Ann,
In Bill Whittle’s essay “Magic” (which you can read on his website, Eject! Eject! Eject!, here:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000051.html ) he recounts a story which he says is typical of the world we live in:
“Robert Wayne Jernigan is now 28 years old. People who knew him said he was quiet, somewhat stand-offish. He was not widely liked in high school.
Four years ago, a witness reported seeing Jernigan enter a building in a remote suburb of Dallas with an axe. Four people were found dead at the scene, including a nine year old girl. No charges were filed. Less than two days later, Jernigan turned up again, this time at the scene of a suspicious fire in a day care center. Miraculously, no one was injured. But it was just a matter of time.
During the next several weeks, it is possible to place Jernigan at the scene of no less than thirteen suspicious fires. Eleven people died. Eyewitnesses were unshakable in their determination that Jernigan had been on the scene. And yet the police did nothing.
Jernigan had long been fascinated with fire. A search of his apartment revealed fireman-related magazines, posters and memorabilia. Despite the deaths of fifteen people, despite repeated eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence placing Jernigan at these fires, no criminal charges were ever filed against Robert Wayne Jernigan. He remains a free man to this day.”
How can that be, you ask? Well, what would you think if I told you Jernigan’s brother-in-law was the chief of police? Would *that* explain why the police refuse to bring Jernigan in for questioning? Or, could it have to do with the fact that Jernigan donated $5000 to the mayor’s re-election campaign?
How many more “coincidences” do we need? Why has there been no public outcry? There is no public outcry because Robert Jernigan is no serial arsonist; he is an ordinary fireman for the Dallas Fire Department. If you go back and re-read, you will see that every statement is true. Whittle calls this an example of “misdirection”, or “how to tell a lie by telling the truth”.
I can understand how, in the absence of certain key pieces of information, the past elections might, at first glance, look suspect, especially to a foreigner or to an American who depends solely on the main-stream media for his or her information. However, it has been amply demonstrated that there was NO fraud and that everything was indeed done according on the up and up. It seems pointless to me to continue to insist that those who don’t have all the facts are jumping to erroneous conclusions. Other than explaining the facts, as RL has so eloquently done, I really don’t see what else you would have us do. It also seems vastly illogical to claim that this somehow reflects poorly on our election process, rather than reflecting poorly on those who have set about to mislead and those who have allowed themselves to be misled.
