|Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.
Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!
may41970 wrote:But what about other forums? How did Brad end up hiring "Agent 99," Does he know her personally, or was she just some odd poster he came across? What kind of power does she wield over the posts and forum? Seems to be a lot. Why does Brad keep her there?
Sometimes it seems like a cop-out. A blogger comes across like some kind of "Knight of Truth," and then they have moderators that don't play fairly. The "Knights" have a perfect excuse...."I left my moderator in charge- I'm sorry she bla bla bla, but I've been busy and I don't know a thing about it."
Is Brad really a good guy, and he just naively hired Agent99? Or is he really aware that she sometimes behaves more like a gov't troll then a "progressive?" Is it possible she's employed by an enemy of Brad's cause?
How many sites have moderators that are enemies of the bloggers that hired them?
On the flip side, how many sites have bloggers that hide their duplicity by blaming the faults of their posts/forums on their corrupt moderators?
SPENCER MICHELS: Now, a few fledgling efforts are underway, including early steps by Soaries' agency to contact states for voting information the federal government has not previously collected. In addition, the commission will look into machine malfunctions and hold hearings. Until now, scientific studies of election procedures, including registration, have been rare. For the 2004 election, the non-profit, nonpartisan organization VoteWatch, began a nationwide study it hopes will answer some questions about the reliability of the voting process.
SPOKESMAN: How confident are you that your vote is going to be counted accurately?
SPOKESMAN: I am very confident.
SPENCER MICHELS: Steve Hertzberg, an aeronautical engineer and founder of VoteWatch, says that data must be gathered as a first step in solving potentially serious voting snafus.
STEVE HERTZBERG: No one has done this in a large, systematic way before, and really this is what's necessary in this country to understand how our election system works.
You go to the wayback machine and try to get to the comments, a message says the links are blocked by robots.txt by the website owner. You can delete anything you want to from this place, and no one would be aware of it.
I hijack your threads? You hijacked the electoral integrity movement.
And you say you are good at programming? This has to be the slowest loading website in history with no pop ups for new links.
Where are the AnonymousArmy posts that you deleted?
The Clint Curtis story doesn't add up, and you know it. That's the gorilla in this room I finally got to. That story flies in the face of your image of crossing t's and dotting i's. But even if there weren't questions about your "journalism," it's quite clear that you like to have a tinfoil comments section. You're a rightwinger Brad. People can see a bit from your early days and see all the crap rightwing sources you used to link to.
The Progressive Independent says they are on a collaborative basis with Velvet Revolution. That means you are now officially tied in with Mike Rivero and subsequently with neonazi fakes.
Carry on gatekeeper.
2 1/2 years ago, myself and a small group of folks formed a site known as whoaretheyreally.org. The purpose was to investigate the entire right wing...yea I know, too large a project for a group of 1000 people, let alone a small group. But it was our intention, and even though we've all gone our separate ways and the site no longer exists, several of the members continue to contribute in various ways to the battle against fascism in this nation.
Divide and conquer?
Socrates, Jeremy Lowe, or whatever your name is, Brad is well aware that both Bev and I have always had serious misgivings about the Clint Curtis story.
As for Robert Hertzberg, have you displayed any proof that he is related to Steven Hertzberg? Because that's where you are going with that line. I remember when Jeremy Lowe used to link all sorts of people together, simply because their last name was the same. Produce proof that Robert and Steven are related, otherwise what have you got?
Connell is the story here. Sorry you were left out of the loop...but then of course, if you had been in the loop, all sorts of radioactive mutations would have been posted at your chemtrails site.
Time for work. A real job.
Anthony Marro, editor of Newsday, 1997 wrote:
Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin, by Mark Singer, Alfred A. Knopf, 381 pp., $25.
In the October 7, 1996, issue of The New Yorker, in a piece that could have run under the magazine's "Department of Further Amplification" heading, Mark Singer, a staff writer since 1974, confessed that he had allowed himself to be conned.
Specifically, he acknowledged that a 22,000-word story that he had written shortly before the 1992 presidential election was based in large part on what he now considers a lie.
The essence of that 1992 piece was that a drug dealer named Brett Kimberlin had been deprived of his constitutional rights by federal prison officials. They had prevented him from holding a press conference on the eve of the 1988 presidential election to discuss his claims that, for a period of time in the '70s, he had sold small amounts of marijuana to an Indiana University law student, Dan Quayle.
True, Kimberlin was silenced by prison officials. But Singer no longer believes that he ever sold any drugs to Quayle. "I spent four years asking questions about Kimberlin," Singer says, "and along the way I never met a soul who could offer genuine corroboration of the fable that brought him to my attention in the first place."
By itself, the New Yorker piece was both important and necessary. The book-length version is another matter. Citizen K -- The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin adds little to the New Yorker piece, and has the unhappy smell of something that was completed mainly because the advance money already had been spent.
Spent not only by Singer but also by Kimberlin, since Singer followed up on his original article by entering into a partnership with Kimberlin in which the convict would cooperate in the writing of the book and would be given a chunk of the royalties for his efforts. Singer now says in looking back that "I think we both assumed we had the same story in mind -- an assumption that now strikes me as both conspiratorial and naive." The partnership also will likely strike many as ethically questionable and not very smart.
It's hard to sympathize much with Singer in any of this, both because his original piece can now be seen as politically motivated as well as badly done (at one point he even fantasized about being invited to the Clinton inaugural for helping torpedo Quayle), and because his book, at bottom, is also a bit of a con. One has to slog through 320 of its 381 pages before discovering that Singer now considers Kimberlin's claims of persecution to be largely a fraud, and some readers are likely to consider this a waste of their time.
What Singer calls the "deeply weird American journey" is merely the story of a minor criminal, convicted of drug dealing and a series of bombings, who claimed that because he had sold pot to Dan Quayle and was willing to talk about it he had been tossed into semi-solitary confinement and then denied a parole, thus becoming -- a term used by others but embraced by Singer in his 1992 article -- a "political prisoner."
(The eight bombings in question took place in an Indianapolis suburb within a period of six days. It's still not clear what the bombings were intended to accomplish. One theory held that they were intended to divert the attention of the tiny local police force from its investigation of a murder in which Kimberlin was thought by some to be involved, though he was never charged.)
Whether Kimberlin did what he said he did (sold pot to Dan Quayle) and didn't do what he insisted he didn't do (planted bombs) was of course central to the notion that he was a political prisoner, and Singer's 1992 piece was crafted to suggest strongly that Kimberlin was being honest about both.
Now, four years later, Singer has a different view. The pot-selling to Quayle, he now sees as a "fable," and Kimberlin's denial of any involvement in the bombings no longer rings true. Singer writes, "I spent months wandering through his disclaimers and prevarications before deciding, finally, that this was a case of homework, along with truth, being eaten by the dog, pissed on by the cat, and buried in the backyard."
It's tempting to say that the real value of the book is not in the story of Kimberlin, who now is free and was last seen brokering business deals in the Ukraine, but in the lessons that are here for other reporters and editors. But those lessons are pretty basic and obvious:
¥ Political bias is poison to journalism.
¥ Economic partnerships with sources can be both dangerous and corrupting, and are likely to end up as painful as any other bad marriage.
¥ The fact that the government treats someone badly doesn't mean that the person was a true innocent to begin with; Murray Kempton has noted often that in the case of one prominent New York heroin dealer, the government "framed him for something that he did."
¥ Information that can't be verified shouldn't be used.
Singer says that he had set out in 1992 to figure out and convey to readers just how it was that the fact that Kimberlin was a convict made him "not credible" to certain members of the press, while the simple fact that Quayle was who he was made him credible. But even if a person seems credible, most journalists have problems with information that's not verifiable. And early on it became clear that Kimberlin's wasn't. The person who supposedly introduced him to Quayle was conveniently dead, and Kimberlin could produce no one else who had ever been witness to a purchase or use of marijuana by Quayle.
And when Singer finally got around to doing the sort of reporting he should have done at the start, he found one Kimberlin story after another to have been exaggerated or twisted or made up completely. He also tracked down the polygraph expert who had been hired by Kimberlin's lawyer at his trial, and was told that -- despite Kimberlin's contention that he had passed with flying colors -- Kimberlin had "flunked the test every way in the world" on the things that most mattered.
Much of this could have been learned back in 1992 had Singer and his editors not been so anxious to get the story into print before the election -- and into what, not coincidentally, was Tina Brown's first issue, which Singer notes was "launched with unbridled hoopla." And if they had taken the time to back up and think calmly it might have occurred to them then -- as Singer now concedes -- that it simply wasn't very likely that someone who claimed to have been importing marijuana by the ton would have taken time out every few weeks to head off to a Burger Chef in Indianapolis to sell one-ounce bags of pot to a law student.
Singer got around all his lack of corroboration by focusing the 1992 piece on the gagging of Kimberlin by prison officials, and then citing the supposed drug sales to Quayle as the information they desperately wanted to gag. He insists to this day that this was the real and legitimate point of his story, but this seems disingenuous at best. Absent the Quayle angle, it's not likely that he would have spent several months of his time, a thick slab of Tina Brown's money, and 22,000 words worth of New Yorker paperstock to write about a short-term silencing of a quick-witted convict. Indeed, he now admits that he "ardently, inordinately" wanted the Democrats to win the election, and hoped his reporting would help defeat Quayle and George Bush.
He also had others holding his coat and prodding him along, including Garry Trudeau, a friend and classmate at Yale, who earlier had devoted three weeks' worth of Doonesbury strips to Kimberlin and his allegations about Quayle.
What the coat-holders and editors, and for that matter Kimberlin, now think of all this is not known. Singer's own "mea culpa" in the October 7 New Yorker may have set a record for both candor and length. It might have been wiser to have left it at that. Absent proof that he was turned into a political prisoner by his government, the story of Kimberlin is neither important nor even very interesting. The book itself provides little in the way of new and useful insights into the drug culture, the courts, or the penal system. The journalism issues -- the failures and pressures that caused one of the most prestigious magazines in America to buy Kimberlin's bridge -- are acknowledged but neither carefully nor fully explored. This is not likely to become a major motion picture. Yet the Knopf company ordered up a first printing of 50,000 copies, many of which seem certain to show up remaindered at a bookstore near you. Which is just one more thing about this whole matter that some will find deeply weird.
Mr. Marro wrote:(The eight bombings in question took place in an Indianapolis suburb within a period of six days. It's still not clear what the bombings were intended to accomplish. One theory held that they were intended to divert the attention of the tiny local police force from its investigation of a murder in which Kimberlin was thought by some to be involved, though he was never charged.)
Mr. Marro wrote:
The eight bombings in question took place in an Indianapolis suburb within a period of six days. It's still not clear what the bombings were intended to accomplish. One theory held that they were intended to divert the attention of the tiny local police force from its investigation of a murder in which Kimberlin was thought by some to be involved, though he was never charged.
This is the html version of the file emdashes.com/files/2006/12/mydarkplaces/9611207881.pdf
The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimherlin
By Mark Singer. Knopf.
381 pp. $25.
In October 1992, five weeks and a day before the election that would bring Bill Clinton, notorious non-inhaler of pot, to the presidency, The New Yorker published a story by Mark Singer about a prisoner named Brett Kimberlin. Kimberlin claimed he had sold marijuana to Dan Quayle on a number of occasions in the early seventies, and further claimed that in 1988, when he tried to speak to the press about his dealings with Quayle, he was prevented from doing so by officials in the Bureau of Prisons and was thereby deprived of his First and Fifth Amendment rights. On these occasions, either just after talking to a reporter or just before a planned meeting with reporters, he was placed in a holding cell where he was unable to contact the outside world. There was no ostensible reason for the confinements except to silence the prisoner, and it also seemed possible that the Justice Department had knowledge of these actions. It was even within the realm of possibility that the White House, in the form of James Baker, had exerted its influence.
Singer wrote an impassioned article on Kimberlin’s story, then devoted four years to delving deeper into the subject. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin is a fascinating unraveling of Kimberlin’s “life,” which turns out to be a complicated fabrication, fueled by his narcissistic ego and overactive imagination. Kimberlin’s bluster and utter self-confidence persuaded many others-from Kimberlin’s mother to the cartoonist Garry Trudeau to Erwin Griswold, former Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School, and, in part, to Singer himself-to play supporting roles in bolstering his fiction. Singer had found the ideal subject: Kimberlin was an immensely successful drug smuggler with juicy tales of his outlaw adventures; since his incarceration he’d become a jailhouse lawyer whose appetite for litigation was limitless; and,’besides claiming to be a political prisoner because of his confinements in 1988, he also claimed that he was in prison in‘the first place only because he was the victim of a sophisticated government frame-up.
Kimberlin was convicted in 1979 of a rash of bombings in Speedway, Indiana, that had resulted in the maiming of a man who subsequently committed suicide. Government investigators had found timers and traces of the explosive used in making the bombs in Kimberlin’s car. How they came to be searching the car is, as everything involving Kihberlin would turn out to be, a long story. He was illegally in possession of various items with government insignia, clothing patches, fake ID cards, copies of the presidential seal. These had been used in a multi-ton marijuana deal that had gone awry, one result of which was mqijuana raining down out of the south Texas sky as a scared pilot ditched his load, and another result of which-was the Feds tailing Kimberlin. His drug-dealing had long aggravated law enforcement agencies, and he was also a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers, who disapproved of the bizarre relationship Kimberlin had with her teenage grand-daughter. (Kimberlin’s female interests tend toward the adolescent.) The prosecution claimed Kimberlin had contracted for the killing, and that the bombings had been perpetrated to distract attention from the murder investigation.
To write Citizen K, Singer began pulling at the threads of all three stories (the Scyphers murder, the Speedway bombings and the Dan Quayle allegations), talking to investigators in Indiana-and witnesses from the trial, contacting Kimberlin’s associates in the drug trade, interviewing family members, friends, enemies. What he found out was by turns baffling, startling and dismaying.
The three cases reside on ever more elusive and unprovable notions, all put forth by Kimberlin himself. He reports being told of Scyphers’s murder at about 1 in the afternoon, yet she was not murdered till 3. He purports to have been meeting Quayle to sell him piddling ounce-size bags of grass, yet by his own admission, at the time these insignificant transactions were supposedly taking place he was already involved with multi-ton marijuana deals. It seems safe to assume that Kimberlin, a very savvy businessman, wouldn’t have bothered selling ounces to a young law student at the Burger Chef when his business had grown to the point of unloading bales of marijuana at secret airstrips. Singer initially imagines he can separate fabrication from fact, but eventually he is reduced to’simply trying to find something that even resembles fact, as he realizes that he has been “sucked whole and cast adrift inside Kimberlin’s narcissistic universe, a black-and-white realm of dreams and schemes and factoids, a galaxy far beyond the gravity-bound realities of politics and logic and justice.”
As the extent of Kimberlin’s duplicity dawns on him, Singer invokes Janet Malcolm’s The Journalist and the Murderer, and the comparison is apt. Singer refers to Malcolm’s “famously devastating thesis.. that journalism is a confidence game in which the reporter holds a stacked deck,” and he also cites Malcolm’s comparison of the journalist-subject relationship to a love affair: “Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns-when the article or book appears-his hard lesson.” Malcolm also wrote, though Singer doesn’t refer to it, that “the metaphor of the love affair applies to both sides of the journalist-subject equation, and the journalist is no less susceptible than the subject to its pleasures and excitements.”
Kristin Eliasberg, a writer, lives in New York City
First, let's end the secret society business. Then we'll cooperate with you, when your group is showing the public face and the accountability that is expected of the election reform community.
Joe, you, John Gideon, and selected others are a member of the private "Quixote Group," which has been operating for nearly three years now, and has attempted to wrest the diverse "swarm" of leaders in the U.S. into one set of individuals who are compliant with a private agenda. Those who aren't on the right page are marginalized, discredited, shunned, or blackballed.
Please provide a written description of the secret society called the Quixote Group -- the set of individuals who are funded by the Quixote Foundation who have been working on a specific agenda that they do not reveal.
Is it true that the Quixote Group private club will soon be going by the name "EVN" (The Electronic Voting Network)?
Is that a nonprofit entity?
Wbo are its directors?
What is its mission?
Please provide a description of the agenda and strategy of the private club called the Quixote Group / EVN of which you are a part.
Who are its members?
Why is it a secret?
Is it true that in order to get into this secret society one must be "nominated" by the other secret members, then voted on?
Is it true that one of the criteria for becoming nominated into the secret club is that the person will not bring in an opposing point of view?
Is there a nondisclosure agreement in relation to your activities?
Why can't the election reform community debate the merits of your master plan in public?
It appears to me that this entity is designed to put forth an agenda that is not properly vetted among the election reform community.
You come here and harvest our materials -- that's basically what you do. Well, they are available to the public.
But how do you explain the existence of a private club, with no one who can be held accountable, accessible only through invitations and a secret handshake, which is amassing financial support and cherry-picking leaders in election reform with no public accountability whatsoever?
The Quixote Foundation is invested in things like Halliburton, Eli Lilly, and -- yes -- Diebold. I assume that they are a plaintiff in the Diebold stockholder suits.
Is this part of the secret and private think tank set that the Washington Post recently reported on?
What role has the Quixote organization had in the swiftboat campaigns against those in election reform who represent a threat to the private agenda?
Am I correct in my understanding that this secret and never publicly vetted strategy is heavy on keeping technology in the mix, heavy on legislation like Rush Holt, relies on certain types of litigation (but only when it keeps technology in the solution), and works privately with a few candidates?
That any activist organization or individual which favors hand counted paper ballots is a target?
That the Quixote organization was involved in attempting to sabotage the original Votergate film, preventing it from ever coming out unless it capitulated to the Quixote "solutions"?
How much interaction has your group had with the vendor lobbying group, the ITAA?
Is it true that a member of your group obtained and leaked the information Hursti II report without authorization, BEFORE we released it, to all the members of the Quixote List?
Please provide any and all connections, communications, strategy, planning, or support of David Allen, Roxanne Jekot, or Democratic Underground.
Please describe whether Jim Adler or Votehere has ever played any role in the Quixote endeavors.
Provide the accountability of this group at this time, including its governance, its solution agenda, its financials and its key members.
You have not been forthcoming with us. You have never described your role in the Quixote organization, or what it is, or what it is using our materials for.
We are not interested in assisting any secret society, private club, or secret agenda, particularly when we have learned that it has been involved in attempts to control and manipulate the message, and/or "swiftboat" campaigns.
Is it true that there are two levels of planning and information sharing -- one which invited members know about and another at a more senior level, which most participants of the Quixote list are not aware of?
Is Quixote involved in blackballing actions to prevent the hand counted paper ballots people from being invited to or participating in national conferences?
I'm sure some of what's being said about the secret Quixote Group think tank is misinformation. It's hard to know when the whole thing relies on a secret handshake, though, isn't it?
Now is a good time to go public or expect more intensive examination of the agenda and people behind this group.
Where can you read up on this? As John Gideon has informed us, "You can't."
As he informed us, "You won't find it in Google." I now have multiple sources on the Quixote Group and the Quixote Foundation. It may be trying to do something it believes is virtuous, but there are two components of the activities that should automatically disqualify it from leadership in the election reform movement:
1) Secret society approach. We need to know the governance and financials and other public disclosure information about the group. Just saying "I don't know" and "It's an e-mail list" is not sufficient. The 990 for the Quixote Foundation clearly shows hundreds of thousands of dollars funneling into a project involving election reform. Quixote flies selected individuals to private summits (the more public part of the agenda).
It's not sufficient to say, when people ask about the agenda and who's involved, "You can't find out" and "I don't know."
2) The swiftboating actions for those who don't capitulate to the agenda. These are carried out through proxies, one step removed, but recent actions have shown that the agenda is being handled, in part, through sabotage and infiltration.
Start by looking at the Quixote Foundation 990 and then make inquiries into the 2005 form as well.
Having been one of their targets, I'm not eager to go this alone, but I have enough solid information now that I believe the organization behind this network needs to be fully vetted.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests