Friday, November 19, 2004

Questions about U.S. election

I can't help but wonder three things:

1) Why is no one questioning voting integrity and accuracy in the recent U.S. election?

2) Is confusion and apathy so widespread among people, both in the U.S. and worldwide?

3) Are there any independent media outlets left in the world?

Further questions to consider:

a) What kind of voting process requires one to disclose one's ethnicity and religion, among other things?

- How is this information gathered?

- Aren't people concerned about accuracy, methodology, and most of all, anonymity?

b) Has this kind of 'demographic' information ever been used or broadcasted in past elections?

c) Don't people realize electronic polls are made by large corporations who of course have vested interests (and often make sizable campaign donations)?

*PLEASE* read this wise article: 'To European Friends: Explaining the 2004 Election Disaster.'

Wake up, people. The whole world has been waiting to see the future direction of America and the world, based upon whom U.S. citizens elect for president. To subsequently track voting trends based on biological data is questionable and disturbing. (Key statistics I saw on TV focused on race, religion, gender.)

This kind of analysis divides people and creates a blame-game. Sounds like subtle scapegoating to me. This can also create perceptions of certain groups as being more progressive, sane, or saintly than others.

What we who live in supposedly free, democratic countries need is holistic change - NOT more pigeonholing.

Other things that stand out about the recent U.S. election:

People around the world know George W. Bush and the U.S. Republicans did not win by popular majority in the 2000 election. Suspicious tactics were used to help advance his cause in Florida - the deciding state. Bush's brother John 'Jeb' Bush is governor of Florida, and is known to have created unnecessary ballot hitches.

'Even the US Supreme Court, which awarded the presidency to George W. Bush, acknowledges [voters' rights were] violated [under] the Constitution,' reports The Nation in 'Another Florida Fiasco.' Examples: 'ATM-style voting machines couldn't be activated'; only Republican votes scanned properly in one county; hundreds of voters were turned away, and so on. A good percentage of people blocked from voting were African-Americans.

CBC News similarly points out:

[The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today] report suggests 'subtle, cynical and creative tactics' to keep minorities – especially African-Americans – from voting have occurred in every election since the [Voting Rights Act] law was passed [in 1964].

'CBC News Indepth: US Election 2004', October 22, 2004.

All of this was accomplished when Bush hadn't even been elected president yet. Who's to say there wasn't ballot-fixing nation-wide now that Bush has been in power for four years, during which time, he's managed to launch two major [and profitable] wars and solidify the right-wing?

Is this too big for people to imagine? Considering the Florida case, there should be real doubts in people's minds about the accuracy of these recent U.S. election results.

Greg Palast, 'contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight,' and talks about spoiled votes in 'Kerry Won' (November 4, 2004).

Without doing any research, I posted thoughts about internet voting here. Admittedly, my knowledge of U.S. elections is pretty sparse. Good thing recent searches confirm that my concerns about electronic voting are both valid and real.

To be clear, I'm not for or against anybody. I'm simply pro-democracy, pro-accountability, pro-integrity, and pro-freedom. So are a lot of other folks, yet somehow we have almost no say in government functioning or decisions. (Do I sound ridiculously naive here?)

Found this highly readable article, containing important information about manipulating ballots: 'Did Bush fix the elections?'

I can't resist quoting this:

The appearance of Osama bin Laden bang on cue was suspicious, to say the least.... Did Bush fix it?

I said the exact same thing about a rape and beating case of a woman coming out of (or walking near?) a gay bar in Toronto on the eve of Canada's federal election (June 30, 2004).

Sent a bunch of emails to people questioning U.S.-Canada relations, media, democracy, etc, and highlighted the lack of investigative journalism in this particular rape case. I suggested this event could have been either staged or deliberately perpetrated to sway both women and queer voters.

I just found this Globe and Mail article link about that incident. Strangely, the author's name is 'GAY ABBATE'.

What's also odd is that one cannot find any direct links to this news story via a Google search. Yet this was *Big News* on TV, the evening before the federal election.

I had similar concerns about the totally lopsided media coverage between the respective murders of Holly Jones and Cecilia Zhang. The lack of news in Holly Jones' case is unusual. And, sure enough, this disparity became a selling point for the New Conservatives appealing to voters outside of urban centres.

And WHY has there been so little news coverage about Holly Jones supposed murderer? Do you even remember his name?

Having reflected on my surveillance and harassment a great deal, I sense a larger agenda is at stake.

(Thoughts on Canada's federal election - June 2004.)

No comments: