[UPDATE Oct. 17, 2013: See more recent post with updates.]
A couple of years ago I tried to find out how many African-American Congress members there were and discovered it wasn't easy. I ended up posting my own chart. So I figured I needed to do some updating to include changes after the November 2010 election.
I've checked each representative on the list to see how they did in the election. And I've googled to see if I could discover any new black representatives who may have shown up. Below is a summary of the changes I could find. This may not be complete. I will update the chart and put together a new one later.
The new total, as best as I can tell, is 40, not counting two non-voting members.
Basically, most members of the Congressional black caucus were reelected, but there are some changes.
All the seats held by black Democrats were retained by black Democrats. One previously black Democratic seat was recovered (Louisiana). One black Republican won in a district (South Carolina) of a retiring white Republican and one black Republican won a previously Democratic (and white) seat (Florida.)
If this covers all the Congressional victories by black candidates, there would be a gain of three black members of Congress, from 39 to 42. The one black Senator, Roland Burris, did not run for reelection, so there will be no black Senators.
Two ran for other offices (and lost)
Artur Davis, gave up his seat in Alabama's 7th district to run for governor. He lost in the primary to another Democrat. Terri Sewell won the seat.
Kendrick Meek gave up Florida's 17th district house seat to run for US Senator. He lost. His house seat was won by Frederica Wilson.
One lost the primary election:
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick lost her Michigan's 13th district seat in the primary to Hanson Clark, who went on to win the general election.
One did not seek reelection:
Diane Watson in California's 33rd district announced last January she would not run and was replaced by Karen Bass.
In all the cases above, the individuals changed, but the seats remained Democratic and black.
(The focus here is on the House, but Senator Roland Burris did not run for reelection from Illinois and there will be no new black Senators.)
Black Democrat retakes
In 2008, Joseph Cao took advantage of Rep. Jefferson's indictment for bribery to defeat him in Louisiana's heavily black and Democratic 1st district. He also became the first Vietnamese-American member of Congress. But in 2010, he lost the seat went back to a black Democrat, Cedric Richmond.
Two black Republicans elected.
AP reports that 14 black Republicans ran for Congress in 2010 and two were elected.
Tim Scott won in South Carolina's 1st district. He defeated Strom Thurmond's son in the primary. He was endorsed by Sarah Palin.
Allen West ousted a two term Democrat in Florida's 22nd district, which supported Gore, Kerry, and Obama in the last three presidential races.
An AP report, here from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, reports on the election of other non-white candidates in general. such as Nikki Haley, the new Indian-American Governor of South Carolina and also their first female governor. They also report on Hispanic candidates and voters.
Black Members of House of Representatives 112th Congress
Please
email me with corrections and additions. Thanks.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Short Term, Fun, Hectic Volunteer Job Openings - AIFF 2010
The economy is bad and jobs are hard to get. People with great qualifications are not working. If that's you, rather than sitting home being depressed as winter comes along, show your stuff as a volunteer at the Anchorage International Film Festival. There's lots to do during the festival and there are a few key jobs that being filled right now.
You'll get to see how an international film festival works and you'll meet lots and lots of people - some of whom may be looking for permanent employees.
For more information click here.
Beth Varner is the volunteer coordinator again this year. She's great. Here's a video of her I made at last year's festival. The phone number is still good, but I'm not sure about the rules for free vouchers.
This is my way of saying that the Anchorage International Film Festival has its 2010 Festival Website up and running - earlier than in previous years, though they are obviously still adding links and content. Actually, it's already too late to get discounts on passes - I got distracted by the elections. Having blogged this festival for the last three years, I can tell you that what's up already shows that they are making improvements on how things are presented and thus, how easy you can find things. It will make my job of highlighting some of the key films beforehand much easier.
So, get your calendars and mark the dates: DECEMBER 3 - 16.
You'll get to see how an international film festival works and you'll meet lots and lots of people - some of whom may be looking for permanent employees.
Current Openings
AIFF is recruiting for the following volunteer positions. To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to aiffvolunteer@gmail.com along with the title of the position you are applying for.
Assistant to the Volunteer Coordinator
Pre-festival: 3-5 hrs/wk / During festival: 15-20 hrs/wk
Responsibilities: Work closely with the Volunteer Coordinator to recruit, train, schedule, and supervise volunteers. An ideal candidate is someone who is interested in learning the role and responsibilities of the Volunteer Coordinator in order to be eligible to be promoted to this role for AIFF 2010. This position will begin immediately. Special application instructions: Please submit a current resume and cover letter describing any relevant experience. Please also describe your organizational and interpersonal communication skills.
Box Office/Merchandise Sales
Pre-festival: 5-7 hours / During festival: 12-15 hrs/wk
Responsibilities: Selling tickets and AIFF merchandise. This position requires excellent customer service and cash handling skills.
Special application instructions: Please submit a current resume and cover letter describing any relevant experience.
Lead Usher
Pre-festival: 5-10 hours / During festival: 12-15 hrs/wk
Responsibilities: Oversee volunteers and venue operations, coordinate with other volunteer teams, complete attendance reporting, assist with box office and merchandise sales as needed. This position requires excellent organization, communication, and customer service skills.
Special application instructions: Please submit a current resume and cover letter describing any relevant experience.
Projectionist
Pre-festival: 0 hours / During festival: 10-15 hrs/wk
Responsibilities: Operate A/V equipment used in presenting festival films. Applicants must have experience with LCD projectors and DVD players as well as general A/V knowledge.
Special application instructions: Please submit a current resume and cover letter describing relevant experience.
For more information click here.
Beth Varner is the volunteer coordinator again this year. She's great. Here's a video of her I made at last year's festival. The phone number is still good, but I'm not sure about the rules for free vouchers.
This is my way of saying that the Anchorage International Film Festival has its 2010 Festival Website up and running - earlier than in previous years, though they are obviously still adding links and content. Actually, it's already too late to get discounts on passes - I got distracted by the elections. Having blogged this festival for the last three years, I can tell you that what's up already shows that they are making improvements on how things are presented and thus, how easy you can find things. It will make my job of highlighting some of the key films beforehand much easier.
So, get your calendars and mark the dates: DECEMBER 3 - 16.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
WTF Explained in One Sentence - Post Election Stress Reduction
A site called "One Sentence" has stories told . . . yeah you're way ahead of me . . . in one sentence. It's a good break after the election. Here are two examples from their most popular page.
To see more go One Sentence.
What are the odds?
I knew God had a sense of humor when I hesitantly answered the ringing K-Mart payphone, only to hear my best friend, who had misdialed my home phone number, on the other end.2008-06-10 10:39:09 / Rating: 4189.25 /
Reno Reading
My 8-year-old sister proudly declared that she knows that "WTF" means "Wow, That's Funny" and has been using it all over the internet.2008-10-23 13:39:41 / Rating: 3290.75 /
To see more go One Sentence.
Images from Election Night Anchorage
I gave a neighbor a ride downtown tonight and she was headed first to the Denaina Center for the Lisa Murkowski reception.
Father Frank arrived first and greeted friends.
Then Lisa arrived with lots of hugs while the crowd chanted, "Lisa, Lisa, Lisa. . ."
Then I headed over to Election Central a couple blocks away at the Egan Center.
It was still relatively empty at 9:15pm. The media were getting set up to interview the winners and losers later on.
Radio reporter Johanna Eurich was telling former Senator Arliss Sturgulewski about her month in New Mexico digitizing historic tapes.
Sturgulewski also talked with former Senator Al Adams and others.
House district 31 challenger Lupe Marroquin had a cordial talk with incumbent and winner Bob Lynn.
APRN reporter Steve Heimel with reelected Congressman Don Young.
McAdams fans were upbeat, despite the numbers showing the former mayor of Sitka running third, well behind front-runner "write-in" and Joe Miller. As I write this at 1:00 am, the state unofficial election results had the numbers this way with 87% of the precincts counted:
| McAdams, Scott T. | DEM | 46444 | 24.05% |
| Miller, Joe | REP | 67087 | 34.74% |
| Write-in Votes | 77587 | 40.18% |
The next step will be to go through all the write in candidates, get rid of the ones that are clearly for someone other than Lisa Murkowski and then I imagine Joe Miller will fight over every ballot that isn't spelled exactly right.
Democrat Pete Petersen retained his east Anchorage seat against former Kodiak representative Gabrielle Ledoux who moved into his district earlier this year and put on an hard campaign. Pete is the only Returned Peace Corps Volunteer in the legislature, that I know of.
Don Young's fans came into the room.
Democratic Rep. Les Gara (left) had an uncontested race and Rep. Chris Tuck defeated his Republican opponent.
Matsu Republican Rep. Carl Gatto also ran uncontested.
Anchorage Daily News reporters Lisa Demer and Sean Cockerham.
Republican Cathy Giessel defeated Democrat Janet Reiser and Independent Phil Dziubinski to replace Sen. Con Bunde in Senate District P.
Watching the results being updated on the screen.
Lisa Murkowski's crowd entering the Egan Center.
And by then, I'd had my fill and left the Egan Center to go home.
As I look over the state races, the significant ones seem to be:
Interior District 6, Democratic incumbent Woodie Salmon lost to Republican Alan Dick.
Anchorage, District 27 Democratic incumbent Bob Buch lost to Republican Mia Costello.
Fairbanks, District 7 Republican incumbent Mike Kelly lost to Democrat Bob Miller.
So, the Republicans picked up one seat.
In the Senate, things stay 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans and the coalition appears to be the likely result again.
Also significant, Supreme Court Justice Dana Fabe defeated a last minute right wing campaign to unseat her but voters took the advice of the Judicial Council and ousted District Judge Postma.
The two bond issues passed, but the Constitutional Amendment to enlarge the legislature failed.
All the results are available on the State Division of Elections website and after the jump.
|
| Registered Voters 494876 - Cards Cast 194937 39.39% | Num. Report Precinct 438 - Num. Reporting 384 87.67% |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Poll Watching In Anchorage and The List
I was surprised to see that the voting was just in the hallway at the entrance to the school I was sent to. The whole time I was there people were walking through - lines of kids and other people. At times the lines blocked voters from getting to the table to sign in and get their ballots. When I got home, my wife said that's what happened at schools she worked at. The polling places I've seen, until now, all had dedicated spaces for voting. At the school today it felt like voting was, "well, if you need to vote, here you can have the hallway, but there will be lots of people going by and lots of noise. That's the best we can do. Sorry." You could look through the windows in the hallway behind the voting table into the library. I didn't see anyone in there all day.
It just seemed to treat voting as a low priority. OK, it wasn't terrible. But because the voting officials couldn't be certain who belonged there and who didn't, if someone wanted to mess with something, it would be easier.
The List (Kathy in Kentucky asked in the comments what the list is. I've explained it in the comments)
About the list. I did ask to see it. The had about three pages plus a cover sheet in plastic holders. There were two columns of names on each page. It seemed to be roughly in alphabetical order, but in chunks. I looked for Lisa Murkowski, but didn't see it the first time. So I asked to look again and then found it.
The polling place had just one list. The election worker would try to stand to the side (not easy to do in the busy hallway) and show a voter who asked to see the list one page at a time. It was totally useless. The voter could not take the list to the voting booth or anywhere else. Only three or four people asked to see the list while I was there (5 hours - about 200 voters) and it seemed like two just wanted to see it for the novelty of it, not because they needed it. Another person, when told she couldn't take the list into the booth, just walked out without voting.
Like normal, the election workers were very professional. When I left at 4:30pm only about 16% had put ballots into the voting machine (which had a counter.) There were also ballots in another voting box, but these were questioned ballots - people who were not on the list. From the State Election website:
The sun did come out and the ground was messy as I left.
It just seemed to treat voting as a low priority. OK, it wasn't terrible. But because the voting officials couldn't be certain who belonged there and who didn't, if someone wanted to mess with something, it would be easier.
The List (Kathy in Kentucky asked in the comments what the list is. I've explained it in the comments)
About the list. I did ask to see it. The had about three pages plus a cover sheet in plastic holders. There were two columns of names on each page. It seemed to be roughly in alphabetical order, but in chunks. I looked for Lisa Murkowski, but didn't see it the first time. So I asked to look again and then found it.
The polling place had just one list. The election worker would try to stand to the side (not easy to do in the busy hallway) and show a voter who asked to see the list one page at a time. It was totally useless. The voter could not take the list to the voting booth or anywhere else. Only three or four people asked to see the list while I was there (5 hours - about 200 voters) and it seemed like two just wanted to see it for the novelty of it, not because they needed it. Another person, when told she couldn't take the list into the booth, just walked out without voting.
Like normal, the election workers were very professional. When I left at 4:30pm only about 16% had put ballots into the voting machine (which had a counter.) There were also ballots in another voting box, but these were questioned ballots - people who were not on the list. From the State Election website:
Voters must vote a questioned ballot if:
Voters who vote a questioned ballot sign a questioned ballot register and place their voted ballot inside a questioned ballot envelope before placing it in the ballot box.
- their name is not on the precinct register;
- they do not have identification;
- their residence address has changed;
- during the Primary Election the voter requests a ballot type they are not eligible to receive;
- an observer challenges the voter's qualifications to vote; or
- the voter has voted in another manner during the election.
The information the voter provides on the outside of the envelope is used to determine what parts of the ballot can be counted and will also be used to register or update the voter’s registration record. When completing a questioned ballot envelope, write legibly.
Questioned ballot envelopes are reviewed by a review board to determine if the ballot can be counted prior to opening the envelope. To protect the secrecy of the ballot, the review board removes the secrecy sleeve containing the voted ballot from the questioned ballot envelope and once the envelopes have been set aside, the ballot is then removed from the secrecy sleeve.
The sun did come out and the ground was messy as I left.
OK Alaska, Winter is Here, Go Show The World We Woke Up
The ADN tells us today what we all suspected:
A particularly warm and dry October made the month feel more like September than normal.
The average temperature was 37.7 degrees, well above the normal of 34.1 -- but a bit under last year's even-warmer average of 40.4. \
This was the second consecutive year without snowfall in the Anchorage Bowl on Halloween. Fourteen years ago, a big snowfall of more than 14 inches began Oct.
But after the the watercolor sunset last night, it started snowing. It's still a bit anemic, but the dream we've been living in, that winter wasn't serious this year, is over. And we should also wake up from the dreams of tea parties and write-in candidates and show the world that sanity does exist in this remote outpost of the United States. I'll be poll watching for part of the day. Meanwhile, those of you who didn't vote early, go out and show the world there's more to Alaska politically than Sarah Palin.
About that National Debt
From Wikipedia:
The National Debt in Perspective
When the bank evaluates whether it should give you a loan, it looks at what you owe and what you own. Your net value is the difference between what you owe and what you own. So if you owe $3000, but you own outright a car worth $5000, your net worth is +$2000. If they only looked at what you owed and didn't consider your assets, no one would ever qualify for a loan.
The same is true with a company. You look at debits and assets. Debits need to be balanced with assets, like cash, securities, land, buildings, equipment, even a company's good name has value.
So when we talk about the United States, why do we only consider the debit side? If we were a company, we'd also look at all the assets.
What if we start with the military? That would include:
Just to start getting some sense of the value (the author says these numbers are highly inaccurate and there are a a lot more bases than officially listed) here's a snippet from an alternet article:
That's just the military. What about the Department of Interior and all the land it oversees that belongs to the Federal government? What's Yosemite worth? Yellowstone? The Everglades? And all the national forests managed by the Department of Agriculture?
There are dams, highways, and other sorts of infrastructure.
Dr. John Rutledge at Rutledge Capitol discusses this all in detail including what sorts of numbers we capture and what numbers are unknown.
It doesn't mean we need to sell them off, anymore than a Fortune 500 company needs to sell off its assets because it borrows money. The reason the rest of the world keeps investing in the US is that they know we have more than enough assets - and should worse come to worse, we could sell some off. Though, the need for that is still a long way off.
I just want to say, at this point, that I don't think the US can go on spending the way we are spending, especially if people are unwilling to pay more taxes. My wife and I have avoided borrowing money (except for our house) by working, saving money, and living relatively modestly. It also helped that we went to college in the 60's and 70's when tuition was low enough one could easily graduate debt free and that our parents could guarantee the loan on our first house. (Note, they didn't pay anything, they simply guaranteed the loan.) I say all this just to establish that I think being out of personal debt is a good thing. However, household economics and national economics are different things. From Wisegeek:
The frothing about the debt by some politicians strikes me as either ignorance or intentional manipulation of a gullible public, especially since these politicians who want to lower the debt are taxophobic as well. Basically, they are simply anti-government and use any arguments they can get away with in a vain effort to force the shrinkage of the government.
Many of the people being whipped up into an anti-debt frenzy have personally made liberal use of their own credit cards. I'm not saying all. I'm sure that there are many folks who handle personal finances like my family, and so they expect the government to do the same. But as I said above, you can't generalize from household finances to national finances.
And it's the American public, who champion the Free Market and oppose government regulation, who spend their money on products made overseas increasing our trade imbalance. Inexpensive goods are great, but they are only so cheap because American jobs are being exported to where the labor is cheaper, safety standards for workers are lower, and environmental standards are even lower.
Blaming government is much more satisfying than looking in the mirror.
As we vote today, I just wanted to raise this point for people who are out to punish all those evil politicians who are spending us into ruin - if you believe Tea Party and Republican rhetoric.
As of October 10, 2010, the "Total Public Debt Outstanding" was approximately 94% of annual GDP, ($13.616 Trillion) with the constituent parts of the debt ("Debt held by the Public") being approximately 66% of GDP ($9.01 Trillion) and "Intergovernmental Debt" standing at 34% of GDP .[2][3]A lot of politicians, particularly Tea Partiers and Republicans, but also Democrats afraid to stand up and lead, have been making a big deal about this. And it is noteworthy, but it isn't the crises the anti-Obama mob makes it out to be. (And I'll assume that readers here realize that Clinton turned around the debt Bush I left him and gave Bush II a surplus and that Obama has had less than two years to undo the disaster Bush II left him.)
The National Debt in Perspective
When the bank evaluates whether it should give you a loan, it looks at what you owe and what you own. Your net value is the difference between what you owe and what you own. So if you owe $3000, but you own outright a car worth $5000, your net worth is +$2000. If they only looked at what you owed and didn't consider your assets, no one would ever qualify for a loan.
The same is true with a company. You look at debits and assets. Debits need to be balanced with assets, like cash, securities, land, buildings, equipment, even a company's good name has value.
So when we talk about the United States, why do we only consider the debit side? If we were a company, we'd also look at all the assets.
What if we start with the military? That would include:
- All the military bases in the US and abroad - land, structures, and other improvements
Wikipedia lists - 71 air force bases in the US, plus 35 overseas
- About 300 army bases in the US plus overseas bases which are scattered on different pages so I won't even try to count them.
Just to start getting some sense of the value (the author says these numbers are highly inaccurate and there are a a lot more bases than officially listed) here's a snippet from an alternet article:
Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas bases were worth at least $127 billion -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic products of most countries -- and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them, foreign and domestic (a base's "worth" is based on a Department of Defense estimate of what it would cost to replace it).
- All the airplanes, ships, vehicles.
- Weapons
- And all the other myriad of physical objects the military owns.
- And then there's the value of all the training programs and other forms of expertise the military has produced
That's just the military. What about the Department of Interior and all the land it oversees that belongs to the Federal government? What's Yosemite worth? Yellowstone? The Everglades? And all the national forests managed by the Department of Agriculture?
There are dams, highways, and other sorts of infrastructure.
Dr. John Rutledge at Rutledge Capitol discusses this all in detail including what sorts of numbers we capture and what numbers are unknown.
It doesn't mean we need to sell them off, anymore than a Fortune 500 company needs to sell off its assets because it borrows money. The reason the rest of the world keeps investing in the US is that they know we have more than enough assets - and should worse come to worse, we could sell some off. Though, the need for that is still a long way off.
I just want to say, at this point, that I don't think the US can go on spending the way we are spending, especially if people are unwilling to pay more taxes. My wife and I have avoided borrowing money (except for our house) by working, saving money, and living relatively modestly. It also helped that we went to college in the 60's and 70's when tuition was low enough one could easily graduate debt free and that our parents could guarantee the loan on our first house. (Note, they didn't pay anything, they simply guaranteed the loan.) I say all this just to establish that I think being out of personal debt is a good thing. However, household economics and national economics are different things. From Wisegeek:
The study of macroeconomics has led to the use of governmental policies to effect economic change, with the hope of avoiding depressions and other economic shocks. The two key tools used to manage national economies are fiscal and monetary policies. Policies developed from macroeconomics have wide effects — as a rule, they are the politics that make the evening news.I can't justify my personal spending on the grounds it will help stimulate the economy, but the Federal government can.
The frothing about the debt by some politicians strikes me as either ignorance or intentional manipulation of a gullible public, especially since these politicians who want to lower the debt are taxophobic as well. Basically, they are simply anti-government and use any arguments they can get away with in a vain effort to force the shrinkage of the government.
Many of the people being whipped up into an anti-debt frenzy have personally made liberal use of their own credit cards. I'm not saying all. I'm sure that there are many folks who handle personal finances like my family, and so they expect the government to do the same. But as I said above, you can't generalize from household finances to national finances.
And it's the American public, who champion the Free Market and oppose government regulation, who spend their money on products made overseas increasing our trade imbalance. Inexpensive goods are great, but they are only so cheap because American jobs are being exported to where the labor is cheaper, safety standards for workers are lower, and environmental standards are even lower.
Blaming government is much more satisfying than looking in the mirror.
As we vote today, I just wanted to raise this point for people who are out to punish all those evil politicians who are spending us into ruin - if you believe Tea Party and Republican rhetoric.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Alaska 9th Best Voting Rate
I got an email for the Daily Beast about a report they've put up in which Alaska comes out in the Top Ten states for voter registration and participation. Being in the top ten with just 61% participation doesn't say a whole lot. But as I've pointed out our numbers are misleading because they purge our old voter records so infrequently, we probably have a higher percentage than that. A huge number of our voters have died or moved away.
Anyway, here's part of the Daily Beast story:
[UPDATE 11:45pm: It's interesting that all the states in the top 15 are on the northern edge of the country. Only Idaho, Washington, New York, and New Hampshire are missing from that northern tier. http://www.aa.org/subpage.cfm?page=37
Anyway, here's part of the Daily Beast story:
The results show that, when it comes to voting, there truly aren’t blue states or red states—just engaged states (where 70 percent of eligible voters exercise their rights) and those that don’t much care (where less than half do).
1, Minnesota
Average voter registration rate: 83.8
Average voter participation rate: 69.8
2, North Dakota
Average voter registration rate: 91.1
Average voter participation rate: 66.3
3, Maine
Average voter registration rate: 83.0
Average voter participation rate: 65.1
4, South Dakota
Average voter registration rate: 77.1
Average voter participation rate: 65.5
5, Wisconsin
Average voter registration rate: 80.8
Average voter participation rate: 62.9
6, Oregon
Average voter registration rate: 75.5
Average voter participation rate: 64.3
7, Montana
Average voter registration rate: 74.0
Average voter participation rate: 64.8
8, Massachusetts
Average voter registration rate: 74.2
Average voter participation rate: 61.7
9, Alaska
Average voter registration rate: 74.2
Average voter participation rate: 61.5
[UPDATE 11:45pm: It's interesting that all the states in the top 15 are on the northern edge of the country. Only Idaho, Washington, New York, and New Hampshire are missing from that northern tier. http://www.aa.org/subpage.cfm?page=37
 |
| Map from Alcoholics Anonymous |
Strange Chemistry in Hillside/ER/Hope/Whittier Senate Race
 |
| Image from Giessel website |
Senate District P
Since this post has a chemical twist, I should remind folks that P is the symbol for phosphorus. The Jefferson Lab website tells us:
In what is perhaps the most disgusting method of discovering an element, phosphorus was first isolated in 1669 by Hennig Brand, a German physician and alchemist, by boiling, filtering and otherwise processing as many as 60 buckets of urine. Thankfully, phosphorus is now primarily obtained from phosphate rock (Ca3(PO4)2).Why is chemistry relevant in this race?
Because two of the three candidates in this race have degrees in chemical engineering - undoubtedly a first in Alaska. The third candidate, a nurse, surely had to take chemistry as well.
The Unknown Element- Dziubinski
Phil Dziubinski has only been in Alaska for four years and is running as an independent largely with his own money.
He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Virginia and an MBA from Loyola University (New Orleans), according to his website.
The good news is that he worked as a "compliance and ethics leader". The bad news is that it was for BP. It is hard to gauge from his website how well he did his job, or even exactly what it was, but given BP's record here in Alaska, in Texas, and in the Gulf of Mexico, one has to wonder exactly what a BP compliance and ethics leader was paid to do.
In fact he's worked for BP since 1982 according to his website.
-Compliance & Ethics Leader, BP Exploration Alaska (2006-2010)Let's see. It was June of 2006 that BP had a significant spill in Alaska. We don't know exactly when Dziubinsky took on this role in 2006 and perhaps he was brought in because of the spill. But he certainly should have had time to prevent the 2010 pipeline corrosion issues. Here's another report on this problem.
-Health, Safety & Environmental Director, BP Petrochemical Segment (2004-2006)
-Health, Safety & Environmental Manager, BP Chemicals (1999-2004)
-Health, Safety, &Environmental Manager, Coastal Oil Company & BP Oil (1991-1999)
-European Refining Analyst, BP Oil (1988-1991)
-Refining Planning & Economics Supervisor, BP Oil (1985-1988)
-Refining Process Specialist, BP Oil (1982-1985)
What exactly did he do for BP? All he tells us on his blog is that he made them efficient:
Phil has managed business functions with up to 300 employees. He has established and managed operating budgets of $100 million dollars. His business success has been accomplished through business simplification and elimination of activities that did not add value. Phil's management of these business functions significantly reduced business costs and made those functions more efficient.
But wasn't 'efficiency' - saving money - one of the reasons for the pipes getting corroded?
For an MBA, his job description is pretty vague and leaves out any sort of measurable indicators of the quality of his work. The 300 employees and $100 million describe his responsibility, but not how well he carried it out. To be fair, most campaign literature stays general like this. But then if you are the compliance and ethics leader of a company that has significant compliance and ethics issue, thoughtful voters would have questions about his role in all this, questions his website doesn't address.
Looking at his contribution list at the Alaska Public Offices Commission, he looks like the Meg Whitman of Alaska. Of $155,000 contributions, $152,000 appear to be from the candidate himself. That means 98 percent of his support comes from his own pocket. Independents don't have to work with others to get support. But legislators do. [Note: I'm not real skilled at using the Alaska Public Offices Commission search techniques. I almost gave up, but called and got help. So there well may be other reports that tell other things that I simply missed. Keep that in mind as you look at my comments on spending. Here's the APOC page to start searching.]
Dziubinski's website is pretty sketchy on the issues and they all get back to the oil, or at least energy. For the state budget and taxation, that makes sense, since we are so oil dependent. But his education is also focused on training people for the oil industry. I do find his point that so many oil employees are from out of state an important one. If you fly into Anchorage on a Saturday or Sunday, the plane is full of men coming back to their jobs after a break at home somewhere in the Lower 48. The other issues he mentions are gas pipeline, natural resources development, and alternative energy. What does he know about Native issues or health or fishing or other issues facing the state? He doesn't tell us.
Cathy Giessel
Cathy Giessel is the Republican candidate whose values we can know most about. Her platform has a Tea Party flavor to it - very strong anti-abortion, strict constitutional interpretation - and she was appointed to the Board of Nursing by Sarah Palin. Her website resume tells us:
OccupationOne way to evaluate a candidate is through the company they keep. Giessel's endorsement page is replete with who's who of Alaska far right political names - Loren Leman, Fred Dyson (who introduced Joe Miller the day Miller handcuffed reporter Tony Hopfinger), Wayne Anthony Ross (Palin's Attorney General nominee, the only one to be turned down by the legislature).
* Registered Nurse
* Advanced Nurse Practitioner
* Business owner - Healthcare consulting business
Education
* Master of Science in Nursing Science - University of Alaska Anchorage.
* Bachelor of Science in Nursing - University of Michigan.
* Diploma - Lathrop High School, Fairbanks, Alaska
Rebecca Logan's endorsement says, "We need elected officials who don’t play political games and don’t compromise their principles - Cathy Giessel is that person." That works if you agree with her principles. Alaska nurses got very upset with Giessel when she ignored their imput to follow her own priniciples. Those Alaska Nurses are supporting one of her opponents - Janet Reiser - in this race. Mudflats gives us a hint at why this might be the case:
The letter talks about an incident in a public meeting when Giessel divulged information regarding confidential complaints made to the Board, and ends with a statement of no confidence in Giessel’s professionalism or ethics. Giessel maintained her position, and as far as can be determined, Palin ignored the complaint.
In his attempt to oust Ruedrich, Miller told reporters at the time that the party’s vice chair, Cathy Giessel, should take over. Giessel, now the Republican candidate for a Senate seat from the Anchorage Hillside, wouldn’t comment.Her issues page avoids, for the most part, hints of her radical conservatism. There are hints here and there. She does want a two year budget cycle which I think makes a lot of sense.
“I remember nothing about it,” she said. “That’s what I’m going to tell you about it — nothing.”
But then there is a section on the Constitution and we have a page right out of the Tea Party platform:
I support strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and Alaska Constitution
Specific Constitutional topics:
U.S. Constitution:
Second Amendment - I support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear firearms.
Tenth Amendment - I support the authority of the individual States to determine issues not specifically delegated to the Federal government.
Alaska Constitution:
I support the individual's right to keep and bear arms
I support our State's definition of Marriage
Article I, section 1, Inherent rights, including a natural right to life. I support the right to life, from conception to natural death.So, she's strongly anti-gay, strong anti-abortion, etc. which is consistent with her endorsements from the Alaska Right to Life and The Alaska Family Action. That's the lobbying arm of The Alaska Family Council, the extreme right wing group whose questions for candidates includes a measures to make abortion more difficult and to deny any state recognition of the civil rights of gays. Giessel marked yes to all of their questions, such as this one:
QuestionAnd she voted yes to another question which would take away rights of gay public employees. You can see the questionnaire and how candidates responded here.
If a bill is introduced in Juneau to add “gender identity” and/or “sexual orientation” to Alaska’s civil rights statute, will you vote to oppose such legislation?
YES __________ NO __________ UNDECIDED __________
Giessel's fundraising is much broader than Dziubinski's. However, she has filed paper reports instead of computerized reports which are a little harder to go through. She has a fair number of contributions from individuals varying from $25 to $500. She's also contributed about $40,000 of her own money out of about $119,000 collected altogether as listed in Geissel's last 30 day report.
Janet Reiser
Janet Reiser is the other chemical engineer (University of Colorado, Boulder.) She's also a Democrat. She's on the board of Chugach Electric and owns her own company which according to her website
is the sole licensee for patented Radiant De-icing technology, the only FAA approved alternative to traditional jet de-icing. Currently developing project to install first Radiant de-icing facility at Ted Stevens International Airport for winter 2011-2012.In fact, her career page gives that kind of detailed descriptions of what she's done in various jobs she's had.
Like Dziubinski, Reiser's issue page is heavily oriented toward oil and energy. But she does branch out a little more into education and health and public safety. I was disappointed that her sexual assault message was so heavily aimed at punishment and didn't mention prevention at all. But at least she recognized it as an important Alaska issue.
Reiser has raised $140,000 from long lists of individuals. About $9,000 is from various labor unions - including police and fire fighters. It is probably significant that BP employees (Dziubinski worked for BP for almost 30 years) and nurses (Geissel is a nurse) are both supporting Reiser. Reiser has contributed, as best as I can tell, $5000 of her own money.
In a bizarre twist in this race, the ADN reports that a flyer from the Alaska Senate Democrats was sent out to the district supporting Dziubinski. Geissel's website announces
"ALASKA REPUBLICANS APPLAUD DEMOCRATS FOR WITHDRAWING THEIR ENDORSEMENT OF JANET REISER" but Democratic Chair Patti Higgins says the Democrats still support Reiser. Was this an attempt to split conservative voters between Geissel and Dziubinski? It sounds pretty clumsy. All part of the strange chemistry in this race.
Bill Clinton and Rex and Sharry Miller Called Me Sunday
First there was another a robo poll
Neither George W. Bush nor Frank or Nancy Murkowski have called to tell me to vote for Lisa Murkowski.
But we have gotten daily glossy 9X11 fliers in the mail from her and her corporate Native supporters.
The messages that symbolize the candidates for me are:
Miller: I'll cut the deficit and restore the Constitution and save America. And I'm not as bad as they keep saying.
Murkowski: I have seniority. Miller's a disaster. And a vote for McAdams is a vote for Miller.
McAdams: Vote your values not your fears.
Given the political use of the polls in this race, no one has any faith in any of them. And they don't really know how to deal with a write in candidate.
Tea Party people know they're voting for Miller no matter what the media say he's done.
The Alaska Republican establishment are voting for Lisa Murkowski.
Independents will go all different ways depending on what their individual issues are.
Most Democrats seem to be ready to vote for McAdams on the grounds that maybe McAdams does have a chance, and Murkowski won't vote much differently from Miller anyway.
But the 'practical' Democrats are mulling over Murkowski's pitch that McAdams can't win. They're thinking that Murkowski is better than Miller and can overcome the write-in odds.
Of course, that assumes that enough people will
1. Want to vote for Murkowski
2. Remember to spell her name close enough to be accepted as a Murkowski vote
3. Remember to fill in the oval next to her name
4. Remember which office she's running for
My guess is that there will be quite a few votes for Murkowski for Governor, for US House, for Lt. Governor, and various state house and senate seats.
And a lot of Alaskans aren't even going to vote.
Attorney Don Mitchell, who worked closely with Sen. Ted Stevens, is the author of two huge, highly acclaimed volumes on the history of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and a Democrat, has boiled it down to whether Democratic and left-leaning Independent voters should vote for Alaska or vote for the USA.
- Q1: If you've already voted, push 1; If you are highly likely to vote, press 2, etc.;
- Q2: Which of the following candidates are you most likely to vote for: Undecided, press 1, Lisa Murkowski, press 2, etc.)
But we have gotten daily glossy 9X11 fliers in the mail from her and her corporate Native supporters.
The messages that symbolize the candidates for me are:
Miller: I'll cut the deficit and restore the Constitution and save America. And I'm not as bad as they keep saying.
Murkowski: I have seniority. Miller's a disaster. And a vote for McAdams is a vote for Miller.
McAdams: Vote your values not your fears.
Given the political use of the polls in this race, no one has any faith in any of them. And they don't really know how to deal with a write in candidate.
Tea Party people know they're voting for Miller no matter what the media say he's done.
The Alaska Republican establishment are voting for Lisa Murkowski.
Independents will go all different ways depending on what their individual issues are.
Most Democrats seem to be ready to vote for McAdams on the grounds that maybe McAdams does have a chance, and Murkowski won't vote much differently from Miller anyway.
But the 'practical' Democrats are mulling over Murkowski's pitch that McAdams can't win. They're thinking that Murkowski is better than Miller and can overcome the write-in odds.
Of course, that assumes that enough people will
1. Want to vote for Murkowski
2. Remember to spell her name close enough to be accepted as a Murkowski vote
3. Remember to fill in the oval next to her name
4. Remember which office she's running for
My guess is that there will be quite a few votes for Murkowski for Governor, for US House, for Lt. Governor, and various state house and senate seats.
And a lot of Alaskans aren't even going to vote.
Attorney Don Mitchell, who worked closely with Sen. Ted Stevens, is the author of two huge, highly acclaimed volumes on the history of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and a Democrat, has boiled it down to whether Democratic and left-leaning Independent voters should vote for Alaska or vote for the USA.
After giving that "I'm damned if I do, I'm damned if don't" conundrum considerable thought, the way I come out on it is that undecided Democratic and center-left independent voters have to decide whether they are Alaska patriots or national patriots.So, as you can see, everything is illuminated here in Alaska the day before the election. And with a write-in candidate, it could be Wednesday, Thursday, or even longer before we know the results of this race which has made all the other Alaska races nearly invisible.
For an Alaska patriot the decision is easy. He or she should vote for Lisa Murkowski. Because an Alaska patriot would be a dumbbell to give up the seat on the Senate Committee on Appropriations that Alaska has held since 1973 and the seat on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that Alaska has held since statehood (when it was called the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs). Lisa holds both seats, and if she is reelected she will continue to hold them.
But if an undecided Democratic or center-left independent voter is a national patriot, then that voter should vote for Scott McAdams, knowing when he or she does so that casting that vote may help elect Joe Miller. Because having Joe Miller in the Senate is a better result for the nation than reelecting the same old Lisa. [You can read Mitchell's whole piece here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)