or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
November 05, 2004
I Have Conspired With The Masons And International Zionism To Write This
In the comments to what I wrote here about this Greg Palast article, Brian said this:
Maybe there is a reason that the DNC is not making all the arguments that Palast makes: that Palast's arguments are merely Roswell-type conspiracy theories that are simply not credible. If Palast's claims had any sort of foundation, the DNC would be acting on them, as they did in Florida in 2000.He argues that "if all the spoiled ballots were counted." Well, they cannot be counted because they are, by definition, spoiled, or to use a more accurate term, ambiguous. To argue that these spoiled ballots were thrown out in some conspiracy to defraud the electorate by a bunch of Republican poll workers is beyond belief. Just consider the number of people who work at the polls and how many would have to be "in on it." This means that all of these people would 1) all have to be willing to commit a felony by intentionally mishandling ballots; and 2) would all have to keep quiet about the orders they got from the higher-ups. The numbers in just one county would be in the hundreds alone.
Plus, in my 26 years of voting, I have moved many times and voted in numerous differenct states, counties and precints. These are staffed mainly by senior citizen retirees, who, by all appearances, are inarguably law-abiding and scrupulous. To say that these people were all part of some big conspiracy defies logic and belief.
Here's my response:
Brian,
This doesn't require any conspiracy, any more than water running downhill does. As I said, public services for poorer people in America tend to be crap. This includes the mechanics of voting. Older voting machinery tend to spoil more votes. There is no incentive for anyone with power to fix this. Thus, it doesn't get fixed.
Also, ballots are counted as "spoiled" because the tabulation machinery can't read them. This doesn't mean human beings can't. That's the reason why states have laws triggering recounts if the margin of victory falls below a certain threshold.
Regarding the Democratic party's motives, Palast says this:
No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.
(I would add a third reason, which is partly a combination of the first two: with the popular vote running against them, the Democrats probably felt it would be politically impossible to sustain a recount in Ohio.)
Finally, I'm always frustrated whenever someone refers to "conspiracy theories," particularly about something as basic as voting. The fact that anyone in the US finds this kind of thing plausible -- whether or not it's true -- is not a sign of mental deficiency on their part. It's a sign that they've learned through long, hard experience that powerful people do not play fair, and interpret the world through this lens.
For instance, the only thing I know about you is what you've written here. But that's enough for me to know that you're white. I also strongly suspect you're not Jewish. I almost as strongly suspect you're not Catholic -- certainly anyone Catholic knows big institutions can successfully cover up unpleasant realities for a very long time.
None of this is to say I'm right and you're wrong. (I don't take any particular position on this beyond the fact that it damn well deserves further attention.) I'm just pointing out that different people interpret events in different ways, and if someone interprets things in ways you wouldn't, that doesn't mean they're crazy. They often have quite legitimate reasons for believing what they do.
For instance, I interpreted the publicly available information about Iraq to mean Iraq had no WMD. Many people, including the person with whom I bet $1000 about it, thought I was crazy. In fact, I believe he said something similar about that to what you said about this; ie, "Just consider the number of people who work in the media and government and how many would have to be 'in on it.'"
But it turned out I had very good reasons for believing what I did -- much better than he did.
So let me ask -- did you believe Iraq had WMD? And if so, do you think you could be wrong about this issue too?
Posted at November 5, 2004 12:51 PM | TrackBackJonathon:
I believe your thoughts are well-reasoned, despite the fact that I don't agree with many of them.
The issue of voter fraud and the actions at the polls is one that I am having difficulty accepting totally -- and let me repeat, totally. I am not naive enough to believe that there was no voter intimidation, however, to have existed to the extent claimed, I am highly skeptical. For instance, in Detroit (I live in a suburb thereof), one example of voter intimidation was a white guy in a suit ensuring that the poll worker asked an African-American man for his ID. Not really intimidation (although I also doubt the white guy "asked" in the most polite manner).
Regarding the issue of voter fraud, I too want to find out if there was a failure of the computerized system and I am incredulous that there is no paper trial to the electronic voting. The report that Bush was credited with 3000-odd votes is very disconcerting and must be investigated. No question.
I understand what you are saying about the polling problems in the poorer areas. I do not know that that is in fact the case. Your argument is definitely logical, but I just don't know for a fact it is true. Assuming that it is, the situation is just plain wrong and must be fixed; to have someone's vote not be counted due to faulty or out-dated equipment is inexcusable for that city, state and our society.
With that in mind, though, Palast and others are making what I believe to be a huge leap, which is that this is a systematic effort (or conscious neglect) by one party in an effort to systematically undercount the poor (read: minorities). That is my problem. If that is the case, then during the 8 Clinton years, why was this not fixed? Or, here in Michigan, where we have had a Democratic governor for two years, why has there been no effort to remedy this.
There is a huge difference between a societal problem and a large conspiracy to keep part of society "down". Your are right that when there is a mention of conspiracies, people connote nutcases. My point is that I consider myself open-minded and when there is proof of something systematic, then the talk about a switch of 136,000 votes is, to me, unfounded. I will agree with your position and even Palast's if and when the problem with the one computer count in Ohio that gave Bush the 3000 votes is shown to be 1) widespread (or even in one other place; and 2) that it can be tied to something Diebold or whatever Bush-supporter as something done to help him. Otherwise, to me, it is a computer error that must be investigated so the vote counts can be verified, and nothing more. I support all the FOIA requests to make this a transparent process.
Sorry this is so rambling. As to your WMD question? Did I think Iraq had WMD? Yes, I did. I believe -- and I readily admit I know of no proof for this -- that weapons were transported to Syria during the Blix inspection time pre-war. Do I feel lied to? My answer is a reserved yes. I am disappointed that the intelligence was so thin, and it was definitely spun significantly. I have no problem admitting that my belief was wrong. Not about this, or about anything. If I am wrong, I am wrong. Similarly, as with the Ohio issue, if I am wrong and there was fraud I have no problem admitting my Pollyanna-ish view was naive. But -- smiling -- will the Kerry supporters who are claiming widespread fraud admit they are wrong if there is no proof of a conspiracy? Or, will they continue to claim that there was one, but it was just not discovered, or that the media failed to do its job? (I am asking rhetorically)
I appreciate your reasoned response. I read a good number of left-leaning blogs and have posted several thoughts. The common response is that I am a lurker, a Nazi, and a religious right lamb too stupid to realize I was being conned by Bush. It's so disappointing that much discourse is that either you are pro-Kerry or you are a brain-dead sheep. Or, vice versa. So, thank you. And keep up the good work (even if you do lean to the left).
By the way, I am white, 44 years old, an atheist, and reluctantly voted for Bush because I feared Kerry's domestic plans more than I feared Bush and his foreign policy.
Posted by: Brian at November 5, 2004 04:58 PMI usually don't read anything Greg Palast writes because I've read his articles about Hugo Chávez and in my opinion they're nonsense. But as a Venezuela watcher I was interested to see what Palast would have to say about the US election. I do believe that it's much easier to be much more knowledgeable and penetrative when analysing the politics of your own country than those of a foreign one, but I think a good journalist should thus be naturally circumspect about his thoughts on foreign goings-on. A lot of what Palast says about the Ohio thing makes sense on the face of it (to me - an outsider, I hasten to add) although his couching it in emotive language doesn't help him gain acceptance for what he's saying. He refers to the exit polls in advancing his argument that Kerry won in Ohio. I remember after Chávez won the recall referendum in August, opposition supporters pointed to all the exit polls saying that they had won handily. To no avail. I believe that the US election was far more transparent than the Venezuelan RR yet I don't remember Greg Palast getting fire up about Chávez' assault on democracy. A bit like the way Carter signed off on the results and then wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ protesting about the partisan nature of the electoral authority in Florida and saying how much of a threat it was to democracy. Venezuelans have been arguing for the last 2 years that their national electoral authority is too partisan to oversee electoral processes there but Carter was ok with it.
As we globalize, more and more basic universal rights and truths need to be defended. Palast, in my eyes, loses all credibility by on the one hand protesting the US election while on the other remaining quiet on the recent electoral processes in Venezuela. Especially so because he has written in favour of Chávez in the past.
