> Texas to Florida: White House-linked clandestine operation paid for "vote switching" software
8 December 2004, 01:08
What’s going on here?
This story is in it’s earliest stages, which puts a great amount of responsibility on the shoulders of those who wish to analyze disseminate it. Whatever is said now will influence how it’s evolution unfolds as more and more people learn about it. That is why I have set out to clarify what appears to be happening at this point in time. If we don’t have a clear understanding when we tell others about this story, then empty spaces and untied ends will leave ample opportunity for disinformation and spin to take hold further down the road.
1. The affidavit says Curtis is a former employee of Yang Enterprises while Curtis’s website says that he is an employee of Wong enterprises. This is most likely a result of Curtis’s original attempt not to reveal his identity or give any clues that could blow his cover. He claims he is concerned for his safety, so he probably wanted to wait until he had public attention before pinning a target to his head. If he is telling the truth, it is understandable to any of us that he would have every reason to fear being just another “unfortunate accident” or “crime victim”, in the obituary before anybody got to hear his story.
2. I heard that Yang Enterprise’s is just some sort of Restaurant business. I have no Idea how this mistake was made. I googled Yang Enterprise’s, and the first website that came up was this: http://www.yangenterprises.com/ Further more, Feeney (with lightning speed) has responded to the accusations leveled against him http://www.informedvolusian.com/2002/Issue_24/issue_24_article_1.htm and confirms that Curtis is, in fact a “disgruntled” (of course) former employee of Y.E.
3. The Feeney response reveals that Curtis is a crook. Doesn’t that mean he’s a liar who can’t be trusted? OK, this gets tricky. Assuming Feeney is not exaggerating to an excessive degree, Curtis does appear to have a shady history. However, we should not fall into the possible trap of automatically assuming that this discredits his whole story. In fact, it adds a certain amount of ironic credibility. Let’s say you are going to rob a bank in the dead of night, and you need someone crack the lock’s code. Fortunately, you have two friends who work at a lock manufacturing plant, and know all there is to know about this type of lock. One friend is an upstanding citizen who has a family, goes to church on Sundays, and has a lot of social contacts. The other friend is an anti-social outcast who has a shady history with the law. Which friend are you going to approach about the robbery? Yes, the shady outcast. Not only is he infinitely more likely to take you up on the offer for the right price, but you can rest assured that if he squeals, you can discredit him as a “disgruntled” criminal who can’t be trusted. I am not saying that Curtis’s shady history proves he is telling the truth, but I am more suspicious of a criminal organization (the Republican Party) with the means and motivation to carry out yet another crime, then I am of a man who’s history is shady, but who has no logical motivation to lie. The risk for Curtis is tremendous. If the Feeney or the Republican Party counter sued, and proved that he has lied, Curtis’s life would be destroyed.
4. What if Curtis is an agent working to feed disinformation to the left, in order to discredit them? This is worth considering, and it is good that we have this defense mechanism burned into us, but it does not make sense in this case. Feeney has already come out swinging with all of the “proof” needed to discredit Curtis, and anyone associated with him. If this were a trap, then Feeney has already sprung it before the left got anywhere near taking the bait. The fact that Feeney seems to have already had Curtis’s criminal and work history on hand to quickly quell his accusations makes me very suspicious (although, I readily admit to being generally very suspicious of any Republican). And, in his defensive response, nowhere is there any mention of a possible motive for Curtis to lie, other than that he is “disgruntled”. That would make sense if Curtis were attacking his former employer, but it doesn’t explain why he would bring his “disgruntled” crusade of vengeance to the Republican party.
In conclusion, this does seem to good (as far as “good” evidence) to be true, and I do feel a bit queasy about the possibility of the left once again being baited into a trap by Rove. But it would be equally to the Republican party’s advantage if, because of our past experiences, we reflexively ignored all of the best evidence against them. We would prove that we have been very well trained, indeed. Therefore, I weigh in on the side of responsible dissemination. This story should reach a much wider audience then it has, but we should retain rational reservations as to the validity of Curtis’s side, reporting further evidence as it develops.
What’s going on here?
This story is in it’s earliest stages, which puts a great amount of responsibility on the shoulders of those who wish to analyze disseminate it. Whatever is said now will influence how it’s evolution unfolds as more and more people learn about it. That is why I have set out to clarify what appears to be happening at this point in time. If we don’t have a clear understanding when we tell others about this story, then empty spaces and untied ends will leave ample opportunity for disinformation and spin to take hold further down the road.
1. The affidavit says Curtis is a former employee of Yang Enterprises while Curtis’s website says that he is an employee of Wong enterprises. This is most likely a result of Curtis’s original attempt not to reveal his identity or give any clues that could blow his cover. He claims he is concerned for his safety, so he probably wanted to wait until he had public attention before pinning a target to his head. If he is telling the truth, it is understandable to any of us that he would have every reason to fear being just another “unfortunate accident” or “crime victim”, in the obituary before anybody got to hear his story.
2. I heard that Yang Enterprise’s is just some sort of Restaurant business. I have no Idea how this mistake was made. I googled Yang Enterprise’s, and the first website that came up was this: http://www.yangenterprises.com/ Further more, Feeney (with lightning speed) has responded to the accusations leveled against him http://www.informedvolusian.com/2002/Issue_24/issue_24_article_1.htm and confirms that Curtis is, in fact a “disgruntled” (of course) former employee of Y.E.
3. The Feeney response reveals that Curtis is a crook. Doesn’t that mean he’s a liar who can’t be trusted? OK, this gets tricky. Assuming Feeney is not exaggerating to an excessive degree, Curtis does appear to have a shady history. However, we should not fall into the possible trap of automatically assuming that this discredits his whole story. In fact, it adds a certain amount of ironic credibility. Let’s say you are going to rob a bank in the dead of night, and you need someone crack the lock’s code. Fortunately, you have two friends who work at a lock manufacturing plant, and know all there is to know about this type of lock. One friend is an upstanding citizen who has a family, goes to church on Sundays, and has a lot of social contacts. The other friend is an anti-social outcast who has a shady history with the law. Which friend are you going to approach about the robbery? Yes, the shady outcast. Not only is he infinitely more likely to take you up on the offer for the right price, but you can rest assured that if he squeals, you can discredit him as a “disgruntled” criminal who can’t be trusted. I am not saying that Curtis’s shady history proves he is telling the truth, but I am more suspicious of a criminal organization (the Republican Party) with the means and motivation to carry out yet another crime, then I am of a man who’s history is shady, but who has no logical motivation to lie. The risk for Curtis is tremendous. If the Feeney or the Republican Party counter sued, and proved that he has lied, Curtis’s life would be destroyed.
4. What if Curtis is an agent working to feed disinformation to the left, in order to discredit them? This is worth considering, and it is good that we have this defense mechanism burned into us, but it does not make sense in this case. Feeney has already come out swinging with all of the “proof” needed to discredit Curtis, and anyone associated with him. If this were a trap, then Feeney has already sprung it before the left got anywhere near taking the bait. The fact that Feeney seems to have already had Curtis’s criminal and work history on hand to quickly quell his accusations makes me very suspicious (although, I readily admit to being generally very suspicious of any Republican). And, in his defensive response, nowhere is there any mention of a possible motive for Curtis to lie, other than that he is “disgruntled”. That would make sense if Curtis were attacking his former employer, but it doesn’t explain why he would bring his “disgruntled” crusade of vengeance to the Republican party.
In conclusion, this does seem to good (as far as “good” evidence) to be true, and I do feel a bit queasy about the possibility of the left once again being baited into a trap by Rove. But it would be equally to the Republican party’s advantage if, because of our past experiences, we reflexively ignored all of the best evidence against them. We would prove that we have been very well trained, indeed. Therefore, I weigh in on the side of responsible dissemination. This story should reach a much wider audience then it has, but we should retain rational reservations as to the validity of Curtis’s side, reporting further evidence as it develops.
A.C.