Let’s play a little game. Imagine this scenario, and then tell me in what country this story takes place. You wake up and go to work. Maria, in the next cubicle over, isn’t there. And she isn’t there the next day. You and your coworkers come to find out that military officers knocked on her door in the middle of the night and took her away somewhere. She was suspected of being an enemy of the government – suspected of being a terrorist. No benchmark of proof was necessary. No presumption of innocence. The executive branch of the government gave the order, and the military responded. You realize that not only do you not know where she is, but she can’t call you or anyone. She has no legal representation. She has not been charged with anything. She can be held indefinitely on suspicion… of something. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

If someone had told you in the year 2000, that eleven years later, a Democratic led Senate in the United States of America would vote to pass a bill including a provision that allowed the United States military (not law enforcement), on U.S. soil, to detain and hold American citizens on a suspicion of terrorism, and to hold them indefinitely without legal representation, and without even a charge, would you have believed them?  Perhaps if you were a Japanese American of a certain age, you might. Almost 70 years ago, Executive Order 9066 authorized the U.S. military to remove any person from designated “military zones” without charge, trial or due process.  What happened next was the forced evacuation and internment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans, two thirds of whom were U.S. citizens. Many spent years in camps. Their only crime? They looked like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor.

Last week the Senate voted on an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill of 2011. The Feinstein amendment said that it was not okay to use the military on US soil against the citizens of its country. The majority of your elected representatives in the senate didn’t much like that idea, and voted it down 55-45. It remains to be seen if the bill will see a presidential veto.

Every school child learns about Habeas corpus. It is one of those procedural remedies which made us, as Americans, feel grateful for our system of justice. It was one of those reasons that we felt proud to live in a country where individual liberties were valued, where the rights of the citizens meant something. We embraced that ideal of the founders that the people ran the government. We were not a citizenrywho lived in fear of tyrants, of governments who wielded their power by unjustly imprisoning those they wished to silence, those who were considered a “threat” by the subjective standard of the executive branch. This was America, and Americans were free.

But Habeas corpus is only a guarantee and a procedural remedy against illegal detention. Illegal used to mean held without charge for an indefinite period of time. Illegal used to mean that the government could not use the military against its own people. Now, it doesn’t. So, the former best safeguard of our individual liberties has been put through the wringer. Illegal detention doesn’t look like it used to, and neither does Habeas corpus.

And then there’s the Constitution – the rule book, our political Bible, the blueprint of our nation, our birthright as citizens. It had a few things to say about criminal prosecution and detention. Who can forget these old favorites?

‘In the trial of all crimes there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed.”

No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.

As an American citizen, this is what you get.  This is the prize for winning the political lottery. This is why politicians love to say how “exceptional” we are as a country. These are the actual freedoms that our troops supposedly go fight for – the very troops who may now be called upon to seize and arrest you with no charge, no presumption of innocence, no jury trial, no lawyer, no court,  in violation of the Constitution they have sworn to protect and defend.

That’s a nice kettle of fish.

Now, don’t delude yourself. It isn’t like the Bush and the Obama administrations haven’t been doing this already. It’s one of the things for which progressives and Democrats used to love to criticize the Bush administration. But most seem strangely silent about the fact that the Obama administration is doing the very same thing.  And the “Constitutional conservatives”  and small government Republicans who turned a blind eye to Bush, but were happy to criticize Obama, are now strangely silent when the vast majority of Republicans voted against the Feinstein amendment.

So, what’s the difference if all this has already been going on for years?  Why should we care?  The difference is this:

First, this will actually codify unconstitutional acts into our body of law. It condones it. It puts it on the books. It is another hatchet mark in the Tree of Liberty, to use a favorite Tea Party metaphor. And every stroke of the axe brings the tree closer to collapse.

Second, we now have the privilege of knowing exactly who is on the side of the Constitution and the intent of the founders of the country. We also know who is willing to sell your most basic unalienable rights down the river. They do it because of political calculation, ineptitude, or desire to keep the nation in a perpetual state of war with an amorphous enemy that exists under every rock, and behind every tree until the end of time. The battlefield is everywhere, and the enemy is “terrorism” – the dark art practiced by those who “hate our freedom.” Ironically, we just gave them less to hate.

I was pleased to see that there were Republicans who actually walked their small government, individual liberties, Constitutional talk. Kudos to Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mike Lee of Utah for breaking with their party and standing up for the people of the country.

It would have been nice to see Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have the courage to do the same. She has been criticized by the far right for being centrist, and moderate, and sometimes even liberal. The reason Democrats were given by the Murkowski campaign to vote for her in her historic and victorious write-in campaign (against far right Republican candidate Joe Miller, and progressive Scott McAdams) was that if she were re-elected in this way, it would free her to be more “herself.” She’d now be unshackled and not beholden to the pressures of the Republican party. She could vote her heart.  Well, take a good look, Democrats who voted for Lisa Murkowski. Peek in to that heart and tell me what you see – it either belongs to someone too weak to buck the party that threw her under the bus in the 2010 election, or an attorney who thinks nothing of voting against the Constitution she swore to uphold.

Ironically, both of her opponents in the 2010 senate race would have voted for the amendment, despite their very different political philosophies.

When asked if he would have voted for the Feinstein amendment, Joe Miller said in a statement to The Mudflats, “I absolutely would have voted for it.  Please note that my position on the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees has been consistent, no matter the position of party leadership.  I am very concerned about the increasing reach of the federal government to the detriment of individual liberties.  Alaskans can rest assured that whatever I do in the future, I will continue to fight aggressively to protect their fundamental rights.”

Democratic candidate Scott McAdams agreed, and told The Mudflats, “Empowering the executive branch with the power to arrest, detain and deprive a sovereign citizen the due process rights promised in our constitution is undemocratic and anti-American. No amount of security is worth demolishing the civil liberties that make America great. I am appalled Senators from a state that values individual and civil liberty above all would support this horrible affront to the core of who we are as Alaskans.

“As a locally elected leader, I have seen inconsistencies between a governing body’s intended purpose of a policy or ordinance and the manner in which such is carried out by staff. As community members, we would rally against an official who misused their authority, suspend a child from school without a stated purpose, or fire a public employee without just cause. It is outrageous to imagine that we as citizens would ever allow our local police departments to arrest and indefinitely hold a suspect with no promise of a trial. Our senators can’t possibly be naive enough to believe that the potential for abuse inherent in this short-sighted security measure is not real, and I hope Alaskans let their delegation know it.”

When Lisa Murkowski’s father Frank Murkowski lost the gubernatorial primary to Sarah Palin, the bumper sticker “Anyone but Frank” was seen on the rear ends of cars and trucks across the state. So, who would have voted for the retention of your civil liberties in the senate? Who would have voted to preserve the intent of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Constitution?  In 2010, the answer would have been “Anyone but Lisa.”

Now, let’s look at the Democrats who voted against this amendment – those who bucked their party in order to do the wrong thing. Here are the Democrats who think that violating your Constitutional rights is OK, as long as it serves their own political purposes – Richard Blumenthal (CT), Daniel Inouye (HI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Carl Levin (MI), Joe Manchin (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Jack Reed (RI), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and yes, Mark Begich of Alaska.

Shame on every Democrat who decided to buck their party, only to officially codify the theft of your Constitutional rights.

Any Alaskan who doesn’t have their head in the sand isn’t surprised by Murkowski’s vote. But, in a moment when Mark Begich could have distinguished himself from Murkowski, appealed to civil libertarians in Alaska (of which there are many from the Tea Party to the Occupy movement), defended the oath taken by servicemen and women in the military, and didn’t even have to vote against his party, he blew it.

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air –however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
– Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)

Fifty five senators who feared to look “soft on terror” have taken away our basic civil liberties in a way the terrorists never could.  Who should we really fear?

Feature films, too, seemed to suffer the same affliction – “Alaskan” themed movies on the big screen were shot in British Columbia, or Colorado, or Washington state, or Massachussetts of all places!  It was a humiliation not to be suffered lightly.We wore our movie martyrdom on our sleeves.

But all that seemed ready to change. Alaska’s new and generous film incentive program passed by the legislature gives financial breaks to films that decide to shoot in Alaska!  The state picks up about a third of the tab to keep filming in this out-of-the-way corner of the country from being prohibitively expensive, and to compete with other states with similar incentives.

This means lots of roles for extras and small speaking parts for Alaskan actors who are quickly building up their resumes. And it also means the hire of prop people, caterers, seamstresses, and crew; plenty of booked hotel rooms; lots of money pouring into restaurants and stores; some great PR for the state; and a bit of excitement here on the Last Frontier.  Last year it wasn’t unusual to spot Ted Danson, or Drew Barrymore enjoying the delicious delicacies at Ginger downtown during the filming of Big Miracle (formerly Everybody Loves Whales). This fall, John Cusack and Nicholas cage have been out and about in town filming the story of Alaska’s infamous serial killer Robert Hansen for the film Frozen Ground.

It’s a new industry, a big bold future for Alaska where locals learn new skills, we get to show our real face to the world to entice tourism, local businesses reap the monetary benefits, and (let’s face it) it’s pretty cool. Everyone benefits and everyone is happy, right?

Of course not!

A disgruntled group called the “Alaska Film Alliance” is not happy.  Rather than to seed an exciting new fledgling industry in the state, that has already provided hundreds of jobs to Alaskans, and a huge influx of money into the local economy, they think that we need to rethink this. We just might be giving too much away. They might not be hiring all the Alaskans they could. We need to tweak this.

Now, I’m no expert on film industry incentives, but the following is enough to give me pause.

Who, you may ask, is the one chosen to speak for this group? Who is the public face of these seeming party crashers? Ironically, none other than Mayor Sullivan’s party planner, the lovely Bernadette Wilson.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the talents and abilities of Ms. Wilson, you can refer back to my piece The Strange Tale of the Mayor and the Party Planner.

Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan and his paid party planner Bernadette Wilson. Photo from Alaska WTF.

From late night volunteering, and licking stamps for the mayor’s campaign, she rose to success quickly. First, she ran the show at the mayor’s inauguration, and was soon given the paid gig of planning parties (a job which previous mayor Mark Begich had done in-house). Even with no apparent previous party planning experience, she was seen in City Hall with her very own office and phone and everything. When questions were asked, and things became uncomfortable, Ms. Wilson disappeared for a little while, other than an occasional appearance on someone’s Facebook page…

Assemblyman Adam Trombley, and Bernadette Wilson at a Republican Christmas party

…or being a yes-woman for conservative right-wing radio host Dan Fagan. She described herself as being “the tender age of 25″ and we wondered if this might be the sad end of her promising nascent political career.

We had almost written her off when, with no apparent political experience other than the aforementioned licking of stamps the planning of parties, and the flapping of gums, she showed up as the head of the Prop 2 Parental Consent campaign, and THEN as the Chair of  Joe Miller’s senate campaign! Wow! Talk about upward mobility!

I know, right? Her career has really blossomed impressively. Here she is celebrating victory with her future boss on primary night.

Joe Miller, and his future Campaign Chair Bernadette Wilson. She was then heading up the Prop 2 Parental Consent campaign. Photo by Zach Roberts.

I have to question the reason,  judgment and political motivation of the Alaska Film Alliance, if for no other reason than their choice of a divisive, teabaggin’,  ladder-climbin’, opportunist as their ambassador to the world. But, here she is again, telling us all how the evil Hollywood is bilking poor Alaska and not providing enough local jobs. They want too much money.  We need “extensive public hearings” so we can “reform” this giveaway before it does more damage.  This, of course is music to the ears of conservatives who’d love to stick it not only to Hollywood, but the evil Democrat (sic) legislator who spearheaded the program.

Right wing radio hack and friend of the party planner Casey Reynolds was in the audience for her big debut. And Palinbot Rep. Bill Stoltze (R) agrees that this whole thing really needs some close scrutiny.

The Anchorage Daily News notes:

One thing to watch as this battle plays out in Alaska: How partisan will the debate become?

Will it devolve into Democrats supporting the subsidy, which every major movie producer I’ve interviewed said is the only reason they can or would film here, and Republicans seeking to dismantle it?

It certainly seems to be shaping up that way. Why else choose to be partisan and divisive from the outset?

If it hasn’t occurred to you by now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that apparently this crowd has no problem giving away billions of dollars to the oil industry, in which more than half of slope workers do not live in the state of Alaska. They also don’t have a problem sending pallets of money down the giant sinkhole in Cook Inlet that feeds that second Bridge to Nowhere (KABATA). Nope, that’s just fine. But we really need to cut corners, and save pennies, and keep a laser focus on … film subsidies.  Drop, meet bucket.

Critics of the program point to the fact that more money has been paid to non-Alaskans than Alaskans, but fail to note that the program has created almost four times as many jobs for Alaskans as those brought up from the Lower 48.  Unlike the oil industry that continues to hire Outsiders who maintain their residency in other states, the film industry hasn’t had much time to train locals and make sure there’s a pool of local talent who can do the job.  Once there is, you can bet they’d rather use trained locals than to have to ship them up here and pay to house them. And the numbers those who oppose the incentive use don’t even include the latest two feature films Big Miracle and Frozen Ground.

They also complain that Alaskans only get the lower-paying jobs, not the ones that make big bucks. At which point I’d remind them that actors, producers, and directors tend not to live in Alaska, just like the CEOs of BP, Exxon, Conoco, Anglo American, Northern Dynasty Minerals and PacRim coal.  I’m not sure how much tourism and feel-good excitement is generated by the latter group either, come to think of it.

At least we know that the ranks of the unemployed do not include our favorite party planner. Who knows? Maybe hobnobbing with this crew will inspire her to launch a career in the film industry. It might be a nice change from the dirty business of politics.

[h/t Mudflatter HP for the graphic!]

Friday afternoon, the offices of the AFL-CIO in Anchorage were hopping. Look at the sinister faces of all those “union thugs.” That’s one thing I’ve never understood. How can any Alaskan, in a state with the second-highest union density in the country, think of unions as “thuggery.” Union men and women are your neighbors, your friends, your kids’ soccer coaches, your fellow church members – people who work hard, and enjoy good jobs with benefits that let them enjoy life and give back to their community by volunteering, putting money into the local economy, sending their kids to college… all that scary stuff.  And the great thing is that they’d like everyone to experience the same benefits. What a concept!

Peggy Wilcox from APEA-AFT held a “bake sale.” I grabbed a corn muffin and a chocolate chip treat and filled out a card saying what I would have paid for it, if they’d been charging. My imaginary $7 went into the fake collection pile. When I left, she’d raised about $140 in funny money. What was the point?  To prove that you can’t pay for schools and infrastructure by having bake sales. No matter how yummy the treats are, it will require more.

The crowd wrote letters of thanks to Mark Begich for his support of the American Jobs Act, and letters of recrimination to Senator Murkowski for falling right back in line with Republican leaders in D.C. who ordered the ranks to vote against the bill. To Democrats who voted for Murkowski expecting an independent voice, and who did not listen to those of us who warned them, I shall clamp my hand over my mouth quickly before the words, “Told ya so” slip out.

To soothe their weary psyches, those who came to write letters enjoyed bratwurst and sauerkraut, and those big fluffy pretzels with gooey cheesy stuff.

And it isn’t like the American Jobs Act is some intangible, philosophical idea that has no real world benefit to Alaskans. When Murkowski voted against the bill, she voted down $62 million for school infrastructure funding that would have supported 800 Alaskan jobs.

(taps on calculator furiously)

That means that every man, woman and child in the state would have to purchase about 350 brownies from Peggy in order to cover that piece of funding alone. But that’s not all Murkowski voted down.

She voted against putting 8,000 unemployed Alaskans back to work, $2.5 million for community colleges, $219 million to support jobs that would put 2,900 Alaskans to work, $70.5 million in jobs for teachers and first responders, cutting payroll taxes in half for Alaska’s small businesses, and the list goes on and on.

Let’s just say that’s a lot of baked goods, and a lot of irritated constituents.

After my fluffy pretzel, I sat down and wrote my senator a letter.  You may not have a giant twisted carb snack, nor neon orange dipping sauce, but I bet you do have a pen and paper, or a computer, or a phone. Trust me, it will feel good telling your senator exactly what you think of her priorities, and her loyalties.

I roll over lazily, stretch, yawn, and open one eye…

I do a combined gasp/shriek, recoil a little, and bury my face in the pillow.

Yes, my strange bedfellow is still here. I thought he left after the 2010 election, but apparently not. Given that you all know how I feel about former U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller, that I agree with virtually none of his political philosophy, and that I am grateful every day that he is not in Washington, D.C., he does bring up an interesting point to the readers of his website.

The topic of the article is pretty much the only thing I agree with Joe Miller about, with the notable exception of the fact that I, too, would rather have had Scott McAdams as Senator than Lisa Murkowski. Miller’s website links to an article by a man many of you know from The Mudflats, one Mr. Brad Friedman. He is more used to having strange bedfellows than I am, and this is because the issue closest to his heart, and the one to which he devotes an incredible amount of time, is election integrity.

Election integrity simply means that your vote should count one time, and represent the actual way you voted. It means having confidence in the methodology and accuracy of the vote count. Seems simple enough, and most people just assume this to be the case. That’s what representative democracy is all about, right? One person, one accurately-counted vote.

The more you learn about this issue, the more horrified you will get. Not just in Alaska, but across the nation there are consistent problems with ensuring an accurate vote. Machines can be manipulated, numbers changed, ballots are kept in unsecured locations, results show that they were changed with no record of who did it or when…

Republicans are the main culprits suspected of the hinkiness, but there are exceptions. As it always is with the human beings, the people tempted to abuse power are the ones who have it. So, election integrity is NOT a partisan issue. It is amazing though, that when you stick up for the principle, how often you will be accused of being partisan. Just ask Brad Friedman who, depending on what side happens to be in his cross-hairs, has been accused of being a Republican hack, or a “Democrat” hack.

It should be said also, that The Mudflats got its share of grief by agreeing with Joe Miller that the Alaskan voting system is broken, and needs to be repaired. But we march on anyway, because in this case, regardless of how brutal the game is between the red shirts and the blue shirts, we all must agree on the rules or there is no game.

So what’s got Joe Miller, and me in knots today? I’ll tell you what. (my emphasis added below)

It could be one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date.

Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.

“We believe these man-in-the-middle attacks are potentially possible on a wide variety of electronic voting machines,” said Roger Johnston, leader of the assessment team “We think we can do similar things on pretty much every electronic voting machine.”

The Argonne Lab, run by the Department of Energy, has the mission of conducting scientific research to meet national needs. The Diebold Accuvote voting system used in the study was loaned to the lab’s scientists by VelvetRevolution.us, of which the Brad Blog is a co-founder. Velvet Revolution received the machine from a former Diebold contractor.

Yes, the Diebold Accuvote is subject to massive tampering from any Junior MacGyver with a paper clip, a wad of gum and a cell phone. Alarmingly, Dr. Roger Johnston of Argonne National Lab’s Vulnerability Assessment Team now believes they could use a similar method to manipulate the vote count on a paper-ballot based optical-scan system like the ones we use in Alaska as well!

So, in other words, the low-rent attack Argonne has demonstrated — requiring no knowledge of the voting system software, $10 to $26 in off-the-shelf computer parts, and little more than an 8th grade computer lab education — could also be implemented not just on touch-screen e-voting systems, with or without a so-called “paper trail,” but also on the paper ballot op-scanners used to count the majority of votes that will be cast in the U.S. in next year’s Presidential election.

But here’s the good news. You’ve got some homework that you may actually enjoy! You know your relatives that are the die-hard Teabagger conservatives? The ones that you’re already dreading having to talk to at Thanksgiving? The ones that, after you talk about the weather, and football, and the kids, you find yourself with nothing to say but “Pass the gravy”?  Well good news. Because now, you can send them to Joe Miller’s website and tell them to read the fascinating article there. You can tell them how right on the money it is, and blow their minds.

Here’s where you have to make a call. Depending on your relatives, you can do one of two things:

1) The Kumbaya Strategy – You can talk about the need for good people on both sides of the aisle to find issues on which they can agree, and that are important to the country, and point out election integrity as one of those issues.

2) The Cynical “Whatever it Takes” Strategy – You can withhold that information and let them believe that Joe Miller is a visionary reformer who is helping to bring an important issue to light. (Warning – Take care not to choke on your turkey)

Whichever strategy you choose to employ, encourage them to share the article and the information with all their Tea Party pals. The important thing is to make as many people aware of, and invested in this issue as possible.

You can read Joe Miller’s intro to the Friedman article, in which he asks questions regarding the Lt. Governor’s refusal to grant him a hand count even when he offered to pay for it,  HERE.

Or you can skip right to Brad Friedman’s article in its entirety at Salon HERE.

For hard-core election integrity junkies, you can read more at The Brad Blog HERE.

Those of you who live in Anchorage may have heard about a fundraiser put on by Arkansas transplant politico and drag performer Caleb Pritt for an organization called “Homes for Our Troops.” The money was supposed to be designated towards a home for Latseen Benson and his family. Latseen lost both of his legs in a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq and required a more adaptive home to successfully complete everyday tasks. Homes for Our Troops was (is) in the process of building him one. It was still a few thousand dollars from completion when Caleb decided to organize a fundraiser.

Latseen is the son of former Congressional candidate and 2010 Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor, Diane Benson. Caleb was associated with the family because he arrived in Alaska when Diane hired him to run her 2010 campaign. After the election, Caleb stayed, deciding that he liked it up here. But Caleb brought more baggage than just his luggage to Alaska. Now there are a number of people who have had bad dealings with Caleb, but none worse than Diane, Latseen, his family and “Homes for Our Troops.”

Below is a statement from Diane which describes the events in her own words.
————————-

Statement From Diane Benson

Homes for Our Troops is one of the most successful of Veteran organizations with a virtually spotless record of accountability. What Homes for Our Troops provides is fully accessible homes for the severely wounded warrior and his family. It is one of the most generous ways a thankful society bestows its gratitude upon a Veteran for his sacrifice and service. It’s hard to imagine that someone would take advantage of such a noble cause and of the wounds of a warrior to enrich themselves. Yet it appears to have happened to my family. As many know, I am the mother of a severely wounded warrior of the Iraq War. Funds were raised and collected for my son’s fully accessible home, and then the funds somehow disappeared. Sadly, the person who collected the funds and befriended me and my family and sought our trust betrayed our trust.

Whatever his intentions were, Caleb Andrew Pritt (aka A. Caleb Pritt, Andrew Pritt, Caleb Pritt, Drew Pritt, Diedra, Diedra Windsor Walker, Diedra Richards, Diedra Richards Ho Jenkins), did in fact hold a fundraiser for Homes for Our Troops, August 13, 2011 for the sole purpose of raising funds for my son’s HFOT home currently under construction. None of the funds collected that night were ever turned over to us or to Homes for Our Troops. By his own admission he solicited donations for auction and contributions from Alaskan businesses and the VFW without keeping adequate record. Although he was the sole organizer of the event, even appearing on television news pushing the event, and sending out press releases in which he quoted himself, and announcing on Facebook the success of the event and that the event raised over $3,000, he seems unable to explain with any consistency how much was actually collected and what happened to the money. Most recent, according to his Facebook pages as Diedra and as Caleb, he claims he lost the money. Until that posting we had not heard this excuse.

As the days and weeks past after the fundraiser we became very uneasy that something was amiss. Caleb would tell us that a check was coming; or that a check had been sent but may have been lost in the mail; that some people hadn’t paid for their auction items and that he had to wait on that. More recently he claimed, to our surprise, that he gave $500 of the money raised to an unnamed scholarship. When pressed further he became agitated until eventually, further inquiries went unanswered. Frankly, what were we to make of this? How do you tell yourself that you exposed your family to an apparent con man who has preyed upon the good will of others and worse, used your son’s wounds; his loss of legs, to bait them? It’s a tough pill to swallow. Such disloyalty and gall burns the soul. The impulse may be to buy into the humiliation and rage and pretend it didn’t happen. Try to forget about it. But then, that is how such parasites thrive – by the silence of others.

It has taken proof and learning more about his character from others to bring us to the point of involving the Anchorage Police Department. To raise funds for a cause and fail to turn in the proceeds is simply unacceptable. Truth must prevail. Justice must prevail. We had the option of remaining silent, but we as a society and as citizens of a community have a responsibility to protect others by sharing the truth; not hearsay, but the truth. For to ever allow others to continue their misdeeds by ignoring their actions or offering excuses is not only enabling them and their bad behavior but is complicity.

Nothing can be more heinous in terms of fraud than to prey on the more vulnerable in our society for personal gain. Yet, such characters seem to endlessly surface. For those of us blessed with a conscience, we are incapable of comprehending how such a person can exist let alone conduct their dirty work. Yet, we have to be vigilant. They do exist and too often in the form of a compassionate face or as an all too “helpful” individual. When you have been victimized it is tough to find that balance between compassion for our fellow human beings and caution regarding protection from predators. Our challenge is to fight the cynicism that can creep in and mar our worldview and trust of others. Although we as a family feel taken, and will seek justice, we are not going to buckle and forfeit our humanity. To do so would allow such predators to win.

————————-

Caleb’s story about what happened to the money has been shifting and changing not just with Diane and Tony, but with others (including me) as well. However, I didn’t know how bad it was until Diane called me and told me Caleb wasn’t even speaking to them anymore. That is when I started to investigate as well and here is what we came up with:

1) Caleb claimed (to me) that he wasn’t going to have anything to do with the money from the fundraiser. After talking to someone who helped count the money, I discovered that was incorrect.

2) Caleb claimed to have sent a check “right before Coronation” to “Homes For Our Troops” and a few of us kept talking to them to find out where it was. It turns out he never sent it…he cashed it. (I have a scanned-in copy of the cashed check with Caleb’s endorsement on it.)

3) Caleb requested of at least one person who wrote a check for a won auction item that they make the check out to “Caleb Pritt.” (I now have a scanned copy of that check as well.)

4) On two occasions last week, I practically begged Caleb to come clean with me if he had a problem or needed help. I told him that as a recovering alcoholic of 26 years, I had either seen it, done it or heard about it. I told him I’d stand by him if he was able to be honest right that minute. Both times, he stuck to his story…that he had sent the check. That story didn’t change until AFTER he was caught.

5) This seems to be a pattern of behavior for him. When Caleb was working early in the summer for a political candidate, he used the candidate’s personal credit card to buy a Go Daddy website for the campaign. When the candidate got the bill, it turned out that Caleb spent an additional $700.00 for his own personal use. The candidate fired him and kept Caleb’s confidence, thinking it was a one-time deal..

THE BOTTOM LINE: Homes for Our Troops is still short over $2600.00 for Latseen’s family house. You can help!

PLEASE DONATE for Latseen’s home on the website. (There is an explanation on Bent Alaska as to why the amount on the website is wrong.) We would like to be able to have all the money Latseen needs by his “key ceremony” (when they turn the house over to them) in a couple of weeks. It would be wonderful if we could do it online in the next few days!

Thank you in advance for your generosity. You guys are always the best!

*********UPDATE 3*********
To clarify the above — Latseen and his family has their house no matter what, Homes for Our Troops will make sure that happens. However, to cover the costs and make sure the money is there for the next veteran, recipients try to raise a target amount of money (in Latseen’s case, it’s $10,000.00) and I know the Benson family feels a strong need to do so. I did not mean to give the impression that Latseen would not get his house at all if the goal was not reached.

*********UPDATE 2*********
KTVA Channel 11 is currently working on a story about this for their news tonight. Stay Tuned!

*********UPDATE 1*********It keeps getting worse. It seems that Caleb received funds from an American Legion post as start-up money to cover the fundraiser expenses — $250.00. Also, as you can read in the comments, Caleb allegedly ran back to Arkansas with someone else’s laptop.

Mudflatters, think wayyyyyy, wayyyyyy back to October of 2010 and you might remember Representative William Thomas, Jr., a Republican legislator from the beautiful little town of Haines, Alaska.

Representative Thomas is not someone who generally comes to my attention way over here in Anchorage. However, in September of 2010 while Rep. Thomas was running a reelection campaign, I was alerted to some very strange discrepancies regarding some regular ads running in Haines’s only newspaper, The Chilkat Valley News. After doing much research, I filed a complaint with Alaska Public Offices Commission on October 13th:

The complaint is in response to a newspaper advertising campaign consisting of 12 ads which ran in the Chilkat Valley News during the weeks leading up to the primary election. (The ads are attached to the complaint.) Each ad contained the name and address of a Haines business at the bottom in the “This ad paid for by” line. They all had photos, some were of the candidate, some of which (like the Haines “100 years” celebration photo) were taken at public events unrelated to the candidate yet giving the impression those in the photo supported Rep. Thomas. Some encouraged the reader to “vote,” some thanked Rep. Thomas and several had quotes attributed to him…

…The name or image of Rep. Thomas was clearly present in each of the 12 ads during this election cycle.

Upon further research, it was impossible to determine exactly what category of legal contributions these ads were attempting to fit, if any…

An important figure in this story was one of Rep. Thomas’s Campaign Deputy Treasurers, James Studley:

James Studley was the one who coordinated the entire ad buy. He provided the photos, drafted the copy, designed the ads and worked with Ms. Evandon on the buy, but directed Chilkat Valley News to bill each business listed on the ads for payment. Mr. Studley is also a Deputy Treasurer on Rep. Bill Thomas’s re-election campaign and would have been legally able to make a campaign ad purchase. However, that was clearly not the intent because (a) the proper format and wording were not on the ads, (b) while coordinating the purchase, he was not paying for it…he instructed the newspaper to bill the listed businesses, and (c) these businesses were not “individuals, group, non-group entity and political parties” — the only entities allowed to make in-kind contributions to campaigns.

On the other hand, because Mr. Studley was one of Thomas’s Deputy Treasurers and he coordinated the entire advertising buy, this did not appear to qualify as an “Independent Expenditure” because AS Sec. 15.13.135. and regulation 2 AAC 50.270 states that Independent Expenditures cannot be coordinated with members of the campaign.

So, like the little “bill” in Schoolhouse Rock, my little “complaint” travelled it’s own little path laid out for it by Alaska Statute AS 15-13 and Alaska Campaign Disclosure Regulations Articles 2, 3, and 6.

The first step was that the folks named in my complaint (Rep. Thomas and the members of his campaign staff) had the opportunity to respond. James Studley was the only one who did. He makes reference to the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution (two of my favorites) and seems to be very confused:

To which I responded in my Mudflats post:

I actually agree with Mr. Studley…the entire thing is VERY confusing. What is most confusing to me is that Mr. Studley, having been involved in previous campaigns, acted unaware of basic election law:

– Independent expenditures were already prohibited from coordination with the campaign…Citizen’s United did not change that.

– Those who do independent expenditures were already required to fill out form 15 – 6…Citizen’s United did not change that.

– If you feel that, “Filling this [required 15-6] form out, even partially is admitting that I have committed some offense…,” you probably have, whether you believe so or not.

The second step: The APOC Staff does an investigation and prepares a staff report for the APOC Commissioners. That didn’t go so well for us–the staff seemed to want to give Rep. Thomas and his staff a pass. They recommended a total “penalty” of $170.00.

The third step: The Staff Report was presented at the November 19th meeting, where I also had the opportunity to testify as to why the Staff Report was…well…wrong…:

I was utterly dismayed when I read the report by the APOC Staff. I was disappointed that the respondent and his fellow campaign workers not only were taken at their word, but obvious contradictions went unchallenged and were even included in the report. I was also disappointed that there were even instances where simple research on the APOC site would raise questions as to the accuracy of some of the testimony, yet it seemed that research was not done.

The public Q&A from the Commissioners to me, their staff and others that were even called (via speakerphone) to verify information was facinating. The Commissioners had some really tough questions for Executive Director Holly Hill, who claimed the “thank you ads” were no different than Mrs. Thomas paying for a “birthday ad,” or Rep. Thomas paying for an ad to sell tires. (I covered that argument in my testimony.) The Commission had 10 days to deliberate and make their decision and I had high hopes.

So I waited…and then received word that there would be a…

Fourth step — a separate deliberation on November 30th, the Monday after Thanksgiving and 10 days after the hearing. That was in Executive Session so no one got to hear. (It was around that time I also found out Exec Director Holly Hill was leaving.)

The long-awaited fifth step — the decision by the Commissioners — occurred on December 2nd. It was very good news:

ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS AND REMANDING TO STAFF FOR PREPARATION OF NEW INVESTIGATION REPORT

In it, many of the points I made in my testimony were reaffirmed.

So, that was back in December of 2010. In January of 2011, it became even more interesting when APOC filed it’s own complaint against Rep. Bill Thomas, on campaign finance irregularities:

Representative Bryce Edgmond simultaneously received a similar complaint (his violation was almost $4,000 less), yet somehow managed to resolve his before the legislative session which began at the end of January. However, Rep. Thomas did not and because of Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, he could not be touched while he was in legislative session:

Section 6. Immunities

Legislators may not be held to answer before any other tribunal for any statement made in the exercise of their legislative duties while the legislature is in session. Members attending, going to, or returning from legislative sessions are not subject to civil process and are privileged from arrest except for felony or breach of the peace.

Was the delay purposeful on behalf of Bill Thomas because of that provision in the Constitution? Was it the fault of the APOC Staff that they were unable to proceed with Representative Thomas before the session, yet were somehow able to do so with Mr. Edgmon? It’s a puzzler…

So, the session dragged on until the middle of summer. I called after it was over and asked what was happening and was told they would not be proceeding until at least September. I then received documents (lets call them Step Six) at the end of Aug. prefaced by this email:

Dear Ms. Kellen

APOC Staff has entered into consent agreements will all respondents in the consolidated 10-19-CD cases. Please find attached the proposed consent agreements signed by all respondents pertaining to cases 10-19-CD (Consolidated). The consent agreements will be placed on the September meeting agenda. A hard copy of these documents will follow by US Mail.

These consent agreements are not effective unless and until they are approved by the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Warmly,

Martha

The “consent agreements” involved combining the complaints I filed against Rep. Thomas and his staff with the complaint APOC filed against him for campaign finance violations. It is basically a settlement agreement between APOC and the Respondents. Because the Commissioners have not signed off on the consent agrements yet, the document(s) are not available on line. I’ll give you the highlights:

The following three allegations represent all of the allegations against the Respondents. The parties are in agreement that all issues are resolved by this consent agreement.

A) There was coordination of “thank you” advertisements before and during the primary election in violation of AS 13.15.074(f)…

B) The Re-elect Thomas Campaign failed to report general election advertisements when the expense was incurred in violation of AS 15.13.040…

C) There was overfunding of the campaign account in violation of AS 15.13.116(a)(7)(C)…

TOTAL Maximum Penalty Assessed — $37,990.00

TOTAL PENALTY Penalty Agreed Upon in the Consent Agreement — $4,060.00 + Mandatory Training for the Thomases

I checked with some very educated sources to see if they think that this is a good agreement. I wanted to determine if the penalties are on par with what is normally assessed against violators. I was told that 10% of the maximum is pretty standard. The most important issue to me is that, this time, the APOC Staff held them accountable. (Plus, $4,060.00 is a lot more than $170.00!)

This will be presented and (hopefully) decided at APOC’s regular September Meeting on Wednesday at 9:45 am. I will be testifying and I’ll report back on what I say and what the determination turns out to be.

In the light of Anthony Weiner resigning over a personal problem affecting his professional life, it would seem that someone actually guilty of a professional misdeed affecting her professional life might be called to account. If Mark Begich had been faced with the situation Lisa Murkowski was faced with this week, we’d likely hear the monkeys howling for his resignation.

It’s not uncommon for me to get an email or phone call from someone punctuated with “Have I got a story for you!” December 2008 was no different. I was resting up after a particularly busy and historic election year. Sarah Palin had just come back from her unsuccessful national run.

I answered my phone and watched the snow fall outside. The voice on the other end of the line pulled my fishing strings. He was a career deck man, and he had a story to tell.

The subject was Arne Fuglvog, a prominent, successful commercial fisherman, former member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and fish adviser to a U.S. senator.

Illegal fishing, threats, affairs, it was all so curious. Was it just one side of a double-bitter story? A few months later, I got another call. Someone different. Same story. A week later, an e-mail from another crewman, this one with “proof.”

There are different sets of records kept on fishing boats. An official set, turned in to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time of offloading, often a wheelhouse log listing souls on board and the plotted course and whatever the wheel watcher noted, and then the real fishing log. The latter is an invaluable guide for where to set pots, lines, etc. It’s a treasure map. The highliner’s gospel.

Arne Fuglvog’s true log was in the possession of several people. It had been handed over to the authorities. A grand jury met. And then … crickets. By 2009, Mr. Fuglvog was being considered for the top fish boss position in the country: director of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

I was sent part of the proof. It didn’t mean much to me because I couldn’t compare it to the official records turned in to NMFS. But I couldn’t imagine that either Sens. Lisa Murkowski or Mark Begich could have a hint of these allegations and still recommend Fuglvog for the job. I contacted both of their offices as well as several other lawmakers in Washington.

Others were informed as well, including the United Fishermen of Alaska. The message, coming from many directions, and not too subtly, was that Mr. Fuglvog should withdraw his name immediately or be outed as a fish cheat, resulting in much embarrassment for his boss, Sen. Murkowski.

He withdrew his name and blamed it on the long selection process. Murkowski said Alaskans should be proud that he’d been considered. “Surprisingly the process is lengthy and political, and he says, ‘You know, I either need to be focused on what I’m doing for Alaska, or moving forward with another opportunity.’ ”

What other opportunity could possibly be better than America’s Fish Czar?

It may not be obvious to people who haven’t used “c/o Some Cannery” as a temporary mail address, but there is no bigger deal than fish policy in this state. It affects every other industry. Billions of dollars of fish wealth have been consolidated and transferred into private hands over the last decade under the guise of “rationalization.” Many of those decisions were driven by Mr. Fuglvog during his time on the North Pacific Fisheries Council and subsequently as one of the most influential advisers to Sen. Murkowski and others in Washington, D.C.

This week, after days of silence on the matter of her aide’s resignation, Murkowski finally provided a tortured explanation. The reasons she offered for allowing Fuglvog to stay on the job don’t reflect well on her law degree, the management of her staff or her respect for constituents.

She says she believes in innocent until proven guilty — so much so that she believed in Mr. Fuglvog’s innocence even after he’d told her he was guilty. How much evidence must there be for him to accept 10 months in prison and $150,000 in penalties six years after the incident? If he’d told her he had backed a truck up to Costco and stolen $100,000 worth of fish, might the senator have found that a cause for firing?

What he did was arguably worse. Fuglvog stole public resources and was on the run for six years, hiding in her office. Even after Sen. Murkowski admitted knowing of his guilt, she let him collect another $7,500 check from the same federal government that will soon be his jailer.

Clearly Sen. Murkowski doesn’t understand why having a criminal on her payroll might be an issue. Or she has some personal or political reason for not wanting to deal with such an obvious problem. (For example, how might this revelation have affected the tight three-way election last fall?)

Her stumbling explanation in this case is not unlike her response to the controversy over a sweetheart Kenai land deal from developer Bob Penney. She ought to have learned something from that.

Instead, she thanked Mr. Fuglvog for his service and said he had “misstated” where he caught fish, as though he had simply colored outside the lines. Falsification is what the government calls it.

Being a fisherman isn’t just what you do, it’s who you are. The life of a fisherman has tremendous freedom and responsibility: a responsibility to take care of your brothers and sisters on the water as well as to follow the rules that help sustain the fishery.

The responsibility of a U.S. senator comes with enormous power over millions of Americans: wars, health care, the economy, employment, civil rights, the environment, resource development, to name a few.

Not only did Mr. Fuglvog dishonor his responsibilities, but Lisa Murkowski did as well by either not being curious enough to investigate what many of us have known for years, or ignoring it when she did know.

Many of you know about the APOC complaint I filed against Rep. William Thomas, Jr. (R-Haines) because he claimed ads like this were “thank you ads,” not “campaign ads”:

One of the 17 ads named in the complaint

The status of that complaint is basically where we left it in my last post on the subject. The APOC staff re-opened the investigation, as the Commissioners tasked them to do in the Adminstrative Order. I know because they contacted me for more information. The new staff report should be out any day now, as I believe the investigation ended the last week of December.

However, THAT complaint really isn’t the topic of this post.

There’s been an interesting addition to the APOC woes of the Re-elect Thomas Campaign. It was the result of a simple audit performed by the APOC Staff. (Per the complaint):

Translation…the APOC Staff compared the amount of money reported by the successful Alaska House candidates at the conclusion of the 2008 election to the amount listed in the Year-Start reports  by these same House candidates at the beginning of the 2010 election season.  They wanted to ensure that no candidates started their campaign with more than the $5,000.00, the limit imposed on House candidates by Alaska Statute.

This is what they found:

Ooops…it seems that Mr. Thomas violated state law by over $10,000.00! 

(In all fairness I must mention that Rep. Bryce Edgmon (D-Dillingham) also violated the law, causing APOC to file a complaint against him as well.  However, Bill Thomas has the dubious distinction of beating him by over $4,000.00!)

These latest complaints are further evidence that some Alaska politicians are so sure they can do anything they want, they don’t even bother to learn the regulations in the first place. They put the evidence APOC used against them right in their own reports!

On a side note:

No one at the Anchorage Daily News has been reporting on my complaint against Rep. Thomas…even though the outcome will have a strong impact on campaign communication in the next election. However, I saw this article today on the Alaska Politics Blog, diligently reporting on the APOC Complaint against Mr. Edgmon.

Yet, though APOC issued the complaint against Mr. Thomas THE VERY SAME DAY (Jan 5th) there was NO MENTION OF HIM in the article on the Politics Blog. You would thing that Mr. Edgmon was the lone House member who committed a violation.

So, Anchorage Daily News, why the descrepancy?

*****UPDATE*****

Sean Cockerham has updated the Politics Blog with APOC’s complaint against Thomas. He also explains why he missed it in the first place (it was not included in the agenda for Thursday’s meeting because the investigation is not yet closed).

~Lisa Murkowski and husband Verne Martell when she declared her write-in candidacy.

Today, Lisa Murkowski was sworn in for her second full term as U.S. Senator. She was escorted to the swearing in by Murkowski the Elder (Also known as Murkowski the Lesser). Frank the Bank who gave her the seat when he left to become the second-worst governor ever, today gave her a kiss on the cheek. Husband Verne Martell upgraded her rubber “Fill it in, Write it in” wrist band from the campaign to an engraved gold one. No word if it says “Voter intent trumps all, so oval optional, and get the spelling close if you can.” Lisa Murkowski’s present to the Native Corporation Super PAC that ensured a successful campaign has yet to be revealed. We’ll continue to hope for more good votes in the meantime. And remember, there are Alaskan women that would be far worse in Washington, D.C., let’s put it that way.

Don Young (aka Yon Dung) has also been sworn in for his TWENTIETH term in office. I don’t really know what to say to this except that Alaskans despite being on the other side of the globe from the geographical roots of the disorder, seem to have Stockholm syndrome. I don’t actually know anyone who voted for Don Young, so his supporters must be completely outside any circle of people I know, or nobody admits to doing it. In any case, he’ll continue to provide another two years of head shaking, hand wringing and self-inflicted blunt force trauma to skulls. He’s already fired a warning shot across the bow of the man he thinks may be vying for his seat next – Joe Miller.

He thinks that Joe Miller is a little too…. (no not crazy), a little too… (no not extreme)…. a little too OLD for the job.  

The congressman from Alaska sits with KTVA for an interview about his agenda and a possible 2012 challenge against him from the just-defeated Joe Miller. There is no bravado when he is asked about this. There is, instead, political science about how Alaska needs to elect young congressmen who can serve for decades and bring the good stuff home.

“I think Joe’s a little old for the job,” says Young to KTVA’s Matt Felling. “The only thing a House member has is seniority.” The ideal candidate, he says, is “preferably somebody between the ages of 26 and 35.”

Yes, Joe Miller that rickety 43-year old fossil is just a bit too long in the tooth to replace the 77 and a half year old Don Young.

Just on the chance that this turns out to be the primary matchup in 2012, you’ll want to fill the larder with Jiffy Pop before they run out at Carrs.

Happy New Year, Mudflatters. The Mudflats is slowly returning from its hiatus… Of course, I’d never want to come back and all of a sudden just bonk you on the head with a large cast iron skillet, but sometimes we don’t get what we want. This is one of those times.

Over the weekend, there was a big development in Joe Miller’s legal pursuit to clarify election law, and demand a complete hand reconciliation of the Alaska vote count. Our Voices from the Flats contributor, and publisher of The Brad Blog has been following the case closely and has written a great summary with links HERE.

The bottom line is that Joe Miller has decided not to pursue his case any further in federal court and has conceded the race to Lisa Murkowski. Up until this point, Miller has had the support of not only those who wanted him to win, but also some unlikely political foes who were rooting for another winner – us.  If we cannot trust that our vote is counted, and counted accurately, then we have lost the building block of democracy on which all the others stand - and none of us wants that.

Election integrity is an interesting issue. In its purest form, it is completely nonpartisan. When you enter the voting booth, you know that your crazy neighbor, or your boss, or someone else is going to vote the opposite way that you did. But the fundamental sense of fairness, and celebrating the fact that other people have the right to vote the wrong way is one that most of us can agree on. This is a democracy and the very first thing that defines a democracy is the people’s ability and right to govern themselves – to choose the people they want to represent them – to have a say.

Election integrity is kind of like the First Amendment. It’s easy to say that people have the right to free speech. It sounds great. It makes us feel all evolved and ‘exceptional’ that we have this right that many other countries do not. But it’s not so easy to be on the side of free speech when the people exercising it are Nazis, or bigots, or hate groups. That’s when you find out if your First Amendment talk is genuine, or whether you only believe in the Constitution when it suits you.  It’s easy to want election integrity when it means that your candidate might win. But it’s not easy when you know that the candidate you like least of all is the one who appears to stand to gain. “Why do you want Joe Miller to win?” I’ve been asked a hundred times. And a hundred times I’ve answered, “I don’t want Joe Miller to win. I want the process to win. I want us to win.”

We are a long way from winning when a state like Alaska employs mechanical devices that not only have been shown to count inaccurately, but are also vulnerable to tampering; and when laws are unclear and subject to interpretation by one individual; and when the process of the vote is not clear or transparent; and when standard practices actually make it simpler to corrupt your vote, there is a big problem.

As much as those in the center and on the left disliked Joe Miller for a variety of reasons, and as crushed and disappointed as those focused on election integrity are that he dropped the ball before crossing the goal line, we do owe him a debt of gratitude and a big thank you. It isn’t always the people you think, or the people that you would choose that bring vital issues forward. Joe Miller dragged the unpopular nerd that is election integrity out from the dark corner of the dance hall and gave her a big twirl under the lights. People who somehow missed the suit brought by the Democratic Party against the Division of Elections in 2004, paid a little more attention this time. Legislators and other elected officials paid attention. They know that next time, it could be them – regardless of their party affiliation.

So, where do we go from here? Are we content to walk away from the big game, knowing that our team was that close but gave up inches from the goal line? No. What we do is we recognize that we are not defined by one quarterback, and we press on. The goal of an open, honest election isn’t one where we can afford to say, “Oh, well” and go about our business. Alaska is small, and the ultimate goal of what Brad Friedman calls Democracy’s Gold Standard, is easily within our capability, and frankly within the capability of every voting precinct in the country. We must insist from our elected representatives a process that includes hand-marked, hand-counted ballots that are publicly tabulated at every polling place. And before anyone tells you that’s impossible, remind them that this system exists and is used all the time. Unfortunately it does not exist in most parts of the United States, but in Germany, where voting machines have actually been found unconstitutional and the process of the democratic vote count is clear, accurate and transparent.

If Scott McAdams had been the one who stood to gain from this recount, Democrats and progressives would have been all over it, and Republicans would have been calling us whiners and sore losers. Fortunately, Joe Miller has given us the opportunity to actually define ourselves by our principles, and not our team colors. It’s never your friends that give you that opportunity, because it’s easy to be on their side. I’ll never vote for Joe Miller, but I’ll buy him a glass of Gatorade.

So, thanks to Mr. Miller for carrying the football as long as he did. And he may have fumbled it at the last minute – but we recovered it, and what we do with it will be our legacy as citizen voters.