Curious Numbers in South Carolina's Election

After finishing the last post on the South Carolina primary elections, I kept poking around.  What I found first was election results from the 2008 Democratic primary in South Carolina and they were so completely bizarre I couldn't believe them. And with good reason, they were totally wrong. All the Obama results were 0% with just a few votes per county even when there were thousands of African-American voters. I mention this to remind people to think when they see things on the internet. When it's too strange to be true it probably isn't.  Fortunately there was a link to the same results in a different format. They seemed much more sensible - Obama won with 55% of the vote. But let's try thinking again. In 2008, Obama got 55% of the Democratic primary vote in South Carolina.

In 2010, Al Greene took the Democratic primary with 59% of the vote!  According to Charleston South Carolina's Post and Courier these are the election results for last week's Democratic primary election for the US Senate:

U.S. Senate - Dem Primary

June 09, 2010 - 04:54AM ET

South Carolina - 2109 of 2109 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Name Party Votes Vote % Greene , Alvin Dem 99,970 59% Rawl , Vic Dem 69,572 41%

Let's think about this for a bit.  First, a small discrepency:

In 2008 the Post and Courier says there were 2259 precincts and in 2010 there are only 2109 precincts.  There's probably a good explanation, but we do need to find out what it is.

Now, let's think about the 2008 primary election.  The first really serious female presidential candidate and the first serious black presidential candidate were both running and getting tons of attention.  Everyone was worked up about this and there was lots of national attention on the primary elections that day.  Plus, John Edwards from neighboring North Carolina was on the ticket.

So an extremely articulate black candidate with lots and lots of publicity running against two white candidates, Obama,  got 55% of the vote in 2008.

In 2010,  an inarticulate black candidate with no publicity and no funding running against one white candidate with high name recognition and good funding got 59% of the vote.  Something is bizarre here.

You can say, "But far fewer voters actually turned up to vote, only about 1/3."  But, presumably, the voters who turned out this time around would be more likely to be party regulars who pay more attention to the elections and are better informed.  They would have looked at the two candidates and seen that the one was totally off the wall.  The other candidate was white - like 62% of South Carolinians (though the percent of white Democrats is probably lower, it still appears to be over 50%.)  I know almost nothing about North Carolina politics, but nothing I've read yesterday and today suggests that Vic Rawl had high negatives.

When something doesn't look right, we should look a little harder.  Sometimes we can explain the problem.  Like the other day while running, I sensed the color of the trees was funny.  I looked up and one of the birches had been broken near the top and it was hanging down.  Oddity explained.  Now, these numbers in South Carolina, plus Greene's inability to answer questions about things like where he got the money to run and reports of problems with the computers all raise serious questions.  These were paperless touch screen computers so voters don't have, and the voting machines don't produce, any independent hard copy of the votes.  There are serious questions about electronic voting and it's quite possible that South Carolina could be the first example of voting machine rigging on a large scale.

Or, it could turn out to be as simple as voters voting for the candidate with the same name as a famous gospel and soul singer.  

[Update 3:30pm June 16:  This Huffington Post blogger found a lady who said she voted for Al Greene because his name sounded like the singer.  The blogger writes as though this were further proof of South Carolina's problems, we all know that name recognition is a major goal in  politics.  After all, Californians elected a governor because his name was the same as a movie star.  What's the difference?]

Democrats elect Republican First Vietnamese-American Congressman and Say No to Corruption

Despite predictions to the contrary, Louisiana Democrats ousted indicted, black Congressman William Jefferson, and elected the first Vietnamese-American Congressman yesterday in an election that was postponed by Hurricane Gustav. Actually, the Hurricane pushed the primary election to Nov. 4 and the final election to yesterday.

Contrast this to Alaskans who almost reelected Ted Stevens despite his being convicted. Alaskan Republicans voted for Stevens. But in an overwhelmingly black and Democratic district in New Orleans, voters elected Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao. Now Alaskan Republicans can say, "But Jefferson had $99,000 in cash in his freezer." My response would be that Stevens had $150,000 in improvements in his house. What's the difference?

WWLTV.com

Associated Press

Joseph Cao

NEW ORLEANS - In a stunning victory, a little-known Vietnamese-American Republican candidate defeated nine-time Democratic Congressman William Jefferson in a majority African-American district with a very small number of Republican registered voters.

Anh ‘Joseph” Cao received 33,122 votes, or 49 percent to Jefferson’s 31,296, or 47 percent in the race for the Second Congressional District seat from Louisiana. He becomes the nation's first Vietnamese-American Congressman.

[Picture from wwltv.com]

Barack Obama's First Day in the Oval Office with Friends

I mentioned earlier my computer art class assignment to take four different downloaded photos and make your "fantasy" picture by combining them. Well, I got a little carried away and added a few more pictures than I had to. So here's my fantasy - Obama's first day in office with a number of people who helped pave the way. There are many, many I've left out, but here are a few key ones. (Double click to enlarge the image.)




Our current assignment is to do a 30 second video. At last we're using a tool I know as much about or more than most of the others - iMovie. But we are also using Photoshop's animation capabilities. The first attempts have been tedious, but are looking good. I have some real video and some hand made animation. I'm not sure if I'll combine them or just do the animation.

OK World - Do we get a little slack now? We did NOT reelect Ted Stevens

Today's numbers give Mark Begich enough votes to win the Alaska Senate seat. We do some things right.

From the Anchorage Daily News:

MICHAEL R. BLOOD 11/18/08 9:22 PM EST AP
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn't survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.
Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.
The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history. His involvement in politics dates to the days before Alaska statehood, and he is esteemed for his ability to secure billions of dollars in federal aid for transportation and military projects. The Anchorage airport bears his name; in Alaska, it's simply "Uncle Ted."

Tuesday's tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 146,286, or 47.56 percent, to 143,912, or 46.76 percent, for Stevens.




[Later Update: Here's the New York Times report on the Alaska election results and the impacts on the US Senate.]

Why I Think the Prop 8 Arguments are Wrong

[Brief Overview:

• I haven't commented on Prop 8 so far, the issues are complicated, and I don't want to be simplistic.
• There's an anti-Prop 8 and pro equality rally scheduled for Saturday in Anchorage at noon at the Atwood Building, so now is the time to comment.
• I found an article from a pro Prop 8 website that 'debunks' arguments for same-sex marriage.
• I took that article and give my reactions to the debunking.
  
  • Despite all the logical facade, the basic anti same-sex argument boils down to:

  • Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil [I think he meant social] engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.

  • A second key factor is claiming that male-female marriage is the natural order of things and that marriage cannot be socially constructed. That argument seems to be contradictory. If marriage between men and women was not and cannot be socially constructed, then socially constructing same-sex marriage simply will not work anyway. Nature will win out. No need to spend $37 million to fight it.
    
• There's more, but I think those are the highlights.]
  
  Post Starts Here:
  
  Last week Jay noted that while I took pleasure in the historical event of Obama's election, I had not mentioned that the one civil rights landmark was marred by the passage of Propostion 8 in California and similar anti-gay marriage in a couple of other states.
  
  Since then, there have been anti-Prop 8 demonstrations in California and demonstrations are being planned for Saturday in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Anchorage's is at
  
  noon November 15 at the Atwood Bldg on 7th between E and F.
  
  And I still have not commented on this. In part, because it is probably the most divisive issue this election and such issues require particular care and tact if I'm to discuss it in a way that tries to present opposing views objectively. And since I find the anti-gay marriage argument ultimately lacking in merit, I'm hard pressed to do this well. Besides, what more can be said about this?
  
  Well, I started a long detailed look at the arguments I thought were being made. After several pages on biblical commandments, I realized I was writing a tract that no one was going to read. Then I switched tactics and started looking at some pro Prop 8 websites to see what they were arguing. One, essentially had no serious arguments for opposing gay marriage. It was as though it were so obvious they didn't need to say anything. But a second one did spell out ways to deal with arguments opposed to Prop 8. There was one particularly well written piece that went through argument after argument. I realized, wearily, that I was going to end up doing a long post after all. But so be it.
  
  Gregory Koukl's piece, "Same-sex marriage - challenges and responses" stands out because it doesn't mention religion and uses a logical argument that, with just a couple of exceptions, is free of blatant emotional appeal.
  
  I've taught enough graduate students to know that critical thinking is not a skill one necessarily acquires in the US school system, even after four years of college. And if you don't trust my judgment, just consider all the people who bought houses using sub-prime loans. So, I can't just link to this post and assume that even an educated reader will automatically see the problems in Koukl's discussions. So, hang on. I've given up trying to do this in just a brief synopsis. It's too complicated. Well, ultimately it comes down to some basic issues, but to really address the arguments I need to go into detail.
  
  I'll give brief quotes from his article and paraphrase the rest. You can go to the article itself to see whether I'm doing him justice.
  
  His overview of the problem has two points:
  

  First, changing the definition of marriage implies that marriage is just a matter of cultural definition.

  This would mean, he says, that all the rules about marriage would be overthrown - “It’s privileges, protections, responsibilities, and moral obligations are all up for grabs.” He says that polygamy will also be on the table.
  
  In a sense he is right - this is an ontological debate. Ontology is the field of philosophy that deals with the question of what is real. The basic responses are
  a. Realist Position: The truths of the social world are ‘out there’ in nature for us to discover
  and
  b. Nominalist Position: The social world is socially constructed. Humans shape and constantly reshape the concepts and the institutions they live in.
  
  Both these responses have generated adherents and detractors, are complicated, have situations where they obviously apply and situations where they don’t. One difficulty I see is the impossibility of separating out the physical reality from the social reality. For instance, motherhood and fatherhood are physical realities that are ‘out there’ in the sense that a child is the physical consequence of a sexual act of its parents.
  
  But is an adoptive mother not a mother? What is a family? Is it the American ideal of mother, father, and two point three kids? Is it the extended family of many cultures including several generations and aunts and uncles? Is it a blood relationship or a spiritual bond among people living together?
  
  Our formal upbringing and culture tend to favor the realist position. It is the ideology of mainstream natural science. But many critics of social conditions, such as the role of women in society, monarchy, slavery, the caste system in India, would argue that these institutions are socially constructed and institutionalize and justify a system that gives some people power and others little or none.
  
  By declaring unilaterally that marriage is a natural phenomenon rather than culturally defined, Koukl attempts to cut off the social construction option altogether. But, from my perspective, this is like declaring (but not proving) that his opponents’ basic assumption is wrong.
  

  Second, a marriage license for same-sex couples would be a governmental declaration that homosexual unions are no different than heterosexual unions in the eyes of the law.
  
  If so, then “marriage” is nothing in particular and can be restructured at the whim of the people. Even as I write, there are cases wending their way through courts in Utah challenging prohibitions on polygamy. Why not, if “marriage” is just a social construction?

  
  As you can see where he says “marriage is nothing in particular and can be restructured at the whim of the people” he is merely repeating his ‘realist’ argument from the first point. He then goes on to complain that:
  

  It will then be impossible to deny homosexuals full adoption rights. For the first time in the history of civilization a culture will declare that neither mothers nor fathers are essential components of parenthood; neither makes a uniquely valuable contribution. Same-sex marriage will deny children a right to a mother and a father.
  

  Ah, so his real gripe is that homosexuals would be able to adopt kids. He argues this later on - that kids need both a mother and father. I don’t disagree that having both genders as role models is good for kids. That may, under ideal conditions, be considered the best possible situation. But it doesn't mean that kids can't also have a great upbringing with two same gender parents. After all, there are also lots of single parent families without that. There are orphans who have neither. (So it would be better to leave them in foster care than to have gays or single people adopt them according to Koukle's arugment.) And other people - aunts, uncles, grandparents, good friends - can, and do, play those roles for kids. It isn’t a deal breaker.
  
  He then goes on to say, quite rightly, this is all very complicated. So he’s going to respond to common arguments for gay marriage and show their problems. What I’m going to do is look at his responses and show the problems with those.
  
  

  1. “We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
  There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples.

  He argues that gays have the same rights everyone else has - to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one else has the right to marry someone of the same sex, so gays aren't discriminated against. He creates this bizarre analogy:
  

  Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don‚t get to vote [in France]. That‚s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
  
  

  There are several problems with the analogy. Logically it fails because Jones could move to France and apply for French citizenship, but gays don't have an analogous option. Probably more important is the implication that homosexuality is a choice. My sense of this issue is that Kinsey's continuum of sexuality from totally straight on one end to totally gay on the other end is probably the most accurate reflection of people's sexual tendencies. So for people on the gay end, an 'interest' in French politics, isn't a whim or quirk, it is who they are.
  

  2. “They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”
  
  

  The difference here, he says, is that interracial marriage is about males and females. It was a mistake that has been corrected because skin color is irrelevant. He uses a clever analogy here.
  

  Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,” he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”

  I say this is a clever analogy because the logic in the example is clear. It had me stumped for a while. But then I remembered that when you have an analogy, there has to be correspondence between the example and the actual situation. That's the problem. This story is NOT analagous to the gay marriage situation. Why? Let's try to match the two.
  
  Who is the rich man and who is the poor man in the interracial situation and what is 'the money?" It's hard to say because they don't match. Let's set up the analogous interracial situation.
  
  A white (rich) man with a dark suntan comes into the county clerk's office to get a marriage license. At first the clerk says, "I'm sorry, but black men can't marry white women." Then he checks and finds out he's really a white man with a suntan. "Oh, my mistake, here's your license." Then the black (poor) man, next in line, is told the same thing. "But you gave the last guy his license." "Ah, because we checked and found out he was really white."
  
  He didn't get asked if he was a man. He got asked if he was black. The correction ultimately, when interracial marriage was approved, was not a simple, "Oh we made a mistake and you turn out to be qualified by our rules." No, it was, "We have decided to change our rules and now if you are black, you can get married to a white."
  
  The ban against interracial marriage was, like the ban on same sex marriage, based on tradition, it was said to be the natural order of things, and it was done within a power structure where whites had the power to exclude blacks, all supported by passages lifted from the bible to justify this power structure. It seems to me that this argument by the pro-gay marriage folks - banning gay marriage is analogous to banning interractial marriage - is, after all, a good one. Koukl tries, cleverly I admit, to distract us and say it still preserved the male-female part. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. The ban against interracial marriage was socially constructed and then socially deconstructed. Basically Koukl's argument that gay marriage is against the natural order of things is no different from what those opposed to interracial marriage said.
  
  Therefore, he argues that gays are not discriminated against, have no legal rights denied, because they have the same rights as everyone else - to marry someone of the other gender. They just choose not to. But this ignores the Kinsey continuum and assumes that you are either male or female, black or white, with no shades of gray. Kinsey's research, plus more recent studies clearly show that gender - with the ultimate example being hermaphrodites - is not a neat dichotomous issue.
  
  In the second part, he says that it may be true that gays are denied some entitlements, but says that's ok because entitlements are not guaranteed to everyone the way rights are, and with good reason, marriage is favored because it is the base of civilization. More on that below.
  
  3. “We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want.”
  
  Read this passage carefully. It's critical. Basically he says, gays won't gain any new freedoms with the right to get married. They can do all things married people do. There's only one thing they won't get - respect, societal approval.
  
  

  This [gaining new rights through marriage] will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do – express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things. ..
  

  Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone – of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference – from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.

  Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect...

  Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil [I think he meant social] engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.

  To me, this is the most revealing passage of the whole article for two reasons:
  A. Koukle essential reveals his underlying beliefs - he thinks gay marriage is deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. This is a theological and emotional reaction to the idea of gay marriage. All the rest of this essay, I think, is an attempt to use non-religious, non-emotional methods to try to convince people who do not share his religious and emotional objections to marriage. They aren't his fundamental objection. They are just window dressing. This is the gut issue driving everything else: "I think gay marriage is disgusting." These are the same arguments that were made for banning interracial marriage. According to Wikipedia,
  
  

  The trial judge in the [Loving case - the one in which the US Supreme Court finally overturned the interracial marriage ban -] case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

  “	Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

  
  All the elements are there - contrary to nature (God's will), socially destructive (interference with His arrangement), and morally repugnant (God sets the standards for what is morally right and He did not intend for the races to mix.)
  
  B. The second significant aspect of this one is that this strong opponent of homosexuality has basically said, "look, they've gotten everything they want - they can have sex, they can live together, they can play married, etc. He's basically ceded that homosexuality is legal and that in practical terms, gays have everything, relating to marriage type relationships, that non-gays have. Except societal approval of the arrangement. While the exception is a big one, to focus only on that and not see how far society's acceptance of gays has progressed would be myopic. Gays' progress toward total equality has moved much faster than did African-Americans. OK, I know the ultimate (at least in today's vision) legal prize still eludes, but a lot has been achieved.
  
  
  4. “Marriage is about love.”
  He rejects this altogether and says marriage is about children.
  
  

  On reflection, though, it's clear that love and marriage don’t always go together.

  In fact, they seldom do.

  If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.

  Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no for better or for worse promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.

  The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple's affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.

  
  
  5. “Marriage is constantly being redefined.”
  
  Well, it might appear that way, but however marriage has changed over time, there is still the basic pairing between a man and a woman. The reason? See 6.
  
  6. “Not all marriages have children.”
  
  No, he acknowledges, but that is the purpose of them.
  

  Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.

  This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.

  So, if you don't have children, your marriage serves a lower purpose. Unread books? Nice try, but some people get married with no intention of having children. And some people who have children, had no such intention.
  
  Clearly, there are examples, of marriages without love (#4), but not all marriages were intended to have children. Marriages were also intended to unite families and clans. The royalty of Europe betrothed children to create alliances. Sure, having children would probably strengthen those alliances, but producing competing heirs might also endanger the alliances.
  
  If marriage is not about love, but about keeping the loveless couple together to raise their children, then it would seem that not forcing gay men to marry women might increase the likelihood that marriages would stay together. Allowing gays to get out of the hetero marriage
  market - by allowing them to get a legally sanctioned same sex marriage - I suspect the divorce rate among male-female marriage would go down. Fewer children would be born into to families destined for divorce. In fact, while we're at it, the next logical extension here would be to ban all divorce.
  
  
  7. “Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please.”
  
  I've discussed this above. Kukle takes the realist position that marriage is a natural phenomenon that cannot be redefined by society. I think that if he really believed that, he wouldn't fear people making changes, since the natural human affinity for male-female marriage, the purpose to have children, etc. would 'naturally' guarantee the long term health and survival of marriage. Only if marriage truly were a social construction, could humans significantly change it. And he says this himself:
  

  If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did.

  So, it doesn't matter if we allow same-sex marriages.
  
  Well, maybe he doesn't believe what he says. The very fact that he is concerned about the future of marriage suggests to me, that deep down, he understands that it is socially constructed and that he wants to make sure that the present construction stays that way he wants it.
  

  Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.

  If male-female marriage is the natural state and humans cannot socially construct marriage, then how would same-sex marriage eviscerate marriage? But if he admits that marriage is socially constructed, then male-female marriage would no longer be 'natural,' but just a human construction. You just can't have it both ways. Sorry Mr. Koukle.
  
  OK, that's how I see it. I've felt a little rushed here to get this out today. If there are flaws in my reasoning please point them out.

Partial Redemption for Alaskans?

The ADN says yesterday's vote counting has erased Ted Stevens' 3000+ lead and now Begich is 814 votes ahead. That was after 60,000 absentee and questioned ballots were counted. There are still 40,000 ballots to go.

When I was poll watching there were about 40 questioned ballots while I was there (7am-4:30pm) out of about 800 votes. They fell into the following categories:

• People not on the list because they were voting outside their regular polling place.
• People not on the list who thought they were in their regular polling place (and some of these had spouses with them who were on the list, and some were on my list of people supporting Democrats in that polling place.)
• People who were on the list, but said they had moved. Even though they were on the list, and in most cases still living in the same area, they had to vote a questioned ballot and to fill out a new registration with their new address. If they hadn't said anything they could have voted regular.

Anyway, does it reflect differently on Alaskans if one more person votes for Begich than Stevens or vice versa? It still means half the people who voted marked a convicted felon.

But, Democrats. What would you have done if your candidate had been convicted and there was a Democratic governor who would get to appoint the next senator and maybe keep the office Democratic? Especially if the governor had suddenly burst onto the national scene and been a big hit with the 'real' Democrats and could appoint himself and thus move back to the national scene?

While I agree that voting for a convicted felon doesn't play well for the rest of the world, I do understand it as a tactic to further one's cause. And I'm not sure given a roughly similar situation, Democrats wouldn't have done the same. A number of people in both parties (yeah, I know there are more than just two) are more than willing to abandon their professed principles if it means they 'win.' I personally believe that our behavior reflects our values more than what we say. So these people really do, in my book, value 'winning' over their other professed values.

The real key is to convince enough voters to vote for the candidate who isn't a felon so the issue becomes moot. If we stop electing candidates with dark clouds hanging over them (you mean there is no one else well qualified?) then parties will stop nominating indicted candidates.

I don't know if the remaining 40,000 votes (if that's an accurate number) are going to split like the 60,000 counted so far. If they do, then it is moot. And Alaska will be in a new era as is the US.

By the way, the NY Times reports today on the 'unnamed McCain campaign figure' who 'leaked' that Palin said Africa was a country. He's a hoax. So, maybe we gain a bit more credibility on that count too. But my question is, did Palin know that Africa was a continent, not a country? Her comments in a press conference later didn't really inspire confidence. She didn't flatly deny she'd said that, rather she made like it really didn't matter.

"If there are allegations based on questions or comments I made in debate prep about NAFTA, about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context..."

In any case, our governor needs to be more careful about her facts - maybe that's why most of her public discussion avoids them - see this latest press conference video. The Anchorage Daily News cover story in Monday's paper quotes her saying:

And banning books. That was a ridiculous thing also that could have so easily been corrected just by a reporter taking an extra step and not basing a report on gossip or speculation. But just looking into the record. It was reported that I tried to ban Harry Potter when it hadn't even been written when I was the mayor.

Well, ok, so I'm just trying to check the record. When was the first Harry Potter book published? Wikipedia says:

Since the 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.

And when was Palin mayor of Wasilla?

The official bio at the Governor's office site leaves out dates:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla.

The McCain campaign site doesn't have the dates either.
So, back to Wikipedia:

Palin was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996 and the city's mayor from 1996 to 2002.

But I better double check with other sources to be absolutely certain. Time magazine mentions "the 1996 campaign for mayor of her hometown, Wasilla..." The Anchorage Daily News had a long feature in 2006 which included this:

Previous offices: Wasilla City Council, 1992-1996; Wasilla mayor, 1996-2002; Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004.

OK, then,

• Palin was mayor starting in 1996 until 2002.
  
• The first Harry Potter book came out in 1997.
• The second book in the series was published in 1998.
  
• The third one in 1999. when Palin had three more years to serve as mayor.
  
• The fourth one, The Goblet of Fire, came out in 2000.

The way I read things, not only had Harry Potter been written by the time she was mayor, but it had been published. Maybe she meant, "in 1996, when I became mayor, Harry Potter hadn't even been published." But Governor, you have to say what you mean. If you say " it hadn't even been written when I was the mayor" then we're going to assume that is what you mean. Part of being a politician is being able to get your facts right and say what you mean. (Now, if the ADN has falsely quoted you, I apologize profusely on this point.)

When I first saw the bogus list of Palin's books to ban, I immediately knew it was a hoax. It had too many well known and loved books. We certainly would have heard about that - all the way in Anchorage - had she tried to ban that long list of books.

But it wasn't Harry Potter that people were concerned about. People did check their facts - better than the governor seems to check hers - and there was a librarian who told us that she'd been asked about removing books. And I personally had a chance to hear Howard Bess discuss how his book, Pastor, I'm Gay kept disappearing from the library, no matter how often he donated new copies. And that Palin's church was campaigning to get books out of the library.

So, first, people did check facts. Yes, there were scurrilous stories, but also a number that were solid. That goes with the territory. The governor, for example, is still talking about Obama 'palling around' with terrorists.

Second, I understand how someone can forget or misspeak details now and then. It happens to me all too often. I understand being more concerned with the big picture than the details. There is, however, a big BUT that goes here. If you don't have any of the details right, then your big picture is built on falsehoods. If we disregard the hard facts, then every model of the world is equal. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but the rest of us don't have to buy them.

We need politicians who have a broad picture of how the world works that is grounded on a solid base of proven facts. Palin did a pretty good job of this with the AGIA proposal. She had outstanding public administrators backing her up on that. But since the first hints of Troopergate and then the nod from McCain, it's been very heavy on questionable theory and little proven fact.

Election Night Video and Some Results

Here's a bit of video to give you a sense of the evening downtown.

[This is a new version with a short clip added of state house candidate Pete Petersen that inadvertently got left out in the original.)


And here's Alaska's disconnect from the rest of the US (for latest results):

Looks Like Alaska is Electorally Keeping its Distance from the Lower 48

The Obama high for Alaskan Democrats is being tempered by the early returns on the US Senate and House races. After sharing Sarah, if we elect a convicted felon (yeah Ted, I use the old fashioned definition of convicted) and a Congressman under serious investigation, while the rest of the country went for Obama, they may let us secede.











We're back home. I was getting pretty tired. The wifi at Egan was slooooooooooooooow. And J leaves for LA tomorrow.

Egan Center and Anchor Bar Full of Happy Voters

Poll Watching on Historic Day

This is an historic night as the United States ends the Bush era in a big way and just as significantly, demonstrates that while racism still exists, it's significance is reduced to the point where a majority of Americans can vote for an African-American candidate. Things haven't been officially called for Obama, but enough key states have gone his way that I can't see how Obama could lose. I'll save other comments on this incredible change in the United States' ability to go beyond race and the potential we know have to regain our status as a country the rest of the world looks up to. Meanwhile I'll tell you about my day as a poll watcher.

I was at the 'staging area' (someone's basement) at 6:40am and at the polling place at 6:50am in time for the starting of voting at 7am. It was dark when I got there and it wasn't clear where the polling place was. This picture on the left I took when I was leaving at 4:30pm and they had put up some signs. Still, it was hard to see. There was also a sign up on the street by the time I left(see bottom picture).

I had several jobs:

1. Keep track of the likely Democratic voters. I had a list of voters who were expected to vote Democratic and my job was to mark them off on three identical lists. The first list was to be picked up at 9:30am, the second one at 1:30pm, and the third one at 4:30pm. The lists, as I understood it, were to be used to call people who hadn't voted yet.

2. Report problems with voting - people turned down, overly long lines, machine problems, etc.

When I got there, about 30 people were in line, waiting for the polls to officially open at 7am. Once that initial crowd got handled, there were never more than four or five in line and most of the time there was no wait. But most of the time things were moving along briskly and the voting booths were busy all day.

The election workers were great. They were very friendly, made things as easy for me as possible, and were on top of any problems before I even knew about them.

No one came to pick up the 9:30am list. Nor did anyone come at 1:30pm, including my replacement. So I stayed. One problem came up with the voting machine about 4pm. Apparently, someone had dropped a ballot on the floor and it picked up a chunk of de-icing salt which got caught in the shute and so the ballots couldn't go in. They started putting them into the side box to be counted after they closed the polls. But Richard who was monitoring the machine was able to get the salt chunk cleared out and voters could put their ballots through the shute again and they could get counted.

The voting at our polling place was running much lower than one might have expected. By the time I left - my replacement came about 4:30pm - only about 25% had voted. (That doesn't count people who had voted early or absentee or had questioned ballots.) Of those who voted, about 40% were on my list which seemed like a good sign. There was no Republican poll watcher.

I'd left a message on our home phone to let J know I was still there and not sure when or if I'd get relieved. She showed up with a bag of goodies about 3:30. Do I have a great wife? And we left at 4:30, when I took the two outdoor pictures. And since we were across the street from the Thai Kitchen and they were about to open, we stopped there for dinner.

Obama Overkill?

"Hello, my name is Steve. I'm part of a crazy horde of Obama supporters and our goal is to call every home in America at least 26 times."

Sometimes when you know how to do something well, there comes a point where doing it no longer pays off. I don't know if the Obama campaign's phone banks are still serving a useful purpose or if they've reached the point of diminishing returns. I spent two and a half hours this afternoon calling people in Las Vegas. I had five or six pages of names - about 20 to a page. Where they got the numbers I have no idea, but they were in numerical order all in area code 702. Most people were not home or the phone was not in order. I left a few messages, talked to a few people. Other people there had been calling Iowa and some were actually calling people in Anchorage. If you got a call, this is what it looked like where I was calling from. I should have brought an earplug for my other ear.



But overall, it didn't feel right.

• I couldn't help but think about all the people being bothered by the phone calls. One caller near me said the people had been leaning for Obama but were so disgusted by the phone calls that they were now voting for McCain. Obviously the point is to make sure Obama supporters vote. But our list was orphan numbers - they didn't know what the people were planning on doing.
• I couldn't help but wonder what the enormous amount of volunteer time might be better used for. Non-profits always need volunteers. Can this organization now be used to redirect the volunteers to some of those organizations or is this just about Obama?

Was my time usefully spent? I know, we're just the foot soldiers who are supposed to do as we're told because we don't understand the big picture. Someone said that McCain couldn't do this using real people. Their calls are all robocalls. I hope that the cumulative effect of all this phoning will actually pick up some Obama voters. The best option would be that they don't matter because the Obama lead will be enough without our effort. But who knows, so we were calling.

The script we had was really stilted and I started modifying once I got the hang of things. Humor did seem to get past the anger. I told some people who complained about the calls that I felt the same way so I decided to get out of the house and make calls so I didn't need to answer any more.

Tomorrow I experience something I haven't experienced for a while - being awake before 6am. I have to get to the polling place where I'll be a poll watcher by 6:45 after picking up my badge and lists at a gathering point.

The Last Minute Sleaze Arrives - Don Young Flyer Lies About VECO Influence

[Jamglue, the site I've been using to host audio, has gotten rid of the embed code for some reason. The audio I have embedded below was the first one I did and I set it for play automatically. But now I can't turn that off. TO TURN OFF THE AUDIO, HIT THE YELLOW BUTTON TO THE LEFT OF FLOOREXCHANGE. ]

We forgot to check our mail yesterday, so I looked in our mailbox when I got home from poll watcher training tonight. In with the mail was this flyer (see below.) To suggest that Ethan Berkowitz is a VECO supporter is a totally outrageous and deceptive accusation. For the Don Young campaign to do is unbelievable. (The flyer says "Paid for by Alaskans for Clean Elections." Clearly this is NOT from the group that sponsored the clean election amendment in the primary. Only Don Young supporters would have an interest in something like this.)

1. VECO regularly hosted the pig roasts and raised tons of money for Don Young. At the three political trials last year, VECO President Bill Allen (whose picture is on the flyer) and VECO Vice President Rick Smith talked about the pig roasts, about golf tournaments, and other events where Don Young was the recipient of VECO largesse.

2. VECO doesn't exist. They were sold to CH2M Hill over a year ago. So VECO made no campaign contributions for this year's campaign. Checking the website link on the flyer, looking up contributors to Ethan Berkowitz, there is a $500 contribution from Bill Allen and one from Rick Smith for the year 2000. That is 8 years ago! Apparently that was their last contribution to Berkowitz. Since 2000, Don Young has received $116,000 from VECO!!!

(Click on picture to enlarge)

3. Ethan Berkowitz is the state representative who stood up on the floor of the House and protested that VECO officers were giving instructions to Republican legislators during the House debate in June 2006. You can hear that his comments at the link below. (Click on the Yellow button with the black arrow.)(First you hear Rep. Weyhrauch explaining why he was changing his vote. The Berkowitz comes on and argues forcefully against the VECO team telling legislators like Weyhrauch how to vote.)
[Nov. 5: I've cut the audio of Berkowitz because it is so annoying to have it come on automatically and Jamglue where it's hosted has messed with the embeds so I can't change it to NOT play automatically. You can still listen to it here.]

Sometimes Just One Side is Right

Our mainstream media often like to tout their impartiality by equally reporting 'both sides' of the story. Sometimes they even search out the single person in favor of something (who more likely than not stands to profit from his position) to have a 'balanced' story. We're told that there are always two sides to a story. Often there are three or four or more. When I was a grievance coordinator, it was always important to keep this in mind when a union member was telling me his tale of woe. I always had to think about what facts were being unintentionally left out, or what the person being grieved against would say.

But sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side. One person was the aggressor and did something wrong and the other person is totally in the right. Or one solution is clearly much better than the other. ("You need to take a cab home, you are way too drunk." "No, no, I can drive home.")

So as we get ready to vote on Tuesday (for those of you who haven't voted early), try as I might, weighing everything from ideology to personality, I can't help but conclude that the Obama-Biden team is so clearly the right choice compared to the McCain-Palin team.

Let's look at this from a couple of sides.

1. Ideology - The McCain-Palin ticket picks up from where the Bush-Cheney administration left off. The war. The faith in unregulated capitalism. The anti-government sentiment. The mixing of religion and politics. The McCain people I hear on the radio saying, "Obama scares me" leave me shaking my head. How could Obama scare you more than a continuation of George W. Bush? (I know you can argue McCain's not Bush, but his policies are pretty damn close.)

It just seems to me that Obama's world view is closer to how things actually are, so that he's just more likely to take a cab home when he needs to, and to drive home when he can. McCain was wrong about getting into Iraq. He admits (generally a good sign, except when you're running for president) he doesn't know that much about economics.

Obama has a well educated grasp on the economy and basically on a way of thinking about problems and coming up with solutions. He also has a white and black parent. He is truly bi-racial and can see the world from both the perspectives of a black man and a white man. This makes him much better connected to the current and growing diversity of the United States population. He's not into denial about racism in America, but through his white mother and grandparents, he understands their perspective too. He went to school for a while in Indonesia! That means he probably knows where it and other Southeast Asian countries are on the map, not to mention he probably has some understanding that the people there are just as real and just as human as the people of the United States. Meanwhile Sarah Palin even makes distinctions between real and unreal Americans.

We can debate how we get out of Iraq, how we negotiate with Iran, about how to ensure the most people possible get decent health coverage and educations. But I can't help but feel that Obama's much less blinded by ideology and much more connected to reasoned and practical action. And that he can adapt as conditions change.

And we're seeing a number of high level Conservatives and Republicans, like Colin Powell, who despite their ideological alliance with the Republican Party, who are endorsing Obama. Reasoning Republicans are starting to realize how bad the McCain-Palin ticket could be.

2. Personality

Obama is a black man who grew up in the United States. As I've said before, to get where he is today, he had to learn how to control his anger. Angry black men don't survive, and certainly do not thrive in the white world. We saw, time and time again, how Obama answered attacks and challenges coolly, rationally, in measured tones. In contrast we've seen McCain lurch impulsively through this campaign. His choice of Palin was, we have found out, not preceded by the kind of thorough vetting most presidential candidates use. It was a gut decision based on superficial view of her strengths, but no awareness of the weaknesses. His decision to postpone the first debate so he could solve the financial crisis and then his change of mind all show his unsteadiness. We see him and much more his running mate foment unfounded fear about Obama's loyalty, race, and religion. This is not the way I want to see America go.

As I listen to people opposed to Obama, I hear platitudes - "he's inexperienced" followed by numerical proof that Palin's years as governor and mayor make her more qualified than Obama. Yes, that makes logical sense out of context of all the other factors. It ignores the embarrassing point that George W. had even more executive experience than Palin. Logically, perhaps that means that Obama is better qualified. We heard the ridiculous attempts to justify Palin's foreign policy experience by citing the fact that Alaska is near Russia. These are arguments are so absurd that I can't take seriously the reasoning or rationality of the people making them. These are the kinds of silliness people get into when they are trying to defend the undefendable. There aren't two sides here.

And then there are the people who won't vote for Obama because his middle name is Hussein or because they believe, or want to believe, he's a Muslim, or because he's 'not a Christian,' and because he's, well, you know, um, black. And I forgot a socialist and communist. I was always waiting for someone to ask Palin exactly what socialist means and how that fits in with the "owner state" concept and the government giving out checks to its citizens.

If the only thing you care about is overturning Roe v. Wade, then, well, probably you should vote for McCain. His next Supreme Court choice will probably swing the court. Unless he chooses the way he chose Palin.

If you have more money than you could ever spend in your lifetime and you take pleasure in knowing that most people are comparatively poorer and will never be as rich as you, then McCain might be your better choice. But remember, the current financial crisis has cost most investors way, way more than any capital gains tax ever envisioned would have.

If Obama is elected, the US will finally walk back onto the world stage as a respected world power. There is a chance that we can take on the challenges of the 21st Century, with models of the world that match the new conditions of the world. That doesn't mean an Obama administration will glide through those challenges. In some cases there will be choices that force us to compromise one value to advance another, and we'll fight over which one gets advanced and which doesn't. Obama's team will make mistakes. Some will be corrupted by power. But, overall, the Obama ticket seems so much more ready to take on this task than does the McCain ticket.


Sometimes there is only one right side. This, in my (some would say not so) humble opinion, is one of them.

Don't Vote

This is from PittsburghWil

Voting Early

I decided to vote today. It took 30 minutes, the longest I've ever waited. Of course, everyone who wants to vote now until Tuesday goes to one place. The Alaska ballots are pretty easy. All the information is on the page and you just fill in the circle next to the candidate you want. My mother's California ballot was much more difficult. All the names and ballot measures are listed in a booklet. It has numbers for each candidate.
Then you have to go to this computer card and blacken the right number.
This shouldn't be so difficult for the designers to figure out. The California ballot introduces a lot more opportunity for the voter to make a mistake than does the Alaska ballot. And hand counting - should that be necessary - is easier, particularly if the voter didn't do it quite right. Making it computer friendly should NEVER sacrifice voter friendly.

Good to see so many conservatives supporting a convicted felon

It's normally liberals who try to put a human face on America's prisoners. Republicans have claimed to be strong law and order folks who endorsed stiff sentences for criminals. But today's Anchorage Daily News letters show a softer, more compassionate conservative streak in Alaska.

"I was disappointed by the conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens. I do not believe the prosecution acted with integrity and I believe there is an outside agenda to remove Sen. Stevens. I will not be swayed in my loyalty to the senator."

Fortunately, the Republicans have been in control of the Justice Department for the last eight years (did I really say that?) so LaVon can't blame the Democrats for this. Clearly the outside Republican agenda is to vacate one of their sure seats in the Senate so the Democrats can get a veto proof majority. I think I heard that story about how losing the election will help Republican fund raising.

"He has given his all to the state of Alaska and now Alaska has the opportunity to stand by and show the same support and dedication that he has shown it and its people. Alaskans now have the opportunity to fight for someone that has fought so hard for others."

About this sacrifice for Alaska stuff. Being a US Senator is one of the great power trips available in the US. You meet the most powerful people in the world. You get to subpoena other powerful people and dress them down in front of the world. And once you're elected, you really have to screw up to get voted out of office. Come on now, he's gotten a lot more than he's given. It was so good, at 84 he wasn't ready to walk away. When someone thinks they can't be replaced, they need to be shown the world can live without them.

"He was tried and convicted by what I consider a kangaroo court and not by a jury of his peers as called for in the Constitution. The whole trial was tainted with prosecution lies and misconconduct."

What would be a jury of peers? US Senators? Rich, white folks? Why not Americans? Oh, yeah, these jurors probably weren't 'real' Americans. But even that 'real' American Sarah Palin has said Ted should step down. Or is that so she can step in? Being stuck in Juneau when there's a chance to get back into the center of national political power is going to be tough. It's true the prosecution slipped up. But that's why we have an adversarial system. Stevens had the best lawyers money can buy. They challenged what happened and got one of the witnesses off the list. But if these prosecutors lied throughout the whole trial, you'd think Brendan Sullivan would have let the whole world know about it.

"What a travesty - an unjust verdict resulting from a patently unfair trial, following an indictment based on erroneous information. No doubt the case will be overturned by less partrisan minds on appeal, but in the meantime, Outside interests are doing their best to throw a monkey wrench in the Alaska Senate race."

What else can say? Brendan Sullivan was there for Stevens to point out any erroneous information. It is true that the prosecutors messed up and that could be the basis for overturning the verdict. But I'd like to know if you also wrote in to complain about Outside interests (like oil companies supporting Republican candidates, like the Mormon church fighting for the One-man-one-woman marriage Constitutional Amendment) or is it only when they oppose your position does outside influence become bad influence?

Denial is a natural reaction as one faces the contradictions between one's world view and the way the world really is. Come on now. Senator Stevens is 84. He's testy when someone challenges him on anything. He's been convicted. I'm glad you see him as more than a felon. That you recognize that rather than calling him a criminal, we should call him a human being who has, among a lot of other positive things in his life, committed a criminal act.

I hope you folks who wrote these letters will recognize that most of the people you read about in the newspapers who get convicted of something, are the same. The act that got them into the newspaper is just one small part of their lives. (Ok, I know, for some it is a definite pattern. But even then, it's worth finding out how they got on that path. I bet you'll find for most career criminals, it started early and there was probably a pretty messy family life. So maybe in the future you'll consider something early childhood education funding, parent training, and other, 'evil' social programs.)

Some of you probably aren't in denial, but you owe Uncle Ted something and a nice letter to the editor will do the trick. But you should have the decency to tell the rest of us this is just a gesture.


Kangaroo Court picture from here.

Schadenfreude and Ted Stevens' Conviction

I know that a lot of you out there are jumping with joy at the news of Ted Stevens' conviction today. There are reasons to feel good if you've believed he's guilty or arrogant or if you're working for Mark Begich.

Taking pleasure in another person's suffering is a universal emotion. The German's have a word for it - Schadenfreude.

But watching a man go down, a man who like all of us has flaws, yet also worked most of his life to help his state using the talents he had, shouldn't bring anyone joy. We're all imperfect. We all will have times of grief. And I imagine most of us would like a little slack from others at that time.

Is it possible to mix the feelings of triumph and sadness? To feel good about the carrying out of justice and bad about the personal fall of Ted Stevens? Ted Stevens' recent statements don't make it easy to feel sympathetic. He seems completely defiant. ABC reports him saying today:

"I will fight this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have," Stevens said. "I am innocent. This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial. I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate."

Yet his reaction - his total cluelessness of why he was on trial - is part of the sadness.

Philosopher John Portmann seems to make distinctions similar to mine above, at least as described by Perez Zagorin reviewing Portmann's book, When Bad Things Happen To Other People.

[Zagorin's voice] Persons with a well-developed moral sense who experience schadenfreude are apt to feel a certain amount of shame and unworthiness at being possessed by this emotion even momentarily. Is it not mean-spirited and detestable to be glad when bad luck or adversity strikes someone else, even an enemy or rival, and much more so in the case of a friend? . . . Portmann, however, would relieve us of some of our guilt on this score by means of various distinctions. He believes that schadenfreude is rational and therapeutic in certain circumstances, and makes the important point that it can include a sense of justice when we regard the bad things that happen to people as deserved punishment for their actions. He strives consistently to distinguish between pleasure in the justice of someone's suffering and pleasure in the suffering itself. [emphasis added.]

That's what I was doing above - trying to make distinctions between different aspects of the event. Happiness over the fact that the high and mighty are brought to justice just as the powerless are, seems perfectly normal and justified. Pleasure over the suffering of a fellow human being, in this sort of situation, while also perfectly normal, is probably less justified. Perhaps age softens the edges of righteous indignation, makes me more sensitive to the pain of an octogenarian ending his previously distinguished career this way; allows me to feel comforted that justice has been done, but saddened that a man of such intelligence, drive, belief in his own causes, should have strayed onto this path.

Zagorin is not so charitable to people who take pleasure in others' pain.

This distinction, though, is psychologically so difficult to sustain that I would guess that the two sorts of pleasure continually merge. In an example mentioned by Portmann, the blessed in heaven, according to the great theologian Thomas Aquinas, both see and rejoice in the torments of the damned. This conception, which astounded Nietzsche by its cruelty, is schadenfreude at its highest, and it confirms my opinion that a God who inflicts eternal punishment on his creatures is one of the most wicked and immoral ideas the Christian religion ever introduced into the world. It is also among the reasons that make me question whether, despite Portmann's lucid arguments, schadenfreude can ever be a healthy and justifiable emotion and is not simply a base and nasty feeling which we should do our best to resist and overcome.

It seems to me reviewer Zagorin is incapable of accepting the ambiguities that Portmann suggests. "Base and nasty" seem pretty judgmental terms on his part as well. Should we be condemning those who take pleasure in Stevens' plight as strongly as we would condemn someone who has abused his position of power? My belief is that only when one is completely accepting of one's own self, can one feel truly charitable toward others who are in distress, particularly those who have gotten there through their own actions. Charity towards those less fortunate can easily stem from an unconscious relief that it is them and not me, and helping them can be a self satisfying demonstration of one's superior circumstances. (Before you attack on that one, look carefully at the word 'can' in that sentence. It doesn't have to be that.) Charity toward someone who has brought it onto himself is much harder, but probably a purer form of charity.

If Obama supporters really want change, we are going to have to talk to McCain supporters, find common ground with them, understand their fears and hopes, and fashion policies that allay rather than inflame those fears. It's not about winners and losers. If we don't change that dynamic, then it is business as usual. Dancing gleefully over Stevens' conviction makes more unlikely Obama's chance of bringing Americans together. It only salts the wounds of Stevens' supporters who will wait until they can get their revenge. And Democrats in power will fall victim to the same sorts of ego imbalances that have afflicted Republicans and give those now out-of-power folks their opportunities to enact that revenge.

Taking great joy over Stevens' fall also excuses us from our complicity in

• electing him over and over again
• greedily taking all the goodies Stevens has sent our way from DC
• not taking action to change the system which ensures that lobbyists gain enormous power over legislators because of the need for campaign money

So, my concern about Schadenfreude is not simply a moral one, but much more a practical concern.

• First, let's not heap scorn on Stevens as a way to excuse ourselves, voters in a democracy, from our own share of the blame in accepting this corrupt system we have. ("What can I do, I'm only one person?" is not an excuse. What did you try to do? How quickly did you give up?) We have to be involved because legislators who fight the system - look at Ralph Nader - do not get elected.
  
• Second, if the people of the United States cannot talk to each other with respect and understanding, Obama's possible presidency won't accomplish anything of lasting importance.

Priscilla Shanks Tried to Teach Palin to Say Nuclear

In the upcoming Sunday Times Magazine, Robert Draper tells the McCain campaign story as series of attempted narratives. I'm partial to the term narrative, because I believe that an important part of how humans think is through stories. They simplify getting all the facts. You get enough to figure out which narrative to pin on a politician or anyone or any situation.. Campaign managers work hard to get the best possible narrative pinned onto their candidates and the worst ones on their opponents. .

The narratives Draper says the McCain campaign struggled through are:
NARRATIVE 1: The Heroic Fighter vs. the Quitters
NARRATIVE 2: Country-First Deal Maker vs. Nonpartisan Pretender
NARRATIVE 3: Leader vs. Celebrity
NARRATIVE 4: Team of Mavericks vs. Old-Style Washington
NARRATIVE 5: John McCain vs. John McCain
NARRATIVE 6: The Fighter (Again) vs. the Tax-and-Spend Liberal

Narrative 4 - Team of Mavericks is where we get the background on how Sarah Palin got picked. Ultimately, it seems anti-climatic. Given this is a nine page article, there's not a lot of particularly interesting meat. All of it is just filling in details, documenting a story that isn't particularly remarkable. However, the one part confirmed something Alaskans have been wondering about is this part on Palin's voice coach:

While all of this was going on, an elegant middle-aged woman sat alone at the far end of the bar. She wore beige slacks and a red sweater, and she picked at a salad while talking incessantly on her cellphone. But for the McCain/Palin button affixed to her collar and the brief moment that Tucker Eskew, Palin’s new counselor, spoke into her ear, she seemed acutely disconnected from the jubilation swelling around her.

In fact, the woman was here for a reason. Her name was Priscilla Shanks, a New York-based stage and screen actress of middling success who had found a lucrative second career as a voice coach. Shanks’s work with Sarah Palin was as evident as it was unseen. Gone, by the evening of her convention speech, was the squeaky register of Palin’s exclamations. Gone (at least for the moment) was the Bushian pronunciation of “nuclear” as “nook-you-ler.” Present for the first time was a leisurely, even playful cadence that signaled Sarah Palin’s inevitability on this grand stage.

So who is Priscilla Shanks? There are a lot of hits for her on Google, but most of them are empty. Her Linkedin profile says this:

Priscilla Shanks’s Summary

12 years independent public speaking and media consultant in on-air broadcast training to broadcast journalists and those making the transition from print to broadcast journalistm

10 years experience as adjunct professor at New School for Social Research teacihng [sic] Public Speaking for Professionals

Currently in private practice preparing professionals and authors for media appearnaces, training executives, doctors, CEO's and business leaders in profit and non-profit organizations for their range of public speaking engagements.

On retainer to ABC Network News and CBS Network News and in private practice to broadcast journalists.