Women In Combat - Going In The Wrong Direction

This headline

Army to commission first 22 female officers into ground combat roles
9 to join infantry in service’s first intro of women in combat.

in the Alaska Dispatch over a Washington Post article made me want to repost this item on lifting the ban on women in combat I did three years ago .

"Instead, we should be banning men from combat.

". . . they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." [Isaiah 2.4] 

Now this is a bible passage that I'd like to see more pastors getting fanatical about."

Prime Minister Trudeau Reveals He's Not Just A Pretty Face

A reporter, apparently, jokingly asked  Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to explain quantum computing, as a preface to really asking a question on policy, at The University of Waterloo.  Instead of going for the policy question, Trudeau answered the quantum computing question.  Here's how Fortune described it.  

"At a press conference on Friday at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, a journalist jokingly half-asked Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to explain quantum computing, before moving quickly on to a policy point. Instead, the young PM offered a quick and clear answer to the first question. “Very simply…normal computers work, either there’s power going through a wire or not—a one, or a zero.
They’re binary systems,” said Trudeau, triggering a wave of surprised applause. 'What quantum states allow for is much more complex information to be encoded into a single bit…a quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time.'”

[It's more impressive on the video (below) as he easily and articulately explains.]

The people in the audience were impressed and a lot of people have looked at the video.  It would be nice to see more of our politicians able to respond so coherently to technical questions.  To any questions really.

But Fortune plays down his response.  The subtitle was:

"But should we really be so impressed by a politician’s grasp of basic science?"

Maybe not, but given the level of discourse we're hearing today, this was definitely impressive.

The writer then goes on to say quantum physics was "conclusively established" in 1964.

"In other words, this is kind of like being impressed by Thomas Jefferson demonstrating a basic understanding of gravity."

First of all, Trudeau wasn't explaining quantum physics, he was explaining quantum computing.  Though you could say he was, sort of, doing both - applying quantum physics to computing.

And I suspect that by comparing him to Jefferson, the writer already destroys his own case.  I can't think of any current American politicians who could reasonably be compared to Jefferson.

But maybe the real standard should be how many people in the room and watching the video could explain quantum computing themselves if asked, and how many of them know enough about it to evaluate Trudeau's answer, as opposed to just being impressed.

The the writer tells us that Obama is something of a nerd himself.

So is the niggling because the writer disagrees with Trudeau's liberal policies?  Is it merely concern that the US looks bad in comparison - thus the Obama reference?

In any case, I'd like us to start using Trudeau as the new standard for judging politicians' knowledge and fluency.   Here's the video:






[I'd note:  It did occur to me that this might have been a set up.  But the way he answered suggests that at the very worst, he was asked a question that the reporter knew he could answer.  I'd prefer to belief it just happened.

Another question  - was this just a ruse to avoid answering the question about ISIL?

As I looked for an answer about the ISIL question, I came up with a Huffington Posr Canada piece that  answers the first question as well.

1.  Apparently the quantum computing lesson was part of Trudeau's tour of the institute that morning and there was even a link to the University of Waterloo's Quantum Computing 101 webpage.   So it seems the reporter knew this and was checking, cheekily, on what the Prime Minister had retained.

2.  The post also says that he also did respond to the ISIL question.  The Huff Post Canada post has a video of Trudeau talking about Canada's response to ISIS, though it looks like this was another time and place.

Finally a thank you to my physics advisers for their guidance on this post.]

What Do All These Mean Spirited Republican Bills/Proposals Have In Common?

• Guns on Campus
• Keeping Transgender Folks Out of Public Restrooms
• Rules that Make Abortion Inaccessible
• A Border Wall With Mexico

These are all made up issues that distract from the important, consequential issues.  They're what used to be called wedge issues designed to stoke fear by tickling the amygdala.   Emotions take charge, reason doesn't come to play here.  So the target audience gets aroused and angry.  No debate here, no discussion, no analysis.  Just fear based anger.

If you notice these are all tangible, concrete concepts we can visualize and easily understand.  They create all too easily imaginable images of someone shooting someone on campus.  Or of a six foot something, former NFL football player like John Irving's Roberta Muldoon, leeringly entering the women's restroom in a dress.  Visions of tortured fetuses and hordes of Mexicans streaming across the Rio Grande to take away American jobs.  

And they don't have to think about how to balance the budget, how to curb global warming, the tens of thousands of civilians who have died because of the United States' attempts to avenge the World Trade Center deaths and destruction.  They won't have time to think about how 1% of Americans came to hold 40% of our wealth and how to change that.

In Penn & Teller's seven basic principles of magic, this is called Misdirection."

Draw attention away from a secret move.

The main issues - guns, sexuality, abortion, and immigrants - aren't made up.  But the legislation being debated and passed these days is so outrageous and mean-spirited I'm convinced it's a form of political sleight of hand to keep us from seeing and dealing with the truly important issues.

It's the only theory that explains for me all the nasty and divisive legislation that Republicans have been introducing and even passing in many states in the last year or so.  It's to keep us distracted over guns, abortion, bathrooms, and walls, so we don't focus on inequality, voting rights, and how the law is rigged in favor of the 1%.

"the 24-hour rule is a 'nonsubject"

Nat Herz has an ADN article today about the Republican majority ignoring the 24 hour rule for notifying people of a committee hearing.  He notes that Jeremy Hsieh, the news director for Juneau’s public television and radio stations,  regularly tweets violations of this rule, though he acknowledges that there is no penalty for the legislature violating their own rules.  The title quote comes from Cathy Giessel (R-Conoco-Philips).

"Asked about Wielechowski’s objections about the oil tax bill, Giessel, the resources committee chair, responded that the 24-hour rule is a 'non subject.'”

What exactly is a 'non subject'?   Here's what the Collins dictionary says:

Clearly, she isn't using it in the first or third sense.  Definition number 2 seems the closest.

It's of no interest or importance.  Obviously, this isn't exactly true because the article says that Hsieh's tweeting

". . . drew a sharp response this week from the Republican-led Senate majority caucus. 

The caucus press secretary, Michaela Goertzen, asked Hsieh to remove one of his tweets that said the Senate’s labor and commerce committee, chaired by Sen. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, appeared to have broken the 24-hour rule."

So they are interested and pissed at the attention.  They'd rather just do it and no one knows.

I think what Giessel means is that she has no interest in the 24 hour rule and it's not important to her.  She doesn't care.  And she doesn't have to care.

That's the problem we have when one party has a significant majority and can simply ignore the other party and the rules that have been set up to protect the people of Alaska from bills being rushed through with inadequate notice for anyone to prepare a response.  

Giessel has done this sort of thing before.  When it comes to oil issues, she pushes through, because that's her job, taking care of the needs of her husband's employer.

But this callousness to anyone who disagrees with them is having its effect on Republicans nationally and I expect that it will spill over to the states in November.  Giessel's district has proven to be well gerrymandered to protect her, but eventually power leads to enough arrogance that people finally say
'enough.'  

Now That Republicans Are Trying To Dump Trump, Maybe They'll Nominate Darth Vadar

So, Trump will go to the convention with the most votes.  But you need a 1237 delegates. If no one reaches that number, then the second round is wide open.  Trump may argue that he has the most votes so he should win, but that's not the rules.  And despite his 'most votes.'  a large majority of Republicans who voted or caucused, chose someone other than Trump.  He can't claim 'majority wins,' if he doesn't have a majority of the delegates.

And the Republican establishment as well as many non-establishment Republicans think he'd be a terrible candidate.  Personally, I think that for the most powerful - whether in elected or unelected positions - it's less about his policy and more about the fact that they don't control him and he doesn't owe them anything.  They fear for their power, positions, and access to the inner workings.  After all, he merely says what they've been using code to say all these years.  (OK, there are rational Republicans who are sincerely repelled by what he says as well as concerned about losing power.)

And they aren't too excited by the number two man Ted Cruz.  After all, he thumbed his nose at the Senate leadership with a 21 hour filibuster against Obamacare against the party leadership's wishes.

So now things seem wide open to find a candidate wh will appeal to the leadership and to the American voter (not just Republicans.)  Paul Ryan's just emphatically said he wouldn't run or be drafted.  So who's left?   In the Senate there are 55 Republicans.  The ones with the most name recognition are from places like Alabama .  Then there are few folks whose names will cost them 5% of the vote - like Flake and Crapo.  Sorry, this is not a cheap shot, but the reality of life, like the fact that good looking people get an advantage.  [Trying to find some study to support the idea that a weird name will lose votes was distracting and unsuccessful.  Maybe Johnny Cash was right and I'm wrong.]

And then there are former Republican officials who weren't elected - like Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell.  Republicans do like conservative blacks.  I think it's because they think it proves they aren't racists.  They can say things like, one of my best friends . . .

So who's out there?  There are the Republican governors.  Unlike legislators, governors actually have to govern, not just talk and posture.   The FiveThirtyEight blog has a list of governors by popularity ratings.  Here are the top few:

From FiveThirtyEight blog

So we start off with a governor from a coal state, in this day and age of climate change with coal being one of the biggest culprits.  Then we get a governor from the state that Bill Clinton was governor of.  The last presidential candidate who was governor of Arkansas was, oh yea, Mike Huckabee.  Nice try, but Beebe is a Democrat.  Utah's Gary Herbert.  He's two months younger than the last Republican nominee and he's also a Mormon.  Are the Republicans ready to try that again?  The governor of North Dakota?  That state was hot when oil was $100 a barrel, but things aren't so good there any more.  Oklahoma has a woman governor..   Didn't McCain pick a woman governor with high popularity ratings?  As I recall, that didn't work out too well.


There may or may not be some good Republican politicians out there who would make good presidents, but name recognition matters.  I suspect that Republicans will do what they've done several times before - pick a celebrity candidate with name recognition.  You know, like Reagan, Schwartzenegger, or even Sonny Bono.

So, what Republican celebrities are out there?   I found a list.   None of these on the list has held office to my knowledge.     Reagan at least had been governor of California.  ((If you're looking for another celebrity governor, Jesse Ventura, well, he was in the Independence Party, not the Republican.) Here are some from a list I found at Buzzfeed.

• Sylvester Stallone

• Tom Selleck

• Wayne Newton

• Bruce Willis

• Chuck Norris

• Clint Eastwood

• Mary Lou Retton

• 50 Cent

• Robert Duvall

• LL Cool J

• James Earl Jones

•  Gloria Estefan

• Adam Sandler

Some we'll just ignore.

From my way of looking at this, there are only a couple of names here that have any traction, but really only one that is solid.

Not even the Academy Awards could find its way to give Sylvester Stallone his long denied Oscar this year, so he's out.

Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, and Clint Eastwood all could give strong performances as president.  "Make my day!" is so Trumpish, but with much more style.

Robert Duvall seems to have a little more depth and breadth.

Gloria Estefan would allow the Republicans to nominate a Cuban, since they wanted Rubio so bad and, well,  the leadership did. Except Jeb!  And since they'd be bumping Cruz too.

Jones image from E

For my money, there's one on the list who is the perfect candidate.  He's got great name recognition and even greater voice recognition.  He's already been a king several times (Lion King and King Lear.)  He's been President (The Best Man.)   He was a Vice Admiral (The Hunt for Red October) And, of course, he was Darth Vadar.  That voice would make people jump and vote Republican.  James Earl Jones for president.  And he wasn't born in Kenya. You know he'd win.

[I want to put up an Irony alert on this post, but I'm afraid this could happen.]

Mom's Flowers Make Tying Loose Ends Easier

clivia

lantana

Back in LA.  Been on the phone to Department of Water and Power, Frontier (who took over the phone, internet, and cable business of Verizon in LA).  Been to the accountant, the bank.  Still have to wrestle with Social Security and others.  Things are much better than when we left things in January.  Friends who stayed here did a lot of work with the garage and other little things that needed to be done.  Need to separate the stuff that's important to me from the other stuff.  Need to send some things off to others.  Working with someone to rent the place out for a while.

Cymbidium

epidendrum (each flower is the size of a quarter)

I know these as mock orange, but I'm not sure it's the right name.  But their fragrance is heavenly.  

A fallen camelia.

Two different succulents with their own strange form of flower.  The flower above to the left, comes on a long stalk from the reddish plant in the lower right.

Amaryllis

My mother knew the name of this white flower that has long, narrow leaves that look a lot like gladiolas.  But I don't.

She loved working in the garden and there was always a variety of flowers in bloom all year round.  Even without her care, some flowers are still coming through.  The caregiver watered, the gardener comes weekly, and the rain LA got this winter have all helped to keep this show go on.  

Stalking The Bogeyman - Anchorage Is Location Of The Play And Events In The Play

When he was 31, they found their son's diary that said he'd been raped..  It happened when he was seven.  David Hothouse (played by Devin Frey) tells his story in this play.  How it happened, why he didn't tell anyone, how it haunted him, how he stalked his rapist with the intent to kill him.

Cast discusses play with audience after performance

This is not a spoiler.  I'd read the 2004 Anchorage Press article about the rape when it came out.

I'd heard the This American Life piece David did.

I'd read the follow up Press article that came out last year that named his rapist.

And I heard him testify last year urging the legislature to pass Erin's law (it passed, despite  Sen. Dunleavy)  to require Alaska schools to teach students how to spot the signs of a child molester and how to report suspicions or if something happens.  So I knew most of what was going to happen on stage.

It didn't matter.  The play is riveting.  The story was adapted to the stage deftly.  It's one fast eighty minute ride.  The University of Alaska Anchorage actors are spot on.  Amazingly, Frey plays David at ages seven through 31.  And he's believable in all of them.  Yes, it's his adult body, but he manages to make being seven work effortlessly.  (Well for the audience, I'm sure he put a lot of effort into it.)
The play is especially compelling because most of it takes place in Anchorage.  The story is real.  The actors portray real people.  One of them was the principal of my son's high school.  
But the play itself doesn't preach.  Its instruction is merely reliving David's experience and David telling us about it - how it happened, why he didn't tell, how he had to repeatedly be around his molester, and how it affected him.  

This is an important play, not only because it speaks about the unspeakable, but it's a very good drama.   

You can see it this afternoon at UAA or next weekend.  You can get your ticket online here.  No, I'm not working for the UAA theater department.  I just think it's an amazing play that as many people should see as possible.  And for those of you outside of Anchorage, they are taking it on the road this summer.  The site says 'including "Mat-Su, Homer, Seward, Valdez and Fairbanks." Unfortunately, it looks like they're sticking to the road system. Maybe if other locations invite them, they'll think about coming.

I was thinking, at the end of the play, that we'd gone the whole evening without any humor to relieve the tension.  But thinking back I realized there had been some, but I couldn't remember anyone laughing.  I mentioned this to the director afterward, and he said some audiences laugh, others don't.  Devin said there was some laughter that night, but not much.  Actors also noted the extra tension of acting in front of some of the people they were portraying.  

The psychology department at UAA was also involved in this production.  Working with the actors during rehearsals and there were people there that night.  One student is doing research on theater as a means of communicating important issues and others were there to talk with audience members who might need counseling after the play.   

I got to talk to Devin Frey, who played David Holthouse, after the performance.  I pulled out my camera to take a picture, but he was interesting and so I did a short video as he was talking about learning from David about the role.  It's only about a minute long.  

But don't just take my word for it, you can read the New York Times review of when this played Off-Broadway.  This is the West Coast premier.  

And there's a lot I should have mentioned but didn't.  The director, Dr. Brian cook played an important role.  All the other actors (who are in the top picture) two of whom played multiple roles, and the playwright, Markus Potter, who heard the piece on This American Life and contacted David about making it into a play.  

I have to say, I never understood the spelling of 'bogeyman' since it's pronounced 'boogie man.'

Thanks to the cast and crew for a great evening.  I first included David Holthouse (which spell check keeps changing to Hothouse) in that sentence.  But my comments to David are more complicated.  I'm truly sorry you were raped and then haunted by your rapist for so many years.  I thank you for finding ways to tell this story and hope that it plays a role in helping children avoid what happened to you, and let them know how to reach out if it does happen.   And help parents interpret the  non-verbal signs of abuse their kids send while they try to hide what happened.  And I hope that you can now, or at least soon, leave this behind, and live the life you were headed for before that night.


[UPDATE 9:40 AM:  Again, I'm back.  I left out the most important point of this story  - the silence and denial over the issue of child molestation.  For whatever reasons, this is a huge sickness in our country (and I'm supposing world) that gets way too little attention for its magnitude and horrors.  The statistics I learned last year at the Erin's Law hearings are staggering - one in four girls, one in five boys are molested.  (This ranges from inappropriate touching to fondling all the way to rape as in this play.)  And while we get story after story in the news - today I'm reading about Dennis Hastert - yet we can just skip over to the next article and go on doing nothing.  Being in a dark theater with 100 or more other people watching live actors portray David's story communicates this horror in a way all the newspaper articles just don't do.]

"The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."

For people who are totally stymied by all the incompetent politicians they see who are doing really dumb and often damaging things, let me offer you an explanation:

The Dunning and Kruger Effect or why incompetent people are so incompetent.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1] The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999. They postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in the unskilled, and external misperception in the skilled: 'The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.'"

Let's tease this out with an example from my own life.

In my first six months or so as new Peace Corps volunteer, I was learning and learning and I was sure I would have everything mastered shortly.

But then my brain morphed and I began to feel incredibly incompetent and hopeless.

In both cases I was right.  I was learning at an incredible rate.  My Thai vocabulary and ability to communicate kept growing in leaps and bounds.  I was meeting all sorts of new people and situations and adding them all into my new experiences file.

BUT, one day I began to become aware of how much more there was to know that I hadn't realized before.  The size of my ignorance (that I was aware of) was growing at a much faster rate than my new knowledge was growing.

Thai culture was so much richer and complex than I had originally thought.  As I learned ten things, I became aware of 100 more things I knew nothing about.

I began, for instance, to understand that my American way of seeing the world blinded me from so much.  How could that be?  Well, I labeled and organized everything using my American way of seeing the world.  On the simplest level, I was thinking about my new Thai words as equivalents to English words.  But eventually, I realized that their meanings,  while similar, often weren't captured in the closest English word.  Sure, a car was a car and a telephone was a telephone.  But the social meanings of having a car or a telephone were totally different in 1960s Thailand and California.  And other words had no equivalents whatsoever in English.  They were abstract concepts that had no labels in English, were embedded in Thai and/or Buddhist culture.  Learning these words and what they meant were peeks into this alien (to me) culture and to ways of thinking about the world that were invisible to most people.

The point of all this is to explain how somebody can think he's more competent than he is - as I was in the beginning in Thailand.

And to explain how someone who is reasonably competent, can feel he isn't competent - because as I grew to know so much more than when I arrived in Thailand, I became aware that my ignorance was significantly greater than what I knew.  And as I learned more about Thailand, my mental map of  of my ignorance was growing much faster than my mental map of my knowledge.

Being incompetent has some benefits.  One great advantage of the incompetent is their certainty of their rightness.  To be certain, gives one power.  There are no second thoughts, no doubts about the path you are taking.  You can charge forth with total commitment.  Those about you who raise questions, are simply wrong and wrong-headed.  And the more intangible the work you do, the easier it is to think you're right.  After a while, for example, a basketball player whose shots never go through the rim, figures out that he's not performing.  But not so a politician whose bills get passed.  The fact that they're passed because the majority are as incompetent as he is, or because the rules and procedures are rigged in his favor, doesn't matter to his certainty.  And it's hard to prove him wrong.  Even if things go bad, he can always say, "Yeah, but they woulda been even worse without my legislation."  (Think about how Alaskan Republican law makers are dancing around the fact that the tax credit they gave the oil companies a couple of years ago to stimulate drilling and jobs, is now more than the revenue we get from oil.  And those jobs?  Companies are cutting back.  But they have answers to all that.)

However, if you are wiser, more competent, you see all the possible problems with your plan.  You understand the issues your opponents raise and they cause you to pause.  You understand that history is filled with people who have been hailed as heroes in their own time, but history's revisions have identified them as fools.  So your self-confidence is always in check.  It's harder to use simplistic sound bytes, because you know things are much more complex.  And when you try to include those complications, your opponents' eyes glaze over and in their minds you are proving the weakness of your position.

So is there hope?  Dunning and Kruger do say that incompetent people can grow to understand their incompetence with good training.  The title quote described the situation of a number of my grad students when they entered the program.  They simply didn't have the analytical skills to understand why they were wrong.  Thinking skills were part of what we taught.  And I saw transformations among my students as they learned to apply some rigor to their thinking.

When a student responded to a question.  I'd often follow up the student's initial response with "Why?"  In the beginning the student looked bewildered.  But it was always gratifying when a student, later in the semester,  would look at me and say, "I knew you were going to ask that."  It just meant to me that she had already asked that same question after her first response.  She was starting to think critically about her own answers.

But it's harder to retrain legislators who are in leadership positions in the majority.  They are surrounded by people who reinforce their incompetence.   Staffers for good legislators challenge them.  But other staffers know that challenging their bosses is not a way to move up.   Lobbyists wine and dine legislators.  They tell them how smart they are, they supply them with fabricated research that refutes their opponents' arguments.  The good lobbyists are making ten to twenty times as much as the legislators make and in many cases are far better educated than the legislators are.  At least many in key leadership positions today.

It's heady stuff having power and being surrounded by people who tell you how smart and courageous you are and how evil your opponents are.   It reinforces your mistaken assessment of your competence.  It helps seal out the doubts and questions that truly competent people have.

And it's not a Republican monopoly.  The problem is having so much power that you no longer have to listen to the loyal opposition.  You can just tune them out and do what you want.  It's why we need a more evenly divided state legislature.  And why the new Anchorage Assembly, with eight to three leaning left, can be a problem too.

Irony -No Smoking, But Guns OK

We went to see Stalking The Bogey Man at UAA tonight.  Get tickets and go.  Not only is it a powerful play, but Anchorage is the locale for most of it, and the topic is one of the most important for our children.  You won't be bored.  You can get tickets here.  There's no one who shouldn't see this play - unless you're a rape victim and can't deal with it yet.  More on it later.   I don't have time to do it justice tonight.

But as we were walking to the theater on campus I was struck by this big sign.

We have a smoke free campus here.  You can't take a break any more and stand outside when it's 10˚F out and puff with your fellow smokers.  You have to actually get off campus.  I'm not sure if that isn't taking things a little too far, but I started pushing for no smoking in class back in the mid 1970s, so I definitely like the indoor ban.

But I was thinking about the headline in this morning's paper as I passed this sign.

I try to be objective and look at all sides of an issue.  Here's the kind of 'rational' article on guns on campus that  I would normally write.  And here's one that explains why guns on campus is a bad idea. But at some point, you have to stop being polite and rational and just say it like it is.

There's no real middle ground here.  There are national organizations, like ALEC  and Americans for Prosperity that are anti-worker, anti-regulation, anti-public school, and other right wing legislation at the state level.  It's far cheaper to influence state officials than national ones.  I don't know that either of these organizations is helping with this drive.  I don't know who's helping Pete Kelly with this bill. But I know the people of Fairbanks are responsible for electing Pete Kelly and the other Republican legislators who have supported this bill are all culpable in this.

My Senator - Berta Gardner - pointed out the other day that while the Senate is forcing the University to change it's concealed weapon policy, they aren't themselves allowing guns in the capital building.  I guess that's next year.  And I'd bet there are a few legislators who have guns in their offices.

The legislature has ignored the warnings about oil and the state budget for years.  And now, instead of seriously working on raising revenue to keep the University strong as well as other important government services, they're refusing to consider raising revenues like responsible states do - through an income tax.  But they do have time to pass legislation to allow concealed carry on campus.  Even the highly corporate Board of Regents don't support this law.    This isn't about safety on compass, it's about power - and what better symbol of power than a gun.

But, in the mean time, concealed carry, or any carry, is not allowed on campus.  But if Pete Kelly gets his way, while you won't be able to light up on campus, you can take your gun when you talk to your professor about your grade on the last exam.

I realize that posts like this will probably cause a group to sponsor legislation to allow smoking on campus.

About 5000 Votes Still To Be Counted In Anchorage Election

I talked to the Municipal Deputy Election Clerk (that means she works in the Clerk's office and is the Deputy Clerk in charge of the elections) Amanda Moser this morning.  I had two questions:

1.  How come there were already 2076 votes already posted on the 20:03pm unofficial election results?  [Those results are no longer available online, but I put them up at that link.]  Where were these votes from?

2.  How many votes were still to be counted?

Let me answer Question 2 first.  It's a much shorter answer and comes up again in Question 1. There are about 5000 votes to be counted.  These include absentee by mail that came in yesterday and today (and will trickle in for a few more days), absentee in person, and questioned ballots.  Absentee in person means people voted at one of the polling places, like Loussac library, before the election.  Questioned votes are for people who voted out of their precincts or didn't have ID, or other irregularity that caused the precinct worker to have questions about the voter.

Question 1:  What were those 2076 votes already counted before any of the precincts had brought their boxes to election central?

Amanda Moser told me that these were absentee by mail votes that the Clerk's office had received BEFORE Tuesday.  The office decided that since they had them already, it might be interesting to just get them up right away after the election, so people would have some numbers to look at as soon as the polls closed.  I didn't remember that from previous elections and Moser confirmed they hadn't done that in previous elections.

You can see those early numbers in my first post from last night.  They were much more conservative than the actual outcome.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT DPERMAN, Ira 40 11.66%DARDEN, Dustin 11 3.21%CROFT, Eric 114 33.24%TROMBLEY, Adam 178 51.90%Write-in Votes 0 0.00%

Trombley was leading with 51.9% of the vote among these early voters.

In the last count, he got 33% to winner Croft's 45%.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 - SEAT FALLEVA, Ron 111 39.78%TRAINI, Dick 164 58.78%Write-in Votes 4 1.43%

This race ended up Traini 62% to Alleva 35%.  Not as big a change.  

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT HDUNBAR, Forrest 188 45.97%GALES, Terre 219 53.55%Write-in Votes 2 0.49%

Gales went from 53% over Dunbar's 45%  in this first set of ballots to Dunbar 60% and Gales 39% in the latest count.  

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 6 - SEAT JSCHIMSCHEIMER, Mark 76 13.82%WEDDLETON, John 170 30.91%TAYLOR, Treg 301 54.73%Write-in Votes 3 0.55%

The latest count in this race has Weddleton ahead 43% over Taylor's 40%.  Weddleton leads by 290 votes.  There are 5000 or so votes yet to count city wide.  The total counted so far is 43,000 and this Assembly race had 10,800 votes, just under 25%.  So, there are maybe 1200 votes left to be counted from the absentee by mail and in-person votes.  For Taylor to win, he'd need to get 300 more votes than Weddleton.  It would have to be at least 750 to 450.  Or, put another way, he'd have to pick up 62% of the remaining votes.  (And there was one more candidate in the race I'm not even considering.)   That's highly unlikely.  He didn't even have that big a margin in this early vote that was clearly leaning right.  


SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A
DAVIS, Bettye 840 44.03%
HUGHES, Brent 1050 55.03% Write-in Votes 18 0.94%

This one really turned around.  Davis won with 56% of the vote to 42%.  

SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT B
SCHUSTER, Kay 693 37.77%
NEES, David 604 32.92%
MARSETT, Starr 519 28.28%

I didn't even know who Kay Schuster was.  Her website is pretty bland.  But there was a Republican Women's fundraiser for her at McGinley's pub with supporters including former Mayor Sullivan.  Nees has run as a  conservative in the past.  

The last count had Schuster with 35% and Marsett with 34%.  

This one is still too close to call.  With 5,000 votes outstanding in this city wide race , Marsett would have to get 40% of the remaining votes.  Not as big a challenge as Treg Taylor has in his Assembly race, but still a formidable challenge.  Particularly if the remaining votes - mostly absentee by mail or in person - have any sort of conservative leaning as the first set of absentee by mail votes had.  


So, either conservatives are more likely to vote by mail, or the Republicans did a better job of getting their voters to vote by mail.  In either case, that first set of votes we got last night had a significantly more conservative tinge than the eventual outcomes.  

Some other issues from yesterday's elections came up in my conversation with Amanda Moser, but I need to review my notes more carefully before I post on that.  It involves aging voting machines and memory cards which caused machines not to read people's cards the first, second, or third times, and required some complete recounting for some precincts.


[Blogger notes.  When I realized that answering Question 2 first made more sense, why didn't I just make that one Question 1?  Good question.  I thought about switching the question numbers around.  But Question 1 really was my first question, the one that got me to call the Clerk's office to ask.  

I'd also note that I did contribute to two of the candidates mentioned in this post.  I know old time journalists got taught that to remain impartial, they shouldn't ever contribute to a campaign.  Some even believe they shouldn't vote.  I already had trouble as an academic about having to use language that imagined that I was some objective observer who had no opinions.  Of course reporters have opinions.  Some can step back and write reasonably objectively and some can't.   I think it's better to just state your biases up front and let the reader consider how that bias might have impacted the story.  

In this case, my reporting on specific races is as objective as it can be - just citing numbers and probabilities.  And where I mention loaded words like ' conservative' and 'liberal,' I'm not voicing any opinion that hasn't been voiced already by people seen as on the left or on the right.  So I don't think it's necessary to mention the specific candidates I wrote checks for.  Readers who need to know, can look it up on the APOC website. I doubt it will be a surprise to regular readers.]