Why we can't do a proper balancing is not as important as understanding that the Public is stymied by these kinds of debates where both sides have at least a tiny point, so long as the tiny point is heavily funded, it get's repeated one million times for one million dollars, compared to the citizen's one dollar (or "two cents")
THis confusion and inability to balance is re-created by the Salon article on elections, which attempts to go mostly point by point and provide a plausible explanation for each irregularity, ignoring that any hacker who thinks for a second will choose a cover that has a plausible explanation.
Elections are incredibly unique. For example, while normally we must obey government laws, in elections the government seeks the consent of the governed, essentially coming to beg for authority and approval. This reverses the usual role of citizen-as-virtual-subject. The secret ballot means the ballots can't be audited back to their owners to verify them, making analogies to "reliable" ATMs hazardous and inapplicable.
Salon's Manjoo fundamentally doubts stolen elections in 2004 or apparently in general because they require "widespread conspiracy," and that it's "hard to keep everyone quiet." (paraphrase) Phrased that way, he must think elections can only be stolen by large conspiracies when we know it can be done with one person.
If this "conspiracy" was so difficult to keep quiet based on numbers of those who must have been involved, then the D-Day invasion was no secret to the British public, there's no such thing as secret societies, and we don't have a secretive CIA, Delta Forces or Mafias because you just can't keep those large numbers of people quiet.
Manjoo, and all of us, should be more serious about elections. We're talking about control of the world's richest country and sole superpower, available without the millions on payroll needed to field and support armies. With computerized elections, it's now possible to get the bargain of the millenium: superpower control with the bonus of public confidence in the stolen election, based in large part on the newfangled inscrutability of our e-elections, with the bonus of unwitting support via the "sore loser" attacks on any stolen election advocates raising their voices.
This high reward for faked elections is not met by anything akin to defense forces. So-called election officials will amost universally tell the public to go back to sleep rather than be concerned because the officials don't want the negative attention and feel under-funded. I'm hoping to see a few hundred thousand "sentinels of democracy" or election watchdogs. But, watchdogs suck if they're not "suspicious" so to speak, and Manjoo basically mocks the whole idea of suspicion, even though RFK Jr is a credible attorney with a reputation and something to lose, who had a researcher assisting and spent lots of time on it. Doesn't this get a ticket to the ballgame, instead of Manjoo's disqualification? Well you can get DQ'd for defending democracy, because to be suspicious as a sentinel must, you're a "conspiracy theorist."
Yup, "conspiracy theory" attacks are functionally protecting secrecy, whether intended to or not, because the only reason anyone needs to "speculate" or make a "theory" about anything, is because of secrecy making information unavailable but at the same time creating the very justifiable inference that secrecy hides the embarrassing, illegal or wrong. After all, if it weren't for secrecy, conspiracy theory could be entirely avoided by directing folks to the correct book or info source. Conspiracy theory is a new and expanded LAW OF THINKING, where regular citizens get to be thought police for the sheer fun of shutting down debate. Totally unwilling accomplices in idea suppression, but suppressing nonetheless.
Regarding the "quiet" we hear, the MEDIA rarely reports election issues, like the easy and evidence-free alteration of elections. That non-coverage makes even noisy "conspirators" appear silent even when yelling. Google "Clint Curtis". Legit or not, he's not much in the mainstream media. Heck, if a perpetrator confessed to an NBC network anchor complete WITH DOCUMENTS, they'd fear sharing Dan Rather's terminal "voluntary" fate for running a debated Guard story backed up with expert witnesses regarding documents.
Remember who, what, when, why, and where and How? In light of the "universal bias" created by everyone taking sides, AMERICANS ALL HAD BIAS AND WE ALL KNEW:
1. WHO we wished to favor: Kerry or Bush.
2. WHAT we wished to favor them with: Votes.
3. WHEN we wished to favor them. November 2, 2004
4. WHY we wished to favor them: Electoral College and life/death issues.
5. WHERE we wished to favor them: Swingstates!
6. ...and the only thing we may or may not have known was:
THis confusion and inability to balance is re-created by the Salon article on elections, which attempts to go mostly point by point and provide a plausible explanation for each irregularity, ignoring that any hacker who thinks for a second will choose a cover that has a plausible explanation.
Elections are incredibly unique. For example, while normally we must obey government laws, in elections the government seeks the consent of the governed, essentially coming to beg for authority and approval. This reverses the usual role of citizen-as-virtual-subject. The secret ballot means the ballots can't be audited back to their owners to verify them, making analogies to "reliable" ATMs hazardous and inapplicable.
Salon's Manjoo fundamentally doubts stolen elections in 2004 or apparently in general because they require "widespread conspiracy," and that it's "hard to keep everyone quiet." (paraphrase) Phrased that way, he must think elections can only be stolen by large conspiracies when we know it can be done with one person.
Manjoo, and all of us, should be more serious about elections. We're talking about control of the world's richest country and sole superpower, available without the millions on payroll needed to field and support armies. With computerized elections, it's now possible to get the bargain of the millenium: superpower control with the bonus of public confidence in the stolen election, based in large part on the newfangled inscrutability of our e-elections, with the bonus of unwitting support via the "sore loser" attacks on any stolen election advocates raising their voices.
This high reward for faked elections is not met by anything akin to defense forces. So-called election officials will amost universally tell the public to go back to sleep rather than be concerned because the officials don't want the negative attention and feel under-funded. I'm hoping to see a few hundred thousand "sentinels of democracy" or election watchdogs. But, watchdogs suck if they're not "suspicious" so to speak, and Manjoo basically mocks the whole idea of suspicion, even though RFK Jr is a credible attorney with a reputation and something to lose, who had a researcher assisting and spent lots of time on it. Doesn't this get a ticket to the ballgame, instead of Manjoo's disqualification? Well you can get DQ'd for defending democracy, because to be suspicious as a sentinel must, you're a "conspiracy theorist."
Yup, "conspiracy theory" attacks are functionally protecting secrecy, whether intended to or not, because the only reason anyone needs to "speculate" or make a "theory" about anything, is because of secrecy making information unavailable but at the same time creating the very justifiable inference that secrecy hides the embarrassing, illegal or wrong. After all, if it weren't for secrecy, conspiracy theory could be entirely avoided by directing folks to the correct book or info source. Conspiracy theory is a new and expanded LAW OF THINKING, where regular citizens get to be thought police for the sheer fun of shutting down debate. Totally unwilling accomplices in idea suppression, but suppressing nonetheless.
Regarding the "quiet" we hear, the MEDIA rarely reports election issues, like the easy and evidence-free alteration of elections. That non-coverage makes even noisy "conspirators" appear silent even when yelling. Google "Clint Curtis". Legit or not, he's not much in the mainstream media. Heck, if a perpetrator confessed to an NBC network anchor complete WITH DOCUMENTS, they'd fear sharing Dan Rather's terminal "voluntary" fate for running a debated Guard story backed up with expert witnesses regarding documents.
Remember who, what, when, why, and where and How? In light of the "universal bias" created by everyone taking sides, AMERICANS ALL HAD BIAS AND WE ALL KNEW:
1. WHO we wished to favor: Kerry or Bush.
2. WHAT we wished to favor them with: Votes.
3. WHEN we wished to favor them. November 2, 2004
4. WHY we wished to favor them: Electoral College and life/death issues.
5. WHERE we wished to favor them: Swingstates!
6. ...and the only thing we may or may not have known was:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
