"The Air Conditioned class has very little in common with the sweating masses"

A Muslim friend from that part of the world emailed me a link to the recent NY Times article about the CIA employing Afghan President Karzai's brother and prefaced it with these comments:

How simply it works: pay a collaborator to keep the insurgency going so that the issue is alive (central asian energy, China / Russia encirclement ...) and the new Great Game is played at the cost of 600 American lives this year alone... And you need not pay for the insurgency which sustains itself from the opium trade. The Taliban insurgency legitimises the West's occupation of and war on the poor of Afghanistan.

What this story points to is what's going on in Pakistan. The Military top brass and the political elite are in cahoots with the likes of CIA, et al whose agenda for the region they have adopted as their own in exchange for $1.5 billion a year [the actual amount is substantially more, of course]. The Air Conditioned class has very little in common with the sweating masses and have no choice other than be the accomplice of the ruling clique. That in essence is what is going on there.

[Note: I asked my correspondent what was meant by "war on the poor of Afghanistan" and the response is at the end of this post.]

We'd already had glimpses of that relationship in Pakistan in George Crile's book, Charlie Wilson's War. If you saw the movie, that was more like musical comedy whereas the book was a very readable, but also well researched and fact rich look into what happened in the 1980s. For some other sources on this topic see Tomdispatch which makes my point about the movie, but stronger:

Open Steve Coll's aptly titled book, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, at almost any page and you're likely to find something that makes a mockery of the film Charlie Wilson's War.

The Times story begins like this:

Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.

By DEXTER FILKINS, MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN
Published: October 27, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House...

For the whole Times article go here.



Response to the question about "war on the poor":

What I meant by the "war on the poor" is the simple statistic provided by some international article: $233 billion on the war effort and $1.5 b.on humanitarian aid. In the last three days, Hillary has changed her ways and actually engaged with the people of Pakistan by visiting a saint's shrine and engaging with students at a university rather than returning after talks with the President. She has dished out a billion dollars in Pakistan over three days (already committed but symbolically given out at universities and the like).

What I mean by the war on poor is that "collateral damage" is almost always the poor. The drones and their super efficient missiles rarely ever kill the rich. The immoral leaders of our wretched land have such rosy lives ...even in their death they have tens of doctors to let their soul out softly. Robert Mugabe is said to have a team of Chinese doctors permanently settled in Harare to give him aphrodisiacs at age 86.

As a former Finance Minister of Pakistan (and a great intellectual at Columbia Mahboobul Haq whose Poverty Curtain was akin to the drawing of the Iron or the Bamboo curtain across the developing world) once remarked privately (and told to me personally by the Minister's teacher): "Sacrifices are always paid by the poor...and thanks God I am not poor)

While million dollar tanks or hummers roll by and while the million dollar planes bomb the hell out of all, the poor have no running water or sanitation...

So all wars are essentially against the poor whose leaders are already on the payroll of the UFOs. [Unidentifiable Foreign Organization.]

At the end of the day, the world is about winners and losers. Someone makes money at the expense of the others. Although I espouse an abundance mentality (i.e. that there is enough for all of us if we just shared it fairly), the human race is about a hundred or so Warren Buffets controlling so much wealth that it exceeds many national economies. This imbalance means that someone's wealth comes at someone else's expense. Every time that a Nike shoe is bought in the US, Nike and Wallmart make x number of dollars to add to their overflowing tills (their shareholders make money) - but do the Indonesians or the Pakistanis who produce those shoes get a fair deal - or for that matter do the Wallmart employees get a better rate because their employer is better off. No their wages are determined by that immensely creative contraption of Mr. Adam Smith: the invisible hand of the market. As someone said, a sucker is born every minute: so for every fat banker there a thousand "sub-primes" and their foreclosures who have paid for flabby middle parts.

Empires are not built form nothing. In past ages they were built from the blood and bones of the vanquished, now while the poor buggers remain alive they continue to provide producers with their muscles and captive markets. [You must have heard of the Fair Trade Label whose coffee is five times more expensive than the Maxwell House on our tables ..because they pay Ethiopian traders five times what the MNCs [MultiNational Corporations] pay].

In the process of creation and consumption of wealth, some people create more than they can consume and others have to consume more than they can produce - i..e they are too poor to provide for two meals. What happens to that wealth? They invest to make it produce more wealth ...from where.

Money is not created out of thin air. So when the US spends on Mr. Karzai to get results it wants, Mr. Karzai also goes out to make his money - from whom. The drug lords who make their money from the addicts of Kabul - and New York. Technically, these addicts are rational actors but are they really? What about learned helplessness of the slaves - now called African Americans.

Highway to Highway Comments due Friday, October 30, 2009

October 30, 2009 is today. How many of you have been to one of the meetings that shows all the options? The ADN had a front page story with rough maps of their seven options today, but what do we actually know?

Rep. Les Gara wrote at Alaska Dispatch a week ago:

Lots of you are justifiably scared that state, city and private traffic planners have, well, gone loopy on us. It's time for some straight talk about threats you've heard that traffic experts would actually build a new highway through Anchorage's densest neighborhoods, and maybe even through your kitchen.

Here's the skinny. These folks aren't necessarily nuts. They're just messing with you. The National Environmental Policy Act probably requires them to pretend they are considering completely insane highway route alternatives through Anchorage that, from the mail I'm receiving, have scared the bejesus out of many of you. What they haven't told you is that most of their proposed route alternatives have almost no chance of moving forward.

I've been out of town for the last three weeks so I've only seen what it says on the website. But I'd like to add a couple more options:

Option 8: Just forget the link and use the money to improve other forms of transportation to make walking, biking, and taking the bus more feasible for commuters.

and

Option 9: This is going too fast. I haven't had time to get to one of the meetings and the website isn't clear. Push this back a couple of months and let more people get involved.

The goal, to alleviate Anchorage traffic by allowing vehicles to bypass surface streets in town, sounds reasonable. But if it means a freeway cutting through established neighborhoods or large urban parks like Russian Jack, it may not be worth it. We need to have some creative thinking that establishes a solution that works fifty years from now, not something that maybe made sense fifty years ago when no one ever heard of global climate change and gas was 25 cents a gallon.


But today is the deadline. So you if you don't know what the implications are, you could cut and paste Option 9 into an email to let them know there are people out there who haven't been to the meetings but still are concerned. Here's the address:

contact@highway2highway website.

Here's their website

Here's the Anchorage Citizens Coalition site which offers alternative ideas. But you have to send in your comments today.

Korea's Anonymous Blogger Guru

An article in Slate tells the story of a Korean nobody who anonymously became an economic blogger guru. The story also reminds us that different countries have different levels of democracy.

Until the day he was outed, the most influential commentator on South Korea’s economy lived the life of a nobody. Park Dae-Sung owned a small apartment in a middle-class neighborhood of Seoul and freelanced part-time at a telecom company. Thirty years old, he still hoped to earn a four-year degree in economics. In the mornings, he would bicycle to the public library to study for the university entrance exam. His standard uniform was slacks, loafers, and wrinkle-free button-down shirts, as though he were going to work in an office. But with his slightly chubby moon face, glasses, and neatly parted hair, he easily blended in among the rows of students. While they worked through school assignments, he immersed himself in the text of his chosen profession. . .

Then, in March 2008, Park opened an account on South Korea’s popular Daum Agora forum. Here, he decided, he would call himself Minerva, after the Roman goddess of wisdom, and write exclusively on economics, drawing on both public reports and his years in the stacks poring over Adam Smith and Joseph Stiglitz. Affecting the effortless command of a seasoned investor, he strove to project the authority that had eluded him in real life. The world economy is in the midst of collapse, he warned, so pay your debts and stock up on noodles and drinkable water. He made pronouncements on when to buy or sell a home, exchange Korean won for dollars, and pull out of the financial markets altogether.

As the financial crisis deepened, events confirmed Minerva’s prophecies all too terribly. By early fall, each new dispatch would rise into Daum Agora’s top five headlines, carried by a tide of user votes and drawing hundreds of thousands of pageviews. South Korea’s daily press began publicizing Minerva’s predictions and speculating about his identity. The more the newspapers tried to pierce the veil of Minerva, the more their readers devoured his posts, until it seemed the goddess was giving marching orders to the entire economy. . .

The rest is at the Slate link. A much shorter April 21, 2009 NY Times article fills in a little more. The story raises questions about being anonymous, about people believing anonymous bloggers, about outing anonymous bloggers, about privacy of internet accounts, and a number of other issues.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Prevention Meeting

This statewide panel called DELTA (Don't ask what DELTA stands for; it's the most convoluted acronym ever, but if you insist, go here) is made up of people involved in promoting healthy relationships (the positive way of saying preventing intimate partner violence.) I've posted about previous meetings over the last couple of years. I spent much of today at the statewide steering committee meeting.

I'm the only person who is not actively involved in work that touches on this prevention work and I'm always amazed at how much interesting stuff is being done around the state. There are youth programs where kids get training on this so they can be peer counselors and so they can be leaders of the next generation in this work. The Municipality of Anchorage has been a leader in spearheading the collection of good data in this area and developing resource material for people needing help in this area and other areas. Though budget cuts threaten the work they are doing in this area.

Despite all the work being done, it's still way underfunded considering that Alaska has two of the worst five cities in the nation in terms of incidence of rape and sexual violence. That's one of the reasons the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta is paying for DELTA to develop a more coordinated Statewide plan to combat intimate partner violence. And while the Municipality of Anchorage appears ready to abandon this, there are signs the Governor's office may have an interest.

This is about all I can write tonight - it's either got to be short and vague or much longer and more detailed than I can handle right now. Here's the cover of a report the Muni is getting ready to release. They showed it to us, but it hasn't been approved yet so we didn't get to see more than the cover.

"Allen was a sitting duck" and other thoughts about the sentencing hearing

I've posted my very unofficial and rough transcript of the sentencing hearing and one with just Allen's statement to the court. So let me now write down some of my reactions to what I saw.

He was a sitting duck . . . He was vulnerable.

Defense attorney Bundy tried to portray Allen as the victim of greedy legislators who took advantage of his zeal for the PPT (variously called the Petroleum Profits Tax and Petroleum Production Tax) and his generosity.

Bundy: There was no organizing, strategy to talk to legislators to agree on one side, that was the strategy, lobbyists do that all the time, spending billions of dollars on health in DC now, What happened in this situation, because of Mr. Allen’s obvious desire to have PPT passed, he bellied that was the right way. and they knew his history of generosity, he was a sitting duck for these people. They came to him. Mr. Kohring had to approach, Mr. Kott had to approach. 


Sedwick: What about 7 years of payments to Sen. B. Doesn’t that give us insight to what was in Allen’s mind?

Bundy: It is not illegal to pay a legislator to give advice. Nothing - Sen B was on the payroll before he became a Senator. To say Mr. Allen was an organizer way overstates his role. There was no secret he wanted to the PPT passed. The illegal solicitation was made by others. He didn’t solicit anyone. They came to him. He was vulnerable. They came to him.

I had to restrain myself so I didn't burst out laughing at this characterization. The judge wasn't buying it either.


Why didn't they mention the deal to not pursue Allen's kids?

Sentencing is based on guidelines and then factors that might kick you to a higher level or down to a lower level. According to criminaldefenselawyer:

How the Sentencing Guidelines Work
The court sentencing guidelines take into account both the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s criminal history, as well as mandatory sentencing guidelines, including federal criminal sentencing guidelines and federal prison sentencing guidelines for federal cases.
OFFENSE SERIOUSNESS
The sentencing guidelines provide 43 levels of offense seriousness— the more serious the crime, the higher the offense level.
BASE OFFENSE LEVEL
Each type of crime is assigned a base offense level, which is the starting point for determining the seriousness of a particular offense. More serious types of crime have higher base offense levels (for example, a trespass has a base offense level of 4, while kidnapping has a base offense level of 32).[There's more details at the link.]

In this case there was a lot of discussion about how Allen had agreed to cooperate immediately when he was taken in to the FBI headquarters and shown some of the tapes of him in his Baranof Hotel suite; about how much work he did for the prosecution; how he was important in getting the various convictions this investigation has gotten. So all this cooperation meant that he ended up getting more than the normal lowering of levels. OK, sort of.

But what wasn't mentioned was the agreement that was discussed in the press and at the Kott and Kohring trials, that part of his agreement to cooperate included immunity to prosecution for his children. Given that he thought they needed such immunity, I'd say this was a big benefit that he'd already gotten for his cooperation. It would seem to me that it should have been factored in. Perhaps in the agreement it was also not supposed to affect the figuring of what level he deserved. It just seemed like a glaring omission to me. Perhaps an attorney can comment and explain why it wasn't mentioned.

Comparing sentences of others to insure fairness

The judge mentioned that the public will compare Allen's sentencing with the sentencing of the others involved - Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. He said this was not an appropriate comparison because neither of them admitted their guilt, showed any remorse, or cooperated with the prosecution.

Not mentioned was Tom Anderson. Tom's case didn't directly involve Allen, though Tom had been employed by VECO during one out of session period, his case didn't involve the PPT tax or money from Allen. However, it was the first case to go to trial from this whole investigation. He got five years - two more than Allen. (Though his fine was minimal and Allen's was the maximum.)

People I've talked to agree that Anderson's sentence was high. People believe that, in hopes of sending a message to the others under investigation or indicted to cooperate, Anderson got a pretty stiff sentence. And Anderson, in his statement to the court at sentencing DID admit his guilt and remorse. And Anderson DID cooperate with the FBI for several months. Now he did stop that cooperation, but his conduct was very different from Kott and Kohring. It just seems that his sentence should also have been compared as well as Kott and Kohring's.


Bribes versus Gratuities

This was raised by Judge Sedwick because bribes raise the sentencing by 12 levels and illegal gratuities would only raise it by 9 levels. He distinguished between the two by saying (this is a rough quote) "series of large payments made to State Sen. B - over extended period to insure in general in long run, not for performance of specific acts. Illegal gratuities, not bribes." Later he said a bribe was more of a payment for a specific act, a quid pro quo.

Prosecutor Trusty reminded the judge that Allen pleaded guilty to bribery, not to illegal gratuities.

There was also more discussion about the amount in illegal gratuities to Sen B was far greater than the relatively small amounts in bribes to Kott and Kohring but if these got mixed and then separated later, it would have little impact on the sentence.

In my fuzzy understanding of all this, this seems to have some implications - others can help clarify this perhaps. First, it reminds us what came out in the Kott trial, that Allen pleaded guilty to bribing State Sen. B, who is understood to be Sen. Ben Stevens. While the damage done by the prosecutors' mishandling of the Ted Stevens evidence has raised questions about whether the rest of the investigation will indeed proceed, it should be clear that if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Sen. B, then probably Sen. B might well be guilty of receiving bribes.

(On the other hand, if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Senator B because the Feds also had information on his alleged carrying on with a 15 year old girl and they would ignore that to focus on the political corruption - this was the Public Integrity Section of the FBI and not a vice squad - then maybe it's not that strong a case on Sen. B.)

It also raises the question of whether Sedwick thinks state legislators who are hired by companies that have a strong interest in specific legislation are receiving illegal gratuities, something the State of Alaska has denied, if I have my fact straight.


This will have to do it for now. This is all speculation so if I'm headed in the wrong direction, please explain why and get me in the right direction.

Bill Allen Sentencing

[Bill Allen was sentenced today. In a previous post today, I've put up my notes on Mr. Allen's statement to the court. This post includes my notes on what transpired in court as best as I could keep track. Allen's statement is repeated in here. Rick Smith was also sentenced - 21 months and $10,000. I'll post on that later along with comments on both sessions. Picture is after sentencing, leaving the federal building. ]

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

8:30 AM

3:07-CR-00057-JWS

Judge Sedwick

Anchorage Courtroom 3

USA

vs. BILL J. ALLEN

(James Trusty)

(George Terwilliger)

(Kevin Gingras)

(Robert Bundy)

(Peter Koski)

IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE

I got into the courtroom a few minutes late. Given predictions of possible snow I debated the bus, the bike, the car. Walking was out because I knew I couldn’t get up that early. In the end I decided to take the bike and get some fresh air on the way.

There were empty seats, but not many.

Most of this is pretty technical - how the guidelines work for sentencing. Based on various factors, sentencing is based on what level the defendant falls. Factors include the type of crime and then factors such as past record, cooperation with the prosecutors (a big deal in this case), remorse, etc. So that’s what most of this is about.

The sentence in the end was 3 years and $750,000 fine. I’ll give all the details here and then do another post where I’ll try to sort through what struck me as interesting.

Note: I typed as fast as I could, but the attorneys spoke faster than I could type. This is a rough approximation of what happened while I was in the courtroom. Judging from how I did in previous court sessions, this is maybe 60% of what was actually said, but you get the gist. But wait for the official court transcripts for the certain details.

Note 2: The names of all the attorneys are above. Bundy spoke most on behalf of Allen, but Terwilliger spoke at the end. For the Prosecution, I think Trusty did all the talking.


Very Rough Transcript:

8:34am

Objection lacks merit - would have reduced by 12 levels factual basis

2 other objections
1. use of guideline 2v1.1 relating to bribes rather that unlawful gratuities. If correct, adjusted upward by only 9 levels instead of 12

role in offense - 111-113 of pre-sentence report

Additional points
Both objected to discussion of James Clark, but I agree that Clark is bound n the conspiracy of PPT thus overruled

Beverly Masek and Stevens, US Rep A - will not be considered so nee not be addressed

Allen objections to info on scheme in 1980s using VECO employees to contribute to candidates. I think it relevant and should be included

Everything else supported by preponderance of evidence

2c1.1 - bribes 2c1.2 - gratuities - hear these arguments. My preliminary feeling is that gratuities applies

Account 1 - series of large payments made to State Sen. B - over extended period to insure in general in long run, not for performance of specific acts. Illegal gratuities, not bribes. If consider Kohring and Kott, if they were bribes, a small portion.


[Trusty:] Bribe v. Gratuity - nothing irrational the way court is approaching it. I would point out, first, that he has pleaded guilty to bribe e related nothing about out gratuities, it seems to me using the language that acknowledges quid pro quo - bribe

Q [Judge asking]: Focus on payments to State Sen B - not sure anything shows factual basis were bribes.

Prosecutor Trusty: I would submit Par. 4 p. ?? most operative - chronology describing the fact of payments and describing what is received in return. Less specific than PPT but does in fact indicate payments provided in exchange for giving advice, lobbying colleagues, and taking legislative acts. The bribe doesn’t have to be exclusively wedded to a single issue before the legislature. More of a standing retaining circumstance. Amount of years supersedes or extends beyond 200? legislature. Particularly 2006.

Other point - since each guideline is going to be grouped together ultimately, if some part is bribes and some gratuities, then at the end of the day, may end up with same sentencing.

Q: Count 2 carries maximum of 5 years, second 10

Prosecutor Trusty: I think you have those reversed.

Q: Directs court to use either one or the other without saying why.

Prosecutor Trusty: I think some is gratuities and some is bribes, overall loss amount/benefits amount is grouped, means the highest grouping controls.

Q: Your view, grouping two counts which are relevant - IRS count has no bearing ?

Prosecutor Trusty: Yes, Would be setting up two groups and ultimately grouping them anyway.

Q: The overwhelming payment here is for Sen B, and it seems warrant... ??

Allen Attorney: Bundy

Court given ability to choose which to use. Theres a huge difference here in the three levels in terms of dollar amounts - 10 or 12 level adjustment. To start at bribery amount 12 instead of 9 is a huge difference. When you have a guideline range that is changed dramatically like that, the court must find a clear and convincing evidence for that. We would say it is ambiguous.

Payments over 6-7 years - here the bribe should account for all of that.

Sedwick: I agree with Bundy that for 3 level difference need more certainty. I have no evidence the Sen B money was bribe - it may be, but no evidence. If ambiguous court is required to choose the more lenient.

Will use 2C1.2 - that difference is 3 levels.

Trusty: Will the court reflect our objection?

Sedwick: Yes


2.
Particularly video tapes I think the roll adjustment is correct.

Bundy: Roll adjustment - as in the pre-sentence report, what we saw in Kohring and Kott proceedings. Mr. Allen really wasn’t an organizer of much of anything. What occurred is people approaching Mr. Allen and asking for favors.

Sedwick: ARe you telling me there was no organization, no strategy?

Bundy: There was no organizing, strategy to talk to legislators to agree on one side, that was the strategy, lobbyists do that all the time, spending billions of dollars on health in DC now, What happened in this situation, because of Mr. Allen’s obvious desire to have PPT passed, he bellied that was the right way. and they knew his history of generosity, he was a sitting duck for these people. They came to him. Mr. Kohring had to approach, Mr. Kott had to approach. 

Sedwick: What about 7 years of payments to SEn. B. Doesn’t that give us insight to what was in Allen’s mind?

Bundy: It is not illegal to pay a legislator to give advice. Nothing - Sen B was on the payroll before he became a Senator. To say Mr. Allen was an organizer way overstates his role. There was no secret he wanted to the PPT passed. The illegal solicitation was made by others. He didn’t solicit anyone. They came to him. He was vulnerable. They came to him.

Prosecutor Trusty: I would submit 4 levels is appropriate here. Question is whether Allen is a leader or organizer of a scheme.
Actions of Allen as the court knows them - reflective of court
Person in charge of doling out promises, favors,
The way others treat Mr. Allen - people who sit there and report, repeatedly to Mr. Allen. People Mr. Allen can look in the eye and say I own your hind quarters. That says something. Someone in that position wouldn’t be talked to in that manner.

I don’t know the role in 2007, but was a non-binding estimate. Being a manager, if the court went for 2 level adjustment suggests there is someone higher than the manager, and there simply isn’t one. He isn’t just one of the players. No one above. No middle ground, the scope of the scheme covers the fie participants - Allen, Smith, State Sen B, state Senators A and C.

Payments between 1995 and 2001 are not part of the criminal conduct. Consultation is not illegal, but sham consultation payments are.

When people look people n the eye and says he owns them, and he is the center of the conspiracy, no one higher than him, there is no question at all.

Judge Sedwick: I think it’s clear he was the leader, as Mr. X points out, there is no one else who could have been. It may be correct that some of the minions knew how to take advantage of Mr. Allen, but only because it was known he was willing to put lots of money into what he wanted.

Also indicate, that I disagree with argument in Bundy’s brief that it has to be proven by clear and convincing, but it is clear and convincing aNYway.

advisory from 78-97 months, this is before considering motion for downward adjustment, and he is eligible for downward because all five conditions have been met.

Mr. Trusty:

Mere threshold of making a motion, …. some highlights, undisputed . Mr. Allen made an immediate decision to cooperate, and he has cooperated in a proactive manner, testified, made himself available, about 71 consultations, consented and participated in consensual recordings, and close circuit tv in his home on about 11 occasions. Clearly, Mr. Allen is worthy of this and we have submitted a motion of 8 level departure. this is a bit different from custom of this court because it goes beyond the normal 50% standard in this court. But we think it is justified here. What makes them unravel is having an insider that makes them unravel. Mr. Allen did the right thing by way of cooperation. Also note the cooperation with Judge Sullivan. We filed a second amendment to the plea agreement, that Mr. Schuelke’s probe would be a component of the cooperation. We think it might have been covered by the original plea, but modified it just in case.

[As I understand it, Schuelke was appointed by Judge Sullivan in the Ted Stevens case, to investigate the allegations of wrongdoings on the part of the prosecutors.]

9:08

Administrative proceedings would not be part of the plea agreement or modified pa.

In our assessment, guilty pleas have been secured with Mr. Allen's cooperation. Mr. Smith was guided by Mr. Allen. Indictments of individuals. What should b e considered in the reduction -

I would suggest to the court it would be appropriate for the court to assume Mr. Allen will continue to be available - as in Weyhrauch case. That would also be determined. Rather than amorphous sentencing or excluding that.

Judge Sedwick: I assume that he will continue in that role with Mr. Weyhrauch.

I have accepted the letter form Mr. S?

Bundy: We maintain strenuously that Mr. Allen has been forthright with the govt.

Judge Sedwick: I assume that.

Bundy: Govt. papers misstated, policy in this district when rule 31.c that ordinarily in plea agreement, the court cannot go below or the govt. will drop the agreement. It will not be lower than ½ unless extraordinary cooperation has occurred. Were 311c agreement, ….??? then there is no such policy.

Judge Sedwick c1c c1b court is free It doesn’t matter.

Bundy: If this were ?? would not be constrained. No policy that prevents….

Judge Sedwick: One thing that sometimes come out where 5k1 motion, cooperating witness has run great personal risk of being assassinated or having family killed. I’ve had a case where one witnessed took a ten year minimum because he was so scared. Was Allen under such a risk?

Bundy: Not aware of such a risk, but the level of

Judge Sedwick: I understand that, but I don’t think any of the witnesses…

Bundy: None of the witnesses, but some deranged person in the community…..

Court knows from medical examination, it was much more difficult for him to go through the gigantic amounts of information.

Judge Sedwick: I’ve seen Mr. Allen testify, I understand.

Trusty: You talk about threat, we have no information that there was any such information about a threat, and of course we would have shared that info had we had it.

Judge Sedwick: didn’t suggest you hid information.

Govt. asked for 8 level reduction, Appears to be appropriate. In connection with some federal crimes, victims allowed to speak at the hearing. Unlike bank robbery, the crimes here have no individual victims, but rather the public at large. Mr. Ray Metcalfe has asked to speak. Since I find he has suffered no particular harm, I find he doesn’t have a right to speak as in various cases named….. So Mr. Metcalfe doesn’t have right to speak

Not hear from Attorneys. Also address amount of fine. I’m seriously considering maximum fine by law $750K

Bundy: I’d like to make sure, on the record, ???? Amounts attributed to Mr. Kohring. $17,000 that Mr. K asked of Mr. Allen and court found he was good for that request. But he never gave him, never loaned him, never did anything illegal to fix his medical or master card payment.

Judge Sedwick: Does it make any difference in the sentencing?

Bundy: I don’t think so. And Mr. Kott assess $???? for a job he never got, Amount court finally approved came from Mr. Allen’s testimony in the Kott trial - that clearly is not, based on the plea agreement, is not allowed to be used.
From Sen. B’s payment - most considered to be legal - all but about 10% should not be considered.

Judge Sedwick. That

Mr. Terwilliger: Thank you for giving me the privilege of appearing in this court before your honor.

Judge Sedwick: To be honest, jut about any attorney can appear here.

Mr. Trusty [Terwilliger]: Niceties thank yous. Grateful for the professionalism with which we’ve been dealt with by our colleagues from the govt. Highlight a few:

1. Important but housekeeping
a. request that Mr. Allen serve his time in one of two federal prison camps - Sheridan Oregon or Tucson, Arizona, so he can have support of family without having to travel great distance.

We know how difficult this is, consider three factors:
1. alluded already by Bundy, Mr. Allen’s age and medical conditions
2. proportionality and balance - balancing the good in Mr. Allen’s life and what has been not good - violations of the law
3. Keen sense of justice


Age - 72 years old, going on 73. From both the PSR and Government recommendations, his normal life expectancy, not counting health problems, would have mr. allen spend ½ the rest of his life in jail. All the medications he takes, impaired cognitive functions, appreciate your comments, all are going to make his service of time more difficult than had he not had those conditions and ask you to take them into consideration.

Proportion and balance - Fair to say Allen created a record, that he is extremely hardworking, dedicated, goal oriented individual, Company he built from nothing with no education remarkable. Patriarchal with family and employees. I know you’ve looked at this. He’s done extraordinary things for people out of generosity. What happened here int terms of his involvement can be explained and not excused. he became focused on this pipeline on the benefits it would bring to Alaska, and allowed himself to turn his generosity into illegal behavior. Separating illegal from while there may be a body who view the pipeline or oil exploration may think not good for Alaska. He had views which are protected by the constitution. He allowed his goals to overcome his responsibility to obey the law. So, in doing what he did, he did cross the line.

All of that wrong has to be measured against what he did when he agreed to cooperate - a decision he made without an attorney


Public Corruption is indeed a serious wrong. I spent time in the Justice Department and understand the dangers of public corruption. I was arrested by your words - C has way of eroding democracy….” no one can disagree with that. What he did when he was confronted with this, in all cases where corruption is removed, it takes someone inside who can help out.

If prosecutors thought he was the worst, they wouldn’t have made a deal with him.

What got the job done, was not the surveillance and video, it was Mr. Allen’s corruption.

We understand public opinion is very strong, the ADN tells us.

I’m struck what the Federal system means in cases like this. Federal court have always stood as a bulwark against runaway justice. the most difficult task and awesome responsibility a judge can face is to decide a person’s face in the face of strong public sentiment. We ask you to consider this.

Mr. Trusty: Housekeeping, place keeping, my understanding that federal institutions carefully

Judge Sedwick: I’ve never turned down a recommendation to house someone near family

Trusty: Mr. T puts finger on key issue - balancing wildly conflicting interests. I don’t envy the court. I think Mr. Allen can be a very polarizing figure, may be a polarizing person himself.

Picture of man who loves family, supports family. I don’t dispute. Admirable upbringing from hard scrabble to responsible positions.

But has created a swath of harm by Mr. Allen’s corruption. Harmed institutions very visibly and calls for punishment.

Assume truth lies somewhere in between. Not useful in this case. Truth embraces the extremes. It’s really both his generosity and the harm of his corruption. A difficult balance. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Important to acknowledge cooperation to erode guidelines to where they are now. But also conflicting need for punishment because he was the center of the spokes of this wheel of corruption. Whatever word we want to use, corrosive, graft, this was very devastating to Alaska.

I heard a lot about Mr. Allen’s motivation. Something he didn’t intend evil, he was pushing what he thought was good for alaska, but how he pursued it became corrupt. There is some truth - that Mr. allen, in his mind, could justify his corruption.

But bribery requires out and out greed. They trade their honor for a pittance. The birbr the man who hands out the money, decides he wants the profit despite the harm.

[Allen watching closely.]

He made that decision, not as a one time event, but a regular, corrupt process, Years of affecting the political process.

We’re not blind that there was extensive cooperation. The system anticipates the cooperation that takes place. We don’t ignore the governments position. This calculation does not ignore the benefits of that cooperation. Also strikes a balance.

We know that our guideline range is now 33-41 months, Our recommendation was 46 months. May have said “in the vicinity” we think it appropriate, difficult balance. 41 months sentence appropriate.

Ability to pay is clearly in play here. We think the maximum fine of $750K is appropriate - makes a message. Appropriate component to impose that maximum fine.

We believe under all the tangled circumstances of his history and conduct. Imprisonment in 41 months, originally said 46, maximum fine.

Judge Sedwick: Mr. Allen, you have a right to speak:


Bill Allen: I can’t talk fast. I started. . . went to Alaska in 1968, it was good timing, They needed people like me to develop the Cook Inlet. Oil companies wanted me to go in and I did, I went , I was really wanting to do oil pipeline. I didn’t know anything about politics at that time. I could see we weren’t going to get any pipeline.

Boom in North Sea. I went there. 1000 people in platforms, So it came along pretty good. I also had VECO. Hard to take care of VECO here in Alaska and company in North Sea, Tough time doing both. I think we got the oil pipeline about ‘75 and so I started trying to sell my part of the company in the North Sea. I was successful. I took that money back to Alaska and put it on the Slope. I went up there, Done it myself. Took me a year to get all the shops set up. It was successful. So I both the timing was great. When I seen that we were going to produce about 2 million barrels a day. I thought, boy Alaska really needs to make sure that they keep that. I think Prudhoe producing about 2 million, about 20 % of the oil used in the Lower 48. From that Alaska really, good deal for Alaska. Look at all the buildings, libraries, roads. When I come up to Alaska in ‘68, they thought it was great, but some of the media didn’t like oil for some reason. I don’t understand why.

When I got . . and decided if i could help with oil, I hired a lobbyist. He said the best thing I could do is fundraisers for guys who have the same minds I have to protect oil and we have a pretty good tax here. It was really balanced. Anyway those fundraisers, we did a lot of good people, legislators About that time lobbyist and I parted ways and I got more personally involved in the political process. We needed ….. and that is the reason I thought about that time I hired Rick Smith to help with the fund raisers. He’s good at that. A little more than 2 years. Big war between Times and Anchorage Daily News. Had a bigger . . .than I had. . . I had [Anchorage Times] for about 15 years. What they thought - conservative people think When Murkowski was elected. I think he done a good job. Hard headed. Other than that he done a good job. Got the three producers together. Really got together I thought man I can really… All they wanted was clarity on their oil taxes and they would build the natural oil pipeline. And they would put more money in oil - heavy oil big job, West ??/, Almost as much oil as Prudhoe but hard to produce.

So we had a . . . between oil companies and state, They need to be married. It got close. Tried to push it too far, over the line. But I did. When they nailed me in 2006, it was a 30 Aug. 2006. They give me a tape that really embarrassed me. I can’t talk anyway. When they were taping it, hell I could tell I was half drunk. I didn’t like looking at myself.

I made two decisions. I was going to do the right things. I quit drinking. I haven’t had a drop of alcohol since 2006. I’m not an alcoholic, but you do a lot of drinking. Not as good as it should be.

I’d like to apologize to you, to the people here in Alaska. Instead of me really helping them. I pushed them down really. I thought I was. I worked with the govt. 2 years. It was like a job. We probably done five to seven days a week trying to get ready for all these trials. I couldn’t [work?] full time, because of what I had to do to help them. It was hard a lot of people who were my friends. So your honor, I respectfully, go ahead and sentence me. Try to remember I tried.

Judge Sedwick. Thank you Mr. Allen.


The lawyers and some of you in the auditorium who have been at previous trials know I need to consider certain factors.

Congress chose to list:
Par. Nature and circumstances of the defendant - that’s really two factors, here they go in two direction. The effect of corruption on political process affects us all Democracy doesn’t work if corrupt. We can see that around the world. We are blessed in a country where that isn’t true. We enjoy the benefits of a true democracy. Time to time we face corruption. So this is a very serious offense.

The characteristics of the defendant points in another direction. Though not all commendable. His participation in the political campaign work in the 80s show he tried to affect that process.

To affect politics now requires large amounts of money. Large advertising campaigns.

But Mr. Bundy and Mr. T’s comments and letters of support, he is a person who is generous and has done a lot of good in the community, so this factor is difficult to assess. The balance of the offense and characteristics of the defendant.

Some in the guidelines or a little higher are appropriate. Seriousness of the offense requires relatively stiff sentnce. PROMOTION g respect for the law, just. Mr. Allen does have some medical needs.

Defendant isn’t likely to pursue further criminal conduct. He didn’t have much eduction but is very intelligent. Anyone in Allen’s position would think twice bore engaging in the type of activity in which he was engaged. Conspiracy almost always unravels. You are putting your life in the hands of other people, who are by definition are criminals.

2. US Sentencing commission - level 20, category 1 = between 3-4 months, People will compare to Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. Big differences. Mr. Allen has cooperated. Mr. Kohring and Kott had the opportunity to cooperate and they refused. Also refused to take responsibility for their crimes. Not an appropriate comparison.

What Mr. Allen did is very substantial . Rare for government to recommend level less than ½. The only thing that would have made it stronger would have been if there had been threats against his life and family.


In this case, the person at the top of the pyramid who decided to cooperate. There are no real victims, but the people in this room, except perhaps the lawyers for DC. I’m directed by congress to impose a sentence that is no more than necessary.

Mr. T asked me to consider Mr. A’s health.

to achieve all the objectives, cooperation, 3 years of prison is required. Less than that would be insufficient. Greater than that doesn’t take into consideration his cooperation and his personal conditions and the difficulty he will face in prison. The people there are not dangerous, but it is punishment, it is prison. Their daily regimen is directed by others, not them. It is a miserable existence.

The fine. The crime here committed for more than one reason. I don’t doubt that he believes he was doing things for the best interest. But so do the people of opposing views, but they don’t commit crimes. Mr. A did commit a crime and it did involve a lot of money. Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars for the people of the state. If that money had been left to the oil companies, Mr. A and his company would have gotten some of that money. 10s if not 100s of millions for his company.

If I were able to impose a larger fine I would. The maximum is $750K.

Sentence; 36 months on count 1, 2, 3, to be served consecutively, concurrently.

Probation.

Drug testing is suspended.
Required by statue, collection of DNA sample.
Submit to search of person, vehicle, place of employment on reasonable suspicion of contraband.

Until fine is paid, access to financial records.

Fine of $750K, Interest on fine will not be waived.
No fire arms.

Special assessment of $300

Conditions remain in effect until report to institution. Won’t report until told where to report.

Court advises me I said consecutively I meant concurrently.

In Sheridan, Oregon or Tucson.

In your plea agreement you waived your right to appeal. Normally , not appealable, but if you have some issue, you need to take it up in

Bill J. Allen's Statement in Court

I've just gotten back from the Allen and Smith sentencing. I've got lots of notes, but most is probably up on other sites. But let me post first Allen's statement to the Court. [For the rough, rough transcript I typed at the court of the whole session click here.]

Afterward, the judge sentenced him to three years in prison and $750,000. I'll cover that in detail later.

[NOTE: This was from typing as he spoke in court. While he spoke a lot slower than did the attorneys, he also didn't speak loudly. This is the best I could do. Not every word is here, but I don't think I've distorted what he said enough to change the meaning of the effect.]


Bill Allen: I can’t talk fast. I started. . . went to Alaska in 1968, it was good timing, They needed people like me to develop the Cook Inlet. Oil companies wanted me to go in and I did, I went , I was really wanting to do oil pipeline. I didn’t know anything about politics at that time. I could see we weren’t going to get any pipeline.

Boom in North Sea. I went there. 1000 people in platforms, So it came along pretty good. I also had VECO. Hard to take care of VECO here in Alaska and company in North Sea, Tough time doing both. I think we got the oil pipeline about ‘75 and so I started trying to sell my part of the company in the North Sea. I was successful. I took that money back to Alaska and put it on the Slope. I went up there, Done it myself. Took me a year to get all the shops set up. It was successful. So I both the timing was great. When I seen that we were going to produce about 2 million barrels a day. I thought, boy Alaska really needs to make sure that they keep that. I think Prudhoe producing about 2 million, about 20 % of the oil used in the Lower 48. From that Alaska really, good deal for Alaska. Look at all the buildings, libraries, roads. When I come up to Alaska in ‘68, they thought it was great, but some of the media didn’t like oil for some reason. I don’t understand why.

When I got . . and decided if i could help with oil, I hired a lobbyist. He said the best thing I could do is fundraisers for guys who have the same minds I have to protect oil and we have a pretty good tax here. It was really balanced. Anyway those fundraisers, we did a lot of good people, legislators About that time lobbyist and I parted ways and I got more personally involved in the political process. We needed ….. and that is the reason I thought about that time I hired Rick Smith to help with the fund raisers. He’s good at that. A little more than 2 years. Big war between Times and Anchorage Daily News. Had a bigger . . .than I had. . . I had [Anchorage Times] for about 15 years. What they thought - conservative people think When Murkowski was elected. I think he done a good job. Hard headed. Other than that he done a good job. Got the three producers together. Really got together I thought man I can really… All they wanted was clarity on their oil taxes and they would build the natural oil pipeline. And they would put more money in oil - heavy oil big job, West ??/, Almost as much oil as Prudhoe but hard to produce.

So we had a . . . between oil companies and state, They need to be married. It got close. Tried to push it too far, over the line. But I did. When they nailed me in 2006, it was a 30 Aug. 2006. They give me a tape that really embarrassed me. I can’t talk anyway. When they were taping it, hell I could tell I was half drunk. I didn’t like looking at myself.

I made two decisions. I was going to do the right things. I quit drinking. I haven’t had a drop of alcohol since 2006. I’m not an alcoholic, but you do a lot of drinking. Not as good as it should be.

I’d like to apologize to you, to the people here in Alaska. Instead of me really helping them. I pushed them down really. I thought I was. I worked with the govt. 2 years. It was like a job. We probably done five to seven days a week trying to get ready for all these trials. I couldn’t [work?] full time, because of what I had to do to help them. It was hard a lot of people who were my friends. So your honor, I respectfully, go ahead and sentence me. Try to remember I tried.


[To get earlier glimpses of Bill Allen in court, you can look at my posts on the Pete Kott Trial. There are quite a few posts and I think Day 6 was Allen's first appearance. So you'll have to scroll back a few pages to get there. Or go directly to Day 6.]

The Line Between Reporting the News and Promoting the Product

[Note: If I sound a little peevish here, it's because I'm getting into subjects that tend to set me off. Take that into consideration as you read and just discount the excesses. Thanks.]

I took a picture of this eye-catching LA Times ad waiting at LAX for our flight north. (You can double click it to enlarge.) It outlines some of the key flaws of the iPhone. I don't have an iPhone, but I'm one of those Mac users who seem overly attached to their machines. Truly, I never thought I'd have a relationship with my computer, but if it got run over today, I'd go out and buy a new one tomorrow. Even with all the snow leopard trouble I had.

But not being open source and the way they control iTunes are two of the troubling aspects that remind me that Apple is a big for-profit company. Even if they do make much more user friendly machines, they still care about my money more than they care about me. But I was curious about who was suggesting they'd fix these things. So I snapped this picture as J was saying, "Quick, they're boarding" and forgot about it.

Until yesterday morning when NPR had a segment on the Droid campaign. (You can read and/or listen at the link.)

When regular listeners to NPR, not just right wing talk show bullies, characterize NPR as being liberal, I bristle. On social issues they may lean a bit left, but on the issue of the economy, they are thumpingly pro-business and pro-market. Yes, they talk about environmental challenges and they mention labor now and then, but their news shows are heavy with promotional pieces for movies, books, television shows, new techie gadgets, etc. It seems like half their programing is based on calls they get from agents trying to book their clients. Going out and gathering real news takes more work and money. And it's much harder to do an honest negative review when the person you are reviewing is right there with you.

And they tend not to look too closely behind the curtains of corporate America unless someone else has already pulled them back. They've even added business shows like Market Place that implicitly buy into our national infatuation with making money.

Mind you, I think we need to have programs on business and the market. But not ones that echo and promote them uncritically. Rather shows that analyze not just individual businesses, but the whole economy and our assumptions about it. They've done shows that question why regulators missed the then impending economic crisis. Why did NPR miss it?

Schools too should be teaching about business and how corporations are structured and which companies own which other companies and how they manipulate images and emotions to get people to buy, buy, buy. We need to understand, as a culture the conditions under which the market makes important contributions and the conditions which require government oversight and regulation.

But NPR tends to cheerlead more than they do serious critical challenges of our economic assumptions. Listening to Democracy Now, Media Matters, and such programs gives you a sense of how anemic NPR's business coverage is. As I've said in other posts, Richard Nixon, in today's political climate in the US, would make most current congressional Democrats look downright conservative.

NPR, compared to most other mainstream sources of news today, also looks 'liberal' in comparison. But as the Nixon example points out, the political playing field has shifted waaaay over to the right since the election of Reagan; NPR is part of the shift. When All Things Considered began in the early 70s it was a completely new, somewhat irreverent news show. Now they are too comfortable in their mold and boringly predictable and repetitive, with interchangeable broadcasters (most having one of four or five patterns of speech,) and with only rare surprises.

Clearly the weaning off of government funding which forced NPR to seek corporate funding plays a big role here. They used to only say things like "Sponsored by XYZ Corporation" but now they have mini- commercials that tell you about new products and services they offer. It is no longer commercial-free radio, despite the semantic games they play about those words. I also acknowledge that a government financed network does raise other issues. But commercial radio based on advertising, as NPR has also become, has its own set of problems - not the least of which is how to report the news without jeopardizing your funding.

And this piece on Google, Motorola and Verizon's challenge to the iPhone seemed to gloss over one of the major issues about cell phone service - the cost. NPR's tech guru, Mario Alexander tells us it's all about applications.

Applications on mobile devices is really the new sweet spot, so these companies are really going to start competing on who is having the most relevant applications, the easiest to use applications, and the best applications that meet users needs. And so I don't think it's necessarily just about the device. The device is a big deal, but I think it's more about the applications and what you can do with the device.

What about competing on cost and plan simplicity? OK, I think some of the things they talked about were potentially important. Rene Montagne asks why Google is getting into the phone business and Mario says that's all about search.

Google wants to own the search business and the mobile device is becoming more useable for searching for information.

You're finding that more and more people are going to their mobile devices versus going to their computer to find relevant information that they need while on the go. So they want to dominate the mobile market like they've dominated in the desktop market.

But what's main issue?

So the bottom line is we're going to have more choice. You have the iPhone store, the Microsoft place for applications, RIM has a store, Palm has a store. It's going to be a very interesting fall and certainly an interesting 2010.

Choice of what? Not good, inexpensive plans. Montagne then gets close to the important question:

MONTAGNE: And if - what - you just need a phone?

(Soundbite of laughter)

MONTAGNE: I guess they're out there, right?

(Soundbite of laughter)

MONTAGNE: So...

Mr. ALEXANDER: Just to make calls.

MONTAGNE: Well, you know, any tips on how one decides?

In the end Alexander says:

I think it's going to come down to really three things: simplicity with style, useful features, and then the applications that make a difference in your life.

For me, the glaring issue about cell phones is how people in the US have relatively little choice about cost. Sure, there are lots of choices in plans, but all those plans mean a fairly hefty minimum payment and they are all designed to keep adding minutes to your phone experience (just time the voice mail features and add up the all the extra seconds people take waiting for those recordings and then multiply them times the hundreds of millions of calls made every day. There's a reason why they don't say "Leave message now.") There are precious few choices for just a phone with low cost minutes where I can easily keep the costs pretty low. For example this March 2009 LA Times article on a study of cell phone usage found:

When you do the math, you find the average cellphone customer actually pays more than $3 per minute, according to a report being issued this week by the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a San Diego consumer advocacy group.

In Thailand I could buy a relatively cheap prepaid card and call at rates that were, compared to US rates, very reasonable. (Though from 2008 to 2009 it was clear the Thai phone companies are watching how the US companies have made phones into money conduits from customers to companies.) When I ran out of time, I could 'fill up' at one of the ubiquitous phone shops. But in the US, that kind of plan is so expensive per minute that it 'makes sense' to 'choose' packaged monthly plans that have innumerable hidden traps to siphon your money.

These are hard economic times and they're promoting the $100/month product that everyone needs to have that didn't even exist 20 years ago.

But NPR didn't even mention cost competition. The marketing and cost, I guess, is a given and not a factor in the choice consumers have. Why didn't the whole issue of cost and how phones plans are designed come up in this piece? Because this was pretty much a fluff piece promoting how cool phones are. Phones are one of the biggest rackets to transfer money from consumers to the large corporations going on in the US today.

A Sign of the Difference Between Palin and Parnell

Arriving in Anchorage September 8, 2008.

Arriving in Anchorage October 26, 2009.

The Gate is Done

Here's what the gate at my mom's place looked like a week ago. The 50 year old gate was heavy, caught on the ground, and was very hard to open. And an almost dead tree was pushing the fence into an awkward angle.

Here's Brian finishing the new gate. (For other earlier views see Gate Almost Done)

The gate got done before I left LA. The latch was having trouble closing on its own, so Brian brought in some bike cable and some other small equipment to give it more weight.

Will Kim Ng Be Baseball's First Female General Manager? [Update: Not this time]

I got this from my favorite Dodger fan:

Source: Padres interview Kim Ng for GM job

By BERNIE WILSON, AP Sports Writer Oct 18, 1:53 am EDT


SAN DIEGO (AP)—Kim Ng interviewed for the San Diego Padres’ vacant general manager’s job on Saturday, giving her another chance to become the first female GM in major league history.

Ng, the Los Angeles Dodgers’ assistant general manager, interviewed with Padres CEO and vice chairman Jeff Moorad, according to a person familiar with the process. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the club is still in the process of finding a replacement for Kevin Towers, who was fired two weeks ago.

Both Ng and Moorad declined comment when reached Saturday night.

In her eighth season as vice president and assistant GM with the Dodgers, Ng is one of only two women executives in major league baseball to hold such a position in baseball operations.

A little more information on Kim Ng can be found at Alyssa's blog at MLBblogs (including the photo):

At the luncheon, Kim Ng was honored for her excellence in raising awareness for women in sports. For those of my blog readers that may not be Dodgers fans and don't know, Kim Ng was the youngest person to present a salary arbitration case in the major leagues at age 26. She has three World Series rings from when she was the Yankees assistant GM. She is the first woman to interview for a general manager's position in Major League Baseball history. Recently, she was picked as one of the most influential people in the game by Baseball America. AND Kim Ng is the Vice President and Assistant General Manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

I have always been an admirer of Ms. Ng. I would imagine that she doesn't want to be known as a trailblazer. Like any woman who has achieved absolute greatness, she wants to be recognized for her brain and talent, not her gender. But, my God, what an amazing role model she is for women everywhere.

There's more at Alyssa's blog.

For those, like me, who don't follow baseball that closely, she wouldn't be the first Asian-American general manager.

[Update 11:15am: Anon in a comment below let me know that Jed Hoyer got the job.]

For My Blogger and MSM Friends

I posted (as did other bloggers) Dennis Zaki's video of a local TV reporter asking Lisa Murkowski to say and spell her name and then to state her title. We all expressed dismay at a reporter's lack of preparation when interviewing, in our state, a US Senator from our state.

A number of people with journalism training defended her action as standard operating procedure for testing the mic and getting the data onto the video.

I think we might all do well to take Rogers and Hammerstein's advice to farmers and cowmen:




[We arrived a little early to a balmy 42˚F (5˚C) Anchorage.]

Orchard's Bistro and Angel Street

Last night we were having dinner at the Orchards Bistro in McMinnville, Oregon. We'd stopped at the Gallery Theater a few blocks away before dinner to try to buy tickets for the play "Angel Street" but it was closed. Our terrific waitress asked if we wanted dessert. We had an hour to curtain time. So I said, "Well, if you could call the Gallery Theater and ask them if they can hold two tickets for us, we'd love to have a little dessert." She brought me her cell phone with the number punched in. I hit the green button, but nobody answered. "Hi, this is Steve, we're at the Orchard Bistro and would like to have dessert, can you hold two tickets for us for tonight?" Five minutes later the phone rang. "Hi Steve, this is Paula. I've got two tickets for you, enjoy your dessert."
And Paula was in the ticket booth when we came and had our tickets. She's also the director and showed us around. The play was written in 1938 and was the basis for the movie Gaslight in which a husband is trying to drive his wife crazy.
The set was really well done. The husband and wife were both excellent actors and it was done with English accents, including the two servants, one of whom sounded like she had studied old Upstairs Downstairs episodes and one who had a believable Cockney accent I believe. The actor who played the inspector was, if I read the program right, in his first major role and he showed us why the other two were so good. He accent, elocution, mastery of the script were all of a much lower level. But it didn't ruin the experience. For $13 a person, this is live theater for just a little more than a movie.

I took this about 15 minutes before curtain time so this isn't the whole audience. We had a delightful evening.

We're at Portland International airport right now which still has free wifi and, if all goes well, will sleep in our own bed tonight.

A Low Point in Alaska Journalism

Yesterday there was a news conference with Lisa Murkowski. The brains and brawn behind the Alaska Report attended and made this tape of a local Anchorage TV journalist who asked Lisa Murkowski to "Please state and spell your name." Then, "And for the record, your title."

I understand that many Americans cannot name their representatives or senators, but a journalist?! This is pathetic.

Dennis writes that Sen. Murkowski smiled when she saw him cracking up. Watch and listen for yourself. This is a sad day in Alaska journalism.

LA to Portland

We got to the airport a bit early, so we walked
around enjoying the beautiful weather.

The waterway breaking the beach goes into Marina del Rey.

Half Dome as we fly over Yosemite.

Welcome to Oregon.

Actually, the clouds broke up as we landed in Portland.

Our good friend Marty was there to pick us
up and take us home for the night.

Surfing with Dolphins

We biked down to Venice Beach Thursday to enjoy the beautiful weather before heading back north again. The dolphins were out enjoying the weather too, along with the surfers.

There are no dolphins in this picture, just a guy about to catch a nice wave.

Then we rushed off to visit our relatives and some friends. By the time you read this we should be in or near Portland.

Free Enterprise, Hard Times, and the Rules

Brian the WLA Bikeguy has a tiny bike shop in a garage on a residential street, but right close to a commercial street. Brian's a vet, he's been through hard times, but the VA has helped him through alcohol rehabilitation and he's set up this bike shop. He's also got good carpentry skills and I hired him to replace my mom's side gate. So I've been seeing a lot of him the last five days. He's bright and and knows a lot about a lot of things. He catches all the references I make whether it's art, music, geography, or history and drops his own set of references.

These are hard economic times. In addition we're trying to reduce the amount of energy we use to become less dependent on the middle east and to reduce global climate change. LA has lots of traffic.

So Brian gets used bikes - through thrift shops, Craigslist, and people he knows. He fixes the bikes and sells them for a small profit. This has a number of advantages to the community.

1. He's not homeless and he's feeding himself.
2. He's providing a recycling service - taking old bikes that would otherwise end up as junk and putting them back on the market.
3. He's providing a low cost option in hard economic times. Not everyone can afford $300 - $3,000 bikes. Brian provides low cost bikes which give people a means of transportation. In Southern California, the weather is not an issue, so people could ride more if they could get inexpensive bikes.
4. If enough people ride bikes, there will eventually be a critical mass where they are taken seriously and infrastructure is adjusted to make bike riding safer, more convenient, and a reasonable alternative to the car for many trips. As that happens, even more people will ride bikes.

(I would add here that Brian has made it clear to me that he is very careful about where his bikes come from. Bike theft is, apparently, an issue in the LA area, and he assures me that while he can't be 100% sure, he does his very best to stay away from hot bikes. He keeps receipts for the bikes he buys. Maybe he should take pictures of the bikes and sellers too.)


But Brian's garage which he gets cheap through a relative, isn't zoned for a shop. And essentially, this is, de facto, an underground business that doesn't pay taxes at this point. While other bike shops could complain it's unfair competition, I strongly suspect rather than taking away their customers, he simply offering a supply to people who otherwise wouldn't buy a bike. And as I said before, the more people ride, the more other people will see it's doable and will buy bikes. So the total demand should increase.

Given that the feds thought things were hairy enough to pony up hundreds of millions to prop up banks and car companies during hard times, doesn't it make sense to note the extraordinary times and look the other way for situations like this? Or even have an official waiver until the economy gets on its feet? Or until the Brians of the world have a little more solid ground underfoot? If the big boys can get a break, how about the little guys?

Sometimes some rules which in isolation make sense, don't make sense when taken into context of all the issues facing a community. I suspect that what Brian's doing is in the overall balance of things, a net gain for the community.

I'm not the only one who thinks vets should get a break. From Thursday's LA Times:

For 16 years, Connell sparred with the state Board of Equalization over the interpretation of an 1872 statute exempting street peddlers who are disabled veterans from paying various taxes. This morning, he’ll celebrate his victory by giving away hot dogs and carving up sheet cakes decorated with the Stars and Stripes. Politicians who supported Connell’s cause will speechify on a platform set up at his Surf Dog stand, a cart commanding an ocean view that would be the envy of any five-star hotel.

“This was a real David-and Goliath struggle, and Bill never gave up,” said state Sen. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater), chairman of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee. “It’s an emotional issue for him and it’s an emotional issue for all veterans.”

Denham sponsored a bill, inspired by Connell, allowing veterans with service-related disabilities not to pay sales taxes when peddling things such as T-shirts, tacos and incense on the street. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it into law earlier this month.

Brian's situation isn't exactly the same - but he's definitely a pedelar and arguably a peddlar.

One who offers merchandise (as fresh produce) for sale along the street or from door to door (from Merriam Webster online.)

The intent of the law is certainly the same - to help people, particularly disabled vets, to make a living in hard times.

Note: The cops have been by Brian's place a few times, so this post isn't blowing his cover. Instead of being shut down, he needs the police to work with whatever other agencies are out there to help Brian get to where they can accept what he's doing as in compliance.