Anchorage Mayor Election - Review Of The Numbers And What They May Portend

As the Republican majority caucuses in the state house and senate act [fill in the blank], it's probably useful to look back at the April general election  and the May runoff in Anchorage, and consider what they might mean for future elections.

There are some interesting numbers to ponder.

First,  more people voted in the runoff than in the general election.  I thought that this was a first, though I'm not sure now.  The Municipal election results page which goes back to 1991, shows two runoff elections prior to 2015.  In 2009 there were a lot fewer voters in the runoff.  But 2000 isn't as clear.  The runoff election tally on the Muni website lists two different sets of totals.  One is less than the general election total (62,406) and one is more. 



You'd think the higher one might include absentee ballots, but election totals have lots of strange numbers so I'm not jumping to any conclusions.  Amanda Moser runs the Municipal Elections. She also believed that the prior runoffs had lower turnouts when I talked to her earlier today.  In fact, she pointed out that the Municipal Code only requires there to be as many ballots as in the regular election. 

“28.40.010 - Form.
B2
For each runoff election the municipal clerk shall ensure that the number of ballots prepared equals at least the number of voters who cast ballots in the election requiring the runoff election.”

Fortunately she didn't stick with the minimum and ordered more for the May election. 

The table below shows the results of the general runoff elections.

	Gen Election April 5, 2015		Runoff May 5, 2015
Candidate	# of Votes	Percent	# of Votes	Percent
KERN,	62	0.11%
SPEZIALE,	36	0.06%
AHERN	406	0.71%
BAUER	223	0.39%
BERKOWITZ	21,189	37.03%	42,869	60,75%
COFFEY	8261	14.44%
DARDEN	609	1.06%
DEMBOSKI	13,796	24.11%	27,705	39.25%
HALCRO	12,340	21.57%
HUIT	124	0.22%
JAMISON	48	0.08%
WRITE-IN	128	0.22%
Totals	57,222		70,574	+13,352

Second,  there were 13,352 MORE votes in the runoff than in the general election.

Third,  Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes in the runoff.

Fourth,  if you subtract the additional 13,352 votes in the runoff from Berkowitz' total, he would have had 29,164 votes, only 2,212 more votes than Demboski.  The percentages would have been
Berkowitz 51.5% to Dembosky 48.5%.  A much closer vote. 


So, what does this all mean? 

We have to be careful about reaching conclusions.  I'm speculating here.  But my sense of elections for the last ten years or so, has been that there is very low turnout and the only way Democrats have a chance to win when there are more Republicans is to get more people to vote. People who have just given up on the process or don't think their vote counts.

While we don't know how people who voted in the general election voted in the runoff, we do know that there were  13,352 more of them in the runoff than the general and that Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes.

Conservative v Liberal Showdown?
The runoff pitted a 30 something female candidate against a 50 something male.  She identified herself as the most conservative candidate in the general election and he identified himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  She promised to veto a gay rights addition to the Municipal anti-discrimination ordinance and was strongly opposed to abortion.  He was pro-gay rights and pro-choice.  Gay rights hadn't done well in prior elections in Anchorage.  (But then again times are changing.)

We don't know if it was the ideological stands, the name recognition, past experience, preference for a male candidate, or personality, or campaign styles that made the difference here.  Probably different things for different voters.  But we do know that a liberal trounced a conservative in the biggest city in a generally red state.

My guess is that the extra voters who came out in the runoff made all the difference.  And if the Left can get them out again in the future,  the state could see big changes.

November 2016 Election Implications

My sense is that the House and Senate Republicans, who have been acting like the trolls who lived under the bridge during our current budget crisis special session,  exist in a giant echo chamber.  The leaders are told by the oil and construction and other major industry lobbyists how wise and powerful they are.  They're told they're doing the right thing and to stand tall because the people of Alaska are behind them despite what the biased media report.  And they apparently believe that.  Or the lobbyists are making them offers that the public simply can't match. 

Now, the 2000 Census redistricting resulted in enough gerrymandering that a number of districts are safely Republican (and safely Democratic.)  But in Anchorage, all but sixteen precincts went for Berkowitz, most of those in Demboski territory in Eagle River or Chugiak.  That means most Anchorage precincts voted for the more liberal (and also well known candidate).  I think this election tells us that with strong candidates, Democrats can win in most of Anchorage, just not the Eagle River/Chugiak area.

Despite the gerrymandering, there are 23 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one non-affiliated who caucuses with the Democrats.  Rural Democrats have traditionally been lured into majority Republican caucus with the promise of pork for their districts if they join and the threat of legislative castration if they don't. Three of the current rural Democrats are part of the current Majority Caucus.

But given this Anchorage election, and the anger that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate are stirring up now, the Democrats could pick enough seats House seats to tie the Republicans.  If this happened the three renegade Dems along with the non-affiliated representative from Ketchikan, would likely join.  It won't be easy, but if the Democrats had three strong candidates in marginally Republican districts, and could get people who normally don't vote to vote, they could do it.  Of course, they would also have keep all the seats they presently have.

People think 2016 is too far away for people to remember, but I doubt next year's legislative session will be much prettier, even if the price of oil shoots back up.  And people need health care and they want good schools for their kids.  And they see the oil companies being protected in the budget fights while Alaskans are being told "it's time to make hard decisions." 

Just some thoughts I had after renewing the Anchorage mayoral election numbers.  

[NOTE:   When I first went to get the numbers from the Muni election site, I had some questions.    I talked to the MOA elections official Amanda Moser, but the numbers she was looking at were different from the ones I had on my screen.  It turned out there were different pages on their website linking to different (but very similar) results.  They've made some changes since this morning to fix that, but after the phone call, I found other inconsistencies in the numbers and emailed that information.  The runoff information I had originally found is now (as I write) gone.  Amanda emailed me the numbers and said she'll get the website fixed in the next couple of days.  As a blogger, I recognize how hard it is to keep updating old pages and how easy it is to miss bad links, so I'm not too concerned.  My dealings with that office over the last few elections have convinced me they're working really hard to keep things as accurate and transparent as possible.  You can get the general election (April) numbers at the Municipal Election Results site.  Here are some others tallies which may not be linked any longer (or may not be linked yet):

• Runoff Results (May 15, 2015)
• April General Election Results (May 15, 2015)
• The most recent runoff summary result (May 22, 2015)
• The most recent runoff statement of votes (by precinct) (May 22, 2015)]

[June 2, 9am Update:  I found the original Municipal page with the 2015 election results (it showed up in my history):  http://www.muni.org/departments/assembly/clerk/elections/pages/electionresults.aspx]

The Will Of The Irish

The size of the majority of the vote on same-sex marriage in Ireland yesterday says this was not about luck, but about will.  

A regular reader here who lives much closer to Ireland sent me links to two different articles on the election, one from the Irish Times,  "Ireland has left ‘tolerance’ far behind" and the other from The Guardian, "Ireland is a kinder, fairer place after voting for same-sex marriage."

The Irish Times article says near the beginning:

"It looks like a victory for tolerance. But it’s actually an end to mere toleration.

Tolerance is what “we” extend, in our gracious goodness, to 'them'. It’s about saying 'You do your own thing over there and we won’t bother you so long as you don’t bother us'."

The word 'tolerance' as a goal has always bothered me.  Tolerance is the lowest level of acceptance.  Tolerating is  putting up with something that you don't agree with.  Tolerance is not a word I imagine that Jesus Christ would have used or approved of.  He said to 'love' one's neighbors, even one's enemies.  Not 'tolerate' them. 

I did actually google  Jesus and the word tolerance, and I got an article entitled "Bible Verses About Tolerance: 21 Scripture Quotes."  None of the 21 quotes actually has the word tolerance in them.  Someone merely found passages that seemed to cover the idea they had of tolerance.   Quotes like:

"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

How people 'know' things and by extension, how the come to change what they 'know' is an underlying theme of this blog.  I'm convinced that 'knowing' is something we do non-rationally.  It's somehow linked in our brains to our fight or flight response - is this a danger to me?   And the less we know about something, the more likely we are to put it into the danger category.  It's why some people fear flying, but think nothing of driving, even though statistically one's odds are much better flying.  But it's easy to viscerally understand that if cars crash, they are, at least, already on the ground, and relatively few of us truly understand what keeps a plane up in the air.  We may have read an explanation, even be able to recite the explanation.  But unless we 'get it' in the sense that we 'feel' its correctness, we don't really 'know' it.  

We can 'know' a lot of things that are incorrect.  Things that 'make sense', that feel natural.  But are wrong.  And the more being 'right' threatens our way of life, the longer we believe what's wrong.  Find me a climate change denier today, and I'll find you some strong connection they have to the fossil fuel industry. 

So how do we people change what they know?  How can we help that process along?

When I taught about values in my graduate classes, I had one section where everyone had to bring some food that would help us understand who they were.  They also had to talk about a value they believed in strongly and explain what happened in their lives to cause that to be an important value.  For instance, for me, siding with immigrants fleeing from a dangerous homeland has always been important.  My parents were immigrants who fled Nazi Germany, so I come to this value in a very personal way.  Sure, there are people who take advantage of the system, but it's better, in my mind,  to let in a few fakers, than turn away genuine refugees fleeing from terrible deprivation and death.  

I recall one night in class where one student showed us photos of her cats, dogs, and a bunny, I believe.  She was a member of PETA and a strong animal rights advocate.  She talked about how important pets had always been in her life.   About 30 minutes later, another student showed us a photograph of himself and his dad with the first time caribou he'd ever shot.  This was an important father and son bonding activity.  

These class sessions profoundly changed how students interacted in the rest of the class.  The PETA member didn't necessarily agree with the hunter (or vice versa) but at least they understood how the other got to that value.  It made a visceral sense. 

Watching the rapid (for significant social change) acceptance of gay marriage over the last 30 years (and if you were gay and of marrying age 30 years ago, I'm sure it didn't seem rapid),  I think a lot of it came about because people came to know lgbt people as the same as themselves, with this one minor difference.  I say minor, because when J and I were first married, our closest neighbors were a lesbian couple.  The better we got to know them over the years, the more their daily lives seemed to be wrapped around the same kinds of issues as ours: working, paying the bills, preparing food, keeping the garden nice, washing dishes, going to the movies,  getting the car fixed, and on and on.  They had good days as a couple and bad days.  The fact that they were both women really was a very minor difference.  Sure, it meant they weren't going to have children, but we had hetero friends who weren't going to have children either. 

When I was a kid growing up, I can think of one gay person that I knew of.  He was the brother of a friend of our parents.  He played the piano professionally and when we were at Seders at their house, I remember him always smoking a lot.  But so did his sister.  I don't even know when I came to know that he was, in those days, homosexual.  Probably when I was about 15 or 16 it slipped out from one of my parents' lips.  It was like saying he had cancer.   He was sort of a shadowy person and I don't recall ever even having any sort of conversation with him beyond hello and please pass the peas.    

In those days few people were open about their homosexuality.  There were men or women who never got married, and I guess adults may have wondered, but people didn't publicly openly identify themselves as gay.  There was no publicly visible gay community that I knew about.  Kids might call someone a faggot or queer at school, but it wasn't until my 10th or 15th high school reunion that I learned about classmates who were gay - because, by then, they had died of AIDS.  No, that's not quite true.  One came out in college and my step-father saved me a newspaper article about him being head of a gay student group at Berkeley. Randy had been a close friend in high school, but I never had a clue.   Later, he became the first openly gay judge in Los Angeles.  

I give all this history, because I think that once LGBT folks began to come out and thus force the rest of the world to acknowledge their existence, things began to change.  Until then, parents could pretend their daughter was living with her good friend because it made economic sense to share an apartment or house.  They could ignore the fact that not only was their 40 year old son unmarried, but he never seemed to talk about dating any women.  He was just too busy at work or something.   They might suspect, but they never talked about it.  Everyone could just pretend everything was 'normal.'

But once people started to come out to their parents, the parents had to come to terms with what they 'knew' about homosexuals and what they knew about their gay or lesbian (often adult) children.  Some disowned their children.  Others disowned what they knew about homosexuals.  

And once parents began accepting their children, aunts and uncles and grandparents were forced to make the same sorts of choices between throwing out the kids or throwing out their false knowledge.  And then it spread to friends of the parents, to people at work, and on and on.  The more people came to know they actually did know gay folks, people they had thought were good, normal people until they had come out, the more people had to reassess what they 'knew' about gays.  

Television and movies mirrored this by adding gay characters as 'real' people.  

Just as in my class exercise on values, people had to match what they knew about real individuals against their stereotypes.  

I suspect this evolution might have happened faster than for other outsider groups in society because gays were embedded, so to speak, in every racial and ethnic group, in every religious group, and in every economic and social group.   Protestant Irish probably have been more likely to have a gay dinner guest as part of a family holiday, than to have a Catholic.  (OK, that's a gross speculation on my part, but the point is, they've been less likely to have a family member of the 'other' religion than a gay family member.  You have to have someone convert or marry into the other religion, but a son or daughter or nephew or niece, is someone you've known all their lives.  

So I'm probably asking here whether we can learn to be first tolerant and then embracing of other 'others' the way Ireland has.  (And I'm assuming that everyone has heard that Ireland is the first country to actually vote for same-sex marriage, not have it imposed by a court or law, and that they did so with a very strong yes vote.)  Or whether there is something about the distribution of lgbt folks in society that gives them access to every part of society, that other outside groups don't have.  

In any case, the world is a better place today than it was a week ago, because of this vote.  While some will disagree with that assessment, mine is based on the assumption that the more people accept each other as fellow, equal human beings, the better off the world is. 

As one person is quoted in the Irish Times article, before the election, wrote: 

“I have two adult children. One is allowed to marry, the other is not. How can this be right?”

Blogger Overload - Things I Haven't Posted From Erin's Law To Shell Arctic Drilling

There is a bunch of posts still listed as drafts in my blog index of posts.  Some will never see the light of day because there are more important things, they've been partly incorporated in other posts, or they are old and the topic's been covered enough elsewhere.

The battle between living and blogging is sometimes easy and sometimes hard.  Ideally, the blog captures bits and pieces of life as I live it.  But my kids have said the grandchildren are off limits for the blog, so reflections on their growing language skills ("The rocket's at my house") and other motor skills (crawling up and down the wheel chair ramp at my mom's house) don't get chronicled here, though I think they are significant, not just for me, but for the world.  This point was made today by someone who spent about ten minutes on an older post about infants learning sign language. 

Some posts are partly or largely written.  Others are just notes.  Here are some examples.

Obergefell
What signs from the Supreme Court hearing on Obergefell are worth attending to get a sense of what their decision might be and the implications for the future?

Shell Arctic Drilling
I did a fair amount of reporting on Shell's previous Arctic drilling plans  (for example) and the later fiasco with Kulluk.  You might look at the link on the plans.  Those were last time.  I've looked quickly at parts of the new ones.  My issue then was that they were more PR than actual operational plans of what to do.  This time it seems there is more detail, but still a lot missing.  For example, there's this sort of reassuring language, that reminds me a lot of the reassuring (but incorrect) language they had in 2013.

"Operational Monitoring:
Operational monitoring is conducted to minimize the potential of penetrating an overpressure
zone resulting in a loss of hydrostatic overbalance.

1. 1)  Flow checks are conducted with the pumps off to confirm the static mud weight over balances pore pressure.
   
2. 2)  Frequent pit drills and mock well control drills are planned and conducted.
   
3. 3)  Drilling Contractor / Shell Staff have relevant and current Well Control Certificates.
   
4. 4)  Shell requires its operational staff to attend and pass its internal Advanced Well Control Training.
   
5. 5)  Real Time monitoring of the well and operational parameters is conducted by the Real Time Operations Center that is staffed by a team of experts. Any anomalous signals or indications are immediately relayed to the rig.
   

This extra set of monitoring provides a secondary team of individuals to monitor the wells status and minimize the potential for loss of situation awareness by the drilling team" [from page 2/6 Well Control Plan which is in a zip file linked at Appendices and Attachments on this page at this Bureau of Oceans and Environment Management (BOEM) page. ]

"loss of situational awareness' was a big red flag for me.  Here's a post I did on that phrase back in 2010:  Euphemism Alert!! What the hell is "Lack of Situational Awareness"?

I understand that there's an art to giving an overview, and I have yet to probe deep enough in all the documents to find out if there are more operational details than this. 

For instance,
1)   how often the flow checks are conducted and where the results of those tests go and how quickly and how quickly do government regulators see them? 
2)  What does 'frequent'?  I'd like to see some numbers - once a week, once a month (I don't know what's reasonable) - and records kept and reported that they happened and what was learned from each drill and what improvements were made based on the drill. 
3/4) should be expanded somewhere to list the job titles of the "Shell staff" and "operational staff" and the names of the people in those positions with a list of the specific certificates they have, when they got them,  plus links to what the training includes and what the certificate guarantees the staff know and can perform. 
5) how about a list of the 'team of experts' including their name and expertise and how their expertise is determined.

It's in Shell's interest that all this rhetoric is backed up, but I know these things are written to get approval.  I'd like to know that BOEM is getting more detail than this.  BUT, it may be in there somewhere, I just haven't had the time to read it all and then find the people I can ask my questions of.  So, these posts are still unwritten. 

Then there's this somewhat disturbing prospect:

The estimated total duration from the initial mooring to well kill pumping through a relief well would be approximately 28 days for a Burger blowout (Table 1). In the event of a blowout, the secondary rig if located at the Burger Prospect, will cease drilling, suspend the well so that it cannot flow, recover its BOP stack and moorings, and transit to the relief well drill site. In this case, the estimated duration of flow prior to drilling a relief well to intersection with the original wellbore and killing the flow is approximately 34 days (six days to mobilize and moor and 28 days to kill the well). If the secondary rig is located in Dutch Harbor, the rig will transit from Dutch Harbor to the relief well drill site. The rig will initiate relief well drilling operations upon arrival and mooring and will remain at the site through plugging operations on both the relief well and the blowout well. The max additional time required will be to unmoor in Dutch Harbor, transit to relief well site, and moor is an estimated 10 days (10 days to mobilize and moor and 28 days to kill the well).  [emphasis added] [Page 2-5 from
Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration PlanChukchi Sea, AlaskaBurger Prospect:Posey Area Blocks 6714, 67626764, 6812, 6912, 6915Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193]

I don't know what sort of damage can happen in 28 days, and I need to check.  But I suspect it won't be pretty. 

But I also know that Shell has huge incentives for everything to go right.  Not only are accidents costly to them in lost time and equipment, they are disastrous in terms of public opinion and the future obstacles that result.  So Shell surely wants things to go well, wants to get oil as quickly as they can with no mishaps.  I don't question their intentions to have no serious problems.  The question is their ability to carry it out.

They have a lot of smart people, but many of them are smart in a narrow area of knowledge.  But I have lots of reading to do, and questions to ask before I tackle this for real.  And I may or may not get there.  

Erin's Law
This bill still hasn't been passed.  I've emailed the representatives who voted against it (only Rep. Tammy Wilson has responded) and I've got what the ADN says their reasons for opposing it are.  But I need to get a bit more information.

Others

Tanaina preschool followup, mayoral election reflections, left over press club conference thoughts, the university searches for a president and Fairbanks chancellor, and it goes on. 
And then there are a dozen posts in my head that haven't gotten into writing even.

And it's essentially summer in Alaska and Denali calls for a visit before the buses are taking the tourists in.

The Role Of Audio In Anchorage's Mayoral Race

First there was the audio of former assembly member Dan Coffey in the primaries.  It was a message left on assembly member Allan Tesche's answer machine.  Tesche's number was, apparently, accidentally dialed, while Coffey was talking to assembly member Starr about how buying votes from assembly members.  It had been highly publicized when Tesche discovered it on his answer machine back in 2008.  And Coffey, in a mea culpa page on this campaign website,  even linked to the transcript.  But when a TV station said they would put the audio online, Coffey's attorney threatened to sue.  Coffey, later said no, he wouldn't sue. 


And for the last week before the election a second very different kind of audio tape has been the focus of attention.  First Jerry Prevo said he'd heard about it from someone and told the nasty to his congregation.

Then Amy Demboski was asked about it on the air.  The conservative talk show host said he thought she would denounce the allegation as ridiculous.  Instead, she said she heard it and she didn't know that he (her opponent, Ethan Berkowitz) didn't mean it. 

But the station said the audio didn't exist.  They recycle them after a certain amount of time. 

The allegation?  That Ethan Berkowitz said he not only supported gay marriage, but also that a man could marry his own son. 

Once you have an allegation like that, and the tape is missing, there's no way you can totally undo the damage.  People who want to believe the worst will believe it. 

And now there's a post on Joe Miller's website with Bernadette Wilson mysteriously finding the tape and playing edited bits of what is a very hypothetical debate.  It's not clear what has been cut out, but Berkowitz is  clearly saying he's not talking about sex, but about a last resort to protect a child in areas like passing on property rights.   Here's Nat Herz' coverage of it:

"The recording showed the conversation between the two hosts started as a legal debate on the same-sex marriage issue in the appellate courts, with Berkowitz taking a libertarian position that consenting adults should be allowed to choose their own relationships. An unidentified caller took the issue further, asking Berkowitz whether a father and son 'should be allowed to marry if they’re both consenting adults.'
'If you're defining marriage as the bundle of rights and privileges that now accrue to people, yes,' Berkowitz said. In the show, he explained he was talking about financial and property rights, not incest, and on Monday, after the recording aired, said he had found himself 'frustrated' within a 'constrained hypothetical conversation.'”

I guess the Koch brothers' money that has been injected into this campaign and that paid for the commercial of their other Alaskan golden child Senator Dan Sullivan supporting Demboski, has bought a marketing team that has carefully built this up to release this tape the day before the election.

I can just say that while I've only had a few conversations with Berkowitz over the years, I know him well enough to know that he does not support incestuous marriages. As an academic, I can understand getting deep into hypotheticals,  But it's probably not something a politician should have let himself get baited into, even in a very hypothetical discussion.  We're talking about the only legislator to stand up on the floor of the house of representatives to protest Veco's interference with the legislative process on the oil tax vote. 

If I recall right, back in the early eighties, Tony Knowles stood up as an assembly member against, discrimination against gays, and was still elected mayor.  We're a long way beyond those days now.  By this time tomorrow night, we'll see whether Demboski is able to demagogue enough voters to win this election.  I'm guessing not.  The allegation may resonate with some, but for most, it will seem like what it is - a lame attempt to smear an opponent.   But if she does lose, she'll still be on the assembly, and now that she's tasted this much attention and power, she's not going to walk away from it. 

Early Voting Anchorage April 23,2015

And given early voting, a lot of folks will have already voted long before the tape was released.  When I voted almost two weeks ago, there was a longer line than when I voted early for the main election in April.

My Fantasy: Amy Demboski and Jim Minnery Meet Scott Turner Schofield

[REPOST due to Feedburner* problems][Scott was the artistic director of Anchorage's Out North for about two years.]

Melisa Green, posted a link to this New York Daily News article at Bent Alaska Facebook page. 

"The Daily News exclusively learned the latest transgender person to make a splash in the world of mainstream television is Scott Turner Schofield, who has joined the cast of CBS’ long-running soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful” and will make his first appearance May 8 — bringing a real-life verve to an already controversial storyline.
Schofield is making his TV acting debut on the Emmy Award-winning daytime series, after winning raves in regional theater throughout the years."

Thanks to writing a blog, I can tell you when I first met Scott - January 2, 2010.  He was at Out North as a visiting performer and introduced the Under 30 production.  I was so taken by how he held himself, spoke, what he said, and his warmth, that I mentioned him with a shaky photo  in the post I did of Under 30 that he introduced that night.

In July that year, Scott had just become the artistic

Scott Turner Schofield at Out North Anchorage July 2010

director of Out North.  Again, he just introduced the main act, but it was one helluva good intro.   Here's what I said about him then, as part of a post about the performance he introduced - Wu Man and Friends.

"On the right is Scott Schofield, Out North's new artistic director after the performance.  Preparation for the performance began just as he arrived at OutNorth.  His introduction Wednesday was a pleasure to listen to.  His words were good, his delivery fluent, and he effortlessly rotated to acknowledge the audience members sitting behind him on the stage. "

It was only later that we saw him perform "Two truths and a Lie." and even later when he came back to perform his resurrection piece.

I try not to say "I told you so" but in this case I'm delighted to.  And I have the blog posts to prove it.

And while the Supreme Court uses the law to argue their personal takes on the issue of same-sex marriage and the Anchorage mayor's race is once again discussing LGBT rights, I think it's important for as many people as possible to watch Scott Turner Schofield's Ted Talk.

My fantasy is that someone gets Jim Minnery and Amy Demboski to watch this Ted Talk until they get it.  Maybe they can dig deep enough into themselves - the way Scott did - to discover why LGBT folks make them so crazy.   Those of you who didn't have the pleasure of seeing Scott while he was in Anchorage, this will help show you why I was so impressed.


 



*Feedburner note:  Feedburner relays new messages to subscribers and blogrolls so that they know there is a new post.  Usually it works fine.  But too often it doesn't.  Sometimes it's clear that there is lengthy code in something I've copied from somewhere else and if I get rid of it, Feedburner works.  Sometimes it's just mysterious.  Like this post.  I posted it yesterday, but it didn't get to blogrolls.  I posted it again last night.  This morning it still wasn't on blogrolls.  So I did it again this morning and it worked.  The only people this might irritate, besides me, are subscribers who actually do get notified several times for the same post.  My apologies to them.  This is why I'm writing this here.  It's a particular problem when I'm posting something that's time sensitive - like election results, or a note about an event coming up soon.  

News Flash: If Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal, No One Will Have To Marry A Same Sex Partner

Everyone will be free to choose to marry the person they love.

I write this the day after the US Supreme Court heard Obergefall v. Hodges.  And after equal rights became an issue once again in an Anchorage mayoral race. 

From today's ADN:

“This is the kind of mayor we need for Anchorage on May 5,” wrote Prevo, using all capital letters and referencing the date of the runoff election. “Not one like Ethan Berkowitz who supports same-sex marriage and ordinances that will take away the rights of those who do not agree with him.”

Not sure what rights, other than to discriminate against people they don't like, Prevo's people will lose.  While LGBT folks lose lots of rights from Prevo's position.

Let's hope Jerry Prevo's message no longer matters to Anchorage voters next week and that he'll have to find some other issue to get his people to hand over their money to support his religious empire in Anchorage.  

Alaska Commons Sending Reporter To The Supreme Court Next Week

John Arono tweeted this evening:

So, we're quite happy to make this announcement: Alaska Commons' Brandon Roulet will be reporting from inside #SCOTUS for #Obergefell.
— Alaska Commons (@alaskacommons) April 24, 2015

What the hell is Obergefell?  Or SCOTUS?

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court Of The United States.

Obergefell is short for  Obergefell v. Hodges.  It's the Ohio case challenging the state's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside of Ohio.  But there are actually four cases combined under Obergefell.  From SCOTUS blog:

The merits brief filed in the Kentucky case (Bourke v. Beshear) is the only one that discusses both questions: the validity of state bans on same-sex marriage, and the validity of state bans on the recognition of existing same-sex marriages.   The brief filed in the Michigan case (DeBoer v. Snyder) discusses only the marriage question, and each of the briefs filed in the Ohio (Obergefell v. Hodges) and Tennessee (Tanco v. Haslam) cases deals only with the recognition question.  (When a final decision is issued, it will have the Obergefell v. Hodges title, simply because that case was the first to reach the Justices.)

 Got that?  Two challenges:

1.  Can states ban same-sex marriages?
2.  Can states ban recognition of existing same-sex marriages?


This will be heard Tuesday (April 28) in the Supreme Court.


So what lies ahead for Mr. Roulet?  SCOTUS blog has a special page telling journalists what to expect at the Supreme Court Tuesday.

First, reporters are told they need to get press passes.  This, Mr. Roulet has succeeded in doing.  Next, they are told to get familiar with the case and this page for reporters has a section briefing them on how to do that.

Then comes the section on what actually happens at the Supreme Court.  I wish I had had something like that when I went to the Federal Court hearings in Anchorage back in 2007, but it was not near as competitive getting in and I was able to learn on-the-job.  Plus the rules changed from the first trial to the next.  (Reporters could bring cell phones past security and their computers into the court room after the first trial.)

Here's what Mr. Roulet has ahead of him:

"On the day of the oral argument, plan to arrive early. The Court’s Public Information Office will tell you when to check in, but give yourself plenty of time before that, because you will need to go through security to enter the Court building, and there may be lines to do so. Once you are through, head to the PIO for your pass, which will include a seat assignment, and information on using the wifi in the press room, which is right next door to the PIO. You can’t take any electronics into the Courtroom, but you can leave your laptop, phones, and other belongings in the press room. The press room will be crowded: most of the room is devoted to cubicles for the roughly two dozen reporters who cover the Court on a regular basis, so there will be lots of people milling around (and packed into) the remaining space.
The staff of the Public Information Office (who are, by the way, extremely helpful) will take reporters up to the Courtroom in groups, based on their seat assignments. If you are in one of the early groups, be prepared to sit and wait for a while. (On the bright side, that will give you plenty of time to observe, and perhaps participate in, a time-honored tradition for reporters covering really high-profile cases: standing up and craning your neck to see what celebrities – or what passes for celebrities in Washington – are in the public seats.)
Before you enter the Courtroom, you will have to go through a second security screening. This one involves both passing through a metal detector and a close visual examination of anything you want to bring in with you. Be warned: this inspection can include opening up smaller items like wallets or lipsticks, so it may be easier just to leave everything but your notepad and pens (and, if you are over forty, your reading glasses) in the press room.
At about five minutes before ten, one of the police officers in the Courtroom will make an announcement that includes instructions for the audience: Remain completely silent throughout the proceedings, notify an officer if you see anything suspicious, and in the event of an emergency do exactly what the officer tells you to do.
At ten o’clock, you will hear a buzzer, the Court’s marshal will call the Courtroom to order, and everyone (including you) will stand up as the Justices enter the Courtroom. The Chief Justice sits in the middle, and then the other Justices are arranged around him in order of seniority: Justice Antonin Scalia, the most senior Associate Justice, is on his right, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, the second-most-senior Associate Justice, is on his left. This continues through (in order of seniority) Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer (who sits next to Justice Thomas and often has animated conversations with him), and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, until you get to Justice Elena Kagan, the Court’s junior Justice. She sits on the far right (the Chief Justice’s left) end of the bench."  [emphasis added]

 If you want to know what happens next, you can go to the SCOTUS blog "A reporter’s guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court."

The piece talks about what might happen next:

There could be
1.   summaries of opinions for earlier cases.
2.   swearings-in ceremonies for members of the Supreme Court bar.

The regular Supreme Court bar will run upstairs and take their assigned seats in the press section after hearing the opinions downstairs.  It also mentions that there are seats from which you can't see the justices and recommends people listen to tapes so they can recognize the voices.

Then there will be oral arguments which have been allotted two-and-a-half hours - 90 minutes longer than normal.   The first part (90 minutes) is for the marriage questions and the second part (60 minutes) is for the recognition question.  The plaintiffs (those challenging the ban) go first.  The SCOTUS blog goes into detail about each of the attorneys on both sides of each question. 


If you want to know details of the arguments themselves you can't go wrong by going to the SCOTUS blog page that indexes all their posts on this case.

Congratulations Brandon and Alaska Commons!  We're looking forward to hearing your first hand account. 

If you want to hear the proceedings yourself, here's what the Court posted on March 5:

 The Court will provide the audio recording and transcript of the oral argument in 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and consolidated cases, on an expedited basis through the Court’s Website. The argument is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, April 28 from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.
           The Court will post the audio recording and unofficial transcript as soon as the digital files are available for uploading to the Website.  The audio recording and transcript should be available no later than 2 p.m. on April 28.
           Anyone interested in the proceedings will be able to access the recording and transcript directly through links on the homepage of the Court’s Website. The Court’s Website address is www.supremecourt.gov.

 So, by 10am Alaska time, next Tuesday, you should be able to listen in.

What will they decide?  A SCOTUS blog commentary predicts, after a lengthy explanation in part 1 and part 2, the Court will overturn the bans on same-sex marriage.

I looked for a conservative opinion and checked the CATO Institute's post on this case.  While conservative, CATO also leans libertarian.  So I guess I shouldn't have been surprise to read this:

"Joining with noted originalist scholar (and Federalist Society co-founder) Steven Calabresi and Yale law professor William Eskridge—one of the leading experts on American legal history—we urge the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and finally fulfill the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under law to millions of gay Americans and their children. We argue that the lower court’s ruling was inconsistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The fact that the provision’s ratifiers didn’t automatically or explicitly understand that it would eventually require states to recognize same-sex marriages is irrelevant; all that matters is what it meant in 1868 for a state to 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'”

But we won't know until June (probably) what they actually decide.  


I have no idea how the court's public information office decides who gets passes.  I'm wondering though, whether the fact that Alaska is listed on one of the amicus briefs helped secure the pass.  While I decried the decision to put us on that brief, maybe this is a positive side-effect.  Or maybe it has nothing to do with it. 

". . . with the state's dire financial crisis, pursuing expensive litigation that has little chance of victory is an unwise use of our dwindling resources," [Updated]

[UPDATE April 4, 2015:  Here's an update where the governor says he wouldn't have done it, but his attorney general called the shot.  Since he's the one who can hire and fire the AG, sounds like a lame excuse.]  

"Despite my personal views on marriage, with the state's dire financial crisis, pursuing expensive litigation that has little chance of victory is an unwise use of our dwindling resources," he [Walker] said."  (ADN October 13, 2014)

Yet today I learned that Alaska is party to the Amicus Brief against gay marriage in the appeal of the 6th Circuit Court's decision to the US Supreme Court.  

The governor's statement comes pretty close to an explicit promise.  I know lots of Alaskans who took it as a promise not to pursue the state's appeal of the decisions against the decisions that resulted in gay marriage being legal in our state, despite our state constitutions amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.

Given that, it didn't occur to anyone that we would join to fight for the rights of  Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky to block gay marriage.

As an Alaskan, I'm chagrined and embarrassed.  Governor, you don't have a lot of support among the Republicans in the legislature on key issues.  You shouldn't also piss off the majority of Alaskans who elected you as well.

Here's the outline of the argument being made in our names:

Argument................................................................................ 2
    I.    Determining the shape and meaning of marriage is
 a fundamental exercise of self-government by
state citizens .................................................................. 2
    A.    Our Constitution ensures that state citizens
 have the sovereign authority to govern themselves ............................................................... 2 

    B.    The States’ exercise of sovereign authority is
 at its apex in domestic relations law........................ 4 

    C.    In deciding whether to adopt same-sex marriage, state citizens exercise their sovereign authority to determine the meaning
of marriage ................................. 7 

    II.    A decision constitutionalizing same-sex marriage would erase the sovereignty of state citizens to determine the meaning of marriage............................... 9


   A. Such a decision would abandon the premise of Windsor .......................... 11 

    B.    Such a decision would dilute the numerous democratic victories recently won in the States
by proponents of same-sex marriage..................... 17 

    C.    Such a decision would eliminate the States’
role as laboratories of democracy in the realm
of domestic relations ............................................. 19 

    D.    Such a decision would announce that state citizens are incapable of resolving this issue through constructive civil discourse...................... 21 


OK, with that off my chest, does Alaska's name on the brief matter?  I suspect not much, but it is one more state the group can point to.   I'm guessing our Department of Law didn't contribute a lot to the amicus brief from the states.  But, it's the first major broken promise to the coalition that elected Walker.  We knew Walker was a Republican, but he did promise to focus on the gas pipeline and the budget and leave social issues alone. 

Can A Kosher Caterer Refuse To Serve Ham? Bad Analogy

Here's the letter to the editor in the LA Times today:

To the editor: A Christian couple have the right serve ham at their wedding reception, but shouldn't a kosher caterer have the right — on religious grounds — to decline their business?
Chris Norby, Fullerton

 This letter is in response to the backlash against the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

Because of the strong backlash, it's clear people understand what was wrong with the law passed and signed last week.  But I also recognize that some Christians still don't get it.  And I can understand that someone who is strongly opposed to gay marriage and thinks that opposition is based on the bible (rather than an interpretation of the bible, or the use of the bible to justify a personal bias), would feel that having to celebrate a gay union by taking good photographs or by baking a cake for the wedding would be a compromise of values. 

I would not like to be the photographer who is hired to make the Ku Klux Klan look warm and fuzzy. 

And I've written about this conflict when it was an issue in Arizona.  and raised a lot of the contextual issues.     

In the case of this letter to the editor, we can focus more narrowly on this false analogy.  The two situations just aren't the same.  

A wedding photographer is asked to take pictures at a wedding, exactly the same thing he does at any other wedding.  What's different is that the couple he's taking pictures of are the same gender. He's not being asked to marry another man or even to hold hands with another man.  He's not being asked to do anything at all that could be construed as having sex with someone of the same gender.  Christianity has many prescriptions and prohibitions, but many Christians agree that the golden rule is a key concept in Christianity.  It doesn't say, treat good people like you would have others treat you. 

So, a wedding photographer, is being asked to do what he does for a living - take pictures at a wedding.  In taking pictures at a gay wedding, the photographer takes pictures like he would at any other wedding, plus, if the photographer is uncomfortable or even hates lgbt folks, he has the opportunity to follow the golden rule, indeed, to follow Matthew's even more relevant words, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

On the other hand, kosher caterers, never serve pork.  So, to ask a kosher caterer to serve pork, would be to ask him to do something he doesn't do in the course of his business.  He doesn't serve pork to anyone.  Similarly,  professional photographer who never  does weddings, could easily turn down a request from a gay couple to photograph their wedding without it being discrimination.  He doesn't even need a religious reason. 

The point is, if you offer services to the public, you can't refuse those services to someone except for legitimate business reasons - they can't pay, they are disturbing other clients, they are asking for services you don't normally provide, they are underage for the service you provide, or other personal issues about specific individuals that disrupt your business.  

I would note an additional problem for kosher caterers.  In addition to ham and shellfish prohibitions (all of which are in the bible, by the way, so perhaps the photographer shouldn't take pictures at any wedding that has ham or shellfish), kosher caterers may not serve meat and milk dishes in the same meal and those products may not use even the same dishes.  And the dishes have to be washed in separate sinks and stored in separate cabinets.  Serving ham would ruin all the caterers dishes and cutlery for future kosher events.   Not just ham would be a problem,  cheeseburgers would be forbidden, and you couldn't have the guests use the same plates even for meat and dairy related foods.

A wedding photographer or cake maker, on the other hand, is simply doing the job they would do for any other wedding. They aren't being asked to use special equipment or ingredients.  They aren't changing anything they normally do.  What's different is they object to the addition or subtraction of one penis in the wedding party. 

For lgbt folks, this isn't about forcing Christian photographers to take pictures at their weddings.  It's about not being discriminated against by businesses based on their sexual orientation.  

Taking good wedding photos is an art.  An artist who hates the assignment he's given, won't produce good work.  A baker who thinks gay weddings are an abomination, might be distracted enough to put too much salt in the cake batter.   

I'm sure that the vast majority of gay couples do not want someone who hates gays to take pictures at their wedding.  Most gay couples will want to patronize gay friendly businesses anyway.  But in the case where someone lives in a remote community and there is only one photographer or one bakery, the issue arises.  But the key issues is the moral and legal point about discrimination and not serving people simple out of personal dislike, even if the dislike is somehow connected to religion.  This just sounds too much like, I'm not a racist, but  . . .

I might be a little more sympathetic to self proclaimed Christian photographers if they also refused to do weddings of people who were having sex before they got married, or if they continued violating any of the ten commandments - not respecting the sabbath, stealing, killing, not honoring their parents, coveting, say, as big a wedding as someone else, etc.  

On a much larger level, I would hope that people see issues like this as mere distractions from the really important threats to our democratic society - the power of corporations over Congress, through financing elections, resulting in their ability to pass legislation that further increases the power of corporations to the detriment of most other Americans.   Climate change.  Grossly unequal distribution of wealth (a result of all that corporate power over Congress.) 

As a side note, I did find a sermon that seems to have been widely distributed that does use the kosher caterer to raise questions about religious organizations being forced to comply with the Affordable Care Act.  I think that's a closer analogy, but there are still problems there as well. 

Suppose Your New Job Was To Betray Your Brothers

Two couples have tried to create the Perfect Arrangement.  It's the 1950s.  Bob Martindale works for the State Department.  Neighbor Norma Baxter is his secretary.  They live in adjoining apartments, appropriately connected by a closet.

March 19 - April 4 Thu/Fri/Sat 7pm

Out North - Primrose and Debarr (kitty corner from Costco)

So this doesn't get lost:   this is a funny play, and you'll laugh, but it packs a punch.  

Bob's assignment of late, has been to root Communists out of the State Department, but they're mostly gone and now his boss has assigned him the task of getting rid of the deviants.  He undertakes this job knowing that he and his lover and Norma and hers are safe in their Perfect Arrangement.

Opening Night Reception After The Performance at Out North

This is a neatly done play by Topher Payne - who was here last Thursday for the West Coast premiere of his work.  There's lots going on in the play.  There are the two different worlds - a social facade of voice and intonation and topic for straight visitors where the ladies chatter about recipes and shopping, the men disparage the women,  and then there's the more open expression of ideas in uncensored vocabulary when the two couples are alone.

But the play is not simply a play about being in the closet or homosexuals for that matter.  Rather it's about marginalized people who have learned to act one way in the outside world and another at home, and who are always worried that their real being will be discovered and always tortured because it can't be.  This play could be about black slaves in the south, or women in a male dominated work place, or undocumented workers. . .

And as the tension rose when Bob was required to make lists of deviants to be fired, I couldn't help think about the Jewish capos in concentration camps who got slightly better treatment for cooperating with the Nazis and keeping tabs on the others.  The dialogue was explicit about the conflict between trying to save oneself and one's duty to the others.  About the small benefits of blending in versus the great losses of denying one's true identity.  We could see the characters' slow debilitating stress of staying hidden, the fear of being discovered and the change it will mean, and the enticing but dangerous thought of standing up and declaring one's identity.  Echoes of the struggle in Selma.  

This is a powerful play with strong acting -  well worth seeing.  Below is a video of the playwright, Topher Payne, talking at the reception after the performance.  You can also see a video with directors/actors Krista Schwarting and Jay Burns here.

"Hold on, Millie Martindale (Raven Bonniwell)! You got some ‘splainin’ to do."

"You’ve just tried to break a date with your husband’s boss’ awful wife Kitty Sunderson (Karen Lange) by pretending you had an appointment with a butcher on U Street – and now Kitty wants to go to the butcher with you! How are you going to get out of that?!!
And not so fast, Bob Martindale (Andrew Keller)! You got some ‘splainin’ to do too. You’re in charge of the State Department program to root out communists on the payroll, and your boss Ted Sunderson (Zach Brewster-Geisz) has just put you in charge of a new program to get rid of all the sexual deviants in the State Department – and you’re one of them yourself!
Although you have a sham marriage to Millie, you actually live in unholy bliss with your neighbor Jim Baxter (Kiernan McGowan), who is legally married to your secretary Norma (Natalie Cutcher) – who is in reality Millie’s lover! How are you going to get out of that?!!"

So begins a 2013 review of Topher Payne's play Perfect Arrangement in the DC Theater Scene.

I knew nothing about the review, but I did know the play was coming to Anchorage, when I stopped by Out North to see about tickets for next Thursday's  (March 19) opening of the play.    The box office wasn't open, but two of the producers (and actors) were inside, the set was ready, and Krista Schwarting and Jay Burns told me about the play. 




In the video they briefly discuss the play - a West Coast premiere.  Maybe you can hear some hints of playwright Topher Payne's Mississippi childhood in this post's title.  The story takes place in the 1950s as homosexuals, following the purge of communists, were being rooted out of the State Department.  We're getting the play here in Anchorage because Krista knows a friend of the Topher Payne.  And  Topher Payne will be here for the opening.

This was happened in the early 1950's - about the same time that Alan Turing (see Imitation Game)  was arrested in England for being a homosexual.   A commenter on the review that opens this post wrote:

"The man sitting next to me said “Young people have no idea … Everyone should see this play.” I totally agree, and only wish these people could also be there: the woman I know who was an Army nurse in Korea and had to stand by, with her lover, and watch her friends being routed out and dishonorably discharged, and the woman who was the best record promoter in Chicago in the 60s who got caught trying to escape from a police raid of a second floor lesbian bar and lost her career. This is a fabulous comedy that touches on their tragedies."

People growing up today have trouble grasping what 'in the closet' meant back then.  And perhaps they can better understand the negative reactions many in the older generations against gays because of what they were taught when they were young.   This trailer for a movie about the time gives a little sense.  (I was way too young at the time to be aware of any of this.)





The Reemergence of Out North

I'm delighted this enchanted piece of real estate at Primrose and Debarr is coming back to life. The building started as some sort of electrical station. When we got to Anchorage in 1977 it was Grandview Garden library, a wonderful funky old library. When Loussac library opened in 1984, Grandview was scheduled to close. The community kept it open a bit longer, but eventually it was shut. But the building was reincarnated as Out North by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan.  And Jay and Gene (and their successors) always brought thought provoking performances - whether from Outside or from Anchorage or around Alaska - to their stage.  Stuff that made you rethink things you thought you knew.  You can read some more of the history here in the description of the Out North now housed at the University's Archives and Special Collections.

Demboski Would Support Tribes, Veto Gay Rights, Darden Wired To God

A fairly new community group - We Are Anchorage - organized, as I understand it, by Ma'o Tosi, held a mayoral forum at UAA's Wendy Williamson Auditorium Thursday night.  It was one of the more interesting political forums I've gone to.  Except for some technical glitches at the beginning with the sound, it went very smoothly.

[We Are Anchorage said they'd have the transcripts up Friday (today) on their website.  As someone who has done transcripts for this blog, I think that Friday is probably optimistic.  But when they're up, I'll check to make sure I'm accurate in what I say below.]

The focus was on violence in Anchorage and how the candidates would address it.

The basic answer from everyone was:  More Police.  Dan Coffey always mentioned that, of course, it's dependent on funding.  Lance Ahern said there was lots of money that could be found in the Muni budget.  Someone else (I think it was Halcro) said that since there was no snow plowing this year, there's plenty of money in that budget.  Demboski bet everyone a piece of pizza that the Muni will have a surplus this year. (If I thought I would lose a bet, I might bet the whole audience a piece of pizza, but I don't know what I'd do with all that pizza if I won.)

There was a set of questions that had been given to all the candidates in advance - Dan Coffey had typed up answers that he left for people in the lobby.  But he only made 40 copies and I guestimate there were about 140 in the audience.  The questions were fairly detailed about strategies to fight violence in general, about violence against Alaska Native women, about the green dot program, the link between staffing levels and crime, etc. Questions were drawn randomly.  Most of the questions were drawn and asked of three or four different candidates.  A few questions were gathered from the audience as they entered the auditorium.  At the end, audience members asked questions.   Some of the candidates were well prepared with specifics and others spoke more in generalities.  Given they had the questions in advance, the latter group just didn't do their homework.

There was a lot of basic agreement on things like the need for more police.  Much of the difference was in style and emphasis.  So I'd like to focus on what stood out for me. 

Notable remarks

Amy Demboski.  Of the candidates that the media seems to peg as the contenders, Demboski was the one who stood out as the most different from the pack.  (It would have been nice to have seen more women on the stage.)

Tribes. The talk about tribes, especially coming from the candidate who bills herself as "the conservative choice" (March 9 video) was a surprise.  Conservatives have been vigorously fighting the concept of tribes in Alaska.   In answer to a question about domestic violence, Alaska Native women, and involving Alaska Natives in solutions, Demboski said she loved this questions, that she was already talking to Tribal Elders, that we should engage tribes because they have access to federal funding and medical care. We can't talk just about individuals, why not talk about tribes?   It wasn't clear.  Is she recognizing the importance of tribes to Alaskan Natives?  Or is it a way to tap into federal funds?  I'm not sure.  It was unexpected.

Liz Medicine Crow, Moderator

Personal Responsibility.  While she talked about dealing with tribes over individuals, she also seemed divided between "people have to take responsibility for themselves" when discussing homeless people and also acknowledging we have a responsibility to help.  I suspect 'individual responsibility' is one of her core values.  It's one that psychologist Jonathan Haidt says is important to conservatives.  (It's in the link - go down to where it says,  "In the Social Science Space interview.")  They don't want to coddle leeches and mooches.  I suspect that Demboski is trying to make a distinction between those who are just being irresponsible and those who are truly needy through no fault of their own.  What she doesn't seem to see is how the system works for some people and doesn't work for others.  There's a combination of genetic predispositions and family and social nurturing that prepare people to cope or to fail.  While I would agree that some people seem to repeatedly make stupid decisions, I tend to believe that if we were omniscient, we would understand that these were not so much irresponsible decisions (which they are on one level) but also decisions programmed by social, political, and economic systems.  It would be interesting to hear Demboski's explanation of how to determine who are just irresponsible and who are deserving of help.

Diversity.   The question was about how to make the Anchorage Police Department look like the diverse population of Anchorage.  Other candidates talked about recruiting candidates from the different ethnic groups of Anchorage.  Demboski said, that diversity, to her, doesn't mean race or religion or economic status.  The police department is already diverse, they're her neighbors (she lives in Chugiak.)  That sounds like someone who says I don't see race, I'm colorblind.  The mixed audience wasn't buying it.  (I'd note, of course, that we're really talking about skin color.  Race used to refer to Italians, Irish, Jews, etc.)

Discrimination Against Gays.  When asked by an audience member about reports that she would veto a gay rights ordinance if mayor, Demboski first pointed out that her campaign didn't put out that ad.  But she did, then, say she would veto such an ordinance.  She wasn't discriminating against gays, she suggested, but rather preventing religious discrimination.  People only had a minute (and later only 30 seconds to answer.)  My interpretation of that is that she's identifying with people whose religions say that homosexuality is sinful and who would not want, as a merchant, to have to do things that advanced the idea that homosexuality was okay.  I understand a person who embraces the bible literally including those sections fundamentalists point to as proof that homosexuality is a sin, feeling conflicted when they are asked to photograph or cater a gay wedding.  I understand their claims that they feel it would endorse something they disagree with.  And I certainly wouldn't want someone who thought I was an abomination to take the pictures or make the food for my wedding.  But if you live in a small community where there is only one photography store or one good caterer or bakery, being denied service because of how you were born (and I know others will say it's a choice) is against the basic principles of equal rights that we celebrate with "All men are created equal."  (And, of course, there is irony in that time has made the word 'men' there anachronistic.)  And when it comes to landlords or employers having the right to discriminate against gays - even when their presence is not about advancing homosexuality - is even worse.
Dustin Darden added the concern about pastors having their freedom of speech abridged if they spoke out against gays.  I don't know of any gay rights ordinance that says people in non-public settings can't offer the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. 
I can understand that reasoning, but I can't agree with it.  Religion has been used to justify drowning so called witches, and slavery as well.  I had a number of issues with Demboski as a potential mayor, and this issue is reason enough for me to consider Demboski unacceptable as a mayor.
What wasn't addressed in this discussion was the relationship between religious condemnation of gays and the disproportionate amount of violence gays are subjected to and how violence against

Don Megga and Timer

gays would be dealt with. 

Phil Stoddard.  Phil's solution to everything was the mantra: "Education is the key and jobs are the answer."  He promised to dramatically increase manufacturing in Anchorage by making this lowest priced electrical grid in the US.  Every time he had a question, he got his mantra into the answer. 


Dustin Darden paused before each answer, eyes looking up as though he were waiting to channel God, and he did say several times that God was the answer.  His most passionate moment was when he vowed to shut down Planned Parenthood.  He didn't actually name them, but he did talk about ending abortion and identified their corner on Lake Otis Parkway.

At the end of the randomly selected question, each candidate was asked what their most important tool for ending violence was.

• Darden:  Pray
• Stoddard:  Jobs
• Berkowitz:  Fundamentals and basics - prevention, policing, prosecution - alone won't eliminate violence.  We all have to do it together - We Are Anchorage.
• Huit:   Spiritual solutions - "though not to where Dustin [Darden] is" - we have leadership problems
• Ahern:  Use new technologies - smart phones - 911 doesn't take advantage of people's ability to text and send photos of the person bothering them.
• Coffey:  Agrees with Ethan on fundamentals, but then need someone who can do it effectively and then he suggested he could.
• Bauer:  Incorporate what everyone else said plus the inability of people to deal with others in a civil manner - thus education
• Halcro:  Become Anchorage again, come together as a community
• Demboski:  Wish I had a simple answer.  Communication - start with people talking to each other.

I walked away thinking there were four candidates who spoke knowledgeably about the issues and with recognition that there were other valid points of view besides their own - Dan Coffey, Ethan Berkowitz, Andrew Halcro, and Lance Ahern.  Ahern is the least well known of the four and his knowledge of Anchorage comes from a shorter span of experience.  He's head of IT at the Municipality now and has law enforcement experience.  In his area he seems well informed and is well spoken.  (I'm sure there are people at the Muni who dispute this and I don't know for sure.  He seemed genuinely open and I'm inclined to believe him, but always "trust, but verify."

One unexpected issue raised by the audience was the future of Uber in Anchorage.  Halcro was quick to say that he would be pushing for innovative firms like Uber much more than the man - Dan Coffey - who had been the attorney for the taxi industry.  Coffey responded that he was open to Uber, but was concerned with guaranteeing public safety.  Halcro also countered Demboski's promise to veto a gay rights ordinance by touting his own bringing the head of the national gay Chamber of Commerce to speak to the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, the first 'regular' chamber to invite the head of the gay Chamber of Commerce to speak to them.  Berkowitz gave several spirited responses - in one case, after Paul Bauer talked about reawakening a moribund task force to study homelessness, Berkowitz held up a study on policing in Anchorage and said, there have been enough studies, it's time to implement them.  If I were to go by audience applause, Berkowitz probably was the winner, though Halcro got his share of applause too.  (There actually wasn't that much applause, though Darden's brother applauded loudly each time Dustin spoke.)

There was a positive vibe in the room.  Candidates treated each other, for the most part, with respect and the audience listened carefully.  The whole event was well organized and I got a good sense of the candidates. The APOC lists several other mayoral candidates who weren't there:

• Samuel Joseph Speziale III
• Yeilyadi Olson
• Jacob Kern
• Christopher Steven Jamison
• Jonathan Harrison  (is listed for both mayor and school board)