Updating: Much is happening

Egads. Every time "real life" (read: earning $$$) pulls me away from the web, major events happen.

The House Judiciary Committee. Those of you with long memories may recall the opening day of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (I just dated myself, didn't I?) The Warren Commission critics were allowed free reign to state their case, and media commentators enthused that the single-bullet theory had been demolished. (The right did not control so much of the media in that era.) After that first day, of course, the fix was in.

Something similar may be occurring now.

Warren Mitofsky, who ran the exit polls that arched many a skeptical eyebrow, will not appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. Worse, he will not make his raw data available. His claim: Said data is "proprietary information."

Keep in mind, as a background to all this, that in the next election, Mitofsky has already agreed to keep his numbers secret until after the polls have been "conformed" to agree with the incoming actuals. Which means that our one method of verifying the vote -- exit polls -- will evaporate.

The Committee can issue a subpoena for the data. If that happens, don't be surprised to see one of two scenarios:

1. The numbers will increase suspicion that Kerry should have won.

2. Fake numbers will buttress the emergent RNC party line that the exit polls were skewed to favor Kerry.

If you see a Republican politico -- the sort of Republican who normally never tests the limits of his tether -- call for a subpoena, you may justly conclude that scenario number 2 looms.

Clinton Curtis: We can easily counter some attempts to debunk his claims. He never asserted that he had concocted the mechanism by which the 2004 vote was hacked; his testimony goes to intent. Those of you crying "disinformation" should ask yourselves what Rovian propaganda purpose could possibly be served by a tale which portrays Republicans as incorrigible vote-thieves.

I've heard at least one debunker mutter the dreaded words "tin foil hat" in reference to the apparent poisoning of Curtis' dog. I don't see why anyone would scoff at either his anger or his suspicions. Issues of much lesser import have resulted in murdered pets, ruined cars, threatening phone calls, and other bits of nastiness. If you've lived in the rough neighborhoods I've lived in, you may know about this sort of thing first-hand.

Regarding Bev Harris' arguments, the best response can be found, of course, on Brad FrIEdman's site. The gist:

Curtis never claimed that his program was placed into any voting machine, merely that a Republican interest requested such a program, and that he cobbled together a quick prototype. Thus, all technical quibbles (such as those found here; be sure to scan down to response 52) are valueless.

The argument over whether the vote-rigging program would withstand a close examination of the source code has (in my eyes) devolved into a matter of opinion and quibbling definitions, and is therefore unworthy of further comment.

The previous two points cover Harris' assertions about the likelihood of a VBA script, as opposed to the sort of software Curtis claims to have written. Curtis' chosen methodology has no importance; what matters is the fact that he was asked to take on such a task.

By way of illustration: Suppose that at some point in the campaign, Drudge published a photo of a young John Kerry in bed with Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme. Suppose further that I confessed that the RNC offered to pay me to create just such an image, and that I turned them down. Any argument over the mechanics of fakery ("Was it made using Photoshop? PhotoImpact? An old-fashioned airbrush?") would constitute little more than a nonsensical diversion. The significant point is the intent to deceive.

Madsen. After mulling over the controversy surrounding this man's writings, I've realized that many problems concern categorization. Madsen's primary focus has never been on allegations of vote fraud. Dirty money and covert skullduggery capture his attention; vote fraud is but a part of that picture. He makes this point clear in this letter to the Democratic Underground, where he lists articles addressing this topic pre-dating the ascendance of W.

The few, foolish voices who have consider Madsen's pieces "disinformation" usually have no real interest in BCCI, the Japanese wartime booty (which I consider a key factor of our current crisis), the funding of terrorism and similar issues. I'm not saying that Madsen has made no mistakes -- he has. And no-one feels comfortable when large assertions trace back to unnamed sources. Even so, his critics should understand that he addresses issues that go rather beyond the "small" matter of one dubious election.

More to come tonight, I hope...