HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » mojowork_n » Journal
Page: 1

mojowork_n

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 2,354

Journal Archives

OMG

So it's now "normal" to expect vote bags can be torn open, for no apparent reason?

,,,,,Thinking of moving, to some galaxy "far, far away."

Or I don't know where.

That is a freakin' huge decision.

And I had a few hopes still kindling, that the "paper audit" of the recall election,
mandated by law and the G.A.B., could still turn up something of significance.

This was what I was thinking:

www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=147209

[div class="excerpt]The state of Wisconsin's General Accountability Board has a procedure in
place for a "random draw procedure for voting system audit." I think it's
supposed to take place within a two-week window following the certification
date.

I could find a link here:

http://gab.wi.gov/node/1409

That page actually describes what was in place for the September primary election in
2010 (couldn't find a link to this year's, it may not exist on that state agency's
website), but it's basically a two-step process. A "random" sampling of several
different types of voting machines is selected for a paper-counted audit, with
steps in place to make sure that "at least 5 reporting units" will be selected to
test each of the different types of voting machines used in Wisconsin. So that
the audit actually checks the reliability or accuracy of all of the different
manufacturers' models. Then, when the audit list is complete, the county clerks
in each of the "randomly selected" reporting units are notified, and they perform
the audits locally. For the September primary in 2010, the web page reports that
"...Each municipal and county clerk selected shall be contacted by the close of
business on Wednesday, November 3, 2010."

So there are maybe still a few weeks left before that audit process begins.

But here's the kicker, this is the line on the web page that says how voting
machines will be picked for the paper audit:

"The staff shall use the random number generator in Excel to select 250 reporting units for audit by local election officials."





That's it. Nothing about any precautions to make sure that the (networked?)
PC on which the copy of Excel has been installed isn't, itself, subject to any
possible intrusion.

In this case, when we've already had people named and indicted for a "secret
wireless network" that was installed within 20 feet of Scott Walker's office, while
he was County Executive (that some people think was installed to allow 'unofficial'
partisan work and campaigning while they were also on the clock for state-paid
official job responsibilities), it might not be inconceivable that someone could
insist a few extra precautions are taken. (A judge, somewhere, I don't know.)

The circumstances of the 2011 recount for the State Supreme Court election
were also somewhat unusual, when bags full of ballots were discovered unsealed,
busted open and otherwise compromised.

With some of the Governor's top aides already named and indicted in the criminal
John Doe investigation....

...and last Sunday's largest circulation daily having taken note of the following:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dominance-in-rural-areas-ensured-walkers-win-h85ptpl-159315385.html

.....consider the swing nature of the 11-county Wausau TV market in north-central Wisconsin. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle won the Wausau market by 11 points in 2006. Democrat Barack Obama won it by 12 in 2008. Then Republican Walker won it by 12 points in 2010 and by 18 points in 2012.

Consider the Green Bay market. Obama carried it by seven in 2008 and Walker carried it by 23 in 2012.

Consider the La Crosse-Eau Claire market. Obama carried it by 19 points in 2008 and Walker carried it by nine points in 2012....

...Many of the same outstate counties Obama carried by single or double digits in 2008, Walker ran away with in 2012.

The fact that Walker won them by such unusual margins is clearly an encouraging sign for Republicans in November.

By the same token, Walker's performance in outstate Wisconsin was so exceptional it may be hard for other Republicans to duplicate.

One of the hardest things to know about elections is: When does something pretty unusual constitute a trend? And when is it just something pretty unusual?




Would it be possible to insist that instead of using some PC in a state office building somewhere -- that's almost certainly connected to other PC's in the state network, and other PC's beyond that network's firewall (?), the "random" audit is made truly random?

Get a brand new PC, never connected to the web or a network, and use the copy of Excel that's ever so

...c a r e f u l l y...

installed on it to generate 100 separate lists of the required 250 'reporting units.'

Print them and pick one of those 100 lists at random, and then go through the required steps. With as many
civilian, volunteer watchers as the law permits -- from both parties.

Using a machine that's simply available, in some state office somewhere -- and known to how many people as the "official audit PC" -- completely defeats the purpose of holding a random audit.

It would be the digital equivalent of going to a casino to place bets where you know that almost anyone, at any time, could wire up an invisible magnet to the roulette wheel. Or to use a more common analogy, like buying meat or deli items at a grocery where the person behind the counter has an invisible, electric thumb that could be applied to the scale. At any time.

If enough people get behind the idea, maybe we could make it happen. If every paper ballot that's hand counted exactly matches the machine-tabulated results in every reporting unit, it'll simply quiet all the talk about vote rigging. We can go on with politics as usual for the November election. Talk about messaging, and how to connect with all those out-state, Northeast voters who gave up on the Democrats in the recall. (Did they really? The anecdotal stories I heard had people out-state who were paid 100 bucks a pop to put huge Walker signs in their front yards actually intending to vote for Tom Barrett.)

It would really be a good way to separate and answer two distinct, unrelated questions. Question 1.) "What happened in the minds of voters that caused them to view the election as a choice, in the way that they did." and Question 2.) "Was the vote tabulation recorded by all the electronic voting machines -- that have been discontinued and banned in so many other countries (the U.K., Holland, & Germany among them) -- accurate and reliable?"

PS -- With the exception of one question I can think of -- "Why didn't Russ Feingold want to run against Walker?" -- many of the questions that were raised up-thread have been discussed in the Wisconsin forum here at D.U., and also at bradblog and Thom Hartmann's blog. In case anyone wants to go ahead and do some note-taking and research, before writing up a good, concise bullet-point petition.

(That is, assuming it's worth going through with that small amount of extra time and effort; if there's no chance that there could have been back-tampering with bags of ballots, to make machine tabulations match the paper count.)

...Posting all of the above to add that it's completely beside the point to attempt anything like that on a touchscreen voting machine. Any audit should attempt to exclude all voting appliances that don't leave behind a paper trail.

It's possible that there are already GAB rules (or guidelines?) in place that specify Wisconsin is supposed to use only optical-scan units, or other voting means that will leave evidence of actual voter intent, for the purposes of recounts or audit checks. I don't know where I saw that, but it could be an important point to bring up. Also to ask if those rules or guidelines were violated by the "new lamps for old" swap of 3,000 brand new DRE "Command Central" voting machines for 1,500 pre-owned optical scanning units.




Right on, brother.

I was going to put this up as a new post, but I'll send it to you as a reply in this thread....

....It's late for me, I'm wore out and there's been a lot going on lately so it's really enough for me to just get
a validation from one person tonight.....

I happen to have this one really good, honest friend who happens to be an elderly white Republican
male. There's so much we have in common but just so happens he's the dude filling my inbox with
forwarded viral e-mails. (Long story.)

This is what I got tonight, in an e-mail with "civics lesson" in the subject line:


A black kid asks his dad, "Dad, what's democracy?"
(Wait...the kid doesn't know his Dad...let's start over....)


A black kid asks his mom, "Mama, what's a democracy?"
"Well, son, that's when whites work every day so we can get all our welfare benefits!"

"But mama, don't the white people get pissed off about that?"
"Sure they do, but that's called racism!"


So I said to him:

If you find that sort of jape to be so amusing, the number of teeth in your mouth and your IQ are very likely in a neck-and-neck race for numerical ascendancy. But I'm putting my money on those biting, incisive "choppers."













By the way, I.......

......Bought my MEGABUS tickets for Bastille Day weekend.

It's highly probable that at least one or two of my traveling companions -- of whatever
race or ethnicity -- will look like one of the above photos, but who cares?

Why is it even necessary to make sport of the misfortune of others, except as a
poor, stop-gap reassurance that one's own station in life is still "higher" than
some other poor unfortunate's?

The sixteen dollar and fifty cent fare -- both ways, 700 miles and including the full
fifty cent cost of the "reservation fee" -- is one more 'proof' that sometimes, when
society makes economic choices that benefit all, everyone benefits.

Take "single-payer" health care for instance. All for one, and one for all. The
only losers in this country, if that's ever instituted, will be the insurance company
CEO's and mandarins who have been paying themselves irrationally high bonuses
and salaries for denying coverage (including dental insurance) to those who need
it most.

But of course, those are the same people funding these self-defeating, mean-
spirited and ugly emails you keep forwarding to me.

Like a pigeon in a Skinner Box, trained to respond to an electronic tingle that
explodes with neural rewards within that very minimal cranial space.

.....PS,

Hey, on top of that.....

To be honest, 1StrongBlackMan, I'm really a "brotha-in-law."

Except for the possibility that some serious genetic testing might turn up an
'unexpected' result from a profile of my mitochondrial data -- it's possible
there's some Ottomans in there -- from the Cenk Uygur tribe, the dudes
that ran over my ancestral turf and mixed up the DNA heritage:



,,,,,,my best claim to the "user_name" MoJoWork'N is that for most holidays
and special days in the last couple of decades, I've been enjoying more sweet
potato pie and greens than burek or cevapce. But that's another long story.





There may be a window of opportunity.

The date for certification of the June 5th election is the 23rd.

The state of Wisconsin's General Accountability Board has a procedure in
place for a "random draw procedure for voting system audit." I think it's
supposed to take place within a two-week window following the certification
date.

I could find a link here:

http://gab.wi.gov/node/1409

That page actually describes what was in place for the September primary election in
2010 (couldn't find a link to this year's, it may not exist on that state agency's
website), but it's basically a two-step process. A "random" sampling of several
different types of voting machines is selected for a paper-counted audit, with
steps in place to make sure that "at least 5 reporting units" will be selected to
test each of the different types of voting machines used in Wisconsin. So that
the audit actually checks the reliability or accuracy of all of the different
manufacturers' models. Then, when the audit list is complete, the county clerks
in each of the "randomly selected" reporting units are notified, and they perform
the audits locally. For the September primary in 2010, the web page reports that
"...Each municipal and county clerk selected shall be contacted by the close of
business on Wednesday, November 3, 2010."

So there are maybe still a few weeks left before that audit process begins.

But here's the kicker, this is the line on the web page that says how voting
machines will be picked for the paper audit:

"The staff shall use the random number generator in Excel to select 250 reporting units for audit by local election officials."


That's it. Nothing about any precautions to make sure that the (networked?)
PC on which the copy of Excel has been installed isn't, itself, subject to any
possible intrusion.

In this case, when we've already had people named and indicted for a "secret
wireless network" that was installed within 20 feet of Scott Walker's office, while
he was County Executive (that some people think was installed to allow 'unofficial'
partisan work and campaigning while they were also on the clock for state-paid
official job responsibilities), it might not be inconceivable that someone could
insist a few extra precautions are taken. (A judge, somewhere, I don't know.)

The circumstances of the 2011 recount for the State Supreme Court election
were also somewhat unusual, when bags full of ballots were discovered unsealed,
busted open and otherwise compromised.

With some of the Governor's top aides already named and indicted in the criminal
John Doe investigation....

...and last Sunday's largest circulation daily having taken note of the following:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dominance-in-rural-areas-ensured-walkers-win-h85ptpl-159315385.html

.....consider the swing nature of the 11-county Wausau TV market in north-central Wisconsin. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle won the Wausau market by 11 points in 2006. Democrat Barack Obama won it by 12 in 2008. Then Republican Walker won it by 12 points in 2010 and by 18 points in 2012.

Consider the Green Bay market. Obama carried it by seven in 2008 and Walker carried it by 23 in 2012.

Consider the La Crosse-Eau Claire market. Obama carried it by 19 points in 2008 and Walker carried it by nine points in 2012....

...Many of the same outstate counties Obama carried by single or double digits in 2008, Walker ran away with in 2012.

The fact that Walker won them by such unusual margins is clearly an encouraging sign for Republicans in November.

By the same token, Walker's performance in outstate Wisconsin was so exceptional it may be hard for other Republicans to duplicate.

One of the hardest things to know about elections is: When does something pretty unusual constitute a trend? And when is it just something pretty unusual?


Would it be possible to insist that instead of using some PC in a state office building somewhere -- that's almost certainly connected to other PC's in the state network, and other PC's beyond that network's firewall (?), the "random" audit is made truly random?

Get a brand new PC, never connected to the web or a network, and use the copy of Excel that's ever so

...c a r e f u l l y...

installed on it to generate 100 separate lists of the required 250 'reporting units.'

Pick one of those at random, and then go through the required steps.

Using a machine that's simply available, in some state office somewhere -- and known to how many people as the "official audit PC" -- completely defeats the purpose of holding a random audit. It would be the digital equivalent of going to a casino to place bets where you know that almost anyone, at any time, could wire up an invisible magnet to the roulette wheel. Or to use a more common analogy, like buying meat or deli items at a grocery where the person behind the counter has an invisible, electric thumb that could be applied to the scale. At any time.

If enough people get behind the idea, maybe we could make it happen. If every paper ballot that's hand counted exactly matches the machine-tabulated results in every reporting unit, it'll simply quiet all the talk about vote rigging. We can go on with politics as usual for the November election. Talk about messaging, and how to connect with all those out-state, Northeast voters who gave up on the Democrats in the recall. (Did they really? The anecdotal stories I heard had people out-state who were paid 100 bucks a pop to put huge Walker signs in their front yards actually intending to vote for Tom Barrett.)

It would really be a good way to separate and answer two distinct, unrelated questions. Question 1.) "What happened in the minds of voters that caused them to view the election as a choice, in the way that they did." and Question 2.) "Was the vote tabulation recorded by all the electronic voting machines -- that have been discontinued and banned in so many other countries (the U.K., Holland, & Germany among them) -- accurate and reliable?"

PS -- With the exception of one question I can think of -- "Why didn't Russ Feingold want to run against Walker?" -- many of the questions that were raised up-thread have been discussed in the Wisconsin forum here at D.U., and also at bradblog and Thom Hartmann's blog. In case anyone wants to go ahead and do some note-taking and research, before writing up a good, concise bullet-point petition.

(That is, assuming it's worth going through with that small amount of extra time and effort; if there's no chance that there could have been back-tampering with bags of ballots, to make machine tabulations match the paper count.)

The comments following the post bradblog video have a few more details

For anyone scratching their heads, wanting to read more:

Additional text and links at Bradblog.com

The most startling bit of news (for me) was the "arabian nights" New-for-Old deal
made by 46 Wisconsin county clerks. I don't have the details on the sequence of
events, or when they were all selected, purchased and installed but a bargain was
made between a small, 2 or 3-person company in St. Cloud, Minnesota, "Command Central,"
a distributor for "Dominion Systems," Canada, which had earlier swallowed up the
predecessor corporate entities, "ES&S" and "Sequoia Voting Systems," and those
county clerks.

Meet-command-central-the-people-in-charge-of-wisconsin-voting-machines/

reference pertinent details about the history of those earlier
companies' participation in our election process, here:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2585



... "Command Central" made a deal to swap 3,000 brand-spanking-new touchscreen voting
machines for 1,500 used optical scan voting machines, with those 46 Wisconsin counties. Both
types of election apparatus are eminently 'hackable' but the touchscreen equipment has
the additional advantage that it leaves no paper trail. We all remember the recount for
the Kloppenberg-Prosser Supreme Court election, where all those busted open and unsealed
bags of paper ballots left such an untidy spectacle. That all took place in May of 2011.
The Wisconsin county clerks' conference was held in June, and by July, 2011 those brand new "Command
Central" touchscreen machines were in place in Fox Point (wards 1 - 4) for the epic Sandy
Pasch & Alberta Darling State Senate recall race.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alberta_Darling_recall,_Wisconsin_State_Senate_%282011%29

A few folks were scratching their heads over the results of that one, too. For one thing, the new
machines came equipped with two ePROMs's (programmable read-only memory) that stores
the machine software. There's one ePROM for "testing functions" and another for actual "election
functions," like tabulating votes. That's still how those units are configured, apparently.

In any event, it's probably worth noting that at that annual Wisconsin county clerks conference
in Ladysmith, in June of last year, the chairperson of the Legislation Committee was Waukesha
County's Kathy Nickolaus.

From the Meet-Command-Central Link:

....{The} meeting featured a break-out session entitled, “Mastering Tough Questions from News Media, Directors and Other Audiences”:

Whether it’s a news event, a hostile public hearing or a difficult internal meeting, the knowledge and skills gained in this class will increase our ability and confidence to succeed as mastering the tough questions everyone fears. By understanding the anatomy of ‘tough questions’ you will gain power of them. Learn response techniques and model answers that you can apply to any situation.


Al Guyant, president of Guyant and Associates, a training firm specializing in human communications, conducted the session. Guyant has prepared clients for 60 Minutes, Dateline and other “tough question” formats... ...Another break-out session was scheduled specifically to spend time with the election vendors: Command Central and Dominion. Command Central was represented by Vice President Aaron Storbeck.


In an interview with Barb With from the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op, Aaron Storbeck admitted that all software programming for the vote tabulation process was done by one person, his step-mother, Barb Wahl. Ms. Wahl, the investigators at the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op found, had previously been discharged from a position as data administrator for another company, ACS Enterprise Solutions, for repeatedly refusing to take a mandatory online ethics exam that required "an employee... to read workplace scenarios and answer questions about ethical workplace behavior."

According to John Washburn, an election integrity investigator and professional software tester, who has filed multiple requests for information and open records with the State of Wisconsin's General Accountability Board (now within the purview of the Walker administration), the agreement by which the 46 county clerks agreed to accept the new 3,000 touchscreen voting machines for the used 1,500 optical scanner paper-trail voting machines, "violates the statutes issued by the GAB for State approved system as described on the Government Accountability Board’s website that requires the inclusion of an Optech Insight Scanner."

So, with all that in mind, there's no reason at all anyone should have the slightest reason to doubt that our election process in Wisconsin is conducted following responsible and transparent procedures and processes. None of the people who are employed by the voting machine companies or the state of Wisconsin or individual counties has anything to hide. Unlike the effort to "verify the recall" when whole battalions of tea party volunteers were able to download and attempt to cross-check signatures and addresses on recall petitions -- we all know how many fictitious names, cartoon characters and anonymous, ordinary, poor and middle class people signed those -- the fact that this race was considered:

  • too close to call (despite the over-reliance on land lines over cell phones, in some polls, and other skewed survey techniques)

  • the most recent percentage shifts clearly trended towards the Democrats, and

  • there was near-record turnout in most all the Democratic Party's known precinct strongholds


should have made some difference. But on election day none of that apparently had any effect at all.

FAUX News was able to "project that Walker would survive the recall" at 2:08 pm, the middle of the afternoon on June 5th, election day.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1675322440001/fox-news-projects-wisconsins-walker-will-survive-recall/

And it was all over after that. (With who knows how many people discouraged from turning out to vote, after work, with the news of that announcement.)

Nothing to see here, move along.....







Thanks, the part about the Bradley Foundation/UW-Madison/Milw. Journal-Sentinel.....

...was certainly interesting. From your first link:

About a year ago, we discovered that the far-right Bradley Foundation front, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), made a deal to "partner" with the political science department at UW Madison. The Poli Sci department agreed to conduct WPRI polls with questions provided by WPRI. WPRI and Political Science agreed that the agreement and all polling would be outside the reach of open records laws. Incredible. Reporters who routinely use Open Records to get information wouldn't think of asking Marquette Law School about their brand new polling operation. Keeping all the relevant data outside the reach of the public is not pants on fire it is "building burning down!" And they agreed that a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter would have first crack at revealing the poll's results. A scoop so to speak.





....But I wasn't really thinking about the exit polling or the accuracy or possible bias of the poll takers; I was more
focused on how -- with more than 3 hours to go, while the polls were still open -- FAUX News could have come to
the conclusion that the race was over, and our side had lost.

...I was listening to Stephanie Miller on Chicago Progressive Radio (online),
earlier this morning, and got led back to a story that was posted here. From our friends
and neighbors over at the D.U. Minnesota Group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1059686

I couldn't help noticing that the name, Kathy Nickolaus, popped up again in quite a prominent
role:

Forty-six Wisconsin counties and 3,000 voting machines are being controlled by a two-person company operating out of a strip mall in Minnesota

_snip_

Uh…down the hall from Michelle Bachman's campaign office


That's a whole lot of Wisconsin counties, 46. More than half the total, I'm pretty sure.
(How many do we have, 75?)

From that link in the Minn. Group:

In June 2011, the Wisconsin County Clerks Association held their annual summer conference in Ladysmith. Seventy-five county clerks from across the state came together to, among other things, “assist the legislators in developing sound legislation that affects county clerks and county government by providing accurate and useful information.” WCCA Legislation Committee chair at the time was Kathy Nickolaus.

....By law, voting machines must be publicly tested prior to every election. A Programmable Read Only Memory (P.R.O.M.) pack or cartridge is used to reprogram the machines with the details of the current election. Clerks receive two PROM packs from Command Central: A PRE-LAT, which is used a week or so before the election for the public test, and an “Official” pack used on Election Day. Whoever programs the PROM packs has the ability to inject all the machines with a virus that will flip votes only on Election Day. With two different PROM packs in play, it’s easy to see how public tests could be flawless and the machines could still flip votes Election Day.

In his report of his experience with the November 2010 gubernatorial election for Scott Walker, John Washburn, an election integrity investigator and professional software tester for almost 20 years, states, “I have been to dozens of voting system test sessions and have never seen any of this faux ‘testing’ actually test the voting system software correctly. This is the professional opinion of a software tester testing software since 1994.”


Which is a roundabout way of going back to my original question -- when it came to the signatures on all the recall petitions, it became open season for Tea Party volunteers to pore over the lists of names, to file away and do with whatever they chose, in order to "verify" the recall.

But it doesn't seem likely that anything similar will ever happen with the actual vote totals in the election. Touchscreen voting machines don't leave a paper trail and in the middle of last summer -- when the first round of recall voting had just started -- Kathy Nickolaus helped to push through a "new lamps for old" agreement through which that two-person company operating out of the strip mall near Michelle Bachman's campaign office supplied TWO touchscreen voting machines, for free, in exchange for ONE optical-scanner voting machine (1,500 of them, all together?), to 46 different Wisconsin counties.

.....Nah, nothing to see there. Let's just move along, shall we? (And move "forward" with our new/old political leaders. It's not as if any of them have been indicted for any fraudulent activity, yet, or been the focus of any actual criminal investigations. ...Oh, wait -- oops -- never mind.)


Seriously? Do you know what you're implying?

If that's all true, then what you're saying is enforcement of new codes is an inevitable
cost multiplier -- like the curse of annual inflation, but with a much more steeply rising
curve -- negatively impacting those who can afford it the least, the most. (The costs
"trickle down" to renters and 1st-time home buyers.)

I'm in manufacturing, not home building, and I actually checked out this post to find out
if UL (Underwriters Laboratories) codes -- which our electrical department has to get
certification for -- were cited, and if it transferred at all to what we do.

But your post doesn't provide any actual information or examples or specifics, it's just a
big "no" to the whole concept of safety and economic feasibility having anything other
than a zero-sum relationship. (Fundamentally opposed, "your loss is my gain."

That's not really been my experience. Far from it. We make packaging equipment for
beverage makers. The gallon of milk you bought yesterday or the day before was very possibly
filled (and the bottle capped) with machinery that we manufacture. Food safety standards
are what our company needs to be aware of, so that our customers (many dairies and
juice and other beverage bottlers) won't be put in the position of getting fined, or having
their products recalled. For example, there's a whole major taxonomic genus of machinery
lubricants -- specially manufactured oils and greases -- that are functionally equivalent to
conventional, petroleum-based lubricants, but aren't harmful to human health. So that if a
micro-small dollop of lubricant meant to keep the bottle-capping machine working efficiently
somehow -- God only knows how -- ends up inside one of the bottles, it's not going to hurt
anyone.

That used to be called the "NSF" (Food Safety) category of lubrication products. But it's no
longer a government-overseen or regulated classification standard. I can't remember, it may
have been near the end of Bill Clinton's 2nd term, or maybe it happened during the administration
of the second ARBUSTO, but the whole government department that oversaw and supervised
those "regulations" was eliminated. Privatization by eliminating the competition. I think there
was a generally held presumption that some industry council or other private group would
step forward and take over the responsibility for maintaining NSF standards, but that hasn't
happened. (Go figure -- all of the responsibility and risk but no potential at all for a financial
return -- it just hasn't happened.)

So at the moment, the next time you twist open a bottle of water, because gosh -- you're
sooooo thirsty -- the guidelines for keeping harmful crud out of that bottle -- haven't been
updated since I can't remember when.

That's actually been my general experience with these kinds of codes and regulations -- they
ALWAYS take a back seat to any economic factor that could possibly interfere with the price
of the product, or the economic health of the company that's involved.

So I'm wondering, can you go into any detail on your own experience, what it is exactly that's
made life so difficult for you, in the home building industry? If you have any specifics about UL
codes or other, municipal-jurisdiction or other local ordinances, that have impacted your company's
bottom line -- I'm still curious, trying to keep up with what's going on and staying current.
Go to Page: 1