Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Chronicle of Human Sacrifice

Human sacrifice is one of the most misunderstood cultural activities.  It seems inherently evil, and socially awful.  How is anyone benefited because someone else is murdered, even with that person's consent?  How is murder ever OK, at all?

Now, to be clear, I don't mean to discuss mass killings or revenge killings or purge killings.  Just human sacrifice.  And to discuss this properly, we need to change our point of view.  Because, in the modern world, human sacrifice is indeed a ludicrous thing.  Not just awful, but senseless.  It begs the question, "Wait, why was this ever acceptable?"  But it was.  So here's what we need to do:
Imagine...
  • ...living in a much smaller community
  • ...having a religion you and your whole community believe in
  • ...not even understanding the word 'religion.'  What we call religion, you just call "very obvious."  It isn't even "obviously true," because that implies it could be false.  It just "is."
  • ...there is very little law-and-order structure, and the two pillars of power are religion and civic life, and the head of government is in charge of both.
  • ...that life is generally always brutal.
OK, got it?  Now, what is preventing an inspiring strongman from overthrowing society?  From just coming in and saying, "I am great, I am in charge, who's gonna stop me?"  There is really nothing.  There are very few institutions that prevent someone from just taking over by exciting the crowd against those in power.  There's no police, and bodyguards may save the leader's life but can't ensure they remain in power.  I suppose people could stand with those in power, but even failed power struggles are bloody.  How do you prevent power struggles from happening at all?

Control everyone's ego.  That's the main thing.  But how in the world does one do this?

"Another intriguing paradox of !Kung life is the way men act and are treated after they have
gone hunting. In a strange ritual known as insulting the meat (Emphasis mine), when a
man hunts and kills an animal, especially a large one, he is expected to act extremely modest
and to minimize the importance of his contribution to the tribe. In addition, the other tribe members
insult his kill by proclaiming how small and worthless it is... Lee explains that the
goal of all the joking and insults is to prevent the hunters from becoming
arrogant. It is a leveling mechanism that promotes an egalitarian society." 

That's it.  Just a good deal of humbling.  And remember, the people 'insulting the meat' is everyone you know.  Very few people will become megalomaniacs with all that constant downplaying of their accomplishments.  In such a way, the kind of hostile take over of the community described above is less likely.

But greatness will happen.  And greatness can be good.  But how to limit it?  Murder those who achieve greatness.  And make them desire it.

Again, remember, religion is true - it is beyond true, it just "is."  So whatever your afterlife, that's for real.  There's no debate here.

But like, that isn't it, is it?  I mean, is it?  I mean, kind of.  Here's how it would play out:

Sacrifice is a way to give to the Divine.  The Divine wants something great, wants something valuable.  You don't sacrifice any animal, you sacrifice your best.  You sacrifice your best, you receive the best.

Humans are better than animals (Because animals can't worship the Divine), so sacrificing humans ensures an even better outcome.  And you don't just sacrifice any human.  You sacrifice the best.  See where we're going?

So when you have someone who rises to greatness, someone who genuinely has done good for the community, how do you prevent it from going to their head?  You sacrifice them.  And you make it an honor.  You make it something they are proud of.  And in doing so you teach the people, "Greatness brings you glory, recognition, and a life among the Divine."  And then they die, and life resumes to normal, until another Great One arrives, and plays their part in this cycle of glory and death. The underlying message: Greatness brings you glory, but mundaneness brings you a partner and children.  The Great Ones live for society.  Only common people ever feel the love of family.

While not usually engaging in human sacrifice, ancient Greek culture at least had this mentality of glory VS life.  It is seen as impossible to have both.  In The Odyssey, when in the realm of the dead, Odysseus finds Achilles, who died gloriously at Troy.  He says, 


“But you, Achilles,/ There is not a man in the world more blest than you--
 There never has been, never will be one./ Time was, when you were alive, we Argives/
honored you as a god, and now down here, I see/ You Lord it over the dead in all your power./
So grieve no more at dying, great Achilles.’

[Odysseus] reassured the ghost, but [Achilles] broke out protesting,/
‘No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus!
By gods, I’d rather slave on earth for another man--/
Some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—than rule
down here over all the breathless dead.”

You can live on Earth, or die a hero.  It's impossible to do both.  Or, to quote Harvey Dent, "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."  Back to Greece, in The Histories, Herodotus recounts the lives of many Greeks who perform heroics, only to sully their own reputation later in life.  The only Greek hero in the Histories who dies with his reputation in tact is Leonidas, of the 300 Spartans.  Why is only his reputation preserved?  Because he dies as a result of his heroics.  That's the point.  If you want to be a hero, you have to die.

Throughout Greek history, no one has a bad thing to say about Leonidas.  Precisely because he died, his reputation is preserved forever.  Those who die in sacrifice are considered pure.


But sometimes a human sacrifice was done not for glory, but for penance.  In Celtic culture, if a King ruled over a bad time, he might be sacrificed by the people in a last ditch effort to atone for his rule.  In this way, the kings can rarely be spoken of poorly, because those who rule well are remembered well (of course), while those whose rule was mired in tragedy (Unsuccessful war, famine, violent weather, etc) can be said to have ultimately given their life for the people (which is the most anyone can possibly do).  This also prevents selfish people from too actively seeking kingship.  If your rule goes poorly, you are expected to die as a result.  You, literally, are dedicating your life to the nation.  Structurally, it is selfless.

Human sacrifice also came in the form of honor.  Mesoamerican cultures had human sacrifice, famously the Aztecs.  But they didn't sacrifice people they didn't desire.  Again, it was an honor.  Sacrificing captured warriors was a way to honor them (And, of course, dispose of them).  You don't eat their heart out of spite, you eat it "to gain their courage."  This implies their heart has courage, which means the enemy had courage.  Thus, to do the sacrifice correctly, you must acknowledge them as worthy warriors (Otherwise, why would you need their courage?).

Sacrificing one's own people served a variety of purposes, but in the Americas (Aztecs and Maya) we see sacrifice attributed to sports.  It's unclear whether winners or losers of the sport were sacrificed.  It seems to me (this is my speculation), that it was both.  Let's say there are two leagues, the Big League and the National League.  The Big League is made up of teams from all other the area (but all teams are part of your culture).  The team that wins is the best team.  That team, or at least a few members, are then sacrificed on their behalf for the benefit of all the people.  The gods love sports.

Nowadays it isn't entirely clear if the gods (or God or Goddess) love sports, but back then (in nearly all cultures I'm aware of) gods absolutely loved sports and sports players.  (And remember, if you live in this world, your religion is true.  There is no doubt.  It is as real as gravity)  This is why the Olympics began - as a ceremony to the gods.  So you sacrifice the best sports players to the gods, and the gods shower the people with goodness for this pleasing sacrifice.  Pleasing sacrifice because, of course, the player is not dead, but up with the gods, to play for their eternal entertainment.

Alternatively, in the National League, there is one team.  They will win.  They are strong players, and people and gods enjoy watching them play.  There is another team, sort of.  Captives who were not warriors.  These are people who won't be released.  Feeding them takes too many resources.  They don't have any courage worth sacrificing them for.  But letting them starve is an unceremonious way to die (And a bummer to watch).  So, you allow them one chance at glory.  You let them play the National League.  They are the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters.  You want them to lose.  They *will* lose.  But maybe they'll play alright.  The gods love sports.  Maybe they'll bring some honor to their name.  So they play, they lose and, now that they are more worthy, they are sacrificed.  And maybe someone from the National League team is killed, as well, just to ensure the gods get one good sports player out of the deal.

It sounds brutal.  It is.  But also...

When someone is sacrificed, their family receives great honor.  Their name is remembered throughout that generation, maybe more.  "Your child plays like so-and-so, who was sacrificed during the days of my grandfather."  That would be the ultimate compliment.

(Quick aside, child sacrifice was seen as a sacrifice of the parents.  Obviously, the child is too young to agree or understand.  And obviously child sacrifice is pretty terrible.  But, again, this was the family giving something to the community.  The family, thus, receives the honor.)

But we live in the 21st century.  We understand that human sacrifice is just state-sanctioned murder.  "Honor" and "glory to the gods" are not enough to justify murdering someone, right?  I mean, right?!

You know where I'm taking this.  We still have it.

Most terrorists engage in their attacks knowing they will not survive.  They expect not to.  We've all heard the 77 virgin trope for Muslim terrorists.  You only receive those by dying - of course.  And maybe it's a false doctrine (I only say maybe because I have no source I can possibly cite, for obvious reasons).  So why do terrorists keep signing up to be suicide attackers?  Are they all just sexually frustrated men who want a line of 'pure' women all to themselves?  Don't their families try to stop them?

No.  Because the families see this as an a honor.  NOT EVEN MOST MUSLIM FAMILIES OF COURSE.  I wrote that in all caps and a larger font just to be clear.  But some do.  And if not families, then communities.  Sometimes suicide attackers are taught as role models. (I realize Palestinian Media Watch is an incredibly bias group, but it is very difficult to find any information about suicide attackers being glorified.  Either you end up on actual terrorist websites (which Google rightfully buries and hides), or on websites that report on the evils of terrorism.  This PMW report is the only one I could find that has actual quotes from those glorifying terrorism).  They bring honor to their name, their neighborhoods, and their families.  Sometimes suicide attackers' families are paid as recompense for losing their child (though, of course, the phrase they'd use would be something like "giving their child's life for the glory of God and the community".)  This kind of fame is not limited to Muslim terrorists.

Is this brutal?  It is.  As is all human sacrifice.

What about honor killings?  They're easier to explain, and also harder.  The main thing to know here is that honor is a family issue, not an individual issue.  In cultures with honor killings, the things you do honor or dishonor your family.  Everything you do reflects on them, regardless if you want it to.

Ideally, an honor killing (if anything about honor killings is ideal) is a form of assisted suicide.  Suicide is looked down upon in many societies (though, of course, there are cultures with honor suicide), but sometimes a person commits a wrong so heinous they can only repay with their life.  Just like the Celtic kings above, it is a final attempt to right a wrong.  The ultimate price.  It shows, in essence, "I did something wrong, I have dishonored my family, I give my life to restore their honor."

It sounds and is heinous, but there is logic to it.  In these cultures, the family is more important than the individual.  Therefore, the individual is expected to give themselves up for the family.  Not usually suicide - usually a smaller kind of sacrifice (Marry for non-romantic reasons, work in the family business regardless of personal desire, care for parents and children) - but suicide is the ultimate way to say "I give myself to the family."

I said honor killings are ideally a form of assisted suicide, but more often than not in the modern world there's nothing about it that's suicidal, it's usually murder, and almost always females who die.  I'm not going to justify that.  There is no explanation.  But that's the reason behind honor killings in the first place.  They are a way to attone, to give yourself up in glory for the others.  You don't get to live a normal life, but instead are venerated for years and generations to come.  You're a role model, at least to those who matter to you.

Let's take a look at our progression:
  • Early humans took great people and sacrificed them.  They did this to protect the community from their ego.  Greatness is venerated, but comes at a cost.  You are denied a normal life.
  • The Greeks believed heroes were worth venerating (Leonidas died for his people, and his reputation is pure).  They did, however, entertain the idea that dying a heroic death perhaps wasn't such a great thing (Achilles).
  • Celts believed being a king meant dedicating your life to the people, which meant dying if things went poorly.  There are some cultures that killed their kings regularly, regardless of how well they did.  Being king involves great power, but - again - there is a cost.
  • Mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifice as a way to honor friend and foe alike.  It was seen as a reward, or at least a natural consequence of greatness.
  • A society teaches that suicide attackers are worthy of honor, naming town squares after them.  Their sacrifice is remembered.  Families are paid for offering their child, and families receive continual honor after the sacrifice.
  • An individual represents the family.  When they offend the family name, they give their life to redeem it.  Of course, it is important to mention that sometimes when they offend the family name, other members of the family murder them to redeem it.  Very important difference.  However, the function of the death is the same.  Sacrifice is a path to redemption and honor.
But we live in a much more civilized time (and culture).  We know all forms of murder is wrong.  Life is for living, not for dying.  Who would willingly give their life up?  Who would die to make the lives of their fellows better?  Who would want someone to die to make their life better?  We wouldn't participate in a system glorifying sacrifice, would we?  That's barbaric.

That's the military.

Sort of.  I'm not anti-military, nor even anti-war.  However, it is critical to deconstruct the cultural myths we have around the military, the citizens who serve in it, and the sacrifices they make.  Those myths are powerful to have and important to know.  But we need to look behind them, too.

Support the troops is a very common phrase.  Even those who are against war.  Support the troops, end the war.  We understand it isn't the troops strategy.  They're just the instruments.  If we want to get really cynical, we can say "They just follow orders."  But we're usually more nuanced.  But still, support the troops.  Honor the troops.

As Donald Trump recently found out, you especially honor dead troops.  In our culture it is rare to speak any ill of the dead.  But soldiers who died in war?  Never.  You do not such thing.  And you also don't insult their families.  Their families and their name is honored forever.  Next time you're in your local town center, keep an eye out for signs saying such and such bench or park or tree is dedicated to a fallen solider.  They are there.  We honor our dead.  But why did they die?  This wasn't some happenstance.  They were sent to a dangerous place, and we knew some of them would die.  And we did it anyway.  It isn't the same as throwing a sports hero on the altar and cutting their heart out, but it isn't as different as we'd like.

But this isn't all bad.  There are benefits.  War is a sacrifice.  It humbles everyone involved.  The bravest get themselves killed, and everyone else begins to understand the risk of too much boldness.  And for those that survive, they return home, and find that a steady job and some leisurely weekends is comparatively blissful.  The bravest get recognition, and everyone else get's a long life.

It is little wonder we send relatively young people to war.  They still express boldness, sometimes in idiotic ways.   This is because their brains are still developing.  In a sense, they are exploited for this loophole: the bodies of adults, but not quite the brains.  The military get the best tools.  That's why you never see a 30 year old private.  By then, they've left or become an officer, away from the front line.  We feed civilians the myth of the soldier, who will do great things and, if they die, they'll be remembered well forever.  Names of memorials, read at community events, recalled on Memorial Day.  For their sacrifice.

And, those that return, they can laugh at how recklessly brave they were, and maybe envy that time, but they are not so brave now.  But this is not because they are lesser people, but in fact they are greater, and find that life is worth living, and not something to throw away easily for praise or for country.

This isn't just for the US military, either.  All militaries do this, and all nations venerate their fallen in similar ways.

I don't mean to fully tarnish the military.  A society needs defense, and defense can be dangerous, and so we need a story to tell ourselves so we feel better about the danger.  That isn't the military's fault, or even society's fault.  That's just how humans operate best.  We don't send kids to college because college is inherently good.  College is necessary for most jobs, and also provides a lot of opportunities for personal growth.  We don't emphasize the hard parts (And when we do, there's always a "...but it will be worth it").  Same with love, same with saving money, same with everything.  Same with healthy food (It will make you healthier), same with junk food (You've worked hard, you deserve it).  All things derive their value because of the story we tell about it.  And, in many ways, we don't even debate the story.  It just is.  It is beyond true.  Like gravity.

These stories help us construct meaning from a chaotic world, and we find purpose in celebration and suffering.  And that's fine.  It's fine.  We need them.  I am writing this post because I have decided to derive value from the work, and value from feedback I receive.  I'm not endorsing chaos.  But I am suggesting that we look at our myths, and our stories, and while usually they are invisible, we should occasionally notice them, and we should not be oblivious to them.

Human sacrifice is terrible and awful and has no justification.  Except the justification we have given it, from pre-history to today.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Interviews with Election Justice USA

On Friday night, I saw on Facebook a news story that a group called Election Justice USA had released a report that claimed that the Democratic Primary had been stolen from Bernie Sanders, and that without this fraud he would have won the primary "by a landslide."  These are big accusations.

But I've never heard of Election Justice USA before.  So I looked into it.  The website was not very comprehensive (It has actually since been substantially updated, which is alluded to in the interviews to follow).  Here is how they describe themselves, in part:

"We are a non-partisan organization advocating for voters'
rights and standing against election fraud and voter suppression
in all forms. Throughout the 2016 Presidential Primaries, Election Justice
has been working to combat unprecedented levels of fraud and voter suppression
through legal battles in several states and at the federal level. We are also
striving to educate the public about voter rights and election integrity issues."

Seems like a top-notch organization.  Also, how old are they?  The website doesn't say.  Their Facebook and Twitter goes back only to April 2016.  Seems less top-notch.  Any organization can claim to be anything, all the moreso a new organization.  What do they do?

I notice on Twitter they've retweeted Green Party Presumptive Nominee Jill Stein naming her VP.  Seems like a weird choice - if they're an election watchdog, why promote any one candidate's news.  I quickly check, anything about the Republican or Democratic VP?  Nope.  But Jill Stein is retweeted a few times.  Doesn't seem so non-partisan any more.  I check and see who they follow.  Jill Stein.  The Green Party.  Gary Johnson.  Ralph Nader.  Elizabeth Warren.  Bernie Sanders.  Definitely not a diverse group of politicians.  But they also follow Russia Today, which is Russian state propaganda, Wikileaks, which similarly is accusing the DNC of corruption, a bunch of people who describe themselves as Bernie or Bust, and also quite a few socialist Twitter feeds.  This place is looking a lot less nonpartisan.  I should ask around.  So I do.  What follows is my extensive interview with Election Justice USA's Facebook account.  The account controller would not give their name, and at some point alluded to the possibility I had been talking to several different people.  I also later email them about their Twitter account.

First, the Facebook conversation (Which spans several days, as you'll see).  My side is blue.  Then the emails.

Here are the "two reports" they refer to
Chat conversation startOrganisation

Hi
How old is your organization?

Election Justice came together this year as many that have been working on election and voting issues for years decided that coming and working together as a team to address the many problems and issues was needed.

Great, thank you. I have some more questions, when you have the opportunity. Who are these founders you refer to? What motivated them to come together this particular year? Your social media accounts begin in early April. Is that about when your organization began?

Hopefully the web site will be up soon and the answers to the questions will be there. I know it is being worked on with hopes to have it up soon. All with EJUSA are volunteers. If you read the two reports, you will get an idea as the the motivation for coming together to address the problems and irregularities in the primaries. The reports also have the names of those that worked on them. Issues with voting, vote counting and elections are not new but many realized the issues for the first time this primary season. EJUSA was organizing before the social media account was established and many if not all were closely watching the primaries/caucuses from the start of the cycle as they have done with previous elections. EJUSA is nonpartisan and not pro or anti a candidate and/or party and both parties results were looked at and evaluated for issues. When so much was discovered, it was decided that working together to report and address what was discovered was the best approach to advocate for the voters.

Thank you for your time so far, I appreciate the chance to get this information directly from you
I have some questions about things you have said.
"All with EJUSA are volunteers." I noticed you have a donation link on your website, which goes to a GoFundMe page, which cites "Court costs, filing fees, research data and other operating expenses." What do you mean when you say 'other operating expenses'? I assume this means things like gas for travel, renting out rooms for meetings, food for volunteers, etc. Is that it?
Also, why is $25k your goal?
Next question: I am still curious on the names of people who founded Election Justice. The report ("Democracy Lost,") lists some names, but doesn't say who founded the organization. Could I get that information?
Follow up: You mentioned two reports I should look at. I found the DL one - what's the other?
This is a tougher question, but one I hope you'll try to answer
You said, "Issues with voting, vote counting and elections are not new but many realized the issues for the first time this primary season." This strikes many as difficult to comprehend. Voting issues have been a pretty consistent problem in the United States, and it's recently been regularly in the news with voter ID laws and the Supreme Court striking down parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
These two issues disproportionately affect racial minority voters and the working poor.
How would you respond to the charge some would levy at you that when you say "but many realized the issues for the first time this primary season" it sounds disingenuous. Not only are these things not new, but they've been getting active media attention, and there are many organizations dedicated to addressing these problems, at the local, state, and national level.
Follow up, what about "this primary season" caused the formation about EJUSA. Was there a particular event that spurred so many individuals to decide to come together? Or was it the taking of many events together?
Again, thank you for your time, and respond when you have the chance. I know I threw a bunch of questions at you just there.
"Other operating expenses" now are covering some of the cost of printing the report for distribution. Many volunteers cover expenses out of pocket.
There are many issues around voting and vote counting. Yes, voter suppressing ID laws have been in the news but there has been little if any coverage concerning the possible problems with the machine counts. Also, in this primary season there were more issues such as long time voters being removed from the voting rolls and in some areas a great reduction in polling locations. You are correct about the striking down of parts of the 1965 voting rights act getting a lot of media coverage as it is discovered how that actually influenced elections.
Yes, the two issues do disproportionately affect racial minority voters and the working poor. I think that was pointed out to some degree when the judges recently ruled against the NC voter ID+ law.
I hope that the other information you ask for will soon be available on the web site. We are working on it because we know it is important.
I think this is the link asked for but if not, please let me know.
http://www.hollerbackfilm.com/electoral-system-in-crisis/

Aah great, thanks for that report
Some other questions I thought of: Is Election Justice USA a registered non-profit? Or, if you haven't yet (Because you just started earlier this year), are there plans to do that?
Is there a way for volunteers to be reimbursed for covering their own expenses?
Do you have a board or some kind of governing body?
I'm not sure it's fair to say "as [parts of the 1965 voting rights act getting struck down are] discovered how that actually influences elections." This was written about extensively as soon as the decision came down, and I believe is cited somewhere within the opinion of the dissenting Justices, though I'd have to double check that. This is something many people predicted and were trying to mitigate even in 2015.
And, again, who founded EJUSA? Are you a founder?
I'm gonna take a closer look at the reports, and then I'll come back with some questions about that, and then likely we'll wrap this up. Thank you again for your time and attention, I really do appreciate it

I agree that dissenting Justices wrote concerns about what would happen when sections of the Act were struck down but like you would need to go back and read the dissenting opinion. And, yes, many did write about it and those that closely follow voting and elections issues were well aware of the potential for problems. Yes, it was written about extensively but that does not mean that many took the time to read what was written. I think many voters were not that aware or didn't think about it that much or were aware but had no idea what they could do about it. It is my opinion that the primaries showed those expressed concerns to be valid and what happened in the primaries awakened many that had not been aware of what the ruling would mean in practice. I agree that many were trying to mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court ruling.
EJUSA has several founders and hopefully the website will be back soon with that information.
Alex, I would think that you have read EJUSA's Mission Statement but if you haven't, here it is. Election Justice USA Working for: - Free and Fair Elections for All - Accurately Counted - Open to All Voters Working against: - Voter Suppression - Election Rigging - Election Fraud EJUSA is nonpartisan and not pro or anti any candidate. We are pro voter and that is all the voters no matter their party affiliation or not being party affiliated. We think all votes should be counted as cast period. We think vote counting should be transparent where there is no question if the votes were counted as cast. We think that all that have the right to vote should be able to do so without obstacles. We look at election information and data and report about what is discovered and what happened.
I have definitely read the mission statement. It is a very good mission.
So I'm not sure what you mean by "many [did not take] the time to read what was written." That would seem to put the blame on the voters. If voters "were not aware or didn't think about it that much," that's no one's fault but there own. And if they did not know what they could do about it, there are lots of organizations trying to help they could have reached out to.
But I'm sure you're not trying to blame voters, that's just how I read what you've said. But please restate if you didn't mean that
But again, you say "what happened in the primaries awakened many that had not been aware of what the ruling would mean in practice." But minority and working poor populations have known about this for decades. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, the Advancement Project, as well as many local organizations, did pay close attention to that Supreme Court case, and took immediate action on behalf of at-risk voters - and have been working on this issue for a long time before this court case anyway. Even before the 1965 VRA was gutted, these organizations were working to ensure it was implemented correctly and completely.
Thank you
Now occurs to me another angle on a previous question: Why did EJUSA get formed? But this time I mean: Why didn't the founders/volunteers join those long-standing and prestigious civil rights organizations.
I’ve also read through the reports. I have some questions about some of the content. I'm happy to ask you, but maybe it would be better if I spoke to someone directly involved in the creation of the report, since the questions are about the methodology.
Oh hi!
Oh, thought you were there
Ok well I'm turning in for the night. Respond when you can, no rush
I agree that many did know there would be problems and did all they could to address potential issues such as helping voters get IDs, having voter registration drives and providing voter education. However, I think that many were not prepared to find that they were no longer on the voting rolls or that their long time polling location was closed. I think there is a difference between knowing the fire is hot and actually having you hand in the fire. Voters and voting rights advocates saw their concerns were valid and those that knew there could be problems but didn't really give it much thought because they are so busy trying to get by every day learned first hand about what gutting the voting rights act did in practice. Alex, I think that many are just trying to get by, day to day get by and take care of their families. Yes they may hear about the Supreme Court ruling but that does not mean they have the time to do extensive reading about it. And no, I do not blame the voters. It is the system that creates these obstacles to voting and the system that does not count the votes in a transparent way that is the problem. Voters should not have to be worried about an ID or polling location or voting hours or the vote counting being transparent and accurate. Voters should be able to focus on finding the candidate that best represents them and voting for that candidate (or issue). Also, it seems that you are picking out phrases written to suit your personal agenda here. I disagree with what you said about "seem to blame the voter".
Hopefully the information in the reports will help other organizations and groups as they look at and address election and voting issues.
Yes, questions about the reports need to go to the authors of the reports.
I'm unsure what agenda you're citing. I took something you said and told you "here is what I'm hearing. I'm sure you didn't mean that. I'm giving you a chance to say it again."
Apology but there are many messages needing to be addressed and I know I may have, probably did miss something. Please ask again.
Well you did answer it again
And the second time makes more sense
I'll restate it to ensure I understand
It's not that voters didn't read all the legal stuff, it's that they have lives to live and shouldn't have to be up to date on legal things to do something as fundamental as vote
EJUSA believes voting is an essential right of our Democracy, and that voters should be able to do it with no hassle
It should be as easy as buying milk from the store
My own words, but is that aligned with what your saying?
I took some artistic license with the words. I'm feeling poetic and patriotic
I think so, but on a personal note, it is the end of the month and I know a lot of people that would have difficulty buying anything now so while I know what you are saying, the fact that, (and this is personal, not EJUSA,) I delivered food today and yesterday gives me pause about the "easy as buying milk from the store". It is just a personal reaction though.
That's a good point. Milk costs money. Voting should be free
Yes, voting is an essential right and it should be easy.
Poetry and reality often clash
Two more questions
Actually I appreciate you poetic words, gave me a much needed smile.
Happy to help
The report authors are on the report, yeah?
Any in particular you recommend contacting? There are a bunch of names on each report
yes they are on the report
Great, and recommendations? Or should I inquire everyone and just see who's the most responsive?
lulu Fries'dat is the lead author of the first report so is probable the best one to contact. For the second report, it probable depends on your question. Different parts of the report have different authors so it would probably be best to contact the one that that wrote the section of the report where you have a question.
Got it
2nd question, then I think I'm done actually
You've been very helpful, thank you
Anyway, EJUSA is non partisan. But their Twitter only seems to follow left politicians. Sanders, Warren and Stein were those that stood out to me. I saw no one on the right
I'm curious why that is the case
Alex, that is a good question and point and I don't know the answer because I do not twitter and have nothing to do with the twitter account. But now that you have brought it up, I am going to ask. I also think that may evolve because of the end of the primary and on to the general election. However, the bottom line is that all with EJUSA are committed to votes being counted as cast - period. We are pro all voters and encourage all that can vote to vote.
I can also message your Twitter account and talk to whoever is in charge of that
Anyway, thank you for your time and help. I'm glad we were able to push on each other and still be respectful
Would you mind giving me your name and/or title at EJUSA? You can absolutely say no, but I'd like it so I can be as transparent as possible about whom I spoke with.
I just asked about the twitter account but have no idea when I may get an answer and I do not know who is on the twitter team. You are the first one to ask about a name and I do not know what other team members think about giving out names. I think would be okay with giving you my name but other team members may not so I will have to ask. I have asked other team members to look at our messages and because they may have other thoughts to share but EJUSA really is working on getting the web page up. Thank you for clarifying and helping me understand what you are asking and hearing. I know there are still some unanswered questions but they are not forgotten. Best and Kind regards
It's hard to answer all questions. We do our best
Feel free to reach out to me if you ever want to clarify something or if some of your team members have anything to add
I'll reach out to you if I need to follow up on any details
Thank you!

Hi there! Hope you're doing well
Your Twitter person gave me an email and I sent them questions Monday night but have heard nothing since
ElectionJusticeUSA@gmail.com
Is thst the right address?
Yes Alex, that is the correct email address. I will pass your message to the team to see if I can get some follow up for you.
Hope you are doing well too! I have passed your message to the team and hope you will hear back soon.
Great, thanks

Hi! Ok all set on my end, going to publish soon
One last time I'll ask for a name, I don't know if you've had a chance to check with your team about the rules around that

I did ask but have not heard. Also, as we work in teams, replies can come from several. Did you ever get anything from the Twitter team? Did you get a response from email(s)?
Ok, are you saying I've been talking to several different people over the course of these days through this one account?
And I did, but honestly it felt like a brush off. I had asked about the political alignment of who was followed, pointing out the Twitter really only follows those on the left
I was told EJUSA is non partisan, but that they don't support candidates who 'subvert election integrity.'
Which doesn't answer my question in any substantive way
I have not seen or even been aware of the responce to you concerning Twitter. And, I did ask other team members to look at your messages but have not gone back through the thread so right now I do not have an answer for you. I am the one that delivers food and am out doing deliveries now. If you would like more follow up, please ask but it may take some time to get an answer and other team members may see the message and answer, just don't know.
OK. When you're able to, please review our conversation and let me know if you see anything that you don't recall writing yourself. Just like to verify how many people I've been talking to
As for the Twitter email, I assumed that's a different person entirely from you and whoever does your Twitter
or the team that does the Twitter

And here is the email exchange I had I refer to at the end:

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Alex Maslow <armaslow@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi there, my name is Alex Maslow.  I had an extensive and productive conversation with whoever runs your FB group.  I have some questions about EJUSA's Twitter feed, though, that s/he was unable to answer.  So I've decided to ask them here.  Please respond at your convenience:

1. Elect Justice USA states it is a non-partisan organization.  However, it only follows left-of-center politicians.  Bernie Sanders.  Elizabeth Warren.  Jill Stein.  The only exception I see is Gary Johnson.  You follow many socialist feeds, Anonymous, and the Green Party.  Why don't you also follow President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, etc?  Why don't you follow US Congress, The White House, and the Democratic & Republican Parties.  Why not the Libertarian Party?


2. You recently retweeted that Jill Stein announced her VP pick.  Why didn't you retweet Clinton or Trump's or Johnson's announcement?  You once retweeted Jill Stein when she said:
Inline image 1 Dr. Jill Stein ‏@DrJillStein  Apr 21
In 2012, I was arrested for trying to enter the @debates & held in a dark site with 16 guards. That's how scared they are of our message.

Clearly that is an egregious thing.  I wonder what evidence you have to back her accusation up?  I've been unable to find much information about this event.

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.

-Alex


On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Election Justice USA <electionjusticeusa@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Alex for reaching out to us. EJUSA is a nonpartisan organization because it is solely dedicated to restoring complete integrity and access to all voters to our election system. This favors no party or candidate, unless the party and candidate want to subvert election integrity.


On Mon, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Alex Maslow <armaslow@gmail.com> wrote:
To whom it may concern,

What you wrote answers neither of my questions.  I did not ask why EJUSA is non-partisan.  I acknowledged that it was.  Then I asked why does it only follow a narrow group of politicians?  That is at odds with a non-partisan mission.  Unless you mean the DNC, Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, the US Congress, the White House, the RNC, and Donald Trump each "want to subvert election integrity."  If that is the case, please explain why this is so for each.

Also, since I sent my email your Twitter now follows Julian Assange, but none of the other politicians/organizations I mentioned across the political spectrum.  Why did you add Assange, and yet no American politicians?

My original questions are below.  Your answers will help me, and others, better understand your organization.

Thank you,
-Alex



1. Elect Justice USA states it is a non-partisan organization.  However, it only follows left-of-center politicians.  Bernie Sanders.  Elizabeth Warren.  Jill Stein.  The only exception I see is Gary Johnson.  You follow many socialist feeds, Anonymous, and the Green Party.  Why don't you also follow President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, etc?  Why don't you follow US Congress, The White House, and the Democratic & Republican Parties.  Why not the Libertarian Party?

2. You recently retweeted that Jill Stein announced her VP pick.  Why didn't you retweet Clinton or Trump's or Johnson's announcement?  You once retweeted Jill Stein when she said:
Inline image 1 Dr. Jill Stein ‏@DrJillStein  Apr 21
In 2012, I was arrested for trying to enter the @debates & held in a dark site with 16 guards. That's how scared they are of our message.

Clearly that is an egregious thing.  I wonder what evidence you have to back her accusation up?  I've been unable to find much information about this event.



I will update this post when I get another email response from them.

Followers