Showing posts with label voters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voters. Show all posts

Monday, October 2, 2023

Faith in the Supreme Court is down. Voters now say they want changes.; Politico, September 30, 2023

 STEVEN SHEPARD, Politico; Faith in the Supreme Court is down. Voters now say they want changes.

"In addition to the 75 percent of voters — a bipartisan consensus of 81 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of independents — who support a binding ethics code, roughly two-thirds of voters support term limits for the justices (68 percent). A similar percentage (67 percent) say the court should televise oral arguments, while 66 percent believe there should be an age limit for the justices. A smaller majority, 60 percent, think there should be an equal number of Democrats, Republicans and independents on the high court."

Monday, August 28, 2023

Monday, July 3, 2023

Keeping true to the Declaration of Independence is a matter of ethics; Ventura County Star, July 2, 2023

Ed Jones, Ventura County Star; Keeping true to the Declaration of Independence is a matter of ethics

"How do we keep faith with Jefferson, Franklin and the other founders? Due to the imperfections in human nature, there is no foolproof way, but a good plan would be to have all levels of our government — national, state and local — adopt ethical training similar to that of elective office holders here in California. Periodically, they must participate in ethics training which assumes there are universal ethical values consisting of fairness, loyalty, compassion trustworthiness, and responsibility that transcend other considerations and should be adhered to. This training consists of biannual computer sessions in which they must solve real-life problems based on the aforementioned ethical values.

I believe a real danger for elected officials and voters as well is the idea that certain societal values are so vital, so crucial, that they transcend normal ethical practices. This might be termed an “ends — means philosophy,” the idea that the ends justify the means. Mohandas Gandhi, former leader of India, observed that “the means are the ends in a democracy and good ends cannot come from questionable means.” 

No matter how exemplary our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, we are still relying on human beings to fulfill their promise. Ever since the Supreme Court took the power of judicial review — the power to tell us what the Constitution means and, in the process, affirm certain laws by declaring them constitutional or removing others by declaring them unconstitutional — the judgement of nine people has had a profound effect on our society. Was the Supreme Court correct in 1973 by saying the Ninth Amendment guarantees pregnant women the right to an abortion, or was it correct in 2022 by saying it didn’t?

In the final analysis we must conclude that it will be well-intentioned, ethical citizens and their elected and appointed representatives who will ensure the equitable future of what Abraham Lincoln referred to as our “ongoing experiment in self-government.”"

Sunday, March 27, 2022

New ALA Poll Shows Voters Oppose Book Bans; American Libraries, March 24, 2022

American Libraries; New ALA Poll Shows Voters Oppose Book Bans

"A new national poll commissioned by the American Library Association (ALA) released on March 24 shows that seven in 10 voters oppose removing books from public libraries, including majorities of voters across party lines. In addition, 74% of parents of public school children expressed confidence in school libraries and librarians to choose which books are available to children and said books that have been contested should be available on an age-appropriate basis.

The poll, conducted March 1–6, surveyed 1,000 voters and 472 parents of children in public schools. It is the first to view the issue of book bans through the lens of public and school libraries. The poll’s results demonstrate that voters have a high regard for librarians and recognize the critical role libraries play in their communities. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that book bans are far from being a partisan issue; they are opposed by large majorities of voters regardless of personal political affiliation.

“The survey results confirm what we have known and observed: that banning books is widely opposed by most voters and parents,” said ALA President Patricia “Patty” M. Wong in a March 24 statement. “As a career librarian who began in public libraries working with children, I’m thrilled to see that parents have a high degree of confidence in school libraries’ decisions about their collections and very few think that school librarians ignore parents’ concerns. This truly validates the value and integrity of library professionals at a time when many are feeling burned out because of accusations made by small but loud groups.”

More than 330 cases of book bans and challenges were reported to ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) between September 1 and November 30, 2021. The total number of challenges in 2021 was more than double the number of reports from 2020 (156 challenges) and exceeded the overall number of challenges from 2019 (377 challenges).

OIF will announce the full 2021 book challenge totals and its annual Top 10 List of Most Challenged Books on April 4, during National Library Week (April 3–9). Additionally, the annual accounting of book censorship in the US will be released as part of ALA’s State of America’s Libraries 2022 report.

More data points from the poll:

  • 71% of respondents oppose efforts to have books removed from their local public libraries, including majorities of Democrats (75%), independents (58%), and Republicans (70%)
  • Most voters and parents are confident library workers can make good decisions about what books to include in collections and agree that libraries in their communities do a good job of offering books with broad and diverse viewpoints
  • Voters across the political spectrum have a sense of the importance of public libraries (95% of Democrats, 78% of independents, 87% of Republicans) and school libraries (96% of Democrats, 85% of independents, 91% of Republicans)

The poll was conducted by Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion Research on behalf of ALA. It included 1,000 voters and 472 parents of children in public schools. The sample is demographically and geographically representative of voters and parents in the US. Additional survey findings and methodology can be found on the ALA website.""

Sunday, August 16, 2020

State officials rush to shore up confidence in Nov. 3 election as voters express new fears about mail voting; The Washington Post, August 16, 2020


"Attorneys general from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington and North Carolina, among others, have begun discussions on how to sue the administration to prevent operational changes or funding lapses that could affect the election. They expect to announce legal action early this week, according to several involved in the talks.

“This is not just terrible policy, but it may be illegal under federal law and other state laws as well,” said Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D). “A lot of work is being done literally as we speak over the weekend and at nights to try to figure out what Trump and DeJoy are doing, whether they have already violated or are likely to violate any laws and how we can take swift action to try to stop this assault on our democracy.”"

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

California makes ‘deepfake’ videos illegal, but law may be hard to enforce; The Guardian, October 7, 2019

; California makes ‘deepfake’ videos illegal, but law may be hard to enforce 


AB 730 makes it illegal to circulate doctored videos, images or audio of politicians within 60 days of an election

"California made it illegal to create or distribute “deepfakes” in a move meant to protect voters from misinformation but may be difficult to enforce.
California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, on Thursday signed legislation that makes it illegal to create or distribute videos, images, or audio of politicians doctored to resemble real footage within 60 days of an election.

Deepfakes are videos manipulated by artificial intelligence to overlay images of celebrity faces on others’ bodies, and are meant to make viewers think they are real."

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Bad Parent Caucus; New York Times, February 15, 2018

Timothy Egan, New York Times; The Bad Parent Caucus

"Let me try another take for you bad parents in office. Pretend you live in a pleasant, well-protected community of like-minded people, and you’re in charge. O.K., you don’t have to pretend. And let’s say there was a natural gas leak every three days in one of the homes in that community, a leak that killed entire families.

Your response would be to pray and do nothing. Or to pray and talk about everything except the gas leak. Or to pray and say you’re powerless to act because the gas company owns you. The response of those suffering would be to take control and kick you out. That’s what we have to do, and will, next November."

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

The Trumps and the Truth; Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2017

Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal; The Trumps and the Truth

"Even Donald Trump might agree that a major reason he won the 2016 election is because voters couldn’t abide Hillary Clinton’s legacy of scandal, deception and stonewalling. Yet on the story of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump and his family are repeating mistakes that doomed Mrs. Clinton."

Friday, March 3, 2017

Goodbye Spin, Hello Raw Dishonesty; New York Times, March 3, 2017

Paul Krugman, New York Times; 

Goodbye Spin, Hello Raw Dishonesty


"And the question is, who’s going to stop him?

The moral vacuity of Republicans in Congress, and the unlikelihood that they’ll act as any check on the president, becomes clearer with each passing day. Even the real possibility that we’re facing subversion by agents of a foreign power, and that top officials are part of the story, doesn’t seem to faze them as long as they can get tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor.

Meanwhile, Republican primary election voters, who are the real arbiters when polarized and/or gerrymandered districts make the general election irrelevant for many politicians, live in a Fox News bubble into which awkward truths never penetrate."

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump; Huffington Post, February 10, 2017

Mary Papenfuss, Huffington Post; 

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump


[Kip Currier: Even if the U.S. President is exempt from conflict of interest laws, as Rep. Jason Chaffetz asserts below, he ignores a fundamental underpinning of democracy, the rule of law, and good governance: the need for the public's belief in the integrity of such systems. 

To avoid an "air of impropriety" (i.e. perception that a particular action doesn't look "right" or fair)--to promote the U.S. electorate's faith in the integrity of elected officials to not unduly profit from public service--a U.S. President should voluntarily abide by conflict of interest laws and strive for the highest level of ethical conduct.

A related aside about the Judicial Branch, on the "air of impropriety" rationale for voluntary ethical compliance, transparency, and accountability: conflict of interest arguments have been made about the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who have continually avoided being bound by a formal ethics code and the Code of Conduct for federal judges that applies to every other federal judge. As Lincoln Caplan's 2015 New Yorker article "DOES THE SUPREME COURT NEED A CODE OF CONDUCT?" persuasively posits:


Impartiality is an essential requirement for a judge. But, as Charles Geyh, the legal scholar who directed the A.B.A. study, wrote, “It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.” Whether a judge is on the highest court in the land or on one of the many others, we are much more likely, in a case where his impartiality has been questioned, to view him as impartial if another judge concludes so after conducting an independent appraisal. That’s crucial to the effectiveness of this country’s courts, which makes it crucial to the soundness of American democracy.]

"“Where do you draw a line in the sand?” asked one woman in the audience regarding Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

“Everyone has to comply with the law,” Chaffetz responded. “You’re really not going to like this part,” again to boos. “The president, under the law, is exempt from the conflict-of-interest laws.”"

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Donald Trump didn't save the ethics committee. You did; Guardian, 1/4/17

Richard Wolffe, Guardian; 

Donald Trump didn't save the ethics committee. You did:

"As ethics experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations have written, the founders saw the so-called Emoluments clause as a way to stop corruption by foreign powers. If a president accepts any gifts and benefits from foreign nations, he faces the threat of impeachment.

Instead the newly-elected Trump claims, wrongly, that there is nothing to prevent him from being president of the United States and CEO of his company at the same time. “In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly,” he told the New York Times.
It takes real leadership to create a culture of ethics, and it takes very little leadership to destroy any semblance of ethics. It’s only natural that the House Republicans would follow Trump’s lead by treating ethics as some kind of low priority interference with their real business: business itself."

Friday, November 18, 2016

Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites; New York Times, 11/14/16

Nick Wingfield, Mike Isaac, Katie Benner, New York Times; Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites:
"Google kicked off the action on Monday afternoon when the Silicon Valley search giant said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.
“We have updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news,” a Facebook spokesman said in a statement. “Our team will continue to closely vet all prospective publishers and monitor existing ones to ensure compliance.”
Taken together, the decisions were a clear signal that the tech behemoths could no longer ignore the growing outcry over their power in distributing information to the American electorate."

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Trump Voters: A Message From the Mom Of A Gay Kid; Huffington Post, 11/11/16

Amelia, Huffington Post; Trump Voters: A Message From the Mom Of A Gay Kid:
"When I point out the views of the new government-elect, these people tell me “but I don’t think that way.” So what? That doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they voted for someone who does. By putting those people in power, they are implicitly condoning―and expressly endorsing―their actions.
I am allowed to pissed off that people think I should now break bread with those who voted for someone who is a direct threat to my child. I’m allowed to be offended that even people who claim to love my child valued their pocketbooks and privilege more than that child’s life, my child’s health, my child’s safety, and my child’s future.
That’s not what love is.
I am allowed to not forgive them.
And I don’t. I don’t know if I ever will.
To all those scared LGBTQ children out there, I have this message:
I am so sorry that this country chose not to protect you. But those of us who truly love you will work hard to keep you safe, so that you can continue to grow into the extraordinary adults you are already on your way to becoming. We will not abandon you.
To the people who are so offended by my anger, I have this message:
Please feel free to be pissed off at me if I ever vote for someone who thinks your child deserves electroshock torture in the vain attempt to “fix” something that’s not a problem. I’ll deserve it."

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

New York Today: 104 Years Old, and Still Voting; New York Times, 11/8/16

Alexandra S. Levine, New York Times; New York Today: 104 Years Old, and Still Voting:
"On this Election Day, as the presidential campaigns of two New York residents come to an end, another New Yorker — Rose Orbach — plans to do her civic duty and vote — again.
The resident of Bayside, Queens, is 104. She’s voting in her 16th presidential election.
(Stevenson. Kennedy. Johnson. Humphrey. McGovern. Carter, twice. Mondale. Dukakis. Clinton, twice. Gore. Kerry. Obama, twice. You may spot a trend.)
Born in 1911, Mrs. Orbach emigrated from Poland shortly after World War II. She became an American citizen by 1955, and voted in her first presidential election here the following year.
The idea of having and using her voice, without facing persecution, was novel.
“In Poland, it was a whole different system,” she said. “Especially for Jewish people, who weren’t treated like everybody; they were always beneath.”
When she stepped behind the curtain to vote in the 1956 race, things felt different.
“I was one with the people: I was different, I was Jewish, but I pushed the button,” she said. “I had my idea, and I was treated nice no matter what. You had your privacy and you were allowed to think what you wanted to think.”
In her nearly 60 years of living in New York, she has not missed a single presidential election — that’s at a time when more than 100 million Americans who can vote don’t vote.
So exercise your right — it’s one that many people in this world do not have."

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Poll finds civility is declining in American politics; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/17/16

Chris Potter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Poll finds civility is declining in American politics:
"There’s been a worrisome decline in the civility of American politics, and it may be infecting even those of us who aren’t running for office.
Don’t agree? Then you obviously have no friends and hate our freedoms.
That kind of rhetoric may be where our political discourse is headed, judging from a Zogby Survey on Civility in U.S. Politics, commissioned by Allegheny College in Meadville, Crawford County.
Of 1,286 adults surveyed, 69 percent said that it was not acceptable for a politician to comment on someone’s race or ethnicity — a much smaller majority than the 89 percent who felt that way in a similar survey six years ago. Meanwhile, 65 percent said commenting on someone's sexual orientation was unacceptable, down from 81 percent in 2010."
The survey also found increasing acceptance for acts that have traditionally been defined as rude, like interrupting or shouting over somebody in a public forum, insulting them or questioning their patriotism. In a telephone call with reporters, Allegheny College president James H. Mullen Jr. called the findings “disturbing and in many ways chilling.” Voters, he said, are “expecting less in the political process in terms of civility.” “There seems to be less emphasis on, and a decrease in, acts of civility among adults nationwide,” said Zogby Analytics CEO Jonathan Zogby in a release accompanying the poll. “That might explain the state of politics at the moment.” Or it may be the other way around: The state of politics at the moment could be normalizing once-taboo behaviors. Nearly two-thirds of voters characterized the 2016 election as “extremely or very uncivil.” (An iron-stomached 11 percent found it “extremely or very civil.”) It’s not clear who is to blame.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Glenn Beck Says Opposing Trump Is ‘Moral, Ethical’ Even if It Means Clinton Wins; New York Times, 10/11/16

Liam Stack, New York Times; Glenn Beck Says Opposing Trump Is ‘Moral, Ethical’ Even if It Means Clinton Wins:
"Glenn Beck, the fiery conservative media personality and former Fox News host, says that he briefly considered voting for Hillary Clinton and called opposing Donald J. Trump the “moral, ethical choice” — even if doing so leads to Mrs. Clinton winning the presidential election.
His comments were made after the release on Friday of a 2005 recording of Mr. Trump boasting about sexual assault that set off a war between the presidential nominee and a broad swath of the Republican establishment, including Paul D. Ryan, the House speaker.
Reacting to the recording, Mr. Beck wrote over the weekend that each person “must decide what is a bridge too far” and said he supported calls for Mr. Trump to withdraw from the presidential race.
“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Mr. Beck wrote on Facebook. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.”"

Sunday, October 9, 2016

A generation of GOP stars stands diminished: ‘Everything Trump touches dies’; Washington Post, 10/9/16

Philip Rucker, Washington Post; A generation of GOP stars stands diminished: ‘Everything Trump touches dies’ :
"“There is nobody who holds any position of responsibility who in private conversations views Donald Trump as equipped mentally, morally and intellectually to be the president of the United States,” said Steve Schmidt, a veteran GOP strategist. “But scores of Republican leaders have failed a fundamental test of moral courage and political leadership in not speaking truth to the American people about what is so obvious.”"

Monday, October 3, 2016

How Donald Trump Wins Even When He Loses; Daily Beast, 10/3/16

Goldie Taylor, Daily Beast; How Donald Trump Wins Even When He Loses:
"Without question, Trump would have been the most disastrous American president of the modern era. Some very real damage, however, has already been done—to what is deemed acceptable in our discourse, to the way in which we determine the long-term viability of candidates, and to the fundamental spirit of fair play—and there is no turning back.
There is more than enough culpability to go around—including a broad swath of GOP primary voters, journalists who partook in false equivalences in the name of clicks and ratings, and even the RNC honchos who refused to deploy legal mechanisms stop him. Of course, there is also the broader society which bought into the fable of his business acumen, tuning in for his weekly reality show on NBC, and handed him a trough laden with celebrity. Together, one and all, we made him."

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Red-state newspaper endorsements of Clinton are not as pointless as they look; Washington Post, 9/28/16

Margaret Sullivan, Washington Post; Red-state newspaper endorsements of Clinton are not as pointless as they look:
"Which brings me to the second reason for writing an endorsement editorial — even if it proves ineffectual and even if it deeply angers some readers: Publishing them is the right thing to do.
Editorial boards are mostly made up of thoughtful, smart and well-informed journalists who have had a chance to study and discuss the candidates seriously. In some cases, they have had the chance to meet with them in person. They have a unique and important vantage point.
What’s more, they have a bully pulpit. In a contest this important and this close, they need to use it. They would be walking away from their responsibility if they thought first about making some readers mad enough to cancel, even temporarily.
“We write our editorials based on principle, and sometimes principle comes at a cost,” the Morning News’s Wilson said."

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's?; NPR, 8/11/16

Ron Elving, NPR; Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's? :
"The question is repeated in one form or another millions of times a day in social media and random conversation. It comes primarily from the backers of Donald Trump, but also from others — including the simply curious:
Why are the media obsessed with Trump's controversies and not Clinton's?"