Is This The PSA That Comes Up On The Alaksa House And Senate Majority's Screens?

Things I find on Twitter:





[UPDATE for non-Alaskans:  Pick.Click.Give. is the campaign to get Alaskans to make a donation to a non-profit organization by deducting it from their Permanent Fund Dividend checks each year.  The video is from Alaska Robotics out of Juneau.  They do great stuff.]

Walker Or Chenault? - A Look At the Showdown Players

Dermot Cole's article in the ADN today, outlines the differences between the governor and the Republican leaders in the legislature over gas pipelines.

On the one hand Cole says the legislators see a partnership between the state and the oil companies.

"The ruling Republican majorities envision the state and the oil companies marching forward — more or less in unison — on a shared pipeline vision, capable of working out any disagreements that might derail the gas pipeline partnership."

 The governor, while fine with this partnership with the oil companies, thinks we should have a back up plan in case things don't work out.  

The legislators don't like this approach.

"They portray his plan for a backup export project as a signal to the oil companies that the state is not committed to its agreement."

They think the governor is trying to shake down the oil companies.  

“'You have made clear your desire to have a parallel project to use as leverage against our Alaska LNG partners in order to force changes in existing contractual terms,' House Speaker Mike Chenault and Senate President Kevin Meyer said in a letter April 10."

But the governor thinks the oil companies and the state, while having some overlapping goals, are still two separate entities negotiating a deal.  The oil companies will eventually decide based on their view of their best interests.  The state of Alaska, he thinks, should do the same.   The oil companies have back up plans if they don't like the final pipeline details.  The state too should have such a back up plan.

"Walker counters that it is not a matter of using leverage against the oil company partners, but of using leverage to protect Alaska. He said the oil companies understand this. Partners or not, many of the key details about the pipeline project have yet to be negotiated and Walker says he is only doing what the oil companies do for themselves — preserving options."

How do we assess which of these positions is sounder? 

One route is to look at the players and figure out their abilities and their loyalities. 

Mike Chenault has,  according to his legislative bio, graduated from Kenai Central High School in  1975. It's not clear what work experience he has.  He's listed as a vice-president of a construction company, he has military service, and has been involved with things like the local chamber of commerce.  He's been in the House since 2001, fourteen years.

You can be smart and learn a lot through experience in the world, without a college degree.  And you can get a college degree and still make bad decisions.  But most people agree that a good college education is worth more in most cases, than a high school degree. People put themselves in debt to get one, and businesses are willing to pay more for employees with degrees, and relatively few people at the top don't have college degrees.

A good college education should help broaden students' horizons by exposing them to a wider range of people than they saw in high school and a wider range of ideas and skills.  A truly good education would also help build a person's ability to reason and use logic as well as introducing them to the field of ethics.  Of course, not everyone who has a college degree got all those benefits.  And I can think of some pretty capable people who didn't get college degrees.  Mark Begich for one.  Bill Allen for another.  (And I don't mean that facetiously.  Allen was a high school drop out who through his own smarts and hard work built a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  This old post gives my impressions of him during the Kott trial.) 

I don't know a lot about Chenault's life beyond the bio mentioned above.  But he seems to have spent most of his life on the Kenai.  His actions this session reflect a man who's enjoying his power and not  having to defer to others. (He kicked Rep. Reinbold out of the caucus.  He's opposed the governor on medicaid expansion and this pipeline issue.  He's let approval of the governor's appointments languish and when the governor set a special session to vote on the appointments, he basically ignored it.  He got a great subsidy for a fertilizer company in his own district, even though the state is suffering from a huge budget shortfall this year and basic government programs are being cut.  Just a few examples.)  Rather than be a statesman who is respectful of those who see the world differently, he appears disdainful and petty.   He recently sent a nasty letter to Washington State saying neither they, nor any other entities, could treat Alaska like a colony.

My response was to posit whether 'other entities' included oil companies.  Alaska has a history of being treated like a colony and the oil companies are just the latest colonizers.  And his behavior here - that we shouldn't do anything to upset the oil companies, that we shouldn't have a backup plan as we negotiate with them - reflects someone who either has made a pact with the oil industry, or doesn't realize he's become their lackey.  His partner in the letter to Gov. Walker, was Conoco-Phillips employee and Senate president Kevin Meyer.  If we don't know for sure where his loyalties lie, we do know where his regular paycheck comes from.  The fact that Governor Walker defeated Governor Parnell (and Conoco Phillips attorney)  in November thus upsetting the easy pass for oil companies in the governor's office, likely contributes to the legislators' animosity towards Walker.

Walker, on the other hand, has a  BS degree in Business Management from Lewis and Clark College and his JD from the University of Puget Sound School of Law (now Seattle University.)  Practicing law you get to see the inner details of how companies operate. It can be brutal and nasty.  Walker understands that the oil companies' loyalty lies with their shareholders, not with the state of Alaska.

Like a few past Republican governors - Hammond and Hickel come to mind - he's not a patsy for the oil companies.  He understands that the state and oil companies are potential partners in a deal now and then, but in the long term, they have conflicting interests.  The state has an interest in getting the most possible revenue from our natural resources and the oil companies' interest is to do the same.  Some level of cooperation might be beneficial for both parties, but there is a point where each party must look after its own interests separately.

I'd also note that the oil companies spend a fair amount of money helping friendly legislators get elected, and then more for lobbyists to help those legislators figure out how to vote.  We saw how all that worked in 2006 courtesy of FBI tapes that recorded some of those normally out of the spotlight transactions. 

We could think of the legislature is the state's equivalent of a company's board of directors. 

I'm unaware of the state of Alaska paying to get its friends on the boards of directors of any oil companies and then pay for lobbyists to help them make decisions favorable to the state of Alaska.  Furthermore,  when we deal with oil companies, the state's books are public information.  The oil companies' books are mostly closed, even to state negotiators.  It's already a very unbalanced relationship.

I have not looked at the details of the various oil pipeline proposals.  I did, in 2008 hear the arguments for the deal with Trans Canada. But I' haven't stayed informed since then.  So I don't really have a clue which deal is the best.  The money to be invested in the back up plan sounds like a lot, but the numbers involved here are a lot.

I also was there when Byron Mallot talked about Walker's character and decency playing a big role in his becoming his running mate.  I don't see those qualities in Chenault.  He comes across, at least in how the media portray him, as more of a street fighter defending his personal turf. 

That doesn't mean Walker is right.  He's been a long time champion for his pipeline option. 
But all things considered,  it just seems to me that Walker has the interests of the people of Alaska more in mind than do Chenault and Meyer.  His stance with the oil companies is more like 'trust but verify' whereas the Chenault Meyer stance seems to be just 'trust.' 

If The Shoe Fits . . .

I'm sure that there are people in every state who think this cartoon was written about their state legislature.  I'm going to be a little more discriminating.  The Democratic caucus in Alaska has so little power, that all the crazy things coming out of our legislature, from the LIO building fiasco to budget cutting frenzy with no concern about revenue raising, to the fact that Erin's Law has not been passed, and on and on, lies at the feet of the Republicans

From Sunday April 12 ADN - Grin and Bear It  (link to current day cartoon)

One of the problems of a lopsided majority is that the majority leaders get used to being able to get their way on everything.  They get used to ignoring the opposition, even when that opposition makes wise suggestions.  They don't have to defend what they are doing, they don't have to pay attention to the details, and so it is easy to start passing very bad legislation. 

Alaska will suffer in the future from decisions being made now, and no one will be accountable. 

Mike Chenault Doesn't Like Alaska Being Treated Like A Colony

Nathaniel Herz wrote in an ADN article the other day: 

"House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, unveiled a resolution Thursday that takes aim at the state of Washington 'or any entity that would treat this state like a mere colony.'”

My question to Chenault is this:  "Does 'any entity' include oil companies?"

How Hard Did Republicans Look To Cut The Budget? $20 Million Bragaw Extension Through University Is Still There

According to a press release I got by email Saturday,

"Senator Berta Gardner (D-Anchorage) proposed recapturing $19.3 million in funds allocated for the U-Med Access Road.

“Nine community councils from across Anchorage oppose this road.   Anchorage doesn’t want this road, Anchorage doesn’t need this road, and Alaska can’t afford this road,” stated Senator Gardner.

Senator Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) offered an amendment to claw back $20 million allocated for the Port Mackenzie Rail extension.  This combined with suspending future obligations of over $80 million will save Alaska approximately $100 million.

“We simply cannot afford another over $100 million mega-project while we are slashing education and putting seniors and kids at risk,” said Senator Wielechowski."

The legislature is whacking school budgets. They're whacking the Alaska Marine Highway, the only 'road' that Southeast Alaska communities have, and many tourists have reservations for this summer.  Yet they have left $20 million on the table for a road the community simply does not want.   And the $20 million Wielechowski proposed to cut, not to mention the future costs these projects would require.

We really need to hear which contractors are hoping to pick up jobs to build the Bragaw extension and why they have such sway with politicians.  We know that DOWL Engineering was in charge of the citizen participation process  and despite overwhelming opposition to the road, they continued to recommend road options.  Yeah, I know, fox guarding the hen house.  We know the $20 million isn't enough to do the road right, just enough to scar the land bad enough that more money will have to be spent to make the road work.   They did get buy-in from UAA and APU and Providence, but that was a complicated and non-public process, so we don't know what kinds of deals they got for going along with the road.  I suspect Providence heads wanted the road all along, and after building the sports center, there were university boosters who wanted the road.  Which is precisely why the people who actually live around the university area should have had more weight.  And should have been allowed to sit in and listen to what the university and hospital said to DOWL. 

But the Republicans aren't hiding their bias to spending to help industry.  From the NewsMiner:

"In a six-minute hearing on the bill, the House Rules Committee extended the $10 million per year tax credit intended for the state’s remaining three refineries to the shuttered Agrium fertilizer plant in House Speaker Mike Chenault’s district. "

Some people have to scrimp, for others, it's "What budget crisis?"

Rules Have Consequences - Thoughts on Chenault and Reinbold And Republican Caucus Rules

ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

This was to explain why Rep. Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican caucus of the Alaska state house of representatives.  She had voted against the caucus budget which is against 'the rules.'

So I tried to find those rules.

I googled Alaska House of Representatives rules and got a pdf of the Uniform Rules. 

FOREWORD

The Constitution of the State of Alaska (sec. 12, art. II) provides: “The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure." It is noteworthy that the drafters of the constitution did not say "each house” shall adopt, but rather emphasized that the "houses" should adopt uniform rules. It was the intention of the writers that Alaska should avoid the circumstances of many state legislatures where one finds house rules, senate rules, and joint rules. The uniform system is intended to permit the members and the public to follow or conduct the legislative process without a confusion of rules. The rules are adopted by both houses sitting in joint session as one body.  .  .

There are 55 rules covering things like Expenditures (#6),  Use of Chambers and Offices (12), Daily Calendar (#18), and other procedural rules.


I called several legislative offices, including Rep. Reinbold's, (her voice mail message said she's short on staff and getting lots of calls) to see if they could steer me to the rules that she violated.

I got a person at my own representative's office, Democrat Andy Josephson.  He said that it wasn't in the uniform code, it was rules that Republican caucus had.  He didn't know where I could find them.  Did the Democrats have caucus rules too that I could get?  No, there were no such rules on the Democratic side.   (A call to Aurora Hauke, caucus staff for party head Chris Tuck confirmed that.  There are no rules - they aren't a binding caucus.)  Josephson's staffer suggested I check with speaker Chenault's office.

A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.  

They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said.

I asked how he spelled his name and he said he didn't want to be quoted.  I asked to confirm I was talking to staff in the Speaker's office.  He said, on the administrative side, not the political side. 

Maybe there are other unwritten rules about speaking to the media and that 'things can happen.' 

So, originally, I was going to write about the idea that rules have consequences.   But it seems more fruitful to talk about different kinds of rules. 


Natural Rules versus Human Made Rules

The "laws" of nature are statements of what humans have observed and documented.   Some are fairly straightforward and understandable - like the law of gravity, at least on earth.  If you jump out of a tree, off a building, from an airplane the consequence will be that you will descend at a predictable rate of speed.  But beyond that, the consequences are less certain.  If you land in a swimming pool, or hit a soft awning, or are wearing a parachute, you may well survive and live happily ever after.

Man made rules are different.  They are simply what those in power decide how others are to behave.  They could be decreed, they could be democratically voted on.  There's nothing inherently universal or moral about them.  They could be moral, but possibly they are not.

Natural Rules -  These are neither moral nor immoral, they simply exist, and we all are subject to the consequences of not paying attention.  We could freeze to death or get burned.  We could drown or get pregnant.  We could get fat or fit.   We may think the consequences are good or bad, but not in a moral sense. 


Human Made Rules

Human rules have a moral component because they are human made and those who make the rules are morally, if not legally, responsible for the consequences.  And we also attach a moral component on whether people follow the rules, at least some rules. 

Just off the top of my head, here are some examples of the reasons for having rules.  

1.  For the benefit of the whole.  These are rules that are helpful when people live among other people and don't have to interact with other people.  Traffic rules are intended to make it safer and more efficient to drive.  Having people drive on the right side of the road has obvious benefits.  Stop lights and signs to regulate cars going through intersections does too.  Roberts Rules of Order are intended to make meetings run more smoothly.  They set procedures for how to engage in potentially heated debate.  Fair weights and measures rules also have intrinsic sense.  Sometimes they seem silly, like when you wait for a red light at 3 am and there is no other traffic, but most of us understand that benefit is worth the occasional inconveniences.

2.  To maintain order among those who can't order themselves.  Parents establish rules for their kids.  Schools have rules for students.  Prisons have rules for prisoners.  I suspect that kids in school could learn a great deal about life and would be far more willing to follow school rules if they had some say in setting the rules.  I suspect that for a lot of things that go on in prison, prisoners could participate in the official prison rules. The assumption here is that the population is not yet capable of making good decisions on their own and so some or many rules must be imposed. 

3.  Rules to make life easier.  People can set up arbitrary rules that just simplify things.  In a household you might establish a weekly menu that repeats every week.  You might have a rule to walk the dog at certain times every day.  It just reduces the amount of decision-making.  Restaurants and stores set up times they will be open and closed.

4.  Rules for fun and to challenge ourselves.   We set up rules for games.  We set up rules for certain art forms, such as sonnets and haiku.  These are rules people generally can choose to follow or not.  I would say that rules of professional sports go well beyond this.

5.  Rules to exert power over others.  These are rules those in power are able to impose on everyone else.  The British rules over the American colonies.  Rules that governed slavery in the US South and later segregation.  Rules a kidnapper might impose on his captives.  Rules a corporation imposes on its employees and customers.

I suspect that rarely do any of these kinds of rules exist in their pure form.  Instead they blend with other kinds on this list.  Numbers 1 and 3, ideally would overlap.  All the rules can be tainted when some people have more power to make the rules and then each will also overlap with Number 5.  Parents (Number 2) could have good reasonable rules for their kids, but they can also add in rules to make their own lives easier (Number 3) because they can (Number 5). 

As people understand more about nature (including human nature) and as power shifts, rules get adjusted.  As we gained knowledge of health hazards, we've put restrictions on smoking and required seat belts in cars.  In these cases, knowledge also resulted in a power shift, albeit very slowly. 

 Unwritten Rules  

Every Knows them
Lots of rules are unwritten simply because everyone knows them.  They get passed along orally.   People are expected to learn many social rules at home or at school or through spiritual communities,  and because they are reinforced from interacting with other people.  They may actually be written - in needlepoint, in song lyrics, in self-help books - somewhere, just not in official law books. These are rules that may have real consequences and while they are unwritten, they aren't hidden.  In fact, they are so universally known and followed, that writing them may seem unnecessary.  The more homogeneous a community, the less necessary it is to spell out these rules. 

Secrecy and Power
But other rules are unwritten because the creators and enforcers know there's something wrong with the rules and written evidence of their existence is inadvisable.  Say, the rules of initiation rituals at some college fraternities, or unwritten rules for illegal discrimination in hiring. 


How Does This All Reflect On The Republican Caucus' Unwritten Rules?

I'm guessing that the Republican leadership would tell us that their unwritten rules are an example of Number 1 - they are for the general good.  Privately, they would acknowledge that they are about Number 5 - to help strengthen the party leadership's ability to get caucus members to obey.

The fact that these are unwritten rules suggests to me that the leadership knows there's something not quite right about them.  They're a bit like a parent saying, "If you argue with me, you'll be sorry."  They are treating Reinbold (and the rest of their caucus members) like unruly children.  Something some Democrats would probably say is appropriate.   And something the Republicans would say they have to do to achieve party goals.

But there is something inherently wrong about this.  To say that 'rules have consequences' suggests that everyone knows the rules.  But if you don't write them down . . . There was a time when federal regulations were not easily accessible.  It took the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946 to require federal agencies to establish procedures for writing regulations and making them available for all to see.  Unwritten rules can be changed without evidence that the old one existed.  It's the kind of thing tyrants do.  It rubs the wrong way in a democracy.  Especially when these are rules that govern how our democratic legislature works.  There's no way that a member of the general public or even a member of the Republican party can 'see' the rules.  You have to, it seems, be an insider.  Or the rule has to be publicly enforced, as in this case, for its existence to become evident to the general public.

 But there are other anti-democratic aspects of this.  We know that by cutting Rep. Reinbold out of the caucus and dropping her from her committee assignments (all except one), the party is weakening the representation of Reinbold's constituency.  Their elected representative has less formal power to shape legislation than even Democrats in the minority caucus.   It also weakens the representation of all members of the caucus to the extent that they are afraid to vote against the budget even if they believe that is the wish of their constituents. 

As a parent, I believed in rules having consequences.  A perceptive parent learns quickly that if they don't, the rules have no power.  Perceptive parents don't impose rules they can't enforce.  And since good parental rules are intended to help their kids survive to adulthood and thrive when they do, parents create rules that parallel, as much as possible, the natural and human made rules the kids  will face in life.  But even if all one's rules are good and sensible, kids continue to grow and learn.  And they will test the parents' will on all the rules.  That's part of learning about their own power and how to use it.  We found, though, that when our kids were given some control over the rules and the consequences, they could experiment with their own power needs in a more constructive way.

I understand that the Republican leadership would like to keep its caucus orderly.  But rules that require them to vote along party lines or suffer severe consequences, are inconsistent with democracy.  The power to 'deliver the votes,' as I see it, is only important if one has promised some outside interest you'd get something passed or if it is needed to gratify one's own control needs.

And as with dealing with children, especially rules perceived to be unfair cause resentment and rebellion.  Actions have consequences. 

Alaska Legislature Runs State Finances Like Poor People Run Theirs

I want this to be a short, to-the-point post, but I have a feeling it's going to wander a bit, because life isn't as simple as we'd like to believe it is.  [Not too long.  Just be patient.]

What Do Poor And Rich Mean?

I'm talking economically rich or poor - not spiritually, emotionally, culturally, or one of the many other ways people can be rich or poor.

Poor, in my head, means that you are in danger of not being able to cover your necessities - food, shelter, health - because you live on the edge.   While homeless folks probably come to mind first, this also includes people working at minimum wage jobs where food gets scarce toward the end of the pay period.  And while we think of this being month to month, for some it's a slightly longer time frame - maybe year to year. 

Rich has more levels.  

Basic:  A family could be self-supporting, without cash -  hunting, gathering, possibly some farming, and self-sufficient enough to build their own homes and make their own clothes.  Alaska Natives lived like this for thousands of years.  They were poor, only in the sense that a bad year could threaten their survival.

Similarly, It could be a working family that has a sustainable source of income - a job with a steady salary and even better, a defined-benefit retirement plan.  There are dangers.  One could get sick and be unable to work, or the company could go out of business, or be bought out by another company that liquidates the pension fund. 

Strong:  A family that has not only a steady income, but a nest egg that can keep them going if the steady income is threatened.

Really Rich:  A family that has so much wealth, that there is almost no conceivable way that their money will ever run out.

You'll notice here that security is a relative term.  No one is totally secure.  Disasters come in many expected and unexpected forms.  Natural and human-made disasters can threaten the richest families. But the really rich can use their money to influence the social, economic, and political systems so that their security is protected, not just by their family, but by the governmental system.

The key is access to the political power of the society. In the past, royal families simply owned the country and the governmental structure including the army.  Today, large multinational corporations are able to do this better than most others.


Why Are Rich People Rich?

They are rich, not because they have a steady income, but because they've invested enough of the excess income, so that it provides a steady stream of money to meet all their reasonable (and in extreme cases, unreasonable) future needs.   They have resources, they store their excess wealth.  They can sell when prices are high and buy when they are low.  The society protects their interests.  In capitalistic societies, they have financial investments that earn and grow.

OK, here's where this is all leading.

The state of Alaska has managed to set up some funds for the future.  That's what the Permanent Fund was all about.  Recognizing that today's Alaskan's shouldn't be the only beneficiaries of the unsustainable oil resource.  The Permanent Fund was supposed to capture that wealth and sustain Alaskans in the future.  But it's become, in too many people's minds, a quick, easy October cash infusion.  And other budget reserve funds were also attempts at protecting the wealth for future generations.

But we're spending and saving like poor folks.

Alaska Headlines Sunday March 22 and Monday March 23

"State sells $4B in stocks:  Cash may be needed as budget reserve is emptied to cover deficit"  [Note:  the online headlines are different from the paper versions] 

Alaska lawmakers look to once-forbidden sources for money

Those forbidden sources are the funds that some in previous legislatures managed to stash away for rainy days.  But rich people, and when Alaska discovered oil it won the lottery and became a rich state, make those funds sustainable.  They don't drain them, because that means they will stop being rich.

Groups of people will always have a hard time managing finances.   Collective management is tough.   Different folks have different ideas of what to spend their money on and how to manage it.  Even families have those kinds of problems.  And there are always the sharks and vultures that sense wealth and coming running to find a way to get their share. 

But let's not let the Republicans in this state pull the wool over people's eyes.  It was legislatures with Democratic majorities and/or with Republicans whom today's Republicans would call Democrats and socialists, who created the Permanent Fund, and many other rainy day funds.

But it's been a totally Republican controlled state government that has had the highest state budgets, ever, and by a large margin.  And it's Republicans who are running the state like poor folks.  People who won the lottery but didn't stop thinking like poor folks and quit their jobs (abolished the income tax) and then spent all the money.  Some was spent on important stuff - like schools and health care, but a lot was spent on boondoggles and luxuries.  Rural Alaska still has honey buckets after all these years, but we've got the Dena'ina Center and the newly refurbished Legislative Office in Anchorage.  And there were Democrats who took part in some of the frivolous spending as well (the train station at the airport), but Republicans have held sway for much longer.

And now, instead of seriously looking for a job (in state terms that means finding revenue sources like taxes) to pay for things, our legislature is raiding the piggy banks.  I say piggy banks because that's where the poor, if they save at all, save their money.  And that's how our legislature is responding to the crisis.  They're going to stop paying basic bills and raid the piggy banks they can find.  OK, some of the stashed away money is left over money on projects that we probably shouldn't spend on, but some are endowments to help sustain important programs. 

I hope readers realize that I do not mean to disparage the poor - at least those who are poor because of structural societal systems that keep them from having a good education and good health care and jobs that pay a decent wage.  Poor people have fewer choices - even if they manage to secure a decent wage, their education hasn't prepared them for all the sharks waiting to take their money - bar owners, gambling establishments, sellers of fancy consumer products at "Amazing deals" and promises of painless credit, "Worried about your credit?  DON'T BE!  Let our credit experts help you now." [From ADN Saturday, p C-8]

A number of our legislators have moved up from being poor.  They still think like the poor.  And they're still dazzled by their corporate sponsors and do as they're told, while thinking they have power and independence. 

And the people of Alaska are watching our wealth drained by their ignorance and greed. 

Ideology Is A Bitch

 It allows you to answer all questions with slogans.  It allows you to ignore facts.  It lets you get away without serious analysis and it lets you do horrendous harm to civilization without guilt.

In ideological capitalism, government is bad.  Taxes are bad.  Deficits are bad.  Corporations are good.

Those are part of the mantra of the far wrong.

With these phrases guiding Republicans in Washington and Juneau,  programs that took years to nurture and grow, and which provide benefits not only to the immediate recipients, but to society (and ironically that budget deficit) are being whacked.

The wrecking crews cannot distinguish between the flowers and weeds.  The projects that tend survive are the projects favored by corporate interests. 

There is a commonality between the Republican use of ideology to destroy everything they can that smacks of 'government' and other evils in their interpretation of capitalism,  and the ISIS use of ideology to destroy everything that smacks of idolatry or other evils in their interpretation of the Qur'an.  

So, in the far wrong budget, the military and war and destruction (Lockheed Martin,  Northrup Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and many others) get increased funding.  Programs that grow, nurture, and protect the most vulnerable humans (Headstart, foodstamps, health programs) get dismantled or destroyed. (see NY Times for example.) 

Just like ISIS terrorists who demolish ancient statues that took skill and time to build and, because of their survival for millennia, give us clues to understanding our human cultural origins, the Republicans are attempting to destroy social programs that have taken sweat and ingenuity and dedication to build.  Destruction is easy.  If you've spent time with a two-year old, you know they can knock things down far more easily than they can build things up. They also repeat the word 'no' over and over again.

In Alaska, today's ADN has a front page article about Rep. Lynn Gattis' amendment to scrap WWAMI* - the program Alaska uses, in lieu of a medical school, to grow Alaskan doctors.  The program is a cooperative program with other northwestern states to share medical school investments.  The article says that 14% of Alaska doctors are products of the WWAMI program.  Considering how small the program is, that's quite a bit.  If we consider the costs of just recruiting doctors to rural Alaska, WWAMI is a major investment in lower future costs.  Unlike the ISIS ideologists who condemn the statues they destroy, Gattis at least acknowledges WWAMI and other programs being cut as "great programs. .  .  We just can't afford them."   A variation of the mantra. 

The Institute for Social And Economic Research (ISER) has been predicting the decline in oil revenue for 30 years.  Technology changes and the increase in oil prices have delayed the inevitable to some extent.  And the legislature has at times heeded that warning, and set up rainy day funds.   The Alaska state budget has tripled since 2000, most significantly in latter years when the Republicans have had their greatest power in Juneau.   They funded all sorts of capital projects for the benefit of their contractor supporters - the Knik Arm Bridge, renewed studies for a Susitna dam, a road from Juneau to a mine that Sen. MacKinnon's husband has significant (in terms of money if not percentage) interests in, a loopy program to save orphaned moose.   In my own neighborhood a road has been given $20 million in last minute maneuvering in Juneau - a road that all the community councils in the area have strongly opposed.

While some legislators are raising the politically sensitive issues of increasing revenues (sales taxes, income taxes, marijuana taxes, and dipping into the Permanent Fund), most are either ideologically opposed to such measures or too timid to be leaders.  Instead they will destroy programs like WWAMI.  Dr. Tom Nighswander is quoted in the ADN article,

" . . .  it took years to build the program's capacity to keep students in Alaska for the first two years. He said he fears that if the program disappears, it would not be able to bring back all of the clinical faculty it currently prizes.
“If you dismantle the program, you can’t restart it again,” he said. "

Ideology is a bitch.  It allows you to answer all questions with slogans.  It allows you to ignore facts.  It lets you get away without serious analysis and it lets you do horrendous harm to civilization without guilt

NOTE:  This is more of an opinion piece than I normally do, but sometimes stuff gets so thick, you have to stand up and call it out.  I realize that the ISIS metaphor will attract criticism, but I'm focused on one aspect of ISIS - their ability to use ideology to justify everything they do.  You can kill directly, immediately, using violence and personally drawing blood and you can kill in the long term by destroying institutions that nurture humans, maintain health, and save lives. 

*Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho

Eliminating Alaska Daylight Savings Time Deja Vu

Or we could also title this, "The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same."

Here's the beginning of a front page article in the Alaska Dispatch News today:

"Daylight saving time bill springs forward in Alaska Legislature

Molly Dischner | Associated Press

March 3, 2015

JUNEAU — A Senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would eliminate daylight saving time in Alaska and allow for consideration of another time zone in the state.
The bill would exempt Alaskans from advancing their clocks each spring. It would also direct the governor to ask the U.S. Department of Transportation to consider moving part or all of Alaska to Pacific time.
Sen. Anna MacKinnon, R-Eagle River, originally proposed the bill to end daylight saving time in Alaska, then introduced the amendment to consider another time zone."

I've highlighted "originally proposed the bill"  because, this year isn't the first year that she's been pushing this bill.

Below is a repost of what I wrote March 18, 2010 when I was blogging the Alaska legislature.

There are some differences.  Representative Anna Fairclough is now Senator Anna MacKinnon (same person.)

HB 19 to End Daylight Savings Time

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The other two meetings going on right now are dealing with issues of far greater impact on Alaska I presume.  But this is one most Alaskans can understand easily and are impacted by most directly and tangibly.


Here is the table with copies of emails and letters for and against the bill. 

[Update:  I looked through these and they are all [mostly] dated March 18 and some 17.  Actually this stack is misleading.  I didn't realize I have one big stack twice.  The vote was 62 for HB 19, 18 against, and four had other options, like get the US to change, but not just Alaska.]

Sen. Olson and Sen. Menard listen to phone testimony on the ending daylight savings time in Alaska. 


Rep. Anna Fairclough, the bill sponsor, responded to the comments received through the mail, email, and by phone today.  She said there were two reasons that have real justification for not changing:

1.  People in Southeast Alaska have a real issue because they are basically in Pacific time, so they get less light in the evening while the sun comes up 3am at solstice.
2.  The difficulty in coordinating with people outside of Alaska.  (I think this was the second one)

Other than these two points, most people prefer getting rid of daylight savings time.  A lot of this is about having to change and the disruption that causes with relatively little daylight impact for most Alaskans (further north and west than Southeast.)

Other issue:  Why don't we just spring forward and stay on daylight savings time the whole year.  There area a couple of issues:
1.  Feds, not states, can change time zones.
2.  Western Alaska would be even further off of sun time (opposite problem of Southeast.)

Meeting was adjourned just about 5pm with the decision postponed.

The bill did not pass that year.  I was curious whether the bill has been defeated every year since so I called Sen. MacKinnon's office and staff member Erin gave me a brief history of previous bills to end daylight savings time in Alaska. 

1999 - 21st Session - HB 4 introduced by Rep. Kohring
2002 - 22nd Session - HB 409 introduced by Rep. Lancaster
2005 - 24th Session - SB 120 and HB 176 introduced Sen. Olson and House State Affairs committee
2009 - 26th Session - HB 19 introduced by Rep. Fairclough

[Note:  Each legislative session is two years starting with the newly elected legislature in January of the odd year following the election in the even year.  So, HB 19 introduced in 2009 was still in play in the second year of the 26th session (2010) when I reported on it.  HB = House Bill, SB = Senate Bill.]


Here is my commentary on daylight savings time in Alaska from a post on the failed legislation in November 2010 on the weekend we were about to fall back. 

My personal feelings are that in Alaska it probably doesn't matter one way or the other except in Southeast, which is the result of having the state in one time zone.  In the winter it's going to be dark and in the summer it's going to be light.  And I don't mind getting an extra hour this weekend in the fall.  But I hate losing an hour of weekend in the spring.

My tweak to daylight savings would be, in the spring, to make the change (skip ahead one hour) at 4pm on Friday afternoon.  Then people at work would get to go home one hour early.  Yes, I know there are all sorts of potential economic impacts, but not much work gets done in the last hour of Friday afternoon anyway and people would feel happy to get a free hour and would spend more on entertainment that weekend to offset the loss.  (Gross generalization based on gut feeling but absolutely no evidence.) 

"Much of the budget work happens behind the scenes, said Rep. Charisse Millett, R-Anchorage, House Majority Leader"

This quote in Nathaniel Herz's ADN article today struck me.   She was defending the legislature from the charge that they were focused on frivolous things instead of working on the budget. 

We have an open meetings act in Alaska.  The point is that government decisions should be made in public.  There are some exceptions - like to avoid revealing an ongoing investigation, to protect the state's interests in various negotiations, etc. - but they are limited.

It's dismaying to know that the House Majority Leader really doesn't care about letting the public know how the budget is being developed.  I was further dismayed to find out, that the legislature has legally been above the rules.

Attorney Gordon J. Tans has a lengthy treatise on the Alaska Open Meetings Law (updated in 2002):  

As applied to the Alaska Legislature, the OMA, like the legislature's Uniform Rule 22, is viewed by the court merely as a rule of procedure concerning how the legislature has determined to do business. While by its literal terms the OMA is applicable to the legislature, a violation of the OMA by the legislature will not be considered by the courts, absent infringement of the rights of a third person or violation of constitutional restraints or a person's fundamental rights.  25

In 1994 the legislature enacted a law requiring itself to adopt guidelines applying open meetings act principles to the legislature.26
This was to have been done during the 1995 legislative session, but it has still not happened as of this writing .

 This is what happens when people give up on democracy and stop voting and stop keeping their elected officials accountable.  Most of the important work of the state budget is done behind closed doors.

I don't know whether this loophole has been corrected, but I suspect not.  So now we need some citizens who can make a persuasive case that their fundamental rights are being infringed by the legislature making key decisions out of public sight.  

Perhaps our reporter should have asked Millett a followup question about government transparency and why the legislature is not following the open meetings law. 

How Many Alaska Legislators Are Child Molesters?

I realize that's a pretty inflammatory title, but bear with me.

I was listening yesterday online to David Holthouse's testimony to the Senate Education Committee about SB 31, a law to enact Erin's Law in Alaska, mandating schools teach teachers and children to detect signs of sexual abuse and to learn what actions they can take. [You can hear, for now at least, the full hearing here.] Sen. Gardner's (who is the sponsor) aide emphasized that lessons must be age appropriate and that the schools themselves would be given the power to choose the materials they wanted to use.

Below I have Holthouse's full testimony, my transcript, and audio from the legislature's website.  But first, here's the part that triggered the question above:

"And then when I was sixteen, a remarkable thing happened.  I was in a humanities course in East High School in Anchorage and the teacher was lecturing on something to do with denial on a societal level, and she mentioned, almost as an aside, how high the rate of sexual abuse of children was in Alaska. She looked out at the class and she said there’s about 25, 30 of you here, statistics say two to three of you have already been sexually assaulted and you haven’t told a soul."

 The teacher used statistics.  Gardner's aide said that nationally

1 in 4 girls   and
1 in 6 boys

are sexually abused before the age of 18.   And only 1 in 10 will say anything about it. 

She used the numbers to figure out how many students in her class, statistically, would have been abused.  And there was, in fact, at least one student who had been sexually abused in that class.  Maybe there was another.   Holthouse's response was:

And I was riveted in my seat and I felt a great sense of relief, because it had been acknowledged in public, in a school, by a teacher what had happened to me.  And it gave me tremendous comfort, even though I didn’t say anything.

 So using statistics and looking at the Alaska legislature, if one in six boys and one in four girls are sexually abused before they are 18, there must be a fair number of abusers out there in our population. How many are there?  I'll get to that shortly. 

So let's get some help from the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute.(CMRPI)

First, definitions:

A child molester is any older child or adult who touches a child for his or her own sexual gratification.

Child molestation is the act of sexually touching a child.

A child is a girl or boy who is 13 years of age or younger.

What's the age difference between a molester and a child? It is five years, so a 14-year-old "older child" sexually touching a nine-year-old is an example. This is the accepted medical definition.

It appears that some statistics vary because researchers use different definitions.  Just take that into account.  I'll be using these, fairly broad, definitions.

How many child molesters are there?  CMRPI writes:

In fact, approximately one out of 20 men, and approximately one out of 3,300 women are sexual abusers of children.

There are 60 legislators - 20 senators and 40 representatives.  There are 43 men and 17 women. Just as Holthouse's teacher used statistics to estimate the number of students in her class who had been molested, we can do the same for the legislature.  We know that there was at least one child who'd been molested in that class.   One out of 20 men statistically would suggest there are two child molesters in the Alaska legislature.  The odds of a woman molester in the legislature is statistically low.

But, legislators are upstanding, church-going respectable people, you say. 

Again, according to the CMRPI, child molesters mirror the population.   Here's a chart they posted comparing characteristics of male child molesters to the general male population   

	Admitted Child Molesters	American Men
Married and formerly Married	77%	73%
Some College	45%	49%
High School only	30%	32%
Working	69%	64%
Religious	93%	93%

Source: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study and the 
1999 U.S. Census Statistical Abstract
Note: All people in both groups were at least 25 years old.

They have another chart with ethnicity, which matches fairly closely with ethnicity in the general American male population.  A little higher for Caucasian (79% molesters v. 72% in the population), a little lower for Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asian, and a little higher for Native American (3%  v. 1%). 

There's no reason to think that members of the legislature are less likely to be child molesters than anyone else.  In fact, the position of respect and power gives them a certain cover.  We're only talking about child molesters here, not men who abuse adults.

This question came to mind, as I said, because of Holthouse's testimony about his teacher's use of statistics.  But I was also concerned a little about the fact that they tended not to ask questions of people who urged them to pass the bill.  They did ask questions of people who raised concerns.

Concerns they had were:

1.  Would this be another unfunded mandate?
2.  What's preventing the schools from adopting this on their own?
3.  Would schools have time for yet another mandated subject?
4.  Who would pay for this?
5.  What would the curriculum be like.

OK, it is their job to craft legislation that will work.  They should ask questions.  But their statements of the seriousness of this problem sounded so perfunctory, like something they had to say.  They seemed  much more interested in talking about the reasons it might not be a good idea.  Some of this is because they just don't understand the huge impact this has, not just on the kids, but on society as a whole.  And some of this may be due to the fact that a couple of legislators are actually child molesters,  The statistics would suggest that. 

Erin  Merryn, the woman now, that this law has been named after, testified by phone.  She said that 19 states have adopted this law and 18 more are introducing it this year. 

Looking at those questions, I have to ask, "What is in the school curriculum that is more important than this?" 

The CMRPI estimates that there are 3 million US kids who have been molested.  Compared to that, all other threats to kids pale.  Accidents are the biggest killer of kids.   While over 30,000 people a year (the number has been falling steadily) are killed in car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,  the CDC's figures shown at the Incidental Economist, show that a very small number of those deaths are kids - less than 1400 1-14 year olds.  The odds of getting sexually molested are way, way greater than the odds of getting killed in a car crash.  I realize that death is different from molestation, but the long term pain and subsequent dysfunction of being molested is lasts, for many, for a lifetime.  And for many leads to suicide.  [I know, using the Incidental Economist instead of the CDC numbers is a bit lazy, but he highlights the key numbers.]

Yet parents and schools don't give kids the basics they need to know to prevent child abuse in the first place and to overcome the threats of predators to report it if they do get molested.

Listen (or read) Holthouse's testimony.  It's short and very compelling.  The legislators all acknowledge it's a serious problem, but . . . There shouldn't be any buts here.  They should be finding a way to make this law work.  Every year they delay, means kids are going to be molested who wouldn't be if the law were in effect.  And the molesters aren't reported and keep on molesting more kids. 


[UPDATE Feb 15: No one mentioned that the audio wasn't here. I'm adding it again, let's see if it works this time.] Here's a recording of David Holthouse's testimony (and the beginning of Jeff Jessie's):


[The transcript below isn't exact, but it's pretty close]

Holthouse:  Here’s what I remember about being taught to keep myself safe in grade school growing up in Anchorage.  I remember what to do in an earthquake, I R  what to do if I caught on fire - stop, drop, and roll - and  IR to watch out for strangers bearing candy or toys.  But what I didn’t learn was that a vastly greater danger to me than catching fire or being crushed by falling light fixtures in an earthquake, or even being lured into a car, far greater than one of those dangers was that someone I knew and trusted would hurt me and terrify me in ways that I did not understand and did not have the words for.   And that happened in 1978  when I was seven years old.  I was raped by a family friend at a dinner party in an upper middle class household in Eagle River.

When it was over the rapist told me three things.  He told me , one, that I’d done a bad thing and that my dad would spank me if I told anybody.  And he said if I told, that he’d say I was lying and no one would believe me.  And he said furthermore if I told anybody, he would come into my house in the middle of the night and gut me like a salmon and do the same to my parents.  I know now that this is typical predator behavior.  So for 25 years I didn’t tell I kept it a secret and I did so at signifiant cost to my own well being.

Here’s how Erin’s Law would have made a difference for me.  First,
there’s a chance it would have protected me from being raped in the first place.  These types of predators depend our collective shame, denial, and silence about this issue.  Even though we all know what the rates are in Alaska.  They depend on it.  They thrive on it.  I think it’s quite possible that  having know I was being taught at school about people like him, and how to tell on people like him, and what language to use to tell on people like him, he would not have committed the crime in the first place.  There’s no way to know that for sure. 

I also think that had I been taught about safe touch, unsafe touch, none of this language needs to be graphic for 2nd graders.  All I needed to know was a word like “a bad secret” or just the very concept that someone who was a family friend might do something wrong to me and then tell me “You must keep this a secret” and if that happened, it was ok to tell a cop or my parents, or teachers, and that someone would step in and protect me. If I had been armed with that information, I think I would have told.  There’s no way to know that for sure either.

What I am certain of, is that had the public school system acknowledged the prevalence of this issue in our culture, and had I been taught that in school, I would have felt not so alone.  The loneliness was the worst part of it, feeling I had been affected by a freak occurrence and that made me some kind of freak.

And then when I was sixteen, a remarkable thing happened.  I was in a humanities course in East High School in Anchorage and the teacher was lecturing on something to do with denial on a societal level, and she mentioned, almost as an aside, how high the rate of sexual abuse of children were in Alaska. She looked out at the class and she said there’s about 25, 30 of you here, statistics say two to three of you have already been sexually assaulted and you haven’t told a soul.

And I was riveted in my seat and I felt a great sense of relief, because it had been acknowledged in public, in a school, by a teacher what had happened to me.  And it gave me tremendous comfort, even though I didn’t say anything.

So, I think that  it is important that it be mandated.  It sends a message to predators that it’s time for them to be afraid and it sends a message to kids that is of top priority to protect them.  And so, thank you for hearing me out. 

Chair:  Thank you.  Questions?  Thank you very much.

"If . . .we start getting blood on the highways, we may have to go back."

So quotes ADN reporter Nathaniel Herz, Alaska representative Craig Johnson, on the reassigning of the Alaska Troopers highway patrol unit to general patrol jobs.

I noticed this phrase because I think language matters.  Blood on the highway.  Sounds like a custodial job, cleaning up stains on the road.  The human beings who are hurt, maimed, or killed are erased and all that's left are blood stains.  It's a minor issue, unless people start spilling fluids on the road.

But the words you use, the details you focus on reflect what you hear, see, and think.  A Psychology Today article begins:

"The closest one person can get to understanding another person's thoughts is to listen to the words that he or she speaks or writes. Certain words reflect the behavioral characteristics of the person who spoke or wrote them."

A Scientific American article begins:

NO ONE DOUBTS that the words we write or speak are an expression of our inner thoughts and personalities. 

But both articles go on to focus more on the grammatical function of words than what I'm addressing here.   Rep. Johnson's callousness about the human cost of accidents is a signal.  No, it's not the only clue we should use, but it's worth putting into the evidence file on Johnson.

Nor am I saying the switch in duties for these highway patrol officers is a bad thing.  I suspect driving up and down lonely stretches of highway is costly and yields relatively little in documentable achievements for the Troopers.  Things that don't happen - like accidents because people know the troopers are around - often don't get measured.  And technology can track people violating the rules very efficiently as I learned in California when I used what I thought was a car pool lane that turned out to be a toll lane.  But Anchorage folks thought having cameras track speeders around schools was 'unfair' and got that policy withdrawn.  While I suspect most drivers would love to have those crazy drivers who pass at high speeds on curves on the Seward Highway caught, they wouldn't like cameras catching them going 75 mph.  But I digress.  This is about language.  And to some extent about gathering evidence so that we don't judge public officials on just one incident.  I did watch Johnson on the State Affairs committee when I covered the legislature in Juneau in 2010.  He's rational as the title quote suggests - it's simply a cost benefit analysis between 'blood on the highways' and redeploying troopers.  I don't recall Johnson displaying much emotional connection to issues.  The most significant piece of evidence I picked up on Johnson that year was in the legislative travel disclosures.

 Johnson reported the, by far, most costly sponsored travel for 2009:

"11-20 10-27 Rep. Johnson  $17,974 Saudi Arabian Government; NCSL requested Speaker of House to send an Oil and Gas representative to participate in a study tour. This was a trade mission to Saudi Arabia with the goal of increasing relations between USA and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; airfare, lodging, meals and ground transportation; Riyadh, Damman, and Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia"

I'd also like to compliment Nathaniel Herz whose work I've noticed as he covered the Anchorage Assembly for the last couple years or so.  He does a great job of reporting both the facts and the context.  And he's doing the same in Juneau now.  His choice to highlight this particular quote in this article - I'm sure a lot was said in that committee meeting that isn't in the article - says to me that he thought it as interesting as I do.  And I'm a little jealous of him down their in Juneau with the whole legislature offering him such an array of newsworthy action and a chance to see the lawmakers close up and personal.

And I've been impressed to see articles (such as Jan 19 and Feb 5) with a joint by-line of Herz and Pat Forgey of the Juneau Empire.  I don't recall that sort of cross-paper cooperation before.   Of course, some of the responsibility goes to the owners of the Alaska Dispatch News, which has a lot of reporters covering state and local news.

OK, I can't help adding one more thought about the article.  It mentions that this highway unit was formed in 2009 with federal money.

"It was entirely funded by the federal government at first, though now the state has to pay about half its cost."

One of the key arguments Parnell used against expanding Medicaid was that the state would have to pay part of the costs after the original federal money was gone.  That didn't seem to be a problem when it came to getting  money for law enforcement.  And this shows that the program can be cut if we can't afford it down the line.