Sixth Grade:
MATH-pg. 357 #1-11
ENGLISH-vocab story-Thursday/quiz-Friday
RELIGION-pg. 6
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Friday, December 14, 2018
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
October 23, 2018
Fifth Grade:
ELA-study for Number the Stars test-Wednesday
SCIENCE-one page response on Bill Nye video
SOCIAL STUDIES-native American totem pole
GSL-quiz Wednesday
MEMOS-health test Friday/ religion homework
Dress Down Day-Thursday
Sixth Grade:
ENGLISH-finish writing topic/Freak the Mighty test-Monday
SOCIAL STUDIES-pg. 170-175 questions 1-8
MATH-study for test tomorrow
HEALTH-test Friday
SCIENCE-worksheet
Seventh Grade:
ENGLISH-quiz on The Miracle Worker-Wednesday
ELA-study for Number the Stars test-Wednesday
SCIENCE-one page response on Bill Nye video
SOCIAL STUDIES-native American totem pole
GSL-quiz Wednesday
MEMOS-health test Friday/ religion homework
Dress Down Day-Thursday
Sixth Grade:
ENGLISH-finish writing topic/Freak the Mighty test-Monday
SOCIAL STUDIES-pg. 170-175 questions 1-8
MATH-study for test tomorrow
HEALTH-test Friday
SCIENCE-worksheet
Seventh Grade:
ENGLISH-quiz on The Miracle Worker-Wednesday
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
October 16, 2018
Fifth Grade:
MATH-91 & 92 if not done
SCIENCE-rise questions
SOCIAL STUDIES-test Friday
RELIGION-chapter 5 and random acts of kindness
ELA-chapter 7&8 write a question to Trump
Sixth Grade:
ENGLISH-vocab story-Thursday/quiz Friday
MATH-bgm pg. 110-111 evens
GREEK-conjugate
ADVANCED GREEK-conjugate
SOCIAL STUDIES-answer questions 1-8
SCIENCE-lesson 1 review pg. 16
MATH-91 & 92 if not done
SCIENCE-rise questions
SOCIAL STUDIES-test Friday
RELIGION-chapter 5 and random acts of kindness
ELA-chapter 7&8 write a question to Trump
Sixth Grade:
ENGLISH-vocab story-Thursday/quiz Friday
MATH-bgm pg. 110-111 evens
GREEK-conjugate
ADVANCED GREEK-conjugate
SOCIAL STUDIES-answer questions 1-8
SCIENCE-lesson 1 review pg. 16
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
AFGHAN HOPE
It has been so long since I have posted anything on this blog that I can barely remember how to do it. I blame the cold, or the snow, or the autumn, or the summer. Something. But there is nothing like a good, well intentioned, and totally misguided blog entry to make a writer respond.
My fellow blogger, Jonathan Fluck, placed a long and well thought out piece on Afghanistan on this blog JUST TODAY! Already, I am at the computer responding in kind. My good friend's article is filled with small truths. Yes, there are many reasons not to be involved in Afghanistan. The government is corrupt. We have killed too many civilians with airstrikes. The good will we created in 2001 has lessened greatly. All true. So good leftist that he is, my colleague hints that we should remove ourselves from this God-foresaken place. It would be the morally right thing to do. It would be the practical thing to do. It would be the peaceable thing to do. What he doesn't say that is would be the most disastrous thing to do, not only for us, but for the Afghan people.
My friend's entry is predicated on the notion that the good will of the Afghan people toward America and American troops has been lost, and that good will is necessary in order to win the war. Well, good will is hard to quantify. Certainly, if an army, any army, just happens by and kills a member of your family, either by accident or on purpose, you are not going to be sympathetic to that nation and its forces. But the actual fact is that good will does not win wars. It never has won a war (see wars- Civil, W.W. I, and W.W. II), and will not be the deciding factor in the Afghan war. Certainly, it would be very helpful if the Afghan populace were supportive of American efforts against the Taliban. But Afghanistan is a complex place. If you have any doubts about this, there are some retired Russian generals you might want to contact. Afghanistan is a multi-tribal nation dominated by Pashtuns, but also made up of Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other smaller groups. The Taliban has always derived its support from the Pashtuns. The Taliban forces did not win the Afghan civil war with good will. They won it by terrorizing and murdering their opponents. They had and still have little support among non-Pashtuns, who remember their murderous ways during their time in power. While they have been able to gain traction among the Pashtuns by highlighting accidental killings by American forces, most Pashtuns are right now on the fence, and will go with whichever side is winning, mostly because they don't want to sentence themselves to death if the Taliban returns to run the country. The non-Pashtuns will never feel good will toward the Taliban, and will not support them, just as they did not support them during the Taliban's time in power. And we must not forget how awful the Taliban period was for the Afghan people. If you have any doubts, check out some of the journalism of that period, count up the bodies of the men whose beards did not meet standards, or were caught smoking, or drinking, or selling alcohol, or the body count of the women who were caught out of their homes without male accompaniment, or were seen not covered from head to toe in burkhas. Where is the good will here? There isn't any. The Taliban regime was predicated on violence, and if it does return it will return at the end of a gun, not because the Afghan people, even the Pashtuns, want the Taliban back.
The arguments my good friend makes to support a pull out from Afghanistan are the arguments of the defeat lobby. Look where they are coming from. The speaker in my friend's entry was speaking to a meeting of Brooklyn for Peace and the Green Party. Sorry, but guilt by association works here. Does anyone truly believe that Brooklyn for Peace and the Green Party ever supported military action in Afghanistan (except, possibly by the Soviet Union in 1979)? And look at my friend's language. The young man who found his mother's severed head turned into a "resistance fighter." Resistance to what, you may ask? Well, the American military, of course. And also freedom, openness, and tolerance, to mention a few good things. Follow the directions of the speaker my good friend quotes, or the groups my good friend visited, and you will follow a disastrous path that leads to theocracy and repression in Afghanistan, and terrorism for any state opposing the Taliban and their acolytes. And if that happens, all the good will available won't make a bit of difference.
John Attanas
My fellow blogger, Jonathan Fluck, placed a long and well thought out piece on Afghanistan on this blog JUST TODAY! Already, I am at the computer responding in kind. My good friend's article is filled with small truths. Yes, there are many reasons not to be involved in Afghanistan. The government is corrupt. We have killed too many civilians with airstrikes. The good will we created in 2001 has lessened greatly. All true. So good leftist that he is, my colleague hints that we should remove ourselves from this God-foresaken place. It would be the morally right thing to do. It would be the practical thing to do. It would be the peaceable thing to do. What he doesn't say that is would be the most disastrous thing to do, not only for us, but for the Afghan people.
My friend's entry is predicated on the notion that the good will of the Afghan people toward America and American troops has been lost, and that good will is necessary in order to win the war. Well, good will is hard to quantify. Certainly, if an army, any army, just happens by and kills a member of your family, either by accident or on purpose, you are not going to be sympathetic to that nation and its forces. But the actual fact is that good will does not win wars. It never has won a war (see wars- Civil, W.W. I, and W.W. II), and will not be the deciding factor in the Afghan war. Certainly, it would be very helpful if the Afghan populace were supportive of American efforts against the Taliban. But Afghanistan is a complex place. If you have any doubts about this, there are some retired Russian generals you might want to contact. Afghanistan is a multi-tribal nation dominated by Pashtuns, but also made up of Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other smaller groups. The Taliban has always derived its support from the Pashtuns. The Taliban forces did not win the Afghan civil war with good will. They won it by terrorizing and murdering their opponents. They had and still have little support among non-Pashtuns, who remember their murderous ways during their time in power. While they have been able to gain traction among the Pashtuns by highlighting accidental killings by American forces, most Pashtuns are right now on the fence, and will go with whichever side is winning, mostly because they don't want to sentence themselves to death if the Taliban returns to run the country. The non-Pashtuns will never feel good will toward the Taliban, and will not support them, just as they did not support them during the Taliban's time in power. And we must not forget how awful the Taliban period was for the Afghan people. If you have any doubts, check out some of the journalism of that period, count up the bodies of the men whose beards did not meet standards, or were caught smoking, or drinking, or selling alcohol, or the body count of the women who were caught out of their homes without male accompaniment, or were seen not covered from head to toe in burkhas. Where is the good will here? There isn't any. The Taliban regime was predicated on violence, and if it does return it will return at the end of a gun, not because the Afghan people, even the Pashtuns, want the Taliban back.
The arguments my good friend makes to support a pull out from Afghanistan are the arguments of the defeat lobby. Look where they are coming from. The speaker in my friend's entry was speaking to a meeting of Brooklyn for Peace and the Green Party. Sorry, but guilt by association works here. Does anyone truly believe that Brooklyn for Peace and the Green Party ever supported military action in Afghanistan (except, possibly by the Soviet Union in 1979)? And look at my friend's language. The young man who found his mother's severed head turned into a "resistance fighter." Resistance to what, you may ask? Well, the American military, of course. And also freedom, openness, and tolerance, to mention a few good things. Follow the directions of the speaker my good friend quotes, or the groups my good friend visited, and you will follow a disastrous path that leads to theocracy and repression in Afghanistan, and terrorism for any state opposing the Taliban and their acolytes. And if that happens, all the good will available won't make a bit of difference.
John Attanas
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Afghanistan story
Anand Gopal spoke at a forum co-sponsored by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Green Party, Brooklyn For Peace, and a number of other organizations. Gopal is an American journalist who is either from Afghanistan or from close by--he is actually a fluent Pashtun speaker. His analysis of why we have lost the war, and why Americans have gone from being heroes to being the enemy focused on three major points:
1. Air strikes and collateral damage. Gopal told the story of one would-be suicide bomber (now in prison, which is where Gopal met and interviewed him), who was only 12 or 13 years old when a U.S. airstrike hit his house and 16 members of his immediate family were killed. He was at school at the time and was the only member of his immediate family who wasn’t killed. When he returned to the house and made his way through the crowd of people trying to clear the rubble to find any survivors, he came across his mother’s severed head, which he held in his arms for a long time and refused to relinquish. When he did, he joined the resistance and volunteered to be a suicide bomber.
Conservative estimates put the ratio of people in the Resistance who have been directly impacted by U.S. airstrikes at 1 out of every 4 fighters. Every airstrike creates untold numbers of volunteers for the Resistance. Gopal pointed out, however, that the Resistance also causes civilian casualties and wanted to know why the same phenomena isn’t at play on the other side. He described a village that had not seen any violence, although it’s in the midst of disputed territory, until U.S. forces came into the area. The Resistance took up positions on one hillside (the village is in the valley between two mountain ranges), while the Americans were on the opposing hillside. In the shooting that followed between the two sides, four villager non-combatants were killed. Gopal returned to the village a few weeks later to talk to the villagers, and everyone blamed the Americans for the deaths, because they believed there was no reason for them to provoke the Resistance by coming into the area.
2. A corrupt and institutionally compromised government. By corrupt Gopal was not only referring to bribery that is heavily in play, which is true of many governments, but the fact that bribery is actually needed to get anything accomplished.
In more than half the country during the last elections, voting booths were said to be open, but in fact they were not because the government could not secure the area. Observers could not be there, and the ballot boxes were simply stuffed to show a government victory.
To illustrate the institutionally compromised state of the government, he told a poignant story demonstrating how the Taliban has made such a comeback. In a northwest region, where loyalties were severely divided during the civil war, the downfall of the Taliban with the American invasion meant that power was handed over to the Northern Alliance mujahedeen. The Pashtuns of the area were not part of the Northern Alliance but maintain the tribal network and power structure that most of Afghanistan still functions under: tribal elders run the villages.
Unfortunately for the Pashtuns, the Northern Alliance leaders used this opportunity to settle scores. The Pashtun villages had their leaders murdered and their women raped time and time again, so the elders went to the Governor, appointed by the Karzi government and the U.S., for redress. Well, the Governor was in league with the Northern Alliance, so there was no redress there.
Next the Pashtun villages sent a delegation to Kabul to plead with Hamed Karzi himself to stop the slaughter, which he promptly promised to do. But Karzi’s authority effectively stops at Kabul’s borders, so the killing and raping continued.
Then, the villages went to the U.S. military to plead their case. The military commander listened sympathetically and went to the Governor to discuss the matter. The Governor told the commander that those people were all terrorists and there was no truth to the allegations.
Shortly after, the U.S. decided that poppy production, which skyrocketed after the demise of the Taliban, was getting out of hand and told the Governor that the poppy production in the area must be cut in half in a year. The Governor and all the Northern Alliance militias grow poppy as a cash crop, as did the Pashtun villages. The Governor then sent the militias to eradicate the poppies in the Pashtun villages but not, of course, their own.
Finally, the Pashtun villages opened a dialogue with the one organization with an infrastructure and military that could protect them: the Taliban. This northwest area is now completely under Taliban control, and no government representative dares set foot in it.
3. Inadequate and wrongly directed reconstruction aid. Though millions and millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been earmarked for reconstruction work there is very little to show for it, because the U.S. government almost always awards the contracts to U.S. companies, the majority of which do not have the infrastructure on the ground in Afghanistan to fulfill the contract. That means they must subcontract out the work, and the subcontracting of the work usually goes to three or four levels, with each subcontractor taking a profit margin, so that when the work finally does get to a subcontractor who can actually do the work, the money, originally more than adequate to do an excellent job, is no longer adequate. That is why the Kabul to Kandahar highway has become impassible in parts after just three years—design, materials, and construction were so poor that the road is disintegrating in some areas.
Another problem is the type of reconstruction taking place. For example, in one village a model pomegranate processing plant was constructed. Literally state of the art, it was even constructed with local laborers. Unfortunately, pomegranates do not grow in the region, and the plant sits unused. Also, being ‘state of the art,’ it requires electricity to run, and the village does not have electricity. There apparently are plenty of example of such misguided reconstruction efforts.
And we wonder why the tide of good-will has turned against us?
Jonathan Fluck
1. Air strikes and collateral damage. Gopal told the story of one would-be suicide bomber (now in prison, which is where Gopal met and interviewed him), who was only 12 or 13 years old when a U.S. airstrike hit his house and 16 members of his immediate family were killed. He was at school at the time and was the only member of his immediate family who wasn’t killed. When he returned to the house and made his way through the crowd of people trying to clear the rubble to find any survivors, he came across his mother’s severed head, which he held in his arms for a long time and refused to relinquish. When he did, he joined the resistance and volunteered to be a suicide bomber.
Conservative estimates put the ratio of people in the Resistance who have been directly impacted by U.S. airstrikes at 1 out of every 4 fighters. Every airstrike creates untold numbers of volunteers for the Resistance. Gopal pointed out, however, that the Resistance also causes civilian casualties and wanted to know why the same phenomena isn’t at play on the other side. He described a village that had not seen any violence, although it’s in the midst of disputed territory, until U.S. forces came into the area. The Resistance took up positions on one hillside (the village is in the valley between two mountain ranges), while the Americans were on the opposing hillside. In the shooting that followed between the two sides, four villager non-combatants were killed. Gopal returned to the village a few weeks later to talk to the villagers, and everyone blamed the Americans for the deaths, because they believed there was no reason for them to provoke the Resistance by coming into the area.
2. A corrupt and institutionally compromised government. By corrupt Gopal was not only referring to bribery that is heavily in play, which is true of many governments, but the fact that bribery is actually needed to get anything accomplished.
In more than half the country during the last elections, voting booths were said to be open, but in fact they were not because the government could not secure the area. Observers could not be there, and the ballot boxes were simply stuffed to show a government victory.
To illustrate the institutionally compromised state of the government, he told a poignant story demonstrating how the Taliban has made such a comeback. In a northwest region, where loyalties were severely divided during the civil war, the downfall of the Taliban with the American invasion meant that power was handed over to the Northern Alliance mujahedeen. The Pashtuns of the area were not part of the Northern Alliance but maintain the tribal network and power structure that most of Afghanistan still functions under: tribal elders run the villages.
Unfortunately for the Pashtuns, the Northern Alliance leaders used this opportunity to settle scores. The Pashtun villages had their leaders murdered and their women raped time and time again, so the elders went to the Governor, appointed by the Karzi government and the U.S., for redress. Well, the Governor was in league with the Northern Alliance, so there was no redress there.
Next the Pashtun villages sent a delegation to Kabul to plead with Hamed Karzi himself to stop the slaughter, which he promptly promised to do. But Karzi’s authority effectively stops at Kabul’s borders, so the killing and raping continued.
Then, the villages went to the U.S. military to plead their case. The military commander listened sympathetically and went to the Governor to discuss the matter. The Governor told the commander that those people were all terrorists and there was no truth to the allegations.
Shortly after, the U.S. decided that poppy production, which skyrocketed after the demise of the Taliban, was getting out of hand and told the Governor that the poppy production in the area must be cut in half in a year. The Governor and all the Northern Alliance militias grow poppy as a cash crop, as did the Pashtun villages. The Governor then sent the militias to eradicate the poppies in the Pashtun villages but not, of course, their own.
Finally, the Pashtun villages opened a dialogue with the one organization with an infrastructure and military that could protect them: the Taliban. This northwest area is now completely under Taliban control, and no government representative dares set foot in it.
3. Inadequate and wrongly directed reconstruction aid. Though millions and millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been earmarked for reconstruction work there is very little to show for it, because the U.S. government almost always awards the contracts to U.S. companies, the majority of which do not have the infrastructure on the ground in Afghanistan to fulfill the contract. That means they must subcontract out the work, and the subcontracting of the work usually goes to three or four levels, with each subcontractor taking a profit margin, so that when the work finally does get to a subcontractor who can actually do the work, the money, originally more than adequate to do an excellent job, is no longer adequate. That is why the Kabul to Kandahar highway has become impassible in parts after just three years—design, materials, and construction were so poor that the road is disintegrating in some areas.
Another problem is the type of reconstruction taking place. For example, in one village a model pomegranate processing plant was constructed. Literally state of the art, it was even constructed with local laborers. Unfortunately, pomegranates do not grow in the region, and the plant sits unused. Also, being ‘state of the art,’ it requires electricity to run, and the village does not have electricity. There apparently are plenty of example of such misguided reconstruction efforts.
And we wonder why the tide of good-will has turned against us?
Jonathan Fluck
Friday, November 20, 2009
9th campaign completed
Now that I have a moment to breath (even though we are still in re-canvassing hell) I want to break my long silence and give an outline of my campaign activities here in the 39th New York City Council district that encompasses parts of 6 neighborhoods, none of them in their entirety!
NYC actually has a generous matching funds program for local campaigns that reach threshold, and even the threshold is not unreasonable: a total of $5,000 raised from donations within NYC with 75 contributions of $10 or more from within the Council district itself with the maximum matchable donation $175. Once that threshold is reached anything that qualifies is matched six to one! For once in my campaign career I was working with more than an shoe-string budget!
But what I found is that the money didn't really make a difference in improving our numbers! Counter-intuitive, I know, but undeniable with our outcome. Even after fighting through re-canvassing for every vote that was cast for my candidate (David Pechefsky), we only received 9% or just over 2,000 votes.
What was wonderful from the git-go was that David was included in almost everything. Because of his experience and knowlege of the Council (he was part of the Central Staff of the Council for 10 years) and because of strong runs by a Green candidate in the last two Council races in this district, David was invited to all debates and forums--even ones set up during the primary season specifically for the Democratic primary candidates. That was very different for me. I am used to systematically being EXcluded, not INcluded! And this was happening even though the Greens in New York State do not have major party status.
Additionally, David loved to talk to people and loved campaigning. He grew weary sometimes, but was never short-tempered or visibly irritable. And, as one of the other candidates put it, David seems to have a P.T. Barnum gene: he has a sense about events that will garner press. We had lots of fun events: croquet match, chess in the park, rickshaw rides to the polls, prirate ship in the Halloween Parade, puppet shows ourside of schools; he just kept coming up with the event ideas.
David was more knowledeable than any of the candidates on Council reform, on how the Council operates, on how to move things through the Council, and we didn't hesitate to emphasize this knowledge with each outing and press release. And the other candidates acknowledged that experitise and sometimes even deferred to him. WOW, I thought, we're really going to do well! And we have money for ads, for canvassers, for lit, for poll watchers, for everything in moderation. I was excited.
But then the numbers came in election night, and as our poll watchers either called in or brought in the numbers I just couldn't believe what I was seeing! All that positive stuff during the campaign itself and still only 2,000 votes. Only 9%. I was devastated. Even with a great candidate and actual budget I couldn't bring in a respectable showing (for me that would be 30%).
Evaluation. The hardest thing to do honestly in this situation. We can point to many institutional givens that made our task so much harder: the primary is the focus for 6 months and the actual election for only 6 weeks; that matching money is not release until October 1 no matter when you qualify; this year in NYC there was even a run-off AFTER the primary so the voters were distracted for another two weeks; and believe me, we could go on and on with the institutional impediments to third party candidates.
But the truth is the basic work in the community is not something that can be done in a 6 week campaign. It can't even be done in a 6 month campaign. The Park Slope Green Party, our base of operations, has a liaison to the War Resisters League, but not to Community Board 6; they have a liaison to the NYACLU, but not to the Park Slope Neighborhood Association; they have a liaison to Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (an anti mega-development organization) but not to the Windsor Terrace Alliance; get my drift? Greens tend to be activistis and so forge contacts with organizations that advance an activist/progressive agenda, not that air community concerns on a broad range of issues.
So forget the money. NO, I TAKE THAT BACK--it was REALLY nice having a budget! But it cannot take the place of constant, day-to-day work in the community, with your neighbors, developing relationships, so when you have a candidate you can present her or him proudly and with confidence to the people you've cultivated in these community groups. And your community group can hold a debate; or sponsor a forum; or votunteer on election day, etc. etc.
But even with much stronger community ties, we still have the problem of 'zombie voters:' people who don't follow the campaign, who are driven to the polls and automatically vote the straight party line. Even though we were included in all those debates and forums, only a hand-full of people showed up for each one. 22,000 people voted in Council district 39 (about 30% of the electorate) but if you add up all the people attending the debates and forums, it comes to less than 5% of that number.
Electoral infrastructure. Now here's something we really lack as Greens. That's partly because we're still very young as a party. But it is also because of ideological choices we've made (this is going to be a bit controversial). We don't take corporate money; we don't take large contributions from individuals. Solid ideological decisions to maintain our independence from the corroding influence of money. Price? Now that this individual campaign is over, there is no on-going staff to clean and update the data-base with the invaluable information that every campaign generates. There is no systematic evaluation of the unique particulars (like which election districts we did well in, just for one) that will be useful information for the next election. There is no staff to maintain and expand the contacts to community organizations, press people who actually treated us fairly, and community leaders we cultivated. Greens need to find a way to develop this on-going electoral infrastructure. We will get nowhere without doing so.
Since the election, David & I have been going back and forth with the Board of Elections on their mis-count of the votes that were cast for David. On election night we had poll watchers in 18 of the 29 polling sites, and as the numbers came back from our people, our total was about 1,750. Then we saw repported on NY 1 that David's total (for all 29 sites) was 1,550. How could that be? So, a week later, at an appoiinted time, we were permitted to go to the warehouse to check the numbers on the machines. What I found was that our poll watchers' numbers were correct. So started the 're-canvassing' odyssey. It was up to us to figure out exactly where the discrepancy lay.
The problem became apparent as soon as I could see the sheet the BOE employees were working with. On the ballot, David's name appeared dead last, with the Libertarian candidate to his left; on the canvassing sheet, the Libertarian candidate appeared dead last, with David's name to his left. On the BOE sheet, David's and the Libertarian's numbers were consistently switched (we had the foresight to collect both on election night). After working the polls for 16 hours--that's how long the day is for election day poll workers in NYC--ANYONE could make this error. My question is why was the canvassing sheet set-up differently than the ballot, and who authorized it to be so? That decision set-up the poll workers to mis-report David's numbers. And later, the BOE workers don't check through every candidate's numbers; they flag problems by anomalies in each machine's vote totals. Just as I don't think the positioning of candidates was random in the butterfly ballots of Florida in 2000 (Canadian studies have shown that the ballot was confusing to certain populations), so I think that a deliberate attempt was made here to reduce the reported number of votes for this Green Party candidate because of his recognized potential for doing well.
Another campaign concluded. Many lessons learned. And I'll report more as it comes to me.
Jonathan Fluck
NYC actually has a generous matching funds program for local campaigns that reach threshold, and even the threshold is not unreasonable: a total of $5,000 raised from donations within NYC with 75 contributions of $10 or more from within the Council district itself with the maximum matchable donation $175. Once that threshold is reached anything that qualifies is matched six to one! For once in my campaign career I was working with more than an shoe-string budget!
But what I found is that the money didn't really make a difference in improving our numbers! Counter-intuitive, I know, but undeniable with our outcome. Even after fighting through re-canvassing for every vote that was cast for my candidate (David Pechefsky), we only received 9% or just over 2,000 votes.
What was wonderful from the git-go was that David was included in almost everything. Because of his experience and knowlege of the Council (he was part of the Central Staff of the Council for 10 years) and because of strong runs by a Green candidate in the last two Council races in this district, David was invited to all debates and forums--even ones set up during the primary season specifically for the Democratic primary candidates. That was very different for me. I am used to systematically being EXcluded, not INcluded! And this was happening even though the Greens in New York State do not have major party status.
Additionally, David loved to talk to people and loved campaigning. He grew weary sometimes, but was never short-tempered or visibly irritable. And, as one of the other candidates put it, David seems to have a P.T. Barnum gene: he has a sense about events that will garner press. We had lots of fun events: croquet match, chess in the park, rickshaw rides to the polls, prirate ship in the Halloween Parade, puppet shows ourside of schools; he just kept coming up with the event ideas.
David was more knowledeable than any of the candidates on Council reform, on how the Council operates, on how to move things through the Council, and we didn't hesitate to emphasize this knowledge with each outing and press release. And the other candidates acknowledged that experitise and sometimes even deferred to him. WOW, I thought, we're really going to do well! And we have money for ads, for canvassers, for lit, for poll watchers, for everything in moderation. I was excited.
But then the numbers came in election night, and as our poll watchers either called in or brought in the numbers I just couldn't believe what I was seeing! All that positive stuff during the campaign itself and still only 2,000 votes. Only 9%. I was devastated. Even with a great candidate and actual budget I couldn't bring in a respectable showing (for me that would be 30%).
Evaluation. The hardest thing to do honestly in this situation. We can point to many institutional givens that made our task so much harder: the primary is the focus for 6 months and the actual election for only 6 weeks; that matching money is not release until October 1 no matter when you qualify; this year in NYC there was even a run-off AFTER the primary so the voters were distracted for another two weeks; and believe me, we could go on and on with the institutional impediments to third party candidates.
But the truth is the basic work in the community is not something that can be done in a 6 week campaign. It can't even be done in a 6 month campaign. The Park Slope Green Party, our base of operations, has a liaison to the War Resisters League, but not to Community Board 6; they have a liaison to the NYACLU, but not to the Park Slope Neighborhood Association; they have a liaison to Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (an anti mega-development organization) but not to the Windsor Terrace Alliance; get my drift? Greens tend to be activistis and so forge contacts with organizations that advance an activist/progressive agenda, not that air community concerns on a broad range of issues.
So forget the money. NO, I TAKE THAT BACK--it was REALLY nice having a budget! But it cannot take the place of constant, day-to-day work in the community, with your neighbors, developing relationships, so when you have a candidate you can present her or him proudly and with confidence to the people you've cultivated in these community groups. And your community group can hold a debate; or sponsor a forum; or votunteer on election day, etc. etc.
But even with much stronger community ties, we still have the problem of 'zombie voters:' people who don't follow the campaign, who are driven to the polls and automatically vote the straight party line. Even though we were included in all those debates and forums, only a hand-full of people showed up for each one. 22,000 people voted in Council district 39 (about 30% of the electorate) but if you add up all the people attending the debates and forums, it comes to less than 5% of that number.
Electoral infrastructure. Now here's something we really lack as Greens. That's partly because we're still very young as a party. But it is also because of ideological choices we've made (this is going to be a bit controversial). We don't take corporate money; we don't take large contributions from individuals. Solid ideological decisions to maintain our independence from the corroding influence of money. Price? Now that this individual campaign is over, there is no on-going staff to clean and update the data-base with the invaluable information that every campaign generates. There is no systematic evaluation of the unique particulars (like which election districts we did well in, just for one) that will be useful information for the next election. There is no staff to maintain and expand the contacts to community organizations, press people who actually treated us fairly, and community leaders we cultivated. Greens need to find a way to develop this on-going electoral infrastructure. We will get nowhere without doing so.
Since the election, David & I have been going back and forth with the Board of Elections on their mis-count of the votes that were cast for David. On election night we had poll watchers in 18 of the 29 polling sites, and as the numbers came back from our people, our total was about 1,750. Then we saw repported on NY 1 that David's total (for all 29 sites) was 1,550. How could that be? So, a week later, at an appoiinted time, we were permitted to go to the warehouse to check the numbers on the machines. What I found was that our poll watchers' numbers were correct. So started the 're-canvassing' odyssey. It was up to us to figure out exactly where the discrepancy lay.
The problem became apparent as soon as I could see the sheet the BOE employees were working with. On the ballot, David's name appeared dead last, with the Libertarian candidate to his left; on the canvassing sheet, the Libertarian candidate appeared dead last, with David's name to his left. On the BOE sheet, David's and the Libertarian's numbers were consistently switched (we had the foresight to collect both on election night). After working the polls for 16 hours--that's how long the day is for election day poll workers in NYC--ANYONE could make this error. My question is why was the canvassing sheet set-up differently than the ballot, and who authorized it to be so? That decision set-up the poll workers to mis-report David's numbers. And later, the BOE workers don't check through every candidate's numbers; they flag problems by anomalies in each machine's vote totals. Just as I don't think the positioning of candidates was random in the butterfly ballots of Florida in 2000 (Canadian studies have shown that the ballot was confusing to certain populations), so I think that a deliberate attempt was made here to reduce the reported number of votes for this Green Party candidate because of his recognized potential for doing well.
Another campaign concluded. Many lessons learned. And I'll report more as it comes to me.
Jonathan Fluck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)