Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Telling No Lies and Still Not Telling the Truth
In January 2004 I wrote an open letter to Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Congressman and then-presidential candidate. I have reprinted the letter at the bottom of this post. The gist was you can tell no lies and still not tell the truth. Here is the closing:Americans reading this letter should begin expecting--causing--the very context of our national debate to be broadened. Dennis Kucinich, you have a deeply held belief that your destiny is to lead the world. Please recognize that the only way to fulfill this magnificent potential is to change the system with truth telling.
Even at that time, before I ever started blogging, my writing exhibited what I later proactively embraced and described as advocacy journalism, defined as writing whose success can only be judged by its ability to produce the real world change being written about. With that in mind I have documented my community and online organizing efforts in more than 500 essays in the GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent blogs. I have developed various memes and recurring themes, though this truth-telling frame had been somewhat dormant before recently storming back in yet another open letter, this one to the media, from the media.
What a difference four more years of fascism makes! This time dozens of people as well as organizations are signing on to the call for truth-telling: "federal election results are unprovable, even though the media reports them as fact." Some notable names added since my last posting: filmmaker David Earnhardt, economist Catherine Austin Fitts, Co-Executive Directors of VotersUnite.org John Gideon and Ellen Theisen, BlackBoxVoting.org founder Bev Harris, and scholar Steven F. Freeman, PhD. I'm trying to keep WDNC current and in sync with (or ahead of) Scoop's tremendous effort.
The next thing I hope to see is supporters of the letter using their media access to expose and explore the central question and themes of the letter: are federal election results provable?, and if not, should we accept corporate media reporting unprovable results as fact?
Let's be clear. The open letter from the media to the media states its intention "to change the corporate media narrative." By my definition this is advocacy journalism, though you can call it whatever you want.
As I wrote last Friday in How To Disarm Weapons of Mass Deception, if we recognize the corporate media as harmful weapons of mass deception, then our strategies have to account for dealing with a weapon. If we are ruthlessly honest, we recognize the necessity and correctness of protecting ourselves, and where possible, using the media weapon to our advantage ("beat the media at their own game"). It is a classic self-defense justification, though another key reason also supports this approach.
Classic tenets of journalism call for objectivity and neutrality. These are antiquated principles no longer universally observed, especially by the corporate media component of the fascist apparatus - the weapons of mass deception. We must absolutely not feel bound by them. If we are ever to create meaningful change, I believe advocacy journalism will be a crucial element to enable the necessary organizing. It is therefore very important that we learn how to be successful advocacy journalists, whether embracing the label or not.
In fact, it hardly matters if other people self-identify with or adopt my definition of advocacy journalism. What counts is the ruthless honesty, ensuring consistency between how we say we see something and how we act about it. We can disarm weapons of mass deception by supplanting its fabricated reality with what is really going on.
The burden is two-fold, falling to truth-tellers both inside and out of the media. If you don't work in the media, use your voice to encourage those who you watch, listen to, or read to use their platform to address the content of the open letter to the media, from the media. Remind the truth-telling media makers of things they have said or written to help make sure they remain consistent (ruthlessly honest) now.
Media truth-tellers who have enjoyed support and popularity among progressives have reached a sort of "put up or shut up" moment. Nobody is suggesting they be silent. Putting up means telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the ruthlessly honest truth. Those who recognize electronic voting machines have brought us secret vote counting know federal election results are inherently inconclusive and unprovable. Say this now and don't stop. Your audience, your country and your planet need this leadership and will follow as we crash through the finish line of this presidential horse race next week.
Those who can't go there may be telling no lies and still not telling the truth.
* * *
1/31/04
To Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH:
Congressman, I admire the positive vision you have articulated as the basis for your presidential campaign. Compared to other candidates, the positions you have taken most closely reflect my own. Most importantly, you have taken to re-framing issues as when Ted Koppel inasmuch as told you to drop out of the race or when Wolf Blitzer recently asked if you would consider being a Vice Presidential candidate. The corporate media of America has done the world a disservice by injecting its own agenda, shielding us from the truth, and perpetuating lies that manipulate public opinion. You are courageous and wise to address this.
While I am sincere in offering these compliments, they do not represent grounds on which I can support your campaign. Your stated positions may reflect my views, but what you are not saying ensures that America will continue to ignore many of the root causes of her dysfunction. When I talk with progressive Americans volunteering on your behalf, there is an emphasis on convincing people you are electable. I want to believe. But sir, there is a system in place to ensure you lose. The only way for you to win is to change the system. This must not be a euphemism.
The lack of truth telling is an obvious place to start. This problem pervades the White House, Congress, the media, and even the very premise of America. We are supposed to be about democracy and capitalism, Darwinian free markets where the "fittest" ideas get elected and survival means competing for more market share. The idea of a free market is central to both our political and economic systems. But to tell the truth, in America today, there is no free market and both democracy and capitalism are a myth.
Unless this stark assessment becomes part of our national dialog through your campaign, you may not be telling lies, but you won't be engaged in truth telling either.
If democracy, the free market of ideas, genuinely existed in America today, third party candidates could be taken seriously and their ideas would compete fairly in the arena of public opinion. Even as an elected member of Congress, anti-competitive treatment is hindering the exposure that you and your platform need (and are entitled to!). Election methods have clearly become both unreliable and untrustworthy, with disenfranchisement rampant and major campaign donors running voting machine companies. This description applies to America but does not depict democracy.
On the economic side, fraud riddles Wall Street in collusive stock and bank deals; Halliburton gets no-bid contracts; mergers that kill jobs and consumer choices are rubber stamped for approval; industry leaders cycle between top lobbying positions and Cabinet appointments; and then there's the media. Consolidation has limited the breadth of viewpoints aired and promoted bald-faced lies to launch wars. It's no wonder democracy and capitalism have both corroded when media companies have financial stakes in topics of their coverage.
None of this has been an accident. George W. Bush and the Republican takeover of Congress have accelerated the demolition of American ideals in the last three years. But the Democratic Party is complicit. Of the many ways this is true, the most important is found in the way Democrats and Republicans openly and aggressively seek to maintain the two-party system. Such a contrived power-sharing model violates the spirit of anti-trust laws. It cannot be more plain: the Democrats are harmful to America.
The "Anybody But Bush" crowd is large and vocal right now, indicating the inherent potential energy behind a genuine system changing movement. It is imperative that these people (especially the editors of BuzzFlash.com) come to recognize that electing any of the current Democratic candidates will not bring the restoration of democracy but rather perpetuate the myth that it exists. This message must resonate through their defensive gesticulation that this is no time for division among progressive voices for change in America. I keep hearing the phrase "how much change are you ready for?" It has to be enough to change the system.
Congressman, discussing the myth of democracy and capitalism is only an introduction. This shift will re-frame progressive dialog from a focus on symptoms to a genuine examination of the disease. Extended further, Americans engaged on this topic makes for a great first step towards changing the system, a prerequisite for you to win the White House.
The central theme returns: not telling lies is not the same as truth telling.
Jolting America’s perception of reality will require busting other myths. Tell us the whole truth: corporations have more rights than humans and we must abolish corporate personhood; the Earth has exhausted its capacity for yielding profitable oil, and the calamitous destiny of "Peak Oil" must be addressed to be avoided; the obstruction of a complete 9/11 investigation shields the unsupportable collection of lies that comprise the official narrative; and no society has ever been able to trade freedom for security.
Be the leader we need and help America come to terms with the facts. Demonstrate that we need more than just a regime change, we need to re-calibrate our national compass to pursue rather than destroy the ideals of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Use these powerful documents. It is remarkable what a reading of the Declaration reveals. Our Founders didn't just predict future revolutions, they outlined the grounds that should trigger them. As Americans accept Orwellian contradictions, virtually all of these conditions exist today.
Americans reading this letter should begin expecting--causing--the very context of our national debate to be broadened. Dennis Kucinich, you have a deeply held belief that your destiny is to lead the world. Please recognize that the only way to fulfill this magnificent potential is to change the system with truth telling.
In Respect and Peace,
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/telling-no-lies-and-still-not-telling.html
Labels: Advocacy Journalism, Catherine Austin Fitts, David Earnhardt, Dennis Kucinich, fasicm, media reform, open letter, Ruthless honesty, Steven Freeman, weapons of mass deception
Saturday, December 15, 2007
I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici (Guest blogged by Rady Ananda)
This is a perfect companion piece to the one I published yesterday looking at highlights of the amicus brief. Here Rady show us the thinking of many of the minds behind it all. This piece was originally published at at OpEdNews.com. - DB This … federal takeover of a state election board … is 'bizarre and unworkable.' Secret vote counting is not only unconstitutional, but is un-American. All touch screen and optical scan voting machines … count the votes (in) secret... This is beyond absurd— from the sublime to the ridiculous. "New York's Constitution of 1777 makes the observation that a vote cast on a tangible ballot preserves democracy better than one cast in the air: And whereas an opinion hath long prevailed among divers of the good people of this State that voting at elections by ballot would tend more to preserve the liberty and equal freedom of the people than voting viva voce… Citing NY history (above) to make her point, Nancy Tobi of New Hampshire continues: With theadvent of computerized voting, a new form of voting viva voce has made its way into the nation's elections, with the lion's share of America's total ballots now being counted – and often cast – in the Ethernet. Author and four-time research award winner, Professor Steven Freeman states in his Declaration: There is little question but that elections using newer HAVA-indicated op-scan and Direct Record Electronic machines can be stolen. Indeed, it has been proven time and time again. Ulster County Legislator Gary Bischoff, who chairs the Efficiency, Reform and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, asserts: Our democracy depends on citizens to express their will and choices in a repeatable, fair and reliable election. Pokey Anderson of Houston's radio news show, The Monitor, writes to the Court: While there has always been manipulation in elections, the difference between stealing in a hand-counted paper ballot election and an electronic election is the difference between successfully robbing a convenience store and successfully robbing Fort Knox. She goes on to quote others, starting with former National Security Agency code-breaker, Michael Wertheimer: If you believe, as I do, that voting is one of our critical infrastructures, then you have to defend it like you do your power grid, your water supply. And computer security professional Dr. David Dill: Think about it rationally. What are the assets being protected? If we're talking presidential elections or control of Congress, there aren't a lot of assets in this world in monetary terms that are worth more than that. You're talking about the whole US economy. And another computer security professional, Bruce O'Dell: The technology to invisibly compromise voting systems is mature and the rewards are essentially limitless. It's professionally irresponsible to not presume vulnerable extreme-high-value systems are already actively being exploited. Peacemakers of NY Schoharie County supports the proposition that Federal election ballots could be hand counted in 2008 (and Peacemakers) commits to participating in the hand counting of ballots. Wayne Stinson promises, "We will actively promote other citizens' engagement in the process." Parallel Elections use a hand-counted paper ballot system, and are run outside of an official polling site.PE organizer and national speaker, Judy Alter, then analyzes the difference between official results and voter reports of how they voted. She writes: We will continue to hold parallel elections and train others to do the same so that we can demonstrate the assault (computerized voting has) on our democracy. Karen Charman of the Ulster County Shandaken Democrat Club recognizes the precarious position in which computerized voting systems puts us: If the people lose control over the election process, they lose the right to govern themselves. The inalienable right of self-governance rests squarely on the integrity of our elections. We believe that only an observable Our organization will volunteer to assist our county in finding as many volunteers as we need to help hand count the elections should the Court order same. Susan Zimet writes in her amicus Declaration: As a County Legislator, I will not allow my constituents to be disenfranchised on unreliable and theft enabling machines. I am prepared to take whatever legal action is necessary for the voters of Ulster County to know that their vote was counted accurately. We have been looking for the most secure means to provide our constituents with … a transparent, accountable, fair and reliable electoral system. Hand counting of the Federal Elections is HAVA compliant. I will personally assist in organizing citizens in my county to be trained and available to hand count elections in my county should the Court order same. I know of many Ulster County residents that would gladly make themselves available to assure that we could successfully accomplish this endeavor. ARISE.org spokesperson Dennis Karius declares: Where there's a will there's a way and the people are willing to help our officials effect our will through the most secure, reliable, transparent electoral system that exists: hand-counted elections. ARISE is made up of thousands of active citizens thru congregations and community groups in the tri-county area of Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady in the CapitalDistrict. As part of this amici team, it stands for voters. So did Abraham Lincoln: Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. Abe is quoted by Mary Ann Gould (Voice of the Voters Radio) in her Declaration. Hand Count in 4 Hours Everyone involved in this team of amici assures New York that if the Court rules for hand-counting the two federal elections in NY's November 2008 election, they will bring enough people to get the job done in less than four hours. Dave Berman and I crunched the numbers that allowed us to conclude:
I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici
By Rady Ananda
December 15, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rady_ana_071215_i_am_voter_hear_me_r.htm
aka http://tinyurl.com/yrdqqg
Over 200 pages of legal documents from dozens of organizations, activists, election officials, and county legislators, representing tens of thousands of people, spoke on behalf of hand-counted paper ballots yesterday, through an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court), filed in USA vs. NY State Board of Elections.
In this federal case, the Dept. of Justice seeks to force New Yorkers to buy computerized voting systems, which have failed across the nation, election after election, and which the scientific community repeatedly condemns. Attorneys Andi Novick and Jonathan Simon, from Election Defense Alliance, head the cooperative effort. Novick saluted the "cooperation and enthusiasm displayed by our colleagues across the election integrity spectrum," noting that "it means a great deal in court, as well as in the court of public opinion, when so many groups and leaders pull together behind such a proposal."
Dave Berman's HCPB Forecast Tool provides the Court with a simple and effective means of calculating what it would cost New York to hire a 4-person hand-counting team per precinct (Election District) should the court allow it.
Also on December 14th, Ohio released the results of its "Project Everest," but not in time to be included in the annotated bibliography of expert reports submitted in the New York case. Ohio's team looked at Hart InterCivic, ES&S and Premier (fka Diebold), and all systems are still hackable. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner insists Cuyahoga County will switch to a computerized, networked system that uses centralized tabulation, a process wholly condemned in the scientific literature.
But, ignoring that absurdity for now, have a bowl or a glass of wine (or for those who can relax without chemical assistance, sit back) and quietly contemplate these gems of wisdom from people who stand for government by the people:
Friend of the court, Joel Tyner, NY Dutchess County Legislator, continues:
transparent count of the votes can protect our elections and our sovereignty.
In most of the counties studied only one team of four will be needed per (Election District of 1,150 registered voters) to complete hand-counting in four hours or less.
Oral Hearing Next Thursday
Jonathan Simon will appear for oral arguments being heard on Thursday, December 20th at 9 AM, at the US District Court, Albany, NY 12207.
He explains, "It is a lot less likely that I will be called upon to give an oral presentation per se; more likely that, if the court sees merit in or takes an interest in our brief, I may be asked questions about areas we have covered." He's confident in the merits of the HCPB position, "which I hope will prick the interest of the court.
"I think the sheer number of groups and individuals who have signed on will help in that regard… But a lot of it will be determined by the interests of the court and the parties."
The brief (p.14) points out the most important interest - that the public be able to "see" the vote count:
Electronic voting machines have caused citizens to lose their ability to observe and oversee the voting process. For this reason the use of computers destroys the basis for legitimacy of elections and the elected government.
The loss of these integral aspects of the right to vote is in direct violation of the repeated pronouncements of the highest court in New York that the constitutional right to vote includes the right to "see " that one's vote was "given full force and effect." Deister v Wintermute, supra at 108.
Given the millions of voters whose interests are represented by the HCPB amicus team, a democratic election run by the people will again have its day in court.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-am-voter-hear-me-roar-meet-new-york_15.html
Labels: amicus brief, Andi Novick, Election Defense Alliance, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Jonathan Simon, Judy Alter, Nancy Tobi, Pokey Anderson, Rady Ananda, Steven Freeman, US v NY Board of Elections
