar82@gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 4:01 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-l] [leadership] Article: Blind man sets out alone
>>>>> in
>>>>> Google's driverless car
>>>>>
>>>>> Alice: All I did was make a suggestion.
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/27/2016 10:31 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> response to the last two posts from Carl, or whoever you are: who
>>>>> are
>>>>> you,
>>>>> and what have you done with Carl?
>>>>> On Dec 20, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Trump, crazy like a Fox.
>>>>> We miss assessed Trump from the get go.
>>>>> It troubles me that so many folks are spending so much energy on wild
>>>>> speculation regarding what the Trumpster has in store for us, instead
>>>>> of assessing how we blind people can make some progress within this
>>>>> new regime.
>>>>> We need to dust off our wish list and determine which issues are most
>>>>> urgent, and then gather and plan how to sell this heavily weighted
>>>>> Republican Congress to support us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/16, Richard Driscoll via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann P:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your diagnosis of Mr. Trump's behavior is quite correct. However, in
>>>>> your consideration of same, please entertain the thought that he may
>>>>> be
>>>>> acting in a deliberate and well planned course of action to spread
>>>>> confusion amongst his political adversaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/2016 5:08 AM, akp--- via acb-l wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> After the incident at the Pizza parlor, I'm skeptical of anything in
>>>>> the
>>>>> media. Having the Russians tamper with our election process suits
>>>>> somebody's agenda. Therefore, it's been printed and transmitted over
>>>>> the
>>>>> net. Is it true, Hell if I know. All I do know is that the
>>>>> electoral
>>>>> College has chosen to elect a loose-mouthed self-absorbed, idiot!
>>>>> All
>>>>> I
>>>>> can do is try my best to protect myself and my friends from whatever
>>>>> is
>>>>> coming. I don't know what that is. The media is fractured on this
>>>>> point.
>>>>> So, I'm taking Mad-Eye Moody's prescription. "Constant vigilance".
>>>>> I
>>>>> am
>>>>> prepared to trust only what I can perceive with my senses. I will
>>>>> leave
>>>>> the Internet and media pundits to wrangle and shout. I'm not paying
>>>>> any
>>>>> attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann P.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Carl Jarvis via acb-l [mailto:acb-l@acblists.org]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:31 PM
>>>>> To: John Heim <john@johnheim.com>
>>>>> Cc: acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-l] [leadership] Article: Blind man sets out alone
>>>>> in
>>>>> Google's driverless car
>>>>>
>>>>> Well now, that's two separate issues. I may have lost my mind, but
>>>>> my
>>>>> point that I was cleverly trying to make...with such high level of
>>>>> wit
>>>>> and
>>>>> humor, was that I don't buy the Russians tampering with our election
>>>>> garbage. Maybe after we clean up our own bungling of our own
>>>>> election
>>>>> process, maybe then I'll be up to thinking about the return of the
>>>>> Evil
>>>>> Empire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude... Santa is make-believe. Putin is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean seriously, WTF? The Russians might have hacked into our voting
>>>>> machines and made Donald Trump President. You're comparing that to
>>>>> Santa making a list and checking it twice? Have you lost your mind?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:06 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From the beginning of the Human Species, we've had someone meddling
>>>>> in our personal affairs. I mean, look at old Adam. One bite of the
>>>>> fruit from the tree of knowledge, and someone told God on him. And
>>>>> who squealed on Nero when Rome was burning and Nero was just fiddling
>>>>> around?
>>>>> Of course it can be to our benefit when someone spills the beans.
>>>>> Remember Paul Revere? "The British are coming! The British are
>>>>> coming!" Thank goodness for that!
>>>>> Sure, it was so much simpler back before the internet. Even wen the
>>>>> FBI tapped telephones back during the "Red Scare" of the late 40's,
>>>>> you could hear a loud "click" on your phone...not that our phone was
>>>>> ever tapped. But on the internet? Someone could very well be
>>>>> snooping around right now and we'd never know it.
>>>>> Of course that's supposed to keeps us all on our best behavior. I
>>>>> remember my mother telling me that Santa watched me all year long, to
>>>>> see if I'd been good or bad. I told a little friend of mine that
>>>>> Santa watched us every day. She said, "That's not true. Jesus
>>>>> watches us." Same difference, I guess.
>>>>> Anyway, I do not worry about the Russians meddling in our political
>>>>> affairs. For one reason, they have enough troubles of their own.
>>>>> For another, we are about as busy meddling in their affairs as they
>>>>> are in ours. And finally, I worry more about some of our home grown
>>>>> meddlers more than infiltrators. And lastly, would we behave any
>>>>> different on this list if we learned that someone was spying on us?
>>>>> If we're being honest in what we write, who cares how many Special
>>>>> Agents are lurking? At some point I decided to say what I meant, and
>>>>> do my best whether Santa was watching, or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad to see this stuff is registering with people. This stuff
>>>>> about the Russians interfering in our election, possibly even
>>>>> hacking voting machines is seriously scary business. The evidence
>>>>> is circumstantial but it is enough to warrant an investigation. I
>>>>> read up on the statistical analysis the security experts did and it
>>>>> looks right to me.
>>>>> I mean it's not bologna
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/2016 01:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course we might refer to Herr Trump as, Führer, but his
>>>>> Russian title would be, vozhd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/16, Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I only hope to live long enough to see this! And that our New
>>>>> fewer elected by the Russians does not destroy our world before
>>>>> this can happen.
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Right on, Carla!
>>>>> Not only do I see the day when all transportation vehicles are
>>>>> driverless, but they will be "on demand" to citizens, foregoing
>>>>> the need to make expensive purchases. A touch of a button and a
>>>>> car awaits you at the curb. Furthermore, I predict that these
>>>>> cars will use no oil products to run them. They will float on a
>>>>> cushion of air and be driven by the Earth's magnetic energy.
>>>>> Solar energy will run our homes and even water craft will float
>>>>> above the water. It will be a very quiet world. Homes will be
>>>>> built in the hills and mountains, leaving flat, fertile bottom
>>>>> land for crops.
>>>>> Of course, if we don't get with it soon, there will be no one
>>>>> left to enjoy it all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/16, Carla Ruschival via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>> For the last week, there has been at least one story every day,
>>>>> sometimes more, about people being killed in automobile
>>>>> accidents around town and nearby. I daresay that is true of most
>>>>> metropolitan areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if we don't want to see anyone get hurt, we should outlaw
>>>>> all cars until the killing of thousands on our highways, and the
>>>>> maiming of tens of thousands, including children, can be put to
>>>>> a stop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this suggestion is obviously ridiculous, why are we so
>>>>> worried about the development of the driverless car? In m1llions
>>>>> of miles of testing, it has certainly proven to be far safer
>>>>> than the vehicles we use every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bring it on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carla
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Rich Vonderhaar via leadership
>>>>> <leadership@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a link to an article that came out this morning about the
>>>>> driverless car thing. While I think it is a great idea, I would
>>>>> hate
>>>>> to
>>>>> see any one get hurt.
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich V
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> leadership mailing list
>>>>> leadership@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/leadership
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-l mailing list
>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
>
Responding to John's question, I am not against voter ID laws. What I
am, is For the right of all Citizens to vote.
Back in 1969, when I first joined the old Washington State Association
of the Blind, I expected that I had the right to speak my mind and to
vote for what, or whom I supported.
I also believed that as a member, I had certain responsibilities to
the Organization. Since that day I have held membership in local,
state and national organizations of the blind. During those 48 years,
I have always held one position or another, serving today as Secretary
of the Jefferson County Council of the Blind.
In my mind, membership in an organization calls for each member to
serve the organization, and to expect that the organization serves
them in return.
If this is true of the organizations we join, it goes double for our
"membership" in our nation.
My agreement with the United States of America is that as long as I am
a citizen, I will uphold my responsibilities, and I will expect my
government to protect me and defend my rights.
When my government denies any citizen, for any reason, the right to
vote, or makes that right nearly impossible, I consider it to be a
breech in my governments commitment to All of its citizens.
When I joined the Washington State Employees Union, I paid my dues and
had the right to attend meetings, speak my mind, and vote. When I
became director of the Training Center, the Union told me that as a
member of management I was no longer eligible to vote. I could still
pay dues and attend meetings, but no vote. I told the Union that
while I continued to support the right of public employees to
organize, I would not pay dues when I was denied the vote.
I feel the same way toward the USA. And I feel the same way toward
the ACB. True, we are organized around our convention, but our
convention is directed by the grass root nature of the ACB.
Each year I pay my dues, attend all chapter meetings, attend the state
convention, vote and speak my mind. I feel that I am a full,
participating member of this ACB organization.
Each of us needs to think seriously as to how we go about protecting
our grass roots, member driven organization, to ensure that the ACB is
always an open organization, standing with all members. And this
should be our desire for our American government, too. Our
citizenship must always be our ticket to all of the rights, privileges
and responsibilities of our nation.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/28/16, John Heim via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> Does all that mean you're against voter ID laws?
>
> I think we should start by agreeing to one simple fact: There is no
> evidence that voter fraud is a significant problem in this country.
> Quite the contrary, study after study has has shown that it is not a
> problem. All attempts to show that voter fraud is a significant problem
> have failed. Is that one fact or three? Well, one simple fact, voter
> fraud is not a problem.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/28/2016 10:53 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>> Voter ID laws affect blind and sighted alike. As subscribers to the
>> ACB list, we should be able to sort out the issues and come to some
>> sort of agreement on what we can demand of our state and federal
>> governments.
>> For openers, I see two major positions at odds with one another. Both
>> positions go back to the formation of our government. In
>> establishing the Oligarchy that we call The United States of America,
>> the Founding Fathers debated long and hard over just who should have
>> the right to vote. There was, and continues to be a fear of the
>> Masses. Some Founding Fathers felt that allowing the rank and file
>> citizens a vote, would create a threat to their view of democracy.
>> The final determination was that people who were over 21 years of age,
>> a landowner or possessor of a high level of wealth, male and White,
>> would be so invested in the new government as to work to protect it.
>> The belief that all citizens had a right to a say in their government
>> was the loser. Over the years some modification has occurred. We
>> added Women and changed the age to 18, and gave the right to vote to
>> all citizens. But the forces around the protection of the Oligarchy
>> quickly recognized the threat to their preferred position, and began
>> to find ways of limiting the vote. During the early years following
>> the Civil War, and continuing up to our current times, intimidation
>> was used to keep Blacks, non Whites and certain "undesirable" Whites
>> from casting ballots.
>> As long as we allow our right to vote to be restricted, we have no
>> claim to the line in our pledge of allegiance, which says One Nation,
>> Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice For All.
>> We blind men and women are among the most vulnerable of Americans. We
>> depend upon public services such as our Rehab Programs, and our SSI,
>> to underwrite our struggle toward independence. My own position is
>> that we should raise a single voice in support of the right of all
>> citizens to vote. Personally, I would include those persons
>> incarcerated. Serving time should not exclude a persons right to
>> vote.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 12/28/16, John Heim via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
>>> Carl, you say, "We can discuss how we can organize ourselves to
>>> meet and deal with those most pressing issues." Can we?
>>>
>>> I don't think so. I don't think we can even discuss something as clearly
>>> important to our cause as voter ID laws on this list much less something
>>> more tangential like pollution. I don't mean the moderator would tell
>>> us we're off topic. Pollution might be off topic but I believe Bob has
>>> already said that he thinks voter ID laws are on topic. What I mean is
>>> that people on this list aren't willing to actually discuss voter ID
>>> laws or anything else for that matter.
>>>
>>> On 12/28/2016 09:39 AM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>> First, this is Carl Jarvis. No one has done anything with me...that I
>>>> know of. Work, that old four letter curse, has kept us busy. Seems
>>>> like the older our population becomes, the more of us develop things
>>>> like Macular Degeneration. And the vision issues are complicated by
>>>> age related issues, like hearing loss, lack of strength, short term
>>>> memory issues, and crankiness.
>>>> So we've had our hands full, and not been able to do much on-list.
>>>> I think, in response to my old friend Kevin's remarks, we certainly
>>>> can bring most of our concerns around to focusing on blindness related
>>>> subjects. That is because we blind folk actually live on the same
>>>> planet, breathe the same polluted air, drink the same contaminated
>>>> water, and jockey for the same space as our sighted brothers and
>>>> sisters. What affects Americans in general, affects the Blind, too.
>>>> We don't need to rant on this list, that can be done on lists such as
>>>> Blind Democracy, but we can discuss how we can organize ourselves to
>>>> meet and deal with those most pressing issues. And if that is not the
>>>> purpose of the ACB list, then we can all move over to the ACB chat
>>>> list...assuming it's still up and running.
>>>> But my point is, we can all work together in defining problems and
>>>> developing possible solutions, without the need to agree on our
>>>> personal beliefs. We should be able to prove that as adults, we can
>>>> stay on the issue without resorting to name calling, or...as I
>>>> sometimes am prone to do, going off on a wild rant.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, a most happy and productive New Year wish from The Jarvis' to
>>>> all of you.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/27/16, Kevin Frankeberger <k_frankeberger@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think that is what Bob said.
>>>>> I'd love to respond to friend, fellow WA state resident Carl along
>>>>> with
>>>>> Alice, Ann P. and you too, Richard along with John and others. But
>>>>> such
>>>>> discussion has been called, "out of bounds" by our list moderator Bob.
>>>>> I do need to be careful as I am an appointed judge in our little
>>>>> county
>>>>> for
>>>>> our Board of Equalization. That said, our three County Commissioners
>>>>> certainly know of my more "left of center" political leanings. Still,
>>>>> I
>>>>> try
>>>>> to do my job without my own set of ethos impacted upon those who
>>>>> appear
>>>>> before us.
>>>>> Maybe with that thought we can move our discussions back to how we can
>>>>> move
>>>>> the needs of us blind to the forefront knowing the new political
>>>>> climate
>>>>> we
>>>>> are facing or, will face. That, with putting our own values or ethos
>>>>> in
>>>>> check until we know what we truly will face.
>>>>> I suspect we will have a lot of advocacy in front of us. As your
>>>>> resources
>>>>> might allow, a financial gift to ACB is needed now more then ever so
>>>>> we
>>>>> can
>>>>> pay to be heard...sad as that is.
>>>>> Best,Kevin with Tomasso
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Richard Driscoll via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>> To: Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net>; Carl Jarvis
>>>>> <carjar82@gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 4:01 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-l] [leadership] Article: Blind man sets out alone
>>>>> in
>>>>> Google's driverless car
>>>>>
>>>>> Alice: All I did was make a suggestion.
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/27/2016 10:31 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> response to the last two posts from Carl, or whoever you are: who
>>>>> are
>>>>> you,
>>>>> and what have you done with Carl?
>>>>> On Dec 20, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Trump, crazy like a Fox.
>>>>> We miss assessed Trump from the get go.
>>>>> It troubles me that so many folks are spending so much energy on wild
>>>>> speculation regarding what the Trumpster has in store for us, instead
>>>>> of assessing how we blind people can make some progress within this
>>>>> new regime.
>>>>> We need to dust off our wish list and determine which issues are most
>>>>> urgent, and then gather and plan how to sell this heavily weighted
>>>>> Republican Congress to support us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/16, Richard Driscoll via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann P:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your diagnosis of Mr. Trump's behavior is quite correct. However, in
>>>>> your consideration of same, please entertain the thought that he may
>>>>> be
>>>>> acting in a deliberate and well planned course of action to spread
>>>>> confusion amongst his political adversaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/2016 5:08 AM, akp--- via acb-l wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> After the incident at the Pizza parlor, I'm skeptical of anything in
>>>>> the
>>>>> media. Having the Russians tamper with our election process suits
>>>>> somebody's agenda. Therefore, it's been printed and transmitted over
>>>>> the
>>>>> net. Is it true, Hell if I know. All I do know is that the
>>>>> electoral
>>>>> College has chosen to elect a loose-mouthed self-absorbed, idiot!
>>>>> All
>>>>> I
>>>>> can do is try my best to protect myself and my friends from whatever
>>>>> is
>>>>> coming. I don't know what that is. The media is fractured on this
>>>>> point.
>>>>> So, I'm taking Mad-Eye Moody's prescription. "Constant vigilance".
>>>>> I
>>>>> am
>>>>> prepared to trust only what I can perceive with my senses. I will
>>>>> leave
>>>>> the Internet and media pundits to wrangle and shout. I'm not paying
>>>>> any
>>>>> attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann P.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Carl Jarvis via acb-l [mailto:acb-l@acblists.org]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:31 PM
>>>>> To: John Heim <john@johnheim.com>
>>>>> Cc: acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-l] [leadership] Article: Blind man sets out alone
>>>>> in
>>>>> Google's driverless car
>>>>>
>>>>> Well now, that's two separate issues. I may have lost my mind, but
>>>>> my
>>>>> point that I was cleverly trying to make...with such high level of
>>>>> wit
>>>>> and
>>>>> humor, was that I don't buy the Russians tampering with our election
>>>>> garbage. Maybe after we clean up our own bungling of our own
>>>>> election
>>>>> process, maybe then I'll be up to thinking about the return of the
>>>>> Evil
>>>>> Empire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude... Santa is make-believe. Putin is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean seriously, WTF? The Russians might have hacked into our voting
>>>>> machines and made Donald Trump President. You're comparing that to
>>>>> Santa making a list and checking it twice? Have you lost your mind?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:06 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From the beginning of the Human Species, we've had someone meddling
>>>>> in our personal affairs. I mean, look at old Adam. One bite of the
>>>>> fruit from the tree of knowledge, and someone told God on him. And
>>>>> who squealed on Nero when Rome was burning and Nero was just fiddling
>>>>> around?
>>>>> Of course it can be to our benefit when someone spills the beans.
>>>>> Remember Paul Revere? "The British are coming! The British are
>>>>> coming!" Thank goodness for that!
>>>>> Sure, it was so much simpler back before the internet. Even wen the
>>>>> FBI tapped telephones back during the "Red Scare" of the late 40's,
>>>>> you could hear a loud "click" on your phone...not that our phone was
>>>>> ever tapped. But on the internet? Someone could very well be
>>>>> snooping around right now and we'd never know it.
>>>>> Of course that's supposed to keeps us all on our best behavior. I
>>>>> remember my mother telling me that Santa watched me all year long, to
>>>>> see if I'd been good or bad. I told a little friend of mine that
>>>>> Santa watched us every day. She said, "That's not true. Jesus
>>>>> watches us." Same difference, I guess.
>>>>> Anyway, I do not worry about the Russians meddling in our political
>>>>> affairs. For one reason, they have enough troubles of their own.
>>>>> For another, we are about as busy meddling in their affairs as they
>>>>> are in ours. And finally, I worry more about some of our home grown
>>>>> meddlers more than infiltrators. And lastly, would we behave any
>>>>> different on this list if we learned that someone was spying on us?
>>>>> If we're being honest in what we write, who cares how many Special
>>>>> Agents are lurking? At some point I decided to say what I meant, and
>>>>> do my best whether Santa was watching, or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad to see this stuff is registering with people. This stuff
>>>>> about the Russians interfering in our election, possibly even
>>>>> hacking voting machines is seriously scary business. The evidence
>>>>> is circumstantial but it is enough to warrant an investigation. I
>>>>> read up on the statistical analysis the security experts did and it
>>>>> looks right to me.
>>>>> I mean it's not bologna
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/2016 01:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course we might refer to Herr Trump as, Führer, but his
>>>>> Russian title would be, vozhd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/16, Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I only hope to live long enough to see this! And that our New
>>>>> fewer elected by the Russians does not destroy our world before
>>>>> this can happen.
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Right on, Carla!
>>>>> Not only do I see the day when all transportation vehicles are
>>>>> driverless, but they will be "on demand" to citizens, foregoing
>>>>> the need to make expensive purchases. A touch of a button and a
>>>>> car awaits you at the curb. Furthermore, I predict that these
>>>>> cars will use no oil products to run them. They will float on a
>>>>> cushion of air and be driven by the Earth's magnetic energy.
>>>>> Solar energy will run our homes and even water craft will float
>>>>> above the water. It will be a very quiet world. Homes will be
>>>>> built in the hills and mountains, leaving flat, fertile bottom
>>>>> land for crops.
>>>>> Of course, if we don't get with it soon, there will be no one
>>>>> left to enjoy it all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/16, Carla Ruschival via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>> For the last week, there has been at least one story every day,
>>>>> sometimes more, about people being killed in automobile
>>>>> accidents around town and nearby. I daresay that is true of most
>>>>> metropolitan areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if we don't want to see anyone get hurt, we should outlaw
>>>>> all cars until the killing of thousands on our highways, and the
>>>>> maiming of tens of thousands, including children, can be put to
>>>>> a stop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this suggestion is obviously ridiculous, why are we so
>>>>> worried about the development of the driverless car? In m1llions
>>>>> of miles of testing, it has certainly proven to be far safer
>>>>> than the vehicles we use every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bring it on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carla
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Rich Vonderhaar via leadership
>>>>> <leadership@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a link to an article that came out this morning about the
>>>>> driverless car thing. While I think it is a great idea, I would
>>>>> hate
>>>>> to
>>>>> see any one get hurt.
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich V
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> leadership mailing list
>>>>> leadership@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/leadership
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-l mailing list
>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
>
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Re: [acb-l] FYI - What To Expect in a New Era of Trumponomics
Hi Ray,
Thanks for posting this interesting article. While you and I will
most likely never agree, politically, we are, I believe, brothers in
the never ending struggle for equal opportunity and independence for
the Blind of America. One small part of this long article troubles me
when I think of what it might say about the ACB, and our collective
efforts to move social attitudes. The author wrote, "...This new
administration
hates weak, unproductive, socialist people..."
While most of us would simply shrug and say, "We're not Socialists",
we overlook the broader implications of this language. In the minds
of these, "strong, can-do, profit makers" any collection of people
trying to influence their goals will be labelled Socialist, and will
come under attack. This includes the American Council of the Blind.
We are a People's Movement, a democratic, grass roots organization
working together to change attitudes and to promote certain
legislation that will enhance our opportunities, often calling for
limits on the free hand policies of government and private
corporations. At times our needs cause us to take actions that impact
the abilities of corporations to freely compete by ignoring our needs,
as insignificant.
We have even been forced to resort to suing our Federal Government
over their failure to make our money accessible to blind people.
If the author of this article is correct, who is going to watch our
back? Who will defend us when we make reasonable demands, and are
shoved aside as if we were pesky little gnats...pesky little blind
gnats.
Of course the solution is a simple one, if it could only come true and
in "...believing that "it's glorious to be rich," we granted each
American a million dollars.
Anyway, the days and years ahead will be interesting, to say the
least. Any further comments on what I consider errors in this
article, are not for discussion on this list. But whether we agree or
not, we blind members of the ACB need to roll up our collective...but
not our socialist...sleeves and stand together...not collectively, but
as a strong people.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/21/16, Ray Campbell via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Sharing for your information. Got this forwarded to me via Linked In.
>
> =====start article text=====
>
> Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Published on
> December 19, 2016
> Featured in:
> Economy
> ,
> US Politics
> Like Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Like
> 3,557
> Comment
> Comment
> 514
> Share Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Share
> 986
> Ray Dalio
> Ray Dalio
> false
> Follow Ray Dalio
> Chairman & Chief Investment Officer at Bridgewater Associates, L.P.
> Now that we're a month past the election and most of the cabinet posts have
> been filled, it is increasingly obvious that we are about to experience a
> profound, president-led ideological shift that will have a big impact on
> both the US and the world. This will not just be a shift in government
> policy, but also a shift in how government policy is pursued. Trump is a
> deal maker who negotiates hard, and doesn't mind getting banged around or
> banging others around. Similarly, the people he chose are bold and
> hell-bent
> on playing hardball to make big changes happen in economics and in foreign
> policy (as well as other areas such as education, environmental policies,
> etc.). They also have different temperaments and different views that will
> have to be resolved.
>
> Regarding economics, if you haven't read Ayn Rand lately, I suggest that
> you
> do as her books pretty well capture the mindset. This new administration
> hates weak, unproductive, socialist people and policies, and it admires
> strong, can-do, profit makers. It wants to, and probably will, shift the
> environment from one that makes profit makers villains with limited power
> to
> one that makes them heroes with significant power. The shift from the past
> administration to this administration will probably be even more
> significant
> than the 1979-82 shift from the socialists to the capitalists in the UK,
> US,
> and Germany when Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Helmut Kohl came to
> power. To understand that ideological shift you also might read Thatcher's
> "The Downing Street Years." Or, you might reflect on China's
> political/economic shift as marked by moving from "protecting the iron rice
> bowl" to believing that "it's glorious to be rich."
>
> This particular shift by the Trump administration could have a much bigger
> impact on the US economy than one would calculate on the basis of changes
> in
> tax and spending policies alone because it could ignite animal spirits and
> attract productive capital. Regarding igniting animal spirits, if this
> administration can spark a virtuous cycle in which people can make money,
> the move out of cash (that pays them virtually nothing) to risk-on
> investments could be huge. Regarding attracting capital, Trump's policies
> can also have a big impact because businessmen and investors move very
> quickly away from inhospitable environments to hospitable
> environments. Remember how quickly money left and came back to places like
> Spain and Argentina? A pro-business US with its rule of law, political
> stability, property rights protections, and (soon to be) favorable
> corporate
> taxes offers a uniquely attractive environment for those who make money
> and/or have money. These policies will also have shocking negative impacts
> on certain sectors.
>
> Regarding foreign policy, we should expect the Trump administration to be
> comparably aggressive. Notably, even before assuming the presidency, Trump
> is questioning the one-China policy which is a shocking move. Policies
> pertaining to Iran, Mexico, and most other countries will probably also be
> aggressive.
>
> The question is whether this administration will be a) aggressive and
> thoughtful or b) aggressive and reckless. The interactions between Trump,
> his heavy-weight advisors, and them with each other will likely determine
> the answer to this question. For example, on the foreign policy front, what
> Trump, Flynn, Tillerson, and Mattis (and others) are individually and
> collectively like will probably determine how much the new administration's
> policies will be a) aggressive and thoughtful versus b) aggressive and
> reckless. We are pretty sure that it won't take long to find out.
>
> In the next section we look at some of the new appointees via some
> statistics to characterize what they're like. Most notably, many of the
> people entering the new administration have held serious responsibilities
> that required pragmatism and sound judgment, with a notable skew toward
> businessmen.
>
> Perspective on the Ideology and Experience of the New Trump Administration
>
> We can get a rough sense of the experience of the new Trump administration
> by adding up the years major appointees have spent in relevant leadership
> positions. The table below compares the executive/government experience of
> the Trump administration's top eight officials* to previous
> administrations,
> counting elected positions, government roles with major administrative
> responsibilities, or time as C-suite corporate executives or equivalent at
> mid-size or large companies. Trump's administration stands out for having
> by
> far the most business experience and a bit lower than average government
> experience (lower compared to recent presidents, and in line with Carter
> and
> Reagan). But the cumulative years of executive/government experience of his
> appointees are second-highest. Obviously, this is a very simple, imprecise
> measure, and there will be gray zones in exactly how you classify people,
> but it is indicative.
>
>
>
>
> Below we show some rough quantitative measures of the ideological shift to
> the right we're likely to see under Trump and the Republican
> Congress. First, we look at the economic ideology of the incoming US
> Congress. Trump's views may differ in some important ways from the
> Congressional Republicans, but he'll need Congressional support for many of
> his policies and he's picking many of his nominees from the heart of the
> Republican Party. As the chart below shows, the Republican members of
> Congress have shifted significantly to the right on economic issues since
> Reagan; Democratic congressmen have shifted a bit to the left. The measure
> below is one-dimensional and not precise, but it captures the flavor of the
> shift. The measure was commissioned by a National Science Foundation grant
> and is meant to capture economic views with a focus on government
> intervention on the economy. They looked at each congressman's voting
> record, compared it to a measure of what an archetypical liberal or
> conservative congressman would have done, and rated each member of Congress
> on a scale of -1 to 1 (with -1 corresponding to an archetypical liberal and
> +1 corresponding to an archetypical conservative).
>
>
>
>
> When we look more specifically at the ideology of Trump's cabinet nominees,
> we see the same shift to the right on economic issues. Below we compare the
> ideology of Trump's cabinet nominees to those of prior administrations
> using
> the same methodology as described above for the cabinet members who have
> been in the legislature. By this measure, Trump's administration is the
> most
> conservative in recent American history, but only slightly more
> conservative
> than the average Republican congressman. Keep in mind that we are only
> including members of the new administration who have voting records (which
> is a very small group of people so far).
>
>
>
>
> While the Trump administration appears very right-leaning by the measures
> above, it's worth keeping in mind that Trump's stated ideology differs from
> traditional Republicans in a number of ways, most notably on issues related
> to free trade and protectionism. In addition, a number of key members of
> his
> team—such as Steven Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, and Wilbur Ross—don't have
> voting records and may not subscribe to the same brand of conservatism as
> many Republican congressmen. There's a degree of difference in ideology and
> a level of uncertainty that these measures don't convey.
>
> Comparing the Trump and Reagan Administrations
>
> The above was a very rough quantitative look at Trump's administration. To
> draw out some more nuances, below we zoom in on Trump's particular
> appointees and compare them to those of the Reagan administration. Trump is
> still filling in his appointments, so the picture is still emerging and our
> observations are based on his key appointments so far.
>
> Looking closer, a few observations are worth noting. First, the overall
> quality of government experience in the Trump administration looks to be a
> bit less than Reagan's, while the Trump team's strong business experience
> stands out (in particular, the amount of business experience among top
> cabinet nominees). Even though Reagan's administration had somewhat fewer
> years of government experience, the typical quality of that experience was
> somewhat higher, with more people who had served in senior government
> positions. Reagan himself had more political experience than Trump does,
> having served as the governor of California for eight years prior to taking
> office, and he also had people with significant past government experience
> in top posts (such as his VP, George HW Bush). By contrast, Trump's
> appointees bring lots of high quality business leadership experience from
> roles that required pragmatism and judgment. Rex Tillerson's time as head
> of
> a global oil company is a good example of high-level international business
> experience with clear relevance to his role as Secretary of State (to some
> extent reminiscent of Reagan's second Secretary of State, George Shultz,
> who
> had a mix of past government experience and international business
> experience as the president of the construction firm Bechtel). Steven
> Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross have serious business credentials as well, not to
> mention Trump's own experience. It's also of note that Trump has leaned
> heavily on appointees with military experience to compensate for his lack
> of
> foreign policy experience (appointing three generals for Defense, National
> Security Advisor, and Homeland Security), while Reagan compensated for his
> weakness in that area with appointees from both military and civilian
> government backgrounds (Bush had been CIA head and UN ambassador, and
> Reagan's first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, was Supreme Allied
> Commander of NATO forces during the Cold War). Also, Trump has seemed less
> willing to make appointments from among his opponents than Reagan was
> (Reagan's Chief of Staff had chaired opposing campaigns, and his Vice
> President had run against him).\
>
>
>
>
> By and large, deal-maker businessmen will be running the government. Their
> boldness will almost certainly make the next four years incredibly
> interesting and will keep us all on our toes.
>
> =====end article text=====
>
> Ray Campbell
> Ray153056@gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
Thanks for posting this interesting article. While you and I will
most likely never agree, politically, we are, I believe, brothers in
the never ending struggle for equal opportunity and independence for
the Blind of America. One small part of this long article troubles me
when I think of what it might say about the ACB, and our collective
efforts to move social attitudes. The author wrote, "...This new
administration
hates weak, unproductive, socialist people..."
While most of us would simply shrug and say, "We're not Socialists",
we overlook the broader implications of this language. In the minds
of these, "strong, can-do, profit makers" any collection of people
trying to influence their goals will be labelled Socialist, and will
come under attack. This includes the American Council of the Blind.
We are a People's Movement, a democratic, grass roots organization
working together to change attitudes and to promote certain
legislation that will enhance our opportunities, often calling for
limits on the free hand policies of government and private
corporations. At times our needs cause us to take actions that impact
the abilities of corporations to freely compete by ignoring our needs,
as insignificant.
We have even been forced to resort to suing our Federal Government
over their failure to make our money accessible to blind people.
If the author of this article is correct, who is going to watch our
back? Who will defend us when we make reasonable demands, and are
shoved aside as if we were pesky little gnats...pesky little blind
gnats.
Of course the solution is a simple one, if it could only come true and
in "...believing that "it's glorious to be rich," we granted each
American a million dollars.
Anyway, the days and years ahead will be interesting, to say the
least. Any further comments on what I consider errors in this
article, are not for discussion on this list. But whether we agree or
not, we blind members of the ACB need to roll up our collective...but
not our socialist...sleeves and stand together...not collectively, but
as a strong people.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/21/16, Ray Campbell via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Sharing for your information. Got this forwarded to me via Linked In.
>
> =====start article text=====
>
> Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Published on
> December 19, 2016
> Featured in:
> Economy
> ,
> US Politics
> Like Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Like
> 3,557
> Comment
> Comment
> 514
> Share Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Share
> 986
> Ray Dalio
> Ray Dalio
> false
> Follow Ray Dalio
> Chairman & Chief Investment Officer at Bridgewater Associates, L.P.
> Now that we're a month past the election and most of the cabinet posts have
> been filled, it is increasingly obvious that we are about to experience a
> profound, president-led ideological shift that will have a big impact on
> both the US and the world. This will not just be a shift in government
> policy, but also a shift in how government policy is pursued. Trump is a
> deal maker who negotiates hard, and doesn't mind getting banged around or
> banging others around. Similarly, the people he chose are bold and
> hell-bent
> on playing hardball to make big changes happen in economics and in foreign
> policy (as well as other areas such as education, environmental policies,
> etc.). They also have different temperaments and different views that will
> have to be resolved.
>
> Regarding economics, if you haven't read Ayn Rand lately, I suggest that
> you
> do as her books pretty well capture the mindset. This new administration
> hates weak, unproductive, socialist people and policies, and it admires
> strong, can-do, profit makers. It wants to, and probably will, shift the
> environment from one that makes profit makers villains with limited power
> to
> one that makes them heroes with significant power. The shift from the past
> administration to this administration will probably be even more
> significant
> than the 1979-82 shift from the socialists to the capitalists in the UK,
> US,
> and Germany when Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Helmut Kohl came to
> power. To understand that ideological shift you also might read Thatcher's
> "The Downing Street Years." Or, you might reflect on China's
> political/economic shift as marked by moving from "protecting the iron rice
> bowl" to believing that "it's glorious to be rich."
>
> This particular shift by the Trump administration could have a much bigger
> impact on the US economy than one would calculate on the basis of changes
> in
> tax and spending policies alone because it could ignite animal spirits and
> attract productive capital. Regarding igniting animal spirits, if this
> administration can spark a virtuous cycle in which people can make money,
> the move out of cash (that pays them virtually nothing) to risk-on
> investments could be huge. Regarding attracting capital, Trump's policies
> can also have a big impact because businessmen and investors move very
> quickly away from inhospitable environments to hospitable
> environments. Remember how quickly money left and came back to places like
> Spain and Argentina? A pro-business US with its rule of law, political
> stability, property rights protections, and (soon to be) favorable
> corporate
> taxes offers a uniquely attractive environment for those who make money
> and/or have money. These policies will also have shocking negative impacts
> on certain sectors.
>
> Regarding foreign policy, we should expect the Trump administration to be
> comparably aggressive. Notably, even before assuming the presidency, Trump
> is questioning the one-China policy which is a shocking move. Policies
> pertaining to Iran, Mexico, and most other countries will probably also be
> aggressive.
>
> The question is whether this administration will be a) aggressive and
> thoughtful or b) aggressive and reckless. The interactions between Trump,
> his heavy-weight advisors, and them with each other will likely determine
> the answer to this question. For example, on the foreign policy front, what
> Trump, Flynn, Tillerson, and Mattis (and others) are individually and
> collectively like will probably determine how much the new administration's
> policies will be a) aggressive and thoughtful versus b) aggressive and
> reckless. We are pretty sure that it won't take long to find out.
>
> In the next section we look at some of the new appointees via some
> statistics to characterize what they're like. Most notably, many of the
> people entering the new administration have held serious responsibilities
> that required pragmatism and sound judgment, with a notable skew toward
> businessmen.
>
> Perspective on the Ideology and Experience of the New Trump Administration
>
> We can get a rough sense of the experience of the new Trump administration
> by adding up the years major appointees have spent in relevant leadership
> positions. The table below compares the executive/government experience of
> the Trump administration's top eight officials* to previous
> administrations,
> counting elected positions, government roles with major administrative
> responsibilities, or time as C-suite corporate executives or equivalent at
> mid-size or large companies. Trump's administration stands out for having
> by
> far the most business experience and a bit lower than average government
> experience (lower compared to recent presidents, and in line with Carter
> and
> Reagan). But the cumulative years of executive/government experience of his
> appointees are second-highest. Obviously, this is a very simple, imprecise
> measure, and there will be gray zones in exactly how you classify people,
> but it is indicative.
>
>
>
>
> Below we show some rough quantitative measures of the ideological shift to
> the right we're likely to see under Trump and the Republican
> Congress. First, we look at the economic ideology of the incoming US
> Congress. Trump's views may differ in some important ways from the
> Congressional Republicans, but he'll need Congressional support for many of
> his policies and he's picking many of his nominees from the heart of the
> Republican Party. As the chart below shows, the Republican members of
> Congress have shifted significantly to the right on economic issues since
> Reagan; Democratic congressmen have shifted a bit to the left. The measure
> below is one-dimensional and not precise, but it captures the flavor of the
> shift. The measure was commissioned by a National Science Foundation grant
> and is meant to capture economic views with a focus on government
> intervention on the economy. They looked at each congressman's voting
> record, compared it to a measure of what an archetypical liberal or
> conservative congressman would have done, and rated each member of Congress
> on a scale of -1 to 1 (with -1 corresponding to an archetypical liberal and
> +1 corresponding to an archetypical conservative).
>
>
>
>
> When we look more specifically at the ideology of Trump's cabinet nominees,
> we see the same shift to the right on economic issues. Below we compare the
> ideology of Trump's cabinet nominees to those of prior administrations
> using
> the same methodology as described above for the cabinet members who have
> been in the legislature. By this measure, Trump's administration is the
> most
> conservative in recent American history, but only slightly more
> conservative
> than the average Republican congressman. Keep in mind that we are only
> including members of the new administration who have voting records (which
> is a very small group of people so far).
>
>
>
>
> While the Trump administration appears very right-leaning by the measures
> above, it's worth keeping in mind that Trump's stated ideology differs from
> traditional Republicans in a number of ways, most notably on issues related
> to free trade and protectionism. In addition, a number of key members of
> his
> team—such as Steven Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, and Wilbur Ross—don't have
> voting records and may not subscribe to the same brand of conservatism as
> many Republican congressmen. There's a degree of difference in ideology and
> a level of uncertainty that these measures don't convey.
>
> Comparing the Trump and Reagan Administrations
>
> The above was a very rough quantitative look at Trump's administration. To
> draw out some more nuances, below we zoom in on Trump's particular
> appointees and compare them to those of the Reagan administration. Trump is
> still filling in his appointments, so the picture is still emerging and our
> observations are based on his key appointments so far.
>
> Looking closer, a few observations are worth noting. First, the overall
> quality of government experience in the Trump administration looks to be a
> bit less than Reagan's, while the Trump team's strong business experience
> stands out (in particular, the amount of business experience among top
> cabinet nominees). Even though Reagan's administration had somewhat fewer
> years of government experience, the typical quality of that experience was
> somewhat higher, with more people who had served in senior government
> positions. Reagan himself had more political experience than Trump does,
> having served as the governor of California for eight years prior to taking
> office, and he also had people with significant past government experience
> in top posts (such as his VP, George HW Bush). By contrast, Trump's
> appointees bring lots of high quality business leadership experience from
> roles that required pragmatism and judgment. Rex Tillerson's time as head
> of
> a global oil company is a good example of high-level international business
> experience with clear relevance to his role as Secretary of State (to some
> extent reminiscent of Reagan's second Secretary of State, George Shultz,
> who
> had a mix of past government experience and international business
> experience as the president of the construction firm Bechtel). Steven
> Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross have serious business credentials as well, not to
> mention Trump's own experience. It's also of note that Trump has leaned
> heavily on appointees with military experience to compensate for his lack
> of
> foreign policy experience (appointing three generals for Defense, National
> Security Advisor, and Homeland Security), while Reagan compensated for his
> weakness in that area with appointees from both military and civilian
> government backgrounds (Bush had been CIA head and UN ambassador, and
> Reagan's first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, was Supreme Allied
> Commander of NATO forces during the Cold War). Also, Trump has seemed less
> willing to make appointments from among his opponents than Reagan was
> (Reagan's Chief of Staff had chaired opposing campaigns, and his Vice
> President had run against him).\
>
>
>
>
> By and large, deal-maker businessmen will be running the government. Their
> boldness will almost certainly make the next four years incredibly
> interesting and will keep us all on our toes.
>
> =====end article text=====
>
> Ray Campbell
> Ray153056@gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Re: [acb-l] Voter Fraud
So what can we, the blind of America, do?
Knowing that foreign governments probably spy on us, as our government
spies on them, and knowing that there are those who put winning
elections ahead of the Will of the People, and knowing that we differ
among ourselves as to who or how our elections are tampered with, just
what can we do?
Well, I can offer my personal opinion. It is as valid as anyone's. I
would first suggest that we ensure that our ACB continues to be a
grass roots organization, run by the People through our leadership.
Demonstrating to ourselves that being involved in our own affairs
proves to us that democracy truly works.
Also, we should be constantly on guard to assure that our basic
organization does not change. That is, we must keep outside
forces...and dollars, from slowly taking over what we see as our
priorities. That means we must be more involved in the ACB at the
state and local levels, raising awareness, recruiting new members,
educating those new members, and raising support for our Programs
through group activities that not only raise much needed dollars, but
cement relations among members.
Finally, we need to educate ourselves to ensure that we don't fall
into the clutches of those fear mongers, who would have us believe
that we are being spied upon and under threat of total destruction.
An organization that looks to its members for strength, that
organization will stand against any outside forces to bring it down,
or divert its programs.
That is what we can offer to the rest of our nation, an example, a
success story. Democracy doing its thing!
Carl Jarvis
On 12/20/16, Carl Jarvis via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> All,
> I did write, "our own political leaders are allowing
> their overly eager election workers to use illegal means to alter
> votes."
> By "election workers", I was thinking of those workers who are drawing
> up lists of names of people they believe are voting multiple times.
> These names are being sent out to election officials and people with
> those names are being stricken from the voter registers, thus altering
> the vote.
> Many other people found that their names were not on the voters
> register, even though they had voted at the same polling place for
> years. These people were given a ballot to fill out, and told it
> would be held until their name had been verified. Inspectors found
> boxes of such ballots that had never been submitted for counting.
> But the problem goes deeper. Gerrymandering has been a political tool
> used by both major parties to attempt to secure political districts
> for their Party.
> Why are close to half of America's voters failing to vote? Could it
> be that they don't believe their vote will matter? Before we jump all
> over Russia, we might first make certain that all Americans have
> access to cast a ballot with the assurance that it will be counted.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 12/20/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>> In an attempt to get this back on topic, I'd like to address this issue
>> of voter fraud. This is an important issue for blind people because
>> Republicans have been using it as an excuse to pass voter ID laws.
>> There has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in this
>> country. We do not have a significant problem with election workers
>> altering votes. Those are myths prepetuated by the Republican party in
>> order to suppress the vote.
>>
>> If anybody has evidence from a reliable source that voter fraud is
>> really a big problem in the United States, I'd like to see it. You want
>> proof that Republicans are using voter ID laws to suppress the vote?
>> Here is an article from the New York Times saying that Republicans
>> themselves acknowledge it:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html?_r=0
>>
>> Now, you can argue that that's just politiccs as usual. But you can't
>> argue that they're not trying to keep people from voting by passing
>> voter ID laws. They, themselves, admit it. I am not a Democrat. But if
>> you don't find what the Republicans are doing in this case to be
>> abhorant, then it's not my biase that is the problem, it's yours. What
>> they are doing is just wrong.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>> in our American election system. Not since Watergate has there
>>> been so much evidence that our own political leaders are allowing
>>> their overly eager election workers to use illegal means to alter
>>> votes.
>>> We are on a steep downhill slide unless we do something soon to end
>>> this tampering.
>>> Then we can worry about the Russians.
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>> But, Carl, you haven't looked into the allegations that the Russians
>>>> hacked our election have you? I'll bet not because if you had looked
>>>> into it, you wouldn't be calling it "garbage". And that's very
>>>> irresponsible. Do your research first -- then make up your mind.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the facts:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A prominent group of security experts, most notably J. Alex
>>>> Halderman, of the University of Michigan did a statistical analysis and
>>>> their findings might indicate tampering. I do the computers for the
>>>> Math
>>>> Department at the University of Wisconsin and I know enough to know
>>>> bologna when I see it. This is not bologna. What they have done is
>>>> exactly what I would do to look for tampering.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The CIA and FBI have already said the Russians were the ones who
>>>> hacked the Democrats email and planted fake news stories. It is not
>>>> that
>>>> much of a stretch to think they might have also tampered with voting
>>>> machines.
>>>>
>>>> 3. It's not far fetched to think the voting machines could have been
>>>> hacked. Somebody, lots of people think it was our own CIA, tampered
>>>> with
>>>> Iran's nuclear centrifuges via a computer virus in 2007. Google
>>>> "Stuxnet" for mor information. A similar attack could have been
>>>> launched
>>>> against our voting machines.
>>>>
>>>> 4. The day after the election, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister,
>>>> Sergei Ryabkov, said they'd been working with the Trump campaign
>>>> throughout the election.
>>>>
>>>> These are all facts. You can check them out. In fact, I would urge you
>>>> to do exactly that . Do your own research. I do my best to be fair and
>>>> to be skeptical but open minded. I just don't see what is so
>>>> unbelievable here. I think there is a huge problem here with people
>>>> hearing all these crazy things like President Obama being born in Kenya
>>>> and they think all this just goes in the same basket. But this is no
>>>> joke.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:30 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> > Well now, that's two separate issues. I may have lost my mind, but
>>>> my
>>>> > point that I was cleverly trying to make...with such high level of
>>>> wit
>>>> > and humor, was that I don't buy the Russians tampering with our
>>>> > election garbage. Maybe after we clean up our own bungling of our
>>>> own
>>>> > election process, maybe then I'll be up to thinking about the return
>>>> > of the Evil Empire.
>>>> >
>>>> > Carl Jarvis
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Dude... Santa is make-believe. Putin is not.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I mean seriously, WTF? The Russians might have hacked into our
>>>> voting
>>>> >> machines and made Donald Trump President. You're comparing that to
>>>> Santa
>>>> >> making a list and checking it twice? Have you lost your mind?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 12/19/2016 07:06 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> >>> From the beginning of the Human Species, we've had someone
>>>> meddling
>>>> in
>>>> >>> our personal affairs. I mean, look at old Adam. One bite of the
>>>> >>> fruit from the tree of knowledge, and someone told God on him.
>>>> And
>>>> >>> who squealed on Nero when Rome was burning and Nero was just
>>>> fiddling
>>>> >>> around?
>>>> >>> Of course it can be to our benefit when someone spills the beans.
>>>> >>> Remember Paul Revere? "The British are coming! The British are
>>>> >>> coming!" Thank goodness for that!
>>>> >>> Sure, it was so much simpler back before the internet. Even wen
>>>> the
>>>> >>> FBI tapped telephones back during the "Red Scare" of the late
>>>> 40's,
>>>> >>> you could hear a loud "click" on your phone...not that our phone
>>>> was
>>>> >>> ever tapped. But on the internet? Someone could very well be
>>>> >>> snooping around right now and we'd never know it.
>>>> >>> Of course that's supposed to keeps us all on our best behavior.
>>>> I
>>>> >>> remember my mother telling me that Santa watched me all year long,
>>>> to
>>>> >>> see if I'd been good or bad. I told a little friend of mine that
>>>> >>> Santa watched us every day. She said, "That's not true. Jesus
>>>> >>> watches us." Same difference, I guess.
>>>> >>> Anyway, I do not worry about the Russians meddling in our
>>>> political
>>>> >>> affairs. For one reason, they have enough troubles of their own.
>>>> For
>>>> >>> another, we are about as busy meddling in their affairs as they
>>>> are
>>>> in
>>>> >>> ours. And finally, I worry more about some of our home grown
>>>> meddlers
>>>> >>> more than infiltrators. And lastly, would we behave any different
>>>> on
>>>> >>> this list if we learned that someone was spying on us? If we're
>>>> being
>>>> >>> honest in what we write, who cares how many Special Agents are
>>>> >>> lurking? At some point I decided to say what I meant, and do my
>>>> best
>>>> >>> whether Santa was watching, or not.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Carl Jarvis
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> I'm glad to see this stuff is registering with people. This stuff
>>>> about
>>>> >>>> the Russians interfering in our election, possibly even hacking
>>>> voting
>>>> >>>> machines is seriously scary business. The evidence is
>>>> circumstantial
>>>> >>>> but it is enough to warrant an investigation. I read up on the
>>>> >>>> statistical analysis the security experts did and it looks right
>>>> to me.
>>>> >>>> I mean it's not bologna
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 12/19/2016 01:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Well, of course we might refer to Herr Trump as, Führer, but his
>>>> >>>>> Russian title would be, vozhd.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 12/18/16, Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> I only hope to live long enough to see this! And that our New
>>>> fewer
>>>> >>>>>> elected
>>>> >>>>>> by the Russians does not destroy our world before this can
>>>> happen.
>>>> >>>>>> Karen
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>> >>>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Right on, Carla!
>>>> >>>>>>> Not only do I see the day when all transportation vehicles are
>>>> >>>>>>> driverless, but they will be "on demand" to citizens,
>>>> foregoing
>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>> need to make expensive purchases. A touch of a button and a
>>>> car
>>>> >>>>>>> awaits you at the curb. Furthermore, I predict that these
>>>> cars
>>>> will
>>>> >>>>>>> use no oil products to run them. They will float on a cushion
>>>> of air
>>>> >>>>>>> and be driven by the Earth's magnetic energy.
>>>> >>>>>>> Solar energy will run our homes and even water craft will
>>>> float
>>>> above
>>>> >>>>>>> the water. It will be a very quiet world. Homes will be
>>>> built
>>>> in
>>>> >>>>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>> hills and mountains, leaving flat, fertile bottom land for
>>>> crops.
>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, if we don't get with it soon, there will be no one
>>>> left to
>>>> >>>>>>> enjoy it all.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/18/16, Carla Ruschival via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> For the last week, there has been at least one story every
>>>> day,
>>>> >>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>> >>>>>>>> more, about people being killed in automobile accidents
>>>> around
>>>> town
>>>> >>>>>>>> and
>>>> >>>>>>>> nearby. I daresay that is true of most metropolitan areas.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> So, if we don't want to see anyone get hurt, we should outlaw
>>>> all
>>>> >>>>>>>> cars
>>>> >>>>>>>> until
>>>> >>>>>>>> the killing of thousands on our highways, and the maiming of
>>>> tens of
>>>> >>>>>>>> thousands, including children, can be put to a stop.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Since this suggestion is obviously ridiculous, why are we so
>>>> worried
>>>> >>>>>>>> about
>>>> >>>>>>>> the development of the driverless car? In m1llions of miles
>>>> of
>>>> >>>>>>>> testing,
>>>> >>>>>>>> it
>>>> >>>>>>>> has certainly proven to be far safer than the vehicles we use
>>>> every
>>>> >>>>>>>> day.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Bring it on.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Carla
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Rich Vonderhaar via leadership
>>>> >>>>>>>>> <leadership@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's a link to an article that came out this morning about
>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>>>> driverless car thing. While I think it is a great idea, I
>>>> would
>>>> >>>>>>>>> hate
>>>> >>>>>>>>> to
>>>> >>>>>>>>> see any one get hurt.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rich V
>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>> leadership mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>>> leadership@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/leadership
>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> >>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:30 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>>> Well now, that's two separate issues. I may have lost my mind, but my
>>>>> point that I was cleverly trying to make...with such high level of wit
>>>>> and humor, was that I don't buy the Russians tampering with our
>>>>> election garbage. Maybe after we clean up our own bungling of our own
>>>>> election process, maybe then I'll be up to thinking about the return
>>>>> of the Evil Empire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dude... Santa is make-believe. Putin is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean seriously, WTF? The Russians might have hacked into our voting
>>>>>> machines and made Donald Trump President. You're comparing that to
>>>>>> Santa
>>>>>> making a list and checking it twice? Have you lost your mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:06 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>>>>> From the beginning of the Human Species, we've had someone meddling
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> our personal affairs. I mean, look at old Adam. One bite of the
>>>>>>> fruit from the tree of knowledge, and someone told God on him. And
>>>>>>> who squealed on Nero when Rome was burning and Nero was just
>>>>>>> fiddling
>>>>>>> around?
>>>>>>> Of course it can be to our benefit when someone spills the beans.
>>>>>>> Remember Paul Revere? "The British are coming! The British are
>>>>>>> coming!" Thank goodness for that!
>>>>>>> Sure, it was so much simpler back before the internet. Even wen the
>>>>>>> FBI tapped telephones back during the "Red Scare" of the late 40's,
>>>>>>> you could hear a loud "click" on your phone...not that our phone was
>>>>>>> ever tapped. But on the internet? Someone could very well be
>>>>>>> snooping around right now and we'd never know it.
>>>>>>> Of course that's supposed to keeps us all on our best behavior. I
>>>>>>> remember my mother telling me that Santa watched me all year long,
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see if I'd been good or bad. I told a little friend of mine that
>>>>>>> Santa watched us every day. She said, "That's not true. Jesus
>>>>>>> watches us." Same difference, I guess.
>>>>>>> Anyway, I do not worry about the Russians meddling in our political
>>>>>>> affairs. For one reason, they have enough troubles of their own.
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> another, we are about as busy meddling in their affairs as they are
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> ours. And finally, I worry more about some of our home grown
>>>>>>> meddlers
>>>>>>> more than infiltrators. And lastly, would we behave any different
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> this list if we learned that someone was spying on us? If we're
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> honest in what we write, who cares how many Special Agents are
>>>>>>> lurking? At some point I decided to say what I meant, and do my
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> whether Santa was watching, or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm glad to see this stuff is registering with people. This stuff
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the Russians interfering in our election, possibly even hacking
>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>> machines is seriously scary business. The evidence is
>>>>>>>> circumstantial
>>>>>>>> but it is enough to warrant an investigation. I read up on the
>>>>>>>> statistical analysis the security experts did and it looks right to
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>> I mean it's not bologna
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2016 01:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, of course we might refer to Herr Trump as, Führer, but his
>>>>>>>>> Russian title would be, vozhd.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/16, Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I only hope to live long enough to see this! And that our New
>>>>>>>>>> fewer
>>>>>>>>>> elected
>>>>>>>>>> by the Russians does not destroy our world before this can
>>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>>>> Karen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>>>>>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right on, Carla!
>>>>>>>>>>> Not only do I see the day when all transportation vehicles are
>>>>>>>>>>> driverless, but they will be "on demand" to citizens, foregoing
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> need to make expensive purchases. A touch of a button and a car
>>>>>>>>>>> awaits you at the curb. Furthermore, I predict that these cars
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> use no oil products to run them. They will float on a cushion
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> air
>>>>>>>>>>> and be driven by the Earth's magnetic energy.
>>>>>>>>>>> Solar energy will run our homes and even water craft will float
>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>> the water. It will be a very quiet world. Homes will be built
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> hills and mountains, leaving flat, fertile bottom land for
>>>>>>>>>>> crops.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if we don't get with it soon, there will be no one
>>>>>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> enjoy it all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/16, Carla Ruschival via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the last week, there has been at least one story every day,
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>> more, about people being killed in automobile accidents around
>>>>>>>>>>>> town
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> nearby. I daresay that is true of most metropolitan areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if we don't want to see anyone get hurt, we should outlaw
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> the killing of thousands on our highways, and the maiming of
>>>>>>>>>>>> tens
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thousands, including children, can be put to a stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this suggestion is obviously ridiculous, why are we so
>>>>>>>>>>>> worried
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the development of the driverless car? In m1llions of miles of
>>>>>>>>>>>> testing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> has certainly proven to be far safer than the vehicles we use
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bring it on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carla
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Rich Vonderhaar via leadership
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <leadership@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a link to an article that came out this morning about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> driverless car thing. While I think it is a great idea, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see any one get hurt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich V
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/leadership
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
>
Knowing that foreign governments probably spy on us, as our government
spies on them, and knowing that there are those who put winning
elections ahead of the Will of the People, and knowing that we differ
among ourselves as to who or how our elections are tampered with, just
what can we do?
Well, I can offer my personal opinion. It is as valid as anyone's. I
would first suggest that we ensure that our ACB continues to be a
grass roots organization, run by the People through our leadership.
Demonstrating to ourselves that being involved in our own affairs
proves to us that democracy truly works.
Also, we should be constantly on guard to assure that our basic
organization does not change. That is, we must keep outside
forces...and dollars, from slowly taking over what we see as our
priorities. That means we must be more involved in the ACB at the
state and local levels, raising awareness, recruiting new members,
educating those new members, and raising support for our Programs
through group activities that not only raise much needed dollars, but
cement relations among members.
Finally, we need to educate ourselves to ensure that we don't fall
into the clutches of those fear mongers, who would have us believe
that we are being spied upon and under threat of total destruction.
An organization that looks to its members for strength, that
organization will stand against any outside forces to bring it down,
or divert its programs.
That is what we can offer to the rest of our nation, an example, a
success story. Democracy doing its thing!
Carl Jarvis
On 12/20/16, Carl Jarvis via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> All,
> I did write, "our own political leaders are allowing
> their overly eager election workers to use illegal means to alter
> votes."
> By "election workers", I was thinking of those workers who are drawing
> up lists of names of people they believe are voting multiple times.
> These names are being sent out to election officials and people with
> those names are being stricken from the voter registers, thus altering
> the vote.
> Many other people found that their names were not on the voters
> register, even though they had voted at the same polling place for
> years. These people were given a ballot to fill out, and told it
> would be held until their name had been verified. Inspectors found
> boxes of such ballots that had never been submitted for counting.
> But the problem goes deeper. Gerrymandering has been a political tool
> used by both major parties to attempt to secure political districts
> for their Party.
> Why are close to half of America's voters failing to vote? Could it
> be that they don't believe their vote will matter? Before we jump all
> over Russia, we might first make certain that all Americans have
> access to cast a ballot with the assurance that it will be counted.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 12/20/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>> In an attempt to get this back on topic, I'd like to address this issue
>> of voter fraud. This is an important issue for blind people because
>> Republicans have been using it as an excuse to pass voter ID laws.
>> There has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in this
>> country. We do not have a significant problem with election workers
>> altering votes. Those are myths prepetuated by the Republican party in
>> order to suppress the vote.
>>
>> If anybody has evidence from a reliable source that voter fraud is
>> really a big problem in the United States, I'd like to see it. You want
>> proof that Republicans are using voter ID laws to suppress the vote?
>> Here is an article from the New York Times saying that Republicans
>> themselves acknowledge it:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html?_r=0
>>
>> Now, you can argue that that's just politiccs as usual. But you can't
>> argue that they're not trying to keep people from voting by passing
>> voter ID laws. They, themselves, admit it. I am not a Democrat. But if
>> you don't find what the Republicans are doing in this case to be
>> abhorant, then it's not my biase that is the problem, it's yours. What
>> they are doing is just wrong.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>> in our American election system. Not since Watergate has there
>>> been so much evidence that our own political leaders are allowing
>>> their overly eager election workers to use illegal means to alter
>>> votes.
>>> We are on a steep downhill slide unless we do something soon to end
>>> this tampering.
>>> Then we can worry about the Russians.
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>> But, Carl, you haven't looked into the allegations that the Russians
>>>> hacked our election have you? I'll bet not because if you had looked
>>>> into it, you wouldn't be calling it "garbage". And that's very
>>>> irresponsible. Do your research first -- then make up your mind.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the facts:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A prominent group of security experts, most notably J. Alex
>>>> Halderman, of the University of Michigan did a statistical analysis and
>>>> their findings might indicate tampering. I do the computers for the
>>>> Math
>>>> Department at the University of Wisconsin and I know enough to know
>>>> bologna when I see it. This is not bologna. What they have done is
>>>> exactly what I would do to look for tampering.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The CIA and FBI have already said the Russians were the ones who
>>>> hacked the Democrats email and planted fake news stories. It is not
>>>> that
>>>> much of a stretch to think they might have also tampered with voting
>>>> machines.
>>>>
>>>> 3. It's not far fetched to think the voting machines could have been
>>>> hacked. Somebody, lots of people think it was our own CIA, tampered
>>>> with
>>>> Iran's nuclear centrifuges via a computer virus in 2007. Google
>>>> "Stuxnet" for mor information. A similar attack could have been
>>>> launched
>>>> against our voting machines.
>>>>
>>>> 4. The day after the election, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister,
>>>> Sergei Ryabkov, said they'd been working with the Trump campaign
>>>> throughout the election.
>>>>
>>>> These are all facts. You can check them out. In fact, I would urge you
>>>> to do exactly that . Do your own research. I do my best to be fair and
>>>> to be skeptical but open minded. I just don't see what is so
>>>> unbelievable here. I think there is a huge problem here with people
>>>> hearing all these crazy things like President Obama being born in Kenya
>>>> and they think all this just goes in the same basket. But this is no
>>>> joke.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:30 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> > Well now, that's two separate issues. I may have lost my mind, but
>>>> my
>>>> > point that I was cleverly trying to make...with such high level of
>>>> wit
>>>> > and humor, was that I don't buy the Russians tampering with our
>>>> > election garbage. Maybe after we clean up our own bungling of our
>>>> own
>>>> > election process, maybe then I'll be up to thinking about the return
>>>> > of the Evil Empire.
>>>> >
>>>> > Carl Jarvis
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Dude... Santa is make-believe. Putin is not.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I mean seriously, WTF? The Russians might have hacked into our
>>>> voting
>>>> >> machines and made Donald Trump President. You're comparing that to
>>>> Santa
>>>> >> making a list and checking it twice? Have you lost your mind?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 12/19/2016 07:06 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> >>> From the beginning of the Human Species, we've had someone
>>>> meddling
>>>> in
>>>> >>> our personal affairs. I mean, look at old Adam. One bite of the
>>>> >>> fruit from the tree of knowledge, and someone told God on him.
>>>> And
>>>> >>> who squealed on Nero when Rome was burning and Nero was just
>>>> fiddling
>>>> >>> around?
>>>> >>> Of course it can be to our benefit when someone spills the beans.
>>>> >>> Remember Paul Revere? "The British are coming! The British are
>>>> >>> coming!" Thank goodness for that!
>>>> >>> Sure, it was so much simpler back before the internet. Even wen
>>>> the
>>>> >>> FBI tapped telephones back during the "Red Scare" of the late
>>>> 40's,
>>>> >>> you could hear a loud "click" on your phone...not that our phone
>>>> was
>>>> >>> ever tapped. But on the internet? Someone could very well be
>>>> >>> snooping around right now and we'd never know it.
>>>> >>> Of course that's supposed to keeps us all on our best behavior.
>>>> I
>>>> >>> remember my mother telling me that Santa watched me all year long,
>>>> to
>>>> >>> see if I'd been good or bad. I told a little friend of mine that
>>>> >>> Santa watched us every day. She said, "That's not true. Jesus
>>>> >>> watches us." Same difference, I guess.
>>>> >>> Anyway, I do not worry about the Russians meddling in our
>>>> political
>>>> >>> affairs. For one reason, they have enough troubles of their own.
>>>> For
>>>> >>> another, we are about as busy meddling in their affairs as they
>>>> are
>>>> in
>>>> >>> ours. And finally, I worry more about some of our home grown
>>>> meddlers
>>>> >>> more than infiltrators. And lastly, would we behave any different
>>>> on
>>>> >>> this list if we learned that someone was spying on us? If we're
>>>> being
>>>> >>> honest in what we write, who cares how many Special Agents are
>>>> >>> lurking? At some point I decided to say what I meant, and do my
>>>> best
>>>> >>> whether Santa was watching, or not.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Carl Jarvis
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> I'm glad to see this stuff is registering with people. This stuff
>>>> about
>>>> >>>> the Russians interfering in our election, possibly even hacking
>>>> voting
>>>> >>>> machines is seriously scary business. The evidence is
>>>> circumstantial
>>>> >>>> but it is enough to warrant an investigation. I read up on the
>>>> >>>> statistical analysis the security experts did and it looks right
>>>> to me.
>>>> >>>> I mean it's not bologna
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 12/19/2016 01:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Well, of course we might refer to Herr Trump as, Führer, but his
>>>> >>>>> Russian title would be, vozhd.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 12/18/16, Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> I only hope to live long enough to see this! And that our New
>>>> fewer
>>>> >>>>>> elected
>>>> >>>>>> by the Russians does not destroy our world before this can
>>>> happen.
>>>> >>>>>> Karen
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>> >>>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Right on, Carla!
>>>> >>>>>>> Not only do I see the day when all transportation vehicles are
>>>> >>>>>>> driverless, but they will be "on demand" to citizens,
>>>> foregoing
>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>> need to make expensive purchases. A touch of a button and a
>>>> car
>>>> >>>>>>> awaits you at the curb. Furthermore, I predict that these
>>>> cars
>>>> will
>>>> >>>>>>> use no oil products to run them. They will float on a cushion
>>>> of air
>>>> >>>>>>> and be driven by the Earth's magnetic energy.
>>>> >>>>>>> Solar energy will run our homes and even water craft will
>>>> float
>>>> above
>>>> >>>>>>> the water. It will be a very quiet world. Homes will be
>>>> built
>>>> in
>>>> >>>>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>> hills and mountains, leaving flat, fertile bottom land for
>>>> crops.
>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, if we don't get with it soon, there will be no one
>>>> left to
>>>> >>>>>>> enjoy it all.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/18/16, Carla Ruschival via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> For the last week, there has been at least one story every
>>>> day,
>>>> >>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>> >>>>>>>> more, about people being killed in automobile accidents
>>>> around
>>>> town
>>>> >>>>>>>> and
>>>> >>>>>>>> nearby. I daresay that is true of most metropolitan areas.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> So, if we don't want to see anyone get hurt, we should outlaw
>>>> all
>>>> >>>>>>>> cars
>>>> >>>>>>>> until
>>>> >>>>>>>> the killing of thousands on our highways, and the maiming of
>>>> tens of
>>>> >>>>>>>> thousands, including children, can be put to a stop.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Since this suggestion is obviously ridiculous, why are we so
>>>> worried
>>>> >>>>>>>> about
>>>> >>>>>>>> the development of the driverless car? In m1llions of miles
>>>> of
>>>> >>>>>>>> testing,
>>>> >>>>>>>> it
>>>> >>>>>>>> has certainly proven to be far safer than the vehicles we use
>>>> every
>>>> >>>>>>>> day.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Bring it on.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Carla
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Rich Vonderhaar via leadership
>>>> >>>>>>>>> <leadership@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's a link to an article that came out this morning about
>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>>>> driverless car thing. While I think it is a great idea, I
>>>> would
>>>> >>>>>>>>> hate
>>>> >>>>>>>>> to
>>>> >>>>>>>>> see any one get hurt.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rich V
>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>> leadership mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>>> leadership@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/leadership
>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>> >>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>> >>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:30 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>>> Well now, that's two separate issues. I may have lost my mind, but my
>>>>> point that I was cleverly trying to make...with such high level of wit
>>>>> and humor, was that I don't buy the Russians tampering with our
>>>>> election garbage. Maybe after we clean up our own bungling of our own
>>>>> election process, maybe then I'll be up to thinking about the return
>>>>> of the Evil Empire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dude... Santa is make-believe. Putin is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean seriously, WTF? The Russians might have hacked into our voting
>>>>>> machines and made Donald Trump President. You're comparing that to
>>>>>> Santa
>>>>>> making a list and checking it twice? Have you lost your mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/19/2016 07:06 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>>>>> From the beginning of the Human Species, we've had someone meddling
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> our personal affairs. I mean, look at old Adam. One bite of the
>>>>>>> fruit from the tree of knowledge, and someone told God on him. And
>>>>>>> who squealed on Nero when Rome was burning and Nero was just
>>>>>>> fiddling
>>>>>>> around?
>>>>>>> Of course it can be to our benefit when someone spills the beans.
>>>>>>> Remember Paul Revere? "The British are coming! The British are
>>>>>>> coming!" Thank goodness for that!
>>>>>>> Sure, it was so much simpler back before the internet. Even wen the
>>>>>>> FBI tapped telephones back during the "Red Scare" of the late 40's,
>>>>>>> you could hear a loud "click" on your phone...not that our phone was
>>>>>>> ever tapped. But on the internet? Someone could very well be
>>>>>>> snooping around right now and we'd never know it.
>>>>>>> Of course that's supposed to keeps us all on our best behavior. I
>>>>>>> remember my mother telling me that Santa watched me all year long,
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see if I'd been good or bad. I told a little friend of mine that
>>>>>>> Santa watched us every day. She said, "That's not true. Jesus
>>>>>>> watches us." Same difference, I guess.
>>>>>>> Anyway, I do not worry about the Russians meddling in our political
>>>>>>> affairs. For one reason, they have enough troubles of their own.
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> another, we are about as busy meddling in their affairs as they are
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> ours. And finally, I worry more about some of our home grown
>>>>>>> meddlers
>>>>>>> more than infiltrators. And lastly, would we behave any different
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> this list if we learned that someone was spying on us? If we're
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> honest in what we write, who cares how many Special Agents are
>>>>>>> lurking? At some point I decided to say what I meant, and do my
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> whether Santa was watching, or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/19/16, John Heim <john@johnheim.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm glad to see this stuff is registering with people. This stuff
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the Russians interfering in our election, possibly even hacking
>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>> machines is seriously scary business. The evidence is
>>>>>>>> circumstantial
>>>>>>>> but it is enough to warrant an investigation. I read up on the
>>>>>>>> statistical analysis the security experts did and it looks right to
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>> I mean it's not bologna
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2016 01:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, of course we might refer to Herr Trump as, Führer, but his
>>>>>>>>> Russian title would be, vozhd.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/16, Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I only hope to live long enough to see this! And that our New
>>>>>>>>>> fewer
>>>>>>>>>> elected
>>>>>>>>>> by the Russians does not destroy our world before this can
>>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>>>> Karen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-l
>>>>>>>>>>> <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right on, Carla!
>>>>>>>>>>> Not only do I see the day when all transportation vehicles are
>>>>>>>>>>> driverless, but they will be "on demand" to citizens, foregoing
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> need to make expensive purchases. A touch of a button and a car
>>>>>>>>>>> awaits you at the curb. Furthermore, I predict that these cars
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> use no oil products to run them. They will float on a cushion
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> air
>>>>>>>>>>> and be driven by the Earth's magnetic energy.
>>>>>>>>>>> Solar energy will run our homes and even water craft will float
>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>> the water. It will be a very quiet world. Homes will be built
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> hills and mountains, leaving flat, fertile bottom land for
>>>>>>>>>>> crops.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if we don't get with it soon, there will be no one
>>>>>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> enjoy it all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/16, Carla Ruschival via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the last week, there has been at least one story every day,
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>> more, about people being killed in automobile accidents around
>>>>>>>>>>>> town
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> nearby. I daresay that is true of most metropolitan areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if we don't want to see anyone get hurt, we should outlaw
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> the killing of thousands on our highways, and the maiming of
>>>>>>>>>>>> tens
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thousands, including children, can be put to a stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this suggestion is obviously ridiculous, why are we so
>>>>>>>>>>>> worried
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the development of the driverless car? In m1llions of miles of
>>>>>>>>>>>> testing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> has certainly proven to be far safer than the vehicles we use
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bring it on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carla
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Rich Vonderhaar via leadership
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <leadership@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a link to an article that came out this morning about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> driverless car thing. While I think it is a great idea, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see any one get hurt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich V
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/leadership
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> acb-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> acb-l@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)