Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

“Evidence? We Don’t Want Your Stinkin’ Evidence!”

Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor

The Crisis Papers

January 16, 2006

Like researcher with development and air researchers with worldwide environmental change, the individuals who caution us that our decisions have been stolen and will be stolen again should now ponder, “exactly what amount of proof must it take to put forth our defense and to persuade enough regarding people in general to constrain change and secure our tickets?”

The appropriate response, clearly, is no sum – no sum, that is, until the point that more personalities are opened. Also, that is in excess of an issue of proof, it is an issue of aggregate mental stability.

Back to crisispapers.

Back to Homepage:

In his new book, Fooled Again, Mark Crispin Miller not just displays plenteous proof that the 2004 decision was stolen, yet what's more he analyzes the political, social, and media condition which made this burglary conceivable.

When I originally read the book following its distribution, I admit that I was somewhat disillusioned. What I had would have liked to discover was an abridgment of proof, from front to back. Undoubtedly, Miller gives us a lot of proof, carefully recorded. Yet, proof reveals to us that the race was stolen. Mill operator goes past that to clarify how and why it was stolen, and how the guilty parties have overseen, up until this point, to escape with it. So on second understanding, I find that it was my desire and not Miller's book that was defective. We have proof galore, to be found in John Conyers' report, and the new book by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, notwithstanding the Blackbox casting a ballot Website among various others. Destined to be included is Prof. Steven Freeman's book on the factual proof of race extortion. What we don't pick up from these sources is a comprehension and valuation for the setting in which this wrongdoing was submitted. This we gain from perusing Miller's book.

In the event that, truth be told, the last two presidential decisions have been stolen, and if moreover there is a dominance of proof to help this case, at that point this is the most huge political news in the multi year history of our republic.

So what is the reaction of the purportedly “restricting” gathering to the issue of decision extortion? Virtual quietness. Also, of the news media? More quietness. A valid example: the media reaction to Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again. As he reports: “There have been no national audits of Fooled Again. No system or digital TV show would have the writer on to discuss the book. NPR has declined to have him on… Just a single every day paper – The Florida Sun-Sentinel– has distributed a survey.”

Power the topic of race extortion and request an answer, and the no doubt reaction will be a string of dirty pool affronts – “sore failures,” “suspicious,” “trick scholars” – assaults on the errand person and a rejection of the message. We've heard them, many occasions over

Hold on, and you may get as an answer, not confirm that the races were straightforward and substantial (there is next to no of that), but instead some facetious inquiries with regards to the frames of mind and thought processes of the supposed culprits and to the pragmatic troubles of their effectively achieving a stolen national decision. Questions, for example, these:

How could the GOP battle supervisors trust that they could escape with a stolen decision?

For what reason would they set out hazard disappointment, and the ensuing criminal arraignments and disintegration of their gathering?

What could inspire them to subvert the establishments of our majority rules system?

The response to the initial two inquiries is basically the equivalent: they accepted and they challenged in light of the fact that they controlled the media and accordingly the message. Mill operator's sub-message all through his book is that the incredible constituent seize has been practiced with the participation, one may even say the intrigue, of the predominant press, without which the wrongdoing would never have succeeded. Promptly following the decision, the faultfinders were yelled down with so much features as this: “Race neurosis surfaces; Conspiracy scholars call results fixed” (Baltimore Sun), “Web Buzz on Vote Fraud is rejected” (Boston Globe), “Most recent Conspiracy Theory – Kerry Won – Hits the Ether” (Washington Post), and in the “lead” paper, the New York Times: “Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried.” (Miller, 38). Much more harming than the inclined “reports” in the media, was the quiet. The Conyers examinations? Disregarded. The academic measurable examinations of leave survey errors? Disregarded. Proof that Bush tricked in the discussions with a listening gadget? Expelled. The ongoing GAO give an account of e-casting a ballot vulnerabilities, and the Florida exhibit hacking of PC vote assemblage? Overlooked. Also, most shocking of every one of: the media power outage a week ago of Al Gore's persuasive discourse, cautioning of the risk to our Constitution and our freedoms presented by the Bush routine.

And this only touches the most superficial layer of media misbehavior. For additional, read the book.

The inspiration to take the race, says Miller, consolidated religious (or semi religious) authoritative opinion and vainglory and a view of the contradicting Democratic gathering, not as “the dedicated resistance,” but rather as “the foe” meriting, not vanquish, but rather demolition. (“You are either with us or against us,” says Bush). Together, this indicates what Miller calls “The Requisite Fanaticism.” He composes:

It isn't “conservatism” that actuated the robbery of the decision, nor was it just eagerness or the craving for power in essence… The development presently in power isn't altogether reasonable in such commonplace terms… The venture here is at last obsessive and basically against political, though Machiavellian on a scale, and to a certain extent, that would have stunned Machiavelli. The point isn't to ace legislative issues, however to demolish it. Shrub, Rove, DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. have confidence in “governmental issues” similarly that they and their corporate recipients have faith in “rivalry.” In the two cases, the expectation isn't to play the diversion however to end it – in light of the fact that the amusement requires some resilience of the Other, and resistance is decisively what these harsh enders generally scorn… (Mill operator 81-2)

Emphasizing a topic that is unmistakable in his composition, Miller calls attention to that the mental pathology most obviously at work in the correct's destruction of governmental issues is projection: the attribution in “the foe” of one's own ethical debasement:

The Bushevik, so brimming with abhor, despises legislative issues, and would dispose of it; but then he is himself master at grimy governmental issues: a mastery that he views as simply imitative and guarded. Since his adversaries, he considers, are all “political” – exploitative, heartless, negative, unscrupulous – he is in this manner “constrained” to be “political” also, so as to “battle fire with flame.” As we have seen, this suspicious conviction of the Other's deceptiveness suffuses and instigates the purposeful publicity crusades of the right, and it was particularly critical in Bush/Cheney's drive to take the last decision. In fact it was their firm conviction that they needed to take the race, so as to baffle the Democrats' endeavor to do it first. (Mill operator, 82).

This is only a concise testing of Miller's canny political and mental investigation of the “why” and the “how” of the stolen decisions of 2000, 2002 and 2004. That examination, which takes up about 33% of the book (Chapters 3 and 4), adds an important measurement to our comprehension of the political fiasco that has occurred for our Republic, and that investigation recommends rules in the battle to dodge the burglary of the up and coming races of 2006 and 2008.

I have composed finally about what may be done on the off chance that we are to reestablish the voting station to the voters. These essential advances come promptly to mind, as I read Miller's “Tricked Again.”

Quickly, we require a media, we require a restriction party, we require an excited open, and we require a supernatural occurrence. In any case, take heart: history discloses to us that political emergencies have a method for delivering supernatural occurrences.

The prevailing press (MSM) must be ruined and an elective media set up in its place. The web offers a voice to a resistance that is rejected from the standard, and a couple of free productions and communicates remain, anyway weak in contrast with the MSM. In the event that a sizeable bit of people in general forsakes the standard, and specifically illuminates the distributers and telecasters why they are doing as such, the media, and especially their patrons and publicists, will pay heed. As of late, a portion of the media have turned out to be increasingly condemning of the Bush routine and the GOP Congress, yet it is, all things considered, excessively little and past the point of no return. So either the business media must resume the job of guard dog of government control, as proposed by Jefferson and Madison, or it must be made superfluous. The Russian nonconformists late in the Soviet time have given us a precedent: on the off chance that you have no media, make one, regardless of whether it is stifled by the administration. It was classified “Samizdat” – a careful procedure of composing a few duplicates of taboo original copies on condition that the beneficiaries would do in like manner. Likewise, the Iranian protesters amid the rule of the Shah replicated and conveyed sound tapes of progressive talks. In the PC age, there are gigantic preferences: web distribution and, if the web is taken from us, CDs and minidisks. Until further notice, the web is our Samizdat.

The Democratic party is the main conceivably successful resistance party in sight. Be that as it may, right now, it is a toothless tiger. We should tell that party that it should either lead the battle to reestablish appointive honesty or step aside. At the point when the Clintons, Cantwells, Liebermans and Feinsteins keep running for re-appointment, they should be restricted in the primaries by true progressives. Regardless of whether those progressives lose, however with a respectable appearing, the “foundation” Democrats will in any case get the message. Next time you get a sales take note

1 Stern2 Sterne3 Sterne4 Sterne5 Sterne (89 Ratings. Average: 4.72 von 5)