Catching Palin's Numbers

From innumeracy.com:

Innumeracy: A term meant to convey a person's inability to make sense of the numbers that run their lives.

........................................................................................


There's nothing wrong with appearing pretty and being bubbly. These are great attributes for a politician. But there has to be substance as well. Andrew Halcro wrote last year:

I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do. . .

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

So, when we get some facts from Palin's office, we should pay attention. Last week, this press release was made available on the state website:


Which closed with this:

The critical part of that State press release, the part where we get Palin's version of facts, is that last sentence about spending "millions of dollars."

At the time, Phil at Progressive Alaska wrote:

I suspect that statement is complete bullshit. Millions of dollars means from $2,000,000.00 on up, if I am correct.

I challenge Alaska's mainstream media to attempt to determine just how much this has cost Alaska taxpayers, and to have it broken down, case by case.

Well, in today's Anchorage Daily News, Sean Cockerham met the challenge:

Ethics complaints against Gov. Sarah Palin and top members of her administration have cost the state personnel board nearly $300,000 over the past year, almost two-thirds of which appear to be from the Troopergate investigation of the governor.

But Sean doesn't quote that "millions of dollars" charge from the June 23rd press release. All he says in the article is this:

The governor's office has said 15 "frivolous" ethics complaints against Palin or her staff, some on issues raised by bloggers, have been dismissed with no findings she violated the executive branch ethics act. "How much will this blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?" she asked about a March complaint.

It seems to me that the most significant part of this story is the gap between the Palin allegation last week and the actual cost of the complaints. Deducting the Troopergate costs - which resulted from Palin filing a complaint against herself so that the friendlier Personnel Board would review it instead of a Legislative Committee - the cost of complaints was down almost to $100,000.

Anyone who knows anything about math knows that an error of that magnitude is outrageous. It's like estimating a $100,000 house to cost about $2 million; a $10 scarf to cost $200. Either way it reflects poorly on the Governor's office. Either they were just lying or they are innumerate.

OK, the press release adds in public records searches, but the way they figure those charges is also grossly inflated and seems to be aimed at preventing people from gaining access to public records. At best it would still leave a huge magnitude of error.

There's a reason Palin doesn't use facts. This became clear during the presidential campaign. She's not on top of facts that matter in her job.


The second significant part of this whole fiasco, is the tone of the press release which makes it sound like people who file complaints are 'outrageous' and 'malicious' and 'asinine.' I understand that talk show hosts use divisive and derisive language to boost their ratings.

But the governor of all the people of Alaska should recognize complaints for what they are: a way for people to get accountability from their elected officials. Sure, there are people who maliciously file complaints, though I think in these cases the people filing the complaints believe they have legitimate grievances. But that's why we have courts and review boards to sort things out. I think that active gadflies serve an important purpose. When politicians know their actions and words will be questioned in the newspapers, on television, and on blogs, they will document their positions better before acting. That's how we get better government. Besides, professional review boards have standards that complaints must meet before opening full hearings to get rid specious filings.

My advice to the governor is to put on a happy face and welcome any charges because that will allow a legitimate review board to get all the information and to show the public what really happened. And to embrace the critics for making her do her job better. Remember: honey, not vinegar.

But I'm afraid that the governor's folks, unlike the talk show hosts, take this all very seriously and personally. It's as though they see themselves as force of goodness and light and anyone who opposes them must be allied with the forces of evil.

So, one last thing. Sean, why didn't you point out the discrepancy between the "millions of dollars" statement and the actual amount? Or did an editor cut it out? That itself would be an interesting story.

Baby Burke Brouhaha

I've been pondering this week's brouhaha over the picture of Baby Eddie Burke in Sarah Palin's arms. While I enjoy satire, I also feel that political humor generally feeds the faithful and ticks off the targets. Only brilliant satire has the possibility of changing the minds of the committed.

Looking at the picture, I didn't realize it was Eddie Burke's face and it was only after I read the explanations that I got the point. I certainly wasn't going to post the picture and I figured I'd stay out of the discussion altogether. But then the Governor's spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, released a statement (copied here from Conservatives4Palin) (If the picture is so terrible why did C4P post it on their own website? You can see it at the link.)

Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.

Paragraph 1:

Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.(emphasis added.)

Desecration. Merriam Webster's online dictionary isn't too helpful:

: an act or instance of desecrating : the state of being desecrated

But you can link to desecrate:

1 : to violate the sanctity of : PROFANE
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

And sanctity?

1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability
b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

So there is a religious etymology to this word, but it has come to be used in other contexts as well. But then Stapleton also uses the term "iconic representation of a mother's love. . ."

Back to the dictionary:

Icon

1: a usually pictorial representation : image
2 [Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians
3: an object of uncritical devotion : idol
4: emblem, symbol
5 a: a sign (as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning
b: a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that usually suggests the type of object represented or the purpose of an available function

Using both desecration and iconic image in one sentence strongly suggests to me that there was either intentional manipulation to give this a religious spin, or that Palin's staff are so steeped in religion that they think in those terms and just write this sort of language naturally. Here's my picture (from talaria) of an iconic image of a mother and child.


Paragraph 2:

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Why is a special needs baby, in this case, any different from any baby? Why are they continuing to emphasize that this is a special needs baby? It's like saying "this is my black friend' as opposed to just "my friend." What's the point? If Biegel had 'doctored' a picture of a 'normal' baby, would that have been ok? What if they had photoshopped the baby out completely and used a different baby in the picture? Would that have been ok? Or what if she had put Palin's face over Mary's in the icon and Burke's over the baby Jesus'? Would that have been ok?

Because here the outrage all seems to be that someone would make fun of a special needs baby. And as I see this picture, it's aimed at parodying Burke's and Palin's close relationship. Palin doesn't complain about Burke's degrading comments about women and he seems to be infatuated with Palin. The emphasis on 'special needs' seems to be Stapleton's effort to remind people that Palin is indeed an icon of motherhood because she kept her special needs baby. As if such a baby is less than a 'normal' baby and keeping it shows Palin's holiness. (Hey, I could be totally wrong. But at least I pose my comments as possible interpretations, while the tone of Stapleton's release suggests there can be no other interpretation than hers.)

And why is it more sickening that Alaskans did this? Are Alaskans supposed to give Palin more respect than other people? It seems people who are most affected by Palin have the most responsibility to closely monitor her actions as governor.

And I have to note the use of the term "Democrat Party." This is a way you can tell a Republican, sort of like catching a Canadian from her pronunciation of the word "out." As I understand it, using Democrat Party was a conscious Republican effort to denigrate the Democratic Party by replacing the official name with one that sounded harsher. I didn't find a good credible citation, but you can see a discussion of the issue here.

Paragraph 3:

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned."

First, when was there decency in American politics? If I recall my history, things were pretty wild in Jefferson's day. If a politician uses the kids to pump up his image, but the image the candidate is portraying is misleading, then the kids are fair game. Bristol's unwed motherhood was announced by Palin. If a blogger had announced the pregnancy before Palin did it would have been a disaster, so she really had to do it. But the irony of the pregnancy, given Palin's stand on abstinence-only-education, is certainly newsworthy. Picking on a baby's behavior makes no sense since a baby is not responsible. On the other hand, the baby is totally unaware of the debate. And despite Stapleton's take on this, I don't see the picture as being about the baby.

OK, I do understand Stapleton's plea to Obama to somehow censor Linda. After all, among the Republicans, especially in the Bush2 years, everyone was expected to toe the party line. Obviously, from the Republican perspective, if they assume the Democrats are the same, Linda doesn't say anything without approval from the Oval Office. And if she does, she should be edged out. . Well, that image of Democrats is a joke.


To a certain extent, I find the constant attacks on Palin by fellow bloggers to be borderline reasonable. The pointing out of ethical violations - even those that are rejected by Palin's favorite review board - is certainly reasonable. The bloggers do not have access to all the available information and may not be able to prove the violation, but at least these things should be pursued if there is reasonable evidence. Think of all the trouble that might have been avoided if bloggers had been poking into the relationships between Bill Allen and various legislators early on.

What I find less appealing are the snarky comments about clothing and behavior. But that's part of the American tradition of politics and the media. When Palin was on the Bob and Mark radio show, she laughed when they called cancer survivor and political rival Lyda Green a "cancer" and a "bitch." And I recall Palin being the attack dog in the McCain campaign. So let's cut out the crocodile tears here.


One More Thing

To put the religious tone of the first paragraph into context, we can look at the language of Ahmad Khamani from a Reuters article:

ISLAMIC LAW

Ahmad Khatami, a member of the powerful Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge leading "rioters" as "mohareb" or one who wages war against God.

"I want the judiciary to ... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University on Friday.

"They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran's Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as "mohareb" is execution.

He too is equating the demonstrators' behavior to desecration. At least Khamani is a religious leader and an official of a religious nation. That may be Palin's dream, but so far it isn't the case.

And then there is Sarah Palin

The Gist:

The people she so righteously decries for making 'blatant attempts. . .to destroy Stevens' were from the Bush Justice Department. Those who made sure his rights were "well-guarded" and dismissed the charges were from the Obama Justice Department.

The Whole Post:

(Thursday, April 2, 2009, 8 am Thai time) I knew something was up when I started seeing hits for Mary Beth Kepner again. Then someone left a comment on my Does Race Matter? post saying that the charges against Ted Stevens had been dropped. Although it was April 1, that isn't the kind of thing you make an April Fool's joke about. But I couldn't find much detail on the story before I went to bed and decided to try to digest this before posting anything. I have had attorneys tell me that the prosecution team had been totally out of line and the case should be dismissed, so I wasn't completely surprised. But still it was a stunner.

Now, though, as I look through the comments by various players and observers posted in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) this morning, I'm disturbed (my regular readers know I tend to understate things) by the comments of our Governor. All the other comments in the story address the legal and personal aspects a in a more-or-less objective and muted tone.

At the most neutral tone we have the attorney general's words:

“In connection with the post-trial litigation in United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, the Department of Justice has conducted a review of the case, including an examination of the extent of the disclosures provided to the defendant. After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial.

Ted Stevens' comments are also focused on the facts with little emotional elaboration and give credit where credit is due.

I am grateful that the new team of responsible prosecutors at the Department of Justice has acknowledged that I did not receive a fair trial and has dismissed all the charges against me. I am also grateful that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan made rulings that facilitated the exposure of the government’s misconduct during the last two years. I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come.

The defense attorney's statement discusses the points of the dismissal, then gives effusive credit before slipping into a bit of editorial language.

Attorney General Eric Holder, too, should be commended. He is a pillar of integrity in the legal community, and his actions today prove it. Moreover, he has demonstrated the kind of leadership that we defense lawyers seek and that the Department of Justice desperately needs. Ineffective leadership permits this type of prosecutorial misconduct to flourish.

This case is a sad story and a warning to everyone. Any citizen can be convicted if prosecutors are hell-bent on ignoring the Constitution and willing to present false
evidence.

And then there is Sarah Palin. She adopts the language, tone, and emptiness of a talk show host. Does she realize what she's saying?

Senator Stevens deserves to be very happy today. What a horrible thing he has endured. The blatant attempts by adversaries to destroy one’s reputation, career and finances are an abuse of our well-guarded process and violate our God-given rights afforded in the Constitution. It is a frightening thing to contemplate what we may be witnessing here – the undermining of the political process through unscrupulous ploys and professional misconduct. Senator Stevens and I had lunch together recently at my home and he reiterated the faith he held for vindication; he never gave up hope. It is unfortunate that, as a result of the questionable proceedings which led to Senator Stevens’ conviction days before the election, Alaskans lost an esteemed statesman on Capitol Hill. His presence is missed.

I'm sure there are people for whom the governor's statement hits just the right tone. But unlike Stevens and the Defense Attorney, she leaves out any credit for justice being done. But does she even realize who those adversaries were?

The people she so righteously decries for making 'blatant attempts. . .to destroy Stevens' were from the Bush Justice Department. Those who made sure his rights were "well-guarded" and dismissed the charges were from the Obama Justice Department.


Can you imagine any of George Bush's attorneys general taking similar action for a prominent Democrat? Or a McCain/Palin attorney general? If the Obama administration had the same sort of mind set that Palin displays here, this decision never would have been made.

All that said, given how the professionalism of the prosecution changed so radically when they moved to DC, I still have to wonder whether someone in that Bush Justice Department did things intentionally to get this trial thrown out.

[Update: See Cliff Groh's interpretation on all this. He was at the trial of Stevens.]

Celebrity Product Placement and Palin's Arctic Cat Coat

I'm a little behind on what's going on in Alaska, but I see that Linda Kellen Biegel at Blue Oasis has riled up a bunch of folks for filing an ethics complaint against Gov. Palin.

The complaint alleges a conflict of interest when Governor Palin wore specially designed snow-machine gear advertising her husband Todd's biggest Iron Dog sponsor, Arctic Cat Inc. She did so while acting in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska and official starter of the Iron Dog Snow Machine Race.

[The picture is from the Blue Oasis post too so you can see what the complaint is about.]

According to later posts, she's gotten a lot of nasty comments, emails, and phone calls. Some of the comments on her blog carry a theme of "So what's the big deal, I wear logo stuff all the time on all my clothes."

So I googled around to find out about product placement and celebrity endorsements.

In an article published last October in Harvard Business School Working Knowledge Sarah Jane Gilbert wrote about Harvard Business Professor Anita Elberse whose favorite research topic is described as "the value created and captured by superstars."

Anita Elberse: The sports marketing industry, covering everything from television rights to endorsements, sponsorships, and merchandising, is an important sector and growing rapidly. In its Global Entertainment and Media Outlook, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the sports industry accounted for around $50 billion in revenues in the United States in 2007, up from just under $35 billion in 2001. On a global scale, total revenues are expected to be nearly $100 billion this year, compared with $70 billion in 2001.

As far as endorsements are concerned, marketers increasingly turn to athletes to promote their products. The marketing executives I spoke with told me they value these endorsements especially because it is getting more and more difficult to reach a wide group of consumers using traditional ways of advertising such as television commercials, and harder to gain credibility with commercial messages.

You can read the whole Elberse interview at the Harvard link above. Here's one more excerpt:

[B]ecause star athletes and other celebrities are "brands" that have certain meanings for consumers, companies can spend millions of dollars to align themselves with those celebrities. They hope those celebrities' brands "rub off" on the products they are trying to sell, be it apparel, cars, or beauty products. . .

Considering the limited free time an athlete like Sharapova has in a year filled with training sessions and tournaments across the globe—less than 20 days remain for sponsorship commitments—I found it remarkable to learn how much value is generated.

There are also articles that suggest that the return on investment isn't really there. InnovationsReport writes, for example, that

Advertisements featuring endorsements by celebrities such as David Beckham are less effective than those featuring ordinary people, new research suggests.

Perhaps the marketing people just like being around celebrities so pushing endorsements gives them that opportunity. Whether on the whole these product placements are worth the money (we all now know about the fallibility of banking experts who pushed the various home loan packages, so why should marketing experts who push celebrity endorsements be any more reliable?) the fact is that businesses believe in them enough to spend tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars every year on them.

In an article about strategies for getting celebrities to publicly use their products, Jonathan Holiff, describe as the president and CEO of The Hollywood-Madison Group, offers three strategies for getting products out to celebrities.

1. Gifting the talent (this usually involves supplying products for gift bags at live events)

2. Product seeding (products are distributed more widely in hopes of securing a promotional benefit and kicking off a trend)

3. Barter relationships (individual celebrities agree to participate in custom programs in exchange for valuable products).

He says the most effective is the third, barter relationships. He goes on to give an example of promoting the Sony CD Mavica digital camera.

Sony wanted to involve celebrities with its products and wanted that involvement to influence the public in a meaningful way. They sought a high-profile event—preferably benefiting charity—upon which to launch a yearlong press campaign in time for the Christmas shopping season. The focus: to promote the simplicity of CD-based photography.

So, with a limited budget, Holiff's company suggested getting celebrities to take pictures of what "freedom" means to them, that would be auctioned off for charity. The point was to use several ploys here to entice the celebrities into participating:

Such an artistic challenge, coupled with the prospect of receiving free Sony products, not only served to induce celebrities to participate but also offered us an extraordinary opportunity: to frame these pictures and mount an exhibition that raised money for charity. Indeed, the charity component attracted higher-caliber celebrities and provided the "hook" to draw media attention. . .

Fifteen top celebrities demonstrated the practical use of Sony's product and authorized the use of their names, likenesses and opinions about the product for press and marketing purposes (for one year). Sony received free advertising for its product in print and online for three months (worth an estimated $100,000), as well as 3.6 million Web page impressions (auction as a whole) and national press coverage, including Entertainment Tonight.

Clearly, some celebrity marketing campaigns work better than others. Martin Roll, who is described on VentureRepublic as a

world-renowned thought-leader on value creation through brand equity

describes some essentials of celebrity endorsements.

* Attractiveness of the celebrity: This principle states that an attractive endorser will have a positive impact on the endorsement. The endorser should be attractive to the target audience in certain aspects like physical appearance, intellectual capabilities, athletic competence, and lifestyle. It has been proved that an endorser that appears attractive as defined above has a grater chance of enhancing the memory of the brand that he/she endorses.

* Credibility of the celebrity: This principle states that for any brand-celebrity collaboration to be successful, the personal credibility of the celebrity is crucial. Credibility is defined here as the celebrities’ perceived expertise and trustworthiness. As celebrity endorsements act as an external cue that enable consumers to sift through the tremendous brand clutter in the market, the credibility factor of the celebrity greatly influences the acceptance with consumers.

* Meaning transfer between the celebrity and the brand: This principle states that the success of the brand-celebrity collaboration heavily depends on the compatibility between the brand and the celebrity in terms of identity, personality, positioning in the market vis-à-vis competitors, and lifestyle. When a brand signs on a celebrity, these are some of the compatibility factors that have to exist for the brand to leverage the maximum from that collaboration.

Palin scores high on the physical attractiveness. I would say the audiences are split on her, but she has some extremely enthusiastic followers along with those fairly strongly opposed. So it's mixed on the second criterion. But surely there aren't too many - maybe none - celebrities of Palin's level who is so compatible to snow machine racing. So, this is probably a pretty good celebrity catch for Arctic Cat.

But Ronnie05 on his blog points out another celebrity endorsement:

Research In Motion and Blackberry do not require any celebrity endorsement. Why would they when the biggest celebrity in the world, the single “hero” in the world and in America, is doing it for them and is not charging a single cent. Barrack Obama’s penchant for the “Blackberry” has steadily found its way into the press.

The question is whether Palin's use of the Arctic Cat coats is the same thing as Obama's use of his Blackberry. The Blackberry is a tool that many people use and presumably Obama picked his up on his own and the press happened to catch him using it. I guess we should dispatch someone to find out if the Blackberry company gave it to him in hopes he would be photographed using it.


Given the amount of money spent on celebrity placements, and the careful planning placement specialists seem to go through to get the right people to publicly use their products, I think it would be of interest to us all to hear exactly how it came to be that Gov. Palin wore that coat at the opening of the Iron Dog race.

Two basic questions we need answered are:

1. How did Palin get the coats? Did she go out an buy it? Was it something that she had in the closet and that she wears all the time? Was it a gift from Arctic Cat?

2. Did Arctic Cat in any way influence Palin to wear the coat at the start of the Iron Dog race?

If it was a gift from Arctic Cat, given what I've been reading on product placement, it probably wasn't just an accident that the Governor of Alaska opened the Iron Dog Snow Machine Race wearing the coat. There were probably product placement pros carefully plotting the whole thing.

Just as Jonathan Holiff outlines how they plotted to get celebrities to use the Sony cameras by setting up a contest that benefited charity, Arctic Cat's marketing specialists probably said, "This will look so natural. We already sponsor her husband, so why wouldn't we give him and his family jackets? And then all she has to do is wear it when she opens the race. Bingo, we'll have pictures of Sarah Palin, one of the most well known celebrities in the US, who also happens to be linked in the public's mind to snow machines, all over the place."

There doesn't even have to be any sort of additional payment to Palin (though Biegel's complaint says Arctic Cat is Todd Palin's biggest Iron Dog sponsor, so the Palin family is getting something from the company.) And Palin likely did not give them any rights to use the pictures (though we should ask about that too just to be sure).

And Palin might have been lulled into all this just as all those celebrities who get gifts are. You get a free camera, we challenge your ego by getting you to take pictures we're going to sell for charity, and we'll throw in "Freedom" as the theme for the pictures. Who can resist?

But Palin isn't just a celebrity. She's a government official. She's a representative of the People of Alaska, the head of our government. Our governor must separate private product endorsements from her official duties as governor. And yes, making appearances at the openings of events, cutting ribbons for new roads, etc. in her capacity as governor are official duties. [Would she have been invited if she were not the governor?] And furthermore, this is a politician who became governor in part on her strong stance against public officials whose personal interests and public interests overlapped.

So for those who say they wear clothing with brand names attached all the time, I would say I suspect this isn't some trivial incident comparable to her happening to put on Levis and someone complains that the little red tag in back is an endorsement. These are big conspicuous coats with giant endorsements all over them. This is big business and potentially worth lots of money for Arctic Cat.

So, did Sarah buy these coats or were they given to her?
How did she decide to wear them to the opening of the race?
Did Arctic Cat and/or their marketing company have a plan for getting Palin to wear the coat at the opening of the race?

If this were an isolated event, I might be more likely to lean with those who say to give her a pass on this. But sometimes the problem is a series of small events, no single event being that big a deal. And if we are serious about having politicians who aren't tainted by special interests, then we have to call every single case so that politicians finally learn that their jobs are to serve the public without getting extra benefits for themselves along the way. If all these sorts of special perks are too much of a hassle, then maybe the people who run for office to get them will find more hassle-free endeavors.

And it means holding Democrats accountable as well as Republicans.

News that really isn't New

Sometimes I get google search terms that tell me that something has happened. Today I got a couple of google searches about Beverly Masek. So I checked out what else the googler found and got to this Anchorage Daily News headline.

Masek to plead guilty to bribery charge

The only question was whether she would plead or go to trial. The prosecution is much more interested in getting people to plead. That way they don't have to risk a jury, they don't have to work so hard presenting the evidence, and they don't have to expose what they know and how they operate so publicly. But we knew that Masek was in their sights. This was a sad situation all the way through. As the article says,

Prosecutors wrote that they expect Masek to plead for a further reduction in her sentence, citing "alcoholism, financial and emotional distress, and/or situational depression due to her divorce."

This was someone who just wasn't legislative material. She had too many personal issues to deal with. It's an example of why knowing about a candidate's personal life is important for voters, despite what candidates say about this.

And let's look carefully at campaign ads again. Candidates themselves raise the issues they think will help get them elected - their families, their hobbies, etc. It's just when the media bring up issues like their alcoholism that they argue that personal issues are off limits. Which brings us to the other headline today that wasn't at all unexpected.

Palin's daughter, boyfriend break up

Alaskans knew precious little about the Palins' family life other than basics. The authorized biography gave us the good spin on things, but not too many people read it until she was nominated for VP. And then candidate Palin brought her whole family onstage to tout her son's enlistment and pending duty in Iraq and her daughter's pregnancy and future marriage. No one I talked to had any illusions about the couple's interest in living together happily ever after. Don Mitchell wrote a withering piece at Alaska Dispatch [that AK Dispatch link no longer works, so I've linked to a copy of the piece on Huffington Post] giving advice to Levi's parents on how to negotiate with the McCain-Palin team for payments to stick around until after the election.

So this too was news as unexpected as, "Today is the first day of Spring." (Well, in a little over a week you can say you already read it here first.)

Claude Lévi-Strauss One Hundredth Birthday - Post 5[6]: Myth, History, Stevens' Legacy, and Palin's Turkeys

[All the Lévi-Strauss Birthday posts are here.]
OK, I've got a post title, but can I put it all together so it makes sense to readers? I've titled this blog "What Do I Know?" because I think the question is a critical one for us all to ponder, all the time. The Lévi-Strauss quotes at the beginning of this post look at how anthropologists gather indigenous myths and then how they give them meaning. After the quotes, I look at two current Alaskan (but also national) stories and try to give perspective on how we - mainstream journalists and bloggers as well as general citizens - create our own cultural myths and write our history. I'm the first to acknowledge that I'm not necessarily interpreting Lévi-Strauss accurately, but I think it is still legitimate to let his writing stimulate ideas that can then be used to see 'today' from a different perspective. How do we know?

Lévi-Strauss, in Myth and Meaning ponders in a chapter called "When Myth Becomes History" how we should interpret the meaning of the collected mythology of 'primitive' peoples. In this book he is particularly looking at North and South American myths. The ones in this chapter are particularly relevant to Alaskans since they are about Indians living on the edges of Alaska. I'll try to pick out a few quotes and then make a huge leap and relate this to current Alaska myth making.

Lévi-Strauss begins the chapter raising two problems for the mythologist:

1. There are two different types of mythic material
   -one type of collection is "like shreds and patches...disconnected stories are put one after the other without any clear relationship"
   -the other type is "coherent mythological stories, all divided into chapters following each other in a quite logical order."
2. What does the collection mean?
   

Dealing with the second question, he discusses who collects the myths using what framework.

This second problem is, though still theoretical, of a more practical nature. In former times, let's say in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, mythological material was collected mostly by anthropologists, that is people from the outside. Of course, in many cases, and especially in Canada, they had native collaborators. Let me, for instance, quote the case of Franz Boas, who had a Kwakiutl assistant, George Hunt (as a matter of fact, he was not exactly Kwakiutl because he was born of a Scottish father and Tlingit mother, but he was raised among the Kwakiutl, married among the Kwakiutl, and completely identified with the culture). And for the Tsmishian, Boas had Henry Tate, who was a literate Tsimshian, and Marius Barbeau had William Benyon, who was also a literate Tsimshian. So native co-operation was secured from the beginning, but nevertheless the fact is Hunt, Tate, or Benyon worked under the guidance of the anthropologists, that is they were turned into anthropologists themselves. Of course, they knew the best legends, the traditions belonging to their own clan, their own lineage, but nevertheless they were equally interested in collecting data from other families, other clans, and the like.

When we look at this enormous corpus of Indian mythology, such as, for instance Boas' and Tate's Tsimshian Mythology, or the Kwakiutl texts collected by Hunt, and edited, published, and translated too by Boas, we find more or less the same organization of the data, because it is one which was recommended by the anthropologists: for instance, in the beginning, cosmological and cosmogonic myths, and later on, much later on, what can be considered as legendary tradition and family histories.

It has so happened that this task, started by the anthropologists, the Indians are taking now up themselves, and for different purposes, for instance, to have their language and mythology taught in elementary schools for Indian children. That is very important, I understand, at the moment. Another purpose is to use legendary tradition to validate claims against the white people - territorial claims, political claims, and so on.

So it is extremely important to find out if there is a difference and, if there is, what kind of difference between traditions collected from the outside from those collected on the inside, though as if they were collected from the outside. Canada is fortunate, I should say, in that books about its own mythology and legendary traditions have been organized and published by the Indian specialists themselves. This began early: there is Legends of Vancouver by Pauline Johnson, issued before the First World War. Later on, we had books by Marius Barbeau, who was, of course, not Indian at all, but who tried to collect historical or semi-historical material and make himself the spokesman of his Indian informants; he produced, so to speak, his own version of that mythology.

More interesting, far more interesting, are books such as Men of Medeek published in Kitimat in 1962, which is supposedly the verbatim account collected from the mouth of Chief Walter Wright, a Tsimshian chief of the middle Skeena river, but collected by somebody else, a white field worker who was not even a professional. And even more important is the recent book by Chief Kenneth Harris, who is also a Tsimshian chief, published in 1974 by himself.

So we can, with this kind of material, make a kind of experiment by comparing the material collected by anthropologists, and the material collected and published directly by the Indians. I should not say 'collected,' as a matter of fact, because instead of being traditions from several families, several class, several lineages put together and juxtaposed to each other, what we have in these two books is really the history of one family or one clan, published by one of its descendants.

I'm skipping an interesting chunk that compares Chief Wright's and Chief Harris' histories.

It is practically the same story in both books: it explains that the city was destroyed, that the remnants of the people went on the move, and started difficult peregrinations along the Skeena.

This, of course, could be a historical event, but if we look closely at the way it is explained, we see that the type of event is the same, but not exactly the details. For instance, according to the version, there can be at the original a fight between two villages or two towns, a fight which originated in an adultery; but the story can be either that a husband killed the lover of his wife, or that brothers killed their sister's lover, or that a husband killed his wife because she had a lover. So, you see, we have an explanatory cell. Its basic structure is the same, but the content of the cell is not the same and can vary, so it is a kind of mini-myth if I may say so, because it is very short and very condensed, but it has still the property of a myth in that we can observe it under different transformations. When one element is transformed, the other elements should be rearranged accordingly. This is the first aspect of these clan stories that interests me.

...What we discover by reading these books is that the opposition - the simple opposition between mythology and history which we are accustomed to make - is not at all a clear-cut one, and that there is an intermediary level. Mythogology is static, we find the same mythical elements combined over and over again, but they are in a closed system, let us say, in contradistinction with history, which is, of course, an open system.

The open character of history is secured by the innumerable ways according to which mythical cells, or explanatory cells which were originally mythical, can be arranged and rearranged. It shows us that by using the same material, because it is a kind of common inheritance or common patrimony of all groups, of all clans, or of all lineages, one can nevertheless succeed in building up an original account for each of them. [From Claude Lévi-Strauss (1979) Myth and Meaning, New York: Schocken Books. pp. 35-41]

So, as I understand this, basically Lévi-Strauss is asking questions about how basic stories are told - how they are framed, interpreted, and turned into history. He starts right at the very beginning, how the person - whether outsider or insider - just in the very act of writing down the story, has to make choices of how to organize it. And later he relates the issue of why they write it - is there some purpose it is going to serve? To help secure an anthropology reputation? To keep the attention and funding of the anthropologist? To make land claims?

So when we read the accounts of modern day 'chiefs' like Chief Stevens and Chief Palin, even the most careful recorder will be distorting the stories. Less scrupulous recorders are consciously or unconsciously radically skewing the story to promote their interests. Of course, this conceit is nothing new to any of us. But it is also true that we often tend to forget that our stories aren't 'the truth' but rather they are 'our truth.'

Right now there are two stories being written in Alaska. The Palin story is more at the cell level as Alaskan blogs (and others - the first Alaska blog to show up when I googled the turkey story was on page 5) are taking on seemingly small, trivial incidents, such as the Thanksgiving Turkey Pardoning story (See Celtic Diva, Mudflats, and Immoral Minority for example.) And challenging the story-making power of the mainstream media. In this story, two of the Alaskan bloggers were on the scene of the turkey pardoning and have vigorously challenged the versions of the incident from the Governor's office and the television and newspapers.

(Double click to enlarge)

In the second instance, the Anchorage Daily News editorial section carried a full page of five writers speculating or advocating how history will (or should) remember Ted Stevens. It seems that this corresponds more to Lévi-Strauss's anthropologist taking the existing collections and trying to give them meaning. For all of his career - save for the last couple of years - the cells of the Stevens myth have been written by the mainstream media in Alaska, which have ranged from fawning - the Anchorage Times - to the ADN, which has been basically positive bordering on timid, with just a few recent (last several years) but seriously in depth questioning articles usually authored or co-authored by Rich Mauer. Today's spread is 60% hagiography, 20% laudatory, and only the last of the five pieces raises, fairly gingerly, serious issues.

I'm using the Lévi-Strauss material in part because I'm reading it this week. But I think it informs what we are doing today, by getting us to step back and look at ourselves as we document (and have documented) Alaska history. As a blogger I've tended to do more interpreting of existing stories than actually writing the stories - the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials being the major exception where I was documenting the stories.

In this blog I've tried to keep from jumping to conclusions about Palin. I've tried to present the facts (including the facts of how I knew what I knew) to let the readers make their own conclusions. Though sometimes I've revealed my own conclusions. Occasionally, I've wondered whether the constant in-your-face reporting wasn't getting carried away with its own importance while essentially dealing with basically trivial material while key policy issues go unexamined.

But in the context of Lévi-Strauss' thoughts on myth and history, it's clear the 'cells, ' on which history is built, need to be carefully examined. The careful examination of the Palin stories documents alternative interpretations of what the mainstream media report. While there are bloggers, in Alaska even, whose writing is merely thoughtless venting, there is a core of Alaskan bloggers who have vigorously fought to bring out what they have seen as the truths that weren't otherwise being told. I've watched them with admiration, even if I've winced now and then, as they tenaciously dug into the details of a story and put them out for the world to see. Thanks folks.

In Stevens' case, the cells were never challenged until the very end of his career, and so we have a mass of cells that add up to the interpretation of "Stevens the great man of Alaska History" or "Stevens the great man who whose final days are a footnote."

Only the Michael Carey piece today hints at why, if Stevens was so great and formidable, he wasn't able to keep himself in the Senate. There are lots of things Stevens could have done - straightening up the Republican Party in Alaska; legitimately securing his economic future (Senators make a fair amount of money and their retirement programs would be welcomed by most Americans); standing up for principles besides winning and 'bring home the bacon for Alaskans' - such as the rule of law. (Recent stories in the ADN talk about him bragging about breaking the law to lobby for Alaskan statehood for instance while working for the federal government.  If 'the ends justify the means' is your motto, anything is acceptable if the prize is good enough. And eventually, the law is seen as technicality not to worry about.

So, while it is clear that Ted Stevens' intelligence and tenacity on behalf of Alaska have put roads, schools, hospitals, airports, and museums across Alaska as well as securing Alaska Natives significant land and cash through ANCSA, today's stories will, I suspect, be followed up by more careful analysis as time goes by. There are lots of stories to be written. Why, for example, did the FBI and the Public Integrity Section under a rabidly partisan Republican administration, in a Justice Department that fired attorneys for not vigorously investigating Democrats on flimsy evidence, or for investigating Republicans at all, take on the senior Republican in the US Senate?

Unfortunately, bloggers weren't around to challenge the Stevens myths earlier in his career, challenges that might have made him more self reflective, less accepting of the misdeeds of the Republican money folks, less likely to take the good old boy perks for granted, generally more thoughtful about what and how he did things. Challenges that would have corrected the record that historians will use to eventually write the history of Alaska and Stevens' place in it.

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.

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.

Sarah Barracuda

Local Anchorage artist, Mariano Gonzales, shared his latest creation with me. Part of me wants to enjoy this privately and not add this to the political free for all going on. But Sarah has been proud of her barracuda nickname and I suspect that she'll want to frame this one.

Disclosure time: Mariano is teaching the computer art class I'm taking and I asked him if I could post the fish.

As You Like It Sheds Light on Sarah Palin

We went to see As You Like It this afternoon. Basically, I wanted to hear Philip Munger's songs. You can listen here. And you really should have this playing while you read the rest of this.

Sitting through a Shakespeare play, even a relatively light one like this, I was reminded of why we still put on his plays 400 years after he wrote them. If only more Americans would know the characters of Shakespeare the way they know the Desperate Housewives, perhaps this election season would be less contentious. While I would particularly like the people flocking to cheer our governor to have been schooled in Shakespeare, it would also be good for those who are Obama supporters, so that their expectations for his possible Presidency will be realistic.

In any case, I was struck by this early conversation between Oliver - hero Orlando's older brother who has kept Orlando from gaining his inheritance - and a wrestler Orlando has challenged.

As You Like it By William Shakespeare, George Lyman Kittredge:

Oliver: "... I tell thee, Charles, it is the stubbornest young fellow of France; full of ambition, an envious emulator of every man's good parts, a secret and villainous contriver against me his natural brother: therefore use thy discretion; I had as lief thou didst break his neck as his finger. And thou wert best look to't; for if thou dost him any slight disgrace, or if he do not mightily grace himself on thee, he will practise against thee by poison, entrap thee by some treacherous device, and never leave thee till he hath ta 'en thy life by some indirect means or other; for, I assure thee, and almost with tears I speak it, there is not one so young and so villainous this day living."

The wrestler Charles agrees to take care of Orlando should he show up for the match.

Oliver: Farewell good Charles. [Exit CHARLES] Now will I stir this gamester: I hope I shall see an end of him; for my soul, yet I know not why, hates nothing more than he. Yet he's gentle; never school'd, and yet learned; full of noble device of all sorts; enchantingly beloved; and indeed so much in the heart of the world, and especially of my own people, who best know him, that I am altogether misprised. But it shall not be so long; this wrestler shall clear all; nothing remains but that I kindle the boy thither; which now I'll go about. [Exit]"

I dare say we know of those who knowingly lie about their rivals in hopes that their 'wrestler' friends will dispatch them. And, sad to say, were the wrestler to know the truth, I suspect he'd dispatch him anyway.

Oliver lies to Charles, totally misrepresents Orlando's character, knowingly. Why? Because Orlando's goodness blocks Oliver's ambitions. Of course, we know no one like this. No one who speaks untruths about rivals who block their path to power.

But in As You Like It, this sort of jealousy of another who makes oneself look bad in comparison comes up again. Soon after the scene above, Duke Frederick, who, has housed Rosalind after he expelled her father years ago, has decided Rosalind too must go.

[Enter Duke FREDERICK with Lords]
Duke F: Mistress, dispatch you with your safest haste, And get you from our Court.
Ros: Me? uncle?
Duke F: You, cousin:
Within these ten days if that thou be'st found
So near our public Court as twenty miles,
Thou diest for it.

Rosalind, appealing to logic and reason, asks what she has done to cause this.

Ros: I do beseech your Grace,
Let me the knowledge of my fault bear with me;
If with myself I hold intelligence,
Or have acquaintance with mine own desires;
If that I do not dream, or be not frantic, --
As I do trust I am not, -- then, dear uncle,
Never so much as in a thought unborn,
Did I offend your Highness.

The Duke then basically says, I don't have to answer your questions, I'll just start another line of attack. Oh, my, this starts sounding so familiar. You are a traitor he tells her. Your words are pretty, but no one can trust your words.

Duke F: Thus do all traitors:
If their purgation did consist in words,
They are as innocent as grace itself;
Let it suffice thee, that I trust thee not.

Rosalind, still using reason, responds:

Ros: Yet your mistrust cannot make me a traitor
Tell me whereon the likelihood depends.

Duke F: Thou art thy father's daughter there's enough.

Does this not sound terribly familiar? How is it that Obama is a Muslim if not because "he art his father's son"? How do Reverend Wright's words make Obama a traitor?

Ros: So was I when your Highness took his dukedom:
So was I when your Highness banish d him:
Treason is not inherited my lord;
Or if we did derive it from our friends,
What's that to me? my father was no traitor.
Then, good my liege, mistake me not so much
To think my poverty is treacherous.

Oh dear, poverty is very near community organizing. Now Duke Frederick's daughter, Celia, pleads on behalf of her dearest friend.

Cel: Dear sovereign hear me speak.

Duke F: Ay Celia; we stay'd her for your sake,
Else had she with her father ranged along.

Basically, we kept this traitor because of you, her father tells her. But she disputes this lie.

Cel: I did not then entreat to have her stay;
It was your pleasure and your own remorse;
I was too young that time to value her;
But now I know her: if she be a traitor,
Why, so am I; we still have slept together;
Rose at an instant, learn'd, play'd, eat together;
And, wheresoe'er we went like Juno's swans,
Still we went coupled and inseparable.

Every lie the Duke constructs is torn down, and finally, he tells her the truth. It is similar to Oliver's truth about Orlando: Stupid Celia, Rosalind is so good, she makes you look terrible in comparison. That's why she must go.

Duke F: She is too subtle for thee; and her smoothness,
Her very silence, and her patience,
Speak to the people, and they pity her.
Thou art a fool: she robs thee of thy name;
And thou wilt show more bright and seem more virtuous
When she is gone. Then open not thy lips:
Firm and irrevocable is my doom
Which I have pass'd upon her: she is banish'd.

Fortunately, Palin and her right wing spewers of hate (I got another email pointing me to another racist anti-Obama YouTube video today) cannot decree McCain's election as easily as the Duke can banish Rosalind. They can only hope that they can con enough Americans to feel the same fears about Obama, that they willingly buy into their lies and vote for McCain.

A lot of Kings, Dukes, Emperors, etc. (no Presidents in those days) are murdered in Shakespeare's plays and Sarah Palin's speeches have been getting people to say those sorts of things out loud. If Obama were harmed by anyone, this country's future would be grimmer than grim. The only people who would 'win' are those who would rather be dead than see a Black man President.

So, go see or read Shakespeare. Yes, it takes a bit to get used to the old words. If you don't read an annotated version, you won't recognize all the references that Shakespeare's contemporary audience would have understood. But he is much more understandable than Jon Stewart will be in 400 years, and has lots to teach us about human beings.

Well, maybe someone more familiar than I with the characters in Desperate Housewives or some other relevant TV show can figure out which characters would help get the undecideds to understand what is going on.



The pictures: The poster. (You can buy tickets before the performance in the Theater and Arts Building at UAA. Free parking on Fridays nights and weekends. There's a discount for 15 or more people. How about a bloggers' night at the theater to hear Phil's music?)

Some of the cast after the performance.

Walking home.

State Employees to Testify in Legislative Investigation

Thanks for the heads up from Dennis Zaki:

Attorney General Talis J. Colberg Releases Statement on Status of Subpoenaed Employees in Legislative Investigation

For Immediate Release:

October 5, 2008

( Anchorage , AK ) Alaska Attorney General Colberg announced today that the seven state employees who filed suit to quash the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas will make themselves available to testify in the legislative investigation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued the subpoenas for the benefit of Stephen Branchflower, who is conducting an investigation for the Legislative Council of events surrounding the removal of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan. The Department of Law challenged the authority of that committee to subpoena the state employees in a lawsuit filed on September 25, 2008, Kiesel et al. v. Seven Subpoenas et al. In a decision dated October 2, Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski determined that those concerns were more properly considered by the legislature than by the courts. The Department of Law then consulted with the seven state employees and advised them of their options.

All seven employees have decided, in light of Judge Michalski’s decision, to cooperate with the legislative investigation. Attorney General Colberg said today, “Despite my initial concerns about the subpoenas, we respect the court’s decision to defer to the legislature. We are working with Senator Hollis French to arrange for the testimony of the seven state employee plaintiffs.”

# # #

Sharon Leighow

Deputy Press Secretary

Deputy Communications Director

465-4031 Juneau

269-7450 Anchorage

240-7943 cell

Interpreting Sarah Palin

We heard the Vice Presidential debate at the Student Center of the University of Alaska Anchorage. There were perhaps 100 or more people. Free pizza didn't hurt. But as you can see from the pictures, they stayed after they finished the pizza. The picture on the right is at 5pm.








The one on the left is at 6:10pm.







A good place NOT to put your hand. (Yes, these chairs rock.)













Watching the debate from the back of the room.










I'd have to give the debate to Biden, easily. While Palin did have some moments, not saying something completely wrong is not my standard for a debate. Most of the time she avoided the questions by ignoring them and reciting something she'd studied with her trainers. She talked in vague generalities that didn't make much sense, though she did have some specifics - like how Obama voted X times to raise taxes - that also didn't make any sense.

Meanwhile Biden clearly knew what he was talking about and a few times, very politely, but firmly called her on her nonsense. This was particularly the case when he finally got tired of her talking about how she and McCain were mavericks. He went on to list a series of things - like the war, health care, subprime loans, etc. - where McCain was not a maverick. He wasn't a maverick, Biden told us, on anything of importance. I did wonder about his saying that the VP only presided over the Senate when there was a tie vote. The Constitution says the VP is the President of the Senate, but only votes on a tie. He might have explained this when he said that "the only authority the VP has in the legislature is the vote." So I think he meant that otherwise the presiding is basically ceremonial and the VP has no power over the agenda or anything else, except to vote when there is a tie.

I did catch a little of the debate on video. At UAA the audience was not asked to remain silent during the debate. Listen to the difference in the kind of answers they give to the question about whether they would agree with Cheney's interpretation of the role of the vice president as not simply under the executive, but also as part of the legislative branch.



It might be easier to figure out what Palin said if you read it. Here's the best I could do transcribing it with the laughter blocking out a couple of words in two places:

Well our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the Vice President and we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the President’s agenda in that position. Yeah. So. And I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility there and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very corporately the plan ????. It is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as VP with McCain not only as a Governor, but early on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, and as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the ????.

I'm sorry, but if a graduate student had turned in a test with an answer like this to the question, I would have had to mark it a D or an F. It doesn't answer the question, it rambles. If this was a strategy to not say something wrong - "Sarah, if you aren't sure, if it isn't one of the questions we prepped you on, just go back to something you do know. There's no need to answer the question" - it worked. She was like a doll. You pull the string in back and it answers what it's programmed to answer, not the question you asked.

In her response to the question about Cheney's VP model, she never mentioned Cheney (she did say ‘him’) and never discussed Cheney’s interpretation of the Vice Presidency as partly a member of the legislative branch. She just gave us platitudes and then her resume.

What did she say?

Here are the key points - if you are trying to understand content.

1. Our Founding Fathers were wise and allowed much flexibility for the Vice President
2. We’ll do what’s best for American people
   - tapping into that position
   - ushering in an agenda
   ------that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda
   [Whatever that means]
   
3. Yeah, I agree with him
   - that we have a lot of flexibility
4. We’ll administer very corporately the plan
   [what plan?]
   [Now she starts talking about her qualifications]
5. I was picked for McCain’s VP running mate because of
   -being Governor
   -being Mayor
   -being an oil and gas regulator
   -being a business owner
   

In contrrast, Biden responded directly to the question and went into the Constitutional duties of the vice president and why he (Biden) believed Cheney's views were in conflict with the Constitution.

Even if we say the VP isn't that important, Palin's performance raises serious questions about McCain's decision making abilities.

Perhaps, Joe Sixpack, who Palin mentioned in the debate, might think, "Wow, there's someone just like me." But when Joe Sixpack breaks a leg, he doesn't drive down to the Palin house to get his leg fixed. He goes to a hospital where there are doctors who have spent years and years studying medicine. Why would he want a someone with as little training for the job as himself to be in a position to be called on to run one of the most important countries in the world? To make decisions about health care, global warming, banking, foreign policy, etc.?