20
From a reader…
>—– Original Message —–
From: “phil h”
>To: MCM
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:09 AM
>Subject: Election Fraud
>
>>I think the Democrats should use their strength in the polls to
>>begin a full-scale campaign immediately stating that when they take
>>control of the House or Senate or both they will make a top
>>priority of vigorously initiating investigations of election fraud
>>from the year 2000 elections till the 2006 elections, and that to
>>gain immunity from prosecution, anyone that has participated in
>>election fraud or is planning to participate should come forward
>>now or risk being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even
>>if it the investigations leads to the highest offices of government.
>>
>>Not only will this bring Republican election fraud to the
>>forefront, it might make some think twice before involving
>>themselves in election fraud in 2006.
>>
>>Although, I think the Democrats could win elections easily if they
>>just campaigned with stating, “What would Republicans say if George
>>Bush was a Democrat”. “What would they say about his Iraq war with
>>no exit strategy”? What would they say about his running up the
>>national debt”. “Losing New Orleans”. “911″. and so on and so on…
>>
>>Best regards, Phil H.
In the wake of the US ‘war on terror’, nonviolent campaigners are increasingly being caught up in a ‘Green Scare’ that defines them as ‘terrorists’
——————————————————————–—-In the US today, ‘terrorism’ has replaced ‘communism’ as the catchphrase for all that is evil in the world. Where the ‘Red Scare’ once saw all left-wingers stigmatised as ‘communists’, it is environmentalists and animal rights activists who are now being targeted as ‘eco-terrorists’ by the media, business interests and politicians – including the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. Building on post-9/11 fears and legislation, a new ‘Green Scare’ has escalated in recent months with a sudden rise in the number of environmentalists arrested and a dramatic lengthening of the potential sentences they face. Activists who have never physically harmed anyone now risk being arrested and charged with crimes that carry life sentences – or, as in one case, a charge sheet that could result in a 300-year prison sentence.
On 7 December 2005, the FBI began ‘Operation Backfire’, a multi-state sweep of environmental and animal rights activists. Fifteen people have since been indicted by Grand Jury on 65 charges in connection with Earth Liberation actions between 1996 and 2001. The arrests sent shockwaves across the activist community in the US, with the constant threat of new arrests and legislation resulting in the spread of fear and caution.
Many of those arrested recently insist on their innocence, and the FBI evidence against them is weak. A confession by a self-proclaimed arsonist and heroin addict provided the initial basis for the arrests. The accused were then encouraged to give evidence against each other, in return for the promise of reduced sentences. But confessions under duress are not always the most reliable sources of information.
My name is Tom Blackburn. I am the co-writer of “Orwell Rolls in His Grave.” We haven’t met, but I’ve long admired your work, especially in “Orwell”.
I’m attaching something you might find interesting. In reading your “Open Letter to Joan Walsh,” I noticed that you seem to think that Farhad Manjoo was reasonable before the 2004 election but that after it was stolen he went galloping “off into the journalistic herd as it went thundering rightward” and that Salon’s editorial policy therefore followed suit (“such was the consensus that Manjoo, too, suddenly embraced, thereby bringing Salon fully into line with all the corporate media.”)
I believe the e-mails I’ve attached will convince you otherwise. It’s not the kind of evidence that would hold up in court, but it was certainly enough to convince me.
According to what I have read, Manjoo had been covering possible election fraud since November of 2002. It was during that initial month that I wrote to him about Florida and the 2000 election. I had been doing research for “Orwell” and I apparently read his first piece on the possibility of election fraud. He had presented (as I remember) some convincing arguments that there was fraud but then surprisingly concluded that it was clear that Bush had won Florida and Gore had lost. I had seen this many times before. A writer will walk the argument that Gore may have won Florida right up to the precipice, where they push Gore over the edge and declare Bush the indisputable winner.
I thought Manjoo may be able to shed some light on the editorial policy that I assumed must be behind these reversals. I wrote him a brief e-mail trying to sound him out on how he came to his conclusion. He apparently thought all “liberals” regarded the New York Times as their God. He sent me a copy of the Times story on the NORC report with the note: “Given this report, how can you call me a liar?”
So, I pressed him further in a second e-mail, sent him the NORC data and found in his response that I had uncovered a right-wing nut.
I am still almost as stunned now, when I read his response, as I was when I received it— November 14, 2002.
His second point, that I had a “curious forest-for-the-trees failing” is exactly 180 degrees off the mark. The reason I wrote the e-mails was to find out how a writer who had identified so many of the trees couldn’t admit to the existence of the forest.
I only hope that when these right-wing nuts finally do find the forest, they will find it full of
hungry squirrels.
Best Regards,
Tom Blackburn
—–Original Message—–
From: Tom Blackburn
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:02 AM
To: Farhad Manjoo
Subject: Voting into the void
Dear Mr. Manjoo,
I am writing to alert you to something that was factually inaccurate in your article. Your comment about the NORC data showing that Bush had probably won is absolutely false. The NORC data showed that Al Gore won under every scenario except one–where the overvotes were not counted. In other words, in every scenario where all the votes were counted, Al Gore won. Everyone knows this. Could you please explain to your readers why you chose to lie about this? I’m assuming that, like everyone who reads the internet, you knew this was a lie. If you didn’t know, I expect to see a retraction in the next Salon edition.
——– Original Message ——– Here’s how the New York Times, one of the sponsors of the study, reported the story a year ago. Given this report, how can you call me a liar? “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court’s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.” In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium’s final tabulations. “ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Blackburn
Subject: RE: Voting into the void
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:17:54 -0800
From: Farhad Manjoo
Reply-To:
To: Tom Blackburn
had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
begin
ning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
one candidate.