Sunday, November 28, 2004

False Alternatives and Simulated Competition

First, welcome to all DUers. I have been participating in the Democratic Underground community for the past few weeks and some of those readers have visited GuvWurld. Thanks to Senior Citizen for starting a thread called The No Confidence Movement--what your town can do! I appreciate everybody who has kicked it back to the front of the listings in the election section and look forward to seeing more posts about steps people are taking to get the No Confidence Resolution passed where they live.

Please also visit the We Do Not Concede declaration. This absolutely captures the No Confidence sentiment and has caused a few people to remark about the similarities. One really strong aspect of their frame is putting the burden of proof on showing an election is fair and legit rather than having to prove it wasn't. I'll later make reference to where I diverge from WDNC.

The topic I've been encountering most lately is the false alternative. In the aftermath of the most recent "election" I detailed why John Kerry was a false alternative:
If Kerry had ever been in it to win it he should have given us a hopeful vision for a peaceful future; he could have pledged to reverse the media consolidation that has led to manipulative brainwashing; he would have feigned an interest in undoing the Patriot Act to restore civil liberties. A shrewd opponent of Bush would also support the 9/11 Truth Movement and the victims' families who last week successfully submitted a criminal complaint to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

In this entire campaign, John Kerry never stood up for anything - he just stood in. He was like a sparring partner, there for a workout but not to knock you out. And wasn't he using Springsteen's "No Surrender" as a campaign theme? How do you ask a man to be first to concede a "contest" he may yet be "proven" to have won?

I suspect that to the powerful partisan insiders who cast Kerry in the role of candidate, he was also a hedge bet. President Kerry would keep the war machine revved and the secrets of 9/11 concealed; allow further restriction of information through anti-competitive and anti-capitalist media mergers; and perpetuate the illusion that two major corporate parties are actually fighting over how best to represent you. This campaign was not only simulated competition, John Kerry represented a false alternative.
Presenting this idea in other words, Carolyn Baker at Global Research wrote: Manufacturing Dissent: How "Progressives" Gave The Election To Bush:
Like children in an abusive family system, traumatized progressive Americans have been desperately willing to "settle for" a less odious parent who will beat them only once a month instead of once a day. Uninformed and relying largely on corporate media or ostensibly progressive journalists who towed the "anybody but Bush" line with pit bull tenacity, they were willing to sell their souls to Kerry rather than face the excruciating reality of living in a country where clean, democratic elections no longer exist (if they ever did), where corrupted electronic voting or a Supreme Court can, did, and will install a President. Rather than own that their government committed the pre-meditated murder of 3000 human beings on September 11, 2001 and used that homicide as justification for world domination, or face up to the realities of Peak Oil which will create a global energy crisis unprecedented in the history of the human race, progressives and their intellectual gurus have screamed in unison, "Conspiracy theory! Paranoia!"

Rather than confront the full implications of a USA Patriot Act, which has effectively nullified their Constitution and Bill of Rights or call their present government what it actually is, a fascist empire, progressives sentimentally proclaim that they are living in a democracy where they still hold a sacrosanct right to vote. Their reward for their implacable denial? The candidate they have "settled for" virtually bestowed the election on his Bonesman brother, and one more time, they were handed over to the wolves, but not before being toyed with and bled dry in the name of making a better America.

Progressives in their "adult children of dysfunctional families" syndrome, have failed to comprehend the authentic nature of the New World Order, that is, the corporate-sponsored, free trade global hegemony of the ruling elite, whether packaged in the blatant neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration or the "Progressive Internationalism" of the Kerry camp. In their compulsion to choose "the lesser evil," their ability to decode the doublespeak of either one of the two faces of empire has been gravely impaired. As Richard Moore notes in his excellent article, "Doublespeak And The New World Order,"

Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow find a way to fight back. The Achilles heel of the NWO lies in its runaway successes: its high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential counter-reaction -- if people can be made to see who the real perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline of democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes can be turned against it, if people can learn to read the NWO agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out. The NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident are they that their doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the people.
Both Baker's GR piece and the Moore quote she cites reflect what I see as ruthless honesty. There is not one thing in what they say that reinforces any of the myths. Moore's essay goes back to January 1996 yet it is refreshingly timely and current and accurate. Another excerpt:
A very important point to notice is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic institutions has reversed the field in the game of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of the twentieth century, it has been the democracy-minded progressives who sought radical change, and the capitalist right wing who were the conservatives. But since Reagan & Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for radical change (in the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who have a vital interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie., constitutional democracy and national sovereignty).
Ruthless honesty here requires noting that democracy is no longer the status quo to be upheld. (I offer Moore the benefit of the doubt here, and suppose he now means progressives should end the myth of democracy and restore the genuine practice.) Otherwise, this is totally astute. I have long advocated for conscious framing of progressivism as centrist. It is not like it ever required spin to build the case, but Moore lays bare how obvious it has been all along.

His essay is long but so worth it, especially if you are new to the false alternative paradigm and trying to understand why I am spending so much time on it, as I did here and here in other DU threads. Both of these contain exchanges with supporters of We Don Not Concede. Here is another where I find their otherwise disciplined arguments still preserving myths:
pat_k wrote: "There is ample reason to suspect that the current "baseline" results have been corrupted. Whether the addition or subtraction of votes from an untrustworthy initial total will "change the outcome" is irrelevant. The issue is that the initial total is in doubt."

GuvWurld wrote: We agree changes should be made to how elections are conducted. All of your specific suggestions, as well as those found in the No Confidence Resolution, answer the question "what would be better?" The point is never to merely ask this question but to actually answer it as a means of providing a positive, forward-looking frame. We Do Not Concede does this already, albeit without consciously choosing this particular frame. "What would be better?" is not a rhetorical question but an all encompassing invitation to put all ideas on the table, and to then stimulate the competition among ideas.

So as I see it, we are both already using this frame, with a different degree of transparency. The difference is that I am applying it going forward only and you appear to be mapping it onto the recent "election" in retrospect, as if a "better" (more accountable) way of counting can offset myriad systemic flaws already acknowledged to leave us with no BASIS for confidence.
Current recount efforts serve the positive purpose of keeping uncertainty alive, and possibly delaying certain certifications or oaths of office. I see a general positive wherever we can resist the settling and acceptance of another fabricated reality. A recount may delay this but it still reinforces the bogus frame that a legitimate contest was held and a true measure of the will of the people was determined. This is incongruent with the No Confidence position otherwise embraced by WDNC and is the one point on which I hope we can help them evolve their message.

There is one more passage from the Moore piece I have to share:
"The elections themselves are circuses where certain topics are selected as being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy Democrat dance around the limited ring of issues. When the match is over, the establishment gets back to its un-discussed agendas."
This is a great characterization of simulated competition, as is the Nov. 2 event which so closely resembled an "election" that millions of Americans actually think we had one. I also like it because I've made the wrestling analogy too, including while imagining the No Confidence Movement on day one of the GuvWurld blog.

Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Colin Powell Declares Election Fraud

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet
international standards," Mr. Powell said, "and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse."
This quote is from the NY Times, and refers to the recent election in UKRAINE.

I don't know the details of the alleged fraud in Ukraine but I am familiar with stories from the recent US "election" that should draw the exact same remarks from Mr. Powell. It would seem that heads of state should have an interest in the orderly and lawful succession of power in other nations. Another excerpt from above:
The secretary of state, in a forceful statement backed by similar declarations from European and Canadian officials, urged a full review of the election, which several international monitoring groups and a White House special envoy have declared seriously flawed.
Whoever these unnamed European and Canadian officials may be, they're not carrying much street cred allowing the US "election" to remain unchallenged. I am again reminded of Nov. 28, 2000 when I wrote, in part:
When developing nations hold elections, the media usually report on the impartial international observers. Now the whole world is watching us. If any world leaders are indeed scrupulous, shouldn't *they* contest the legitimacy of the recent U.S. Presidential election? Could you imagine if impartial voices of reason from around the world helped us to hold up the mirror displaying our own ridiculous image?

In the final analysis, either foreign powers will choose not to recognize our next government or the entire world will be complicit in our illegitimacy. Either way, it would not only serve us right, it will be what we deserve.
So a new question emerges for the No Confidence Movement - how do we get other countries to demand accountability in Ukraine and US elections alike?

Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Election Response, An Open Letter to the Eureka, CA City Council

Dear Mayor La Vallee and Eureka City Councilmembers,

As I've mentioned at recent Council meetings, I've been working in the community to develop a response to the recent "election." The Election Incident Reporting System has now recorded over 34,000 reports of voting irregularities and at least two states are facing recounts. Clearly, many pre-election concerns were justified. However, voting is only part of the story.

Predictably, even the supposedly liberal New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle have been dismissive of efforts to investigate. This was predictable because of a pattern many seem afraid to acknowledge: the truth about the 2000 election was not revealed in a timely manner; myriad unanswered questions remain about 9/11; a fake threat took us to war (again). For many decades American citizens have been manipulated by the way information is framed and shared. The US government often claims to win public acceptance or support while relying upon intentionally distorted parameters of reality (current White House staffers even mock the "reality-based community," which is "not the way the world really works anymore.").

The people of Eureka and Humboldt County can both see and handle the truth: we should not endure more Orwellian paradoxes that leave us with no way to know what to believe. This is not a partisan position and does not seek to overturn the "election" outcome. This is the common sense of the No Confidence Movement saying there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of US elections. Will you please join me in viewing this as a huge opportunity for meaningful electoral reform?

I have identified eight points necessary to restore a BASIS for confidence. These optimistic, hopeful, and ambitious changes are found below in the The No Confidence Resolution. To succeed, small town leaders will need to coordinate with other No Confidence communities, use historic terms that again match our circumstances, and ensure that we are represented with the Consent of the Governed. Our part is the epitome of thinking globally and acting locally. I respectfully request that you add the No Confidence Resolution to the next City Council agenda and pass it.

In the meantime, if your e-mail supports HTML you'll notice many links throughout the resolution that direct you to supporting evidence (if not, you can read it at my blog by clicking the URL at the bottom). In the interest of transparency, this letter is being posted in my blog and I will assume any written responses I receive are also suitable for publication there, unless a request for privacy is indicated. I sincerely appreciate the gracious interest and respect you have recently demonstrated for these concerns. I hope this will continue in a way that makes clear the most effective ways for the community to win your support for the resolution.

In Respect and Peace,

No Confidence Resolution (v5.0, last updated 11/12/04 11pm)

WHEREAS private corporate ownership of voting machines has inherent conflicts of interest, and has specifically led to partisan support;


WHEREAS most voting machines made by private companies do not provide a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a permanent paper record of votes;


WHEREAS no machine has ever proven to be infallible, and there is extensive documentation of thousands of so-called voting machine "glitches," including lost data, negative vote totals, tallies equaling more votes than there are registered voters, and persistent automatic vote swapping from a voter's chosen candidate to an opponent, with some of said "glitches" being severe enough to change an election's outcome;


WHEREAS data from the 2004 U.S. presidential election indicate an enormous probability of fraud including, but not limited to, a non-random pattern involving optical scan machines in several states tallying significantly more votes for one candidate than could be expected based on exit polls, voter registrations or even voter turnout;

THEREFORE be it resolved that the City Council of XX, rejects as fraudulent the results reported from the 2004 US presidential election;

Be it also resolved that until:

1) all private corporations are divested of ownership in election machines, and
2) clean money laws keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) any future mechanisms for voting conform to a uniform national standard and produce a verifiable audit trail for every vote, and
4) all votes are cast on the same day, designated as a national holiday, with the exception of absentee ballots which will be granted to applicants meeting a narrow list of federally determined criteria, and
5) all votes are counted publicly in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions are observed by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates contain a minimum of three candidates, and are run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
8) ranked choice voting, also called instant runoff voting, is implemented for federal elections (see H.R. 5293);

There shall be no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from future US federal elections;

Be it also resolved that fraudulent elections constitute denial of the Consent of the Governed, defined in the Declaration of Independence as the self-evident truth from which government derives just Power. This Council reserves the right to exercise remedies described therein.


Check out the No Confidence Movement Primer to see what you and your town can do.

Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

Monday, November 15, 2004

Election Petition

I did not have anything to do with this petition. I have signed it and encourage others to do so and pass it on. The No Confidence Movement will continue independently of this.

To: United States Congress
TO: All members of the Congress of the United States of America; all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives

A Petition to immediately and without delay open a joint investigation into potential wrongdoing in the Presidential Election of 2004, specifically to investigate the potential of voting machine manipulation or purposeful malfunction, especially electronic voting machines manufactured and supplied by Diebold, Inc.; Electronic Systems & Software (ES & S); Sequoia Voting Systems, and others, and also to identify and investigate all allegations of improper conduct by election officials, workers, observers, challengers and operatives and employees of both major parties concerning the voting process including intimidation, dissemination of improper information, manipulation of registration records, improper handling of actual voting ballots and, in general, any and all potential improprieties which could have led to improper or inaccurate election results.


Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

Sunday, November 14, 2004

No Confidence Movement Primer

UPDATE: 6/11/05 7pm - For the most current version, please see the Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution. Everything after this sentence is left here for archival and research purposes.

* * *

This primer is meant as a guide to the talking points and strategy of the No Confidence Movement, growing in support of the No Confidence Resolution.

The premise: Currently, there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from U.S. federal elections.

The No Confidence Movement is a peaceful popular revolt in pursuit of comprehensive electoral reform, significant enough to create a BASIS for confidence where none currently exists.

This primer will be an ongoing work in progress. Suggestions welcome, but pardons begged in advance for slow replies.

(Last Update: 3/19/05 3am)

Strategy Overview


  • increase visibility of the resolution, focus on framing of premise above

  • do so via e-mail, message boards, letters to the editor, calls to radio, "equal time" requests on local TV news, lobbying city councils/mayors/county supervisors, and possibly an online petition if properly executed (contact me if you've pulled one off successfully in the past)

  • create at least one meme

  • distribute "Coming Soon" leaflets, customizable and available for free download in the GuvWurld nav bar (OK to save/post elsewhere)
  • As Soon As Practical:

  • organize neighbors for letter writing/phone calling session

  • speak publicly and on the record at local government meetings

  • get resolution on official agenda and passed unanimously
  • And Then:

  • the No Confidence message is also about re-establishing, if not first withdrawing, the Consent of the Governed. Ask yourself if this Consent is genuinely being sought at this time. It should no longer seem like a stretch to discuss withdrawing it.

  • as resolutions start passing, the frame becomes "has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, yet?"

  • the answer, after the first resolution, is no; after the second it will probably still be no; but after 25 or 50 or 100 No Confidence Resolutions there will come The Tipping Point (ultimately always brought on by a small "last straw")
  • At some point, representatives from communities that passed resolutions will start coordinating with each other. These discussions will begin to address the changes we'll see after the Tip. The resolution itself currently identifies eight very specific changes necessary, at a minimum, to restore even a BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

    I can not overstate the importance of understanding that the No Confidence Resolution posted on this site is a TEMPLATE. This needs to fly in town after town and they don't all have to call for exactly the same reforms. The key frames that make the No Confidence Movement work are BASIS and Consent. As I recently learned in Rebecca Solnit's "Hope In The Dark," revolution is not a mere change in leadership but a shift in the balance of power between the people and their government. Of course, if we are not having a say in elections, in influencing changes in leadership, then how could revolution be anything less than restoring the franchise, and how could that not be a shift in the balance of power?

    Talking Points

    First some general arguments, then more detailed specifics that go point by point with the resolution.

    Resolution Point #1:

    Corporations exist first and foremost to deliver profits to their shareholders. This creates an inherent conflict of interest with owning election machines. This is compounded by partisan state election officials. Examples:

    Resolution Point #2:

    Despite the climate of distrust and the motive associated with inherent conflicts of interest, most voting machines do not create a verifiable audit trail.

    Resolution Point#3:

    With the same data used to arrive at results reported by the media and government, the No Confidence Movement sees anomalies that make it impossible to know what to believe. Examples:

    It is not relevant to ask whether these examples reflect a pattern or could show the announced outcome would change. By their contradictory nature, these examples make it impossible to know what to believe - there is no BASIS for confidence.

    Resolution Point #4:

    Though proving a pattern isn't necessary to support the No Confidence Movement, nonetheless there are numbers to consider:


    The success of the No Confidence Movement will require a "think global, act local" approach. Your city councilmembers will be more responsive to you than your Senator.

    It is also necessary to avoid reinforcing, and indeed to call out, frames that perpetuate the myth of democracy in America. This is part of the philosophy of ruthless honesty (not truthless homily).

    The associated caveat calls for dismissing false alternatives. It is easy to see what this means if we look at the comprehensive election reform platform called for in the No Confidence Resolution. Any one of these changes alone own would be nice, but also insufficient. It is when all eight have been implemented that we may finally have a BASIS for confidence, a reason to believe that we are participating in a democracy and governed with our consent by leaders who represent their constituents and the interests of the greater good. If you are an American, this is your birth right. It has been lost in your lifetime and will not be inherited by your children, unless...what will you do to get it back?

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Friday, November 12, 2004

    New No Confidence Primer Coming Soon

    It is tough to keep up right now and I'm grateful for the help of friends in SF, Sacramento, NYC, and Tempe. The GuvWurld News Archive has been expanding faster than ever lately. Plus we've been doing some other outreach with the No Confidence Movement (read the new resolution).

    In particular, I want to recognize the forums at Democratic Underground. I recently signed up and while I can't start new threads yet I am allowed to post to existing ones. A fair amount of recent GuvWurld traffic has been coming from DU (not to be confused with depleted uranium).

    So, I'm done for the night tonight but I wanted to leave this note that I'll have a new No Confidence campaign primer by Sunday or sooner. Meanwhile, that last link will get you to the old primer used for phase 1 of the No Confidence Movement over the summer.

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Letter to SFChron - Vote Fraud Concerns Not So Easily Dismissed

    Dear Editors,

    The mere say-so of a bible-thumping Florida election supervisor is not sufficient to "wilt" election fraud concerns ("If it's too bad to be true, it may not be voter fraud," 11/11/04). Less than two weeks before the election the Chronicle published "Legal battles could cloud outcome in swing states" (10/23/04). It should be no surprise when the more recent article doesn't immediately quell four years of increasing election fraud evidence, culminating with more than 30,000 "irregularities" reported from this month's election (

    What would it take to restore credibility and legitimacy to US elections? For starters, paper trails all the way and no machines owned by private corporations. Until this happens, there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from US elections. After an earlier bogus election, a large-scale domestic attack with myriad unanswered questions, and a war based on a fake threat, The No Confidence Movement recognizes and rejects the real-time manipulation of public attitudes accomplished by American media coverage shortcomings. For more information, please see:

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Wednesday, November 10, 2004

    Update on Dennis Kyne

    I have written about Dennis a few times and there is a permalink to his site on the right. Most recently, I reported on September 6, that Dennis was arrested in NYC protesting the Republican convention. Today Dennis writes:
    On October 25th the motions for dismissal of the eight charges against me were denied

    I am scheduled to re-appear before the judge on 17 November, 2004 a Wednesday on Tuesday, November 16th at 7am West Coast Time Joyce Riley has invited my lawyer and I to speak with her for an hour long discussion on what is happening now and what was happening in New York during the convention that 50,000 people attended and a million protested this is the link to the show

    This is a widely recognized internet show In addition, I am still traveling the country, and will be speaking at the School Of America protest this year as well. As most of you know, all speakers for that event pay their own ways, I always pay my way, and I do it with help from all of you. The private legal advice I am getting is 100% funded from donations. If you can help, or talk someone in to helping

    PO Box 720254
    San Jose, CA 95172
    is where we take donations at

    On November 17th I will be in JURY 2 at 9:30 in the morning at 100 Centre Street, Manhattan for the evidenciary hearing if anyone can make it, or talk someone in to making it, thank you.

    Like Bear said in BIG WEDNESDAY, "You don't need friends when everything is going great."

    In Peace and In Truth

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Tuesday, November 09, 2004

    Olbermann Reports on Vote Fraud on MSNBC

    Watch it.

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    No Confidence Resolution

    The latest incarnation of this work is now called the Voter Confidence Resolution. Read it here:


    All prior related work is archived HERE.

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Sunday, November 07, 2004

    Some Key Post-"Election" Stories

    I'm not going to get into too much analysis of the fraudulent "election" since I've got some good reads that will do. Start with John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, and Robert Wexler, all members of the House Judiciary Committee who signed this letter to the GAO regarding voting machines. An excerpt:
    In Florida, there was a substantial drop off in Democratic votes in proportion to voter registration in counties utilizing optical scan machines that was apparently not present in counties using other mechanisms.
    The website cited by the Congressmen has been referenced in several other articles including Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked by Thom Hartmann. This is a pretty thorough examination of several common threads explaining the most commonly reported fraud. Plus it contained the excerpt below without any further detail about the evidence:
    When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.
    I suggest frequent Googling of the name Jeff Fisher for the next several days.

    According to this AP story from Wednesday, there had already been at least 1,100 reported problems from Tuesday's "election." These ran quite a range, from Palm Beach (FL) counting 88,000 more votes than voters, to Broward (FL) machines that counted backwards, to Carteret County (NC) losing votes on machines that could only count to 3,005, to a Columbus (OH) machine that gifted 3,893 votes to Bush and Craven County (NC) which gave him 11,283 more.

    Also new in the GuvWurld News Archive:
    Cincinnati Enquirer - Warren County (OH) Shields Vote Counting From Media
    Global Research - Massive Voter Suppression and Corruption in Ohio
    Vindicator (Youngstown, OH) - Errors Plague Voting Process in OH, PA

    Then you have some of the more perspective oriented items, all of which I highly recommend:
    Online Journal - You are now living in a fascist empire
    VoteScam - A Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America
    Global Research - The Stolen Election of 2004, Welcome Back To Hell

    Like I said, lots more in the Archive, plus I suggest visiting these other compilation sites:
    Election Incident Reporting System
    Global Research

    and for more on the data see:
    Surprising Florida Election Results
    Why Did CNN Change Their Exit Poll Data?
    The Randi Rhodes Show (may not stay current)

    Let me throw in just one paragraph here to summarize the thrust of the most likely fraud. In Ohio and Florida, specifically in precincts using optical scan machines, the data show a mismatch between the large number of newly registered Democrats, presumed to be voting for Kerry, and the votes tallied for Kerry. The same precincts are also suspect because the exit polls and the vote tallies were so far off (while exit polls were far more accurate in other places). And ultimately, I think the explanation is cinched in this Global Research article which explains that the small number of voters who cast their ballots after the final exit polling was reported somehow managed to account for a disproportionate sway in the tally (in other words, we are told to believe that 16 Floridians represented a 4% swing for Bush when this is not statistically possible).

    So, while most if not all of the fraud instances catalogued have been to Bush's benefit, I remind you that it will not be helpful to argue Kerry has won. The GuvWurld blog will be unveiling a new version of the No Confidence Resolution sometime in the next 24 hours.

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Ruthless Honesty, Not Truthless Homily

    That subject line will never catch on like a meme which is probably why it has taken me two years to work it into my writing. But BuzzFlash just put up a reader's contribution that offers me a bridge:
    In Robert Heinlein's classic book "Stranger in a Strange Land", there was a character who was a 'Fair Witness'. A Fair Witness was trained to be a scientifically objective witness, so objective that their testimony in a court of law was automatically accepted as Truth, unaffected by any subjectivity, emotion, or bias. We need to be our own Fair Witnesses to this time in our country. Be rigorously honest with yourself about this.
    Author Ruth Lopez makes a point very similar to what I was getting at in my Aftermath entry. It requires a measure of discipline to always distinguish the mythological frames from reality. It requires ruthless honesty, not truthless homily to call others on the same thing.
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    --George Orwell

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    Saturday, November 06, 2004

    The Aftermath

    Since Tuesday's "election," the Voting section of the GuvWurld News Archive has continued to swell. Sort by date to get the most recent at the top. As expected, rampant fraud is being alleged, if not flat-out demonstrated.

    Like many people, it has taken me a few days to collect my thoughts and process a coherent response. The first and most important thing I want to stress: WE MUST NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THAT KERRY WON.

    Since inception in April, GuvWurld has strictly adhered to the position: there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported in US elections. So much uncertainty has been sown that it is impossible to positively and definitively know the outcome.

    As the details of this week's fraud become increasingly revealed, some data may indicate that Kerry was indeed the victor. It may be tempting to make this argument, but it will be more effective to indict the system as a whole. People who turn defensive against a claim of a Kerry victory will continue to blind themselves to the myth of democracy. It is also important not to argue for Kerry so as not to validate the "election" frame as a legitimate contest.

    For the few days grok I also began to see Kerry's early concession putting him in the role of stooge and patsy. As a rule, I don't do name calling. I'm trying to map this onto the usual GuvWurld paradigm of simulated competition. If you haven't really been onto this yet, it must now be unmistakable.

    If Kerry had ever been in it to win it he should have given us a hopeful vision for a peaceful future; he could have pledged to reverse the media consolidation that has led to manipulative brainwashing; he would have feigned an interest in undoing the Patriot Act to restore civil liberties. A shrewd opponent of Bush would also support the 9/11 Truth Movement and the victims' families who last week successfully submitted a criminal complaint to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

    In this entire campaign, John Kerry never stood up for anything - he just stood in. He was like a sparring partner, there for a workout but not to knock you out. And wasn't he using Springsteen's "No Surrender" as a campaign theme? How do you ask a man to be first to concede a "contest" he may yet be "proven" to have won?

    I suspect that to the powerful partisan insiders who cast Kerry in the role of candidate, he was also a hedge bet. President Kerry would keep the war machine revved and the secrets of 9/11 concealed; allow further restriction of information through anti-competitive and anti-capitalist media mergers; and perpetuate the illusion that two major corporate parties are actually fighting over how best to represent you. This campaign was not only simulated competition, John Kerry represented a false alternative. If these common GuvWurld refrains are new for you, hopefully now you'll notice the abundance of additional examples.

    Also beneficial to the establishment, Kerry's early concession confined the range of possible responses to potential post-"election" chaos. For example, on "election" night, Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb was prepared to fly the following morning to Florida, Ohio, or wherever the legal flashpoint turned out to be. Instead, on Wed afternoon he was on the plaza in Arcata, CA speaking to at most 75 people about the same wonderful and positive messages on which he ran his campaign. In fact, he gave the stump speech I'd seen him do just two weeks ago.

    I highly doubt Cobb was the first thing on most people's minds when, before the "election," they pondered what kind of leadership we'd find for a post-"election" protest against fraud. I'd like to say that Cobb could do this. He is very bright, totally charming, unassuming and approachable, and he gets the full mythology (we do not really have democracy, capitalism, free speech or a free press in America; these are myths we must debunk).

    Unfortunately, as Cobb campaigned he also talked about voting for Kerry, a well-reasoned but utterly foolish and hypocritical position. Cobb himself was engaging in the simulated competition. I'd get over that in a hurry if his leadership, just on a local level, was immediately put towards exposing this week's "election" fraud; if he publicly espoused the simulated competition frame among the grounds for declaring No Confidence; and if he worked for local passage of a revised No Confidence Resolution that would, like before, refer to the Consent of the Governed.
    We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    --US Declaration of Independence
    The bottom line, for now: This "election" has broken the bank on what passes for reality. If you were in the Anybody But Bush camp, you may feel like Kerry sold you out. Let it go. The entire government has been pissing in your ear while picking your pocket and mortgaging your future. Getting to the bottom of what happened this week must be connected with the long-term and systemic changes described throughout the GuvWurld blog for the past seven months.

    (I'll try to synthesize a summary of the fraud charges and other resources for responding by Sunday night - for now, please visit the GuvWurld News Archive.)

    Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?