There's a brick wall at the back of the theatre

[seemslikeadream]

Mock the Vote

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre." - Frank Zappa


It would be quaint in hindsight, if the naiveté weren't so heartbreaking: eminem's rebel army clad in black hoodies, moshing through the streets, charging up the steps and straight through the doors of the...polling station?

Oh yeah, about that. Funny thing....

If it's true that this election was stolen, then it was the third straight theft. It was a relatively crude operation in 2000; 2002 was the first occasion for unaudited ballots to be counted by unregulated Republican machines, and bizarre returns saw Republican candidates win surprising victories. If 2004 was stolen (and let's get this straight: it's not a "conspiracy theory," it's a working hypothesis), then there's no comfort in presuming the theft an anomaly. This isn't better luck next time. The machinery with their backdoors are in place, and the means, motive and opportunity to steal will persist. Rather than a one-off, or three, this is the future of American electoral politics: a technological upgrade of Mexico's of the last century, with the GOP essaying the role of the Institutional Revolutionary Party.

The normalization of fraudulent elections - even elections which simply cannot be verified due to faith-based proprietary software - means American democracy is now a sham. Americans of good conscience who see Zappa's brick wall, and who hope to strip the Right of its fraudulant mandate, need to stop lending it the cover of their engagement in the hoax. Participating in a fraud provides it with de facto legitimacy, while what the fraud really deserves is delegitimizing.

If Americans fail to win back the integrity of their vote, then Americans need to stop voting.

This isn't a call to opt out. A boycot of electoral piracy is not the same as encouraging voter apathy. Rather, it's taking the compromise of one's vote so gravely that it is withheld in protest.

What would become of the Democratic Party if a good number of Democrats withheld their votes? Certain loss, undoubtedly. But what will become of the party if Republican machinery counts its vote in perpetuity? Of course, if the trojan virus of the DLC wins the day, and the party tacks further right, it will cease to matter whether the vote is rigged or not. Even East Bloc states boasted minority parties, which gave their constitutional assemblies the semblance of plurality. Left unchecked, this is the fate of the Democratic Party.

True despots rarely allow themselves to be voted out of office. But in the end, every despotic regime has only as much legitimacy as its citizens are prepared to confer upon it. When the people recognize the regime's claims as illegitimate, suddenly its hold on power melts away. People have taken back their countries in relative peace. And just like fascism, it too, can happen here.

There is no more important fight for the Democrats than for a verifiable vote. Republicans have their own answer for voting "irregularities": an end to exit polls. If the status quo, or worse, is in place next election, then Democrats ought to make their own democracy elsewhere.

Get out the vote? Fuck that shit. Get out your pots and pans, like the people of Belgrade, and bang them loud and long until America's Milosevic receives the message.

from Minstrel Boy blog
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/11/mock-vote.html





"It does not require many words to speak the truth" Chief Joseph

Native American fund may be reformed
By Michael Kan and Iris Perez, Daily Staff Reporters
November 10, 2004

More than a century in the making, the largest legal case in Native American history may finally come to a close within the next year.

Although Cobell v. Norton was not filed until 1996, its origins lie in the United States government’s supervision of Indian trust funds dating back to 1887. In that year, the government established the trust to manage Native American land, but it now admits to mismanaging it from its outset by underselling the land and failing to retain documents proving the payments.
..
Brought on by government attempts in the 1880s to remove Native peoples from their land, the trust fund was created to facilitate the dividing of their territory. Under the trust fund, the government would manage the land of the Native Americans and prospective buyers would lease it. The money from the lease would then go back to the Native American owners. Clearly, this has not been the case, Harper said.
...
One huge hurdle still remains though, Harper said.

While Harper expects litigation to finally end around December of this year, the case also has political implications that could reverberate on a national level.

Harper said the result of the ruling would force people using Native American land to compensate for what could possibly amount to at least a total of $10 billion. Yet much of the Native American land has been leased by oil, natural gas and timber companies — for whom the added payments on leases would be a black eye.
...
“I can now imagine what’s pretty much going on in Interior, in which they are not willing to allocate any resources to the Native Americans. … It’s disgustingly short-sighted,” she said.

“I feel this is an important case,” Rackham student Trond Jacksen said. “It brings into question, what kind of people do we want to be? Do we want to be a people of a country that keeps its word, or do we want to be a people of a country that breaks its word?”

more
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/10/419200599c80d

WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE DO WE WANT TO BE

WHEN WILL WE FORCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP ITS WORD

SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING AN AWFULLY LONG TIME



NO STOLEN ELECTIONS!

http://www.nov3.us/

[Rambis]

1. One thing I find funny about all this...

Is that people in America think this is a democracy at all. Examples-
You are required by law to have insurance for your car. If somebody hits you and they don't have it your are in trouble legally and your insurance goes up or if you have to many claims you can be dropped all together. I have had one claim in 20 years because somebody hit my car while it was parked in front of my house and their insurance paid for it. I don't get any money back when I don't have a claim but I am required by law to pay for it. The reason our rates go up is these bozos invest our premiums and lose it then they have to soak us for more.

Mandatory social security-
The problem is the assclowns in Washington raid the fund to pay for X-Y or Z. If they would have just left all the money in place that people paid in then it would never be in trouble and never go bankrupt.


Do we want to talk "free market" it doesn't exist. You can't buy drugs from Canada because the government says it is illegal. You can't bargain for the lowest price because it is illegal to do so. Do we want to start talking subsidies for huge corps, farmers and steel? LOL!