Elections

Brown as Warning

by

Looking back, I realize I didn’t begin with the positive, and I agree with Kennedy there appears to be plenty of positive: Brown, even under fire, remains honest, with a sense of humor and the apparent self-confidence and humility that comes with such humor, and he also appears, well, hot.

He’s helped though by a pent-up irritation: policies we thought unwise have deteriorated into policies we find foolish, the unseemly has slid into the mire of outright bribery, the short-sighted has so dominated that disaster lurks. On a not unrelated note, attitudes that rankled those of us in fly-over territory have become pervasive and bizarre. They are not the attitudes of those with a sense of humor nor apparent self-confidence, and, especially, without humility. (Arrogance is not self-confidence.)

Even citizens of a state that seemed to give pre-Revolutionary respect to family succession appear annoyed a candidate disses their sports heroes, shrinks from handshaking and winter politicking, and seems appalled by pick-ups. (Whatever Marie Antoinette actually said or actually meant, the inappropriateness of her response defined her – and beheaded her – even when such kingly rights were more widely accepted).

My husband’s uncle, far into retirement and deep into Texas, has proclaimed that he intends for the first time in years to “pull an all-nighter” – to see Brown triumph, he hopes. And, in the tradition of these parts, Ray Stevens disses Obamacare.

What can Brown do for You?

by

FedUp

Big day tomorrow in Massachusettes.

The Uncle of Science

by

The King and the CrookHow do you make a tired and aging political system supple and flexible enough to adapt to a changing world? A recent Wired Magazine article offers this:

[M]ost scientific change isn’t abrupt and dramatic; revolutions are rare. Instead, the epiphanies of modern science tend to be subtle and obscure and often come from researchers safely ensconced on the inside. “These aren’t Einstein figures, working from the outside,” [Kevin] Dunbar says. “These are the guys with big NIH grants.”

While the scientific process is typically seen as a lonely pursuit — researchers solve problems by themselves — Dunbar found that most new scientific ideas emerged from lab meetings, those weekly sessions in which people publicly present their data. Interestingly, the most important element of the lab meeting wasn’t the presentation — it was the debate that followed. Dunbar observed that the skeptical (and sometimes heated) questions asked during a group session frequently triggered breakthroughs, as the scientists were forced to reconsider data they’d previously ignored. The new theory was a product of spontaneous conversation, not solitude; a single bracing query was enough to turn scientists into temporary outsiders, able to look anew at their own work.

Read more

Calling for Volunteers for Scott Brown Legal Team

by

I was one of many people who just got an email from Dan Winslow, Chief Legal Counsel for the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee. Dan writes:

Next week, Massachusetts’s citizens will head to the polls to vote in a historical election. Close elections draw intense scrutiny, and ensuring the accuracy and credibility of the process is crucial. For that reason, the Scott Brown campaign is assembling a volunteer team to ensure that every legally cast ballot is accurately counted. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve a fair and honest election.

He concludes: “Please do not wait, Election Day is January 19th!”

Go to this link to join up.

I will add a few comments.

There will be attempted vote fraud by some Democrats in the Brown/Coakley Senate race. There is a lot at stake. A defeat which takes away Ted Kennedy’s old seat, and loses their super-majority, will be a humiliation and a political disaster for the Democrats. They will have every incentive to use all means available to them to prevent that defeat.

If you are lawyer who can volunteer in Massachusetts on January 19, go to the link and sign up now, or please forward this link if you know a lawyer who lives in Massachusetts or can be there on election day.

I have worked as a poll watcher in the Chicago area several times. As a Republican in a majority Democratic precinct, I have been treated with very cold courtesy, and some snide remarks, but only rarely with outright hostility. I have never seen any vote fraud, and I do not think there was any. My presence may have deterred any attempted fraud. I will never know. I do know I helped to insure at least one honest polling place on election day, and that is good enough.

The point here is not partisanship. The point here is that we do not live in Albania, or the Congo, or Red China. We supposedly live in a democracy where the citizens vote, and their votes are counted fairly.

Democracy only works if the integrity of the system is insured. And that only happens if there are people from both parties posted in every polling place. An honest system is an American value, not just a Republican value.

In a close, and important, election like this one, the incentives to cheat, by the incumbent party in particular, are very high. It need not come from the candidates or their staffs. Some areas have almost a tradition of cheating, in both parties, where others are squeaky clean. It can occur spontaneously at the bottom rung. Precinct captains are judged on how well they got the vote out. Their political future turns on winning their precinct for the Party’s candidate, and getting their own voters out and to the polls. The incentive to corruption and electioneering, and voter intimidation, are permanent features. Corruption in the system is a permanent challenge that can only be minimized and never eliminated.

Ensuring an honest election is labor intensive. You need mobs for jobs on the day.

I cannot be in Massachusetts on election day. But if you can help out on January 19, please do so.

Happy New Year

by

I missed out on the Christmas and Hannukah wishes but ought to be in time with the new year ones. It will be our turn to have an election next year (May, I am still saying despite the media hoopla around the word March). It is likely to be an interesting one: we have a government that is more disliked than any I can recall and yet we also have an opposition that just cannot get the support. We also have an electorate that has been seriously angered by all main-stream politicians and has realized, if somewhat hazily, that as long as we are in the EU it makes precious little difference who one wants for. In the last three elections turn-out was extremely low. We do not know what will happen next year. Another low turn-out? Rising vote for the smaller parties like UKIP? It can happen.

The Conservatives are still likely to come back with more seats than any other party but not necessarily with an overall majority. And so what if they do get into government. Remember what Hilaire Belloc wrote about another election?

The accursed power which stands on Privilege
(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge)
Broke – and Democracy resumed her reign:
(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne).

Happy New Year to all.