The Strange Case of the ERA

Constitutional amendments have a checkered history in American politics. Some are upheld as the most important and sacred pieces of our law, others are obscure, and one was even repealed. However, perhaps no case is as strange (or controversial) as one particular proposed constitutional amendment called the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

In this post, I'll discuss the history of the ERA, what derailed its once-promising ratification effort, and where the amendment stands today.

Let's examine the strange case of the ERA.

Background

The idea of a constitutional amendment that explicitly guaranteed equal legal rights for men and women has been kicked around in one form or another since at least the 1920s. With the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, women won the right to vote in the United States, and immediately discussion began brewing that it didn't go far enough: An additional amendment was needed to guarantee women equal rights in all legal matters.

Over the next few decades, support for such an amendment gradually began to build. Similar amendments were introduced in every congressional session between 1921 and 1972, typically being defeated in committee each time. Various political interest groups and labor unions discussed, debated, and fought amongst each other over the issue, disagreeing about whether it would actually benefit women and/or the country as a whole and whether it was even needed. 

Rep. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI), who introduced the ERA in 1971 and is often called "the mother of the Equal Rights Amendment".

However, the turning point came in the 1960s where, like in the 1920s, support for an equal rights amendment was fueled by the passage of another law, this time the Civil Rights Act. Finally, in October 1971, with the backing of numerous women's interest groups and labor unions, the ERA as we know it today was approved by the United States House of Representatives by a vote of 354-24 (with 51 not voting). This was soon followed by the passage of the ERA in the United States Senate in March 1972 by a vote of 84-8 (with 7 not voting). President Richard Nixon then immediately endorsed the ERA upon its passage by Congress.

With overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses of Congress and an endorsement by the President, the road to ratification for the ERA seemed clear.

Or was it?

Road to Ratification

For a constitutional amendment to be ratified, it not only needs to be approved by Congress, but also ratified by a 2/3 majority of state legislatures. Beginning with its passage by the Senate in March 1972, the ERA was placed in the hands of the states with a seven-year deadline (March 22, 1979) for 38 states to ratify it.

By the end of the month, 8 states had ratified the ERA, and by the end of April that number was up to 16. Another 4 ratified by the end of 1972, bringing the total up to 22, and another 8 ratified by the end of March 1973 for a total of 30 of the required 38 ratifications.

However, after the 30th ratification, momentum began to ebb. Despite gaining 30 ratifications in its first year, the ERA managed to acquire only 5 more ratifications over the next 4 years, bringing to total up to 35, three short of the 38 required. To add to the ERA's woes, three of the states that had originally ratified the ERA had since voted to rescind their ratification (more on that later).

By the time the ratification deadline hit in March 1979, no additional states had voted to ratify the ERA, and two more had voted to rescind their ratification (Congress attempted to extend the deadline by 3 years to June 30, 1982, but this extension was struck down by the Supreme Court in NOW v. Idaho, a decision which also upheld state rescission). At that time, the ERA, an amendment seemingly destined for ratification with broad political support, was all but dead in the water.

How did this happen? Why did states stop ratifying the ERA while others actually voted to rescind their ratification? It turns out, support for the ERA was far from unanimous.

Opposition

Though small in number, there were influential groups and individuals (even women) who opposed the ERA from the beginning.

Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative activist from Illinois who campaigned against the ERA

Conservative activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly of Illinois, argued that depending on how the ERA was interpreted, women could stand to lose legal advantages that they currently enjoyed over men, including preference in regard to alimony and child custody in divorce cases, as well as exemption from the draft. Furthermore, it was argued that with the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 and the Civil Rights Act in 1964, there were no remaining practical legal advantages to be gained for women by the passage of the ERA.

The campaign against the ERA was particularly effective. By 1973, public support for the ERA in states that had yet to ratify fell below 50%, as large numbers of working-class women turned against the amendment. Additionally, by the ratification deadline in 1979, a total of five states that had ratified the ERA voted to rescind their ratification.

At the 1980 Republican National Convention, the Republican Party officially dropped support for the ERA from the party platform. Since bipartisan support is a virtual necessity for the ratification of any constitutional amendment, the RNC's decision to oppose the ERA was effectively the death knell for the ratification effort.

The ERA Today

In the years since the ERA's defeat, there has been an ongoing effort by the amendment's supporters to revive the ratification campaign. These supporters argue that 

1. Congress can retroactively remove the ratification deadline and, provided an additional three states vote to ratify the ERA, it can still become law
2. Because the Constitution specifies no mechanism for states to rescind amendment ratification, the rescissions of the 5 states that did so are null and void (contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in NOW v. Idaho).

Map of where states stand on ERA ratification.
Pink = Ratified
Purple = Ratified after deadline
Orange = Ratified, but then rescinded
Green = Partially ratified
Blue = Not ratified

Since 1979, three additional states (Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia) have voted to ratify the ERA. Additionally, numerous bills have been introduced in Congress to remove the ratification deadline, the most recent of which passed in the House of Representatives in 2020 by a vote of 232-183 (it has yet to be introduced in the Senate).

However, even if the ratification deadline is removed, 5 states voted to rescind their ratification, which would bring the running total of state ratifications back down to 33. Debate over whether these rescissions are valid has raged for years, despite the ruling in NOW v. Idaho. Even many ERA supporters admit that if Congress is allowed to retroactively change the rules for ratification, it only makes sense for the decision of the states who changed their position on ratification be respected.

Among those who held this view was the late liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who suggested that supporters of the ERA would be better off by starting the effort over from scratch rather than trying to ride on the coattails of the 1972 bill. Ginsburg said that "If you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said 'We've changed our minds?'".

My Take

Personally, I question the need for the ERA. Virtually every practical legal protection women can ask for is already enshrined in law in one way or another (especially in the context of the Civil Rights Act), meaning that the ERA would be more symbolic than anything.

Furthermore, I agree with the late Justice Ginsberg that proponents would be better off starting anew. If you're going to retroactively change the rules regarding ratification, then you need to allow states to retroactively change their votes.

After all, fair is fair.

East Asia Squadron - Part II: The Battle of the Falkland Islands

Sailing against the odds, the German East Asia Squadron made it from their base in China across the Pacific to neutral Chile. There, they inflicted upon Great Britain its first naval defeat in over 100 years.

However, the tide was still against East Asia Squadron, as the British were not going to take the defeat lying down. The fate of East Asia Squadron would be decided in the next showdown with the British fleet: The Battle of the Falkland Islands.

Background

On November 3, 1914, three of East Asia Squadron's cruisers (SMS Scharnhorst, SMS Gneisenau, and SMS Nürnberg) entered Valparaíso harbor, where they were welcomed by the local German-speaking population. 

However, the squadron's commander, Maximillian von Spee, was in no mood for revelry. Despite his resounding victory over the British squadron sent to destroy him two days earlier, he was still pessimistic about his chances of making it back to Germany alive. When presented with a bouquet of flowers by the grateful German people, he declined them, commenting that "these will do nicely for my grave".

SMS Scharnhorst, flagship of East Asia Squadron

After leaving Valparaíso the next day, East Asia Squadron received two pieces of bad news. First, one of their cruisers, the SMS Emden, which had recently been sent to the Indian Ocean on a commerce raiding mission, had been caught by the Australian Royal Navy and destroyed. Second, East Asia Squadron's home port in Qingdao, China, had fallen to the Japanese.

Spee and his officers soon met to discuss what to do next. Most of the officers still wanted to make a run to Germany, but their ships were low on ammunition and badly in need of maintenance following the Battle of Coronel. Spee agreed, but he insisted (against the objections of his captains) on first raiding the British fueling base at Stanley harbor in the Falkland Islands before setting sail for Germany.

Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee, commander of the second British naval squadron sent to destroy East Asia Squadron

Meanwhile, the British were organizing their response to the defeat at Coronel. Having recovered from the initial shock of the loss, the British Admiralty dispatched the battlecruisers HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible, two of the most advanced combat ships in the world, to the Falkland Islands under the command of Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee. There, they met up with other British cruisers, giving Sturdee a formidable complement of warships:

- HMS Invincible (flagship)

- HMS Inflexible

- HMS Glasgow (survivor of the Battle of Coronel)

- HMS Bristol

- HMS Cornwall

- HMS Kent

- HMS Macedonia

- HMS Carnarvon

Additionally, HMS Canopus, an outdated battleship that had been a part of Vice Admiral Cradock's squadron but had not participated at the Battle of Coronel due to mechanical issues, was beached at Stanley harbor to be used as a makeshift shore defense battery while the rest of the squadron laid in wait in the harbor.

Once the battle group was assembled, British Intelligence cryptographers sent out a fake signal which indicated that Stanley harbor was devoid of any armed British naval presence, suggesting the base was defenseless. It was this signal that convinced Spee that Stanley harbor was a prime target to raid, essentially serving as bait that would lure East Asia Squadron into a British trap.

The Battle of the Falkland Islands

On December 8, Spee made his move. That morning, he sent two of his cruisers, Gneisenau and Nürnberg, to approach Stanley harbor. Spee had no idea about the presence of Sturdee's squadron in the harbor, which was at anchor at that time and not expecting combat.

German map of the Battle of the Falkland Islands

While East Asia Squadron had caught the British fleet unprepared, it was an encounter that the Germans were not expecting, and Spee's cruisers soon received fire from an surprising source: The beached Canopus. This unanticipated resistance gave the German cruisers pause and kept them at bay while Sturdee's squadron prepared for battle.

Once Spee realized that he was outnumbered 7-5 in terms of main warships (including two British battlecruisers, the most powerful warships afloat at the time), he ordered his force to make a desperate dash out into the open ocean, where he hoped to lose the British ships. Unfortunately for East Asia Squadron, not only were the British ships faster, but the seas were calm and it was still morning, giving them plenty of daylight to work with. At 10:00, the British fleet left port and gave chase.

The Invincible and Inflexible give chase. Painting by William Lionel Wyllie.

At 1:00, the Invincible and Inflexible opened fire on East Asia Squadron. Realizing he couldn't outrun the British, at 1:20 Spee ordered Scharnhorst (his flagship) and Gneisenau to turn and fight, in an effort to give the other ships an opportunity to escape.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proceeded to exchange fire with Invincible and Inflexible. At first, the German ships managed to land several hits on Invincible, but the damage was minimal. Before long, the British battlecruisers began striking major blows against their German adversaries. The East Asia Squadron flagship Scharnhorst sustained several hard hits and began to list heavily at 4:04. At 4:17, she sank with all hands, including Spee. Gneisenau continued to fight on until her ammunition ran out at 5:15. Sturdee ordered a cease fire at 5:50, and the Gneisenau's crew allowed her to sink at 6:02, of which 190 were rescued by the British.

The Scharnhorst sinks while the Gneisenau fights on. Painting by William Lionel Wyllie.

Meanwhile, Sturdee dispatched Kent to run down Nürnberg, and Glasgow and Cornwall were sent to chase Leipzig. At 5:00, the Kent caught the Nürnberg, at which point the Nürnberg turned to fight (the slower Cornwall lagged behind). The two ships exchanged fire until 6:35, when the Nürnberg sustained so much damage she could no longer fire. The Nürnberg sank at 7:26; only twelve of her crew were rescued by the Kent.

Earlier, at 2:40, Glasgow caught up to the Leipzig and began firing. Leipzig responded with fire of her own, and both ships were damaged. Glasgow temporarily retreated, regrouping with Cornwall and Kent before re-engaging Leipzig. Leipzig fought on until 7:20, at which point the captain ordered the crew to scuttle the ship. At 9:05, Leipzig sank; only eighteen men were rescued. The Battle of the Falkland Islands was over.

The Inflexible rescues survivors from the Gneisenau

Like the Battle of Coronel, the outcome of the Battle of the Falkland Islands was disproportionate. East Asia Squadron lost 4 of 5 cruisers and 2,086 men (1,871 killed, 215 captured). Meanwhile, the British lost no ships and suffered only 29 casualties (10 killed, 19 wounded).

The Battle of Más a Tierra

Of the five cruisers of East Asia Squadron, only the Dresden successfully evaded the pursuing British ships and escaped destruction. The Dresden would remain at large until March 14, 1915, when she was cornered by the Glasgow, Kent, and Orama at Cumberland Bay, Chile. 

In the short Battle of Más a Tierra, the Dresden briefly exchanged fire with her pursuers before the crew scuttled her and escaped to shore, where they would spend the rest of the war in Chilean captivity. Such was the end of East Asia Squadron.

The Dresden, pictured here in Cumberland Bay just before her crew scuttled her. Note the white flag flying on the foremast.

Interestingly, the Dresden and the Glasgow were the only two ships to take part in all three battles of the East Asia Squadron campaign, with the Glasgow being the only ship to survive all three engagements.

Aftermath

With the destruction of East Asia Squadron, Germany no longer possessed any major overseas naval forces. From that point on, direct naval action between German and Allied warships would be restricted to the waters around Europe.

Following his victory in the Battle of the Falkland Islands, Sturdee quickly rose through the ranks of the British Admiralty, becoming a full Admiral on May 17, 1917. He would command his own squadron at the Battle of Jutland (the largest naval battle of World War I) and retire as Admiral of the Fleet on July 5, 1921.

Scan-generated image of the SMS Scharnhorst wreck. Note that the barrels on the forward turret are fully elevated, indicating she was firing as maximum range when she sank.

On December 9, 2019, the wreck of the Scharnhorst was discovered, resting about 98 miles southeast of Stanley at a depth of 5,280 feet.

My Take

The story of East Asia Squadron is an interesting one to me. This motley collection of warships, cut off and half a world away from their home, nearly made it all the way back, inflicting a major defeat upon the world's most powerful navy (the first in over 100 years) along the way. Had it not been for Spee's single mistake of choosing to raid the Falkland Islands instead of sailing straight to Germany, East Asia Squadron may have done the impossible and made it all the way back to home.

That, I believe, is worth remembering.

East Asia Squadron - Part I: The Battle of Coronel

In the discussion of World War I's naval battles, much is said about the sinking of the Lusitania, the massive Battle of Jutland, and the emergence of submarine warfare. However, one often overlooked chapter involves the German overseas fleet, the East Asia Squadron.

The story of the East Asia Squadron is a remarkable one. It was this motley collection of cruisers that scored what was perhaps Germany's greatest naval victory of the war, one that was started by a chance encounter in a remote, neutral harbor.

Let's review the story of the East Asia Squadron and the Battle of Coronel.

East Asia Squadron in harbor at Valparaíso, Chile

Background

At the outbreak of World War I, the British Royal Navy was by far the largest and most advanced navy in the world. However, Germany had been making strides to catch up (as part of the Anglo-German naval arms race), and the German fleet stood as the first real challenge to British naval superiority since the Napoleonic Wars.

However, the vast majority of the German Fleet was based in the North Sea, between Germany and Britain. As a result, Germany had few naval vessels stationed elsewhere around the globe, and those were mostly older, outdated vessels that were no match for modern British battleships. The one exception was Germany's East Asia Squadron.

Outbreak of World War I

Germany's only major overseas naval force, the East Asia Squadron was formed in 1881 to protect German interests in Asia. Based in Qingdao, China, the East Asia Squadron consisted of five major warships at the outbreak of World War I: 

- SMS Scharnhorst (flagship)

- SMS Gneisenau

- SMS Emden

- SMS Leipzig

- SMS Nürnberg

Accompanying these ships were numerous smaller gunboats and support auxiliaries.

Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee, commander of East Asia Squadron

When war broke out in August 1914, the East Asia Squadron, commanded by Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee, found himself outnumbered and outgunned by the Allied navies in the region. Caught squarely between the Japanese and Australian navies, Spee and the German High Command believed that the East Asia Squadron would be quickly destroyed if they stayed in the Pacific. As a result, Spee decided to make a run home for Germany, though he knew the odds were against him.

Race Across the Pacific

Spee decided to cross the Pacific (where the vastness of the ocean would protect him from Allied naval forces) to neutral Chile and then round Cape Horn (the southernmost tip of South America) into the Atlantic. From there, he would fight his way north up the Atlantic to Germany. 

In October 1914, East Asia Squadron made it across the Pacific to Chile, where they met up with the German cruiser SMS Dresden, bringing the squadron's total number to major warships to six.

Rear Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock, commander of the Royal Navy's South American Station

That same month, the British learned of Spee's plan. In response, the British Admiralty assigned Rear Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock and his naval squadron (based in the Falkland Islands, just to the east of Cape Horn) to search the west coast of Chile for the East Asia Squadron.

Cradock's squadron consisted of four cruisers:

- HMS Good Hope (flagship)

- HMS Monmouth

- HMS Glasgow

- HMS Otranto

Unfortunately for the British, Cradock's squadron, consisting of outdated ships and inexperienced crews, was outmatched by East Asia Squadron. Furthermore, there was a misunderstanding regarding Cradock's orders: Cradock believed that his orders were to locate and engage East Asia Squadron, while the British Admiralty only wanted him to locate East Asia Squadron and engage only if the situation was advantageous.

Since Chile was neutral in World War I, both sides used Chilean ports to refuel and to collect mail, though they were permitted to stay in harbor no longer than 24 hours. On October 31, while searching for East Asia Squadron along the west coast of Chile, Cradock sent one of his cruisers, the Glasgow, into Coronel harbor to collect mail from the British consul. 

By chance, also in the harbor was the SMS Göttingen, one of East Asia Squadron's supply ships. Upon sighting one another, both the Glasgow and the Göttingen radioed to their respective fleets. Soon, both naval squadrons were racing to Coronel.

The next morning, the Glasgow left Coronel harbor and rejoined Cradock and the rest of the fleet. At 4:17 that afternoon, both squadrons sighted one another. The Battle of Coronel had begun.

The Battle of Coronel

North of Coronel, five cruisers of East Asia Squadron were arrayed against the four cruisers of Cradock's squadron, located south of Coronel (one German cruiser, the Nürnberg, was delayed and would not arrive until late in the battle). Immediately realizing that he was overmatched, Cradock faced a choice: He could take his three faster cruisers (Good Hope, Monmouth, and Glasgow) and make a run for it while his slower cruiser, Otranto, fought a delaying action, or he could stand and fight with his full force.

Relief map of the Battle of Coronel

At 5:10, Cradock chose the latter, drawing his ships in close for what he believed to be his last stand. The newer ships of East Asia Squadron had, on average, superior range to the British guns, and could better handle the rough seas in which the battle was fought. Initially, Cradock attempted to compensate for this disadvantage by quickly closing into firing range with East Asia Squadron. However, Spee kept his distance, staying just out of range of Cradock's ships. When the sun set at 6:50, Spee finally decided to engage and closed in on Cradock's squadron before opening fire.

HMS Good Hope, Cradock's flagship

Five minutes after the Germans ships began firing, Cradock's flagship, the Good Hope, was hit. Soon after, the Otranto, being poorly suited for such an engagement, retreated at full speed. As the ships continued to maneuver into position, it was the Good Hope and the Monmouth facing off against the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Emden, while the Glasgow engaged the Leipzig and Dresden.

SMS Scharnhorst, Spee's flagship

Now under fire, Cradock tried once again to close on East Asia Squadron. By 7:30 he had gotten his ships within range, but the German fire became more accurate; both the Good Hope and the Monmouth were hit several times. 

By the time darkness fell, both Good Hope and Monmouth were on fire, presenting easy targets for the German gunners, who proceeded to score more direct hits. By 7:50, Good Hope and the Monmouth, both heavily damaged, had stopped firing. At 7:57, the Good Hope exploded and sank, lost with all hands.

Meanwhile, the Gneisenau moved to join the Leipzig and Dresden, who were engaging the Glasgow. The Glasgow suffered several minor hits, while inflicting none. At 8:05, realizing the situation was hopeless, the Glasgow broke off the engagement and went to render assistance to the wounded Monmouth. However, upon arriving, it was determined that there was nothing the smaller Glasgow could do for the sinking Monmouth. The Glasgow then retreated south.

Later that night, the Germans conducted a search for the Monmouth, which they had lost track of in the darkness. Eventually, she was found by the cruiser Nürnberg (which had finally joined the battle). The Monmouth was extended an invitation to surrender, which she refused. The German ships then proceeded to open fire, sinking her at 9:18. Almost exactly five hours after the fleets had sighted one another, The Battle of Coronel was over.

Aftermath

As a result of the battle, the British had lost two cruisers, the Good Hope (Cradock's flagship) and the Monmouth. Both ships were lost with all hands, totaling about 1,600 officers and men, Admiral Cradock among them. Both the Glasgow and the Otranto escaped. The Germans, on the other hand, suffered only three wounded and light battle damage.

The Battle of Coronel by Hans Bohrdt

The victory of East Asia Squadron over Cradock sent shockwaves through both the British Admiralty and the general public, as it was Britain's first naval defeat in over 100 years (The Battle of Plattsburgh in the War of 1812). With the victory at Coronel, it seemed as if Spee's plan to escape to Germany with East Asia Squadron just might work after all.

However, despite this defeat, the British had no plans on letting East Asia Squadron make it back to German waters. Read the conclusion of the story in my next blog post, East Asia Squadron Part II: The Battle of the Falkland Islands.

537

Elections are no strangers to controversy. However, perhaps no election in recent history was as controversial as the 2000 United States Presidential election. Decided by a margin so small it defies belief, this election (and the controversy surrounding it) still stirs up debate and consternation to this day.

Let's get to the bottom of what happened in that election.

Let's revisit the recount controversy of the 2000 United States Presidential Election.

Election Night

On November 7, the night of the 2000 Presidential Election between Vice President Al Gore (D) and Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R), Florida was a closely-contested state: Final polls leading up to the election had Gore leading Bush between 2-4 percentage points, within the margin of error. 

County vote map of Florida from the 2000 Presidential Election

Soon after the polls closed in the Florida peninsula (which is in the Eastern time zone), the Associated Press called the state for Gore (based on result tallies and exit polling). However, as results continued to come in throughout the night (especially from the Florida panhandle counties in the Central time zone), the margin began to tighten. Several news networks proceeded to reverse their call, moving from "Gore" to "too close to call".

By the end of the evening, it became apparent that the winner of Florida would be the next President of the United States. At the end of the election-night vote count, Bush led in Florida by 1,784 votes. Under Florida state law, the small margin initiated an automatic statewide machine recount.

The Recount(s)

The recount was completed on November 10, after which Bush's lead was reduced to 327 votes. Following the recount, the Gore campaign requested a manual recount in four counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia.

The Florida Supreme Court building, where much of the drama played out

Under Florida state law, when a candidate requests a recount in a particular county, it is up to the county to decide whether to approve or deny the request. In response to the Gore campaign's request, Volusia began a recount on November 12. However, state law also required that all counties report and certify their returns by 5:00 PM on November 14. This was a problem, as manual recounts were very slow. Thus, there was a very real danger that the recount would not be complete by the deadline.

By November 14, Volusia had completed its recount, after which Bush held a 300-vote lead. Palm Beach had decided to perform a recount, but had not yet started, while Broward and Miami-Dade were still considering the Gore campaign's request. However, with the deadline past and the recounts in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties having not yet started, it was up to the courts to decide whether the recounts in those counties could be included in the final tally.

Over the next few days, the courts ultimately decided that the recounts could continue, but that the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, could refuse to allow subsequent recounts to be included in the final tally. However, this ruling was put on hold while the Florida Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Gore campaign. Meanwhile, recounts began in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

On November 21, in response to the Gore campaign's appeal, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that ongoing recounts in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties must be included in the final tally and gave the counties until November 26 to complete them. The next day, Miami-Dade County suspended its recount, saying it didn't have enough time to complete it before the deadline (the Gore campaign unsuccessfully sued Miami-Dade County to continue its recount).

By November 26, the recounts in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties were still incomplete. At that time, Harris proceeded to certify the statewide vote count as it stood then, which gave Bush the win in Florida by a margin of 537 votes.

On December 8, in a surprise ruling, the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the use of a manual recount in just the four counties that the Gore campaign had requested and instead ordered a statewide manual recount of all "undervotes" (ballots where no vote for President was recorded). This recount had the potential to alter the outcome of the election, as about 45,000 ballots were classified as "undervotes".

However, the next day, in response to an appeal by the Bush campaign, the US Supreme Court overruled state court's decision, ordering that the recount be halted and that the results certified on November 26 should stand as the final tally.

On December 13, in a nationally-televised address, Gore officially conceded the election to Bush.

My Take

In the years since the election, it has been debated as to whether Bush or Gore really "won" Florida. Some say that because Bush was the official leader at end of the election night count and at the end of each subsequent recount, he was the undisputed winner of the state of Florida. However, others point out that the manual recounts of Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties (which were very friendly to Gore) were never completed, and that Gore would have likely won if they were.

The infamous "Butterfly Ballot", which the Gore campaign claimed caused many voters to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan

Additionally, it's become a common misconception that the US Supreme Court "overturned" the result of the election in Florida, giving it to Bush when it was "rightfully" won by Gore. However, as you can see from this timeline, that is not what happened at all. The Supreme Court simply ended the "undervote" recount, allowing the results certified on November 26 to stand as the final tally.

Personally, I approach this like a filmmaker. When you're a director trying to get the perfect shot, you may find it or you may not. However, what you can't do is spend too much time searching for it. Eventually, you've got to take what you have, perfect or not, and move on. Otherwise, the movie won't be finished.

In the election in Florida, we could have spent weeks or months performing recount after recount with the final tally changing each time. However, certification deadlines exist for a reason. At a certain point, you've got to declare a winner and move on. You can only reasonably count votes so many times.

In this instance, we had four different counts:

The election night count (Bush won +1,784)

The machine recount (Bush won +327)

The Volusia recount (Bush won +300)

The Broward recount (Bush won +537)

In most elections, there is only one count before a winner is declared. In 2000, Florida got four, with the same winner each time. I know the margin is close, but after four counts, it's time to move on. Besides, by all rights, the winner should have been declared on November 14, the original deadline. It was a courtesy to the Gore campaign that it was extended to November 26, at which point Bush still won.

Over the years, the vote count in Florida has been debated ad nauseum, but it's all purely academic. After all, Monday morning quarterbacks don't win games.

The Killian Documents

The 2020 Presidential election is upon us and, as expected, controversy has ensued. However, rather than focus on this election, I would like to revisit a controversy from a past election, an affair that rocked the 2004 Presidential race and effectively ended the career of one of the most celebrated names in news journalism.

Let's revisit the Killian Documents.

1st Lt. George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG).

Background

In August 2004 (three months before the 2004 Presidential election), Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former US Army National Guard officer, made contact with CBS News producer Mary Mapes, claiming to have documents proving that President George W. Bush received improper treatment during his time in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG).

The documents were memos supposedly written in 1973 by Bush's then-commanding officer, the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. They claimed that Bush had disobeyed orders and that outside influence had been exerted on his behalf to improve his record. Burkett claimed that he obtained the documents from Killian's personal files via a former TexANG Warrant Officer.

Burkett had previously made multiple unsubstantiated allegations against Bush, one of which he later retracted. This led to many media outlets considering him an 'anti-Bush zealot' and an unreliable source.

In early September, Burkett provided photocopies of the documents to Mapes. Mapes informed CBS News anchor Dan Rather of the story and together they planned to air it on September 8.

CBS Investigation

Before airing the story, CBS conducted an investigation to determine if the documents were authentic. This investigation consisted of two interviews with individuals who knew Killian and an analysis of the documents by four forensic experts.

Both interviewees, Robert Strong (Killian's friend and head of the TexANG administrative office) and General Robert Hodges (Killian's immediate superior at the time), maintained that the documents could have been legitimate based on their content, but they had no first-hand knowledge that could verify their authenticity.

Opinion was split among the document experts. Two said that the documents had outstanding issues that called their authenticity into question, while the other two experts cautiously believed that the documents were authentic based on the document signatures.

Breaking the Story

Despite the mixed findings from the investigation, Mapes and Rather decided to push forward with breaking the story on September 8.

Immediately after the story was aired, several bloggers began discussing and analyzing the documents. By the next day, claims that the documents were forgeries had spread across the internet.

Animated GIF comparing one of the documents to a copy made in Microsoft Word

On the night of September 9, CBS News released a statement saying that the documents were "thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity" and "this report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources", though the latter claim was soon dropped.

By September 10, other news outlets such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Associated Press were openly questioning the documents. The Dallas Morning News pointed out that one of the officers mentioned in one of the documents was discharged a year and a half before the document was supposedly written.

Nevertheless, CBS News continued to defend the authenticity of the documents.

CBS's Defense

Media coverage of the story intensified daily. CBS attempted to have additional experts verify the authenticity of the documents, but the results continued to be inconclusive.

Meanwhile, the original document examiners began to speak publicly. The two who had expressed doubts to CBS about the documents continued to do so, while the other two stated that they had only been asked to verify the signatures on the documents, not the documents themselves.

On September 15, CBS interviewed Killian's former secretary, Marian Knox. During the interview, Knox made contradictory statements about whether she believed in the authenticity of the documents themselves and the information they contained.

The next day, September 16, Rather acknowledged that the documents could be fake, stating: "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story."

CBS Apologizes

On September 20, CBS reported that their source, Bill Burkett, admitted that he had lied about where he had obtained the documents. Burkett now claimed that the documents were not obtained from Killian's personal files, but were instead given to him by a person named "Lucy Ramirez" (multiple subsequent investigations failed to produce any evidence that "Lucy Ramirez" was a real person). Additionally, Burkett claimed that he destroyed the original documents after faxing copies to Mapes.

In an official statement, CBS News president Andrew Heyward stated that "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret".

Aftermath

Following an extensive internal investigation, Mapes was terminated, and resignations were demanded of several other CBS News staff. Rather retired in March 2005; it's unknown if his decision to retire was a result of the controversy surrounding the Killian documents.

To this day, no generally recognized document expert has positively authenticated the documents. The widely accepted view among experts is that the documents are forgeries, compiled on a modern computer using a word processing application (such as Microsoft Word), printed out, and run through a copier for several generations to make them appear older.

Despite not being directly involved with the controversy, it is believed that the presidential campaign of John Kerry was damaged by the fallout, ultimately leading to Bush's reelection in November. Some Left-leaning conspiracy theorists, including then-Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe, suggested (without evidence) that the documents were plants by Bush campaign strategist Karl Rove. Rove denied any involvement.

Nevertheless, Mapes and Rather still maintain to this day that they believe the documents to be authentic.

Mis-quota-tation

Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that would require publicly traded businesses headquartered in California to appoint a minimum number of individuals from "underrepresented" groups to their respective board of directors. 

On the surface, this is a well-intentioned move to diversify corporate boardrooms and increase racial representation at the highest levels of business. But is the new law even constitutional? And could the fate of a similar law passed in 2018 bring down this one as well?

I can tell you from experience, those chairs aren't nearly as comfy as they look.

Breaking Up the Boys Club

Back in September 2018, as the #MeToo movement was making headlines, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that required publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to appoint at least one female to their respective board of directors by the end of 2019 and at least three by the end of 2021. Many activists hailed this as a victory to gender equality.

There's just one problem with the law: It's very likely unconstitutional. 

You see, both the California state Constitution and the United States Constitution prohibit discrimination based on sex, race, and other classifications. The quota system set up by this law likely violates both constitutions by requiring that a certain number of positions on each corporate board be "earmarked" for people of a specific sex. 

Furthermore, those close to this law were well aware of its shaky legal footing. The California State Assembly floor analysis of the law admitted that "The use of a quota-like system, as proposed by this bill... may be difficult to defend.” Even Governor Brown, who signed the bill into law, said that “serious legal concerns have been raised” about the law and that “I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation.”

Standing Up

For all intents and purposes, both the California State Assembly and the Governor admitted that the bill was unconstitutional even as it was being signed into law. However, the hope among the law's supporters was that no one would choose to challenge it in court.

For almost a year, the strategy seemed to work. No corporations sounded the alarm over the law, and it seemed like all would comply (or at least pay the required fines for non-compliance, which are quite small) quietly. However, in August 2019, a group filed a "taxpayer suit" against the law, arguing that since the law is blatantly unconstitutional, the State of California cannot use taxpayer funds to enforce it.

Whether this suit would be allowed to move forward based on legal standing has been an open question (a similar suit filed in November 2019 was dismissed for lack of standing). However, this past July, the court ruled that the group did have legal standing to challenge the law, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

Dominoes

The problem for the racial diversity law signed by Governor Newsom is that it's essentially a carbon copy of the gender diversity law signed by Governor Brown, only with the gender quota replaced by a race quota. If the gender diversity law is struck down in court, the racial diversity law will almost certainly fall as well.

Just as a side note, if you're wondering were Affirmative Action fits into this, the Supreme Court held (in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke) that since Affirmative Action is not tied to a strict numerical quota and race is only one of many factors considered (that is, race alone cannot "disqualify" someone from admission), it is permissible under federal law (this is where Harvard got in trouble recently, as it has been accused by the Justice Department of engaging in "racial balancing", which is not deemed permissible based on the ruling).

My Take

For me, the purpose of this post is not to criticize the merit of diversity on corporate boards. Instead, I criticize the clumsy and unconstitutional way the State of California has attempted to mandate diversity in the boardroom. 

There are many who may argue that the ends justify the means. Well, if the means in question violate constitutionally protected rights of individuals, then what use are those rights? That line of reasoning is a slippery slope that could be used to justify trampling on the rights of any group or individual in order to achieve a "righteous" goal.

You can support an end goal without supporting every route suggested to get there. For example, my brother and I both support the principle of Net Neutrality (we both work in IT, so it's a relevant topic for us). However, he supports Title II reclassification of ISPs as a "Common Carrier" by the FCC, while I believe Congress should pass legislation protecting Net Neutrality (instead of the FCC repurposing regulation from the 1930s that was intended to regulate telegraph monopolies, but I digress...).

Ultimately, with any worthwhile undertaking, both the ends and the means must be fair. After all, if the cure is as bad as the illness, then what's the point?

Update (5/16/2020)

Today, the California law (SB826) that required publicly traded businesses based in the state to appoint a minimum number of females to their boards of directors was struck down as unconstitutional. This follows last month's strikedown of the sister law (AB979) that likewise required businesses to appoint a minimum number of individuals from "underrepresented" groups to their boards.

Over the course of the trial, the State admitted that the law had never actually been enforced and that there were no plans to do so. Furthermore, it was revealed that former Secretary of State Alex Padilla had informed former Governor Jerry Brown weeks before he signed the bill into law that it was likely unenforceable; Brown decided to sign the bill regardless as a "statement" in support of the #MeToo movement.

As of this time, the State is currently reviewing the ruling and is undecided whether to file an appeal.

As I predicted, these laws were inherently unconstitutional. While the law's supporters claimed that it was "necessary" to achieve "equitable" outcomes for women and to reverse the damage done by years of discrimination, that argument didn't hold up against the equal protection clause of the California constitution. Furthermore, presiding Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said that the State could furnish no evidence that any corporations in California were actually practicing gender discrimination in boardroom selections as policy.

The bottom line is this: You can't violate the constitutional rights of an individual or group in order to achieve a desired outcome, no matter how noble. Appointments to any position should be based on merit, not identity; to do otherwise (except where the candidate's identity is a functional requirement for the position) is discrimination, full stop. After all, the only way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating, not to replace one form of discrimination with another.

Better Late Than Never

Movies, like any other product or service, are intended to turn a profit for the businesses that produce them. Hollywood history is filled with examples of productions that were major hits, massive failures, or somewhere in between. However, often lost in the mix are major film projects that are remembered for being failures, though they actually did turn a profit... eventually. For this post, I'll discuss perhaps the two most well-known examples: 1960's The Alamo and 1963's Cleopatra.

Publicity photos from The Alamo (left) and Cleopatra (right), two films long considered failures that were actually profitable.

The Alamo (1960)

Wayne directing on the set of The Alamo (1963)

Starting in 1945, Hollywood star John Wayne had dreamed of directing a major production about the Battle of the Alamo. Over time, it had become something of an obsession for him. Realizing this dream would prove difficult, however: When he presented the idea to his home studio, Republic Pictures, they balked at the proposed $3 million production cost. Republic, which was known primarily for producing B-movie westerns, flatly refused to take the risk.

Frustrated, Wayne decided to finance the film himself, including taking out mortgages on his two houses and securing loans against his cars and yacht in the process, a major personal financial risk. However, before filming even started, Wayne's decision to self-finance the picture forced an artistic concession. 

Originally, Wayne had intended to play the smaller part of Sam Houston, so that he could spend most of his time directing rather than acting. However, Wayne's creditors refused to back the production unless Wayne himself appeared in a lead role, believing that was the best way to ensure the film's success. Desperate to get the picture made, Wayne acquiesced and assumed the role of Davy Crockett.

The exterior façade of the Alamo replica. The entire set was painstakingly recreated using over 1.25 million hand-crafted adobe bricks. 

The production's biggest expense was the set. Wayne insisted on authenticity, and ordered an exact replica of the Alamo (and neighboring village) be constructed from scratch. The project was massive, and took two years to complete. When finished, the set included 14 miles of new roads, 6 new wells to provide water for the horses, miles of water and sewage lines, and 5,000 acres of horse corrals.

The principal photography also proved problematic. Issues with the weather and wildlife annoyed the cast and crew, and filming eventually took a total of 83 days, about 3 weeks longer than planned. By then, the film's $3 million budget had ballooned to an estimated $12 million. Wayne himself was under so much pressure (both financially and professionally) that he nervously smoked cigarettes non-stop whenever he wasn't on-camera.

When The Alamo was finally released in October 1963, it earned a box office take of $7.9 million, good enough to make it the 5th-highest earning production of the year, but well short of turning a profit.

It's for this shortcoming that The Alamo is most often remembered as a failure, a distinction that always offended Wayne. When asked about the film, he was always quick to (quite correctly) point out that The Alamo was a box office hit, just not a profitable one.

Ironically, The Alamo's savior would not be the silver screen at all, but rather the small screen. Since the 1940s, film productions had been finding new life (and revenue) by being sold to TV networks for broadcast. For the movie studios, this was a great way to increase a production's lifespan and squeeze some additional revenue from it before relegating it to the archives. The Alamo followed this trend when its television rights were sold to NBC in 1971. With this deal, The Alamo finally become profitable. 

As of today, the final tally for The Alamo stands at $20 million of revenue against a $12 million budget, for a profit of $8 million. Not bad for a "failure".

Cleopatra (1963)

Taylor and Burton's real-life affair added intrigue to the film, but also helped scuttle Mankiewicz's plan to release the film as two features.

In 1958, 20th Century Fox was interested in producing a film about Cleopatra. Two earlier films about the Egyptian ruler, one in 1917 and another in 1934, had performed well at the box office. Originally planned with a modest budget of $2 million in mind, producer Walter Wagner successfully negotiated a larger budget of $5 million in 1959.

Director Robert Mamoulian was hired to make the picture a reality, and star Elizabeth Taylor, one of Hollywood's biggest names at the time, was awarded an unprecedented $1 million contract to appear in the eponymous role, her fee representing approximately 20% of the film's budget at the onset of the production (Taylor had asked for a $1 million salary to appear in the film as an offhand comment when she was initially approached by Wagner. She was as shocked as anyone when the studio agreed).

From the beginning, the production was plagued with mismanagement, illness, and creative clashes. 16 weeks into the production, Mamoulian had burned through the film's entire planned budget of $5 million, plus an additional $2 million, yet had only approximately 10 minutes of usable footage to show for it. He was promptly fired by 20th Century Fox, and Joseph Mankiewicz was brought in to complete the film.

Matters got worse in January 1961 when Taylor fell ill with pneumonia and production had to be halted; her illness was serious enough that there was a legitimate risk that she may not recover. Quietly, 20th Century Fox began making arrangements for Audrey Hepburn to take over should the worst come to pass. Fortunately, Taylor made a full recovery, albeit a slow one that delayed filming for months.

So many wooden ships were built to film the climactic Battle of Actium scene that it was said 20th Century Fox had the world's 3rd largest navy.

After taking over as director, one of the first decisions that Mankiewicz made was to move the production from England to Italy, requiring all of the elaborate (and expensive) sets to be constructed a second time. By the time filming resumed, daily production costs were exceeding $70k. Expansive scenes such as Cleopatra's grand parade into Rome and the naval Battle of Actium drained studio accounts, necessitating an "all hands on deck" effort by 20th Century Fox. All other studio productions were paused while all available resources were reallocated into Cleopatra to get it across the finish line.

With almost 6 hours of footage on hand at the end of filming, Mankiewicz intended to split Cleopatra into two separate features, called Caesar and Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra. However, 20th Century Fox objected to this plan, as star Richard Burton, whose adulterous affair with Taylor was now making tabloid headlines worldwide, would not appear in the first installment. Fearing that without Burton the first movie would be a flop (the thought being that the publicity surrounding the Burton-Taylor affair would help ticket sales), the studio ordered Mankiewicz to edit the footage into a single feature. This decision necessitated extensive re-shoots to get the film down to an appropriate length, further exacerbating the film's financial issues.

By the time Cleopatra was released in theaters in June 1963, the total cost of the production stood at a staggering $44 million (approximately $370 million today). While the film was the top earning release of 1963, its $40 million take at the box office was not enough to cover its costs. Like The Alamo, this is the reason that Cleopatra is often remembered as a failure.

Once again, it would be small screen that would save the biggest Hollywood production up to that time. In 1966, 20th Century Fox sold the television rights to Cleopatra to ABC for $5 million (then a record amount for a single film), allowing the studio to finally recoup its investment.

Delayed Gratification

Do either of these films deserve to be remembered as failures? Personally, I don't think so. Profitability isn't the only measure of a film's success (even though these two troubled productions were profitable in the end). People today (and generations to come) aren't going to judge these films by how profitable they were, but rather by how good they are. Both The Alamo and Cleopatra were received well by audiences, and that should be the lasting legacy of these films, as they'll continue to be seen and enjoyed by movie fans (like myself) long after the books have been closed.

SAFe-ty First!

This past week, my team and I at Intrado packed up and hit the road for a few days of Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) training in Scotts Valley, CA. Once on the ground in Cali, we found cold weather, big trees, good food, and some learnin', too!

Westbound and Down

The first leg of our flight to San José was scheduled to depart Mobile Regional Airport at 6:10 AM on Sunday morning. Subtract the TSA-recommended two hours to allow for check-in and security, plus another to get ready and finish packing, and I found myself getting up at 3 AM that morning. Needless to say, I was looking forward to catching some z's on the plane.

We're not nearly as happy as we look.

Despite a short delay due to an issue at the check-in desk, we all managed to make it to the aboard easily enough (if not a little drowsy). The short flight to Dallas was mostly uneventful, as was the longer hop to San José. Before we knew it, we were touching down in the Golden State.

California Dreaming

Arriving in California at around noon, we found some lunch nearby and then set out to Scotts Valley.

Reminds me of the town Rambo blew up in First Blood.

A small city of about 11,000 people nestled in the Santa Cruz mountains about 30 miles south of San Jose, Scotts Valley probably isn't what comes to mind when you think about modern technology hub. However, several major players in the tech space got their start in Scotts Valley, including Netflix, Seagate, and Borland. Today, Intrado rents a small office space at the Enterprise Technology Centre, which was our ultimate destination this trip.

Among Giants

In addition to our Intrado office, Scotts Valley is also home to an old-growth forest called Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park. Not wanting to pass up an opportunity to see some of the largest trees in the world, we set out after lunch to go for a hike.

And what a hike it was.

"The Giant"

First of all, these trees are massive. I can't describe it any other way, and pictures don't do them justice. To think that something that big is a living organism boggles the mind, and if the sheer sizes of these trees aren't enough, the ages are nigh unbelievable. 

Redwood cross section.

Near the entrance to the park, a cross section of the redwood is on display. On it are markers identifying the rings that correspond to the years of specific historical events such as the birth of Jesus, the discovery of gunpowder, and the signing of the Magna Carta. To be honest, I couldn't quite wrap my head around the fact that I was standing in the presence of something that old. It's almost otherworldly, but I digress.

We were actually freezing to death, or at least I was.

While at the park, we walked a mile-long trail that took us around some of the more noteworthy trees in the area, including the Fremont Tree, inside which the famous explorer John C. Fremont supposedly camped while exploring the west coast (when asked by a reporter to verify the tale, Fremont simply said "It's a good story, let it stand").

The interior of the Fremont Tree.

Aside from the massive redwoods themselves, I found the most noteworthy aspect of the forest to be the eerie silence. Unlike the pine tree woods of the south (which are noisy with rustling leaves and creeping critters), the redwoods are almost painfully silent, with little noise made by flora or fauna. We spotted no birds or small animals during our walk; only a small deer made an appearance just before we decided to head out for the day.

Deer in the redwoods.

Base Camp

After a full day of flying and a walk in the woods (all the while running on about 4 hours of sleep), we were all exhausted and in agreement that soft beds and room service should be our next objective. From the park, we shipped out to our hotel, the Hilton Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley.

Looks like a big stone cabin to me.

To be sure, this wasn't your run-of-the-mill Hilton. The designers obviously wanted to embrace the winter resort vibe, complete with stone brick decor and a fireside bar in the lobby.

I'm not sure if the indoor waterfall is very winter-y.

The fireside bar. Cozy!

After checking in and touching base with our other teams from Mobile who had arrived after us, we all decided to crash for the evening. 8 AM was going to come quite early.

Back to School

Arriving at the Enterprise Technology Centre the next morning, we met up with the other engineering teams from Intrado for our first day of SAFe for Teams training.

Class is in session.

The day mostly consisted of a lengthy presentation divided up by some smaller workshops. Not much to elaborate on, but let's just say that our group was looking forward to watching the college football national championship game that night.

Game Time

The evening following our first day of training, our group met up at a sports bar in Scotts Valley called Bruno's. Let me tell you, this may have been the highlight of the trip.

Geaux Tigahs!

To start, Bruno's is a two-story sports bar in the heart of Scotts Valley. While the first floor has a traditional dining setup, the second floor features big screen TVs and large, overstuffed couches to relax and watch the game on. It wasn't long before we all settled in with some drinks and great pub food for the big event. 

Having the whole team together and just enjoying the evening was a great experience. It's no secret that times have been tough at Intrado recently, but that night we were alright.

Eating Crow

The next day consisted of another presentation mixed with workshops, much like the first. For our evening excursion, we decided to head 6 miles south to Santa Cruz for dinner at a dockside establishment called The Crow's Nest.

Impressive presentation. Food? Not so much...

The members of our team who had been to Scotts Valley before had spent sometime talking up this place during the trip over, so I was fairly excited to try it. From the outside, the presentation was impressive; it reminded me of an oversized seaside cottage overlooking the harbor.

Trust me, there's an ocean there.

Unfortunately, that's where the good news ended. Our team of 6 was squeezed into a table obviously intended for 4, my Coke was as flat as a board, my steak was just okay, and when I finally got outside to take a picture of the Pacific, it was so dark that I couldn't see anything (not their fault, but still disappointing). In the end, The Crow's Nest flew the coop.

SAFe-ty First!

The next day brought our first day of PI (Program Increment) Planning, and with it, no small amount of chaos and confusion (as was expected). That said, we rallied later in the day to get some good work done and set the stage for our last working day in Scotts Valley.

Later that evening, I decided to go ahead and take the optional exam for the course to get officially SAFe certified. Confident after acing the practice test, I jumped right into the real deal with no reservations.

My badge!

About half a dozen questions into the exam I started regretting my haste. However, I managed to pull through and pass without too much anxiety. Needless to say, it was a relief to finally have my certification in hand after studying for the last two weeks and sitting through two full days of instructor-led training.

Vittoria!

We powered through our final working day in Scott Valley without too much drama. We shook hands and bade farewell to our colleges from other locations that we'd only be seeing over conference calls for the foreseeable future, but not before we had one last outing to celebrate our completion of SAFe training.

For the occasion, we found a small, authentic Italian place nestled deep in the redwoods called Ristorante Casa Nostra. 

Is there a better way to wrap up a trip?

Oh man, what a treat. Not only was the food delicious, but we were truly relaxed for the first time all week. For me, it might have been because I had my certification, but I think we were all relieved to make it through all of the uncertainty and to the end of the work week.

Homeward Bound

For the second time in a week, we had to catch a 6 AM flight. That, coupled with the fact that we were flying out of a major airport and said airport was 30 miles away dictated that I set my alarm for 2 AM. Not fun.

Nevertheless, we somehow made it to the gate on time (thanks in no small part to TSA PreCheck. Best $80 I've ever spent!), despite running into some traffic issues along the way. Once again, our flights were uneventful, but I did find a neat burger joint in the Dallas/Fort Worth airport called Smash Burger. How could I pass it up?

Gonna smash this return trip... with Smash Burger!

In the end, we touched down in Mobile at 4 PM, almost exactly 12 hours after I woke up that morning. Commercial air travel never ceases to amaze me.

Looking Back

All-in-all, I have to say that this was a great trip. I don't get to travel nearly as much as I'd like, and for my first time west of the Rockies, I was impressed. I know Scotts Valley isn't San Francisco, Napa Valley, or any of the other more "touristy" California locales, but I still got to see some sights, enjoy some good food, and add another certification to my résumé, all the while avoiding any major disruptions (which I've found is something you should always thank your lucky stars for).

Anyhow, now that I'm in the office again, it's back to the grind. Time to put that new certification to work!