AIFF: Sunday Offers Impressive Crime/Prison Lessons

 I missed the noon movie Sunday.  I just needed a little more time to recuperate. 

Saturday morning had a great set of Alaska themed or made films.  I was very pleased that we are past the days when Alaska films were any Alaskan project where someone writes a story and goes out (usually) into the woods and experiments with how their cameras and mics work.  

That elation didn't survive Sunday's Alaska Shorts Program.  There were good ones mostly.  And that's all I'll say.  

The afternoon Documentary Feature - The Body Politic - was a riveting look at Baltimore mayor Brandon Scott.   We see Scott elected into office as a young Black man who saw his first shooting at 10, and vowed that the basic approach of mass arresting of Black men had to be replaced.  The alternative was to give people options in life other than crime and prison.    He comes into office after 327 (maybe it was 37) people had been murdered in the previous year, vowing to cut murders by 15%.  But pro-active reaching out to folks is a long term strategy and takes a while to work.  He monitored every murder as they outpaced his target.  The Republican governor, who controlled prisons, parole, and critical social services, refused to meet with Scott and said he needed to beef up the police to stop the crime.

The discussion afterward included director Gabriel Francis Paz Goodenough, film subject Erricka Bridgeford, and another film maker whose name and role I didn't quite catch.  Ida, the director of the festival is on the right.  Ericka is in the middle.  

You can read more about the film from a Baltimore paper and read an interview with the director here.

The next shorts program began with another excellent film - The Bond - which was short and packed a powerful punch as we see an incarcerated woman having her baby, shackled, and then having the baby taken from her.  The filming, the story, the acting were all just right.  

The last program were three films related to prison and domestic violence.  

Infraction told the true story of an inmate who the judge had, at some point concluded was innocent, but was still locked up.

Seeds of Change told the story of a farmer who takes on the project of setting up a farm adjacent to a prison and then utilizing prisoners to work on the farm.  The fresh food is served in the prison.  The film shows the effect of the farm work on the prisoners who worked there and the effects of having fresh food prepared well on the prisoners. 

Where I Learned Not to Sleep  - The camera follows two retired police who grew up with domestic violence, doing training programs for police on how to approach domestic violence situations.  

The whole afternoon and evening illustrated the need to treat citizens, abused women,  and prisoners with dignity and respect to break the cycle of violence and criminality.  

There's much more to say, but this at least gives you a sense of what I got out of the festival on Sunday.  

"Reporting back from the future: GOP's battered wife syndrome is in full force even after Trump has left office. So SAD!"

 On May 14, 2018 I began a blog post like this:

Congressional Republicans Show Signs of Battered Wife Syndrome

Medical News Today says battered women suffer from PTSD but then adds they suffer their own special symptoms as well.

In addition to PTSD, people with battered woman syndrome show symptoms that may be confusing to outsiders.
Those include:

• learned helplessness
• refusing to leave the relationship
• believing that the abuser is powerful or knows everything
• idealizing the abuser following a cycle of abuse
• believing they deserve the abuse

I then went on to look at each of these symptoms and relate them to Congressional GOP.  (You can see the whole post at the link above.)

Today, Anonymous left this comment:

"Reporting back from the future: GOP's battered wife syndrome is in full force even after Trump has left office. So SAD!"

So sad, indeed.  But the Democrats have laid out such a powerful, logical, and easy to understand case for Trump's treachery.  And it's all there in video - the presentations of the House team and the embedded video they used as evidence.  

Even if the Republicans can't see it, or are too paralyzed to break rank, everyone else can see it.  Historians have never had it so easy.  And their students have never had it so compelling.   

Invisible Power - How Powerful People Protect Themselves

In a Columbia Journalism Review article,   Lyz Lenz writes about interviewing Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor who recently resigned after details came out about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

In it she helps clarify how powerful people (usually men) are able to get away with things by wielding their power through fixers.

"Sitrick is a fixer who has made a name for himself cleaning up the messes of rich and powerful men (and some women, too). 

“Mike, am I the lead steer?” I’d asked Sitrick when he called. The “lead steer” is Sitrick’s idea that all it takes to change the direction of a media stampede is for one journalist to take a contrarian view of the story. It’s a theory that holds well for ranchers trying to redirect a stampede. And it’s worked for Sitrick, who has orchestrated positive press for some odious clients.

"4: The Plan
In 2011, Michael Sitrick sued Jeffrey Epstein, over an unpaid bill for PR services. In that lawsuit is a detailed outline of services rendered.
It’s a plan that shows a comprehensive outline of reporters who were contacted about stories and who reached out for interviews. The idea was this: connect with reporters, offer access, overwhelm them with data, threaten their access if things go sideways, go over their heads. That is how men like Epstein went unchallenged for years. How a journalist can know something, but never be able to say it. On August 22, NPR’s David Folkenflick detailed how Epstein allegations went unreported by Vanity Fair. The story alleges that Epstein pressured the magazine’s editor, Graydon Carter, and that Carter caved."

We already know about the insidious use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) that require someone to never mention what happened to them again as a condition for a payment - generally known as hush money - like Trump's deal with Stormy Daniels and others.

 I'm putting this short paragraphs from Lenz here like  research notes.  These sorts of explanations of tactics get lost in the longer article.  I want to record this clearly and as I come across similar flickers of light shining into the dark shadows that protect the powerful, I'll add new posts.


[This was supposed to go up yesterday, but I've been so busy prepping my pecha kucha presentation that I forgot.  The presentation is tomorrow, and if I get far enough along with it today, I'll tell you more about it later today.  Don't hold your breath.]

Two Excellent ADN Letters To The Editor - One On Climate Change, One On Ambler Road

In this time of strong partisan divide, of fake news, and intentional distortion of facts, and even creation of totally fabricated stories, I'd like to share two excellent letters from today's Anchorage Daily News(ADN).  But I also recognize that in this age I probably need to explain why I rate them so highly.  I'll do that later. But first I'll let you look at the letters yourselves.  Well, I'm only excerpting them, you can see the complete letters at the links.*

First, from Kendra Zamzow** of Chickaloon:

"Climate Change is not an environmental issue.
It’s a real estate issue when people leave behind homes destroyed or at risk from fire and coastal erosion. It’s a public health issue when saltwater seeps into drinking water wells as seas rise. It’s a public health crisis when heat kills hundreds or thousands of people.
It’s a public works issue when major cities like Miami run pumps to de-flood city streets and sidewalks.
It’s an infrastructure issue when railroads collapse and roads melt. It’s an agricultural issue when sustained flooding prevents crops from being planted. It’s a ranching issue when drought forces cattlemen to kill their herds. It’s a national security risk when military bases repeatedly flood, leaving planes and equipment stranded.
It’s an immigration issue when crops fail and farmers move, seeking land or work. It’s a defense issue when water tables drop, disrupting livelihoods and driving conflict. It’s a food resources issue when warm ocean waters drive algal blooms that cause shellfish to be poisonous .  . ."

Second, from Rachael Gaedeke of Anchorage:

[*It turns out the second letter is not yet posted online in the ADN.  I'll offer you part of it and will put up a link when the whole letter is available.]  It talks about the hearings to take testimony on the Ambler Road, being proposed into roadless land for the benefit of a private mining project. The letter was written by Raechel Gaedeke:

"When I read through the DEIS, it was sadly apparent that no one had thought to address the negative social impact of this proposed 211-mile road. . .
"Study after study has shown that when mines are built, the communities closest suffer from increased rates of alcoholism, increased rates of domestic violence and increased rates of sexual assault.  The villages in proximity to this propose road and this potential mine(s) do not have the resources to support the influx of miners, truckers and "man camps" that will follow.  I greatly fear for the women and children in every village that comes close to the proposed Ambler Road. . .
"I strongly urge BLM to address the following questions:
1.  How will you ensure the safety of the women and children living in the communities within proximity to this proposed road and the mine(s) that will follow?
2.  What security measures will be taken to ensure that alcohol or drugs will not be bootlegged into the communities via this road either by truckers employed by the mine(s) or potential poachers?
5.  What security measures will you take to keep poachers off the road . . .
6.  How will you prevent the potential for sex trafficking on this road via truckers, poachers, etc. into the mine(s) or the man camps or the villages?
7.  When More police officers  and Village Public Safety Officers are needed, who will pay?
8.  How will you research and document and mitigate the potential for negative social impact on the indigenous people in the region of the proposed mine . . ." 

So, what makes these good letters?

1. They broaden the scope of the issues.  The climate change one moves the discussion from simply 'record temperatures' or 'more intense storms and fires' to all the many ways a warming climate is going to affect people.  These things are already affecting many people, but the scope will get greater and greater.  This is not somebody else's problem.  It's a human problem.  The Ambler Road letter moves the discussion from narrow physical environmental impacts of the road to the social impacts of this sort of large scale remote development tends to bring with it.
2. These letters are sensational.  The issues they raise are well documented.  
3. I can't spot any factual fabrications or distortions.  
4. They pack a lot of information into relatively few words, though the Ambler Road letter is a little repetitive in its list of questions, though what I'm calling repetitive points seem to focus on a slightly different aspect.
5. The language of each letter is clear and easy to understand.  It's strong, but focuses on issues and does not attack individuals or categories of individuals.  (That last sentence should go without saying, but nowadays needs to be said more and more.)

I realize those who emotionally deny climate change will be unhappy with the first letter and call it alarmist.  The nearly 70% of US residents who think it's real and are worried about climate warming will learn more about the many likely impacts. (If they want to do something to help slow down climate change they can check out the Citizens Climate Lobby website.)

And those financially in favor of the Ambler Road, really are responsible for answering the questions raised.  Can they prevent these likely externalities of their project?  If not, should the State of Alaska allow a project that is likely to add to Alaska's high level of sexual violence to a large extent fueled by drugs and alcohol, and to increase sex trafficking?

So I thank these two letter writers for their strong and articulate letters raising important issues for Alaskans (and all US residents) to consider.  And I thank the ADN for publishing them.


**I didn't know anything about Zamzow when I read the letter in the hardcopy paper today (Yes, it's still coming.)  But there's a brief biographical blurb in the online version, which helps explain why the author wrote such a powerful letter:

"Kendra Zamzow, a resident of Chickaloon, is an environmental chemist and the Alaska representative for the Center for Science in Public Participation. She has a doctorate in environmental chemistry from the University of Nevada, Reno and a bachelor's degree in molecular and cellular biology from Humboldt State University, California."

Can Cures For Brazilian Domestic Violence Perpetrators Work With Trump Supporters Too?

An LA Times article reports that a group therapy program for men who beat their wives has been extremely successful.  Here's a short excerpt:

"For Fabio Alberto Alves, discussing feelings was something only women did.But the judge had sentenced the 53-year-old machinist to group therapy for men convicted of domestic violence, so he didn’t have much choice. It was either that or prison.During the first two of 20 weekly sessions, he didn’t say a word. He shouldn’t even be here, he thought. His wife of 25 years had blown the situation out of proportion. He was drunk when he grabbed her and caused a scene at her church. The cops should have never been involved. Then, on his third night as part of the group, he opened up.“Being here for me now is like being with family,” he said. “I realized that what I did was wrong, but that no one is here to judge me. When I’m here, I feel like I can talk, express myself.”The shift in attitude — from indignant and detached to temperate and open — is what groups like the one Alves participates in are after. As Brazil continues to register startling rates of domestic violence and femicide, therapists, prosecutors, judges and women’s right activists all agree on one thing: If saving women from becoming victims is the goal, working on men is the answer."

The article reports that recidivism rates drop to zero!  But even if it was as high as 20%, that would be huge.  It also notes that most resources go to victims, but as that last sentence in the quote points out, if anything is going to change, the men have to be involved.  (Just as whites have to be become more aware of the  their own involvement and the magnitude of the problem, if racism is going to end.)

Any kind of serious change like this has to go on in the heads of perpetrators.  Their self-serving narratives have to be challenged and they have to be offered alternative ways to think about the world and their position in it.   That's what good education is about.  Getting people to articulate their models of how the world works and then having them compare their own models to experts' models.  (And I'm not blindly siding with experts here.  Sometimes the students' models are better.)

The Brazilian article got me to wondering whether group therapy might be helpful for Trump supporters.   After all, these are people who believe crazy conspiracy theories and are clearly deciding emotionally, not rationally.  (Yes, I realize that's pretty strong, but not enough Germans confronted people who supported Hitler's lies and racism.  Though in Germany such confrontation could quickly lead to death.  In the US we don't have that threat - yet.  And if you are offended by Hitler analogies, there's Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Idi Amin, etc.)

And then I found this study - Men with Fragile Masculinity Vote for Trump - today that suggests my idea isn't that far-fetched.

I'd note that it appears this study has not been published in a peer reviewed journal - just the Washington Post.  And the authors themselves caution:

"Our data suggests that fragile masculinity is a critical feature of our current politics. Nonetheless, points of caution are in order.
First, the research reported here is correlational. We can’t be entirely sure that fragile masculinity is causing people to vote in a certain way. However, given that experimental work has identified a causal connection between masculinity concerns and political beliefs, we think the correlations we’ve identified are important.
Second, it remains to be seen whether any link between fragile masculinity and voting will persist after Trump exits the national stage. We suspect, however, that Trump’s re-engineering of the GOP as a party inextricably tied to many Americans’ identity concerns — whether based on race, religion or gender — will ensure that fragile masculinity remains a force in politics."

(Can you imagine a Trump supporter cautioning that his data is only correlational and hasn't been proven to be causal?)

Assuming the study has merit, then I'd argue that if the therapy works with macho Brazilians, why not with the men of the MAGA crowd?  But then, Brazilians who beat their wives have an incentive to attend such therapy.  It keeps them out of prison.  We can't offer Trump supporters therapy as an alternative to prison, unless, of course, they are convicted of a crime.

And if the study is wrong, well, I still believe that changing how one sees the world is the most likely way to permanently change their behavior.  This is another reason why good public schools that teach critical thinking skills are important.

So, it's time for people to start organizing discussion groups and finding skilled facilitators to bring our country back together again.  It won't work for everyone, but if 10% of Trump supporters are cured of their delusions, that would make a huge difference.  (And I'd note there are people whose dedication to Clinton was just as emotionally based, and who would have voted for her against a truly enlightened, experienced, and science oriented Republican.  (Yeah, I'm trying to figure out who that might have been.  Abe Lincoln?)

Trump As Pres Is Like Living With An Abusive S[p]ouse

and no one will help you.  Every day is a new outrageous violation of the relationship.  [In a previous post I argued that the Republican Senators were the battered spouse, but they really are the officials who should be doing something but are looking the other way.]  And he brags about it each day.  But no one can help.  His behavior is reprehensible, but he controls the escape routes and those who should be rescuing us are either afraid to confront him, in denial, or complicit.  The people who know and are outraged too, can only voice their frustration.    The police are busy gathering evidence so they can arrest him and he can be prosecuted.  But meanwhile he abuses us and steals from us and taunts us and laughs.

I'm sure this must be something like what an abused spouse feels like,

But you can call or email your Republican senators and let them know how you feel.  Remind them of the long list of outrageous they've condoned.  Can't remember them all?

Amy Suskind listed the first year's outrages in THE LIST: A Week-By-Week Reckoning of Trump’s First Year

The Weekly List (This is how Democracy Ends) is here.

The Daily Trump: Filling a Time Capsule in the Oct 6, 2018 Atlantic is another source.

But letting them know how you personally have been affected is probably the most effective - it will be unique and personal.

For some, the only issue that will move them is fear of losing the next election.  Remind them that there are Beto O'Rourkes in every state.  And by 2020 and 2022 a number of them will actually win.
For others, appealing to their legacy might work.  Remind them that their children and grandchildren will know that they had the power to do something,  but looked the other way while Trump destroyed the United States.

You can find your Senators' contact info here.

Here are the Republicans who are up for election in 2020.  Links go to their email pages.  This is not a one time exercise.  This should be repeated at least twice a month.  And get friends to do the same.  Invite people for dinner and make writing part of the after dinner activities.

Republicans

Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)

Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV)

Cassidy, Bill (R-LA)

Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)

Cornyn, John (R-TX)

Cotton, Tom (R-AR)

Daines, Steve (R-MT)

Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY)

Ernst, Joni (R-IA)

Gardner, Cory (R-CO)

Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)

Hyde-Smith, Cindy (R-MS) [Hyde-Smith is in a runoff on next Tuesday - Nov. 27, 2018]

Inhofe, James M. (R-OK)

McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)

Perdue, David (R-GA)

Risch, James E. (R-ID)

Roberts, Pat (R-KS)

Rounds, Mike (R-SD)

Sasse, Ben (R-NE) [One of the few who's criticized Trump publicly.]

Sullivan, Dan (R-AK) [This one's my responsibility to work on.]

Tillis, Thom (R-NC)

Henry v MOA - 1) Sexual Assault 2) Henry I and II

Yesterday we ended listening to video of one of Henry's attorneys, Ray Brown, haranguing Rick Brown the author of the, until last week, secret Brown Report.  I thought that Rick Brown ended up looking pretty unprepared for the deposition and he was unable to handle Ray Brown's withering non-stop questions.

End Of Yesterday's Video

The last 50 minutes of the video were shown first thing this morning.  But the topic now was sexual assault and abuse.   Ray Brown worked Rick Brown  over about what evidence he had that that Anthony Henry meeting with General Katkus  deterred victims from coming forward.  I also realized yesterday that I really didn't know when the deposition took place because from my seat, I couldn't see the date label on the video.  So today I got up and walked to where I could see the date  and was somewhat surprised.  November 16, 2016.  That was two years ago!  Just after Trump was elected.  #MeToo was just starting then.

Even more than yesterday, the tape reminded me of a a movie detective trying to wear down a suspect into confessing.  The questions again were demeaning and so fast that Rick Brown barely could answer one before he was hit by another.

But the topic was different.  The questions were about why this victim or that didn't file a report?  Women have already known, and men who have been paying any attention at all, now know, that coming forward with sexual assault cases is difficult.  Ray Brown belittles Guardsman Blaylock [someone who complained a lot about problems at the National Guard] because he won't release names of women who complained to him about sexual assaults.  [I'm taking my rough court notes and adding words to make them more intelligible, but I don't think I'm distorting the meaning or the tone.]

Q:  "The Army National Guard had appeared to investigate all Blaylock’s charges, but focused on his accusations - investigations did not support any of Blaylock’s allegation.  Initial investigation did not reveal violations.  Does that indicate to you that Blaylock is a reliable source?   

A:  That indicates some problem with his reliability.
Q:  What did McCoy tell you of cases lost due to 15-6  [15-6 is type of internal investigation at National Guard] investigation?   

A:  No affect
Q:  He said didn’t affect people coming forward on sex investigations?  Did it have anything to do with dissuading people from coming forward?   

A:  No
Q:  Rape cases after disclosure, where did your number come from?

A:  No difference since 2010.   

Q:  What do you mean by that?   

A:  Trying to reconcile why numbers in OCI report and first Lt McCoy's numbers are different, need to figure it out to get accurate account.
Q:  How does this Blaylock, dressed down by Katkus, how does this affect stopping women from coming forward?   It's not there.

Q:  We have none.  [Gives initials of alleged victim] did you interview them?  AL?

A:  no 

Q:  MJ? 

A: no

Q:  KD or ST 

A:  no sir.  ST could be

Q:  ST had specifically declined for prosecution by McCoy, right?   

A: I can’t remember when he dealt with her complaint but said it wasn’t prosecutable.
Q:  You said Kaktus ordered them to disclose names of women.  So Henry had nothing he could report, except he had a rogue officer at FBI building. 

Well, many Americans now know, because of Kavanaugh, how hard it is to "prove" something happened, and how men's reputations are considered, by many, more important than women's experiences.  And how women who come forward, and the people who support them, are vilified.  So, the jury today, will probably be less impressed with Ray Brown's performance than they might have in 2016.  He was essentially blaming women for not coming forward, and dismissing any possibility of a hostile environment.

The 'truths' that Ray Brown was claiming, seemed hollow.  Since no one came forward, that proved there were no problems.  And Rick Brown, toward the end, did stand up to Ray Brown.

Ray Brown:  That’s called the truth isn’t it?
Rick Brown:  Depends on how you get there.
Ray Brown:  Truth is the truth?
Rich Brown:  Depends on how you get there

Yesteday's questions were mired in details about the case.  But showing the video deposition in front of the jury allowed Ray Brown to string together a narrative, barely interrupted by Rick Brown's answers - that painted Rick Brown as a bumbling investigator who didn't know anything about how to do an investigation like this.  It allowed him to focus on actions that he then interpreted.  Rick Brown's inability to push back, at all, made it look like Ray Brown was right in everything the way he wanted it.  But the fact that Rick Brown couldn't answer, or that he missed things in the investigation,  even many things, doesn't mean there weren't problems there, as Rick Brown led the jury to conclude.  Would a better investigator have found them?  Maybe.

Today that issue was much clearer with the questions about sexual abuse victims.  Just because Blaylock couldn't or wouldn't produce names, didn't mean those victims didn't exist.  Just because they couldn't prosecute, didn't mean the assaults didn't take place.  And in this new #MeToo reality, more people understand why victims won't come forward.  I'm not sure why the defense allowed that tape in, or, if they protested, why the judge did.  A deposition takes place in a relatively small room.  In the courtroom, the attorney could never have pulled off a harangue like that.  I can hear every television lawyer I've ever seen jumping up and yelling, "He's badgering the witness!"

We'll see what comes next.  This trial isn't close to the end yet.

Anthony Henry Takes The Witness Stand- Part I

Then the plaintive Anthony Henry went to the witness stand.  We learned about him.

There was a lot of questions leading him through the being a successful long time police officer and then things started falling apart.  According to his story, it began when Jack Carson started accusing harassing Jason Whetsell after he was diagnosed with MS and Henry tried to protect Whetsell during that period.  Then Carson went after Henry.  The story he told was of the beginning of a series of of complaints about him which he characterized as Carson going after him, that eventually resulted in his being terminated.

This has led him get a security job in Iraq as the only way he can approach the pay he had as a police Lieutenant in Anchorage.  He's in Alaska about 60 days a year.  Wants to come back but says can't find job with reasonable pay.

When his attorney Margaret Simonian (he has several attorneys) asked him how this affected his life, he said "This has destroyed my life" and started started to choke up.  Then he began to cry and turned his head away from the jurors.  When he regained his composure he apologized and said, "I'm a 50 year old man and I have to go through this.  This affects everything.  Every aspect of my life."  The judge called for a break.


Anthony Henry Takes The Witness Stand- Part II

By 4 pm, the defense attorney began to cross examine.  He started picking at some of the answers Henry had given earlier.  It sounded like a gentler version of Ray Brown questioning Rick Brown as attorney Doug Parker questioned him on details and started raising questions.
He pointed out contradictions - that Henry had blamed McMillan for telling Katkus first, but really Henry had told Katkus first.  Henry said that was correct.
Parker mentioned a situation where Henry got dates mixed up and 'emphatically' insisted the others were wrong.  But it turned out Henry was wrong.  Henry agreed, he'd relied on his notes because he didn't trust the others, but his notes were wrong.  This exchange ended with this:

Parker:   You said telling the truth was one of two things that could get you fired.
Henry:   Yes.

And that was the last thing the jurors heard that day.  The judge called it a day and the jurors were excused.

As I said Friday, trials are wild rides as you hear from people being questioned by friendly lawyers and then unfriendly lawyers.  As one witness testifies, and later another one contradicts him.  You hear about terrible people and then they show up as witnesses and don't seem so terrible at all.  It's like a live mystery and the people on the jury have to take in all the clues and decide what happened


Extra For Junkies

Here's some slightly edited (for clarity) rough notes from Henry's testimony about his background. I thought it would be easier for the reader if I made it third person, but as I went along, I let it revert back to the first person.):

He grew up in Pittsburgh,
Since child always wanted to be in law enforcement.  He had family in law enforcement.  His dad took him to station, locked him in a cell. He never wanted to do anything else.  Graduated HS, His dad was a veteran, had GI benefits, so he had to go to college even though he really was not into academics. But he liked sports.  He took criminal justice classes and really enjoyed them.  He completed some sort of degree in criminal justice and then enlisted in the army.  Nine years in active duty.  Wanted to be in criminal investigation.  Started as  a military police, then CID special agent, (Criminal Investigation Div for the  Army, doing felony criminal investigation.
He had a 16 week program,  He also graduated in military police school for investigators and military police.  Army CID had 4 months residency.  Good part of training on drug enforcement.  Finished college, got BA in Criminal Justice.  Several service medals.  Meritory service.  One significant  long term undercover drug investigation in Colorado and Alaska.  Always my dream to come to Alaska.  Got opportunity to work with APD and decided where I wanted to spend life.
Returned to Colorado, reenlisted since APD not hiring then.  Went to Fairbanks.
APD 1992 - 5 months academy  - honor grad.
Full time assignment,  preferred busy areas, Spenard, mid town.  Applied for SWAT team.  Spent 18 years on SWAT.  Promoted to SRG.  Asked to take over canine unit, 4 years handled dog.  Lot of ongoing training, formal and informal.  Schools in area - Drug enforcement, DEA basic and advanced.  Commanders Academy.  Compeitive?  Drug Commanders and FBI National - I attended both.
Most significant at APD tactical team - school violence, developed for dept and ASD.

Selected as employee of year, for tactics repsond to active shooter event.  ASD superintendent.  SWAT team for agency and schools and took statewide.
Formalized through writing policies, bring folks from out of state here canine, school violence, Carol Comeau, wrote grant, bring dogs into schools, kids love them, help with anti-bullying.
S:  Relationship with Hebee - Agree with characterization with Hebee before 2012. 27 years ago. You obviously heard of relationship with my ex-wife and have love of my life, we’re never going to be friends, when he does good things, I recognize that.  Our careers crossed paths and I’ve had no issues.

"Graham Promises Investigation Of ‘The Effort To Destroy This Good Man’" - Give Me A Break

I've been thinking how many bizarre, even unimaginable (not long ago) headlines we've been seeing.  Some of this, of course, is hyped by the media (online probably worse than print) to get more hits and sell more ads.  The title quote comes from TPM.

But really, Sen. Graham, I'm so glad you've come to the aid of all men who might be falsely accused of sexual abuse.  From a Stanford (sure, biased source since Dr. Ford teaches there) Men's anti sexual assault group (group of traitors to their gender, right Sen. Graham?):

Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes.  Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason.
On a related note, only about 40% of rapes are ever reported to the police, and this is partly because victims know that if their claim becomes public, their every behavior will be scrutinized, they will be shamed for their sexual history, and they will be labeled as lunatic, psychotic, paranoid, and manipulative.  Just because someone does not report their crime does not mean it did not happen.  Furthermore, only one in two claims lead to prosecution, so if the DA decides not to prosecute, that says nothing about whether or not it happened.  http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)

2% are false claims, and 40% of such crimes are never reported, so that would bump down the 2% figure.

And Sen. Graham is worried about men who are falsely accused, the 2%, rather than all the women  (and men) who are sexually abused and assaulted with impunity.  OK, I know this is one specific man.  But unless you are ideologically blinded, or so corrupted by campaign funders, or worried that accusations like this might affect you and lots of other male abusers you hang out with, it's hard not to find Ford's testimony totally credible and Kavanaugh's evasive at best and sprinkled with lies - big and small - at worst.

What we learned, incontrovertibly, at the hearings was:

1.  In a time of personal crisis, Kavanaugh fell apart.  He did not remain calm and rational.  He blew up.  If Dr. Ford had acted like Kavanaugh, she would have been pilloried in the committee.  Anger is an emotion, one that shows great loss of control.  I don't care if this was a personal crisis. This man is being considered for the Supreme Court.  Only nine people get that privilege.  I'm sure there are plenty of qualified candidates who are able to control their anger and act more like Dr. Ford than Judge Kavanaugh.

2.  He lied about the meaning of words he wrote in his high school year book.  He lied about getting into Yale totally on his own merits, that he had no connections.  (He was a legacy student because his grandfather went to Yale.)  [UPDATE 3pm 9/30/18 - Nathan J. Robinson wrote the detailed, lie-by-lie analysis "How we know Brett Kavanaugh is lying" I didn't have the time or energy to do.  And he does a much better job than I would have had I had the time and energy.  So thanks Nathan.  Here's his summary of what he's doing in this piece:

"In this case, when we examine the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford honestly, impartially, and carefully, it is impossible to escape the following conclusions:
Brett Kavanaugh is lying.
There is no good reason to believe that Christine Blasey Ford is lying. This does not mean that she is definitely telling the truth, but that there is nothing in what Kavanaugh said that in any way discredits her account.
I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in a house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one."

It's long, but he needs time to spell it all out,]

I recognize that these are the kind of lies Kavanaugh worked to attack when they were coming from Bill Clinton.  There the kind of lies one tells to avoid bigger consequences - like not being confirmed by the Senate.

3.  He openly showed his political bias.  "Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.”

He showed himself to be a bitter, self-centered, jerk.

This was not a profile in courage.  He did not pull himself up and and calmly and rationally defend his actions.  I suspect that would have been hard to do.

Graham's accusation of "the effort to destroy this good man,"  which echoes Kavanaugh's words, should be seen in the context of Kavanaugh's own work for Ken Starr on the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

A 1998 memo written by Kavanaugh that was released in full Monday by the National Archives underscores his distaste for Bill Clinton’s Oval Office affair in apparently purposefully graphic terms. As the team prepared to interview Clinton, Kavanaugh advises it to put the president through the wringer “piece by painful piece” when questioning him.

This is what Kavanaugh wanted to do to Clinton - to destroy him.  So naturally he believes the Democrats would do the same thing.  Is the K in Kavanaugh for Karma?

There may be people out to destroy Kavanaugh.  The more I learn about him, the more I realize he's been a political hitman disguised as hard-working former alter-boy, who joined the Federalist Society judicial cult of originalism that favors the powerful over other citizens, and served that cause to the cusp of a still possible Supreme Court position.

I think most people who oppose him fear his ideological commitment to originalism would do great damage to the United States.

His performance the other day, in my mind, disqualifies him for this position for the reasons listed above, regardless of whether he did the deeds Dr. Ford alleges he did.  This hearing is NOT about whether Kavanaugh sexually abused Dr. Ford - though the Republicans are making it that, and short of eyewitness reports, or better yet, video, nothing can prove it to their satisfaction.

It's really - as Graham said earlier - not about truth, but about power.

Alaskans, your calls to Sen. Murkowski carry more weight than those of people outside of Alaska. Call her.  Email her.  Even if you've already done so ten times.  And send copies to Sen. Sullivan.  He's not going to vote against Kavanaugh, but it's important to let him know you're watching and you aren't happy.

Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)

522 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6665

Contact: www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Sullivan, Dan - (R - AK)

702 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3004

Contact: www.sullivan.senate.gov/contact/email

I did an hour bike ride this morning, had a hot malasada, and now I'm going to play in the water.

















And a reminder about Senate courage from the JFK Presidential Library:




And here are some study/discussion questions for students that the Senate Judiciary Committee might want to work on as a group.

And some poetry on courage from a rich, white, male, imperialist poet (Rudyard Kipling) that is sure to appeal more to Sen. Graham.  It begins:

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;"

Kavanaugh Hearings Thoughts - No One Is Entitled To A Supreme Court Seat And This Was NOT A Trial

[UPDATE:  Just moments after I posted this, I see that Sen Flake has called for a week's delay to let the FBI investigate the sexual assault charge.]

1.  Ostensibly, this hearing was about  who is telling the truth.  Dr  Ford or Judge Kavanaugh?
Republicans seemed to have conceded  that  Ford was telling the truth, EXCEPT that she got her assaulter wrong and Kavanaugh was telling the truth when he said he never assaulted her or anyone else.   That takes some tricky brain compartmentalization, but since the Trump presidency, Republicans have gotten lots of practice with that.

Democrats felt Ford was telling the truth including her identification of her assaulter.

My perception, and apparently most people's, was that Ford was very credible  Even the Republicans spoke of her with respectful tones.  The only problem with her testimony, in their eyes, was that she was mistaken about her attacker.

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, provided evidence of what some had alleged was a violent temper when he gets drunk.  Except, I presume, he wasn't drunk.  He certainly seemed to be highly emotional - yelling in obvious fury about the accusations and also crying at times.

I couldn't help but think about the warning:  You don't know how you'll react in a crisis until you are in one.  Kavanaugh was in a crisis yesterday and instead of staying calm and reasoned, Kavanaugh lost it completely.  He was  focused on himself - how unfairly he was being treated.  Although people argue that it is difficult to pinpoint the meaning of 'judicial temperament," what Kavanaugh demonstrated yesterday, surely wasn't it.

And Kavanaugh refused to concede the two things that could have cleared his name.

1. Unlike Ford, he's taken no polygraph.  
2. He wouldn't agree to ask an FBI investigation into the assault charge.  Despite telling Senators he would agree to anything to clear his name,  when they offered him such a way - that he ask Trump to order an FBI investigation, he hemmed and hawed and said everything but wouldn't give a clear yes or no.  
1. He echoed Republican senators that there could have been an FBI investigation if the Democrats hadn't concealed the Ford letter.  (Feinstein said she had done so because of a promise she'd made not to reveal Ford's name.)   
2. He quoted Joe Biden saying that you could prove anything you wanted with an FBI report, that they didn't make any conclusions, only presented facts.  Yet he also said he had been cleared by FBI investigations any number of times when he was up for previous positions.  
3. Kavanaugh also claimed that there was no need for an FBI investigation because the Senate Judiciary Committee was investigating.  Yet each Senator gets only 5 minutes, and a skilled candidate like Kavanaugh who has coached nominees in the past, knows he can eat those minutes up by talking without answering the questions.  FBI investigators can ask for as long as they need.
4. He also said there was no need to have people like Mark Judge testify because he'd already submitted a note saying that Kavanaugh was not involved in the Ford assault.  Yet writing a note - actually it came from his attorney - is clearly not the same as appearing in person and having people ask probing questions and being able to judge how the person responds.  

Overall, the only evidence that Ford was wrong about her attacker was Kavanaugh's denial.  And his claims of inconsistencies in her story, that trauma experts say are normal memory lapses for trauma victims.   That was enough for Republicans.  Even though he, and they, could probably get much closer to the truth with an FBI investigation and him taking a polygraph.

2.  For Republicans, the hearing was about trying to convince people watching, that the Democrats have poisoned the advise and consent process by, 

• hiding the Ford letter until the last minute
• by opposing Kavanaugh from the beginning

Someone even said that from now on Supreme Court nominations will simply be bitter partisan fights, not about the candidates' real qualifications, but about winning and losing.

But, of course, that needs to be put into the context of all the federal judges that the Republicans held up when Obama was president, including never even holding hearings for Merrick Garland.
And the fact that Trump had relatively little trouble getting Neil Gorsuch approved.
The problems are also exacerbated by the elimination of the 2/3 majority requirement for approval of Supreme Court judges.  With that rule, presidents knew they had to nominate a judge moderate enough that some members of the minority could vote for.  With the simple majority rule we have now, a president can appoint a much more extreme judge if he can get all of the majority to vote yes.


3.  Kavanaugh's testimony made this all about Kavanaugh.  He was obsessed with how this process was ruining his reputation, his life, and his family.  All the things that happen to rape and sexual assault victims, he claimed for himself.  Yet as much as he was feeling sorry for himself, many decisions he's made as a judge don't seem to show much empathy for other people who have far more difficult problems in life.  See this overview of some of his decisions.

But this process wasn't about Kavanaugh really.

Yes, he is the nominee, but this was a hearing to confirm a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court.  No one is owed a Supreme Court position.  And no one is 'the only possible good candidate.' The president should nominate the best person he can find that the Senate will approve.  In the Senate's vetting process, some problems have arisen.  Problems, which if true, should disqualify Kavanaugh.

A candidate who had the best interests of the country in his heart, rather than ranting about his victimhood,  might realize that the debate over his nomination was not only hurting the country now, but would hurt the credibility of the Supreme Court if he were to serve.

4.  No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat.  He acted as if he were owed this Supreme Court position.  It was his and he sees the Democrats trying to snatch it away.  I understand that being accused of sexual assault does have a great impact on one's life.  But far worse things happen to people every day - innocent people get shot by police, others die because they can't afford medical treatment, or they lose their home so they can pay for medical treatment.  Their kids die of violence in schools.  And my sense is that Kavanaugh, as a judge, has little sympathy for their plight.  But, I give him credit that, like all the Republican senators there, he made sure not to insult Ford or to question her integrity.  But one can't help thinking that's because in the #metoo era, they knew it would make them look bad in front of millions.

But Kavanaugh made it clear - this wasn't about the good of the country, it was about him and his entitlement.  He yelled in anger.  He cried in (not sure, frustration?)  And he told us how his life had been ruined.

Most of us have survived not being appointed to the US Supreme Court.  And most of us have been turned down for something we felt was important - whether a job, a marriage proposal, a job.  And we've all been upset for a while and then gotten on with our lives.  Most of us have not had temper tantrums during the job interview.   The temporary fuss over Kavanaugh's confirmation will blow over.   His children will still love him and he will find lucrative opportunities.  In fact, his fallback position, should he not be confirmed, is his current life time appointment as a judge.

5.  This isn't a trial.  Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford were on trial yesterday - though the Republicans hired a woman prosecutor to question Ford for them as if she were on trial.. There will be no verdict of guilty or innocent.  No one will face jail time or other penalties as a result of these hearings.  And because this is not a courtroom, their resolution of which person is telling the truth, need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt."


6.  Kavanaugh was too clever for his own good.

Kavanaugh knows this Senate process well.  He's coached other court nominees when he worked in the Bush administration.  But all rules of strategy are meant to be broken when conditions change.  One rule most judicial candidates have adopted is to be as evasive in answers as possible. Don't let the Senators pin you down.  Kavanaugh has become an expert in not saying yes or no.  As mentioned above, he skirted the issue every time Democratic Senators urged him to ask for an FBI investigation to clear his name.

But in another question - Did he wish that Dr. Ford had never come forward? - he again weaseled.  This really seemed like a softball question.  There was no one watching (I'm sure) who didn't believe that Kavanaugh would have preferred to have his hearings over with without Dr. Ford's accusations.  Yet he wouldn't say yes.  I assume that his training in evasion wouldn't let him acknowledge what everyone knew to be true.   In my opinion, he would have sounded uncharacteristically candid had he just said, "I would love not to have to be here today, so yes."  He couldn't.  All he could do was continue playing dodgeball as Democratic senators kept throwing questions at him.


There was so much to think about during yesterday's hearings.  These are just a few observations I had.

And I can't help but imagine what people who did NOT see the testimony and are relying on news reports might think.  Even reports I heard on NPR seemed to be bending over backwards to not suggest any bias - thus depriving the listener of how different the testimony of the two was.

Does An Accusation Of A 33 Year Old High School Sexual Assault Matter?

We've been hearing about a letter alleging Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a girl in high school. Should that have any bearing on Kavanaugh's confirmation to the US Supreme Court?

None of us are the same people we were in high school.  Or so we would like to think.  Sure we change in many ways, but many of our behaviors then, good ones and not so good ones, still are part of us.

But is the story true even?  The Washington Post has an article today about the woman who wrote the letter detailing why she didn't talk about it sooner (well she did with her therapist and her husband) and why she did now.  Why she wanted it to be anonymous and why she's coming out publicly now.

After reading the article, I'm going to assume that it's quite likely this did indeed happen.  Kavanaugh categorically denies it, but the article brings out aspects of Kavanaugh's past that didn't surface in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.  These facts lend credence to the accusations.

"In his senior-class yearbook entry at Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh made several references to drinking, claiming membership to the “Beach Week Ralph Club” and “Keg City Club.” He and Judge are pictured together at the beach in a photo in the yearbook.
Judge is a filmmaker and author who has written for the Daily Caller, The Weekly Standard and The Washington Post. He chronicled his recovery from alcoholism in “Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk,” which described his own blackout drinking and a culture of partying among students at his high school, renamed in the book “Loyola Prep.” Kavanaugh is not mentioned in the book, but a passage about partying at the beach one summer makes glancing reference to a “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who “puked in someone’s car the other night” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”
Through the White House, Kavanaugh did not respond to a question about whether the name was a pseudonym for him."

Kavanaugh was an athlete, his mother was a judge.  I suspect if there were any serious issues in his life, his parents were positioned to make sure he didn't get into serious trouble for them.

The accuser is a college professor in Palo Alto, California who teaches at a college that is in a consortium with Stanford.  So she teaches Stanford graduate students psychology.  On the surface, there is nothing in her life - aside from a 33 year old sexual assault - that might account for her wanting to put her life onto a Republican target with a letter that probably wouldn't stop Kavanaugh's nomination anyway.

And the overwhelming number of sexual assault accusations turn out to be true.  There's no evidence so far that she was paid or otherwise pressured to make these accusations.  I'm sure that will come - the accusations, probably not the evidence.

So should a 33 year old drunken romp on a bed with a girl who didn't want to be there, matter in the nomination of Kavanaugh?

Again, these points I'm making, assume this happened.  (I'll make some points later that assume it didn't happen.)

1.  Kavanaugh never was confronted with this accusation and has never been held accountable.  And this stuff happened often back then (and still today).  Girls and women simply had to deal with things like this on their own.  This would be one example of a situation where he suffered no consequences for his inappropriate behavior.  Getting drunk during high school when his drinking was illegal, is another.  Sure, lots of people get drunk in high school, but for this future judge, it's another example of breaking the law with no consequences.  He even bragged about it in his yearbook.

2.  Kavanaugh categorically denied this ever happened.  That's textbook response for powerful men being accused of rape or sexual assault.  Though some, like Sen.  Franken, take responsibility for what they did and resign their positions.  If this did happen, Kavanaugh is lying.

3.  If a 33 year old high school indiscretion doesn't matter, then why not acknowledge it, apologize, and say that was long ago and I've learned and I'm no longer that person?  Trump didn't even have to apologize or say he was no longer that person.  But Supreme Court judges are expected to be truthful.

4.  In many of the #metoo cases we've seen in the last year or so, after a high profile accusation, other women come forward.  By rushing the vote to approve Kavanaugh, the Senate might be able to get him onto the court before anyone else comes forward.  Though this sounds like a particularly inept assault and perhaps it was a one-off.  Even if it wasn't, it may not have happened often or past high school or college.  But we should give others a chance to come forward.

5.  The accuser's hired an attorney who specializes in women accusers.  The attorney told her to take a lie detector test before she did anything else.  She passed the test.  I'd like Kavanaugh to take such a test if he's so certain it never happened.

6.  Republicans had a list ready of 65 women* who knew Kavanaugh in high school who all attest to his upstanding character.  (Does that include his self admitted drunken parties?)  If there are questions about the accuser's credibility, I'd like to see some reporters check with these women on how their names got on the list and whether they knew their names were going to be used to counter a sexual assault charge.


 Kavanaugh, and his Senate supporters, at his confirmation hearings, repeatedly talked about how Kavanaugh hired more female interns and people of color than the average judge.  While this is admirable, there's also something about men who surround themselves with women subordinates.  (It's interesting that google did poorly when I asked "male executives with mostly women subordinates."  It gave me articles about whether men or women are better bosses for women.  So I'm going to go with undocumented hunches here.)   My sense is that women, generally, are less confrontative than men.  Women are socialized to make nice.  (See Deborah Tannen's classic work on how men and women talk and act at work.)  I'd guess that, on average, life is easier, more pleasant, with women subordinates who are more grateful for getting an opportunity and less likely to challenge their boss.  He talked about all his mentoring - as girls basketball coach, all the women interns, the black students at Harvard.  All these are laudable things, but he actually used the young basketball players as props as they sat behind him one day during his hearings.  One can't help but wonder how much of this is stuff he's done to make his Supreme Court application look better.  Like high school kids volunteering at soup kitchens so they can put it down on their college applications.

7.  If Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, we'll have two judges on the court who got there despite credible accusations of sexual harassment/assault by women college professors.



What if the accusation is false?

1.  The committee could wait to be sure that accuser is lying.  They could wait to see if any other women come forward.   They could ask Kavanaugh to take a lie detector test.  (While they're at it, they could ask him some of the questions he seemed a bit cagey about during the public hearings.)

2.  Even if Democrats took the Senate in November, the Senate would still have a almost 2 months to confirm Kavanaugh before the new Senators are sworn in.  But given Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years, it would be tight.

3.  Senator Harris quoted Kavanaugh on 'rushed decisions.'

"As Judge Kavanaugh relayed to me in our meeting, with respect to judicial decisions, rushed decisions are often bad decisions. I agree. But this time, this is for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

3.  If would end up hurting the credibility of Democrats.



I suspect the Republicans and Kavanaugh, want him on the court so bad, and they feel like they are so, so close, that they want to rush this through before anything comes up that might quash their hopes.  They've already rushed the hearings through without hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that Democrats requested.  They're going to accept Kavanaugh's denial and not give time for others to come forth.  They want this done before the November election, even though the numbers suggest that they have a decent chance of keeping the Senate majority.

*I randomly picked a name from the list of 65 women who signed the letter supporting Brett Kavanaugh - Cindy Urgo - and google got me to her Youtube channel.  It has four videos up.  All with religious songs.   This is the most recent (2013):

Congressional Republicans Show Signs of Battered Wife Syndrome

Medical News Today says battered women suffer from PTSD but then adds they suffer their own special symptoms as well.

In addition to PTSD, people with battered woman syndrome show symptoms that may be confusing to outsiders.
Those include:

• learned helplessness
• refusing to leave the relationship
• believing that the abuser is powerful or knows everything
• idealizing the abuser following a cycle of abuse
• believing they deserve the abuse

Let's look at these one at a time and see how closely they apply to Congressional (and other) Republicans.  Naturally, not all Republicans are the same, but I suspect a good number fall into this category.

Learned Helplessness:  There are countless examples of Republicans unable to act appropriately.  Many Republican members of Congress privately complain about Trump.  He kept changing his position on immigration and they couldn't get a bill passed.  Many were upset with  Trump's imposition of tariff's and then breaking the Iran Nuclear Treaty.   There were the tax cuts that are predicted to raise the national debt to historic highs.  They cringe at his tweets, but are powerless to do anything.

Refusing to leave the relationship:  Actually, many are leaving.  Ballotpedia lists 3 retiring Republican Senators and 24 House members.  Two of the Senators are clearly leaving because of Trump - Corker and Flake.  The House members includes the Speaker of the House.   But the others seem to feel that can't break up the relationship, they have too much to lose.  Maybe they are vested in their prestige, income (payroll and side deals), influence, ideology, or whatever, that they rather stay taking abuse than leave or call out Trump's abusive behavior.

Believing that the abuser is powerful or knows everything:  It's clear they believe he's powerful.  He has the power to give them demeaning nicknames in his tweets and the power to support political opponents in the coming election.  He can sway the Republican base in the primaries.
But you might question their belief in his knowing everything.  Clearly, they don't think much of his knowledge of foreign policy, how government agencies operate, or how to manage his staff, let alone a presidential administration.  But because of social media, he will know anything they say publicly that's critical of the president.  And he'll punish them if he thinks there was any disrespect.

Idealizing the abuser following a cycle of abuse:   Chris Cilliza at CNN lists 11 Republican (one out of five) Senators that Trump has personally attacked.  Yet most of them have put their tails between their legs and made nice to Trump.  (Corker and Flake are exceptions.)

Time, back in July 2015 (!) listed 21 Republicans Trump had tweetsulted,  though many on the list are not current Congress members.

Vice asks, "How Many Insults Will It Take for the Entire GOP to Turn on Trump?"

But they seem to get over it and be charmed by, well, I don't get it myself.

Believing they deserve the abuse:  I don't have evidence of this, though I'm sure some of the more extreme Republicans believe the others deserve the abuse.  And I'm sure many, at least subconsciously, have some guilt for the kinds of compromises they had to make to get to Congress.


How to Get Out Of An Abusive Relationship

Help Guide offers lots of good information, too much to cover here.  But here's one section:

If you’re hoping your abusive partner will change... The abuse will probably happen again. Abusers have deep emotional and psychological problems. While change is not impossible, it isn’t quick or easy. And change can only happen once your abuser takes full responsibility for his behavior, seeks professional treatment, and stops blaming you, his unhappy childhood, stress, work, his drinking, or his temper.  

Trump has not even started to take any responsibility for his behavior.

If you believe you can help your abuser... It’s only natural that you want to help your partner. You may think you’re the only one who understands him or that it’s your responsibility to fix his problems. But the truth is that by staying and accepting repeated abuse, you’re reinforcing and enabling the abusive behavior. Instead of helping your abuser, you’re perpetuating the problem.

A number of folks - both in and out of Congress -  thought that by being involved with the Trump, they could modify his behavior.  The Boston Globe quoted a Romney aide as saying Romney wanted the Secretary of State job so he could influence Trump, as did a whole bunch of people who actually did get positions and have since lost them.  The Hill writes:

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday that he tries to “lead by example” when it comes to influencing President Trump’s behavior and character.

But we know that Ryan has since decided to lead by not running for reelection, a model we all hope Trump will follow.  Actually, many hope he won't be in office that long.  Don't hold your breath.

If your partner has promised to stop the abuse... When facing consequences, abusers often plead for another chance, beg for forgiveness, and promise to change. They may even mean what they say in the moment, but their true goal is to stay in control and keep you from leaving. Most of the time, they quickly return to their abusive behavior once they’ve been forgiven and they’re no longer worried that you’ll leave.

Trump's basic rule is "Attack, Counter-Attack, Never Apologize."  So this is never going to happen.  He may talk sweet when he wants something, but he's never going to admit he's done anything wrong.  And he's more likely to threaten when he wants something.

If your partner is in counseling or a program for batterers... Even if your partner is in counseling, there is no guarantee that he’ll change. Many abusers who go through counseling continue to be violent, abusive, and controlling. If your partner has stopped minimizing the problem or making excuses, that’s a good sign. But you still need to make your decision based on who he is now, not the man you hope he will become.

Yeah, right.  He'll never be in counseling.  The next point is the one members of Congress should focus on.

If you’re worried about what will happen if you leave... You may be afraid of what your abusive partner will do, where you’ll go, or how you’ll support yourself or your children. But don’t let fear of the unknown keep you in a dangerous, unhealthy situation.

They should be afraid.  But Congress and the President is NOT a marriage situation.  Republican members of Congress could actually gather together, get a backbone, even join with Democrats (they did during Watergate), and stop Trump's destructive behavior.  They don't have to leave Congress, they can make him leave the White House.  Though some may find such a move ends their political careers if they are up for reelection in November.  But at least they'll be able to face their grandkids in the future with some pride.

One Last Note

The quote near the top mentioned that battered women "show symptoms that may be confusing to outsiders."  Perhaps this experience with Trump will make some Republican politicians more sympathetic to the plight or battered women, whose decisions to stay with abusers seem counter-intuitive.

For Those Suffering From Presidential Abuse - There's Help

This guidance for women in abusive relationships seems appropriate for Republican members of Congress and others suffering from presidential abuse.   The quotes are from HelpGuide.org

"Getting out of an abusive or violent relationship isn’t easy. Maybe you’re still hoping that things will change or you’re afraid of what your partner will do if he discovers you’re trying to leave. Whatever your reasons, you probably feel trapped and helpless. But help is available. There are many resources available for abused and battered women [Republicans], including crisis hotlines, shelters—even job training, legal services, and childcare. You deserve to live free of fear. Start by reaching out."

Comment:  obviously it's time to set up those hotlines and job training programs for Republican members of Congress.   I'd also propose a fund to build a statue to honor the first ten Republican Senators and the first 25 Republican House members who defect.  That's all it would take to switch the Senate and House to deal with Trump.  But just the first brave ones.  Once the tipping point is reached, it's no longer a brave act.

"Making the decision to leave
As you face the decision to either end the abusive relationship or try to save it, keep the following things in mind:
If you’re hoping your abusive partner will change... The abuse will probably happen again. Abusers have deep emotional and psychological problems. While change is not impossible, it isn’t quick or easy. And change can only happen once your abuser takes full responsibility for his behavior, seeks professional treatment, and stops blaming you, his unhappy childhood, stress, work, his drinking, or his temper.
If you believe you can help your abuser... It’s only natural that you want to help your partner. You may think you’re the only one who understands him or that it’s your responsibility to fix his problems. But the truth is that by staying and accepting repeated abuse, you’re reinforcing and enabling the abusive behavior. Instead of helping your abuser, you’re perpetuating the problem.
If your partner has promised to stop the abuse... When facing consequences, abusers often plead for another chance, beg for forgiveness, and promise to change. They may even mean what they say in the moment, but their true goal is to stay in control and keep you from leaving. But most of the time, they quickly return to their abusive behavior once they’ve been forgiven and they’re no longer worried that you’ll leave.
If your partner is in counseling or a program for batterers... Even if your partner is in counseling, there is no guarantee that he’ll change. Many abusers who go through counseling continue to be violent, abusive, and controlling. If your partner has stopped minimizing the problem or making excuses, that’s a good sign. But you still need to make your decision based on who he is now, not the man you hope he will become.
If you’re worried about what will happen if you leave... You may be afraid of what your abusive partner will do, where you’ll go, or how you’ll support yourself or your children. But don’t let fear of the unknown keep you in a dangerous, unhealthy situation.

Comment:  There's so much for Republicans to absorb in this.
Republicans:  read this carefully:  He's not going to change.  You can't help him change.  You can't believe his promises.  He fires the advisors when they cross him.  He won't go to counseling.

"Signs that your abuser is NOT changing:
He minimizes the abuse or denies how serious it really was. [√]
He continues to blame others for his behavior. [√√√√]
He claims that you’re the one who is abusive. [√]
He pressures you to go to couple’s counseling. [Ha!]
He tells you that you owe him another chance. [Hasn't admitted doing anything wrong]
You have to push him to stay in treatment. [not applicable]
He says that he can’t change unless you stay with him and support him. [sorta]
He tries to get sympathy from you, your children, or your family and friends. [√]
He expects something from you in exchange for getting help.[He expects something from you in exchange for nothing.]
He pressures you to make decisions about the relationship."[√]

We're all involved and victimized by this drama in the White House.  But Republicans in the House and Senate seem to be the ones most in denial.  As I said above,  if just ten red Senators (fewer really)  and 25 red Representatives stand up to their abuser, we can all be rid of him.

For those who are Democrats or otherwise watching this with alarm, I recommended a way last year how to get enough Republicans to defect in the House and Senate.  I suggested setting up a statue fund that would honor the first  ten Republican senators and first 25 Republican house members for defecting from their party's support of Trump.  This can include safe houses and counseling and all the other things the HelpGuide site recommends for victims of domestic violence.  [Unfortunately, I can't remember enough about what I wrote to be able to find the post, but you get the drift.]

Dear Rep. Chenault: An Open Letter In Response To Your Commentary On Sexual Assault Of Women

Dear Representative Chenault, 

I read your commentary in the ADN  in which you said you'd raised four young women and you'd supported women's issues as a legislator, but you had had no clue how pervasive abuse was.  

"Yet until now nothing, absolutely nothing, has made me understand the prevalence of sexual abuse and the dehumanizing behavior that women routinely face. In the wake of this scandal, I now see and understand the magnitude of this problem and how women have been taken advantage of, exploited and shamed with little if any consequence to the men taking these unwanted liberties. 
Frankly, I am saddened and shocked that a country as enlightened and great as ours would tolerate and show such indifference to this cultural abhorrence.
As a father and a legislator, I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced. I now understand that this issue that women have lived with is of epidemic proportion. Society has too long tolerated this behavior. This is unacceptable and must change.”

First, I want to thank you for writing this.  So thank you.  

But I want to push you a little further.  And I do this hesitantly.  You’ve done a pretty big thing and you deserve lots of praise for it.  What follows is not criticism, though it may feel like it, but rather strong encouragement to take another few steps in the same direction.  

Here's an overview of my basic points.   

1. What you did by publishing that commentary, was a big deal that doesn’t happen often to adults.   You thought you understood the topic of sexual abuse and harassment and now you realize you were missing a big part of it.  You’ve made an adjustment to your world view. 
2. When that happens, some people stop there and close down again.  Others continue to grow.  They ask, “If I missed that, what else am I missing?”  I want to encourage you to ask that question.
3. This whole process could be bigger than just the issue of sexual assault and discrimination.  It could expand to other issues.  It could also expand to how the legislature works, how legislators regard issues and treat each other.
4. You aren’t just anybody.  You have been Speaker of the Alaska House and are now the Minority Leader.  What you think and do is not just about you personally.  It affects everyone in the state and beyond.  If your world views are accurate, you can do great good.  If they aren't, you can do a lot of harm.  It’s critical that I take advantage of your commentary to reach out to you and encourage you to keep expanding your world view.

So I’m aiming big.  I do so at the risk of offending you by saying you could do more than you have.  I hope you can listen and accept my assurance that my intentions are the best.  

Part 1:  On the issue of sexual assault, rape, and the barriers women face.  

1. Your commentary is a big deal.  You’ve not only said how important this is, but more significantly, you’ve opened yourself up by revealing that there was an important public policy area where you had missed something critical. Even though Alaska is at or near the top in bad domestic violence and rape stats.  You’ve exposed a weakness publicly.  And I want to strongly applaud you for that.  And I go on in this letter with trepidation, because I don’t want you to think,  “Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.”  I want you to keep growing in your awareness.  So I continue.
2. In addition to the #metoo hashtag, there is also an #ihave hashtag where men talk about how they contributed to perpetuating the problem.  They go beyond saying, “This is bad” and after self-reflection, talk about how they have contributed to the situation.  Most men haven’t physically assaulted women, but they probably have passively stood by when other men acted badly toward or talked badly about women.  They may not have paid as much attention to women in meetings as they did men.  Or interrupted them more than they interrupted men.  They may not have questioned policies that made it harder for women to advance or that kept pay for women lower than that for men.  
3. In your commentary, you acknowledged the problem, but you didn’t acknowledge your contribution to the problem through action or inaction.  In your position as Speaker, you had considerable power.  Just by not making this a higher priority, you allowed this to continue.  I have no idea how you treat women in the legislature.  I have no idea of what conversations you took part in.  But I have to assume in the legislature, dominated by men who are attracted to power, there must have been testosterone tinged conversations where women were discussed as objects, where specific women’s body parts were discussed.  Did you think about your daughters in those situations and protest?  Did you chastise the offenders?  You haven’t discussed that.  If you stayed silent, like most men do in those situations, you helped support the abuse.  
4. There is one thing that you did that is on the record - you were an honorary co-chair of the Alaska Donald Trump campaign.  That announcement was in May 2016.  I can find nothing via google that says you protested his pussy grabbing comments in October 2016.  Perhaps you did and I missed it.  If you didn’t publicly denounce those comments, particularly since you had publicly endorsed him, you were part of the problem.  
5. I get that your view of the world has been shaped by your party and that loyalty is a key plank of the Republican party rules.  Your party severely punishes people who do not vote for the budget the party endorses.  But if you are going to actually do something about sexual abuse, you need to take a step beyond acknowledging its existence,  and acknowledge your part in the system that allows it.  I’d point out here that the kinds of pressures on you to lie low in these situations, are the same kinds of pressures on women to not report abuse.  Fear of losing job opportunities, income, social status.  It’s easier to say nothing and not rock the boat.  This code of silence is what keeps this sort of thing going. 
6. I’d also like to encourage you to think bigger when it comes to the legislative committee you propose in your commentary.  You write, 

“I will be sitting down with my colleagues in the Legislature and explaining that we need to provide awareness and sensitivity training and that we should have a zero-tolerance policy for such behavior.”

• This goes way beyond awareness training.  This is a structural issue.  
• What are the systemic pressures that keep legislators from criticizing their own party’s rules and procedures?  
• What are the economic and political pressures on legislators to vote a certain way?  
• Why do women get paid less than men?  
• How do organizations allow for women to take time to have and raise babies without career penalties?  

This is more than individual decisions by individual men.

What does zero-tolerance mean here?  I know you had limited space, but I’d point out that the legislature has - both in Alaska and the Congress - often exempted themselves from rules they apply to others.  It’s hard for legislators to police themselves.  The California legislature is setting up an autonomous body to look into sexual harassment and assault complaints.  I’d just like you to think bigger here than personal restraint.  It takes structural change to have an impact.  

Part 2:  "What other gaps are there and how can I work on them?"

You’ve significantly adjusted a part of your world view.  The logical next step is to ask:  “If I missed this, what else am I missing?”  It may be logical, but it’s emotionally difficult.  What you’ve done already is emotionally a big deal.  For some it’s scary and far enough.  Even too far.  But for others, it’s a chance to expand and grow as a human being.  I’m hoping you’re ready for that second option.  To get there, I’d ask you to reflect on these questions:

1.  Why didn’t you see this before?  

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?

Which I hope leads you to ask

3.  What else am I missing? and
4.   How can I learn from questions 1 and 2 that will help me with questions 3?

So let’s look at these questions in more detail.

1.  Why didn’t I see this before?

Confirmation bias is a theory that says people accept facts and arguments that support their beliefs and dismiss those that conflict with their beliefs and vested interests.   

You had a vested interest in seeing this, namely  your four daughters whose lives and careers are threatened by the sexist acts of individuals and the stacked system that gives men advantages over women.  

On the other hand, you probably have a strong belief in the fairness of the American system and a belief in the work ethic, that if you work hard you will get ahead.  Most successful men do.  It explains that we are successful because we worked hard and blinds us to the fact that there are barriers to success we don't face, but that other hard workers do - like women and people of color who work just as hard, but don’t succeed as much. That belief makes it easier to dismiss claims by women and others that the system isn't fair.

I’m just speculating here since I don’t know the reasons in your particular case.  You have to think these through yourself.  My thoughts are just an example.

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?

You write, “I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced.”  But the only clue in your commentary about why you changed is this line:

“The names I see coming forward on Facebook are people we know — our neighbors, relatives and friends, and not just movie stars and Hollywood celebrities.”

I take from this that by seeing names of people you personally know who have been sexually abused, this became personal.   This issue now was directly connected to you.  I even wonder if one or more of your daughters sat you down and explained things.  That has the biggest impact on fathers.  And you are right not to identify people any more specifically than you did.  It’s their jobs to tell their stories, not ours.  

3.  What else am I missing?

Sexual assault against women is an issue you have a personal stake in because you have four daughters.  Yet you missed it. “I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced.”

So now is a perfect time to ask, what else am I missing?  Particularly in those areas where I have a vested interest in NOT seeing things?  

This is the hard part.  Where do you start?  Point 4 addresses that.

4.  How can I learn from questions 1 and 2 that will help me with question 3?

I’ve speculated about possible answers to questions 1 and 2, but you have to do some serious self reflecting to figure out the specific reasons that actually apply to you. 

1.   What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?  

It’s hard to know what you don’t know.  The first step is to acknowledge that there is a lot you don’t know.  The older we get, the less often we think about this.  The more successful we are, the more we think we know everything.  After all, if we didn’t, how did we succeed?  We just have to walk into any library or bookstore to understand how much we still have to learn.  

Right now, you have stumbled upon a gap in your knowledge, so you recognize that you don’t know everything.  I’ve pointed out that vested interests and entrenched beliefs play a role in preventing us from seeing things that might alter our world views.  

Step one: try to articulate your world view.  What do you believe about how the world works?  Why some people do well and others don’t?  Why men occupy most positions of power in the US?   What do you believe about what’s right and wrong, good and bad?  

Few people ever do this, so they don’t really know what they believe in detail.  Just in generalities.  When you write it down, you start to see gaps.

Step two:  Identify how you know each point in your world view.  How did you learn it?  Did you just accept what authority figures told you or did you come up with it on your own?  How did you test it?  What proof do you have that it’s true?  

This is hard stuff, but again, if you do it seriously, it will lead to more questions than answers.  When we have questions, we are open to new information.

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen before?
You suggest in your commentary that it was when you found out that sexual assault and rape happened to women you knew.  Before that, it was others - celebrities you didn’t know.  

Step one:  Make a list of the people who influence your world view most.  As adults, most of us hang out with people who think like we do.  It’s comfortable.  It reinforces our sense that we are right about things.  But it also causes us to be blind to what’s wrong with our facts and our logic.

Step two: Rank the list by who thinks most like you and who thinks least like you.  Which of these people do you tolerate because they are on your team, but have troublesome behaviors?  Who do you admire most?  Why? Is it because they are powerful, because they’re good, because they  are smart, because they win?  Because they listen?

Step three:  Open up authentic conversations with people you know who do NOT agree with your world view.  Ask them about their world view and why they believe it.  Listen.  Take notes.  Be humble.  Be respectful.  Your Democratic colleagues might be a good place to start.  You spend a lot of time together and there must be some that you get along with on a personal level, even though you disagree on policy issues.  Invite some to one-on-one discussions, over lunch, on a walk, playing golf, or whatever comfortable setting works for you.  

Part 3: The Conclusions

I know this is a long letter. The issues are complex and it's necessary to get detailed.   No one pays me to do things like this.  Do I have an agenda?  Yes, better civic discourse and better public administration and more equal treatment of all people.   I taught public administration at UAA for 30 years and retired as professor emeritus.  It was my job to work with my students - mostly public servants - and get them to think about things like this, to see the world differently on graduation than they did when they started.  

I hope you take this letter seriously and understand my intent is a better place for Alaskans to live. I believe that your awakening on this one issue, could lead to awakenings on other issues.  

In Congress now, as well as in the Alaska legislature, things have become a highly competitive game - the object is to win, to beat the opponent.  Positions are frozen and any softening by anyone is seen, at best, as weakness and, at worst, as treason.  

The pressures on individual legislators to conform to their party line is not different from the pressure on women to stay quiet about sexual assault.  They face lots of negative consequences if they speak up.  That’s the structural reality that women face and that all of us face when we feel a need to challenge the status quo, to take on powerful people. 

But all the legislators are in Juneau because they believe they are doing the right thing as best they can.  I’m hoping that you can build on your insights on sexual assault and be a leader in breaking the logjam, in brokering peace between the parties and the individual members, and finally to help lead to policies and legislation that will take this state where we need to go.    

Your commentary convinces me you are serious about this issue.  You’ve stuck your neck out and my intent here is not to cut it off, but to push you further in the direction that will help you be successful in this and in other issues. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Aufrecht

[I sent a copy of this to Rep. Chenault last Wednesday and asked him to correct any errors of fact or challenge any assumptions I'd made that he disagreed with.  I said I would post this on Monday (today).  I haven't heard anything back from him.]