Friday, September 08, 2006

Some notes on the fly

Last Friday I posted a very quick report on the Humboldt Supes' meeting I had just attended. I then promptly left town and haven't been able to post since. Local coverage of that same meeting appeared in the Eureka Reporter, Eureka Times-Standard, and Arcata Eye.

Last night I attended the monthly meeting of the citizens' Election Advisory Committee. Hart InterCivic regional sales manager James R. Suver was there to answer questions about and demo the eSlate. Rebecca S. Bender reports fairly here in today's Eureka Reporter.

Since I'm about to split again I want to drop a string of other quick announcements I might otherwise prefer to expand on.

Next Wednesday, 9/13, I will be speaking to the Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County in Santa Rosa, CA. Check out their press release.

I'll have to make a separate post about this, hopefully on Sunday, but I recently heard from Shauna Wilson, chairperson of the Human Relations Commission in Palo Alto. She shared an updated version of the Voter Confidence Resolution that has again been adopted by the HRC. She also included a letter submitted to the Palo Alto City Council acknowledging the changes made per Council's request. The agenda has not yet been published to confirm, but Shauna expects the Palo Alto City Council will again consider adopting the VCR on 9/18.

The same judicial cowardice displayed in San Diego recently, where the CA-50 lawsuit was dismissed, has now been seen in Nevada. There are concerns about Texas being next and the likelihood that the Constitution is now basically a weapon being used against us.

Has anybody ever told you that you look like a Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW! ?

Not there yet? Would you say the same if you lived under the rule of someone literally claiming the power of a king?


Posted by Dave Berman - 11:53 AM | Permalink
Comments (1 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Read or Post a Comment

I'm glad to see Rebecca Bender's doing good reporting even under her new bosses.

Doesn't anybody else see a major problem with the whole idea of having to transcribe votes onto machine-readable ballots? Technically I suppose it counts as private because the disabled voter's name is not linked to the ballot record. In real life, there are so few voters who will use the eSlate that it will be kind of obvious that Voter X with the red cane or whatever is the one who cast that ballot.

I don't recall what safeguards there are against honest transcription mistakes, let alone willful changing of someone's votes.

Wish I'd been there for the demo, but I had an appointment that ran until 7:30.

Posted by Blogger Kathryn @ Sep 8, 2006, 1:45:00 PM
Permalink to comment | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
<< Home
As shown on
Dave's new blog,
Manifest Positivity

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous blogs, GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

— Brad Friedman, Creator/Editor,; Co-Founder,

"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It’s also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can’t repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn’t exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

— Paul Lehto, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA

"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day, even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods

"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His Voter Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California

"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media

"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA

"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."

— B Robert Franza MD, author of We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for every American