Simple Proof: "Conspiracy Theorist" Attacks Function to Protect SECRECY

[Land Shark]

Let's use vote counting as an example to show how, usually unwittingly, people get sucked into making "conspiracy theorist" attacks on other people (thinking this is a "winner" for them) and yet don't always realize that the primary function of such attacks is THE PROTECTION OF SECRECY:

1. Vote counting was once the most public of all possible governmental functions. (Indeed only the public can check and balance on elections since the government itself gets its money and power from those elections and can not, therefore, watchdog itself, audit itself, etc. (yet that's often claimed adequate anyway)).

2. Altering these public vote counts, electronic voting comes along and sets up a wall of secrecy such that the public can no longer view nor obtain information about vote counting.

3. Concerned citizens use the highly limited available information on vote counting to make hypotheses about what's happening in the vote counting behind the wall of secrecy. (These concerned citizens are necessarily lacking all the information because of the electronic voting wall of secrecy but, have pieced together some info nevertheless from (usually) indirect sources.)

4. Because a "hypothesis" is essentially the same as a "theory," these concerned citizens can now be denounced as "conspiracy theorists" to the extent they suggest that anything might be amiss behind the wall of vote counting secrecy.

5. Thus, attacks on "conspiracy theorists" in the context of elections at least have the direct effect of PROTECTING INAPPROPRIATE SECRECY, and typically have the effect of shutting down debate.

And yet, secrecy has long been anathema to the true spirit of America. And, of course, all conspiracy theories are to varying degrees ventures into the unknown (they are THEORIES). However, unlike, say, national security matters where some secrecy is justifiable, there's no justification for secrecy in elections. But that doesn't stop various people from (in effect) directly protecting secrecy and calling people conspiracy theorists instead of asking the more sensible question:

WHY does this person have to resort to a THEORY, can't we instead just GET ALL THE INFORMATION and confirm, one way or another?

Much more often than not, the missing information is unavailable, i.e., secret....

Indeed, with each charge of "conspiracy theorist" we could profitably ask the above highlighted question. Especially in the case of election vote counting under legal claims of "trade secrecy" used in the example above, there's simply no justification for withholding the information from the public. This question and approach then helps us to focus on the REAL ISSUE: secrecy and its inappropriateness.

“Power corrupts, and there is nothing more corrupting than power exercised in secret.” Daniel Schorr, newsman.

Did I say secrecy was "insppropriate?" Sorry for holding back too much. How about this instead, taking off from a traditional quote (the second sentence is mine):

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But secret vote counting powers are absolute powers whereby the public is never even allowed to know what powers hit them, and therefore is the most enticing form of absolute power conceivable in a purported "democracy."

[PATRICK]

1. Simple point

Something I keep pointing out is that they try to create an arrogant show going by putting theorists for the sake of wild theories on one side and their unassailable walls of secrecy on the other. Sort of stoicking out their tongues at the self-absorbed fans of secrets from the other side of the wall that fadscinates and empowers both. That public game is supposed to overshadow all the people simply trying to break down the fall and find out(and hold accountable) what is going on for the survival of democracy and perhaps human survival itself.

Masters of disease, controlling the simplistic public show debate so the simpler real issue is untouched. Good post.

[Land Shark]

2. Yes, because secrecy requires GUESSING, they cherry pick the worst-sounding guessers

and contrast those guessers, presuming them to representt the entire field of thinking in that area, and set them up as straw men, and then knock them down.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Land Shark]

12. You are right, On the Other Hand, that can happen too

and it is easy to cherry pick the seemingly "worst" conspiracy theories of the lot and parade them out as representative in order to smear ALL such theories by association. but the reason for the theories in teh first place is the secrecy or unavailable information. (I'm excluding here any theories that are theories only because of a lack of any effort to locate otherwise available information....)

[Kurovski]

3. Excellent points.

No one should ever pay a whit of consideration to ANYONE who charges out of the gate with an accusation of "Conspiracy theory!"

When it comes to our elections as they are now conducted, the secrecy surrounding them means that ALL we CAN do is guess, or theorize.

Elections are the very seat of power in a Democracy. And history has informed us of the lengths that people will go to to obtain that power.

Nothing is really all that unimaginable when it comes to power, and secrecy created around it.

K&R.

[Land Shark]

4. the people have important roles in each branch of govt, Judicial=JURY but on Exec branch

(elections) the people's indispensable OVERSIGHT role has been completely eliminated on all meaningful levels.

[bmcatt]

5. Where's my purple thumb?

I'm constantly amazed that we (in the US) took what used to be a relatively straight-forward process of voting and have complicated it to the extent that we no longer even have the ability to track all the votes that are cast.

I remember, a long time ago, being a poll worker. The voting machine was a mechanical device. It had a giant red lever and mechanical flip levers to vote. It made a very satisfying "KA-CHUNK" sound when someone voted. The paper record that was produced was perfectly clear as to which way votes were cast. We were required to provide a clear chain-of-custody from the voting machine to city hall where the votes were recorded.

Every time we've "brought democracy" to other countries, we insist on paper ballots with visible signs that people have voted to prevent voter fraud. If only we could bring democracy to the USA as well...

[Land Shark]

6. Let's just say not everyone is focused on clarity as their goal....

[bmcatt]

7. I know... chaos does not benefit we who like proper elections

I'm just still trying to figure out when/how we let "them" (for the various definitions of "them") ruin our system. It was a good system. It was a nice system. It was working and, where it wasn't working, we were fixing it.

I think it's been well and truly "fixed" now, in much the same way that a dog is.

[Land Shark]

8. Uhm, let's put it this way. Would you like YOUR marriage, assuming you have one

to be put up to a democratic vote of the people, considering this implicates your most vital personal interests? NO. (That's easy. ok.)

Now, corporations exist purely to make money so that is the most vital interest they have. Yet their activities can (and must) be put up to a vote of the people, via their representatives, and sometimes directly via initiative or referenda.

Corporations hate this, pretty much like you'd hate having a vote on an arranged marriage. It chafes against their urge-to-freedom.

Now, if there was a vote on your own personal marriage, a relatively high minority percentage of us would try just about anything to "win" it our way, including bribing the voters, deceiving the voters, or even stuffing the ballot box if we could find a way. That's the way of a minority of corporations and their supporters today. Add to that all the passionate issue people who believe one way or the other that justice will suffer a permanent defeat if the election doesn't go their way. For them, election cheating is the creation of substantive justice!

Thus, anyone who thinks there's not an inordinate pressure to cheat in elections is a Pollyanna, to say the least.

[bmcatt]

9. Pressure to cheat? Of course

But, by the same token, a corporation is a collection of individuals. I may be Pollyanna-ish, but I refuse to believe that *every* one of those individuals (in whatever corporation you'd care to pick) is solely concerned with "cheating".

[Land Shark]

11. Nope, only a sizeable minority, but that's more than enough....

No way do I think "everyone" is concerned to cheat, most people would not cheat at all. yet one must not be blind to the huge incentives and stakes. Look to what lengths a few will go to cheat at a craps table for a few thousand bucks. Now multiply that by many times over for the stakes in elections.

[RufusTFirefly]

13. It's not cheating per se...

... it's achieving one's objectives.

Corporations don't stack the deck or game the system out of malice. They do it because their goal is to maximize their returns. If one candidate is viewed as having a negative impact on a company's bottom line, a corporation can reasonably be assumed to do anything in its power to prevent that candidate from winning the election. What is the line from The Godfather? It's nothing personal. It's just business.

I believe the movie The Corporation (highly recommended) compared corporations to sharks. Sharks aren't bad or evil when they attack fish or the occasional swimmer or surfer. They do it because that's what sharks do. It's their nature. A shark is an eating machine and a corporation is a profit machine.

Another entity that could be compared to a shark is civil society itself. The instinct of a civil society is to maintain conformity at all costs.

Whether we're talking about a corporation or about civil society (the borders are increasingly blurred), if another creature should happen to get between a shark and his dinner, the shark will attack it. It's bloodier than calling someone a "conspiracy theorist," but it's a similar idea.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Corporations do too "game the system" out of malice! Are you familiar with

the Enron tapes--Enron personnel "gaming the system" on energy pricing while gleefully snickering about old "Aunt Tillie" who can't pay for heat.

And is this normal human behavior? No, it is UNCONSCIONABLE BUSHITE BEHAVIOR!

It is NOT normal or natural to have monstrous multinationals raping the earth, impoverishing millions and even destroying the country that gave them birth!

Sharks clean up the ocean. They are the ocean's trash cans. They have a function in the ecology.

Not so human global corporate predators! They are UNNATURAL entities, with huge monopolistic control of resources, money and power, by which a few sociopaths among the human race have constructed a greed machine that operates outside the realm of normal human values, including community economic health and cohesion, the rule of law, fair (competitive trade), care for and education of the young, labor rights, democratic principles of self-determination and fair elections, and regard for a clean, healthy, unpolluted environment.

Corporations are a cancerous growth on the human population. They are not businesses. They are a disease. And they need to be dismantled or curtailed, or the world and its people, and all living things, will die. Don't call them a "force of nature." They are a HUMAN institution that can be AMENDED to behave with decency and civic virtue.

Would you say a murderer is a "force of nature"? No. A murderer is a human being who, if he or she is in their right mind, is RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS--and is required by society to pay a price for breaking its laws.

Our problem is that, for too long--since Reagan--these Corporate Criminals have been permitted to WRITE our laws, to buy our politicians, to give themselves tax breaks, to create monstrous entities that roam the globe like pirates seeking the cheapest labor markets and the most unprotected resources, and now, to fix our elections in their own interest with the outrage of "trade secret" voting counting.

I do not accept their insatiable, and, indeed, sometimes murderous greed as normal human behavior. It is an aberration! And it's time we dealt with this aberration the way we deal with other criminal types, by holding these human beings responsible for their actions, and placing strong limits on their power to accumulate ungodly wealth and to lord it over the rest of us. Just like the Medieval institution of feudalism, corporations have become outmoded and abusive. And we need a new "Enlightenment"--with a re-commitment to democratic ideals, to human-scale power structures and to decent public policy--to be able to perceive what monsters corporations have become, and to topple them or scale them down to human size.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Believe it or not, I don't disagree with you

I never suggested that it was normal behavior for people. It's normal behavior for corporations, which are greed machines.

Oh yes, the aforementioned movie, The Corporation, given that a corporation legally has the status of a person, asked what sort of person it would be.

Their conclusion? A psychopath.

My explanation may have been opaque, Peace Patriot, but I can assure you that for the most part you and I are definitely in agreement.

[GuvWurld]

55. My wife and I always take a vote

And I lose 1 to 1 every time.

:wtf:

[Kurovski]

70. Sometimes it's not worth it to fight the incumbent.

Howdy, GuvWurld!:hi:

[GuvWurld]

57. We get the opposite of clarity, inherent uncertainty

unverifiable elections are the tip of the iceberg, until it breaks off and drifts away

[caruso]

14. TIA: The Ultimate Election Fraud Conspiracy Theorist....

On the other hand, he uses mathematical analysis of factual data to debunk those who would cover up the fraud.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

[The Flaming Red Head]

15. And you continue to believe that 9-11

wasn't an inside job by bushco.

Oh well. No arguing about elections either is there.

[followthemoney]

16. George Bush is a conspiracy theorist who promoted the crazy idea that

Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden conspired together to execute the attacks of 9/11. And that Sadam had the power to deliver a nuclear attack on the U.S. contrary to the information provided by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Tin foil hats for Bush, Cheney, and those who believed them.

[Land Shark]

17. Then there's the one about the guys in caves that are a huge threat to us

there's millions that believe in that one, but it never gets examined as a "conspiracy theory" but there surely was, according to the MSM story, a conspiracy of 19+ many to execute 9-11. yet one of the talking points is always that large conspiracies are unstable and don't work... All I'm saying is what's good for the goose is good for the gander

[hack89]

22. What about the outlandish idea that a group of dedicated,

university educated Arabs could ever outsmart Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and the rest of the BFEE? They would have you believe that these simple brown men who "lived in caves" could use computers, satellite phones and other high tech items and were perceptive enough to take advantage of obvious flaws in airline security. Unbelievable! :sarcasm:

[Octafish]

23. Poppy Bush mentioned a ''deluded gunman'' and LAUGHED at Ford memorial...

He made me so mad, I brought up why he might want to put down "conspiracy theorists."

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and ''Conspiracy Theorists'' at Ford Funeral

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3029417&mesg_id=3029417

[nolabels]

75. Well then, that would mean the insanity is full circle and spiraling down

:hurts:

I hate to think about it on sitting down but imagine :think:

No real country would be able (or would want to) to pull off such an assault as 9/11 and to believe the extraordinary circumstances of just some ad-hoc groups pulling it off is also ridiculous. So just like a whole lot of ridiculous B.S. stories to blow smoke up peoples asses, the official 9/11 story kind of makes sense. If it was a multitude of lies placed over top other lies and few other things also. The only thing was people had a hard time (at the time) thinking a cabal would do such a thing or be any part of it. That should no longer be such a stretch with the * track record

[Time for change]

18. Excellent

We wouldn't have to talk about conspiracy theories behind the 2000, 2004, or any other election if we just had the votes available to recount, would we?

[Land Shark]

28. And as long as we could verify chain of custody from casting to recount, yes...

[galloglas]

61. Actually you would...

simply because the recounts might

1) not be allowed by the various states, under differing circumstances in each, or,

2) might not have all of the votes available, due to destroyed or sequestered ballots, or,

3) because, say, the Speaker of the House swears in a candidate before all votes are counted, or recounted (in the event of a challenge), or,

4) any of several other reasons.

The best, and only, hope for the true winner of an election to be seated is to have

1) a Hand Count of Paper Ballots completed, and posted, at the precinct level, in front of God and everybody (complete transparency)

2) an absolutely secure, and unimpeded, chain of custody of the ballots from the time they are cast, until the results of any race is unequivocally established (complete security)

3) and a provision for the reversal of any race in which the "alleged winner" will be removed from office if the vote count proves to have been either mistake (??) or fraudulent




3)

[mod mom]

20. Remember this: Those who want Verifiable Elections....

ANARCHISTS!

"Anarchy" unloosed in Arizona!

Jan Brewer is Arizona Secretary of State (and, in 2004, was also co-chair of that state's BushCo "re-election" drive). Yesterday she formally announced her bid for re-election--and lost her cool when challenged by a vocal group of demonstrators. They were there to protest Brewer's very stealthy move, late on Dec. 31, to force DRE machines down the collective throat of Arizona's voters.

She called the demonstrators "anarchists" (and, of course, "conspiracy theorists"). While it was hardly an appropriate term for citizens intent on making our election system function properly ("patriots" would be more like it), Brewer's use of that preposterous epithet was quite appropriate for Brewer herself, a staunch commando of the Christian right.

I'm pleased to say that I played a small role in yesterday's brief drama. Those "comments made Thursday morning about Diebold" on the radio were made not only by the "talk show host" (Charles Goyette on Air America) but by yours truly. As a guest on Goyette's morning show, I called for Arizonans to turn out for Brewer's announcement and say no to her promotion of the DRE machines.

She's trying to buck an ever-growing tide against the use of such suspicious gizmos: New Mexico's Secretary of State just halted a purchase of 800 Sequoia Edge machines that had been planned by several counties, and Connecticut's SoS announced a similar delay, citing a number of "security concerns." As you should know from these emails, the same "concerns" are having an impact in several other states, including California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

-snip
http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2006/01/anarchy-unloosed-in-arizona.html

sheesh...
:eyes:

[marions ghost]

24. k&r

:kick: :kick: :kick:

Not too long ago ANYone who even suggested that the US elections might not be squeaky clean was called a 'conspiracy theorist'...

Remember?

[Kurovski]

68. Yes I do indeed remember that, marions ghost.

Quite unpleasant it was, too. Not that it had the power to persuade me from my growing suspicions as I became apprised of actual events.

However, you knew what you were in for when you posted anything election fraud-related in those days, and it was certainly instrumental in silencing people. Most individuals do not have the stomach for it. As an average citizen, I didn't give a sh*t if I might be made to look like a moron or a freshly-baked nutcake. It was worth the risk, such risk as it was.

It is no less unpleasant now than it was then, but we do have much more evidence, and even a few convictions. This can be found in any number of places, including the archives of election reform sites.

But now since more information has come to light, we sometimes see folks instead thrashing one another over details of disagreement at the expense of the overall picture. I sometimes wonder--and this is NOT a joke--if some people who argue every detail and verb, noun, inflection, glance and period aren't caught in a habitual self-destructive circle of obsession with details. People who are fighting for a cause can become bogged down in minutiae that is non-productive, and even counter-productive, but sometimes it reaches an alarming degree that can only give one pause.

As for any in-fighting between accomplished election activists, common citizens such as myself need to grasp information as non-experts, and simplifying information with clarity as the goal (rather than confusing the issue) is very important. we will naturally be drawn to those who state their case clearly, and to whose motives we can understand. I'm not saying that is a good or a bad thing...it's just the way it is.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Blessings upon your, Land Shark! You have nailed it.

This process of marginalizing important information by calling it "a conspiracy theory"--and also--something that really bothered me during the hot discussions here at DU about election fraud--the tendency of those who argued against the overwhelming case that was laid out here for election fraud in 2004 to conveniently forget that that election was conducted with "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls, and, because the American people were caught unawares, with inadequate monitoring. They would nitpick at TIA and his brilliant posts, and challenge HIM to PROVE that the election was stolen, as if that were his responsibility, as if proof of fraud "beyond a reasonable doubt" were the standard for elections, and as if the burden of proof was not on the government, in an election with such a high degree of irregularities and suspicious numbers, but rested instead on the voters.

Their assumptions were once used in a work of fiction. It was called "Through the Looking Glass" --and depicted a fantasy world where everything is upside and backwards.

If you have rightwing Bushite corporations "counting" all the votes in secret, you must ASSUME fraud, and look for its traces and outlines. The burden is not on you, it is on THEM. And if you find as much of a case for fraud as TIA and other analysts laid out, from whatever evidence they could get their hands on, you can be pretty damn sure that fraud occurred.

And really, these days, you have only to look at Bush and Cheney's behavior to know that they feel absolutely no accountability to the people--because they weren't election by the people.

As to the marginalization of this "conspiracy theory," we know why it has been marginalized by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. They fiddled their exit polls to force them to fit Diebold/ES&S's secretly derived election "results." They colluded with the fraud. But we don't have the full story about the Democratic Party leadership of that time, and their MIND-BOGGLING silence as Bushite corporations took over our election system. It is a mixed bag of corruption, ignorance and fear. (It was the Anthrax Congress that gave us the "Help America Vote For Bush" Act of 2002, legislation engineered by major crooks Tom Delay and Bob Ney--with direct collusion by Christopher Dodd and a few other Democrats, and collusion at least as to silence, and failing to warn the voters, by DNC head Terry McAuliffe).

Further, virtually the entire Democratic leadership has now been elected in Diebold/ES&S elections. To call the 2004 election into question, is to question their OWN elections, in many cases. In 2006, the people obviously outvoted the machines and tried to effect major change--but we still don't have a fully representative Congress. 70% of the American people want the Iraq War ended. And Congress is stalling--in the face of the most egregious presidential power grab (not to mention criminal record) in the history of the country. This is why. Not all of them were honestly elected. Some are Diebold/ES&S choices (--the choices of Bush-Cheney campaign chairs (Diebold) and funders of nutball rightwing 'christian' causes (ES&S)). It is a measure of the voters' anger that they were able to overcome this handicap, and put the Democrats in charge. (The huge increase in Absentee Ballot voting in '06 is also an indicator that many voters are now aware that something is wrong with these machines.)

My point is that there has been corruption--at the top of our party, and also at the local election officials and state legislator level. (HAVA was designed to have that effect--big bucks boondoggle ($3.9 billion), no controls on lavish lobbying, no controls on secret industry "testing" of the machines, no controls on the expenditure of vast sums on crapass hackable technology, no audit controls, and on and on.) And, as a consequence, there are many reasons to cover up this destruction of our election system--especially strong reasons just following the 2004 election--and to pretend that we have a legitimate government. And THAT is why election fraud is given the title "conspiracy theory" and is marginalized by many leaders in our own party.

I was listening to Christopher Dodd at the DNC winter meeting, on C-Span radio, just a few hours ago. And it puzzled me greatly. He SAID all the right things. I could not help but agree with everything he said. But what I know about Christopher Dodd--his collusion with Tom Delay and Bob Ney on this frontal assault on our right to vote, and on our democracy--made me queasy listening to him. How easy it is for a demagogue, and a snake-in-the-grass, to say all the right things, when he knows the elections are fixed. Expect some surprising primary results for this "dark horse" in Diebold/ES&S states--is my warning. And I wonder who or what he is the stealth candidate for (Bilderberg?). I cannot forgive him for the "Help America Vote for War" Act. I don't care what he says now.

[Kurovski]

26. Thank you for your post, Peace Patriot.

Thoughtful consideration is required to maneuver through the current crisis.

Every aspect must be questioned and studied. Motivation and money, connections and past behavior are things to follow in candidates and "high-profile" individuals.

[Land Shark]

29. Maybe, just maybe, Peace Patriot's post could somehow be proven "wrong"

But, we really don't know that for sure, he draws some inferences and connects some dots, as it were. But although we may not know absolutely for sure whether each theory or inference Peace Patriot outlines is absolutely true or not, we know FOR SURE that the secrecy of the missing answers between the dots Peace Patriot is connecting is WRONG! (to the extent they have anything to do with vote counting or elections generally).

So to me, I've ALWAYS attacked "secret vote counting" as the Achilles Heel.

This issue never gets squarely addressed in the media - it's utterly censored. A couple months ago my Lexis search showed that only 3 or 4 references in the MSM, both by me and GuvWurld, and a single reference by Chris MAthews regarding the Boehnert election in the House of Reps.

But it's a clear, obvious, issue. There is no comeback to it that has particular merit.

The barking dogs of conspiracy theory attackers simply MUST come out of the woodwork to protect secrecy because that is its weak point, it is the indefensible soft belly of the beast. They do so, of course, by calling anyone who dares to connect the dots a "conspiracy theorist" or similar.

[Kurovski]

30. Secrecy= "the current crisis." (nt)

[Land Shark]

35. You could say that again, in a nutshell............ nt

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Have you read Webster Tarpley's great piece on conspiracy theories?

From his latest book;

XII: CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION

The neocons, who are themselves a conspiracy, do not like conspiracy theories. But if we look at actual American history, we find conspiracy theories everywhere, even in the most exalted places. The neocon hysteria about conspiracy theories is therefore radically anti- historical, like so much else about this ideological and fanatical faction.

As the Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn convincingly argues in his prize-winning study, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), the American Revolution was based on a conspiracy theory which saw the individual actions of George III as all being governed by a singly unifying design, which was to impose tyranny on the UK's North American colonies. This theory had been learned by some among the founding fathers from such British political figures as Edmund Burke, who made similar allegations themselves in a slightly different context. As Bailyn points out, the notion of a conspiracy centered on George III and his court was shared by the broadest spectrum of the founding fathers, from firebrand revolutionaries to cautious right-wingers like Dickinson.

Before the United States ever existed, there was a conspiracy theory. According to Bailyn, the Americans of the eighteenth century

... saw about them, with increasing clarity, not merely mistaken, or even evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested, but what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty both in England and in America. The danger in America, it was believed, was in fact only the small, immediately visible part of the greater whole whose ultimate manifestation would be the destruction of the English constitution, with all the rights and privileges embedded in it. This belief transformed the meaning of the colonists' struggle, and it added an inner accelerator to the movement of opposition. For, once assumed, it could not easily be dispelled: denial only confirmed it, since what conspirators profess is not what they believe; the ostensible is not the real; and the real is deliberately malign. It was this -- the overwhelming evidence, as they saw it, that they were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain ends which their words dissembled -- that was signaled to the colonists after 1763; and it was this above all else that in the end propelled them into Revolution. (Bailyn 95)

This conception was endorsed by George Washington in the Fairfax. Resolution of 1774, written in collaboration with George Mason. Here Washington asserted the existence of a "regular, systematic plan" of oppression. In conformity with this plan, the British government was "endeavoring by every piece of art and despotism to fix the shackles of slavery upon us." Washington wrote in a letter of this time that "beyond the smallest doubt ... these measures are the result of deliberation ... I am as fully convinced as I am of my own existence that there has been a regular, systematic plan formed to enforce them." (Bailyn 120)

Tarpley goes on to demonstrate that conspiracy theory is as Ameican as apple pie. Next he documents the wittings of Jefferson, Lincoln, and other Americans who believed in conspiracy theories and wrote about them. He then looks at the evolution of the phrase conspiracy theory; From a charge of coordinated and objectionable action to a deragatory slur to diminish an opponant.

Conspiracy theory as a term of opprobrium is relatively new. It dates back to the work of Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University. Hofstadter was himself a kind of neocon ante litteram who became a direct beneficiary of McCarthyism: he took over a job vacated by Prof. Philip Foner, who had come under ostracism as a member of the Communist Party USA. In his essay on "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (1964) and in his other writings Hofstadter took issue with the 1880s-1890s prairie populist critique of international bankers, a critique which today seems prophetic in its foreshadowing of the destructive shenanigans of Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England during the interwar period (Norman was part of Brown, Shipley in London, the home office of Prescott Bush's Brown Brothers, Harriman in Wall Street) and of the International Monetary Fund during the entire postwar period. But for Hofstadter, radical critics of Anglo- American finance oligarchy were paranoids. His essay is doubly suspect because it appeared in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, and seemed to suggest that the many critics of the Warren Commission report were also -- paranoids. An interesting problem was posed for Hofstadter in that sophisticated western Europe, where populist paranoia was supposedly less strong, was even more critical of the Warren Commission report than was the alleged US citadel of paranoia.

Hofstadter's favorite habit of tarring political forces he did not like, such as the populists, with the brush of paranoia appears illegitimate. The paranoid typically fears that there is a conspiracy afoot specifically against himself. For Hofstadter, this notion becomes impossibly broad: anyone who thinks he sees a conspiracy anywhere is ipso facto a paranoid. What is lost here is the necessary reference point in reality: is there a conspiracy going on or not? US Attorneys have been proving the existence of conspiracies to juries for a long time, and they have generally escaped the charge of paranoia.

It is impossible to write political history without admitting from time to time the possibility of confidential agreements for concerted action made in advance. There are of course times when conspiracy plays no role: an absolute tyrant at the height of his power has no need of conspiracy; he can act directly by issuing orders. (Yet even here, even figures like Hitler and Stalin turn out to have been less absolute than usually assumed; it is enough to think of Hitler's chronic need to keep an eye on his Gauleiters, or the fact that the USSR functioned as an oligarchy during more years of its history than it did as a tyranny.) Similarly, an absolutely spontaneous mob -- a rarity, although a theoretical possibility -- is also innocent of conspiratorial planning. Between these two extremes, some form of surreptitious concerted action can frequently be found. As has been stressed throughout this book, US society today is neither a tyranny nor a democracy; it is organized from top to bottom according to the principle of oligarchy or plutocracy. The characteristic way in which an oligarchy functions is by means of conspiracy, a mode which is necessary because of the polycentric distribution of power in an oligarchical system, and the resulting need to secure the cooperation and approval of several oligarchical centers in order to get things done. Furthermore, the operations of secret intelligence agencies tend to follow conspiratorial models; this is what a covert operation means -- oordinated and preplanned actions by a number of agents and groups leading towards a pre-concerted result, with the nature of the operation remaining shielded from public view. So, in an oligarchical society characterized by the preponderant role of secret intelligence agencies -- such as the United States at the beginning of the twenty- first century -- anyone who rules out conspiracies a priori runs the risk of not understanding very much of what is going on. One gathers that the phobia against alleged conspiracy theory in much of postmodern academia is actually a cover story for a distaste for political thinking itself.

"Conspiracy theorist" as an all-purpose term of ad hominem argument to dismiss arguments which cannot be refuted thus goes back to the years after the Kennedy assassination, when the public was expected to accept that it was US government policy that this great crime, along with the further assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968, would remain permanently unsolved, and that those who objected would be vilified.

Read the whole chapter here: http://www.american-buddha.com/911.syntheticterrormade13.htm#XII:%20CONSPIRACY%20THEORY:%20THE%20GREAT%20AMERICAN%20TRADITION

Free registration required, and well worth it.



http://www.american-buddha.com/911.syntheticterrormade13.htm#XII:%20CONSPIRACY%20THEORY:%20THE%20GREAT%20AMERICAN%20TRADITION

[BeFree]

31. Basically

Anyone claiming that the people questioning the elections are some kind of wrong-headed people, are acting anti-democratically.

Asking questions is at the root of living in a democracy. If you have questions, democracy requires those questions be answered. A dictatorship being just the opposite.

Well, are questions going unanswered, violating the core principles of democracy. Yet we have fellows saying we are bad to think there is something amiss in the elections, but they supply no answers to our questions.

Those people really piss me off, for they are, in my mind, acting against democracy. Is that clear?

[Ellipsis]

32. Shark attack...

er.. aah, candygram. (kick to the top)





To complete public oversight in counting the vote :toast:

[Land Shark]

33. Cheers, btmlndfrmr... nt

[Kurovski]

34. Kick.(nt)

[Febble]

36. Could you give an example?

Who has called whom a conspiracy theorist, and in what context? Links?

[Land Shark]

37. How about the Cincinnati Enquirer?

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/2006_02_26_default.asp

The Cincinnati Enquirer states: “On hand, too, was Bob Fitrakis, Columbus lawyer/talk show host/journalist/political science teacher who is the Green Party's candidate for governor, who thrilled the conspiracy buffs in the crowd with his contention that Republicans stole the presidential election in Ohio for George W. Bush.”

Febble, with all due respect for your professional training quite outside the scope of this question, are you unaware of the nature of the election reform debate generally in the USA or are you being inconsiderate of others' time by asking for links and proof on routine subjects? Or is this just a way of kicking my thread?

[Febble]

38. Well, the kick should be good, no?

No, I'm serious. I think "conspiracy theorist" is a perfectly good term, and if it is being used as a term of abuse, the retort should be: yes, I have a theory that these anomalies can be explained by a conspiracy. I invite you to falsify that theory, for which you will need data.

I'd genuinely like some info on how the term is being used.

Sorry if you feel this is a waste of your time. No-one should feel obliged to respond if they have better things to do.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Land Shark]

39. Yes, but kicks are approximately 2/3 - 3/4 as good as they used to be

now that there is a function to list threads in order of original post -- that function totally defeats the helpful function of a kick. (just an aside here)

There are some folks, not you so far as I can recall, who like to ask questions and then put "crickets" animations if they are not soon answered - implying that there is no answer. That inference is, I suppose, a risk of not answering any reply, at least in the minds of some readers.

No other reader of this thread has taken issue with (and I think few would) that at least in America one of the de facto functions of 'conspiracy theorist' attacks is to silence debate. People, (probably at some point in each of our lives ALL of us) like to use this attack because there seems to be (often) no good response to it, therefore, as suggested in the OP, it appears to be an ace or a "winner."

If you feel that this is not one of the functions of this term (even if not consciously intended by the user as such) I invite you to research the usage and post. I commend your intellectual curiosity and desire for even further examples than what I've given here, but for me the use of conspiracy theorist as an attack approaches the status of self-evident and I don't feel it is debatable enough to justify further research. Certainly, the writer for the Enquirer did not think he needed to think one whit more or write one whit more about the OHio "conspiracy buffs" and what they found interesting in Fitrakis' presentation.

I'm merely suggesting a way to turn this debate around. In a sense, you do as well when you suggest admitting something is a conspiracy theory and inviting falsification. However, this conspiracy attack is bandied about so freely to disparage others' ideas that the ideas disparaged often do not even have an actual "conspiracy" (or agreement by two or more people to do something illegal) as part of their text or subtext. taking this just one step further, the message of a conspiracy theorist attack is "Do not GUESS, if you don't have all the facts, do not speak or suggest hypotheses."

Of course, for citizen-rulers in a democracy, fighting against (among other things) the most secretive administration in our nation's history, this is an especially disruptive, and unfair, kind of attack. That being said, in some circumstances, the response you propose could also work. But I think because yours admits to a "conspiracy theory" when that may not at all be truly the case, my proposed response goes further by exposing the underlying issue of secrecy.

You have access to certain exit polling data (precinct identifiers I believe) that I could assert the theory would make the case for other authors with whom you occasionionally disagree such as Steve Freeman, and that, hypothetically, you are engaged in coordinated action to keep that data secret. (in fact I think you have expressly agreed in writing to do so, pursuant to confidentiality clauses). I suppose you may decline to make the possible mistake of calling me a conspiracy theorist so I can apply my approach above, but would you be willing to make that data available in order to falsify my theory as suggested here and as suggested in your reply above? : ) (Don't waste too much time repeating your answer NO since you've done that many a time...)

[Febble]

44. I did not know about that function

You have access to certain exit polling data (precinct identifiers I believe) that I could assert the theory would make the case for other authors with whom you occasionionally disagree such as Steve Freeman, and that, hypothetically, you are engaged in coordinated action to keep that data secret.

"Engaged in co-ordinated action to keep that data secret" is not how I would describe it. "Bound by the terms of my contract to respect the confidentiality of the data" would be a better description. It is not my data. I have no authority to release it. It was not "released" to me. I was simply hired to analyse it.

You could indeed "assert the theory would make the case for other authors" but that would be, as you say, an assertion, and in contradiction to my reported results, which indicate that it does not.

I do not have "precinct identifiers". I have data that could allow precincts could be identified (vote totals). I do not know the identity of the precincts.

(in fact I think you have expressly agreed in writing to do so, pursuant to confidentiality clauses).

I agreed to regard the data as confidential, yes. Of course.

I suppose you may decline to make the possible mistake of calling me a conspiracy theorist so I can apply my approach above, but would you be willing to make that data available in order to falsify my theory as suggested here and as suggested in your reply above? : ) (Don't waste too much time repeating your answer NO since you've done that many a time...)

Land Shark, you are asking me to renege on a confidentiality agreement. The answer is, of course, no.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Febble]

58. That is absurd

My "preferred descriptors" are the truth. Your characterisations of them are calumny. In my work I deal all the time with confidential data. Not only would it be a breach of the terms of my contract not to treat them with the utmost concern for their security, it would be a breach of the ethical guidelines of my profession, and a breach of the trust between me and my participants.

It has never even occurred to me to make these data public. For you even to suggest that it would be possible to describe my adherence to professional standards as even resembling "criminal conspiracy" is a gross slur.

For goodness sake.

I suggest you edit your post if there is still time. If you do, I will edit this.




Edited for typos typed in fury.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Febble]

65. Yes, I am sensitive

to the innuendo that it is only due to a technicality that I avoid the charge of being party to a criminal conspiracy.

Your innuendo is not much mitigated by the insertion of the word "apparently" before the word "legal". In fact it makes it very much worse.

ETA: protesting that you are not accusing me of criminal conduct while simultaneously suggesting that it could be viewed as such is simply a smear.

[Ellipsis]

54. ...didn't think about that.

"now that there is a function to list threads in order of original post -- that function totally defeats the helpful function of a kick. (just an aside here)" ---prefer using it the traditional way myself. One can sense the buzz of an active thread on refresh.


I kick in support when I read a "good" thread.

[Land Shark]

41. If one is forced to shoot in the dark, consider seriously blaming the ones who turned the lights off

This may be another way of looking at this same perspective, and recognizing that just as shots in the dark will often miss, so too will theories of any kind, conspiracy or otherwise, often miss. In that sense, sure, there can be some doubt attached to some specific "conspiracy theories" but not enough in most cases to justify, to an honest mind desirous of inquiry and truth, dismissal of the large majority of those theories out of hand, which is what in fact happens with the conspiracy theory attack.

[Febble]

49. Well, I would agree

I just wanted some estimate of the extent of the problem. It's not something I've seen a lot of, and as Kurovski's google showed, the first page of hits on his search string were to sympathetic sites. I'd just like to know where these attacks are supposed to be coming from (not least because in the past, people have intimated that I have been giving aid and succour to the attackers....)

[Land Shark]

51. Thanks for agreeing, it's considered such an "obvious" attack that

reporters oftentimes feel obliged to build an insinuation of conspiracy theorist into their questions (MSM reporters that is)

[Febble]

56. Well, I like theory

it's hard for me to consider "theorist" as a pejorative ;)

[Kurovski]

40. Here are 857, 000 examples for you, Febble.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-35,RNWE:en&q=conspiracy+theorists+elections

Google search: Conspiracy theorists elections

Of course as we all know, linking to other accusations from other DU threads could ultimately result in deleted posts, a locked thread, or even banning. Such are the rules.

[Febble]

42. But the odd thing about those

is that the highest ranked hits are actually fairly sympathetic to the conspiracy theorists (and some of course are reprints).

[Kurovski]

45. Not that odd.

Even when sympathetic to the idea of election fraud or theft, the articles often refer to, or quote those who use the term as a pejorative.

[Febble]

47. Well, I haven't read all that many

direct quotations of people who have used the term pejoratively about those who have suggested that there may have been a conspiracy to steal elections. I'd like to see some primary sources.

That's all.

[galloglas]

62. How many is

"all that many"?

As in "I haven't read all that many direct quotations of people who have used the term (conspiracy theorists) pejoratively about those who have suggested that there may have been a conspiracy to steal elections.

You deal with statistics , Febble. Can you put a number on that ("all that many"?, yourself?

You're not saying, are you, that the allegation that some are called "conspiracy theorists" is new to you?

In an aside, some other "theorists" have questioned whether you might be the person who coined the term "reluctant Bush responders", and if not, you would know who did.

Is that correct?

If so, is that information covered by your confidentiality agreement?

[Febble]

66. No, it's not new to me at all

A great many people have pointed out to me that election integrity activists are accused of being "conspiracy theorists". They have also alleged that my own work has given aid and comfort to such people. I have tried to track down instances where my work has been used to feed the accusation. I have not found many examples, and where I have, I have, where possible, attempted to put the record straight. That was why I asked for examples.

And no, you can't do data analysis without data. That's why I asked for data.

I have no idea who coined the term "reluctant Bush responders". It's not in the Edison-Mitofsky evaluation document, and it's not the conclusion I drew from my own analyses. What was clear from the data was that selection bias, rather than non-response bias, was the more likely cause of at least a substantial proportion of the discrepancy.

[Land Shark]

67. I:m not aware of what you say above, when you asked for examples

I gave you a MSM example, which is where we see most of this behavior. I can see why you are sensitive as you say in another post below (or above) if you've had a lot of reports like that.

on edit: Here are some more MSM examples, right after the 04 election, Ted Koppel and the Washington Post:

"Latest Conspiracy Theory, Kerry Won, Hits the Ether (uses “Conspiracy…” 3 times)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html

"Even as Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign is steadfastly refusing to challenge the results of the presidential election, the bloggers and the mortally wounded party loyalists and the spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists are filling the Internet with head-turning allegations. There is the one about more ballots cast than registered voters in the big Ohio county anchored by Cleveland. There are claims that a suspicious number of Florida counties ended up with Bush vote totals that were far larger than the number of registered Republican voters. And then there is the one that might be the most popular of all: the exit polls that showed Kerry winning big weren't wrong -- they were right."

and:
Ted Koppel introduced his program on election irregularities and the debate surrounding them by titling the show “Conspiracy Theory”. See http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2932

[Febble]

69. Yes, I remember that first one.

However, the second, like the majority of those in the first two pages of the google search results, uses the expression in support of the "conspiracy theorists". It is primary sources for the phrase used actually to malign election integrity activists that I am interested in seeing.

My impression is that the phrase is used more often both by those rejecting the label than by those using it pejoratively. But it is simply an impression, from over here. That's why I asked for information.

[Land Shark]

72. After WaPo, NYT and Ted Koppel, we may "react" hundreds of times

for the next two years, but I'd say it was used offensively first, and that the 100s of reactions do not overwhelm the big MSM uses of this, in the "publications of record"

[Kurovski]

73. You may be on to something there, Febble.

It may be true that those in support of election reform use the term "conspiracy theory" or "theorist" more often than those opposed, or those who see no real problem with elections. Maybe we do more to spread the term for them? It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to research that.

Perhaps one day the terms will come to mean "healthy skepticism", or
"due vigilance". But for now, they don't. Every article revealing how a "Conspiracy theory" is actually uncovering some important truth, could be bringing us closer to your stated and understandable fondness for the word "theory"--coupled with "conspiracy"--to its positive connotation.

For now, it is as Land Shark states in his OP. It is used chiefly to protect secrecy. It is also used to dismiss. It is used to imply, or state outright, that someone is "nuts" for thinking as they do, or for merely asking questions. In fact, it is used as an operative term in keeping people from asking questions, at least on this side of the pond. "You don't want to be one of those CONSPIRACY THEORY NUTS, now DO YOU??!"

"Yes, I do, actually, and how very sweet of you to ask." :-)

I like that.

Searching the transcript archives of cable and network news shows, radio programs and the indexes of hundreds of books would also be part of the intellectual exercise of finding who uses the terms most often. But any American who watches TEEVEE or listens to the radio knows what it's MEANT to mean.

********************************************************

As for the google page previously linked upthread, the top link on the google list is the Robert F Kennedy Jr. article in Rolling Stone, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" . If anyone hasn't read the piece yet, give it a try. (or at least bookmark it for later.)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

***************************************************
Here's more about articles on that first google page...

***************************************************

Thom Hartmann is actually turning the tables in this one:

"Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to.

... But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

*****************************************************
Here is another "sympathetic" article:

By Jon Whiten


"As the 2006 mid-term elections near, it is worth looking at the way the press handled the important claims of vote fraud in the last election. Extra! examined the 2004 post-election coverage of major news outlets, focusing on the New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today, along with network TV news coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC.

Extra! looked at this coverage in light of allegations detailed in Rep. John Conyers' report, "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio." ...

...The report, later published in book form by Academy Chicago Publishers, stands as an official record detailing the ways that the 2004 election, like 2000 before it, fell short of democratic standards. Yet the malfeasance the report details was conspicuously absent from the mainstream media discourse around the election. Instead of investigating the issues later outlined by Conyers, the press preferred to emphasize Bush's winning strategy (focused on social issues like same-sex marriage) and on what he would do with his "mandate" and "political capital" during his second term.

When these major outlets did look at problems with the vote, they tended to malign those who raised questions, ridiculing the idea of questioning the election's fairness, calling those who did "conspiracy theorists," "die-hards" and "party loyalists" who operate in a "parallel universe"—the Internet. The media's approval went to ex-candidate John Kerry and other prominent Democrats who fell silent on the vote fraud issue just days after the election, perhaps not wanting to be portrayed as "sore losers" as Al Gore was after 2000."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2932

**********************************************

From an article by Lynn Landes:

"...John Fund, author of the book, Stealing Elections, writes, "Joe Andrew, chairman of the Democratic National Committee until 2001, is a senior adviser to a biotech firm that owned several Internet companies. He says the conspiracy theories aren't healthy and last month he told the Maryland Association of Election Officials that "When it comes to electronic voting, most liberals are just plain old-fashioned nuts." While conservatives were skilled at coordinating their messages, he added, "that does not mean there is a vast right-wing conspiracy trying to steal votes in America, as the loudest voices on the left are saying today....Mr. Andrew said the people obsessed about DRE manipulation are either computer experts with impressive technical knowledge but little practical experience with elections or left-leaning computer users who are conspiratorial by nature. He noted with regret that they have been joined in their hysteria by prominent Democrats who "are rallying behind the anti-DRE bandwagon in a big election year because they think that this movement is good for Democrats."

Mr. Andrew appears to be batting for the other side."


http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1225

(John Fund's book would be a "primary source" )

****************************

There is a link to Wayne Madsen's homepage, which is likely to be sympathetic, but danged if I could find it:
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

*********************************************

Also on the first page: FOXnews, The Seattle Times, and two by the WP, all which stink of old fish and stale cigar smoke

...and one on The October surprise of 19frikken'80 and none to sympathetic to conspiracy theories on that count.

So four sympathetic and five not, when it comes to us "conspiracy theorists"

Pretty good, and page two may be even better.

you can decide for yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2004-35%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=conspiracy+theorists+elections&btnG=Search

********************************************************

Many thousands of hits in that 875,000 appear to be worthless to the issue at hand. Google: it's as crappy as my research skills. But Febble, it's nice to see that your dream just may be taking shape as "conspiracy theorist" could eventually come to mean "inquisitive citizen" or "demander of accountability" or some other high-falutin' thing in another thirty years or so.:-)

If only we could get Rush Limbaugh to come over to our side. *sigh*

[Febble]

74. Thanks

Yes, "framing" is an issue, and I do think there is a danger in circulating a term that has been used as a pejorative. On the other hand, that can be positive - "take back the label".

I'm not sure it is in this case, though. Too much association with black helicopters. That's why I'd favour a response on the lines of: "Conspiracy theory? Yes, I have a theory that the Bush administration conspired to subvert the election". After all, it isn't that it hasn't conspired to subvert a heck of a lot of other stuff.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Land Shark]

76. If the MSM used the reference 3 times, then 300 blogs and more minor pubs REACT

I would not say that "favorable" references in the blogs outnumber the offensive uses by a ratio of 100 to 1 such that it was more the "favorable" references that were keeping the term alive.... The reactive references are in a sense attributable to the original refernces, right after the 11-04 election, by Wash Post and Ted Koppel all singing the same "conspiracy song" with the New York Times more or less chiming in the same.

It would be like Bush, A SINGLE TIME IN A SINGLE SPEECH, using the term "Iran has nuclear tipped missiles able to hit the US" and then saying that discussion of Iran's nuclear tipped missiles in a thousand subsequent publications was just unnecessarily keeping this term alive when clearly it has no force in fact or law. The single media use, by the "big guys", leading to a thousand derivative uses, does not mean that the many more derivative uses outweigh or keep the original reference alive in any way.

[Kurovski]

78. Agreed, particularly when the "favorable" derivations serve to reveal

in detail the manipulative, dishonest, and patently unfair use of the pejorative "conspiracy theorist". A charge SHOULD be answered. The original reference is then better revealed for what it is: a tool to protect secrecy, just as your OP states.

As in your example using Bush, remaining silent out of the notion that one is otherwise helping to spread a lie actually serves to increase the lies "potency" since there is no opposition to meet it.

So then it is a good thing that we would see "favorable", derivative uses--rather than the original sources--at the top of the list. If I'm not mistaken it is also a sign that those views are the most widely disseminated on the internet.

Thanks for the clarification, LS.

[mod mom]

77. Here, Febble, we in Ohio over mis-allocation of machines in Franklin Co:

Testimony By William Anthony

Chairman
Franklin County Board of Elections

As I wrap-up my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two situations in Franklin County that have been taken up by the conspiracy-theorists and internet-bloggers alike as quote-unquote evidence of fraud and their reason why Franklin County’s and Ohio’s election results cannot be trusted. Regrettably, even Ohio’s Secretary of State and some of our fellow elections officials have joined their lot in wrongly blaming the statewide recount on these events in Franklin County. These two situations are, of course, the long-lines at voting locations allegedly due to the intentional misallocation of voting machines and the misreported, unofficial election night results from one of our county’s precincts.

-snip

http://cha.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=668

[Febble]

79. Thanks, yes

That one is on my list, and I am proud to number myself as one of the spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorist internet bloggers who tried to figure out just how many votes this had cost Kerry, and whether or not it might have been intentional:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/FranklinCountyReport_v2.pdf

Cheers

Lizzie

[shance]

43. Ironically the "conspiracy theory" accusation attemps to protect the conspirators themselves.

That's what it boils down to.

And it protects the crime by attempting to shame those exposing the truth and the facts.

[file83]

46. What amazes me is how some people NEED these concepts explained to them.

You're article, while plainly obvious in logic to me, seems to never occur to most people.

When people choose to use the term "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative, do they not realize, they are perpetuating a linguistic defense mechanism to criminals who are invested in discrediting ALL those who seek to uncover the truth?

Excellent post Landshark :thumbsup:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

48. NIcely worded LS...

A secret government is definitely not our benefactor.

[Vidar]

52. Well-argued, Land Shark.

[Kurovski]

53. Kick.(nt)

[Morgana LaFey]

59. Yes, that's one thing those attacks protect

The other major thing being protected is: The Official Story or Mythology.

I'd say it also protects against interested parties developing plans to take charge of the situation. IOW, the damn sorta broke on the public's anti-war position once it became a LITTLE bit publicly known that there was serious opposition to the war. The more people hear, the more anti-war sentiment there is. But remember all those times before the war actually started when the press just ignored all the hundreds of thousands and ultimately millions of people in the streets? What do you think the pre-war and much earlier post-war anti-war sentiment would've been if the press had done its job and let us KNOW there were so many people with so many doubts?

I know what I'm saying is self-evident, and yet it needs to be pointed out and made explicit, I think. It's not just SECRETS or the Official Story they're trying to protect, but their ability to continue doing what they don't want us to know about.

[L. Coyote]

60. My inbox in the last 24 hours includes these bits of wisdom...

These "talking points" arrived in just the last day:

"Maybe if you're too dumb to know which precinct to vote in you shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway! he he"

"Don't you think it's time you get over this conspiracy theory and get on with life. At least we got a few more years of fair taxes and free enterprise, the democrats get the white house, house and senate and we'll be on the fast track to socialism."

"I would be very careful if I were you. The current establishment
would be quick to say "Such men are dangerous". You may end up in
Guantanamo Bay or just vanish."

Selected from responses to:
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

[Morgana LaFey]

64. Hahah. Here's an apt quote for you

I was adding this to my links and here's the quote:

ML: "You're turning into a conspiracy-theory nutcase."
JJA: "What do you mean, turning into? What do you think counterintelligence is, anyway?"

Michael Ledeen: http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200512190833.asp

[yurbud]

71. kick