Redistricting Board Goes To Redistricting Seminar in Salt Lake City Next Week

I was tempted put the word 'junket' in the title, but I wasn't sure everyone would know that I was just joking.  This is a serious conference that the Board members and staff should attend.  Not only will they get more information about the latest ideas on redistricting (like how the recent US Supreme Court decision to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act might mean), but also to meet people from other states doing redistricting.   

The latest announcement from the Board:

"Alaska Redistricting Board Member Attendance at NCSL

A quorum of the Alaska Redistricting Board will attend the "Get Ready to Redistrict" seminar hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures in Salt Lake City Utah from Wednesday, July 14 through Friday, July 16 for educational purposes only.  No Board action will be taken.

What: Educational seminars, NCSL Redistricting Conference

Where: Downtown Marriott at City Creek, Salt Lake City, Utah

When: July 14 - July 16, 2021"

While this is NOT a board meeting where official action will be taken, all the Board Members, apparently, are going to Salt Lake City, so they are required to post an announcement.  It's one of those sticky areas.  Surely, they will have three or more members together talking about what they learned.  Maybe over lunch or dinner.  And those conversations should be available to the public by law.  

When legislators go to such conferences, only a few go to anyone single conference, so there's usually not a quorum.  Perhaps it would be useful for a Board member or the staff to do some unofficial minutes of any meetings of three or more members to let the public know what they're learning and how they think it affects what they'll be doing.  

The conference is put on by the NCSL (National Council of State Legislatures).  Their mission is:

"NCSL: Our Mission

NCSL, founded in 1975, represents the legislatures in the states, territories and commonwealths of the U.S. Its mission is to advance the effectiveness, independence and integrity of legislatures and to foster interstate cooperation and facilitate the exchange of information among legislatures.

NCSL also represents legislatures in dealing with the federal government, especially in support of state sovereignty and state flexibility and protection from unfunded federal mandates and unwarranted federal preemption. The conference promotes cooperation between state legislatures in the U.S. and those in other countries.

In addition, NCSL is committed to improving the operations and management of state legislatures, and the effectiveness of legislators and legislative staff. NCSL also encourages the practice of high standards of conduct by legislators and legislative staff."

This organization has traditionally been bi-partisan, with the goal to promote effective and efficient practices in state legislatures.  I haven't kept track of them lately, but their values used to be (and probably still are) following the rule of law for the public interest.  

Highly partisan organizations, like ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), have tried to mimic the look of NCSL, but with a heavily partisan twist.  While NCSL offers states model legislation to neutrally (as I said above, to promote the rule of law and the public interest) ALEC offers model legislation that pushes the agenda of their sponsors, like the Kochs.

Here's the agenda for the conference next week. (You have to scroll down the page and then select the day you want.  This is pretty long, so you might consider reading these on the days they are happening.)

Wednesday, July 14

2-3:30 p.m.: Optional: Redistricting Basics

If this is your first redistricting cycle, join us for this session. Experienced legislative staff will provide a foundation on redistricting based on NCSL’s Redistricting Starter Kit.

3:45-5 p.m.: Option A: Race and Redistricting: Civil Rights Groups Speak

French fries and ketchup. Sunscreen and the beach. Redistricting and lawsuits. Three classic pairings. Hear from groups that represent minority communities in the U.S. on what they’re focused on this decade when it comes to redistricting. Who knows—maybe what we learn will forestall a lawsuit or two.

3:45-5 p.m.: Option B: Census Redistricting Data Program Evaluation | Primary Topic: "Geography"

In this session, census redistricting program liaisons and other users of census redistricting geographic data are invited to come talk through the strengths and weaknesses of the already completed geographic definition and delivery of geographic materials from the 2020 census. Feedback on the 2020 redistricting data program's geographic operations will be used in the formulation of the 2030 census redistricting data program. Feedback is also welcome on other aspects of the program.

5-7 p.m.: Welcome Reception

Thursday, July 15

6:45 a.m.: Optional Morning Run

Studies show exercise improves brain functionality. This run, though, is all about going slow and being social.

7 a.m.-3 p.m.: Registration

7:30-8:45 a.m.: Breakfast and Welcome

Eat first, then at 8:15 a.m. we’ll welcome everyone and review what's ahead

9-10:15 a.m.: The Census

Option A: Census and Data for Beginners

Are you a non-data expert working on redistricting? This session is for you. Learn what data the census will be released, a bit about how it can be used and an introduction to other types of data used in redistricting so you and your data colleagues can communicate effectively with each other.

Option B: Census and Data for Experts

In this advanced session, we’ll cover differential privacy (and if it makes a difference), working with race and ethnicity data, how election turnout impacts the accuracy of political data, and the use of party registration as a data layer. Warning: nerding out likely.

10:30-11:45 a.m.: Take Your Pick

Option A: Meet with Your Redistricting Software Experts

Your state has probably chosen its redistricting software by now. Here’s your chance to meet your software vendor, discuss its features and pick up tips. These sessions will be run by the vendors themselves, not by NCSL.

Option B: Short Takes on Three Key Issues

Gain insight into three issues that are easy to overlook: local redistricting (yes, it’s required by law); the “hand off” of redistricting data to election officials so they can prepare for next year’s primaries; and why some states are adopting inmate data reallocation laws.

Noon-12:45 p.m.: Lunch

1-2:15 p.m.: Choose Your Own Adventure

Option A: Balancing Conflicting Criteria

Criteria (or principles) are the rules of the road in redistricting, and they vary by state. Sometimes, though, they pull in opposite directions and it’s hard to comply with them all. Hear veterans of the redistricting process explain how to strike a balance between potentially irreconcilable mandates.

Option B: Data Details

What can redistricters learn from data sources beyond the census? For instance, in redistricting, what does voter registration provide and how does it differ state to state? Does it matter whether votes were cast by mail, in-person on Election Day or during an early in-person voting period? How does party enrollment data inform decision-making? Is there a way to know just how independent the non-D and non-R voters are? What’s turnout got to do with it? Dig deep with data experts.

2:30-3:45 p.m.: Redistricting Litigation in the 2020s

Redistricting litigation for the 2010 cycle didn’t end until 2019. Will the coming cycle be just as intense? Hear nationally recognized litigators discuss the current state of the law, new trends to watch in the 2020s, and possibly make predictions for the future.

4-5:15 p.m.: Threading the Needle: The Voting Rights Act and Racial Gerrymandering

Two federal requirements governing redistricting involve race. The Voting Rights Act directs states to ensure that certain minority groups have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, whereas the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits race from predominating during redistricting decision-making. Confusing, right? Listen as two expert litigators parse the nuances created by the U.S. Supreme Court and how states can walk the legal compliance line.

5:30-6:30 p.m.: Connecting With Your Peers

Option A: Republicans

This is an ancillary session run by Republicans, for Republicans. For more information, contact Kylie Bongaart.

Note: This is not an NCSL-sponsored session.

Option B: Democrats

This is an ancillary session run by Democrats, for Democrats. For more information, contact Jeff Wice.

Note: This is not an NCSL-sponsored session.

Option C: Nonpartisan Staff Reception

If you’re a legislative staffer and don’t belong at the partisan sessions, get to know your colleagues from around the nation.

Evening on your own

Friday, July 16

7 a.m.: Optional: Walking Tour

See the sites with Brian Bean, a staffer with the Utah Senate. Meet in the lobby.

7:30-8:45 a.m.: Breakfast

Eat first—then at 8 a.m., choose which break out session at attend.

8-9:15 a.m.: Getting Along

Option A: Lowering the Temperature When Legislatures Redistrict

If you read the press, redistricting boils down to just one thing: power. Is that really true? Bring your breakfast to hear from legislators who have threaded their way through the trials and tribulations of legislative infighting.

Option B: Working With Your Commission

In states where commissions have primary responsibility for redistricting, what’s the legislature’s role? Bring your breakfast and hear from former commissioners and legislators who worked with commissions to find out how colleagues in prior decades stayed engaged while respecting the legal division between line-drawers and policymakers.

9:30-10:45 a.m.: Unseen Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

You don’t know what you don’t know. Fortunately, there are people who have done redistricting who DO know what you don’t know. Attend this session to learn from attorneys the pitfalls that can trip up the best-planned redistricting process—so you can avoid their mistakes.

11 a.m.-Noon: Legislative Privilege and Transparency

Legislative privilege is a critical part of the lawmaking process. Without it, policymakers wouldn’t be free to ask candid questions and talk openly with their staff. And yet, in this cycle “transparency” is being heralded. Learn the nuances of this area of the law so you can better understand what will happen when you end up in court over redistricting.

12:15-1:30 p.m.: What Court Will Look Like (and Box Lunch)

Odds are, you’ll be sued over redistricting. What will that lawsuit look like? This panel of litigants, litigators and a judge will walk you through the life of a redistricting lawsuit so you have an idea of what may happen if your maps end up in court. Bring in your box lunch.

1:30-2 p.m.: Ask Us Anything

Faculty will answer anything anyone cares to ask so we leave the Beehive State with exactly the information you need for the redistricting work about to begin.

3-4 p.m.: Optional: Tour of Utah State Capitol 

Alaska's $400K Donation To Support DC Law Firm's Anti-Obama Care Campaign

How else can we explain this? 

Alaska Superior Court judge Frank Pfiffner soundly rejected the Legislative Council's court challenge to Gov. Bill Walker's expansion of Medicaid in Alaska.  The expansion will proceed next Tuesday, Sept. 1.  Some 40,000 Alaskans will gain access to affordable medical care.  The state will get an influx of over a billion dollars.

But it appears the Republicans want to appeal.  The ADN online post of Aug. 29 ADN reports

"By the end of the day, the Alaska Supreme Court had already received the Legislature’s request for emergency review and ordered Walker’s attorneys to respond by Monday at noon."

[UPDATE Tuesday Sept 1, 2015:  The ADN reports the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the Governor's attorneys to let Medicaid expansion begin today, Sept 1.  They did not rule on other parts of the suit.]

In either case, the $400K has been appropriated to the DC law firm Bancroft PLLC.  I posted a bit about them two weeks ago.  The Nerve reported in Jan 2013 that Bancroft PLLC had charged South Carolina over $3 million to defend their voter id law. 

"Bancroft PLLC, located in Washington, D.C., billed a total of 6,290 hours from September 2011 through last September at hourly rates of $520 for attorneys, $200 for research associates and $180 for paralegals. With other litigation costs thrown in, the firm's total invoice came to $3,419,439. .  .

Federal online court records show that eight Bancroft attorneys represented the state in the voter ID case, which, based on a total cost of $3,419,438.28, works out to an average cost of $427,429.78 per lawyer."

If you read that quickly, you might not have realized that 6,290 hours equals 157 forty-hour work weeks, just about three years of work in about 13 months.   Divide that by eight (for eight attorneys) and that's over 19 weeks per attorney - almost five months full time each.  OK, I realize attorneys bill more than 40 hours per week and that there were paralegals and others.   But also note it was a Bancroft attorney who lost a case over billing when he charged for his commuting time.

One wonders how the Alaska legislature will monitor the bills from Bancroft.  Basically we're paying them for research work they will use to fight Obamacare in other states.  Again, I realize that's how things work, but I don't think most Alaskans want to be making this sort of subsidy to this sort of firm.  It's especially galling since a) it's likely to lose and b) for most Alaskans, based on their views on Medicaid expansion, it would be worse if they won. 

Do our state Republican legislators even care?  I don't think so.  This is a way for the firm to get its new friends in the Alaska legislature to move money from Alaska's treasury to theirs.  Nothing Chenault and gang say to defend their actions makes sense on the face of it.  Herz quotes House Speaker Chenault as saying,

“We are by no means looking for a way to stop Medicaid expansion; we are trying to do it the right way so that we have a reliable, sustainable system.”

Yeah, sure.  This appears to  really be  part of a national ideological fight against Obamacare. Every state that signs up for Obamacare is a loss for these anti-Obamacare forces.  I'm sure they've come to the legislative leaders and convinced them (using logic? promises of future support?) to fight this Medicaid expansion at all costs. That's why they hired Bancroft, the key law firm that specializes in anti-Obamacare lawsuits.  Who were the brokers who connected Chenault and his merry gang with Bancroft?  The same folks who pushed them to fight the expansion in the first place?  Even though a strong majority of Alaskans favor Medicaid expansion?  I'm sure Koch funded groups like Americans for Prosperity who opened an Alaskan office this year played a role.  Sourcewatch writes:

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Americans for Prosperity "spent a staggering $122 million (in 2012) as it unsuccessfully attempted to defeat President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats," including $83 million on "communications, ads, and media."^[3]
http://www.bancroftpllc.com/scott-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/
 to the US Supreme Court.  They lost the critical one NFIB v Sibelius that would have shut down the Affordable Care Act  and won the second Scott v. US DHSS. 

Note:  Bancroft was the anti-Obama care law firm in both those suits - NFIB v Sibelius and Scott v. US DHSS.

[Addition 7pm - I forgot to mention that the Governor got an Anchorage law firm to work with the AG's office to represent his (our) side for free.  People of Kenai, really, are you going to reelect Chenault?]


Note 2:  The South Carolin Voter ID law mentioned above:  A Washington Post article reports that while the Department of Justice rejected the law in Dec. 2011, a unanimous three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for DC approved it October 2012, but delayed implementation.]

I'd also like to salute Nat Herz who did a great job of sending out tweets from the judge's reading of the decision on Friday.  He also tried to live feed it, but I wasn't around for it live, so I'm not sure how that went.

Screenshot of Nat Herz tweeting from the courtroom Firday

Alaska is now the 30th state to accept Medicaid expansion

An email this afternoon from my Alaska State Rep, Andy Josephson says:

"Today, Alaska Governor Bill Walker announced plans to take advantage of federal funding to expand eligibility for Medicaid in Alaska. This action is supported by the Alaska Independent Democratic Coalition, which made Medicaid expansion a priority during the First Session of the 29th Alaska Legislature. Medicaid expansion comes with tremendous benefits including over a billion dollars in new federal revenue over the next six year, the creation of 4,000 jobs, and $1.2 billion in additional wages and salaries. Studies suggest Medicaid expansion would result in $2.49 billion in increased economic activity across Alaska.

There are multiple legal opinions showing that the Governor has the authority to expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion is supported by the public and, I believe, a majority of lawmakers but that did not sway the Majority leadership, which refused to allow an up or down vote on the matter. I believe the Governor’s decision is justified based on the merits of the argument and the inaction of the Alaska Legislature. . . ."

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate in Juneau refused to pass this and fortunately Walker has found a way to do this administratively.  They have been and still are wrong on so many issues:  climate change, medicaid expansion, oil taxes, big construction projects, passing budgets that ignored warnings about declining oil revenues year after year, etc, etc. etc.  Influence from major donors/lobbyists (oil and construction particularly) or national far right wing pressure like the Koch's ALEC keep them from getting it right, from making decisions that benefit Alaska in the long term.   One can make micro-level arguments for many of the things they did or didn't do, but the long term evolution of things has proved their blindness to the larger issues.  

I make that fairly sweeping statement in light of this example of the Alaska Republicans who spearheaded the move for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and who fought the addition of lgbt folks to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance:

"On Thursday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission unanimously ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is already illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner reports, the EEOC's groundbreaking decision effectively declares that employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers is unlawful in all 50 states."  [From Slate]

I guess the Anchorage ordinance has been effectively amended, at least in employment.  

And in light of Obama's visit to the Federal Correctional Institution El Reno near Oklahoma City to highlight the horrendous outcomes of the simplistic War on Drugs and Three Strikes You're Out programs which gave non-violent drug offenders long prison sentences.  This resulted in (Obama's stats) the US, with 5% of the world's population having 25% of the world's prisoners.  In ripping apart families, huge costs of prisons, and so many lives wasted behind bars.  And the Right's solution of privatizing governmental functions including prisons, meant there was now a new industry with a vested interest in expanding the prison population.  This is also in light of the legalization of marijuana in a number of states - both medical marijuana in many states and recreational marijuana in a few. 

National Right Wing Context Of Alaska State House Sustainable Education Task Force Report

This is Part 2 on the Task Force.  Part 1 gives an overview of the different contexts of this report and focuses on the task force membership.  All three House members are Republicans and the other members, if not all Republicans, heavily lean that way.  This is clearly a House Majority task force (as the url says) and not a House task force.

In this post I want to look at the national context of this report which includes advocating for school vouchers and charter schools as well as cutting the education budget. 

Nationally the attack on public schools comes from different aspects of the right. 

• There’s the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
• There’s ALEC’s free market educational philosophy and agenda.
• There’s the religious right’s attempts to get vouchers to pay for private religious schools, and ongoing efforts to add prayer and 'intelligent design' to public schools. 

No Child Left Behind - had standards that were guaranteed to label more and more public schools as ‘failing.’  There's plenty out there on this point. You can look at this example in Vermont  or this one about Texas.

Diane Ravitch served as Assistant Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush and advocated for NCLB testing and for charter schools.  Since then she's changed her assessment and written a book called:  The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education.  Here's a bit of what Diane Ravitch told NPR.

RAVITCH: When I believed that they would work, they hadn't been tried. Once they were tried, I was convinced that they didn't work and, in fact, not only were they failing, but they're ruining American education and they're actually leading the way today towards privatization of public education, which I think would be a disaster.  [In the context of the interview, 'they' refers to 'these ideas,' which seems to refer to standardized testing and charter schools.]

Many people, like Ravitch, believed this would help schools.  But I believe there were others who intended this to label public schools as failing so that it would be easier to get voters to approve voucher systems that would take public money and give it to private schools.  We’ve seen what a monumental failure that was with higher ed where private, for profit schools popped up, helped students apply for federal loans which went directly to the schools, and left the student to pay off the loan whether they succeeded in school or not. 


ALEC - is a Koch Brothers funded organization that focuses on state legislatures.  I first noticed and blogged about ALEC when I attended a lunch presentation they gave in Juneau in 2011.

ALEC has taken as its apparent structural model the non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures, whose mission is to:

• Improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures.
• Promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures.
• Ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.

and Council of State Governments which

"fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate and create problem-solving partnerships."

While no organization is free of some sort of ideology, the NCSL and CSG have had as their key 'ideology' good government in general without a right or left wing bias.  Both Republican and Democratic legislators are members and attend their conferences.

ALEC, on the other hand, uses the NCSL and CSG model and inserts a highly ideological right wing agenda.  ALEC has corporate members as well as legislative members.  Reading their September/October 2013 Educational Edition of Inside ALEC plus what I've learned about them over the last two years, I'm convinced their educational strategy is basically to

• Declare Public schools as failures, and
• Use the language of choice to transfer public education money to private schools

1.   Declaring Public schools failures

ALEC does this subtly in its September/October 2013 Inside ALEC Education Edition.

Traditional US public schools, it tells us:

“are local monopolies with all the attendant inefficiencies and perverse incentives common to such entities.”   The solution to local monopolies “shifted control over the schools further away from the parents and children to distant state and federal bureaucracies.” (p, 9)

Basically they are saying, since the local system didn't work, it got taken over by state and federal bureaucracy which also doesn't work.   Thus, there is no way for public schools to work. - locally run is bad and state and fed run are also bad.  Just like with NCLB, public schools are failures.  The solution is private schools. Of course, there is some truth to what they say because every solution comes with unintended side effects.  However, they fail to acknowledge any such negative side-effects with their solution - the market.  We've seen in the last decade some of the serious problems of letting the market solve our problems. 

2.  Using the language of choice,  their strategy is to destroy public schools by transferring public money to private schools.


Inside ALEC’s Education Edition has a couple of articles that highlight programs that transfer money from public schools to private schools.  For example:

“Educational Savings Accounts

Eligible parents can choose to withdraw their child from the assigned public school if they feel the school is not meeting their child’s learning needs. Arizona deposits 90 percent of the money the state would have spent on the child in the public school into the parents’ Empowerment Scholarship Account. Parents can then use those funds to pay for private school tuition and a host of other education-related services and expenses.
That flexibility is what makes an ESA unique: the accounts are distinct from school choice options like vouchers or tax credits because they allow a parent to divvy-up their funds and purchase educational products, services and schools in an à la carte fashion.” (pp 10,15)

It's that easy.  We take 90% of the money from the public school and let the parent spend it on private sector options.  The articles raise important issues, but ignore the problems with vouchers.  That's a whole other discussion.  Now I'm just putting the Alaska Task Force Report in context of these national forces. 

Religious Right

I know.  Such labels are tricky.  I'm referring to those members of (mainly Christian) denominations who believe their view of the world is the only correct one,  that everyone else is just wrong, and who fight legislation and court rulings that separate (Christian) religion from state sponsorship such as prayer in school, public displays of religious symbols, religiously based bans on abortion and homosexuality, etc.

These folks send, or want to send, their kids to private religious schools instead of public schools.  Or they run the private religious schools.  In either case, in addition to their religious beliefs, they have a financial interest in spending public funds on private religious schools.  I can understand a parent not wanting their kids to go to schools that teach them values different from what they believe.  But inserting Christianity into public schools does the very same thing to the kids of non-Christians.  As a democracy, public schools should be the place where people learn to respect people of other faiths and backgrounds.  But that's a discussion for another day. 

A number of Christian schools encourage their members to take advantage of existing voucher programs.  For example:

"Many families desire a Christian education for their children; but limited finances have prevented this from being an option – until now!
Indiana’s recently passed School Choice (voucher) program allows qualifying families to receive a credit (school voucher) toward their education at a private school. If you are such a family and you meet financial and admissions qualifying criteria, now is the perfect time to consider Blackhawk Christian School for your child’s education." 

(I find this Christian school's 'brand' interesting. Blackhawk was  Native American who fought with the British against the US.   Blackhawk is also the name of a military helicopter.  WWJS?)

More examples of the transfer of public money to religious schools through vouchers can be seen here.

One school in North Carolina made it a policy to refuse public vouchers.  Their reason:  to maintain the right to refuse students - like the children of gay couples. 

Even Orthodox Jews often support vouchers,  The separation of church and state seems to be less important than financing their religious schools  But Conservative and Reform Jews  whose kids are more likely to go to public schools, do not support vouchers.

But some of the supporters of vouchers in Tennessee and Louisiana had second thoughts when they found out that Islamic schools would also be eligible for public funding.   

These reactions against Islamic schools getting voucher funding demonstrates my points above.  These are folks who, despite the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion,  believe that this is a Christian nation, and those guarantees only apply to Christians.   Their proclamations about religious freedom really are about Christian freedom.


For many, it's less about education than it is about being anti-government and about moving public education money over to private, Christian, schools.



Conclusion

The national trends affect Alaskan Republicans.  Some attend ALEC conferences and use ALEC's model legislation to write their own.  These national ideas get into their Party Platform.   Here are some excerpts from the education section of the Alaska Republican Party platform:

"A. We support parental choice of public, private, charter, vocational and home-based educational alternatives for Alaska’s students.  .   .

B. We support accountability in public education, including measurement of student academic achievement and cognitive ability by standardized testing in reading, writing and mathematics. We support local control of public education provided it does not limit competition or parental choice. We oppose all federal control of or influence on education. We support the parental right to have access to all educational information reaching their child.

Accountability sounds good and some kinds of testing are necessary.  But the language that comes next echoes ALEC's proclamation about local government control being problematic along with federal control.  Notice, they don't oppose state control though.

C. We support daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words “under God,” proper display of the United States and Alaska Flags, and active promotion of patriotism in our schools. We also support teaching the accurate historical Judeo-Christian foundation of our country and the importance of our founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, federal and State constitutions, and other founding documents."

To their credit, they also support learning about Alaska Native people.

"D. We support the teaching of Alaska’s history and geography with appropriate acknowledgment and respect for Alaska Native people, cultures, and languages."

But, then they also support Creation Science:

"F. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be taught."

That national context seems to have had its influence on this Alaska task force.  I'd note that one of the co-chairs - Rep. Tammie Wilson - was one of only four legislators to attend (well, to stick around after getting a sandwich)  the 2011 ALEC presentation in the Capitol in Juneau (along with Reps. Gatto and Keller and Sen. Dyson.)

Any person who pays attention knows that American public schools have serious problems.   The left and the right agree on this.  I have lots of issues with the public school system and I suspect that a number of them overlap problems people on the right have.  It's the solutions we seem to disagree on.

The anti-government philosophy of many on the right would destroy public schools altogether.  The Starve The Beast philosophy that arose in the Reagan era is alive and well still today even though the facts would say it doesn't work.  These folks want to move public education money into the private sector. 

In the final installment on this Task Force Report, I'll look at the full two page report and what it says. 

Climate Warming Denier ADN Letter Writer Dr. Maccabee Linked to Koch Brothers

Dr, Howard Maccabee wrote a letter to the Anchorage Daily News ridiculing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draft report. 

His letter begins:

"Justin Gillis' Aug. 20 article "Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100"  is speculation, not science.  The assertion that seas will likely rise by 3 feet is almost absurd, since current levels rise about 2 mm. per year (about 6 inches in 80 years)."

The title of Gillis' article in the print version of the ADN is unfortunate, but not inaccurate reporting.  The online title is "Climate Panel Reports Near Certainty on Warming" the same title as the original NY Times article.

In any case, the article does NOT assert "that seas will likely rise by 3 feet."  What the article actually says is

"that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than 3 feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace."

 I would say that "could conceivably" is not even close to Maccabee's "will likely."

The online article has more of the original NYTimes article than the print version.  It says, later in the article:

"Regarding the likely rise in sea level over the coming century, the new report lays out several possibilities. In the most optimistic, the world's governments would prove far more successful at getting emissions under control than they have been in the recent past, helping to limit the total warming.

In that circumstance, sea level could be expected to rise as little as 10 inches by the end of the century, the report found. That is a bit more than the 8-inch increase in the 20th century, which proved manageable even though it caused severe erosion along the world's shorelines.

At the other extreme, the report considers a chain of events in which emissions continue to increase at a swift pace. Under those conditions, sea level could be expected to rise at least 21 inches by 2100 and might increase a bit more than three feet, the draft report said."

 The "8-inch increase in the 20th century" is very close to Maccabbee's own figure of "6 inches in 80 years."  Actually, Maccabee's figure comes out to 1.5 inches per 20 years.  Add 20 years to Maccabee's figure to get a century and you're at 7.5 inches. Another two inches in the 21st century is not only conceivable, but probably highly optimistic.

Maccabee asserts this is 'speculation, not science' but goes on to use words like absurd and ridiculous - distinctly unscientific terms - to challenge the report.

I've linked Maccabee to the Koch brothers in the title. I don't want to commit the rhetorical fallacy of guilt by association.  The facts about how Maccabee mischaracterizes the report speak for themselves.   However, to a certain extent, it doesn't hurt to look at the credentials of the people involved, how they do their work, and who supports them.

The IPPC is made up of climate scientists from around the world reviewing the scientific works on these issues.  They won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for their work.  You can read more about what they are doing and how here. 

One should also ask about Dr. Maccabee's credentials on Climate Change.  He's an MD who has a UC Berkeley PhD in Radiation Biophysics.** A Heartland video presentation he made on Climate Change says Dr Maccabee is the President of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.  His environmental resume says he was President from 1982-4 and is still on their Board.   Their website has lots of pseudo scientific articles that deny climate change.  But there is nothing on it to say who they are or who funds them.  But Sourcewatch reports:

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) "promotes homeland defense and prudent preparedness for disasters of all kinds, including war or terrorism," according to its website. Topics addressed by DDP include "global warming, ozone 'depletion,' radiation hazards and radiation hormesis." ^[1]
DDP is skeptical of climate change, as the title of their web page on the subject suggests: "Ozone hole, Global warming, and other Environmental Scares." ^[2]Doctors For Disaster Preparedness was a co-sponsor to the Third International Conference on Climate Change , which in turn was sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Insitute is  funded by ALEC and the Koch Brothers - the main source of Climate Change Deniology. ( I first wrote about ALEC when I attended a presentation they gave to legislators in Juneau in February 2011.)

These are the hard core climate deniers.  Guilt by association can be fraught with logical dangers.  But it's also helpful to know where speakers come from.  Using someone from the Heartland Association to talk about climate change is like inviting a member of the Nazi Party to talk about Jews.  (I know that using Nazi similes is frowned on, but I'm reading a book that takes place in Berlin in 1933 and the similarities are striking for both make a science of propaganda.  I'm not saying these people are Nazis, but their objectivity is about the same as Nazi objectivity.  And Climate Change deniers, to the extent that they hold back Congress and other governing bodies from taking serious action now, could endanger the lives of far more people than the Nazis killed.) 

Here's another article by Gillis specifically looking at water level reports.

** This is almost totally unrelated, but quirkily interesting.  When I first tried to look up Maccabee's academic field, I switched around the terms and googled "Bioradiation Physics" I didn't find anything until page three where I found "professor of medical radiation and physics."  Clicking on it got me to this page of  Berkeley at War : The 1960s

by W.J. Rorabaugh Professor of History University of Washington.

click to enlarge and focus  from Berkeley At War

Heynes was the new UC Berkeley Chancellor in 1965 after the Free Speech protests on campus.  I'd note these events at the Berkeley campus took place 30 years before Maccabee got his PhD there and that Professor Jones was probably long gone.  But it is eerie.