Late May update

Vincent also had an appointment with the psychiatrist that ultimately prescribed medication for him, which we got to late enough today that we had to reschedule it for the end of the month. Last time Dr. Knox said the medication he's currently on has enough side effects that he can't be on it forever. So now - at the end of June - she'll decide whether to try a new medication or have him go cold turkey. Since he's now 18, there's a little bit of ambiguity now as to whether we should be going in with him to speak with the psychiatrist and what happens if he really doesn't want to keep taking medication. The court order said he must keep on with counseling and medication unless behavioral health providers say it’s OK to quit. (It's over in Jeffersonville, IN, so maybe Stephanie and Vincent will go next month and not be late like Vincent and I were.)

Mom went to the orthopedic doctor and got an X-ray. The doctor is sending her for an MRI, recommending focusing on posture and taking hourly breaks to do back exercises, and pooh-poohing physical therapy or chiropractic medicine. They did not talk about surgery, which Mom isn’t enthusiastic about. Mom knows there are several things going on – back problems, knee problems, general health problems, also posture (and she says that sitting all day hunched over a computer is probably bad for her posture also) – but she is unsure how disciplined she can be about posture and daily exercise. The doctor, who is rather old, said that one reason he’s in this area is that he too has faced similar issues. Mom canceled her PT appointment. Doing more assessment first may be good, but I’m not a big fan of no PT or other kinds of treatment. Going in to PT at least forces you to do the exercises a couple of times a week, and to get additional instruction, which is better than nothing. Cost may be an issue here too (plus the time to go to PT – though Mom might do it on the way to or from work). This seems look progress on some fronts, but not others. (I’m not sure how much retiring would permit Mom to attack these challenges more effectively.)

(Mom said that Florida Governor Charlie Crist – hot off of announcing a run for the U.S. Senate – today vetoed a pay cut for state workers, who have not gotten a raise in four years. Pay stability restored and MRI scheduled, Mom will lead an induction of new officers for Tallahassee’s American Association of University Women branch tonight.)

Stephanie’s father will face another court hearing after Tuesday’s. His tenants are apparently suing him for allegedly changing a handicapped ramp. He can settle for a small amount or go to trial and potentially get settled with a much larger dollar amount. Stephanie urged him to settle and then sell the property. Most of his 3-4 remaining properties seem to Stephanie to be more trouble and expense than they’re worth, especially given the state of the Central Ohio economy, which means that most tenants can’t really afford to pay rent and the pitfalls are many (thieves ransacking empty apartments, tenants suing, etc.). Part of what Stephanie’s father is probably doing is carrying on a family business and like my mother resisting retirement.

(Pictured above is the Columbus South End’s Buckeye steel plant, where Stephanie’s father once worked, which – like the West Side General Motors parts supplier factor that Mom and I also drove by this past weekend - is completely shuttered now – endemic of problems with Ohio’s manufacturing economy.)

-- Perry

Question wording

The second paid workshop I went to this week at the public opinion research conference overlapped in content with one of the short courses I took three years ago in Ann Arbor. The topic for both: drafting good survey questions. A University of Wisconsin professor who I’d heard of (Nina Schaeffer) led this one. She whipped through what sometimes seemed like a semester of material quickly, but this topic comes a little more naturally to me and I kept up. The course was geared more towards person-to-person interview surveys (on the phone or in person) than “self-administered” (paper and pencil or Web-based surveys – like what we do in Research Services), but many things apply across and others of us in the workshop sometimes asked questions about self-administered surveys.

In general, Schaeffer suggested spelling things out – writing more detailed questions and more questions. Put information important to answering the questions – definitions, time periods, BEFORE the actual question, she said (and don’t capitalize or underline key words – boldface them). After people hear what they think is the question, they start formulating a response and don’t necessarily listen to the rest. This may also apply to self-administered questionnaires. People may just not read the extra text.

Partly with that in mind, Schaeffer recommended against doing what we occasionally do. Instead of including a conventional stand-alone screening question – have you ever visited another country? – before asking which countries – we might sometimes ask the which foreign country or countries have you visited by including a parenthetical phrase – before the response options – giving people a chance to check a box if they haven’t ever left the United States. We do this because it takes up less space and helps respondents avoid skip fatigue (getting tired of being asked screening and being skipped around the survey through sometimes complex skip instructions).

(In Web surveys, we can embed the skips into the actual program and so respondents don’t have to think much about it – If they say No – they haven’t been to another country on a separate screening question, we can program the Web survey so they never see the Which country? Question.)

Don’t do the parenthetical phrase check box, Schaeffer said – because many respondents won’t look at this phrase and if people haven’t checked it we don’t know if they have in fact been to other countries or whether they just didn’t look at the phrase. (Respondents are more likely to look at stand-alone questions, Schaeffer implied.)

In some cases, however, Schaeffer advocated leaving out screening questions and building them into a second question. For example: Instead of asking have you ever visited a country outside of the United States? And then how many countries? - simply ask How many countries outside the United State have you visited, ever? and make sure that respondents they should write in zero (0) if they’ve never been abroad. Schaeffer suggested making these kinds of response options in this order None or Never then fill in the blank numbers. She suggested in general avoid frequency and rate questions and when possible avoid fixed response options with numbers grouped – try to get people to fill in the blank the exact numbers. Instead of how often in a regular week, ask how many times in the past seven days starting on Sunday, May 2, and ending on Saturday, May 8, did you do the following?

If you have to, she said, you can group numbers (like if you think there’s no way people will remember exact numbers) or even: words describing frequency.

Schaeffer said research suggests that it’s important to order “Yes” and “No” options in -that order. She said in general going in reverse order for other types of questions – especially against social desirability – helps counteract the tendency of people to answer positively and to check the first response or two. So for example – in a question about activity – if one didn’t switch to a fill in the blank numbers question – she suggested going to Not at all active, a little active, somewhat active, very active, and extremely active – in that order. Researchers have tested all of these options – to make sure they don’t overlap too much. Very just doesn’t seem intense enough to people to top off a response list with.

Generally, Schaeffer said – never have “True” as part of a question with lots of responses. She also said: Avoid questions about agreement unless it’s clearly something that’s a should question – your opinion about a policy issue.

Also – mainly write “unipolar” questions - not at all satisfied, a little satisfied, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied, extremely satisfied- instead of “bipolar” questions – very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, in between, somewhat satisfied, very dissatisfied (although she didn’t entirely ban these). In general, label the response options for all such questions with words. Don’t use numeric scales – like “1” through “7” – partly because these can mean different things to different people. Use 5-7 labeled with words options with unipolar questions and five or seven response options – always with an option in the middle – with bipolar questions. Usually, with bipolar questions, make the options “symmetrical” – “strongly” or “somewhat” agree – with an option in the middle – and then “somewhat” or “strongly” disagree.

Schaeffer debated with herself about whether to put “in the middle” options in fact in the middle, or leave it as the last option. She argued that in everyday speech, people sometimes ask each other – do you like this, or dislike it, or have mixed feelings. She also referred to different options. She apparently preferred “Mixed Feelings” or “In the Middle” or “Not Applicable” to “No Opinion” or “Don’t Know” (the ones we use most). She argued that our favorites were too general or vague.

Schaeffer also agreed with pollsters such as those from Gallup who push people to express opinions. In live interview surveys, she suggested that interviewers not present No opinion-type options, but record them if people volunteer No opinion responses. After hedging some, she said this wasn’t really possible with self-administered surveys. Web survey participants can’t write things in. And it’s messy when respondents to paper and pencil surveys do so.

She and I talked about this more after the session. Our office has long held a different view from that that Gallup and apparently Schaeffer hold. We believe that respondents don’t already have opinions on all issues. If they don’t really have opinions, trying to force them to state an opinion would produce faulty data. The argument Schaeffer made is this. I gave her the example of the proposal to set up a “cap and trade” system in which the government would limit how much carbon emissions companies could release (in the Presbyterian Panel environmental issues survey that’s about to go to print). But the government would also help set up a market for permits to release a certain amount of carbon emissions. If a company really wanted to release a lot of carbon emission, it rong) could buy permits from companies that weren’t going to emit carbon much. In an actual question I helped write about this, we don’t even use the cap and trade lingo and I tried to explain the proposal (or piggy-backed off of language from a staff person in the Presbyterian Washington office). But in the real world – said Schaeffer – people all the time get – and sometimes take – opportunities to express opinions about things like the cap and trade proposal – even if they know very little or nothing about it and can just guess what’s it about or vaguely connect it to something they know a little about and/or care about. Like maybe it has something to do with trading baseball caps. In this case, pushing people to express an opinion about it without giving them any more information is in fact more realistic, she said. Extreme examples of this are when survey researchers have asked people about fictitious proposals or about measures so obscure – the Trade Adjustment Act is something she cited as an example – that hardly any respondents really know what it is. What some survey researchers then do – after asking about whether people support or oppose cap and trade or Trade Adjustment – is spend a whole survey filling in bits of detail and arguments and counterarguments and see how respondents reply to those different elements. Schaeffer said what I was really pushing for people not to report any uninformed (or possibly strong opinions). Most people have at least some kind of vague opinions about most things. By including a No opinion or Don’t know category, we are encouraging people to assess how strong and how well informed their opinion is and – if it doesn’t seem that strong – to report it as “No opinion.”

Schaeffer and I probably still disagree about this. I hope to try many of the things she suggested, but am not sure I want to give up on No opinion options and on starting with the negative first on scale questions.

Two other points: Schaeffer gave us a thick handout with the slides for her PowerPoint presentation and many slides she didn’t have time to talk about. Several weeks ago she also e-mailed us some a bunch of references. She said that in the semester-long version of the course she spends a lot of time talking about the research findings that support her recommendations. The 2 ½ -hour version of the course is practical – it focuses on suggestions/guidelines (by the way, Schaeffer also says get rid of abbreviations and symbols – including e.g. and slashes – in survey questions) without supplying all of the supporting research findings. When asked she sometimes referred to studies.

A session I went to this afternoon underlined some of my unease about eliminating the No opinion response option. A study of the polling about the presidential election polls during the couple of months before the November election – and a little before the New Hampshire primary elections – showed the problems with either not allowing respondents to respond No opinion or not including this as a stated response category or with not reporting No opinion responses to the public or press. Although by immediately before the general election most of the polls converged and relatively accurately predicted Senator Obama’s margin of victory over Senator McCain, in September and October the polls disagreed a lot. And in the months before the primaries, pollsters reported – as it turns out, quite incorrectly – that Mayor Giuliani and Senator Clinton had consolidated leads and would probably win the New Hampshire primary (Clinton did win; Giuliani fared very poorly). This second example really throws in clear relief the No opinion issue. Standard pre-election polling ask people who they would vote for if the election were held today. But the election was months off. If you looked at the data closely, something like 75 percent of the Republican electorate was actually undecided. So when the pollsters reported Giuliani as the frontrunner, they weren’t explaining that in fact only a small minority of NH Republicans supported him. Somewhat ditto during fall 2008. The polls varied so much until the last few weeks before the election, this researcher argued, because many voters were in fact undecided but the survey interviewers pushed them to say who they would vote for. In this situation, it shouldn’t be a surprise that – when survey respondents were replying somewhat randomly because they didn’t really yet have an opinion – that people would tell different pollsters at different times different things. Aggressively discouraging people not to respond No opinion – and not reporting No opinion responses – can produce very misleading results that don’t really accurately represent actual opinion

-- Perry

Creation Museum

When I proposed a trip up the Ohio River Valley towards Cincinnati, Stephanie suggested we go to the controversial Creation Museum - which turns out to be a mixed Bible history/natural history/cultural conservative politics museum with petting zoo - west of the Cincinnati airport (which is actually located in Kentucky) very near the Ohio River. We drove up midday Saturday, stopped for lunch at the Japanese restaurant in the Florence Mall (should have just eaten in the museum cafe), and then drove over on the Cincinnati beltway to the museum. The museum blends an interesting version of scientific creationism/intelligent design theory. Central to the museum's version of this theory is that the earth is just about 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and people co-existed. The great flood is also central to the story - and, very recently, a mini-intraspecies version of Darwin's natural selection - and the idea that some 6,000 years ago God created people and a variety of other species that coexisted until dinosaurs eventually died off and some other species - internally evolved. (There's little direct confrontation with the idea that the Bible's 6,000 years could be treated as metaphor or that this could be a non-essential part of the Bible that reflected pre-scientific understandings of the time.) There is some conservative morality story included here, including a critique of social Darwinism and scientific racism. Images of the dinosaur-people coexistence jump out pretty quickly at the museum.

The figure below is of an actual scientific creationist archeologist, who was also speaking in a film projected in the same room. This man explicitly said he's out to prove the scientific creationist interpretation of the Bible. The exhibit on the whole conveys a rather relativist view of science, a view that some postmodernists would like. There's one theory (Darwin's evolution theory) and another theory (scientific creationism) - perhaps both plausible. It's not easy simply to test one versus the other. We must accept both as valid theories. It's just that only one of them is Biblically valid also.

Here's where they quickly get into contemporary history/cultural critique. There is a pro-scientific creationism take on the Scopes monkey trial, in which a TN science teacher was tried and convicted for teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. Even though the prosecution prevailed, the trial - popularized in the movie "Inherit the Wind," which the museum criticizes - discredited opponents of the theory of evolution in many circles.

The museum sends visitors through a gritty supposedly urban secular humanist wasteland/tunnel in which all truth is relative and moral decay sets in (though keep in mind the scientific relativism outlined before).

Stephanie and Vincent have always loved natural history museums. Stephanie knows plenty about just about everything except for U.S. history, and there's plenty about prehistory, anthropology, archeology, zoology, and geology in natural history museums to keep her occupied.

Stephanie snapped this picture of me "petting" one of the dinosaurs (really good dinosaur models, by the way.)

Below Stephanie was reaching for the apple - apparently from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (as in scripture).

Stephanie thought this model of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was a little risque (she said they were basically having sex). Interestingly, they don't have blond hair, but they're not black either. (And how does Adam have a trimmed beard?)

Here (below) is the snake lurking - about to lure Eve and Adam into trying that forbidden fruit.

Stephanie wanted me to take a picture of her posing with a Methusalah figure (below) because she ways she sometimes tells her students she's as old as Methusalah (the oldest figure in the Bible).

Stephanie also sat down in a model of the ark. I mentioned that the flood is very important to this version of the scientific creationist story. Apparently the existence of the flood and its effects helps explain many trends (like the creation of the Grand Canyon?) that otherwise we might need to explain by the passing of millions of years (which of course isn't an available explanation if you're trying to explain how the earth is only 6,000 plus years old).

A smaller ark model of just the exterior ark appears (below) in a diorama. (Later in the gift shop we bought a Noah's ark puzzle for one of Stephanie's students. Recall that one of the churches we have visited in Guatemala is the Arca de Noe church.)

This is apparently a new exhibit of the museum that touts a central part of Darwin's theory of evolution: natural selection - how species - well - "evolve" - at least within the species (apparently inter-species evolution - like other primates turning into people - is out - partly because God created certain species and they've only had 6,000 years to change anyway.) The example that I couldn't get a good picture was blind cave fish (but in the exhibit they were being exposed to light - how many generations before they might get their sight back?) No direct comment here on how - according to what I learned in college - the principle tenet of natural selection - the essential random quality of it - violates a central tenet of scientific creationism - that God is in control over everything, that everything has a purpose.

What came next (and below) was a fascinating sociological analysis of - among other things - racism that tied - somewhat correctly - the appearance of Darwin's theory of evolution with the subsequent rise of social Darwinism (individuals and families that are more fit rise to the top of the economic ladder in a Darwin-esque survival of the fittest competition (a set of ideas that justified new wealth in the Gilded Age)) and of the scientific racism that followed (evident in the justification for the 1920/21 U.S. immigration quotas and Nazism). Creation Museum founder Ken Ham (who I've heard talk somewhere on TV or in person) apparently had more to say about this in a book we saw in the bookstore that apparently also defends interracial marriage (we're all God's children, all created from Adam and Eve). Left out from this exhibit are concern for religious discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination and a recognition that oppression long predates the release of Darwin's "Origin of the Species."

I snuck on ahead to a pretty cool dinosaur exhibit, presenting a lot of the images and information that any brand-new natural history museum would present - plus the claim that dinosaurs and people co-existed and dinosaurs lived until a few thousand years ago (but why does God permit extinction, if everything God created was perfect?).

Back in the earlier exhibits was a somewhat confusing argument about horses and how (interspecies?) evolution couldn't possibly proceed quickly enough to work (at least not in 6,000 years?).

The text of the sign below suggests that the museum folks believe in some forms of evolution.

Back to the dinosaur exhibits below.

Two films helped punctuate the tail end of the main set of exhibits (we missed several extra-fee presentations.) One film highlighted aspects of Jesus' life and made an altar call-type pitch. Stephanie compared the young woman who shepherded us into the film and talked a little before and after to the young Mormon woman who beckoned us into the house in Carthage, IL, where Joseph Smith was killed and then finished off by making the pro-Mormon pitch. A striking thing about the museum's understanding of world history and theology is the stress on sin, punishment, sacrifice, and atonement. Our pastor says she's not even sure about the theory of atonement, and our theology of graces puts somewhat different emphasis on things. But the museum really stresses Adam and Eve's original sin, ongoing sin, and the need for sacrifice to atone for this (first the sacrifice by Jewish people of gentle lambs, which I found it was odd the Christian museum was essentially talking up), and then Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (along with - implicitly - the sacrifice of Christian martyrs throughout the centuries - like the sacrifice of the Korean Christians whose sacrifices my father is helping chronicle.) While Stephanie awaited her chai at one of the cafes, I watched part of film that started out talking about St. George and the dragon and went on to argue that various historical and modern-day sightings of dragons (and even Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs?) may be evidence of at least the historic co-existence of people and dinosaurs, just as scientific creationists argue should be the case.

No dinosaurs were visible in the petting zoo we went to as we left the inside museum and ventured around the pond on the way to a kind of nature area. But there were some pretty neat mammals and marsupials. Below is an Australian animal.

There were also peacocks (below).

Stephanie had great fun feeding the most assertive of the goats and a camel. Both of them could scarf up the food faster than Stepanie could get out another quarter.

The camel (below) freaked Stephanie out somewhat because its lips were not only separated top and bottom but also right and left. With four different parts to its lips, the lips felt almost opposable, like fingers/hand.

Afterwards - all the more so with the "swine flu" circulating and those odd-feeling camel lips, Stephanie made sure to wash her hands (below).

Below is also a video clip of one of the first dinosaur exhibits we came across in the museum.

-- Perry

On his way out

News reports suggest that U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whom President Bush (“Poppy”) promised would be a conservative stalwart but turned out to the court’s second most liberal justices on many issues, will step down in June. A New Hampshire native connected with then White House chief of staff John Sununu, Souter, a bachelor, faced questions – though rarely explicit – about his sexual identity. (In hindsight, Souter’s nomination won Senate confirmation in part because as a lower-court judge, state court judge, and New Hampshire attorney general he had issues almost no controversial opinion.) Souter, only 69 (young by current Supreme Court standards) apparently never liked the Washington social scene. Souter cast one of the deciding votes in the landmark 1992 moderately pro-abortion rights ‘Casey vs. Reproductive Health Services” decision – which he helped read from the bench and probably in hindsight stopped some anti-abortion advances for good – which helped frame my dissertation research.

(Although Justice Souter has been no friend of the rights of the accused, he has continued to vote liberally in other matters, siding with the losers in the election imbroglio case that made the son of the man who appointed him (George W. Bush) the president. Souter was apparently so disgusted with the clear political partisanship and lack of intellectual integrity of the "Bush vs. Gore" decision that he considered resigning. Souter is apparently not close personally with his more conservative Republican colleagues on the court, and he has not been particularly impressed with their intellectual rigor - and this may have influenced him in deciding when to retire.)

Many Supreme Court justices, who have lifetime appointments, resign in some way to maintain their legacy. Justice Souter’s resignation is like that of Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the 1973 pro-abortion rights “Roe vs. Wade” decision, in that Blackmun (like Souter, a Republican) chose ideology over party and chose to resign soon after the election of a moderately liberal Democratic president (Bill Clinton) whose ideological leanings were closer to his own. (Justice Byron White, a diehard but sometimes conservative Democrat, opted for party over ideology, also waiting until President Clinton’s election.) Souter apparently went for ideology, and – unless President Obama faces problems from moderate Democrats in the Senate – President Obama will replace him with another moderate liberal (but – more likely – a Democrat - although picking a moderate Republican would be an interesting move for a president who tried - and failed - to appoint a third Republican/independent to his Cabinet).

-- Perry

Babe's revenge?

I got electronic communication late Thursday from an organization that a former student of mine helps lead that argued that “swine flu” originated not in Mexico but in a North Carolina pig mega farm (factory farm). It turns out that – as with chickens – megafarms have developed that keep pigs – apparently for their whole lives – penned up in a small, single pen by themselves. Pigs find this stressful, and they’re more likely to get sick. The organization cited some evidence that the mix of pig, bird, and human flu that apparently begat the “swine flu” now infecting humans got it start maybe more than a decade ago in one of a handful of North Carolina pig megafarms.

Ironically, a high school friend of mine – after helping condoize St. Augustine (FL) Beach – got his big break in the construction industry helping build refrigeration for the pig slaughterhouses in North Carolina – slaughterhouses that I suspect killed and processed the pigs that grew up on these megafarms. Refrigeration helped make it possible to ship pig products around the country and around the world. Even with a recent push for people to “buy local” with their groceries, the push towards flying food around the country and the world means that it would be more difficult to contain, to localize an illness like this.

So we may not only be suffering now (by starting to contract “swine flu”) from failing to help Mexico and other countries beef up their health care systems and confront economic inequality and exploitation of people and natural resources by multinational corporations. We may also be suffering from permitting animal rights violations that have come back to haunt us (hence the blog entry title).

Other flu updates: While some affected states cancel some public events, Stephanie and I hung out early Thursday evening at the Pegasus Parade, a huge public event. An outdoor event like this is probably safer than hanging out with a bunch of people – some potentially sick – in an enclosed area (as Vice President Biden somewhat inelegantly reminded us of).

One of Stephanie’s favorite students confided in her that an older brother of hers – who stayed back in Mexico after they all went home for Christmas – is now in the hospital and she and her family fear he has the flu.

-- Perry

Congratulations!

Congratulations to Kathleen Sibelius, now a 60-year-old former two-term Kansas governor, confirmed by a mainly party-line Senate vote and sworn in as U.S. Health and Human Services department secretary Tuesday (instead of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whose nominations tax return and lobbying problems derailed). Sibelius’ father is former Ohio Governor John Gilligan, who I was interviewed briefly (and unpleasantly) as part of my dissertation research.

Congratulations also to Scott Murphy, a 39-year-old NYC venture capitalist who beat out a long-time Republican state legislator (Jim Tedisco) whom the upstate NY anti-abortion activists whom I interviewed as part of my dissertation research loved. Recall that the special election – whose vote count at one point had Murphy and Tedisco TIED – was made necessary when NYS’s governor tapped a rather conservative upstate NY Democratic congressperson (Kirsten Gillibrand) for Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat. I wrote in my dissertation about how the evolution of Gillibrand’s longtime predecessor from Kennedy Democrat to conservative Republican mirrored the change in upstate NY’s political landscape. On his way to be sworn in, Murphy went from Glen Falls, which I visited to do an interview during my dissertation research, to the legendary Halfmoon Diner in the Saratoga County suburb of Albany (Clifton Park), where I also interviewed someone. Murphy and his family apparently moved to Glens Falls, near the farm where his wife grew up, so he could run for Congress. No stranger to politics, Murphy had also served as an aide to two Missouri governors.

Both Sibelius and Murphy have won in areas (Kansas and upstate New York) that are heavily Republican. But Gilibrand had won reelection with 70 percent of the vote, a margin that Murphy obviously didn’t come close to (his margin was apparently a few hundred votes).

-- Perry

Welcome, Senator Specter!

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), a one-time Democrat who switched to being a Republican when the Democratic Party wouldn’t back his run for Philadelphia district attorney, appears set to announce a switch back to the Democratic Party. I remember watching Specter’s wife, Joan, at work on the Philadelphia City Council, where she was one of the only Republicans, when I worked in Philadelphia. I supported the campaign of then Pennsylvania Democratic U.S. House member Bob Edgar against Specter in 1986. That year, like most years, Specter faced a powerful conservative Republican challenger in the Republican Party, then had to pivot to face a strong Democratic challenger (in that year, Edgar).

Specter (pictured above in 2004 with now Vice President Biden – then dubbed “the third senator from Pennsylvania” given his pro-PA voting record and residence in Wilmington, Delaware just miles from the Delaware-PA line) was one of three Republicans in the Senate who voted for President Obama’s stimulus package. A 79-year-old cancer survivor, Specter pushed for a got a big increase in the National Institutes of Health’s budget in the stimulus package as one of the prices for his vote.

Already, it was clear that Senator Specter would once again would face a very strong conservative challenger in the 2010 Republican primary. With the switch, Specter will face that challenger in the general election and will not have to turn around and face a Democratic challenger in the general election. President Obama ended up winning Pennsylvania easily, and Specter’s PA colleague in the Senate (Bob Casey Jr.) is a Democrat and the state’s governor (Specter’s successor as Philadelphia district attorney and former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell) is a Democrat.

Once the Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty award the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat that was up for grabs in 2008 to comedian Al Franken, who has apparently unseated Democrat-turned Republican and former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, the Democrats will now have the 60-seat filibuster-proof majority that eluded them when Georgia incumbent U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss won that December special runoff election.
Keep in mind that at least two Democratic U.S. senators have been ailing and are not always available for votes.We’ll see what all of this means for bipartisanship. It may that Democrats don’t have to threaten to use the budget reconciliation process to ram President Obama’s health care plan through. On the other hand, this will increase the power in the Senate not of the dwindling number of Republican moderates (of which Coleman and Specter were two) but of Democratic moderates (including Nebraskan Ben Nelson and – now – perhaps Specter) who have balked at plenty of Obama’s ambitious proposals.

P.S. Senator Specter has long served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was one of the thorns in Anita Hill’s side (though he was respectful) when she testified against the confirmation of her former supervisor, now U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He chaired the committee when the Republicans were in the Senate majority earlier this decade, but only got that position – even though seniority would have normally given it to him anyway – when he promised conservatives that he wouldn’t interfere with any of then President Bush’s nominations of conservative Republicans as federal court judges.

P.P.S. Another factor in Specter’s decision: The rambunctious PA Democratic Party presidential election between then Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - especially in PA, a state in which primary elections are open only to those registered with the particular party – and then the increasingly popular candidacy of Democratic presidential nominee Obama – shifted thousands and thousands of PA voters not only out of the ranks of independent voters and those not registered to vote – but also out of the Republican Party rolls. Now Democrats, these pro-Obama former Republicans would not be available to help Specter defend his seat in a Republican primary.

-- Perry

Swine flu

We’re following news about the swine flu with interest, just like everyone else. An announcement at church reminded us that there are Presbyterian mission workers in Guatemala – many of whom we know – and the flu is starting to extend not only into the U.S., Canada, and Spain, but also – apparently more heavily – into Guatemala, where our church’s new partners in Izabal also are. Of course, I was in Guatemala exactly one month ago this weekend, and Stephanie got two new students two weeks ago who had just left Mexico.We’ll be thinking of these folks and others – including no doubt family members of Stephanie’s students threatened by the illness. We’ll also be listening for President Obama’s words about this global health threat and U.S. homeland security threat, as well as watching our own health. One reason I’ll try to go into the doctor this week about an apparent ear infection is the flu threat.A variety of additional events upcoming related to the health of the three of us and our home: I head to the surgeon this week about my groin and to the dentist next week about my mouth guard and allergist for an annual check-up. Stephanie heads to the dentist next week for her first step towards getting a crown over her root-canaled tooth. And Vincent heads today and next week to his weekly counseling visit and perhaps next week to the psychiatrist. We’ve called about getting Vincent’s toilet seat fixed and getting our central A/C fixed. In bathroom news, we picked up on elevated toilet seat for use when Mom comes to visit late next month (although possible hernia surgery has raised some questions about a swirl of activity planned during the furlough later next month).

P.S. It turns out that the original source of the swine flu may have been a Mexican pig farm – owned by a Virginia company – that neighbors have been complaining about for years. Chalk about another victory by U.S. agribusiness – and the penchant of we U.S. consumers for cheap hot dogs and bacon – over rural 3rd World people and – in this case – probably the global economy.

-- Perry

Collective punishment

Let's stop beating around the bush. As more details come out about the U.S. government's reign of torture on terrorist suspects - I say that word very loosely - mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan - held in Guatanamo Bay, in Abu Gharib, and probably in secret prisons around the world, it's become clear that Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military personnel - both with and without the support and direction of higher ups - mercilessly tortured (one "high value" suspect "waterboarded" 168 times) hundreds or even thousands of prisoners/suspects, not so much for intelligence information they might produce - although this might have been how some of it started and this might have occasionally been an ancillary benefit - but to punish individual people for the crimes (crimes that many of them had nothing to do with) of Al Qaida and Taliban affiliates in both countries, at the World Trade Center and on board the U.S.S. Cole; for the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq; and for the crimes of just being Iraqi, Afghan, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, non-Christian, non-English-speaking or non-white in general. A mix of bad policies and some bad people produced this horrible melange. No doubt even many out-on-patrol regular military personnel - perhaps even our friend Julian - and personnel of the Blackwater private security firm - not just supposed interrogators and guards - who were scared and bitter about being stuck in dangerous, unfamiliar places and - as in Vietnam decades before - took revenge on those people whose liberties they were supposedly there to defend. Of couse, no politician can call a spade a spade and denounce both the policies and the personnel, and who knows what you or I - those of us who were not there - would have done (if we were there). But the kinds of scenes that I became familiar with in supposedly left-wing documentaries I've watched and blogged about during the past year were apparently all too routine. The abuse, torture, and general inhumane treatment - treatment that has further endangered U.S. people abroad (including in Iraq and Afghanistan) (if not also here in the United States) and undermined U.S. interests - and whether or not it produced intelligence that prevented future 9/11s (and I haven't been convinced that it did) - was so pervasive and so dressed up in lies, faulty legal arguments, and smug, misleading "24" episodes that it can no longer be dismissed as isolated incidents committed by a few bad apples. Take that for being Iraqi! Take that for being Muslim! Take that for not speaking fluent English! That'll teach them.

-- Perry

Tax week in pictures

The Obamas got another family member - Bo (pictured above with them), a Portuguese water dog. We'll see if they walk him enough. There was the controversy about whether Bo was really a rescue dog (which candidate Obama had said they would try to get). Yellow ribbons and U.S. flags went up when U.S. Navy snipers rescued the heroic U.S. merchant ship captain and killed three of his captors. But two Facebook friends of mine introduced other perspectives: one pointed out that most Somalian pirates are younger than Vincent, and the other characterized the pirates as Somalia's coast guard (recall that Somalia has almost no functioning government), defending its territorial waters and coast (and exacting fines) for Westerners' massive nuclear waste dumping and overfishing off of the Somalian coast. Coastal Somalians who have suffered heavily because of both of these post-fall of the Somalia government trends apparently sympathize wth the pirates (a small boatland of them having been captured in the picture below). (Recall that we abandoned Somalia after a brief intervention during the "Poppy" Bush to Clinton transition.)



U.S. folks in Louisville, Tallahassee, Albany (NY), Columbus, St. Paul, and no doubt other places where we've lived showed up in force on Wednesday (Tax Day) to protest the Obama budget, the bailouts, tax reform, and so on - linked with some Republican figures. I had hoped to go to the downtown Louisville event (to check it out) - which drew at least several hundred people - but didn't get away from work at lunchtime. (Pictured below are protesters in Albany.) I guess these folks would have generally not signed my support President Obama's budget proposal petition 2 1/2 weeks ago. But some might subscribe to the theories that President Obama is really a Muslim and that he really was not born in the United States and so should not be a U.S. citizen.

-- Perry

Bye; and Welcome aboard!

Kai Penn (pictured above right as Kumar Patel - with actor John Cho as Harold to his right - in "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle") apparently had his character (Dr. Kutner) on the Fox TV show "House" commit suicide last night so that he could join the Obama administration as a liaison to Asian and arts communities. So much for "Harold and Kumar 3"? (Penn pictured below with Hugh Laurie as Dr. House in "House.")

-- Perry

Campaign mode

The media wondered what President Obama’s campaign apparatus would do with the huge list of e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers they had from the two-year fall campaign. During the past couple of months the president’s poll numbers have slowly started to decline, and public support for some of his policy proposals and other government policies have shrunken. This past week the campaign e-mailed folks and tried to recruit us to canvass in support of some of the president’s long-term budget proposals, including health care, energy independence, and education initiatives. Even though I’m busy, I signed up for this in part because I feared that Obama’s incredible campaign volunteer base – perplexed by the shift from campaign to governance, by bailouts and projected deficits, and by Obama’s rightward, then leftward shift – would not show up for this event – and at least in Louisville I was largely right. I was only the third person to sign up for one of the three events on the Web site for Organizing for America, the campaign-type organization that is now run by the Democratic Party. When I got to the coffee shop between downtown and my old neighborhood, between work a little late, I believe I was the first person to arrive who was going to go out.

I essentially asked people to sign a petition in support of President Obama’s long-term budget proposal – including his education, energy independence, and health care initiatives – that allow us to capture – if provided their address, phone number, and e-mail address. I eventually focused on the budget/health care initiatives. My little spiel to people after they started filling out the form was I’m particularly excited about the budget’s health care initiatives, including the effort to cut health care costs by expanding coverage, so that people don’t so sick at the start. (I also handed everyone I talked with who would take it - even those who didn't sign the petition - a flyer.) I started out by asking people: Would you be willing to sign a petition in favor of President Obama’s budget, including his health care initiatives?

I started out near the Waterfront, talking with people at the end of running race. I stopped in at work to go to the bathroom. Then I headed in a long rectangle, ending up at the far end outside of the Hall of Justice, where we’ll meet Vincent and his lawyer Monday at 1 p.m. for his arraignment. There I got four people on a smoke break from traffic school to sign. On the way, I stopped at several bus stops – the campaign trainer/volunteers had suggested bus stops and got signers. Eventually, I had to resist the temptation just to ask African Americans and white young people to sign (because these were the most likely people to say Yes). Survey research suggests that Republicans (and we’re talking mainly Anglo Republicans) have soured on Obama lately, and this was evident in my approaching people. I also stopped outside Fourth Street, the downtown entertainment district where Vincent has sometimes hung out. There I even got two tourists from Missouri – who were doing a tour across the country of all the “Hard Rock Café” sites – including the one at Fourth Street Live – to sign. The “campaign” asked me to get at least 20 people to sign, and I got 30 people.

I probably approached about 60 people, and so half said Yes. Lots of people did not give their regular mail addresses, but I was surprised how many people gave not only e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers but also signed up to receive weekly text messages from Organizing for America (even those these can cost money), like Stephanie receives occasionally after she signed up to receive a text message with the vice presidential running mate announcement (that we ended up getting at about 3 a.m.) back in August.

Issues people mainly who said No asked/complained about: AIG bailout, earmarks, not concentrating on the banking crisis, and – probably high on the list of Louisville – picking the North Carolina Tar Heels – not the Louisville Cardinals (who both advanced to next weekend’s Sweet 16 with tough victories over – respectively – Louisiana State and Siena this weekend) to win March Madness.

What I learned: President Obama (who was very good – if unspectacular – on “60 Minutes” Sunday night) still has a reservoir of good will but whites are more leery of him. And Obama’s vaunted campaign base has to be re-grown and re-energized since they were largely absent (I bet across the country). Governing may be tougher than campaigning, and mobilizing support for policy proposals may be much tougher than mobilizing support for a primary election. Still – interesting talking with people – even briefly – about policy and politics this Saturday (including the half a dozen volunteers I did meet).

Next time – Join us!

-- Perry

Fed interview

It was interesting to watch and hear last night’s “60 Minutes” interview with Fed chair Ben Bernanke (one year in the making), who – it turns out – grew up as a child in one of the few Jewish (shop-keeping) families in Dillon, North Carolina. This is the man who – along with new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner – the Obama administration and the country are counting on to rescue and reform the financial system and the economy – and, with Defense Secretary Gates and General Petraus – is one of the few holdovers from the Bush Administration. An expert on the 1920s/30s’ Great Depression, he seems very aware that massive government intervention may be needed to stave off a (and also prevent) depression, something his predecessor – Alan Greenspan, favorite of my libertarian friends – as well Clinton Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin – were slow to see.

-- Perry

Congrats, Secretary Locke!

After having two Commerce Secretary nominees not work out, President Obama selected a third Asian American to join his Cabinet: former Washington (state) Governor Gary Locke (pictured above with Obama at the annoucenemnt, a Chinese American (joining VA secretary Shinseki and Energy secretary Chu). Locke has done some international business consulting since he was governor. Also in the news this week was another Asian American politician, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Jindal, mentioned as a possible 2012 presidential candidate, gave the televised Republican response to President Obama's speech to Congress, is one of the Republican governors who's threatening not to use small parts of the stimulus package money that their states would qualify for. The stimulus - and certainly President Obama's budget including health care and energy initiatives - are providing a rallying cry for Republicans. On the other hand, another 2012 prospect, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, has been a stimlus proponent and says his state will use all the money. Even another 2012 prospect, MN Governor Tim Pawlenty, says that although he doesn't agree with everything in the stimulus, an underlying problem he has is how much more money flows out of MN to the federal government than comes back in spending and programs. Obviously, turning down government money would only make that worse.

-- Perry

Prayer in school

My students had been looking forward to January 20th, 2009. They finally realized that it wasn't Alabama that was becoming president, but Obama.

Most of my students, even little third graders, had been following the election. During a writing assignment back in October where they had to write thank you letters to people in our community one student asked to write to the president. I wrote George W. Bush on the board. Saul exclaimed "no, the other one". I knew which one he meant but asked him to clarify (there might be lurking school board members in the hallway). He asked me to write Barack Obama's name on the board so he could spell it right. (Just to be safe, since it was before the election, I wrote John McCain's name on the board also...I didn't want to play partisanship.)

When January 20th finally came we had read together So You Want to be President which is a children's book that gives lots of fun and wacky details about all the different presidents. The TV in the classroom was on (muted) waiting for the momentous occasion when the inauguration would really begin. Samy and Yesse were jumping up and down excitedly while Saul explained that they think Obama is "hot".

I would explain who some of the famous people were when they came out for the speeches. Many of them (mind you they are third graders) actually gave a thumbs down for W. But then the true speeches (the ones the kids might follow started). I unmuted the TV and we all gathered around. After some time and explanations Rick Warren started his prayer. I figured this was a historical moment they will all remember (plus I was probably just as excited) I let the prayer go on without muting it (most of the country was watching this right?). An extraordinary thing happened in my room, it still gives me goosebumps to think about it. Rick Warren finished his prayer with the Lord's Prayer. Slowly, first with my Cuban student and soon followed by my Mexican students, they joined in. One in English and four in Spanish bowed their heads and said the Lord's Prayer with Rick Warren. My Japanese student asked me what they were doing, and I explained when they were finished.

While I am not a proponent for bringing prayer back in schools, this was an amazing thing for me to witness. We say the Kindness Pledge, the Pledge of Allegiance, and have a moment of silence every morning (which really is NEVER silent), but this was different. These students understood the significance of the inauguration itself and the reason we have prayer.

No matter anyone's political views, you can't argue that January 20th was not a historical event. For me, I was excited to have a president I can believe in (When I heard them announce Obama as the President of the United States before his press conference on the economy I got giggly and told Perry I felt like I was watching West Wing or something. It can't possibly be real), but I also saw a moment I'm sure I won't see again. Students were actively participating in a religious experience at school.

Then the moment was broken. After explaining to Shota what the Lord's Prayer is, applause broke out on screen. Aretha Franklin had taken the stage. She started singing and my students, always full of questions, asked "What's that on her head?"

--- Stephanie

Frost/Nixon

Out of a quartet of Watergate movies, "Dick" is the lightest and 'All the President's Men" has the most gravitas. "Frost/Nixon," Ron Howard's probably money-losing but Oscar-nominated adaptation of the stage play (which I saw tonight), has both light and serious moments - and the theme of one of its key scenes overlaps heavily with that of Oliver Stone's dark "Nixon." Michael Sheen (of "The Queen") and Frank Langella shine as journalist/entertainer David Frost and former President Nixon, respectively. Sam Rockwell and Kevin Bacon are also great as aides. The movie portrays both as somewhat sympathetic characters. Perhaps less a Watergate movie than a story of media innovation (a la "Quiz Show") and a character study/buddy movie (a la "Lethal Weapon"). Filmed occasionally as a pseudo-documentary, this movie requires no intimate knowledge of Watergate to follow and no great interest in Watergate to find it interesting.

-- Perry