Sunday, August 31, 2008
Hurricane Gustav, Shock Doctrine and "Election" Events
Hurricane Gustav bearing down on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, expected to hit Monday, has already affected the presidential candidates' campaign calculus, and completely altered the media's telling of the campaign narrative. The NY Times reports the Republican convention scheduled to start tomorrow will be held in a very scaled back form and that the storm has also deflected media attention from both Obama's Thursday night acceptance speech (YouTube) and McCain's Friday veep announcement (YouTube).
If there is destruction and chaos on the Gulf Coast, this could easily become the pretext for triggering federal martial law, as reportedly occurred locally in some places following Katrina. Only now the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive has modified succession of powers, enabling any event to trigger consolidation of all government under the executive. See Naomi Wolf's "End of America" for various historical precursors to this "echo," a repeating pattern in which the rise to absolute power comes through a series of superficially legal maneuvers, including funking up elections.
Because November's "election" event, if it is even conducted, cannot produce a conclusive and verifiable outcome, the People's huge preference must be undeniably evidenced prior to that. 84,000 were in attendance for Obama's outdoor stadium acceptance speech, which saw all tickets accounted for in a one day application process. On Friday, McCain announced the relatively unknown yet scandal-plagued Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate at a rally that couldn't fill a 10,000 seat venue. Lost in the equation are compelling visual examples of Obama's clear and commanding lead. Instead, the media perpetuate the false narrative of a close race.
Let me be clear that I endorse no candidate. I'm a fair election supporter. Though I don't think he'll be a revolutionary agent of change, if Obama has the votes to win then he should win. But first he should become outspoken about the process. Part of addressing the process, from my view, in this case, is something Obama supporters could do. I'm not usually in the position of offering advice to this seemingly massive and growing majority, but this is what I can see as the most likely way to ensure the outcome of the "election" event reflects the will of the People.
As with the juxtaposition of the numbers above, there must be constant and overwhelming collective displays of public Obama preference beyond individual expressions such as buttons, bumper stickers and lawn signs. There must be aggressive efforts to ensure the media depiction, including reporting on opinion polls, shows comparisons of candidate support are unequivocal. In this way, just having the "election" event becomes a formality. The inherent uncertainty of the unverifiable results may be neutralized without the suspense and doubt of a seemingly close race, a facade created for the power play necessary to funk up the results.
In addition, these pre-"election" displays need to directly address what will be done should the outcome be funked up. For that matter, such demonstrations of People power also ought to address rejecting the final dictatorial power grab looming over us, threatening the prospect of even having an "election" event. Velvet Revolution has launched a campaign to encourage and support candidates who raise challenges to election results. They also have a prosecute Karl Rove campaign.
Lest anyone think my suggestions or perspective are partisan, I reiterate my view that this is all simulated competition and Obama is in many ways a false alternative. That is not to say Obama and McCain are identical, but rather that Obama's talk of change is woefully inadequate at busting the myths of democracy, capitalism, free speech, free press, free markets and the rest of The Big Lie. However, while McCain appears ready to use the storm backdrop for political theater, Obama is pledging to wait and see, then organize, inspire and motivate citizen volunteers to assist in the aftermath.
And what can we expect this to look like? There is already a heavily armed military and law enforcement presence, while the war criminal enterprise Blackwater seeks to hire more mercenaries for the scene. The Department of Homeland Security (sic), FEMA (sic), and the Department of Defense (sic) will of course interfere with the command of state governors. And in a recurring theme here at WDNC lately, Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" illustrates the pattern of exploitative security and privatization responses to disasters.
Pulling that thread just a little further, the North Coast Journal recently published Shane C. Brinton's book review of "Shock Doctrine," followed by my letter to the editor based on the review (the letter was given the great title of "Fascists!"). This week's Journal includes another wonderfully titled letter "Mas Fascismo" based on my letter.
The Journal is a free weekly paper with a focus on local Humboldt County, CA events. I always enjoy seeing them publish letters from readers outside our area, and in this case from an H.M Johnson coincidentally located in Redwood Falls, Minnesota, just under 100 miles from the partly aborted Republican convention, where some blatantly fascist police tactics have been used on protesters. See Uptake.org for lots of video, and also Twin Cities Daily Planet for some additional reporting.
Between Gustav and two potential flash points to create excuses for declaring martial law, this is shaping up to be a dangerous week.
October 17, 2007
Official White House Transcript
Q Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment. He said recently that next year when he has to step down, according to the constitution, as President, he may become Prime Minister, in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there. Senator McCain --
THE PRESIDENT: I've been planning that myself. (Laughter.)
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/hurricane-gustav-shock-doctrine-and.html
Labels: false alternative, fascism, Gustav, inherent uncertainty, Katrina, martial law, McCain, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, North Coast Journal, Obama, Palin, simulated competition, Velvet Revolution
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Fascists! (NC Journal Prints My LTTE re Shock Doctrine Book Review)
Friday night I posted a brief comment about a review of Naomi Klein's book, "Shock Doctrine," published in the North Coast Journal. I mentioned that the post was a variation on a letter to the editor I was about to submit, which the Journal published this week, at newsstands now but not yet online (though I predict this link will work tomorrow, and if not I'll post an update). Dig the title, including punctuation!North Coast Journal
The only thing edited from how I submitted that letter is the un-capitalized G in good Americans. The expression Good Americans has been used increasingly in the past few years, serving as another historical echo to the fabled Good Germans who failed to stop Hitler's rise. Actually, after browsing some links, I see that the phrase is not always capitalized, so perhaps I needed to put it in quotes. At any rate, good on the Journal for publishing the book review, and now the letter in response.
Mailbox
August 14, 2008
Fascists!
Editor:
Thank you for publishing Shane C. Brinton's review of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" (Aug. 7). The most important point Brinton makes is at the very end: "Klein hasn't discovered something new so much as she has explained how a very old strategy is manifesting itself in even more atrocious ways."
I had a similar thought reading Naomi Wolf's "End of America" (see Journal book review, Oct. 25, 2007), and John Perkins' "Confessions of An Economic Hitman." Historical patterns, or echoes, are revealed through myriad examples in each of these books, which all lay bare what we seem to be collectively trying to deny.
But what's that old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? Around the world and throughout time, this is what has been called fascism. I'm not discovering anything new either - just reminding my good American neighbors that it can happen here and it is.
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/fascists-nc-journal-prints-my-ltte-re.html
Labels: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, End of America, fascism, Good Americans, Good Germans, Hitler, John Perkins, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, North Coast Journal, Shane C. Brinton, Shock Doctrine
Monday, August 11, 2008
Distributed Power
An article posted at Forbes.com last Thursday describes Denmark's decentralized and decoupled energy system, billing it as "The Answer To The Energy Problem."Denmark has done what other countries only dream of doing: achieved energy independence. While Europe's overall energy imports rose 2.4% in 2006, Denmark's energy imports fell to -8%. In fact, the European Union as a whole scores 54% on the scale of energy dependency. Denmark scores -37%.
Somehow this arrangement seems so obvious. We all need energy and can have it clean and renewably if we treat it as the commons rather than a commodity. Forbes continues:
"Denmark is the model that the United States should be following," said Steve Pullins, executive director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Modern Grid Initiative.
How'd they do it? Distributed energy.
Unlike traditional "centralized" systems, distributed energy relies on small power-generating technologies like solar panels or ultra-efficient natural-gas turbines built near the point of energy consumption to supplement or displace grid-distributed electricity.
Consumers can not only draw power from the grid, but can feed power into it as well. For instance, homes equipped with solar-power panels could feed unused electricity back into the grid, adding to the total available supply.The change has taken Denmark nearly two decades to implement, but the most critical step was the introduction of smart- or net-metering, which required utilities to buy back electricity from consumers at 85% of the price. Denmark's success has convinced a growing number of policymakers and energy executives to follow suit.
It is no accident America has the opposite of distributed power. Corporate control of the government/military/media juggernaut, the fascist backbone, subjugates the population, in part through manipulation of the type, amount and cost of available energy. On top of that is the sabotage of the environment (pollution for profit).
In the U.S., the movement faces constraints from a familiar place: power companies. Distributed energy aims to decouple profits and consumption so that power companies have a greater incentive to invest in energy-efficiency technologies that drive distributed-energy networks. Changing that relationship is even more critical than technological innovation.
"Very little can happen without having the utilities involved in the process," said Ron Pernick, a founder of clean-technology consulting firm Clean Edge. "Regulators need to give utilities the tools they need to get involved, which basically means decoupling."
Paul Krugman, in last Thursday's NY Times, glibly wrote about "Know-Nothing Politics," inventing a de-facto slogan for the Republican party: "Real men don't think things through." This followed Obama's Tuesday remark that McCain is "proud to be ignorant," when it comes to energy and the environment.
The truth is we are generations late in realizing the virtues of clean and renewable energy. This isn't a debate to even be had in the present. Perhaps in a parallel universe the Industrial Revolution occurred with full observance of the triple bottom line, balancing profit with environmental and societal impact. Instead of disaster capitalism, is conscious capitalism even conceivable or just a paradoxical slogan?
I always thought one of the all-time greatest things to make you say "huh" was Reagan removing Carter's solar panels from the White House roof. The Forbes article above ends with another along these lines:Last year, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers installed more than 1,000 solar-powered street lights in Fallujah, a predominantly Sunni city in central Iraq that was the scene of a brutal battle between insurgents and U.S. soldiers in 2004.
A phrase came to mind the other day and I thought for sure it would turn up more than four Google hits: We need the Earth more than the Earth needs us.
During the day, the lamps store energy from the intense desert sunlight in batteries large enough to keep them lit from dusk to dawn. Now, the streets are lit every night--in a country which, in the last five years, has probably spent more hours without electricity than with it.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/distributed-power.html
Labels: conscious capitalism, decoupling, Denmark, disaster capitalism, distributed power, fascism, Forbes, renewable energy, triple bottom line
Monday, August 04, 2008
Naomi Wolf: Dear world, please confront America
I've blogged about author Naomi Wolf several times before. On Friday, Daily News Egypt (archive) published her op-ed called "Dear world, please confront America." Yet again she has struck a chord I can't ignore:But, while grassroots pressure has not worked, money still talks. We need targeted government-led sanctions against the US by civilized countries, including international divestment of capital. Many studies have shown that tying investment to democracy and human rights reform is effective in the developing world. There is no reason why it can't be effective against the world's superpower.
Sad but true, and once again reminding me of an old essay of mine I've oft quoted here at the We Do Not Consent blog. I wrote these words during the indeterminate period following the 2000 "election":
We also need an internationally coordinated strategy for prosecuting war criminals at the top and further down the chain of command - individual countries pressing charges, as Italy and France have done. Although the United States is not a signatory to the statute that established the International Criminal Court, violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions are war crimes for which anyone - potentially even the US president - may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions. The whole world can hunt these criminals down.
An outlaw America is a global problem that threatens the rest of the international community. If this regime gets away with flouting international law, what is to prevent the next administration - or this administration, continuing under its secret succession plan in the event of an emergency - from going further and targeting its political opponents at home and abroad?
We Americans are either too incapable, or too dysfunctional, to help ourselves right now. Like drug addicts or the mentally ill who refuse treatment, we need our friends to intervene. So remember us as we were in our better moments, and take action to save us - and the world - from ourselves.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?
Of course when I wrote that it was not inevitable that Americans would roll over (and over and over) for the march to fascism. I don't claim prescience either, though I'll also quote not for the first time Rage Against the Machine, from their 1992 song "Settle For Nothing":
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."If we don't take action now, we settle for nothing later. We'll settle for nothing now, and we'll settle for nothing later."
Americans have been doing that repeatedly despite one egregious injustice after another. We're past realizing they don't represent us; we're past plainly calling them liars; we're past even revealing enough to prove war crimes. Maybe we Americans have more in common with average Iraqis than we realize - both our peoples have become subjects of the same occupiers, another point I've made previously.
I'm struck now by the thought it is no wonder I've been posting so infrequently. When I do I'm barely more than repeating myself. Then I'm reminded of my friend Paul Lehto, who is fond of reminding us that early American pamphleteer Thomas Paine noted that not all people will simultaneously conclude revolution has become necessary. Those of us who figure it out earlier on bear the responsibility of bringing others on board, serving as teachers to repeat our message as often as needed. And so, at least right now, I'm back at it, dear WDNC readers:Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!
And kudos to Naomi Wolf for indefatigably reiterating and updating her lesson (see her book "End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot; and my North Coast Journal book review). We need to expand the ways we consider transformational strategy.
And one more thing. Another part of what's been keeping me quiet is the maxed out noise factor of being a news follower - and I don't even own a television! Just from online reading, some radio, and an occasional youtube video, I can't escape the sense that Americans are trapped within the parameters of a public dialog that goes nowhere near the relevant issues necessary to deliver us out of fascism. As I said in So-ing The Seeds of Change, all pretenses of progress will be mere illusions (and slogans of hope and change unfortunate delusions) unless and until we restore justice and the rule of law. Let's not be too proud or stubborn about how we help ourselves.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/naomi-wolf-dear-world-please-confront.html
Labels: Daily News Egypt, End of America, fascism, Naomi Wolf, North Coast Journal, Paul Lehto, peaceful revolution, Rage Against The Machine, Thomas Paine
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
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Humboldt Dems Call For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
At 8:50pm this evening, after a 45-minute discussion, the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) by a vote of 7-4 adopted a resolution calling on the County of Humboldt, CA to ditch Diebold by the June Primary Election and commence hand-counting paper ballots. The resolution, shown in full below, also resolves that the HCDCC "will commit some of its resources to educating the community about the benefits of this change, and to recruit registered voters to serve as pollworkers and/or voter counters."
The resolution, which I wrote and first posted here, was submitted following my presentation on behalf of the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) at last month's HCDCC meeting. The Communication and Education subcommittee took up the resolution a few weeks ago and unanimously approved it. From there, according to Chairman Milt Boyd, it went to the executive committee which then allowed it to the floor of this evening's meeting.
In accordance with Roberts Rules, Boyd stepped down from the Chair position in order to speak in opposition to the resolution. He called hand counting "tedious, lengthy and more expensive" than optical scanning, which he said was "effective and accurate." He claimed that Diebold's optical scanners are more accurate than scantron machines used to grade exams in high school, and as a teacher, he was certain he could not grade papers as accurately by hand as with the scantron.
The debate protocol allowed alternating speakers for and against the resolution. I think this is a topic that people really like to talk about, perhaps contrary to popular belief. I also find that there is a lot of misinformation, such as the suggestion that dead people voting is a real problem, or paper ballots are bad because the ink can run, or that in Humboldt you vote without a paper ballot.
We were at least 20 minutes into the discussion before one member pointed out that we all vote on paper ballots here in Humboldt. It was a little uncomfortable to sit through this, particularly in the few moments that devolved into cross-talk with more being said than I could absorb or write down. I was not sure if I would get to speak, but I was trying to listen carefully to what needed to be addressed. In the end, Larry Hourany requested that I be allowed to speak, but another member objected and the matter was dropped.
In one aspect of the discussion that I really liked, Richard Marks and Roger Smith both emphasized that this resolution was exactly the type of progressive leadership the Democratic Party should exhibit. "This is not radical," said Marks. "This would be a very positive thing for the Central Committee."
What was most glaringly missed in this discussion is the secrecy of vote counting. If you really want to get to the core of what has plagued our elections most, beginning with the 2000 presidential election, the crux is that we don't all agree on the outcome. Why is that? More than any other reason, it is secret vote counting.
Current elections require our blind trust, or faith, rather than providing us with a reason to believe the reported results, a rational basis for confidence.
Instead, inherent uncertainty is created, waters intentionally muddied to the point that we can't know for sure. This happens everywhere, not just with "elections." It is not an accident or unintended consequence.
Keeping citizens divided is necessary for a government to transform a society into fascism, as has happened here in what used to be the United States of America. Wedge issues such as abortion and evolution are one way to keep people divided. Censoring, stifling, and propagandizing climate change and other science is another divisive tactic and it shows how people can be divided about non-spiritual beliefs.
What we get is a rift in the perception of reality. Matters of fact become differences of opinions that can never be resolved, like paperless electronic voting and other secret vote counting systems that create unverifiable "elections," events that are not really elections but resemble them closely enough to fool most people.
When a society cannot even agree on what constitutes reality, it is very difficult to build community support and consensus for what constitutes progress. Hand-counting paper ballots is but one benchmark.
We're only closer to the goal if this resolution results in HCDCC members joining in the efforts of the VCC. We are attempting to demonstrate to the County that there is sufficient public support for the idea of hand-counting, and enough willing counters to get the job done on election night. There is a sign-up form at the VCC website, along with all sorts of resources for the Humboldt hand-count campaign. Some of this stuff could be really useful to other community groups working for hand-counting elsewhere.
And finally, a note about this blog, We Do Not Consent. It is largely an archive for my writing, but not where it is most often read. If you are reading this post on another website, or from an e-mail list, I invite you to stop by my blog. This post is exemplary of both themes I frequently cover, and my advocacy journalism approach, using the medium to report on and advance real world efforts for change. It is the only way I judge my success.Resolution adopted by the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee
2/13/08
Whereas elections in Humboldt County rely on Diebold's (now Premier) precinct-based optical scanners, and Diebold's GEMS central tabulator program to combine all precinct results; and
Whereas computer security experts have repeatedly demonstrated and documented the ability to tamper with this equipment, changing election results without leaving behind a trace of evidence; and
Whereas academic studies have repeatedly demonstrated and documented that security flaws in this equipment exist by design, and cannot be remedied with "procedural mitigations," or new security methods; and
Whereas claims of "trade secrecy" prevent citizens, the media, and even elections officials from observing the inner workings of this equipment, denying everyone the right to see their vote counted as cast;
Whereas elections conducted under these conditions require blind trust, or faith, to accept unverifiable and inherently uncertain outcomes that provide no rational basis for confidence in the reported results; and
Whereas the County of Humboldt is free to choose not to use Diebold's equipment, and is likewise not prevented from choosing to hand-count paper ballots at poll sites on election night; and
Whereas hand-counting paper ballots provides transparency, security, and verifiable accuracy that creates a rational basis for confidence in reported results;
Therefore be it resolved, the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee hereby calls for Humboldt County to discontinue use of Diebold equipment and to introduce hand-counting of all ballots no later than the June 2008 primary election; and
Therefore be it further resolved that the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee will commit some of its resources to educating the community about the benefits of this change, and to recruit registered voters to serve as pollworkers and/or vote counters.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/humboldt-dems-call-for-hand-counting.html
Labels: fascism, hcpb, Humboldt Dems, inherent uncertainty, Larry Hourany, Milt Boyd, Richard Marks, rift in the perception of reality, VCC
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
It's Time We Changed the World
A couple of years ago I had the idea that the 1971 Ten Years After song "I'd Love to Change the World (But I Don't Know What To Do)" could be remade into an anthem "I'd Love to Change the World (And I Know Just What To Do)." The song plays at this link with a powerful video. All this time and I never did flesh out any actual lyrics.
A few weeks ago I mentioned the idea to Brett Kimberlin from Justice Through Music. Check out their remake of Neil Young's "Ohio," now "More Dead Cause of Ohio." Brett said he might work on some words for a remake of "I'd Love..." (no promise to keep the new subtitle) and that his band might try it in the studio in the near future. I have not yet heard the work but I understand there is something forthcoming.
At the same time I passed the idea to Brett, I also put it before Rady Ananda. She too has written new words for old songs, as displayed in this parody collection found in the GuvWurld News Archive. Rady took on the "I'd Love..." challenge and about two weeks ago at OpEdNews.com posted her new version titled "It's Time We Changed The World." It totally captures the spirit of what I had proposed. Her words appear in full at the bottom of this post.
Speaking of the GuvWurld News Archive, there were some intermittent outages on the site and in my e-mail service over the past two months. There was also no new content for several weeks. This was part of an unfortunate ordeal with web host iPowerWeb. Thumbs way down for their customer service. In the end, the site is back to its old self but with more disk space, meaning we can continue to add to the more than 5000 articles archived since April 2003. Thanks to Rady Ananda and Jane Allen for their contributions.
Some of the new additions are worth mentioning. Positive stories such as "Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for 1 Dollar a Gallon, and Without Corn" are unfortunately outnumbered by darker economic news including "January's retail sales weakest in nearly four decades," "Layoffs coming, and in large numbers, survey finds," and "The First Bank Failure of 2008."
The real must-read of the bunch is The Progressive's March cover story, The FBI Deputizes Business, archived at GuvWurld here. AlterNet ran the story with a more shocking headline: "FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill'" The take-away from this is that the Manchurian Nation is operating more openly, confidently preparing for when, not if martial law is declared.
Last summer, in my Reflections on Independence, Volume 5, I wrote:What is the most insidious ramification of the military being intentionally stretched too thin? The military is unavailable to respond to an emergency at home. That is devastating in the context of a natural disaster. But what about when martial law comes? It won't be our official military that enforces this, it will be mercenaries. Halliburton and Blackwater will be the occupiers of America, overseeing a network of domestic concentration camps already built. Our military, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, will not be here to do so. The media, of course, will portray a different reality that will instead reinforce the okayness of the concentration camps and validate the authority of the hired guns, all while our military overseas supposedly, paradoxically, fights for our freedom.
As The Progressive reveals, InfraGard is the latest brown-shirt outfit strong-arming America's descent into fascism. It is not as if we haven't been able to see this coming. In fact, in that same Reflections essay I linked to one of the unitary executive directives explaining the administration's plan for remaining in power. As I said at the time, I don't believe they will allow themselves to be held accountable, for the first time ever, should the political will ever materialize for impeachment. And with no basis for confidence in election results, it can be tough to be optimistic about getting rid of war criminals.
Yet community organizing efforts are undeniably showing encouraging signs, and I consider this the most universally basic response needed without regard to issue. Mostly I'm referring to the work with the Voter Confidence Committee on behalf of hand-counting paper ballots. Tomorrow night the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee will be considering a resolution I wrote. It looks like Vets For Peace Chapter 56 will also consider this same resolution on March 6.
Inroads are also expanding with the Humboldt County League of Women Voters. Over the weekend I teased this quote: "I didn't think I'd get so much buy-in from the whole fucking group! I was grinning from ear to ear the whole time."
That was P-A Winter-Sun telling me how well received was a proposal I helped her prepare recommending the League "study the evidence of failures and vulnerabilities in vote counting equipment currently used in Humboldt County so the League can be better informed, better able to educate the community, and better equipped to establish a position on the best method for counting."
Apparently there was consensus around this. The next step was to be a board meeting, which I believe may have already occurred. From there the topic would return to the full group. I don't know the exact disposition of this now, but I am going to follow P-A's advice and join the League. In fact, I left a message yesterday...
As previously hinted, we are also still awaiting an announcement from the Redwood Chapter of the ACLU to formalize the group's very encouraging statement on election conditions.
So to me it seems there is far more community support, or at least interest, than ever before in the VCC efforts for hand-counting paper ballots. Click here for an .mp3 of an interview I did on KMUD on 1/29, only getting to add it to the archive in the past few days. This link (.mp3) is to my interview during hour two of this past Sunday's Vote Rescue Radio. I also spoke on the air with Mike Dronkers of KHUM last Monday, just prior to the Primary, but alas there is no archive for that.
I do still have some important observations to post from the election itself, but that will be another post in the next day or so. Meanwhile, it is indeed time we changed the world...http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5804
Permalink:
It's Time We Changed the World
Parody of "I'd Love To Change the World" by Ten Years After
By Rady Ananda
1/26/08
Everywhere is fake elections
We should boycott, save the nation from tyranny
When Riggal counts the vote for us
Officials call it, oh should we trust their wizardry?
It's time we changed the world
and you know just what to do
Hand counts will tell the truth
Banks are stealing poor folk homes
Making billions while we all groan in misery
Grow your own food in community
with your neighbors so you can eat - on the cheap
It's time to divide the wealth
Spread it out equally
Fair shares for you and me
Y'know they want to microchip you
tag and clip you, like property.
They mean to own us and all the land.
Find the right place and take a stand.
It's time we changed the world
No one owns humanity
Give up their circuitry
Turn off your TV and settle in.
Read Naomi's "Shock Doctrine,"
History by Zinn and Nace's "Gangs"
will fill you in on their evil plan.
Come on, let's change the world
Cuz we know just what to do
Join ranks with all of you.
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/its-time-we-changed-world.html
Labels: ACLU, Brett Kimberlin, fascism, GuvWurld, hcpb, Humboldt Dems, I'd Love To Change The World, InfraGard, Jane Allen, KMUD, LWV, Rady Ananda, Reflections on Independence, VFP, Vote Rescue Radio
Friday, January 04, 2008
From Around The World, Inherent Uncertainty Comes Home To Roost
In his Town Dandy column this week, North Coast Journal editor Hank Sims does an excellent job of tracing the origin of a widely held misconception related to the now famous confrontation a few months ago between Rob Arkley, Eureka's wealthiest businessman, and Larry Glass, a member of the Eureka City Council. The matter has been referred to the state Attorney General. Meanwhile, Glass has taken umbrage at Sims' suggestion that at some point Glass "changed his mind about pressing charges." Glass alleges the confusion stems from erroneous reporting in the Eureka Times-Standard. Sims writes:It seemed to me that Glass' objection called for a bit of research. I'm certain that I'm not the only one who remembered that Glass seemed to originally signal that he was inclined to let the whole Arkley matter fade from memory as quickly as possible, and that he then seemed to have changed his mind. Was that understanding in error? Does it matter? I'm rather inclined to think it doesn't matter: People should be allowed to change their minds without penalty. But it mattered to Glass, and I stood accused of perpetuating a myth. So I figured I owed it to everyone to figure out the truth of the matter.
I say bully for Sims for taking this on. I leave it you, WDNC readers, to go back and follow Sims' trail. Of course it comes as no surprise that Sims' investigation led to the following conclusion:
I was unsuccessful. But here's what I found.So if I had to guess, I'd guess that this small little bit of uncertainty will join all the other, larger, stranger bits of uncertainty attached to that night that Rob Arkley got aggro on Larry Glass, shoving him or not shoving him, threatening to destroy him (or not), all in front of a roomful of society people who carefully and fastidiously failed to witness any of it.
Three sides to every story, right? It amuses me that Sims goes to such great length, doing really responsible journalism, only to reach a conclusion often described here at WDNC as inherent uncertainty. I have discussed this subject with Sims in the past, and he was either unwilling, unable, or incapable of acknowledging that unverifiable elections guarantee inconclusive outcomes, or inherent uncertainty. We see this elsewhere too, such as the "official story" of 9/11, which contains contradictions and scientific impossibilities; and more recently with varied explanations for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Now it turns out that from beyond the grave, Bhutto has opened a whole new case file in the realm of inherent uncertainty. Interviewed by Sir David Frost less than two months prior to her slaying, Bhutto claims that Osama bin Laden was murdered. Frost does not pick up on this comment during the interview though in the past ten days or so this has been widely discussed.
Len Hart, blogging as the Existential Cowboy, has excavated some gems from the memory hole, citing first a Fox News story from 12/26/01 and then a New York Times column from 7/11/02, both reporting the death of bin Laden. Now of course both of these so-called news sources have subsequently published articles about new video or audio tapes supposedly from bin Laden. And certainly no corporate media have called the bluff of the "war on terror."
No, instead we have the intentional creation and perpetuation of inherent uncertainty. It serves the power structure to keep the masses divided. Wedge issues are just the most superficial and obvious ways. More insidious and apparently not as easy to recognize is the rift in the perception of reality created by inherent uncertainty. See Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution for more on this.
Americans have been turned against each other. I have previously described the Manchurian Nation, the support structure for society that has been indoctrinated to demonize dissent and conflate activism with terrorism. At OpEdNews.comtoday, Kathryn Smith raises awareness of one such example, a declassified FBI memo obtained by the ACLU. Under the heading "International Terrorism Matters," the Pittsburgh Division Joint Terrorism Task Force reports on groups planning peaceful protests. Of course this should surprise no one either, assuming you've familiarized yourself with the typical signs of fascism taking over your country.
A couple of other quick notes...following up on the series of posts I did on the DOJ case compelling NY state to comply with HAVA:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTING_MACHINES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Also, today, Editor and Publisher (by way of BradBlog) gives a head's up for a "massive" article in this Sunday's New York Times about the problems with electronic voting. Put in perspective, this is not going to be a mea culpa for the Times being years behind the facts, and will instead be yet another way to (justifiably) increase the already (understandably) enormous doubts about election results. In other words, the Times is about to contribute greatly to creating more inherent uncertainty.
Jan 4, 7:42 PM EST
NY Sets Voting-Machine Upgrade Schedule
By RICHARD RICHTMYER
Associated Press Writer
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- The New York Board of Elections on Friday gave a federal judge a timetable under which it plans to replace all of the state's lever-action voting machines by September 2009.
...
The Help America Vote Act requires New York to replace the mechanical pull-lever machines that were introduced in the state more than a century ago with high-tech machines. It also requires the state to provide at least one machine accessible to the disabled at each polling place.
State election officials have said part of the problem is that state requirements for voting machines are stricter than federal ones.
The plan submitted Friday doesn't say what kind of machines New York would use to comply with HAVA, but [election board spokesman, Lee] Daghlian said none of the touch-screen machines currently on the market meet state standards.
(similar AP story in Newsday)
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/from-around-world-inherent-uncertainty.html
Labels: 9/11, ACLU, AP, Benazir Bhutto, Existential Cowboy, fascism, Fox News, Hank Sims, inherent uncertainty, Larry Glass, Manchuran Nation, New York Times, Newsday, Rob Arkley, The Journal
