And you don't look a day over...

When did songs I grew up with start getting played on the oldies channel?

There was always talk of a wandering eye

More from the Lieberman file. The latest primer on playing both sides of the fence.

Sounds like a good time

Geek blogging. My inner Trekkie revealed, again.



Some early quibbles about the new Star Trek trailer. (That's right, trailer quibbles. Or, as they will hereinafter be known, Tribbles.)

For one thing, that certainly doesn't look like the Iowa farm that we all know James Kirk grew up on.

And I'm a bit shocked by the idea of an angry Spock - aren't Vulcans emotionally, uh, restrained? When Spock showed emotion in the original Star Trek, it was an oddity, shocking, out of character, and thus, used sparingly and always meaningfully, adding more depth to Spock's struggle against his half-human alter ego in order to remain emotionless, to suppress the duality that tortured him inside with a mask of Vulcan even-tempered logic. Kirk and McCoy were not used to seeing Spock show emotion, yet somehow we're now to think that, early on in their relationship, he exhibited rage, a first impression that would undermine everything that we know they believed about Spock as their relationship evolved. I don't think I'm buying it. (On the other hand, Leonard Nimoy himself appears as "old" Spock in the movie, so I'd have to assume that he was on-board with the depiction.)

I know that Enterprise treated the depiction of logic and lack of emotion as a form of pent-up anger, with the Vulcans further depicted as deceptive, with a thin skin of logic barely concealing weakness and arrogance. But Enterprise is over, and I'd just assume forget it ever happened.

It has become convention to re-imagine, or reboot, classic series. That's fine for a series like Knight Rider and Battlestar Galactica, which could use a bit of a rejiggering with the underlying storyline. Sometimes the reconceptualized series is an improvement on a weak original that had conceptual potential but never realized on that potential (BSG); sometimes it destroys the little bit of value that there was to the original itself (Knight Rider without Hasselhoff camp is just a waste of the airwaves). But sometimes too much has grown around the original to reimagine the show's history away. Continuity matters in the Star Trek universe.

I assume those gripes - I mean tribbles - will get explained in the movie, but why give us something to be frustrated about after seeing the clip? That's the trouble with tribbles. (I know - no shame.)

But yeah, I'll be there on opening day.

It's like the Israelites

She "credentializes him."

I do think that the Clinton appointment will utlimately come down to the Israel-Palestine question. And Clinton enables Obama to overcome unnecessary resistance and paranoia from the Israeli right. She credentializes him with Israelis and American Jews - which will help build support for a sustainable compromise before it is too late for the Jewish state.

Sullivan succinctly summarized my argument in favor of making Hillary Clinton our next Secretary of State. Credit to me: I did send that argument to Sullivan last week.

Andy claims the thought came from Jeffrey Goldberg (since he references Goldberg in his post).

Or maybe he's just using Goldberg as cover so that he can keep me anonymous.

Next time I might send my ideas to Josh instead!

Close their eyes and let it all out into the air

Several weeks ago, an email string started up at work, and fairly quickly turned into a heated discussion about the existence of the threat of global warming.

The most vocal objector to the idea that global warming is real - and that such global warming is caused by man - followed a statement that he was a skeptic, not a cynic, and that his anti-global warming stance was not a religous one, with the following argument:

My objection to the global warming hysteria is partially economic and partially science. It has to do with a belief that the science is not, as Al Gore says, "a settled issue". And the belief that the global science henny pennys are underestimating the economic impact of the "fix".

So just to lay this out in straightforward and simple terms what should be obvious, it's time to look at reality.

Preliminarily, it's an interesting question whether the viewpoint expressed above constitutes skepticism or cynicism, but I don't think that is the correct, or even relevant, distinction. Science requires skepticism.

But the argument disguises as skepticism (which is essential) the fact that global warming "skeptics" just don't want to believe something that is not convenient. The science behind global warming itself is pretty solid (you can test conclusively how much CO2 and methane is pumped into the atmosphere, and you know the chemical reactions it has once it is there); rather, it's the impacts of the global warming (flooding Manhattan, etc.) that are unclear.

So the intended objection is against the theories with respect to the impacts of global warming on the planet, which are necessarily a prediction, with models and variables and unknowns, which cannot be certain until tested (testing is the key element of science; you cannot prove anything without testing). And until testing is done, global warming "skeptics" will deny that the predicted outcomes will come to pass (the "belief" that the science is not settled, which isn't science, it's faith).

The fundamental problem is that you cannot test the theories as to the impacts of global warming until the results actually happen in the real world - we don't have a lab planet to tinker with. Because of faith in a belief that global warming is not a problem, global warming "skeptics" will not believe in the consequences until they actually come to pass.

That's neither cynicism nor skepticism. It may, however, be recklessness (as defined by Websters: "careless of consequences"). Recklessness is fine if the consequences impact nobody other than the reckless person; it's not quite so where the consequences are global. I don't have much concern for the drunk that drives off a cliff, but we make drunk driving illegal so that the drunk doesn't plow into a bus full of children.

The Ostrich lacks the appropriate perspective on whether the sky is actually falling to know if Henny Penny is right or not.

As for the swipe at Al Gore, none of this is specifically an endorsement of the title of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. If we're trying to be accurate, it should have been called something like "An Unacceptable Risk". But those Hollywood folks are better at marketing than I am. And sounding an alarm to wake people up to potential consequences, particularly in the face of great risk, is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing.

It's all balancing of risks. I actually do respect (but strongly disagree with) the perspective that those risks may balance in the other direction, but the problem with the argument of the "skeptics" comes in their denial of the real science part in order to reach their conclusions, unless the "skeptics" can't face up to the actual science because the balancing of the risks cannot work in their favor.

Better to be up front about it. I see the risk of inaction as much greater than the "skeptics," particularly where the "skeptics" would refuse to acknowledge the risk until the risk becomes a reality.

The acceleration of global warming is directly tied to the junk we pump into the atmosphere. Actually facing up to that would have long-term beneficial direct economic effects on the economy despite some up-front costs in moving our energy economy into the 21st century.

Today, more than ever, the costs of a failure to shift our energy economy have become depressingly obvious, with the looming collapse of an American auto industry that found itself unwilling or incapable of shifting in any meaningful way away from a gasoline-based economy engine into more environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient economy.

The costs of ignoring the issue and not doing anything - both direct costs due to ongoing dependence on foreign oil and other limited resources, which will not, despite the red-in-the-face arguments of global warming "skeptics" to the contrary, be impacted in any significant way by drilling, baby, drilling, off the coast and in national parks, and indirect costs as a result of the impact of changed weather patterns on coastlines, farming, healthcare costs, etc. - are, in the not-too-distant future, much greater than the costs of taking action, of building a greener economy and a healthier planet.

The time is now.

Come together across the great divide

I've been a bit cynical about the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I wasn't sure that it made sense for her - why take a short-term position that isn't a stepping stone to another office when she now effectively has a position for life, and isn't Senator a better position to be in for a 2016 run at the presidency (assuming age and health don't make that impossible)? And weren't Obama and Clinton farthest apart on foreign policy issues, so of all Cabinet posts, doesn't Secretary of State make the least sense? Not to mention that I still have not completely overcome my resentment for the way Hillary conducted the later part of her campaign.

But, all that being said, the more I think about the possibilities with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the more sense the idea makes.

First, the Secretary of State doesn't make policy, she implements policy. The President makes the policy - I seem to recall someone saying that the president is the "Decider" - and Hillary has shown that she is a good soldier. Her intellect and knowledge of world events is unparalleled among the set of credible candidates for the job, and she knows essentially all of the international players personally. She has a level of respect on the world stage that is an incomparable asset to a young, new president who, while admired greatly abroad, does not have a long history of dealing with world leaders.

Second, if a major initiative of the Obama Administration is going to be to make progress (and possibly succeed) in an overall plan for Middle East peace, which must involve - must lead with - a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I cannot think of anyone who brings more to that initiative than Hillary Clinton. She is possibly the one person in an Obama Administration who would be able to walk into a meeting with the Israelis without inciting the fear (within Israel, but just as importantly, in AIPAC and the synagogues) that the Americans are sacrificing Israel's security. The value of the credibility that Hillary brings to the issue, the respect that she carries in the Jewish community, and the re-boot of America's image brought by Barack Obama, offers the unique possibility of genuine achievement in the Middle East. Just as important, as the campaign (both her own and her campaign for Barack) showed, Hillary is as tough a fighter and as motivated as anyone imaginable when she puts her mind to something.

The great irony of this is that much of Hillary's credibility as a candidate for Secretary of State, and what makes her potential selection appealing across the aisle, is due to the cynical hyping of Clinton by the right wing beginning with the early primaries, first in order to attempt to make her the Democratic choice because they believed she was too polarizing and would hand the election to the Republicans - see Rush Limbaugh's campaign to get his dittoheads to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries; then in order to try to get the Republicans to vote against John McCain by pretending that Hillary was more appealing to conservatives than McCain - see Ann Coulter's claim that she would vote for Hillary over McCain; and finally the attempt to undermine Obama through the bogus PUMA movement. All of those cynical attempts failed, of course, but served to bolster Clinton's bipartisan credentials.

Nevertheless, I'm not naive and unrealistic about the potential for a Mid-East peace settlement under a Clinton-run State Department - there are huge obstacles that make any solution incredibly difficult, even with the best of all scenarios. And Hillary is nothing close to perfect. But Hillary Clinton would have to be the franchise player on a team with a goal of really, really make things happen in the Middle East.

And from Hillary's standpoint, what better crowning achievement for a lifetime of service?

Moreover, it shows tremendous wisdom and leadership for Obama to take advantage of those skills, regardless of whether he is accused of failing to make "change," as surely the media and the Republicans will spin the selection. The reality is, appointing Hillary as Secretary of State does constitute change - not necessarily of people, but of presidential attitude and behavior, of evaluating and understanding the particular needs and relevant skills to address a particular issue, and then choosing the person best qualified to succeed in achieving a particular goal, regardless of appearances, in order to cause the greatest good. In short, for an Obama Administration, only the best will do, regardless of petty differences and spin about a team of rivals, rather than the reality of a team of the most skilled players.

Look, I recognize that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell were supposed to herald an era of smart foreign policy, and we know how that turned out. And Obama's "change" could turn out to be more of the same. But, it seems to me, the key difference here is the man in charge, someone who is interested in differing viewpoints, is not intellectually incurious, does not believe he is never wrong, whose entire perspective on the world does not come from his inner circle, who is negotiating to keep his blackberry so he can keep up with the world real time and on his own terms. Barack Obama may have made some mistakes in his cabinet choices so far. I concede that those whom I described as "only the best" may, in fact, turn out to be horrible choices whose personal failings undermine the best intentions.

But I continue to believe in Barack Obama's message and his leadership. As a result, it doesn't appear to be in Obama's nature to surround himself with starry-eyed yes-men, fawning hangers-on, Arabian horse judge hacks, pretentious fools and megalomanics, in order to boost his sense of self.

Change comes from the top.

After the politics we have suffered through for so long, that kind of change is essential.

Unreconstructed defiantly

Cuckolds.

And you don't look a day over thirty-two

A fair minded man

Keith on Marriage Equality.



This is one of the most powerful statements on this issue that I have seen. What if statements like these had come before November 4?

The Show Goes On

I caught my friend Tico Perez on his Orlando WDBO-AM 560 radio show "Talkin' with Tico" this afternoon as I was trying to find the Dolphins-Seahawks game. I generally avoid listening to Tico's show because I don't want what he says to impact my regard for him, as I'm sure it would given his lurch to the right (and to the wrong side of history) . But nothing much seemed to be happening with the game at the time (though that changed in the fourth quarter), so I decided to listen in on what Tico had to say.

And right off the bat, Tico alluded to the idea that, as a result of the election of Barack Obama and the further solidifying of the Democratic congressional majority, he may end up being taken off the radio by the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine."

Aside from the fact that Tico is just bloviating and stirring up his audience, I wasn't aware that Barack Obama, or anyone during this campaign cycle, had made an issue of the Fairness Doctrine. And as it turns out, Barack Obama actually opposes a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said [Obama] press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.

So why does Tico - who is a smart guy who should know better and have more respect for his listeners - make that comment? Apparently Tico is reading too many of the dishonest right-wing blogs. Kevin Drum has more. Matt, too.

It's bye bye bye, gone gone gone

The internets and talking heads are abuzz right now about the fate of Joe Lieberman, whether he should be booted from the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and whether, if he remains in the caucus, he should be stripped of his chairmanship of (of all things of which he clearly should not be the leader) the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Cmmittee.

It's no surprise to anyone that I would be happy to see Lieberman completely gone, unwelcome to caucus with the Democrats that he gleefully betrayed. Aot this point, given the tenor of the transition and the mood of the Senate, I don't think that's feasible, and don't believe that the Democrats necessarily need to appear to be punitive, despite Lieberman's duplicity. On the other hand, Lieberman cannot be allowed to blackmail the party that he stabbed in the back, and does not deserve to keep any leadership position. Aside from good will, Lieberman holds no cards. And Lieberman and his allies deserve no good will. Moreover, there need to be consequences for bad behavior. Even if Joe Lieberman swore on the Torah that he would from now on always vote the party line and would shine President Obama's shoes each morning, he should not get a pass on what he has done. His threat to bolt the party if he is stripped of his Chairmanship should be ignored, if not ridiculed. Not to overstate this, but the dignity of the Democratic party and its principles depends on that. They have a choice - to stick by principle and honor, or to be cuckolds.

But Harry Reid has an obligation to put this whole fiasco in the best light. So here's how I think this should all go down.

If Joe Lieberman continues to make threats of switching sides (as if he hasn't already) and officially joining the Republican caucus, Harry Reid needs to, first, pressure the weak-kneed caucus to make sure they understand the stakes and the consequences and the absolute necessity to not roll over on behalf of Joe Lieberman, and, second, make a public statement acknowledging that he knows Joe Lieberman is a man that will always vote his conscience - while refusing to back down from stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship. Accordingly, the Democratic leadership will accept and respect whatever decision Joe Lieberman makes that satisfies his conscience, secure in the knowledge that Lieberman will always vote his conscience on the critical issues confronting the American people regardless of which side of the aisle he chooses to sit. His choice to caucus with Democrats in the past has not impacted his capacity to side with Republicans on the issues that mattered to him in the past, and we know that a choice by Senator Lieberman to caucus with Republicans in the future, if he makes that choice, will not impact his capacity to side with Democrats in the future in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. What's matters is that the Senate acts in accordance with the needs of the country. The Democratic caucus will strive to always make decisions based on advancing that goal. As a man of conscience, we know that Joe Lieberman will do the same, regardless of where he chooses to caucus.

In other words, Joe, we accept your explanation and we respect that explanation. And that's specifically why it doesn't matter to us if you caucus with us.

Go. Or stay. But do it because it is what you wish to do.

(Appropriate portion starts at 0:45)


It's your choice, Joe. As it always is.

On the other hand, Reid could just say, "Take your punishment like a man."

UPDATE: Harry Reid is no James Kirk.

The band played on

I went to early vote with my daughter on a Tuesday, arriving at the poll location just before the polls closed at 6pm. A few people arrived after me before the doors closed, including a young African American woman, her white husband or boyfriend, and their beautiful child. Standing in line, the woman loudly started asking, "Who can talk to me about this Amendment 2" - the proposed Florida constitutional ban on marriage equality. We were already in the polling place, so everyone kept quiet. The woman persisted, asking the poll worker from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office why they wouldn't tell her about the amendment. The poll worker politely informed her that she couldn't talk about it because they couldn't discuss the issues without creating the impression that she was telling the voter how to vote.

As I stood there, I desperately wanted to speak up, to ask the woman how it would feel to her if someone told her that she and her husband or boyfriend couldn't be together, that their adorable child was the product of an impermissible union.

But I didn't want to upset the entire poll, create an inappropriate environment for the other voters, end up campaigning at a polling location. I knew that as soon as I started speaking, I wouldn't be able to stop, and that, in my conservative neighborhood, I would not have much support for my commentary. So I didn't say anything. I shouldn't have been so cautious.

The one truly sour note from the elections was the passage of state constitutional amendments in three states banning marriage equality, including Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 here in Florida.

Barack Obama chose not to lead on the issue, stating repeatedly that he believed marriage was only between a man and a woman. Late in the process he made a statement to MTV that he opposed Proposition 8 - the gay marriage ban - in California, but in the same sentence indicated he did not believe in gay marriage.

MTV Shows

Joe Biden chose to play games with the issue, too, concluding at his debate with Sarah Palin that he and Palin agreed on the issue. It reminded me of the worst moments of the George Bush-John Kerry town hall debate when Kerry danced around his views on abortion, vacillating and Talmudic hair splitting in order to make his reasonable pro-choice views seem acceptable to a pro-life questioner. It didn't work for Kerry, and Biden's similar verbal gymnastics made Biden look equally foolish. It was cowardly and disingenuous.

The Obama campaign obviously made a decision that taking a bold stand on the right of gay people to have a stable, married relationship with the person of their choosing was too much of a political risk.

November 4th saw one wall come down, but another wall is getting put up.

Just another day

From The Onion:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Thought once he was a fine man

A very close friend of mine voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. She didn't live in Florida back then - she was in a decidedly red state at the time (before the time when we referred to red states and blue states, a vestige of the 2000 elections) - and has convinced herself that, living in a state that George Bush was clearly going to win, her vote was a reasonable protest against two party dominance and the so-called corporate ownership of the political process, and that she has nothing to regret. Ralph Nader, you see, was right, and her leanings still run toward him, although political reality has somewhat eclipsed the dream.

I've never really understood protest votes all that much, particularly where the protest is isolated to one side of the political spectrum, attempting to undermine the candidate that is closer to your viewpoint. People are welcome to believe what they want to believe, and see the world through whatever prism they favor, I guess. And I am extremely fond of that friend and her judgment.

For my part, however, I have always believed that Ralph Nader's brand of consumer advocacy makes no sense in the political context, that Nader just doesn't understand the political process or leadership, and that a failure to recognize that is pie in the sky. (As any consumer advocate can tell you, pie in the sky is dangerous - it's going to fall back to the ground and someone is likely to get hurt.) I was convinced, early in 2000 and long before election day, that Nader was delusional, overbearing, self-important. With Nader, everything is evidence of a corrupt, corporate-owned political system.

That does not mean that there's nothing broken in our political process and in the power of a limited number of big donors to influence that process. And I agree that there are significant issues with the absence of regulation, which passes on the costs of bad business practices to customers who do not have sufficient information in order to know that they are being taken advantage of. The past couple of months have clearly shown this with respect to the financial markets, and the problems are not limited to financial institutions - for example, lax regulation of the energy industry and distorted regulation of home building which encourage urban sprawl. But to have placed Al Gore and the Democrats as a whole on the corporatist, anti-regulation side of the coin (rather than on the side of realists who understand that an efficient market requires cooperation between the government, business and the consumer public) required complete ignorance about Al Gore, and could have been easily resolved by, among other things, simply reading Earth in the Balance, which argued forcefully against polluting corporations passing the environmental and health costs of their business practices on to the public and in favor of reforming corporate behavior by monetizing those costs and pushing them back on polluting corporations. Gore wasn't perfect, but his values represented a world of difference from Republican values. It was clear then, as it is more vivid today, that Gore and Bush were not the same.

Unfortunately, Nader (and his vocal supporters like Michael Moore) sadly confused an orientation toward market-based solutions with a corporate bias.

Moreover, contrast the corrupting influence of corporate lobbyist campaign fundraisers with the reliance by now-President-elect Obama's campaign on innumerable small donors, making his dependence on the American people as a whole rather than on a few special interests, despite what John McCain disingenuously would have had voters believe. It's an approach that a reasonable consumer advocate, short of the unrealistic and counterproductive fantasy of eliminating the dependence of campaigns on any financing at all, should prefer and praise.

But Ralph Nader is not about being a reasonable consumer advocate.

In 2000, I argued - to no one who could change anything - that Al Gore was making a mistake by not backing Ralph Nader's request to participate in the presidential debates. Some Gore supporters feared that by showing Nader the respect of being at the debates, he would have been more of a threat to hijack liberal votes from Gore. My view, having watched Nader, was that Nader's participation would have revealed his complete lack of comprehension of the issues that faced America. Every issue does not boil down to "corporations control America". More importantly, however, it would have also enabled Al Gore position himself as the reasonable candidate in the middle of the political spectrum, which is where he belonged. In addition to giving him a second voice in opposition to the brash Texas governor, taking hits from Nader from the so-called "left" inhabited by Nader wouldn't have hurt Gore, it would have revealed Gore's reasonableness. Governance matters, and since that was Al Gore's key argument, I believed it would have served him well in the debate. The ridiculousness of Nader's charges would have become readily obvious. Perhaps I am wrong about all of that; perhaps Nader's presence at the debates would have led to Nader receiving Perot-like percentages in 2000. Perhaps forcing Gore to discuss his positions on effective regulation would have damaged him with so-called moderates. I think that is wrong - or at least should be wrong - but we'll never know because history took a different course.

Following the election, most of America's progressive movement came to resent Nader's role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, his selfish behavior that led to an eight year period that proved that it does in fact matter who holds the presidency, eight years that President Obama will have a hard time undoing (altough it does offer Obama the opportunity for true greatness if he can succeed).

But beyond the resentment and anger around that particular event, I think many people have failed to truly come to terms with Ralph Nader. For instance, Nader received a respectful hearing earlier this year on the Daily Show.

Sometimes, self-satire can be more revealing than cultivated image. Back in the late 1980's, long before anyone had heard of "hanging chads" (itself requiring a rational consumer advocate, although I don't recall hearing Nader's voice on remedying that product defect), Raph Nader introduced himself to America's children on Sesame Street. Before the 2000 election fiasco, I had watched this clip innumerable times with my daughter on the Sesame Street 25th Anniversary video tape. While presenting himself as a person in our neighborhood, Ralph, in the name of advocacy, harms the consumer - Bob - by destroying something that Bob enjoyed and valued. By demanding perfection, Nader self-righteously leaves everything in tatters. But that's okay to Nader and his supporters, because it just proves that Nader was right all along, consequences be damned.



And so, eight years after that fateful day on which the nation began a month long struggle counting chads and battling in the courts, a day that ultimately changed the course of America in ways that nobody on any part of the political spectrum could have foreseen, and despite the fact that Ralph Nader told us that it didn't matter who was elected president since both Gore and Bush were effectively the same, Ralph Nader - the sanctimonious leader of the church of anti-corporate consumer advocacy - used the occasion of the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States to succinctly and directly lay bare - without satire or any sense of irony - his own true nature.



So we witness in real time the wheels coming off the wagon, the sleeves off the sweater. The message has become dangerous, and the messenger himself defective.

Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

You can go anywhere

Yes. We. Can.

Yes. We. Did.

Yes we did.

UPDATE: Election night slideshow.

Big rumble is about to come

The time for speculation is over, and the big day is tomorrow. While I confess to a sudden onset of nerves, I am also restraining my incredible excitement about what I think is to come.

As I said the other day, my nervousness seems to be seeing Barack in the shadow of Kerry and Gore. But Barack Obama has run a masterful campaign and by all rights should be elected President of the United States tomorrow. Now it's time for America to hold up its end of the bargain, to respond with optimism and hope for a better future, a new direction, the American dream, to form a more perfect union.

It's time for America to finally respond to the continuously deteriorating filth and dishonesty of the Palin/Joe/McCain campaign and its surrogates that focused on looking backwards, inciting the worst instincts in people, fear of socialism (I mean, really?), fear of those who look different, conjuring up nationalistic demons, manipulating the Jewish vote that is so critical in states like Florida (Khalidi, the ever-contemptible RJC, Joe on Israel, and more).

For my part, I will spend all of tomorrow monitoring a Central Florida polling precinct as an election lawyer, to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote gets their chance to vote a true ballot, and that all of those votes get counted. I hope to be extremely bored and have a day without incident.