Bad Blog: The BRAD BLOG

Even though the thread title was tempting from the start, I put in quite a bit of consideration before determining that "The BRAD BLOG" would wind up at Bad Blogs' Blood.

The BRAD BLOG is run by Brad Friedman, an "Investigative Blogger" (according to the bio at the Huffington Post).
The claim is half-true. Friedman tries to investigate things, right enough, but it's hard to find an area where he has investigated well. Admittedly, I have not read his blog exhaustively, but my survey paints a dreary picture of Friedman's abilities.

The first problem with Friedman's investigative ability manifested itself when I examined his commentary on the California secretary of state race, where the two major party candidates are incumbent Republican Bruce McPherson and challenging Democrat Debra Bowen.

Friedman had plenty of criticism for McPherson, but he did a curiously sloppy job of backing up his criticisms ... using what might be called "House of Cards" documentation.

Friedman's blog post punctuated McPherson's statements with Friedman's replies.

MCP: I implemented the most stringent security testing procedures ever.

Really, McP? Not as stringent as your predecessor Kevin Shelley who had the decency to decertify the same Diebold machines you are now allowing the state to use, when he discovered they had lied and installed uncertified systems. You, on the other hand, simply certified them even though they are known to be among the most unsecure voting systems made. Oh, and you also have a guy who actually works for Diebold drafting documents for your office on your stationery.

Okay, we'll need to go slowly here, step by step.
First, it turns out that the quotation is utterly inaccurate, or is at least presented in the wrong order (I'll confirm this later).
Second, note that Friedman skips out on documenting his claims against McPherson. He just makes various assertions that the reader is expected to take as true.

Friedman admits that the quotation of McPherson may be imprecise, but suggests that they are "damned near."
But here's what McPherson actually said in his opening statement:

"I implemented the toughest voting systems in the nation, of any voting system."

The first claim Friedman makes is that Kevin Shelley's security testing procedures were more stringent than those of McPherson, but having reviewed what McPherson actually said, it is apparent that Friedman is implying that Shelley's requirements for electronic voting machines were more stringent than those of McPherson.
Shelley certainly pushed for a paper trail, but McPherson certainly calls for the same thing. The specifics of Shelley's requirements are tough to find, since most of the links to the Secretary of State's website, which no longer exhibits the Shelley plan.

We have no evidence of stricter standards from Shelley, but we do have McPherson's mock election resulting in decertification of Diebold machines.
Shelley's parallel move came after the machines in question were installed for use without certification under Shelley's nose (though apparently due to deceptive practices at Diebold).
The instance concerning McPherson looks better in terms of implementing standards.

MCP: I created the strictest standards in the nation before I would certify any of [the voting systems]. I also added security measures before they were used in an election.

Really, McP? Then why did you completely ignore those security measures in the very first election after you implemented them?

Again, Brad flubs the quotation. Here is what McPherson said: "I created the strictest standards in the nation before I would certify any of them. I also added some security measures in addition to that."
It's fair for Brad to editorially substitute "[the voting systems]" for "them," of course, but the latter portion of the quotation might as well be made-up.

Brad hotlinks through "completely ignore" to reach this page, which appears to emphasize storage security problems uncovered by (ta-daaaa!) Brad himself, and based on a local official's statement admitting that storage in a car could not be considered "secure."
Now if only Brad had bothered to place that information squarely in the context of McPherson's security measures, we'd have a reasonable piece of evidence instead of a worthless wild goose chase into an apparent house of cards.

MCP: The system in the Princeton Report [which showed Diebold touch-screen systems can be hacked with a vote-flipping virus in 60 seconds] was the Diebold TS, not the Diebold TSx as we use here in California.

Really, McP? Did you know the Princeton scientists also said the same vulnerabilities likely exist on the TSx? Want to dare us to prove that to you? (HINT: We don't have to. Your own team of scientists at UC Berkley already told you…you do know that, of course, right?)

Again, Brad's supposed quotation of McPherson is wildly off the mark; it is fair as a paraphrase, however, since McPherson did make the above distinction (since Bowen failed to make the distinction).
The report by the UC Berkeley scientists did not reference the Princeton examination at all, from what I can tell.
In any case, it seems strange to me that an "investigative blogger" would challenge the other guy to prove him wrong instead of providing the results of his investigative blogging in order to definitively settle the issue.

MCP: I did convene a team of scientists to look at these systems, and they said 'they are safe and accurate.

'"Really, McP? Let's see what they really said. From their report [PDF]:

Harri Hursti's attack does work: Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server.
…
However, there is another category of more serious vulnerabilities we discovered that go well beyond what Mr. Hursti demonstrated, and yet require no more access to the voting system than he had. These vulnerabilities are consequences of bugs–16 in all

…And then you went ahead and certified the Diebold systems anyway.

First, a small point: There doesn't seem to be any justification for supposing that McPherson was quoting the report. Brad's presentation suggests otherwise.

Taking McPherson's statement as a paraphrase, he seems to be right. The UC Berkeley team found the source code acceptably secure for use in elections if some simple security measures were implemented. From the report summary (page 1):

We found a number of security vulnerabilities, detailed below. Although the vulnerabilities are serious, they are all easily fixable. Moreover, until the bugs are fixed, the risks can be mitigated through appropriate use procedures.

And none of that warranted mention by our intrepid "investigative blogger"?
That's because he's better described as a partisan hack.

MCP: I've overseen two successful elections and no one has been disenfranchised in either of those elections.

Really, McP? What about those voters who were turned away in Kern County during the primary election in June because the Diebold voting machines didn't actually work at all?

1) McPherson can't know that "no one has been disenfranchised" in the elections he has run. Brad gets a point on that one, since the newspaper story he referenced provides reasonable prima facie evidence of probable voter disenfranchisement (albeit on an apparently minor scale).
2) Brad still flubs up, however. The voters who were turned away weren't disenfranchised by the failure of the Diebold machines so much as the failure to stock an adequate number of paper ballots as a failsafe. It's not certain that any of them were ultimately disenfranchised, however. The story simply said that it was virtually impossible for them to cast their ballots.

The "investigative blogger" ends up doing what he seems to do best: misrepresenting the facts.


***

I knew that Friedman's blog belonged here when I delved into his story titled

"EXCLUSIVE: FIRST BUSH-APPOINTED CHAIR OF U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION SAYS 'NO STANDARDS' FOR E-VOTING DEVICES, SYSTEM 'RIPE FOR STEALING ELECTIONS'!

On the "no standards" quotation, Friedman is accurate enough. That appears to be what Rev. DeForest Sories intended to say.

It's not clear that Sories reported accurately, however.

In early 1984, this three-year effort produced Voting System Standards: A Report on the Feasibility of Developing Voluntary Standards for Voting Equipment.

Based on the recommendations in that report, Congress appropriated funds permitting the Commission to begin developing voluntary national standards for computer-based voting systems. The FEC began the process in July 1984, and completed it with the Commission’s approval in January 1990 of the first national performance and test standards for punchcard, marksense, and direct recording electronic voting systems. More than 130 State and local election officials, independent technical experts, vendors, Congressional staff, and others participated in the effort to produce this document. The FEC spent $285,000 on four contracts over the course of this effort.
(About.com: History of Voting Machines)

On the other hand, Friedman employed trashy tabloid techniques with the other quotation. The quotation is accurate, but lifted out of context. Friedman manipulates Sories' comment in the title to make him appear to say that American elections are ripe for stealing, but the context shows that Sories referred to the same types of machines in other nations, presumably where election workers do less to preserve the accuracy of the process than we have in the U.S.
Friedman includes the full quotation in the article subsequent to the misleading headline, by the way. I take that as indicative of poor reasoning ability on Friedman's part rather than a desire to mislead others. If he were out to mislead, he'd have been much better off omitting the full quotation.
Here is the quotation with the expanded context:

And as long as an elected official is an elected official, then whatever machine was used, whatever device was used to elect him or her, seems to be adequate. But there’s an erosion of voting rights implicit in our inability to trust the technology that we use and if we were another country being analyzed by America, we would conclude that this country is ripe for stealing elections and for fraud.
(Sories, quoted at theBRADBLOG)

Realistically, any election system devised thus far is ripe for fraud. The latter portion of Sories' comment seems to lack any meaningful content minus the context that precedes it. Sories emphasizes the existing political culture, which is dominated by elected officials, provided we can trust the polls at all.

Those tabloid-style headers--in particular the inaccuracy--help cinch Brad's Blog its place here at Bad Blogs' Blood.

Update on "Left Out in America"

The very first Bad Blogs' Blood bad blog has sunk even lower.
The administrator removed my set of replies (my replies were not complimentary, but not overtly insulting--and certainly not obscene) to the three error-filled messages I discussed below without lifting a finger (thus far, anyway) to correct the errors.

That stacks up as fairly strong evidence that "liberalprogressive" deliberately misleads, though it's a slim possibility that she is just that clueless.

Updated update:

I left two more messages ... let's see how long they last.

Bryan said...

Silence the evil voices of dissent!

I think that "liberal progressive" knows that she wouldn't go on record as favoring an age of sexual consent above 18.
She can't condemn Foley except according to the letter of the law.
Deep in her heart, she probably doesn't think he did wrong.

You'll probably delete this one, too, eh?

'Cause being a progressive is all about free speech, open-mindedness, and (above all) avoiding debate by whatever means necessary.
;)

And another (I also put in the remnant of my other message, which summed up liberalprogressives error on the Fourth Amendment while suggesting that she owed Gen. Hayden an apology):

Comment Deleted

This post has been removed by the blog administrator.

10:54 PM

Bryan said...

Kind of pathetic that you censor the truth about the Fourth Amendment and refrain from correcting the errors you posted.

12:31 AM

Preview: blogger "tas"

An upcoming featured blogger wrote posting something downright hilarious, which I presume was in response to my recent interloping commentary at the "Loaded Mouth" blog (is that name a setup for a joke or what?).
The message is edited slightly to tone down the foul language a bit.

Memo to incoming trolls

In the past, I used to relish in tearing your stupid little arguments to shreds, but not only do I have the time to devote to doing such anymore, but I've also grown up. I know that may come as a dismaying thought to your immature asses, but it's true: I got a life and you didn't. Nyah nyah, you ****ing twits. I know it pains your attention whore asses to think that you won't be getting as much attention from me as I used to give you, but I limit my debates now to partners whom I see intelligence in and are willing to discuss all facets of an issue -- without resorting to the petty rhetorical devices of splitter hairs, dropping lame insults, and trying to "win" an argument instead of learning from a debate, the latter activity being the much more productive one.

I'm only blogging for another month (or less), so you won't have to worry about me for too much longer. But in the meantime, don't assume that you won't be censored if you swing by here. I have full rights to edit your comments, and I'll do whatever I find to be amusing, like changing your handle to something embarrassing or rearranging your words into fun statements like "I **** SHEEP!! THEY'S GOT TIGHT ARSEHOLES!" or "I LOVE RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SPERMY ****!" Or I'll just ban your IP address.

It all depends on my mood, you see. If I'm PO'ed and you're around, guess who I'm taking it out on?

To avoid this treatment -- and to get my attention for more than two minutes -- all you have to do is stop being a troll asshole and start being civil. It's pretty simple, no?
(LM)

A mark of the aforementioned maturity, no doubt.
I'll provide specific evidence later to cast serious doubt on tas' alleged ability to tear "your stupid little arguments to shreds."
The guy is seriously inept.

I think it's fair to count altering debate commentary--or even the threat of doing so--as one of the marks properly attributed to a bad blog.

I guarantee this as an accurate cut and paste, by the way, though I chose not to include the formatting that might have appeared between the title and the body of the text ("submitted by" along with the date ... that sort of thing).

Update: Within minutes of the replies I posted at "Loaded Mouth" just prior to posting at Bad Blogs' Blood, tas made good on his threat to alter the text of his blog commentary.
Another mark of maturity, no doubt. Heh.
Good thing I'd already recorded the conversations as they originally stood. That'll make doing the before and after comparisons both fun and easy.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Bad Blog: Left Out In America

"Liberalprogressive" is one of those bloggers who apparently only posts when there is something extra dopey to say.

May 19, 2006:

"OK, I was listening to Al Franken on Air America Radio and he played a clip from Hayden's hearing testimony ..."

Okay, that inspires confidence ...

She continues:

"But apparently, Hayden doesn't think that the 4th amendment of the US Constitution says anything about probable cause. He recognized that searches of citizens' homes, papers and persons cannot be conducted without warrants, but didn't think that the probable cause was necessary."
(LOiA)

What can Hayden be thinking? It's almost as though he's more familiar with the topic than the blogger.

Orin Kerr:

In his essay, Adam argues that Hayden’s view is correct. Adam is quite right, as is General Hayden. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants cannot issue without probable cause, but it does not impose some kind of universal probable cause requirement. As the Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly, the requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that searches and seizures must be reasonable.
(source)

Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. The exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement reflect the Court's reluctance to unduly impede the job of law enforcement officials.
(Encyclopedia of Everyday Law)

Our poor clueless liberal quotes the Fourth Amendment, then (somewhat later) proclaims:

The constitution clearly says that the government needs a warrant AND probable cause to surveille us.
(LOiA)

She also includes some ravings about how Hayden isn't worthy to serve in the administration because of his view of the Fourth Amendment. She probably sees nothing wrong when she casts her votes based on her own flawed understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
Sad, really.

Next entry, June 14, 2006 (imagine what she'd write if she posted daily or more):

A couple of weeks ago I very excitedly posted that Jason Leopold at Truthout.org reported that Karl Rove was indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald for perjury.
(LOiA)

Watch out for news stories using anonymous sources.
Leopold's scoop never materialized. Fitzerald wrapped up the investigation after indicting Libby on perjury and obstruction charges. Richard Armitage finally admitted that he told Fitzgerald early on that he leaked Plame's identity.
Liberalprogressive dedicates her post to proclaiming her faith that the reported indictment was based on good information, and wraps up predictably:

I, for one, hope that Fitzgerald actually uncovers the real story behind who outed Ms. Plame and why and indicts everyone involved.
(LOiA)

Sounds like she wants your head, Armitage.

And finally, this gem of a post entitled "Grand Old Pedophiles---To Catch a Congressional Predator"

The truth of this scandal begins simply with the acts of one man, the acts of Florida Republican Mark Foley. He had sexually explicit conversations via the internet, not with gay men, but with children, teenagers involved in the congressional page program.
(LOiA)

As of this writing, two former pages (both over 18) have had lewd IM conversation with Foley published. There isn't any evidence for liberalblogger's accusations against Foley other than misleading news reports. News sources have claimed that Foley had these conversations with males under the age of 18, but two of those claims have proved incorrect.
Other evidence may come to light, but I don't trust liberalprogressive's prescience.

Here's more brilliance:

The extreme religious right wing of the republican party is not afraid of gay-bashing. They are trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay people from marrying. In 2004, they saw to it that anti-gay legislation was on the ballots in many states to motivate their base to vote. That is gay-bashing.
(LOiA)

Why is it that people think that gay people are prohibited from marrying? Don't they read the news? Don't they watch TV? Can't they remember Governor McGreevy?

After the 2004 confession, McGreevey divorced his wife and now lives with his partner, Mark O'Donnell, who attends Saint Bartholomew's Episcopal Church with him in New York City.
(Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Liberalprogressive, your blog is bad. Welcome to Bad Blogs' Blood.

Greetings

Welcome to Bad Blogs' Blood, where blogs are evaluated and ranked for quality of information content. Be patient, for this will be a work in progress for the foreseeable future.
Actually, this blog will focus on blogs that threaten to waste your time rather than on establishing ranks for the better blogs.