Friday, January 04, 2008

From Around The World, Inherent Uncertainty Comes Home To Roost

In his Town Dandy column this week, North Coast Journal editor Hank Sims does an excellent job of tracing the origin of a widely held misconception related to the now famous confrontation a few months ago between Rob Arkley, Eureka's wealthiest businessman, and Larry Glass, a member of the Eureka City Council. The matter has been referred to the state Attorney General. Meanwhile, Glass has taken umbrage at Sims' suggestion that at some point Glass "changed his mind about pressing charges." Glass alleges the confusion stems from erroneous reporting in the Eureka Times-Standard. Sims writes:

It seemed to me that Glass' objection called for a bit of research. I'm certain that I'm not the only one who remembered that Glass seemed to originally signal that he was inclined to let the whole Arkley matter fade from memory as quickly as possible, and that he then seemed to have changed his mind. Was that understanding in error? Does it matter? I'm rather inclined to think it doesn't matter: People should be allowed to change their minds without penalty. But it mattered to Glass, and I stood accused of perpetuating a myth. So I figured I owed it to everyone to figure out the truth of the matter.

I was unsuccessful. But here's what I found.
I say bully for Sims for taking this on. I leave it you, WDNC readers, to go back and follow Sims' trail. Of course it comes as no surprise that Sims' investigation led to the following conclusion:
So if I had to guess, I'd guess that this small little bit of uncertainty will join all the other, larger, stranger bits of uncertainty attached to that night that Rob Arkley got aggro on Larry Glass, shoving him or not shoving him, threatening to destroy him (or not), all in front of a roomful of society people who carefully and fastidiously failed to witness any of it.
Three sides to every story, right? It amuses me that Sims goes to such great length, doing really responsible journalism, only to reach a conclusion often described here at WDNC as inherent uncertainty. I have discussed this subject with Sims in the past, and he was either unwilling, unable, or incapable of acknowledging that unverifiable elections guarantee inconclusive outcomes, or inherent uncertainty. We see this elsewhere too, such as the "official story" of 9/11, which contains contradictions and scientific impossibilities; and more recently with varied explanations for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Now it turns out that from beyond the grave, Bhutto has opened a whole new case file in the realm of inherent uncertainty. Interviewed by Sir David Frost less than two months prior to her slaying, Bhutto claims that Osama bin Laden was murdered. Frost does not pick up on this comment during the interview though in the past ten days or so this has been widely discussed.

Len Hart, blogging as the Existential Cowboy, has excavated some gems from the memory hole, citing first a Fox News story from 12/26/01 and then a New York Times column from 7/11/02, both reporting the death of bin Laden. Now of course both of these so-called news sources have subsequently published articles about new video or audio tapes supposedly from bin Laden. And certainly no corporate media have called the bluff of the "war on terror."

No, instead we have the intentional creation and perpetuation of inherent uncertainty. It serves the power structure to keep the masses divided. Wedge issues are just the most superficial and obvious ways. More insidious and apparently not as easy to recognize is the rift in the perception of reality created by inherent uncertainty. See Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution for more on this.

Americans have been turned against each other. I have previously described the Manchurian Nation, the support structure for society that has been indoctrinated to demonize dissent and conflate activism with terrorism. At OpEdNews.comtoday, Kathryn Smith raises awareness of one such example, a declassified FBI memo obtained by the ACLU. Under the heading "International Terrorism Matters," the Pittsburgh Division Joint Terrorism Task Force reports on groups planning peaceful protests. Of course this should surprise no one either, assuming you've familiarized yourself with the typical signs of fascism taking over your country.

* * *

A couple of other quick notes...following up on the series of posts I did on the DOJ case compelling NY state to comply with HAVA:

Jan 4, 7:42 PM EST

NY Sets Voting-Machine Upgrade Schedule

Associated Press Writer

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- The New York Board of Elections on Friday gave a federal judge a timetable under which it plans to replace all of the state's lever-action voting machines by September 2009.


The Help America Vote Act requires New York to replace the mechanical pull-lever machines that were introduced in the state more than a century ago with high-tech machines. It also requires the state to provide at least one machine accessible to the disabled at each polling place.

State election officials have said part of the problem is that state requirements for voting machines are stricter than federal ones.

The plan submitted Friday doesn't say what kind of machines New York would use to comply with HAVA, but [election board spokesman, Lee] Daghlian said none of the touch-screen machines currently on the market meet state standards.

(similar AP story in Newsday)
Also, today, Editor and Publisher (by way of BradBlog) gives a head's up for a "massive" article in this Sunday's New York Times about the problems with electronic voting. Put in perspective, this is not going to be a mea culpa for the Times being years behind the facts, and will instead be yet another way to (justifiably) increase the already (understandably) enormous doubts about election results. In other words, the Times is about to contribute greatly to creating more inherent uncertainty.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 10:57 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
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