$229 Million Settlement Is More Than 1/3 Of Santa Monica's Budget For Sex Offenses

The Richard Winton in the LA Times writes this week: (the link should be accessible) 

"This week, Santa Monica settled more lawsuits, bringing its total payout to $229.285 million — the most costly single-perpetrator sexual abuse disbursement for any municipality in the state."

Imagine what Santa Monica could have done for poor families, for the homeless, for schools, for health care, for $229 million.  That's more than 1/3 of the total Santa Monica budget for 2022-2023!

From the City of Santa Monica, 2022:

"The total adopted budget for the City for FY 2022-23 is $665.4 million."

There's a lot to untangle in this story.  I've got other posts in draft form lined up, but this one tugs at a number of issues I've been mulling over.  With good administration, this shouldn't happen. With good accountability mechanisms this shouldn't have happened for so long.  There are ways to, if not totally prevent such things, certainly to minimize their impact.   But there are also other societal issues that need to be addressed, particularly how we deal with pedophiles.  So let's look at some of the issues here.

1.  The Cost of poor oversight

One study said it was $3 billion over the last ten years.  That's just police!  That's an average of $300 million per year.  But I'm guessing with this single, one quarter of a billion dollar settlement, almost the average annual cost reported in this study, either that $3 billion figure is low, or awards are getting higher.  

But the cost isn't just in money.  The costs include:

• impacts on the lives of people who were harmed by the police and others.  In the Santa Monica case over 200 kids have reported the employee abused them.  Eighty were part of the settlement
• impacts on public safety since police were were spending time abusing citizens instead of protecting them, when people are wrongly convicted, the actual perpetrator isn't apprehended
• impacts on trust in government - among those abused and their families and among the general public when these crimes and settlements are publicized
• opportunity costs - the costs of things this money could have done (though one of the reports says most of this comes from insurance companies, which means all other organizations pay higher insurance rates, and I'd guess it spills over to the rest of us paying car, health, and other insurance

Here's another NPR piece looking at these issues.

2.  Why we don't see  

Most people see what they want to see.  

"The confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to search for, favor, interpret, and recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs. For example, if someone is presented with a lot of information on a certain topic, the confirmation bias can cause them to only remember the bits of information that confirm what they already thought."

We also have a truth bias.  Certainly honest people have a tendency to assume others are honest as well. (And there is evidence that most people are basically honest.)

So adding these two tendencies together, we tend to discount indicators of trouble and hold on to more positive interpretations of the behavior we see.  Especially of a person we've known and respected over the years.  "Nah, he couldn't have done that." 

And the people whose behavior is problematic are often (I'm guessing here) quite capable of giving us believable stories to explain away the problems.  This is why it's often a good idea to have outsiders, people who don't know the people involved,  come in to investigate problems.  

But we also have negative biases.  People who complain might be part of an out group - many of the kids in the Santa Monica case were from poor, immigrant families whose parents might fear deportation if they report and are less likely to be believed if they report.  

Most people, I would argue, take a long time before they realize that something is seriously wrong.  And then it takes a long time to report it.  How long did it take you to acknowledge that your (car, toilet, spouse) had a problem.   Then once you accepted it, how long to take action to fix it.

"But his biggest claim to fame was his work as a volunteer in the Police Activities League, where, beginning in the late 1980s, he worked with boys and girls in the nonprofit’s after-school program.

Uller was a familiar face at the PAL center that served Santa Monica’s Latino neighborhoods, often traveling in a police vehicle and befriending generations of youths.

It took decades to uncover that Uller was a sexual predator, the center of a stunning series of crimes that destroyed the lives of children and exposed grave questions as to why it took so long for authorities to uncover what he was doing."

3.  Why why don't act when we do see

Humans seem to have a basic loyalty built in to one's 'group.'  Betraying family, friends, and community (church, work group, etc.) are seen as moral violations and we have lots of negative names for people who do that - snitch, tattletale, traitor, stool-pigeon, etc.  Among law enforcement agencies, this is often known as "the blue wall of silence."

Competing against that loyalty, we have the Rule of Law - a set of moral expectations for people living in a community, in a society.  

When group loyalty comes in conflict with rule of law, individuals face a moral quandary.  Which set of rules should one follow?  We recognize this in the law with rules that allow spouses to not testify against each other, that ban nepotism and other forms of conflict of interest.  I'd argue that the group loyalty is built into our genes, our emotional make up.  The rule of law is something we learn logically.  And strong emotion generally beats out logic.  

“You have to understand in this liberal city, this is a Black and brown part of the city, and no one in the government was watching out for our kids. The Pico neighborhood was marginalized in that era,” said De la Torre, noting that Uller’s abuse occurred “under the shield of law enforcement” and “not one person lost a job” in response to the oversight.

Reporting people in our in-group for breaches of the rule of law  has real, immediate consequences on our families, our social circle, and even on our employment.  

This conflict keeps many from speaking up, even when they see wrong doing.  If you've ever lied to protect a friend, a family member, or someone else you have a close bond with, you understand what I'm talking about.  

3.  When Good Employees Also Do Bad

Seeing wrongdoing becomes particularly difficult when

• the employee is otherwise exemplary in their job performance

"In nearly three decades as a civilian employee with the Santa Monica Police Department and the city, Eric Uller was considered a standout public servant who won awards for his technological innovations."

• has work activities where they work independently, where supervision is not close - such as working with youth after school. (I should mention I was an after school playground director at an elementary school to help pay for college, and I was usually alone with the kids, without supervision. No, I didn't abuse that independence, and I suspect most people don't.)

4.  How the US deals with 'wrong' sex

 Right now in the US, there probably aren't many people considered lower than pedophiles. Gay sex used to have a similar stigma (which, given all the anti-trans laws were seeing introduced across the US now), isn't completely gone either.  Sex and marriage between people of different races was also illegal.  Despite a US Supreme Court ruling banning such laws, 

"As of February 3, 2021, seven states still required couples to declare their racial background when applying for a marriage license, without which they cannot marry. The states are Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota (since 1977),[42] New Hampshire, and Alabama."

There are good reasons for our laws against adults having sex with children, though the lines get blurry as the age of the child gets higher and the age of the adult gets lower.  There's no question about why a 30 year old shouldn't have sex with a nine year old.  Yet according to NBC news in 2019:

"Idaho and California are not alone in not having a minimum marriage age. A majority of states, which issue marriage licenses, allow 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, a few allow 14-year-olds, and 13 states have no minimum marriage age as of September. Before 2016 — when Virginia became the first state to put its marriage age into law — more than half of the states had no minimum marriage age fixed by statute."

While it appears there are requirements for parental or court approval, it does appear that there are no minimum ages in these states.  I would guess that the proponents for allowing  young marriage often argue that pregnant girls should be allowed to marry the fathers - but I didn't look that up and could be wrong.  

My point in all this is that some sexual preferences are seen as evil while others are perfectly ok. (Though for many, still, sex outside of marriage is frowned on.)  

People don't choose at some point in their lives to be sexually stimulated by one type of sexual encounter or another.  Some argue some attractions are genetic.  Some argue that sexual preferences are based on early sexual encounters.  

People with heterosexual preferences would appear to be the luckiest.  These are what our society condones.  While some people frown on any sex out of marriage, heterosexual sex among the consenting, unmarried seems to be alive and well.   The kinkier the sex and the more people will disapprove.  As people's preferences stray from heterosexual, single partner sex, there is more disapproval.  

But imagine if a person were forbidden from having unmarried heterosexual sex and punished if they did.  Buzzweed lists a number of ways women have been punished in the US, some of which involved sexual acts.

For many people the sexual urge is very powerful, even irresistible.  I suspect that is probably the case of people who view child pornography and who engage in sex with children.  I would only request that people who have been in situations where they could not resist their sexual urges with another person, consider what it would have been like if that other person were legally a child.  Or for people who couldn't resist opening a porn site and watching porn that turned them on.  

I'm not defending pedophiles.  But simply labeling them monsters and locking them up forever is not a good way to reduce pedophilia.  I'm only suggesting that such urges can be hard to control.  And many such relationships that are considered taboo today, have in different periods of time been acceptable.  And sexual practices condoned today were in past times seen as evil.  

But we've evolved in our beliefs that sex should be consensual.  We've evolved in our beliefs that people in positions of authority have a power in the sexual relationship that makes consent, at best, a morally difficult determination.  

And we believe that adults having sex with young children is, without question, non consensual and also an example of an unbalanced power relationship.  

Child pornography is a problem because children have been exploited to produce the images.  Is viewing drawings of child sex as viewing photos and videos?

If AI could produce child pornography (I suspect it already can and does) without any actual children being involved, would that be ok?  Some will argue that such pornography would lead to actual sexual encounters.  But we really don't know how many viewers of child pornography actually go out and find victims.  

My goal here is to raise the question of whether there are ways to recognize some people's sexual attraction to children, even let them indulge in pornography that didn't exploit actual children, and also figure out ways to protect children from sexual predators?  

The person in this article excelled in some aspects of his job.  But he had a taboo sexual attraction to children.  What do you think his options were to seek help from a counselor?  In many situations people who professionally learn about child abuse are mandated to report that to the authorities.  

If this were not such a reviled and taboo attraction, would this employee have been able to seek and get counseling and treatment that would have helped him deal with his inappropriate attractions?  Psych Central says:

"Pedophilic disorder treatment options include medication, hormone, and psychosocial therapies. “Stigma often discourages people from seeking help, but resources are available."

Most mental health problems are stigmatized making it difficult for people to seek help.  Pedophilia  is probably one of the most stigmatized.  

That leads me to offer a few options for reducing sex between adults and children.

Some ways to lessen the incidence of work related pedophilia:

1. General education to let people know that there are treatments for people sexually attracted to children and reducing the stigma connected to it so people are more likely to seek such treatment  (I realize that this is a long term solution, since people with more common, more visible mental health problems also avoid getting help because of the stigma involved.)
2. Education in schools that teaches children how to recognize inappropriate touch, acts of grooming, and steps to take when they encounter such behavior.  Erin Merrin came to Alaska in 2015 and got such a program (Erin's Law) adopted, despite the obstacles set by then Senator Dunleavy, under the guise of 'parental rights.'  Now Governor Dunleavy is still using 'parents rights' as a cover for trying to weaken Erin's Law.  Erin's Law has been adopted in a number of states and seems like one of the more promising ways to reduce pedophilia, by educating the potential victims. 
3. Increased vigilance for situations where children are vulnerable to predatory adults - situations where adults work with children such as playgrounds, social services that care for children, recreational activities such as sports and Boy Scouts.  
4. Changing the laws that give public employees immunity for lapses at work.  There do need to be protections against lawsuits or people wouldn't become public servants.  I think the bulk of monetary punishment still needs to be born by the agency.  But individuals who make serious mistakes, who don't report abuse they know about (not just sex related) should also have some monetary consequences.  

That's a start.  I'm sure others can think of other ways to do this sort of work.  

Out For A Hike

 

I try not to drive too much and an Alaskan hazard has kept me from using my car as we await a new windshield.  The car spent much of the winter in the neighbor's driveway, which is much wider than ours.  But sometime during its stay, an icicle crashed down from above and made a very impressive web of cracks right in front of the driver.  The very center is even leaning in.  I've put clear packing tape all across this creation as we wait for a new windshield to make its way north.  I'm still concerned a good bump would send it all crashing in.  They told us it would be four weeks and I called today because it's overdue.  

So my wife's car got us on our first outing for the season.  McHugh Creek tends to have less snow than Anchorage and is a good first hike.  But it was not as snow free as we had expected.  It was also windy until you get into the woods and a gust grabbed my had and it disappeared.  J is usually pretty good at finding things, but didn't see it at all in amongst the trees.  Another couple came by and they were at the right angle to spot it and retrieve it.  

The view of Turnagain Arm never disappoints.  

The entrance to the parking lot was blocked with equipment and there was a new entrance.  At first I though they were rearranging the entrance, but there was road construction ahead, so I'm guessing they're just storing the equipment in there.  

 The upper parking lot (to the Potter trail) had a lot more snow than I remember from past early hikes.  

And the trail had a lot more snow than we expected.  We ran into a group of Air Force guys out exploring around Anchorage.  They weren't that excited about the snow either.  

Potter Marsh was still mostly frozen.  

From the boardwalk it was still snowy and we only saw a few birds - a goose, a duck, an eagle - all in the air.  

Our very snowy winter and colder than normal April still can't hold off spring too long.  There are tulips and daffodils poking through the soil at home.  

"flood the zone with shi*t" - Why Courts And Media Don't Seem Adequate These Days

[Bear with me.  I'm trying to pull a number of issues together.  Basically, we need to step back and see the bigger picture rather than get distracted by all the crap the Right is throwing out there.  Their goal is to spew so much nonsense that the system breaks as people try to address it rationally.] 

Choosing labels carelessly  

"CULTURE WARRIORS such as U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) . . ."  LA Times"

There may have been a time when there was something that could be called 'culture war,' but that time is long past.  MTG is not offering anything resembling 'culture' unless the naked quest for power is considered a 'culture' today.  There's nothing here, really, about Christian values, though one could argue MTG represents hijacked Christian values to wrest power.  The attacks on LGTBQ and specifically trans and drag queens is merely a hook to incite the gullible to send cash and votes toward the GOP.  

On the other side are people who merely want to be free to be themselves.  If they take PRIDE in who they are, it's merely because society has vilified them so long and so hard, that they need some validation now and then.  

The media are slow to discard misleading labels, while the Republicans have an automated factory where they produce and distribute new imagery daily.  Where they take left leaning terms and turn them into epithets.  Some journalists are too young even to remember that the correct name is Democratic Party, but the Republicans have flooded the airwaves so long with "Democrat" party that people think that's the name.  

Eastman mulls the economic benefits of letting kids die

"In the case where child abuse is fatal, obviously it's not good for the child, but it's actually a benefit to society because there aren't needed ??  government services ?? for the full course of that child's life."

Rep. David Eastman (R - Wasilla) on the cost savings to the state when abused children die.

Alaska: Rep. Eastman of the family values party says it's actually a net benefit to society when a child dies from abuse & neglect because of the financial burden it would otherwise put on the state budget. pic.twitter.com/NKUOvUZvgf

— ChudsOfTikTok (@ChudsOfTikTok) February 21, 2023

The Republicans in Alaska have rules that oust other Republicans from committees if they don't vote with the party on budgets.  But making a case for letting abused kids die because it saves the state money, well, he has the right to free speech according to the committee chair Rep. Vance (R Homer).  

But, as I write, it seems that the House has censured Eastman over this.  (Thanks Matt Acuña Buxton)

The problem I have as a blogger (and any legitimate journalist has) is dealing with all the jabberwocky  being thrown out there by the Republicans - from DeSantis' shipping of immigrants to New York, banning the teaching of history he doesn't like, and his Don't Say Gay campaign (just a few examples) to the Hunter Biden laptop.  

And that's the point.  Stephen Bannon said to "flood the media with sh*t" and that's exactly what they are doing.  

From CNN

While some of the actors in this circus may actually believe what they're doing, those encouraging people to file all those election challenges and to write all those laws letting kids carry machine guns in public are just "flooding the zone with shit."  Getting people riled up and wasting time on fighting all the shit flying at them.  

Our justice system is based on the assumption that people believe in the Rule of Law and that the vast majority of people will voluntarily obey the law.  Neither our court system nor our journalists are quite ready for large numbers of people rejecting the rule of law or the rules of reason.  

The lawyers were trained to dot their i's and cross their T's, but with Trump and others filing bogus lawsuits and appeals and motions, the courts can't keep up. The public is losing confidence that they will ever be able to bring Trump and his mob to justice. But that's how Trump has stayed out of prison all these years.  The legal system has to retool itself to handle this sort of threat.  Not sure how.  Dominion suing Fox is one option, but so much damage happens before it is settled.  And Alex  Jones declared bankruptcy to avoid the financial consequences of losing his lawsuit.  We need tactics that work with the Right's new weapons.  

Journalists are trained to be impartial to the extent they feel compelled to treat insurrection as a legitimate point of view.  I'd note that some journalists believe they shouldn't vote because that taints their objectivity.  Here's an NPR journalist mulling over NPR's ethics code.  The Republicans are counting on journalists to continue such internal counting of angels.  

Such purity doesn't matter any more (if it ever did) because whatever journalists do, the Republicans will vilify them.  Meanwhile old school journalists will try to respectfully cover MTG's calls for a new confederacy and Eastman's claim that letting abused kids die is beneficial to the state of Alaska.  

Not voting, not declaring one's party, might seem the right thing to do, but I think declaring where you stand openly and then letting readers determine if your personal values color what you write (or say) is the more honest approach.  

In any case, the old rules don't apply to the new political world we're in.  Yes, a lot of voter fraud cases were won.  And a number of January 6 Insurrectionists (yes, that term identifies me as biased, but it was also the conclusion of the courts) went to prison.  But most of the top people are still living, ostensibly, comfortable lives.  (I'd like to think that all the  pending litigation is at least  disturbing Trump's peace.)

We need new tools for dealing with the current manufactured chaos.  How much damage have we had to endure (can we endure) before the deluge of lies is dammed?  

There are perhaps a dozen more threads I could easily follow that give context to what's happening today. 

 It's a psychological barrier to blogging because I know that writing about some discrete issue merely entangles me in Bannon's web.  But people's attention spans are much shorter than they used to be.  Few want to read long attempts to put things into perspective.  I'm not just making this up.

"A recent study by Microsoft Corporation has found this digital lifestyle has made it difficult for us to stay focused, with the human attention span shortening from 12 seconds to eight seconds in more than a decade."

But you can't read too many long articles, let alone books, even with a 12 second attention span.  But if you got this far, you're doing fine.  And should take articles like that with a grain of salt.  Who measured the average attention span in 2000, for example?  No, I'm not going to dig up the actual research report to find out.  It does say that drinking water, exercise, and avoiding electronic devices helps increase attention span.  So go for a walk and don't take your phone.  

Spoutible's Impressive If Imperfect Start - A Serious Attempt For More Civil Society

 I can understand readers here who think I'm spending way too much time on the new Twitter alternative startup Spoutible.  But hear me out.

Why I think this is important

Most of social media has become infected with trolls - from jerks to paid hit men.  Spoutible is a serious attempt to create a protected space where people can interact and discuss serious issues calmly (or even excited too) and rationally.  It's designed to keep out those who prey on the weak, and also on the not so weak.   

The creator of this project is credible and capable.  It has a chance to offer a safe place and be a model for others.  If this works, it would show that neutralizing the haters is possible.  

Who is Christopher Bouzy?

 Christopher Bouzy isn't your typical tech startup creator.  He created BotSentinal - an app that allows you to submit someone's Twitter handle and then scores it by how civil its cumulative tweets are.  He did this to help people recognize those trolls quickly.

In a reasonably small human setting - a school, a religious congregation, at work, on a sports team - you quickly get to know who you can trust and who tends to be a jerk.  Online anonymity means we don't know people's identity or history.  BotSentinel is a tool to help overcome that.

As Twitter became more hateful, Bouzy saw a need for a civil space to discuss the issues of the day, or one's personal life, or whatever one wants without being targeted. And BotSentinel suggested he also had a lot of technical resources to pull it off.   As Twitter's decline in civility quickened with Musk's takeover, things got more urgent.  Using what he knew from working on BotSentinel, Bouzy got to work with a collection of computer folks to create a new online forum.  He made it pretty Twitter like so it would be easy for Twitter users to navigate on it quickly.  

He's also happens to be black which gives him a view of the world most techies don't have.  He's pledged to have 40% of Spoutible workforce be women.  

Spoutible Background

The team spent about three months developing the site.  Then they invited journalists and some other celebrities to try out the site for a week or two.  Journalists, because Bouzy believes that they need a healthy platform to gather early news tips and to alert the world to what they are working on and have produced.  [I'd note that I resisted Twitter for a while.  But at an Alaska Press Club conference I attended a couple of workshops put on by the then Social Media editor of the Wall Street Journal who explained how and why he used Twitter - the reasons I just mentioned: to get early tips on emerging stories and to share their own stories.  That got me to try it.  And it does those things.  It also can help you waste a lot of time if you don't pick the people you follow carefully.

Because I've used BotSentinel to identify Twitter abusers, I appreciated that there was someone who saw this problem and came up with a way to combat it.  So when Christopher Bouzy came into my awareness saying he was working on a Twitter alternative and that his background included creating BotSentinal, I was ready to follow.  I'd already joined Mastodon and Post as I looked for Twitter alternatives, but neither really grabbed me.  

So I was eager for the Bouzy site to become real.  I listened to Bouzy talk to us on Twitter Spaces (ironic that he can use Twitter to promote Spoutible) and take questions.  I was impressed with what I felt was sincerity and openness.  He was going to be as transparent as possible without giving away information that might not be safe in the hands of competitors, scammers, or hackers.  There have been several other open forums and each time I'm impressed with Bouzy's sincerity, his motivation, and his technical knowledge of how to get this done and hire people to do what he can't.  

On February 1, 2023 (yes, just five days ago) Spoutible opened up for preregistered users, which included me.  It was both a strong and rocky start.  Lots of people signed on and started spouting.  But there were technical glitches and the site was really sluggish.  It got better by February 2 and then there were more problems the next day.  

Saturday Bouzy did another Twitter Spaces forum where he talked about the issues and answered questions.  By the time I saw the notice, the meeting was over, but I was able to go for a walk and  listen to the recording.

Meeting Takeaways 

[You can listen here. It's 2 hours and 44 minutes long. Good for an airplane trip, or doing some mindless task, as well as exercising.  Don't need to hear it all, but at least to get a sense of Bouzy.]

1.  Bouzy haters - He started out by taking all the blame for things that went wrong, including a sort of breach.  No data got compromised. But the attackers acted like there had been.  These attackers have been on Bouzy's case since BotSentinal examined online attackers of Meghan and Harry and they have turned their attention onto Bouzy and Tweeting how Spoutible was a scam and you would have all your data compromised. [Me:  I had wondered how much of the problem with Spoutible was hacker related and apparently some of it was.]

2.  Lots of people signed up and lots of kumbaya - Despite the technical problems, there was a surge of people signing up and it seemed that the tone of the conversations was great and that people were meeting lots of new people and following and getting followers and lots of comments and discussions.  Bouzy was a little cagey about numbers, though he Tweeted in mid December that 110,664 had already pre-registered.  His hesitance to talk numbers had to do with the haters, but I didn't quite understand the issues.  [Me:  I agree with the tone and warmth of the spouts.  And people commenting on my posts and following me much faster than they did when I first joined Twitter.  But I suspect there are other explanations.

• There aren't that many people on Spoutible right now and everyone is trying to find followers and people to follow.  And they are connecting quickly because of a sense of the safety of the site
• No cliques yet.  The crowd is mingling.  There are no groups yet.  So people are connecting with people they normally wouldn't connect with.  This is good.  But I suspect once people get familiar with each other, they will settle in to interacting with regulars more and won't be making friends so freely.

I also didn't see a lot of the serious political or theoretical discussions that I find important on Twitter.  It feels a bit like the early days of the internet where everyone was just looking around and having fun.  People didn't quite know where it was going or how to make money off of it.]

3.  Despite the technical issues in the first couple of days, people have been very forgiving  Lots of thank-yous to Bouzy.   Responses were similar to mine: grateful for this new space and understanding that this was put together in three months and has only had a significant number of users for four days.  A number of of commenters told Bouzy not to be so hard on himself.  We all recognize that Twitter has had  about 16 years to evolve.  Bouzy acknowledged that but said that protecting users was his top priority and anything they overlooked he felt was a problem.  That's good, but as many pointed out - going without sleep too long is not healthy.  

4.  Identification of bugs, suggestions for improvements

There were minor to serious technical issues - ie the Spout drop blocks the like button for some, can't sign up two accounts, some people's emails and some non-US phone numbers weren't recognized,  There were questions about when features would come out - like a phone app, a common suggestion box, the rules of engagement, foreign language options, podcast options, etc.  A couple of people wanted to have kids get access since it seems like a safe space.  That was the only one Bouzy was not receptive to.  In most cases he said it was coming and they were trying to prioritize the most important things first.  

5.  Transparency

This and previous online open forums demonstrated a level of openness we don't see very often.  I can't help but feel that Bouzy is a really decent person I'd love to have as a personal friend.  

My own suggestions:

1. people's profiles should pop up when you put the cursor over their image
2. easier navigation back to where you were - ie not jumping back to the top of your timeline after checking a comment
3. have the follow/unfollow button available with each spurt
4. I understand why they have the Bot-Sentinel button so prominent, but so far everyone is zero.  I think it would be better if it was on people's profile and popped up with the profile (see suggestion #1)
5. Will the BotSentinel score be 
1. just for Spoutible?
2. for Twitter and Spoutible separately?
3. for a combination of both?
4. just for Twitter?
6. Timestamps on Spouts seem to reflect the spouter's time zone - converting them into the readers' time zone seems to make more sense.
7. 
   Why does the Spoutable image in tabs bar look like a P instead of an S? OK, if I look closely maybe that's supposed to be a spouting from the vague but blue whale below.   WOW!  I went back to capture the Spoutible image alongside the Twitter image and there was already a new Spoutible image.  A minute after I wrote this.  But I think a bigger whale without the extra word (which shows where you are on Spoutible) would be better.    There are more, but this is enough for now.  
   
   Follow up:  If tab isn't open, then just the whale or bird show. [Update 4pm - the P is back.  Guessing they're experimenting.]

My hope for Spoutible is that:

1. The platform can be a space where journalists, artists, activists, and other humans can safely express themselves free of hate and vicious attacks. But 'safely express themselves' doesn't include people who make hateful and vicious posts or spread disinformation.  Paradox?  It might appear so, but if people object to something, they need to do it civilly and explain why.
2. That it will serve as a model that such places can exist and thrive online.
3. The world will adapt with the changes and find ways to protect safe spaces in general

My concerns are:

1. The various forces that want to preserve those parts of the status quo they benefit from will do what they can to find ways to infiltrate my ideal Spoutible and poison it as they've poisoned the internet in general.  These include:
1. White supremacists, fragile would-be alpha males, and troubled people in general, who out of anger, spite and/or for profit have used their anonymity to intimidate good people without consequences to themselves and to make truth harder to discern
2. The people who stir up such people with propaganda and pay them to disrupt the free flow of ideas
3. People who will see hacking Spoutible as a challenge.  Bouzy did say he hopes most of those people will be friendly and let Spoutible know of any vulnerabilities they find.  

But I also know that in the flow of time, as new problems emerge, new strategies emerge to overcome them.  The Right has had strategists working for years to exploit race and abortion in order to keep power.  They've plotted for decades to take over the Supreme Court.  The Left  has generally not been so calculating long term and have been slow to recognize the Right's strategy.  But now that they know what has been happening, they are more galvanized to fight it.  They have science and good will on their side and they will find ways to stem the evils that new technologies have unleashed

Spoutible - From The Bird To The Whale

 Tomorrow, Spoutible will be available for the 150,000-200,000 people who have preregistered.  

⚠️Today at 5 PM EST, we are ending the preregistration phase. So if you have not preregistered for Spoutible yet, please do so now, or you will have to wait a week to create an account when it is open to everyone.https://t.co/N5QWQKI768

— Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) January 31, 2023

Right now [well I was from 9am PST to 11ish]  I'm listening to Christopher Bouzy on a Twitter Space talking to several thousand people about tomorrow's launch.  I've heard him several times before talking about how they plan to make a platform that's easy for Twitter users to navigate, yet corrects many of the problems of Twitters.

[I'd also note that Boozy was the creator of Bot Sentinel, a site where you can check on people who post on Twitter.  Using Twitter's standards, Bot Sentinel rates users so you can see if the account is normal or harasses people.  They'll use that technology to track Spoutible users and I heard earlier you will be able to see the Bot Sentinal rating of people who reply to you.  At right is an example of a Bot Sentinel report.] 

First I'll list some key points I heard, then I'll just leave a very rough transcript of what was said (starting about an hour into the discussion)

Overview of Key Points as I heard them

• User safety and security - the platform was designed to give users a safe space for discussion.  To that end a number of features have been put in place.
• General security of the site aimed at making it harder to be hacked, and if hacked, harder to steal personal info of users because all is encrypted
• Users can delete replies and block hateful users, this also blocks replies to the blocked users
• Spoutible has tighter security for users joining (they have to give their phone number which also prevents someone from making more than two accounts with one number) and more vigilant system to detect users abusing the rules
• Key feature ways to keep mis- and disinformation to a minimum 
• Money and size less important to Spoutible than safety and security
• Acknowledgement, repeatedly that 
• no system is completely safe from hackers
• that there will be mistakes, but they'll jump to fix them as fast as possible
• determining the  right balance on issues (ie what is misinformation) will always be difficult
• we're just starting, give us time to discover and fix bugs, work with us
• Want to promote media and news outlets important
• Only three months old, but have experience of Twitter, and will be adding features and tweaking system as it develops
• Intentionally made it easy for Twitter folks to move over to Spoutible - it will feel comfortable and familiar.  
• Expects that Twitter users with lots of followers will stay on Twitter until followers move over - but working on ways to post on both platforms at once

My notes - (not sure what time I moved to the laptop to take notes) (These are pretty rough, but I hope I've gotten the gist of the questions and the answers)

Anne - how quick a turnaround response to a hate attack? (She said she'd been a victim with death threats etc. on Twitter, had to call FBI and that Twitter was slow in responding.)

Christopher - we have tools to address swarming, trying to get folks to harass you, they'll get time out.  On the other side, sometimes people say dumb things, and they we won't take action if they aren't crossing the line.  

Crossing the line - is used a lot.  But Christopher recognized that figuring out where that line is.  

We have tools - you can delete replies and block people.  Would like to have folks hold off on those things until the platform has been up a while.  But you have tools to block things yourself if necessary.

Michael Morgan (was a test account for the last couple of weeks - says was not paid and is not connected to Spoutible)

Safe, Fresh, has your interests at heart.  Some platforms push the issues that rile you.  On Spoutible that isn't going to happen.  

Smoke detector - tells you about accounts.  [ I wasn't sure what Smoke Detector means.  sounds like some sort of warning system, or notification system.]

Spoutible eels like wearing comfortable slippers as you move from Twitter.

Q:  Will edition up tomorrow have push notifications?  What will Spoutible do to address feature parity  with other platforms.

Christopher:  We are trying to get Spoutible out as soon as possible, so focused on what people wanted first.  So yes, there will be push notifications so you know when people respond.  We can add features in suitable time frame.  Twitter, sometimes take months.  Some stuff we'll do in days, other in months.  The push stuff we'll have up soon.

Freature parity, laugh, we're trying not to fall into the trap, but don't have an  answer for that.

Melinda:  Thanks, sounds very good.  Planning on platform or stand-alone app, like Tweet deck, but they cancelled it.  Like it because dynamic.  Going to do something like that?

Christopher:  Tweet deck does still exist.  Don't worry about being nervous - I'm nervous.  It's in the pipeline to allow customize platform.  Most don't want that because they want to maximize platform.

Going to launch own app store to allow developers to extend the capability of Spoutible.  Not having that made making Spoutible work was much harder.[Not sure how to fix that sentence.]  Not sure when, but we'll do it.  Part of the road map to allow developers to come in.

Rick:  Working with media orgs?  Birdwatch?

Christopher:  That's the plan - like to work with other outlets to let you to text certain stuff.  Don't want just anyone to come in.  Not sure how, but will invite journalists to discuss.  Important to platform, but also to democracy in general.  Want to work with outlets to keep garbage off.  Don't want mis- and disinformation rampant.  Do we take off this misinformation?  Tag it?  Something deadly like treat COVID with bleach, will be removed.  Want to be the platform for media, researchers - people who fight this stuff.

???:  You're being really thoughtful in how you approach this stuff.  Use tools available and protect yourselves.  

Christopher:  Thanks for saying this.  I have a vision and had for a while.  Tried to get Twitter folks to see this, but they went on as business as usual.  Rare opportunity.  Twitter isn't the same anymore. If we had launched five months ago, it would have failed.  You wouldn't have moved.  I think we have a chance now - people want to leave for a better alternative - content moderation at scale is difficult, but we've built Spoutible with that in mind.  Someone being doxxed with phone number, user can remove themselves.  Be patient with us.  There'll be bugs.  Twitter had a long time to do this.  Give us time.  We've only had three months.  A year from now if you don't see us listening, then call us out.  First few weeks allow us to get our bearings.

Q:  Thanks, doing great job.  1.  Will you be able to keep media and reporters 

Christopher?  Will we address folks in the media who target Spoutible?  yes

2.  Have global manpower to support?  They have people in other countries, do you have that?

3.  Do you communicate with followers across the platform.  I have followers who are important for online fundraisers, will I be able to communicate with them.  

Christopher: 1.  going after journalists, I am pro journalists, news outlets, even ones negative to me.  But there are people who do that actively.  It would probably be addressed by the panel, do we ban the president, do we kick off journalists who are attacking?  Difficult questions.

2.  International?  Not yet.  Focusing on US first.  But there will be people using the platform, but if someone is spouting in another language, there are translators doing it automatically and can see.  But ultimately we will have people.  I believe in work from home model - you can have people moderating in France or Brazil and not have everyone in central place.  My team is spread around the world to develop safe platform. 

3.  Want to allow folks to cross post, - allow to Tweet and Spout simultaneously.  But present owner may shut that down.  One tech hurdle.  Spout 300 characters but Twitter fewer.  If you want to cross post you'll have to reduce # of characters.  I'm going to be Tweeting a while trying to get people over here.  People with 500k are going to stay on Twitter as well.  Not giving up those followers.  But eventually hope followers move.  If he shuts it off, he shuts it off.  Haven't figured out how to have seamless transition from one platform to another and keep all your followers.  

Dr. Kate - a lot of people earn a living saying terrible things about people.  Would you moderate for me or expect me to block them.  

Christopher -Say Meghan Markle.  How help this lady to breathe?  VP Harris and others.  Overwhelmingly women and women of color who go through this.   You have those tools in place you can use to prevent them from posting in your feeds.  I have been victim of people profiting off of hate.  On Spoutible will be extremely hard to do that. [But of course people will take that as a challenge.]  We also have to be proactive knowing who is own our platform.  If account is focused on attacking Meghan Markle or VP Harris we'll take it off.  Other platforms have this policy, but they don't enforce it.  Youtube channels could have 50 videos on Markle, they don't take it down.  On Spoutible, they will get removed.  Not just user, but Spoutible will too.  We know hostile nations will do this.  Why we want phone numbers.  We won't be perfect, but your experience on Spoutible will be vastly better than on Twitter

Gadi Ben-Yehuda - been on T since 2006.  I'm a  social media director, ability to manage those.  Someone mentioned Tweet deck, if I'm overseeing multiple accounts can I use single platform?  Encouraging businesses and more important government on.  My school is delayed, National Park Service.

Christopher:  Yes.  Extremely important.  But flip side to third parties to post on your behalf is completely different from a hostile foreign nation.  Only certain verified will be able spout on behalf of a user.  Outreach - we've had conversation, but focus for last few months was to get this up and running and then go for govt. agencies.  There are a lot of officials who have preregistered and even are on and testing.  Hope word of mouth.  Also want local organizations and authorities, so amber alert will be available on spoutible.  How can we make the platform better?  Part of us communicating?  Gotta be honest.  Only three months.  

Akunjee - They successfully brought in ways to onload people onto platform.  Get to set ethos - these are the sort of people here.  There townhall system allowing local conversations, to set up discussions on those issues.  Going to look at these?  

Christopher - Yes, no.  Not opposed to.  Open to suggestions.  How we've developed this platform - allowing you to give your ideas.  We took a lot and implemented them.  I took flak.  I had a vision.  Wanted you to participate.  So far worked well.  Something like that is a feature we'd be interested in that.  If you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers.  But if ask 10K you start seeing patterns.  I said earlier, no Nazis on the platform.  Misinformation/Disinformation number 2.  Took top stuff you wanted us to address.  Yes.  Clubhouse could work well on Spoutible.  Totally against waitlists.  You build something, you want a few folks to test.  We did.  But then need to open up.  If you have a waitlist, it stifles the momentum.  Even what we're doing, a week for the preregistered people, will slow us down, but I think it's for ???.  Not studio 54, you can come in, you can't.  Once the preregistered week is over, all can join

Julie - I was targeted by horrific racists - N word, videos, my 5 year old daughter.  Had to call FBI.  Eventually Twitter .   He duplicated my account  - bio, pics, etc.  And he Tweeted terrible things in my name.  Twitter wanted my drivers license.  I didn't want to give them that info.  If that happens on Spoutible.  Would we have to give Drivers License to verify identity.

Christopher.  Look at this from Twitter's perception, and sorry you had to go through this.  Horrible on platform and feel like platform not helping.  From Twitter's perspective.  How do I know that picture belongs to you.  Basic verification - customer service that handles bank security.  We don't want that.  But whatever company we partner with, what will they do with it?  Sell it?  No.  Just for verification.  If user targeted, get verified.  If another account steals it, we can take it down.  If this account is doing other stuff and doing crazy stuff - we'll take them down for other stuff.  But if stealthy, we have the problem of verifying.  People in this room opposed using phone numbers to verify.  We had to find balance.  Not looking to sell numbers or spam people.  With Spoutible resend an email or two a week.  No spam stuff.  Also to keep people from creating a bunch of accounts with one phone number.  It's encrypted.  Not selling.  

Hoping to launch about 12am, maybe 3am.  Definitely tomorrow.  Probably early.  

If you preregistered, your email address is on the list.  You have to use same email address, you have to use same email address.  Still debating about phone number confirmation.  Have 60-70 people try it out, have some bugs, but it's built to handle 1 million users, but we don't get those numbers.  If we have tech difficulties, be patient.  Prepared for more people.  Don't think 200K will sign up, it will be staggered.  

Is it fast?  Fast now, but we'll see in a week if it holds up.  Built with scale in mind.   Using service called ??Detectify.  Looking for vulnerabilities in our code.  Tried our best to make it as secure as possible.  But if a hacker finds something - there are people who spend all day hacking.  If firm tells us there's a problem, we'll notify you immediately.  Microsoft finds vulnerabilities all the time.  We will be.  If it happens, all they get will be encrypted data.  

Thanks for taking this journey with us.  I promised we'll get it up by mid-Jan or February.  We did that.  I promised certain features.  We did that.  Look at what we've done in 3 months and think about what we can do in a year.  Give us time to work it out.  It's not going to feel like a beta.  

We don't have to accept this crap, this misinformation/disinformation.  We can do something about it.  If you see us turning into another Twitter, you need to hold our feet to the flames.  Not about how many users or money, but success for us is protecting users.  

-------------------

I did notice the remarkable situation of Spoutible holding this meeting on Twitter to encourage people to leave Twitter.  Did Twitter not notice?  Not care?  One commenter during the meeting asked when Twitter was going to shut them off.  Twitter never did.  

Obituaries Should Be Published At Least A Year Before People Die

 As I read the obituaries in the Anchorage Daily News, I come across people that I really, really wish I would have known and could have talked to about their apparently incredible lives.  Waiting until they are dead means I've missed the opportunity.  

And this thought was reinforced when I saw this note about Alfred Nobel's premature obituary:

"To prepare for your next cultural activity in Värmland, ask yourself this: what would you do if you read your own (accidental) obituary? In Alfred Nobel’s case, an obituary published by mistake on a French newspaper made him re-examine his whole life. See, the Swedish chemist held 355 different patents and one of them was for the invention of the dynamite. But after a long career producing firearms and weapons for sale, he decided he didn’t want his legacy to be “the merchant of death”. So he funneled all of his considerable fortune to form the Nobel Prize Institute, which awards 'outstanding contributions to humanity'”.

Not only do early obituaries give the living a chance to meet interesting people before they die, but, in Nobel's case, it gave him the opportunity to reflect on his life and legacy.  

There are a number of folks today who might be able to repair some of the damage they've done in the world if faced with their obituaries a year or more before they die. 

And then there are people who might be able to edit what their children write about them.  We could publish an obituary cliche list that people could use to be a bit more authentic.  First obituary cliche entry would be: "he married the love of his life."  

I ran across this excerpt at Culturetrip.tcom while trying to find out more about Värmland, the county where the Story of Gösta Berling takes place, preparation for Monday night's book club meeting. I've put up some quotes from Gösta Berling in the last post.

However The Night Ends, Remember These Two Things

 1.  However things turn out, remember that more people will have voted for Democratic candidates than Republican.  Only a Senate that gives small states (Wyoming and Alaska both have under 1,000,000 populations) the same number of Senators as large states (California has almost 40 million and New York has 20 million) and gerrymandered House maps cause the outcome to seem close. 

2.  Whatever the results, we must continue the struggle for respect, decency, understanding, and democracy.  No gloating if the results are good, no giving up if they aren't.  

The 2024 election begins Monday.  Lots of people have to talk to people about their values and where they came from and listen to others do the same.  Here's one path forward:

What is going to happen in these midterms? And what will it take for the pro-freedom movement to defeat American fascism?

Join @anatosaurus and me for this @nytopinion Twitter Space today at 12:30 pm ET.https://t.co/W9xLbOYjK4

— THE PERSUADERS by Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) November 7, 2022

I worked at a polling place today from 10:30 to 2:30.  Everyone was cordial to everyone.  Even when a ballot got jammed in the machine and people had to wait, they were calm and reasonable.  (I did have home made chocolate chip cookies as compensation for the wait to fix the machine.)

Click to enlarge

Alaska has great I VOTED stickers.  The blue Alaska flag stickers and then some alternate stickers designed by kids.  

When Will Alaska Supreme Court Issue Its Full Redistricting Ruling? [UPDATED 9/1 and 9/4/22]

 Wait, what?  I thought they ruled a long time ago?

Yes, they made a couple of rulings.  First they issued a decision on March 25, 2022 when the Redistricting Board appealed Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews' decision. They agreed with him on some things (particularly his calling the Eagle River Senate seats gerrymandering) but not on others (Matthews' ruling against the Board regarding the Skagway appeal and they also ruled against taking Cantwell out of the Denali Borough.  

Then after the Board addressed those issues, their decision was again appealed, Judge Thomas Matthews ruled again, and on May 24, 2022 the Supreme Court removed their temporary stay on Judge Matthews' order to the Board.  

BUT, these were short decisions that briefly summarized what they decided the Board needed to do.  These were NOT decisions that explained their decisions.  

Why do they need to explain their decisions?

The reasoning behind their decisions will help guide future Boards when they make their future redistricting maps.  If they do it clearly, these will be useful guidelines as the next Board grapples with what they can and can't do.  

Some things the Court ought to answer:

1.  Explain what appears to some as a contradiction between past rulings that said everything within a Borough boundary is considered Socio-Economically Integrated and their finding this time that Senate pairings in Anchorage were political gerrymandering.  Those two findings are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but since the Board's attorney's mantra was "everything within a Borough is SEI" the Board majority seemed to think that then they could pair any two contiguous house districts within the Municipality of Anchorage, and it would be fine. (Contiguity being the main legal criterion for a Senate pairing.)  Aren't things like race, economics, political leanings part of Socio-Economic Integration? Why then are factors like race, economics, and political leanings  within a single Municipality  indicators of political gerrymandering?  That needs to be explained.  And maybe the past rulings about everything in a Borough being SEI should be adjusted to reflect the differences within a Borough as populous as the Municipality of Anchorage.  Here's a post I did looking at past rulings about SEI.

[UPDATED Sept 4, 2022:  Maybe this is better focused:  I'd like to see the Court explain how they differentiate the criteria used to determine political gerrymandering and the criteria used for Socio-Economic Integration (SEI).  If Marcum hadn't mentioned that ER would have gotten an extra Senate seat, would the other characteristics of the two paired house districts been irrelevant?  At one point in the Supreme Court hearing there's a discussion between Board attorney Singer and Supreme Court Justice Warren Matthews [not to be confused with Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews or Board attorney Matthew Singer] on terms like 'communities of interest,' and 'equal protection.'  It would be nice if they could explain clearly the different concepts that Attorney Singer discussed and how the Court distinguishes between the idea that a Borough is SEI, but, as Justice Matthews pointed out, there are differences in communities of interest within the Borough of Anchorage.]

2. Address the issue of geographic contiguity.  While the House districts paired in the revised map were technically contiguous, the borders that were touching were in unpopulated and roadless mountain areas.  While that 'connected' the two districts physically, the communities in those two districts were geographically far apart (relative to the population of Anchorage) and not really sensible political units. 

"Auto-contiguity" came up as a concept.  That 'auto' refers to cars - can you drive from one part of the district to another without leaving the district?  This was an issue in the Valdez/Mat-Su case and in the Eagle River Senate pairings. 

 I understand that being contiguous in large, roadless rural districts will sometimes require those rural Senate seats to have much less ideal connections between communities.  But in urban areas where there is much greater population density, it seems more than reasonable to consider contiguity as a continuum from "more to less," than an "either/or, yes/no," evaluation.  It was clear that the Board majority paired HD 22 and HD 9 with such an unusable border for political reasons.  The Hickel Decision tell us that

"In addition to preventing gerrymandering, the requirement that districts be composed of relatively integrated socio-economic areas helps to ensure that a voter is not denied his or her right to an equally powerful vote."

In urban areas, extreme contiguity such as we had, should also be an indicator of possible gerrymandering,  particularly when much more natural contiguity alternatives are available.  

3.  Explain why the Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Matthews' finding that the Board needed to pay more attention to public testimony in the Skagway case.  Did they disagree with his reasoning on the Board's need to justify why they were making a decision that was contrary to the overwhelming public testimony?  As I understand it, they basically said, it didn't matter since the district met the criteria for a district.  

4.  There was a request from Calista plaintiffs that ANCSA boundaries be found acceptable as local boundaries for the Board to use making their maps.  This makes some sense in situations where those boundaries connect villages (water districts, schools, roads).  But the for-profit Native corporations are just that: profit making corporations that have a lot of power.  We wouldn't want corporations, say like Conoco or Monsanto, to have their own corporate political districts.  I think the Native Corporations have the burden of proof here that they are sufficiently different, in ways that matter to elections, that it would be okay.  

5.  Also on hold has been the decision about whether the Board has to pay attorney fees for the Girdwood plaintiffs. 

Does it matter when the court rules?

1. There are several factors to consider in answering that question. 
1. How urgent is the answer?
1. Elections
1. The Board got out its initial brief decision out in time to have an interim map for the 2022 election.  So they took care of the most urgent issue.
2. The 2024 election is two years away.  Candidates need to decide if they are going to run well before that.  
1. All of the state House districts are settled.  The court has pretty much closed off any changes to them.
2. There are only, potentially, two to four Senate seats that could be changed when the Board meets again to decide to just use the 2022 interim map for the rest of the decade, or if they try to tinker with the Senate seats in north/east Anchorage some more. So, at most, less than a handful of Senators might have their districts changed.  AND the voters in those districts will also be affected.  
2. The Board
1. There are still five Board members who have to meet at least one more time to decide on a permanent map for the rest of the decade.  These are people who, mostly, have full time jobs.  The longer it takes for the decision to come out, the greater the chances someone might no longer be available to serve.
2. Board staff is, as I understand it, down to one person - Peter Torkelson.  He needs to be considering his next job and if something good were offered, he'd probably have lots of reasons to take it.
3. I originally wrote here, last night, that Board space was still rented and they need to dispose of the equipment and furniture they have.  But this morning I got an email saying that the Board had closed down its office at the University Center and most of its furnishings and equipment have been returned to the state surplus office where they got it.  But they do have laptops and data stored at a secure site.  
3. The Court's time limits for decisions
1. Six Months Rule
1. "A salary disbursement may not be issued to a superior court judge until the judge has filed with the state officer designated to issue salary disbursements an affidavit that no matter referred to the judge for opinion or decision has been uncompleted or undecided by the judge for a period of more than six months." 
2. Six Months Rule and the Supreme Court
1. "For the Alaska Supreme Court, the six-month rule starts to run when the case is taken under advisement by the five members of the court. In order to be under advisement, the case must be ready to be decided by the court. Normally, the date the case is taken under advisement is the date of oral argument or the court's conference on the case if no oral argument is requested, although on occasion that date may be different in the event of requested supplemental briefing, reassignment to another justice, or other events that affect the date when the case is ready to be decided by the court. Once the case has been assigned to an individual justice to write the opinion, or in the words of the statute, has been "referred to the justice for opinion” (which cannot happen until the court has discussed the case after oral argument and knows which justices are in the majority), that justice has six months to complete the draft opinion and circulate it for voting by the rest of the court. This is the portion of the opinion that is within the control of the individual justice. Draft opinions are usually issued much more quickly than six months, in most cases within 90 days of the case being taken under advisement. Once all voting is complete by all individual justices, all voting suggestions have been incorporated during the reconciliation process, and any separate opinions have been prepared and voted upon, the draft is ready to be proofread and prepared for publication. About 75% of all Supreme Court appeals are published within nine months from the date they were taken under advisement."
2. The Appellate Clerk added these caveats by email:  "The six-month rule applies in the appellate courts, but perhaps not the way you would think.  The six month clock resets each time a new draft is circulated, including draft concurrences or dissents.  I cannot give you an estimate on when this opinion will be issued."  and in response to my question whether it had been assigned to a judge and to whom:                             "Yes, the case has been assigned, but no, I cannot reveal to whom."

So, when will the ruling come out?

Well, if the clerk can't give me an estimate, it's probably foolhardy for me to try.  But I can at least look at some of the timelines involved.

1.  The Court lifted the stay on Judge Matthews' order on May 24, 2022.  Six months (if this went without the caveats listed above) would be November 24, 2022.  Nine months would be February 24, 2023.  

2.  But we don't know when:

    a.  the Justices met to have their conference on the case

    b.  when they assigned it to a justice to write up

    c.  how many 'resets' the clock had because of the need to rewrite the draft.

Will the Board end up making any changes after the decision comes out?

In the best case scenario the maps won't change any more.  I say this because:

1.  The Court could decide the current map will become the permanent map until 2030.

2.  The Court could give it back to the Board.

3.  There isn't much room to change anything; at most two or three Senate seats

4.  The political gains the Board majority sought with the Eagle River Senate seats are not really within reach anymore, so they would seem to have no motive to change anything, unless it was simply to have the last word.

[UPDATE: September 1, 2022:  Let me add 5 to reiterate that the most important part of the Supreme Court decision will be the reasoning behind the decision.  This is for the next Redistricting Boards 2030, 2040.  They don't want to rush this.  They want it to be as clear as possible.  So I'm guessing they'll take as long as they reasonably can until the justices are comfortable with the language.]

If the Court has decided that the final decision will be to make the interim map, permanent, then they would see no urgency in this case compared to other cases they are working on.  

Or if they give the final decision back to the Board, but with language that makes it practically impossible to do anything but make the interim plan permanent, there would, again, be no urgency.

The only real urgency then would be to let the Board officially wrap up loose ends and close down.  

So, I would guess we won't see a decision until after the six month mark from the last Court ruling  which would be late November,  but probably by the nine month mark in February 2023.  Sort of like having a baby.

The Trump Tipping Point - Stolen Documents Turn The Tide

During Watergate, it wasn't clear whether  Nixon would be able to ride things out or not until the Senate Watergate Committee played the secret tapes Nixon recorded in the Oval Office.  That was the turning point.  The point when Nixon supporters stopped supporting Nixon.  

Trump supporters are a different breed. Some will never stop supporting him, or at least the idea of Trump.  But lots of Republican politicians only support Trump because they fear losing 'his base' and his support at election time.  Others also fear the damaging information Trump has on them.  

But the top secret documents - their existence and the realization of what Trump likely plans to do with them, or already has done with them - feel to me like the turning point.  Even if Republican politicians don't publicly voice their opposition, the public, combined with the wave of energized pro-choice voters, will make their opinion known in November.  

But I want to remind folks that with Watergate, resolution didn't happen quickly.

Back in May I compared the January 6 hearings to the Watergate hearings, which I listened to/watched live at the time.  I also tried to put the timing from the Watergate Break-in to Nixon's resignation into perspective.  From that post: 

• The break-in occurred May 28, 1972 (50 years ago).  
• Nixon was reelected in November 1972
• Alexander Butterfield testified about the existence of the White House tapes  before the Watergate Committee on July 16, 1973.
• Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.

These events just plodded along.  Here's a detailed timeline.  

My point was that these things take time and that it was never certain that Nixon would actually be ensnared in the scandal.  Until he was.

In hindsight, it appears that the country's mood changed when we learned that the White House taped all the Oval Office conversations.  It was clear that once we heard the tapes, we'd know who had been telling the truth and who had been lying, about what Nixon knew and when he knew it.  (And the president lying to the American public mattered back then.)

And when the Watergate committee started playing the  tapes live on national television, those who were supporting Nixon knew the jig was up.  But if you look at the timeline, it was over a year between the public revelation of the existence of the tapes and Nixon's resignation.  

The Tweet below is the kind of indication I'm talking about in terms of people's understanding of the seriousness of the classified documents in Trump's possession.

God. This is awful. He has betrayed our country in the worst way imaginable.

— RSMe (@7104child) August 27, 2022

For tens of millions, there were enough infractions to impeach, prosecute, and imprison Trump long ago.  But for other United States citizens, treason is the unforgivable transgression.

This Tweet suggests to me thatt the revelations in the last ten days tip the scales.  People are beginning to realize that not only did he illegally take all these documents, but that these highly secret documents have lots of information that could jeopardize US national security.  

Despite what we already know about Trump, the Tweeter is only now having his real Aha moment.

It's starting to sink in that Trump not only was probably planning to use these documents to raise funds, but that there is a good chance he's already shared some/much of the information to foreign nations that are not particularly friendly to the US. 

People have asked why would Saudi Arabia 'invest" $2 billion in Jared Kushner's investment company.  The documents give us a plausible explanation.  And now there's a timeline that shows Trump talked to Putin, then asked for list of top spies, and then US experiences big loss of informants.

Known Timeline:

1. 7/31/2019: Trump spoke with Putin (NYT)

2. 8/3/2019: Trump issued a request for a list of top US spies (The Daily Beast)

3. 10/5/2021: "CIA Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants". (NYT)

4. 8/26/2022: Documents at MAL Could Compromise Human Intel (NYT) 1/5 pic.twitter.com/rqNqRZUQL2

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) August 27, 2022

We don't know yet whether these killings of US confidential informants happened because Trump provided the documents to some foreign government(s), but even if he didn't, his possession of these documents is more than serious.  And there is no evidence that Trump has any moral principle other than "me, me, me."

This is not another scandal that should get a -gate tagged onto the end.  This is SO MUCH BIGGER than Watergate.  This will require a whole new vocabulary to do it justice.  Benedict Arnold and Judas will be replaced by Trump when people want to accuse someone of treason.

But don't hold your breath for Trump to be indicted, let alone tried, or even put into prison.  It will still take a while, if it happens at all.

Nixon saved the country a lot of time and grief by resigning.  As vain as Nixon was, he was a great president in comparison to Trump.  Under his watch we got things like The Freedom Of Information Act, The Privacy Act, and a slew of environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act.  And Nixon unlocked the door between China and the United States.  Mind you, I thought then and do now, that he was a vile man and did great harm to the US (think prolonging the Vietnam War among other things).  But he understood history and had enough sense of honor to not wish to be an impeached president.  So he resigned.

Trump, as he has done with every disagreement he's been involved in over his adult lifetime, is going to stall, threaten, counter attack, drag out, and everything else he can think of to tire out his opponents.  But it appears that he's now having trouble hiring a decent attorney.

The tides do seem to be turning.  Trump is scrambling but there isn't much firm footing under him.  And while the people who continue to answer his text exhortations to send him money will probably put up Trump figurines and candles in their homes, his less cultish supporters are going to have to figure out how to shift alliances.

But I expect there won't be any indictments until after the November midterm elections.  Then there will be fights over how to try an ex-president, how to get a fair jury, whether trying him will enrage his base (as if they could get more self-righteously enraged) and whether NOT trying him would enrage the rest of the country.  

We've got at least a year or more of this drama.  How will all this affect Trump's health?  His dad lived to 93, but was a much thinner man with a lot less stress.  And the Trump cultists will continue to work out their own personal social and mental problems by worshipping their fallen hero.  

So, while we're at a big turning point in the Trump saga, it's going to take a while yet.  And if Republicans win the House and/or Senate, it's going to take even longer.  If the Kansas abortion vote wasn't a fluke, and the same forces vote for Democrats in November, then it will move along faster.