Sunday, May 11, 2008
So-ing The Seeds of Change
will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
"So?" -- Dick Cheney
* * *
Two months ago, on the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, ABC News asked Dick Cheney to comment on "recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it." With a chuckle and a smirk (video), Cheney famously replied, "so?"
As infuriating as this may be, it comes as no surprise. In fact, this quip - "so?" - should feel familiar to millions of Americans ardently working for peace, justice, the rule of law, election integrity, and a host of other supra-issues, each another path to understanding the illegitimacy of the power behind such dismissiveness.
This illegitimate power flaunts itself virtually unchecked, reinforced by mass media and enabled by the learned helplessness of the American people. Ever since the indeterminate period following the 2000 "election," I have drawn attention to this odd paradox of helplessness, from which it is past time we learned:Having cast a vote, each of us is supposed to know that we did our part to elect our next set of leaders. Yet we are in fact helpless to influence the outcome of events in Florida. Will the election be determined by legal wrangling or concession, vote totals or fraud? No matter which seems to be the ultimate basis for declaring a winner, many will scream injustice. Doesn't this uncertainty cast doubt on the legitimacy of any eventual outcome?
This impenetrable defense against logic ("so?") appears to be contributing to a widespread public emotional and/or mental condition, on the order of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Because I am not immune from these and related forces, I will share the rest of my Cheney-induced flashback...[S]hortly after 9/11, I saw a newspaper photo of a limp woman being dragged by police officers at a UC Berkeley Middle East peace rally. Passive resistance appeared to me as a classic activist technique. With images of picket signs, sit-ins, marches and strikes all popping into my head, I stared at the woman in the picture and couldn't help feeling that her attempt at noble sacrifice left the world no different the next day.
Six years ago I concluded traditional American activism was futile. Now with much of the country awake, a wealth of great online organizing experience under our collective belt, and personal opportunities that allow my writing to reach far larger audiences...despite all that, we've continued to lose our most basic fundamental and unalienable rights, we've learned many times over (or should have) to protect ourselves from our so-called government, and we've seen any pretext of accountability run into a wall of "so?" (think Bolton, Miers, Addington, and Rove all ignoring Congressional subpoenas; or worse, open admissions of torture and illegal spying).
I'm reminded of the Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution, which I wrote over the summer of 2005 and circulated just prior to my participation in the National Summit to Save Our Elections, held in Portland, OR that fall:
Naomi Wolf has since written an even more compelling book, End of America, which defines fascism by common practices of many past regimes, seemingly a template for America's transformation. The North Coast Journal published my book review:· The introduction of paperless electronic voting machines has resulted in "elections" whose unverifiable results are inherently inconclusive. In November 2004, roughly 30% of the votes cast could not be recounted using physical ballots touched by voters. This is blatantly illegal in the many jurisdictions where a close race automatically triggers a recount. It also means we cannot possibly reconcile the results of so-called "glitches" such as machines losing data, counting backwards, or reporting more votes than registered voters. These conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes that will never receive unanimous acceptance (more inherent uncertainty). As the City Council of Arcata, CA attested in adopting the Voter Confidence Resolution, "When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought."
Failing to seek the Consent of the Governed has created a situation where such Consent is assumed. Allowing this assumption to stand is the great collective sabotage* of We The People. The very legitimacy of the U.S. government must be questioned and challenged for it is based not on democratic principles or even laws, but rather the textbook aspects of fascism. Within the reality-based community, these 14 characteristics of fascism are familiar thanks to Laurence W. Britt's widely circulated essay describing commonalities among seven different fascist regimes throughout history.
* Sabotage is the human nature tendency to make trouble for ourselves. Sabotage is yin to the yang of Progress – the result that occurs when we stop making trouble for ourselves.Extensively footnoted, this book draws out astounding parallels between Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet and more. Laid against the backdrop of 21st century America, Wolf shows those currently in power have followed the playbook closely.
To paraphrase an old proverb, people plan, god laughs. I'm not religious and I'm not saying Cheney is god. I'm saying every worthwhile progressive cause can only advance "so?" far until justice and the rule of law are re-established and we deliver ourselves from the illegitimate fascist powers that have taken control of the US government.
Wolf refers to "historical echoes" when describing such recurrent totalitarian manifestations as: secret prisons, mercenary or paramilitary forces, surveillance of ordinary citizens and infiltration of their organizations, restrictions on the press and speech in general, arbitrary detainment and release of citizens, evocation of a constant internal and external threat, allegations of espionage and treason at critics and dissenters and subversion of the rule of law.
Back at the Portland conference I was not able to sway the three dozen or so assembled election integrity advocates who I had hoped would stop treating election integrity as the end goal and begin seeing it as a tactic toward peaceful revolution, a shift in the relationship of power between the People and government. Then as now, it needs to be understood that general acceptance of bogus elections is the juncture at which we either allow our Consent to be assumed and taken for granted, or we make clear that WE DO NOT CONSENT, and prevent power from being usurped by anyone claiming to be so entitled. Upon returning home from the conference I wrote "Peaceful Revolution Is The Elephant In The Room":I took comfort in observing that most if not all in attendance understand empirically, logically and emotionally that there is no rational basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections. There was a lot of discussion about what has happened in recent "elections." But even more important were the projections, made with certainty, that future elections held under these conditions will guarantee inconclusive outcomes and fail to produce unanimous acceptance of the results.
I continued to lead down this path as much as possible, and at times felt great support, including in June 2006. That's when Congress seated and swore in Brian Bilbray as the Representative of California's 50th District, based on a preliminary fax from an assistant Secretary of State of CA, who later acknowledged 65,000 ballots had not yet been counted. In response to the CA-50 power grab I wrote a resolution adopted by the California Election Protection Network, which also received the support of other groups as well as influencing the language of additional separate resolutions:
(snip)
Looking at the real elephant in the room includes these questions: where is the movement going? What will it look like when it succeeds? How can we develop and facilitate the implementation of a cohesive national strategy? And how can we make the phrase "peaceful revolution" socially acceptable? This is why I went to Portland. There was some progress made but we did not get to the core of this matter.Therefore, be it resolved that to warrant the Consent of the Governed, and the authorization of the transfer of power to winning candidates, a full hand count of all legally cast ballots shall first be conducted. This hand count shall reflect the only official result and not be regarded as a recount in any way, including relieving voters of the obligation to pay for said count; and
The collective outcry in this case was channeled into a lawsuit brought by voters. Attorney Paul Lehto correctly called this election nullification, a term that is apt for all so-called "elections" held under unverifiable conditions. His point was that if the outcome of an election could be determined this way then it defeats the purpose of voting and having an election in the first place. So? The judge dismissed the case on the premise that the Constitution gives Congress the final say in seating members, and not even a large number of uncounted ballots could give the court jurisdiction to order counting, whether by hand or otherwise.
Therefore, be it resolved that until such a hand count has been verifiably conducted and a conclusive outcome determined, We, The People, DO NOT CONSENT to transferring power and authority to candidates claiming victory in this illegitimate election. We will do everything within our Constitutional and Human Rights to protect and preserve possession of this power that is inalienably Ours to be given but never taken away.
Right about this time I also challenged the media to follow its own most fundamental ethics and not to report as fact what simply can't be proven and confirmed (unverified and unverifiable "election" results). This is a perfect example of a tilt target, an untenable position that can be maintained (by the media, in this case) only for the lack of being pointed out and challenged. This was among a series of talking points I published and circulated for progressive media. It also spawned two published op-eds and two radio forums on media accountability. So? Without louder sustained pressure upon this Achilles' heel of media credibility, the situation remains unchanged today.
Even progressive stalwarts such as Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins continue to devote substantial radio air time to discussing the candidates and campaigns even though we see widespread consensus that this will have no bearing on how "election" results will be determined. The message of this essay must reach beyond my friends and respected colleagues in the election integrity movement and sink in to the minds of the millions volunteering for and donating to candidate campaigns (for any office, really, not just president). I'd like to think the former can manifest the latter.
So how should Americans react in November after the climax of this never ending campaign results in the predictable spoiled mess with an inherently inconclusive, unknowable outcome that won't be unanimously accepted? I posed this exact question to former Georgia Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on May 9, when she appeared at Humboldt State University on her campaign for the Green Party nomination for President.
She spent nearly five minutes in response (listen here - .mp3), acknowledging many aspects inherent in this situation, but without saying how we can reject the phony results or how her campaign would address this in advance. So? McKinney is articulate, knowledgeable, and brave enough to discuss many things the media and other candidates won't touch. However, she resembled the many polished authors that stop by on book tours, and not someone advertising leadership we were urged to follow.
To McKinney's credit, without my having uttered the word "confidence," as in "no basis for confidence in election results," or the Voter Confidence Committee, in the audio linked above you will hear her say "we can't have confidence in the election results...we are participating in blind faith voting." So? She knows her campaign is part of an "election" masquerading as a legit election and yet she acts without direct challenge to the charade. This also encourages others to look past it, feeding that society-wide PTSD contagion.
McKinney credited the widely used phrase "blind faith voting" to Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris. Recently Harris submitted written testimony to the federal Election Assistance Commission. Here are some important excerpts:We do not consent to any form of secret vote counting, administered and controlled by government insiders and their vendors...Citizens are never allowed to view the original input in order to compare it to the output, and are relegated to trusting circumstantial evidence controlled by insiders. Such a system is, in fact, a transfer of power...The people were never asked to approve such a transfer of power, have never consented to it, and indeed cannot consent, because the right of sovereignty over the instruments of government which we have created is an inalienable right, one which cannot be given away, nor can this right be removed through legislation...Not only does my organization, Black Box Voting, refuse to participate in the design of such systems, but we will do our utmost to inform the populace that such systems must be revoked, by whatever means necessary.
Harris concluded with the following salutation: "We do not consent."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Here's a question I used to ask a lot: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?
This question grew out of my work writing the Voter Confidence Resolution, successfully lobbying for its adoption by the Arcata City Council, and promoting it as an advocacy journalist blogging at GuvWurld and subsequently We Do Not Consent.
The point of the YET? question is to create a frame of inevitability. Make it viral and watch it build a growing and cumulative impact. This approach constructs a path to the tipping point.
So please, promote the WE DO NOT CONSENT meme all you can, and remember to empower those you meet with the confidence that our Consent most surely can and will be withheld. Let's start talking about what that looks like. Brother Thom? Peter B.? Peaceful revolution won't happen by accident. Your attention and intention is requested. This surely has day to day ramifications, but then November's "election" is also something specific around which to organize.
America needs to click its heels three times and rediscover that we've had the power all along. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
* * *
I think the answer to "so?" may be an equally disdainful "you're not the boss of me." Think about it.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/05/so-ing-seeds-of-change.html
Labels: "so?", Bev Harris, Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution, CA-50, Cheney, Cynthia McKinney, fascism, JFK, peaceful revolution, Peter B. Collins, Thom Hartmann, tilt target, Voter Confidence Resolution
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Eureka Times-Standard OpEd: Hand-counting ballots can work
As promised last night, below is the My Word opinion column I wrote, published in today's Eureka Times-Standard, though oddly not yet on the paper's website (I picked up a hard copy and found the piece on page A4, including a picture of me from at least three years ago).
UPDATE: 1/3/08 12:20pm -- The T-S website now has my column. It occurred to me over the past few hours that the headline it was given, while certainly a positive statement, doesn't really reflect what this essay is about. I've been saying hand-counting can work for years now. This piece says the T-S is abdicating its responsibility to foster community dialog about whether hand-counting is superior to Diebold opscans, even as the Voter Confidence Committee creates the very means by which the community can make objective comparisons. A more apt headline would have been: "Election Watchdogs Dog Newspaper For More Detailed Dialog on Election Conditions."
(archive)
Hand-counting ballots can work
My Word, by Dave Berman
1/3/07
Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said hand-counting paper ballots is "not a practical solution" ("As primary fast approaches, election offices are in turmoil," 12/24/07) and she's not convinced it would be more reliable than continuing to use secret vote counting machines repeatedly discredited in actual elections and academic studies, including CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top To Bottom Review.
It is certainly reasonable for the Times-Standard to publish the Registrar's opinion. But did the T-S ever ask her for data comparing counting methods for accuracy, cost or any other measure? The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) has requested such information, repeatedly, and the Registrar has not only confessed to having no such information, she has failed to deliver on her promise to obtain it and make it available.
Setting the Registrar's unsubstantiated opinion aside, the bigger issue is false balance, which the T-S created by pairing the Registrar's view with superficial mention of the VCC report recommending hand-counting, noting also that we're documenting community support for the idea.
Not mentioned is the VCC hand-count forecast tool (a spreadsheet), used to create projections and plan for the requirements of hand-counting in precincts on election night. This allows the public to objectively judge whether hand-counting is indeed preferable.
In fact, this was our contribution to the federal lawsuit mentioned in the "turmoil" article, and it was previously described in the T-S on August 16.
When this becomes part of the story, an unsubstantiated opinion no longer stands in true balance, instead reflecting false balance. "He-said/she-said" can not truly balance all news articles. The community can and should discuss the relative merits of hand-counting in tangible terms, made possible by the VCC but shunned by the T-S.
Yes, shunned.
Readers should know the T-S editorial board met with VCC members on August 14. Not only was the forecast tool presented at that time, the VCC also reiterated concerns stated in our report about the Registrar's so-called "Transparency Project."
Our critique has appeared elsewhere in local media, but its absence from the "turmoil" article falsely suggested universal support for the project.
Worse still, the article cited Bev Harris as a Project supporter. In response, Harris posted a statement online saying she was misquoted and does not support the Project: "The concept of providing ballot images to the public after running them through an intermediary program developed by David Dill (or anyone else!) is absurd and misses the point entirely. What is it about these guys that they just cannot RESIST inserting "An Expert" in between "The People" and "Our Ballots"?"
To be clear, VCC objections to the Transparency Project are as follows:
Going from ridiculous to sublime, another expert was cited as a Project supporter, Harri Hursti, "who famously hacked into Diebold voting machines." Not just Diebold machines, but the exact equipment used here in Humboldt (as well as other models).
Additionally, certification is the Registrar's oath to the accuracy of the results, which should come after, not before, all checks for accuracy are completed.
The T-S might have mentioned that while bending over backwards to once again congratulate the Registrar for a decision made nearly four years ago. Forgoing touch screen machines in favor of optical scanners was a false alternative. Both types of machines have been repeatedly discredited, and both types count in secret, requiring the public's blind trust without providing any rational basis for confidence in reported results. The Registrar's devotion to casting paper ballots is hollow if counting accuracy is not verifiable.
Please visit www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org for links to recent media coverage of election integrity issues as well as our report on local election conditions, the forecast tool, and the sign-up form that will allow us to demonstrate there are enough local voters willing to hand-count to get the job done on election night.
Opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/eureka-times-standard-oped-hand.html
Labels: Bev Harris, Carolyn Crnich, Debra Bowen, Eureka Times-Standard, False Balance, hand-counting paper ballots, Harri Hursti, My Word, spreadsheet tool, Top To Bottom Review, Voter Confidence Committee
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Others Criticize Humboldt's So-Called "Transparency Project"
In my last post, I took apart a December 24 Eureka Times-Standard article (archive). As promised, I have submitted to the paper a My Word opinion column that reflects and expands upon what I posted here a few days ago. I think the T-S has a policy of allowing writers a My Word column every six months. In that case, there may be a problem getting my full essay in the paper right now (previous column 8/16/07, (archive)). However, since it is a critique of such egregious problems with their article, I would hope the paper would open itself up to such criticism. If not, I strongly suspect one of Humboldt's other newspapers will be glad to shine the light.
This morning on the T-S website I found a letter to the editor dated 12/30. It is from S. Franke in McKinleyville, and I've posted it in full at the bottom of this post to show who else besides the Voter Confidence Committee is criticizing the so-called Humboldt Transparency Project.
Before I get to that, however, I want to offer one of the ways that the new My Word column expands on my last blog post. I originally pointed out that the T-S article cited Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org as a Project supporter. What I did not realize at the time was that Harris was about to release a statement saying she was misquoted and actually opposes the Project (full statement follows, italics emphasis added to indicate what I quoted in the My Word column):Black Box Voting has been misquoted twice in a week, first in an AP article that said Brunner had consulted us before developing her recommendations (she hadn't, and we disagree with her recommendations) and now saying we are behind the latest voter confidence / read: voter con idea.
Permalink:
The concept of providing ballot images to the public after running them through an intermediary program developed by David Dill (or anyone else!) is absurd and misses the point entirely. What is it about these guys that they just cannot RESIST inserting "An Expert" in between "The People" and "Our Ballots"?
At this point the only place to try ballot images would be in contests like the primaries, just days or weeks away, and only in situations where there is no other alternative but a high volume of centrally counted ballots, like in Los Angeles where there will be nearly two million mail-in ballots to count on Feb. 5, just five weeks from now. And then, the only point in it would be if it was done in public, on video, with a separate non-counting off the shelf scanner, and the CDs were released instantly.
So along comes Dill. "Hey, just stick my handy dandy overlay over the ballot images before you give them to the public, it will manipulate --- strike -- "remove stray marks" -- from the ballot images.
One more concept bites the dust. Amazing how easy it is to take people's eye off the ball, which is CITIZEN oversight, not "Dill's oversight."
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_7841283
(archive)
Dealing with vote accuracy
Letters to the editor
Article Launched: 12/30/2007 01:15:19 AM PST
Regarding your recent story about County Elections offices ("As primary approaches, election offices are in turmoil," Dec. 24), I don't see the significance of scanning and posting voted ballots on the Internet.
First of all, the idea is getting old and with no funding, probably dead. Second, it does not address fraud because the scanned images will only be the sanitized end result of the process. Third, we could not be sure that all the ballots were there and that the software to sort them was accurate.
While playing with the ballots might be fun, it certainly would not add to the accuracy and security of our elections and would be a frivolous waste of money. It will only add another layer of complexity, opportunity for hacking, and falsely assure the public.
I would like to hear more about the new auditing procedures that should have been instituted -- statistical analysis, security measures, etc., as directed by the secretary of state. Most election offices already have internal auditing procedures and trained employees in place.
I don't believe one thing will confirm the accuracy of all the points of possible errors or fraud that can take place. We need to independently check every step of the voting process carefully and not just depend on a vague promise of some future fix.
S. Franke
McKinleyville
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/others-criticize-humboldts-so-called.html
Labels: Bev Harris, Black Box Voting, Eureka Times-Standard, Humboldt Transparency Project, S. Franke, Voter Confidence Committee
