I'd note Kreis-Tomkins is leading in the governor's race, with Tom Begich, though the combined Republican numbers are formidable. Peltola is slightly ahead of Sullivan, with Daniel J. Sullivan a distant third.
But these are early numbers. Only Ballot Measure one, to reinstate campaign finance limits is clearly going to win. And some state legislative races with only one candidate. A few others look conclusive, but the top four candidates move to the general election.
Hard to believe it's finally here. We didn't get any campaign literature in the mail today!!!
Probably the most uncertainty centers around the Governor's race. There are lots of known candidates. Which of the Republicans will end up in the top four? And will other Republicans drop out in the belief that being on the ballot could siphon off votes from the top Republican and help the top Democrat. Will the second Democrat, if there is one, also drop out?
Ranked Choice Tabulation Questions
Given that we have Ranked Choice Voting, voters can rank all four candidates - first choice, second choice, third choice, fourth choice. If a candidate gets 50%+1 vote in the first round that candidate wins. If no one gets over 50%, the candidate with the fewest first place votes is dropped and that candidate's second place votes are distributed to the other candidates.
DOE_Tabulation_60sec_HULU.mp4 Link to the video explaining how they count ranked choice voting from the Division of Elections. Couldn't find a way to embed the video here. [I did look, and it can be done, but I didn't find instructions I could use.)
I have questions about tabulating the votes, but tomorrow is election day and I'm not going to try to get answers from the Division of Elections until after the election.
The video doesn't explain how, if ever, the third and fourth choice votes would count. Perhaps if someone's choice for a second place vote has already been eliminated, the third place vote would count. (I couldn't find anything that actually says that.) And with only four candidates in the general, I don't think you would ever get to the fourth choice vote.
Also, what if someone got no first place votes, but was the second place choice for all the other candidates? That person would be eliminated on the first round and would never get the second place votes. It's not a likely scenario, but something like that could happen.
Ranked Choice Strategy Questions
In 2022, Sarah Palin and Nick Begich split the Republican vote in the general and enough second place votes gave Peltola the win.
In 2024, two Republicans pulled out of the general, presumably because they didn't want to do the same thing, and Nick Begich beat Peltola. But that year Trump was also on the ballot and that brought out lots of Republican voters. (Total votes for US House: 2024 = 329,493; 2022=263,610)
Ranked Choice Voting is supposed to overcome this sort of problem by giving voters the option to make second and third choice votes. But not enough voters have done that. Will they learn to do that in the future? Are there good strategic reasons not to rank? What are they? Will there be candidates who urge their voters to choose Candidate B as their second choice?
The Spoiler Candidates and the Spoiler PAC Campaigns
My previous post was about Outside [Alaska lingo for outside of Alaska] PACs spending lots of money on fringe candidates - one from Arizona, one from South Dakota, and one Alaskan - in an attempt to get them onto the final four in the general.
One of those candidates - Richard Grayson - has said he would withdraw if he were in the final four. Today Grayson emailed me a link to a review of what the prediction markets are saying about the Alaska US Senate race. There's a lot more discussion at the link, but here's the gist:
That's hard to read
That was too small, and now it's too big, but the chart is in the link. I've also looked at the Kalshi page on this race and it's clear I need to learn a lot more about prediction markets and what everything means. I do suspect that a lot of people who are betting are not from Alaska and don't really know that much about our elections. But I don't really know.
"At this point, I''d guess that Peltola, Sen. Sullivan, and Kohlhaas* would be the top three, scooping up most of the votes. As I look at the 2024 House race, the others won't get many votes. Though I suspect Dustin Darden has run often enough that people will vote for him because they recognize his name. And Daniel J. probably has a good chance to get votes too, for the very reasons the Sen. Sullivan campaign and the Republican Party of Alaska and the National Party want him off the ticket. It would be between him and Darden for fourth place.
Given that early polls show Peltola ahead of Sen. Sullivan, having Daniel J. on the November ballot would be a threat to Sen. Sullivan's reelection. If Daniel J. made it to the general election, and there he pulled 5% of the vote from the Senator, it could easily be enough to give Peltola the victory. Some might say that Peltola's ahead now, so she'd win either way. I think that's counting your chicks before the eggs are laid.
[*I'd mentioned Kohlhaas in an earlier paragraph as another candidate (Alaska Libertarian Party) who had run often enough that people knew his name."]
Tomorrow evening, and surely by Wednesday, we'll know.
[This post has more of a deadline than most, so I'm going to post now without proofing as much as I normally would. If I find typos etc., I'll fix them. I won't change content, but if I do, like always, I'll make it clear what I did.]
I tried to find out more about him and found this interview with Tucson Now from 2024. He just doesn't sound like a conniving politician trying to sabotage Mary Peltola. Much more like a court jester playing around with the system
So yesterday I emailed him to find out what his connection with Fair Deal Alaska was.
"Mr. Grayson,
I'm getting daily flyers touting you on one side and tearing down Mary Peltola on the other side. As an Alaskan voter and as an Anchorage blogger, I'm curious about these flyers. They say "Paid for by Fair Deal Alaska, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."
When did they contact you to let you know they were doing this? I've watched a Tucson Live video of you and it seems like all this is a joke for you. But it appears that Fair Deal Alaska is trying to get you into the top four in the hopes that you will be in the top four and take votes from Mary Peltola as a way to insure Sen. Sullivan gets reelected.
So my questions are:
When, if ever, did Fair Deal Alaska contact you to let you know they were supporting you?
How do you feel about the possibility that your campaign will help Sen. Sullivan get reelected?
Thanks,"
And this morning, I got this reply:
Steve,
Thanks for your letter and for not cursing me out like most people have.
I have said that unless I hear otherwise from Mary's campaign, in the unlikely event that I do make the Top Four, I will drop out the way Republicans Nancy Dahlstrom and Matthew Salisbury did in the '24 House race (when I ran tenth out of 12). (emphasis mine)
Fair Deal Alaska never contacted me. I learned about it only from the initial story a week ago Sunday evening by Nathaniel Herz in Northern Journal. It's since been reprinted in the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Beacon, etc. It would be ILLEGAL for Fair Deal Alaska or any super PAC to contact a candidate. If you ever wondered, like I did, what makes super PACs super is that they are dark money who cannot have any contact with candidates. Fair Deal Alaska gave $315,000 to Carol "KItty" Hafner and $313,000 to me. Another super PAC, American Democracy Project gave money to another Democrat running, David Leslie. I was the one who told David about that; he didn't know anything about it. I posted a list from yesterday on my blog. If you click on the image, you can see it large enough to read:
Shady Super PAC "Fair Deal Alaska" Spends $313,431 on the Campaign of Alaska's Green Party U.S. Senate Candidate Richard Grayson
Presumably Republicans are behind it, just as Democrats are behind the super PAC, RIght for Alaska, spending money on behalf of a Republican candidate, Gerald "Jerry" Heikes. In the 2024 House race, a super PAC also spent money on behalf of Heikes; it was presumed to be someone supporting Mary Peltola.
So this is quite upsetting to me. I just assumed that running for Senate in Alaska would be like running for the House was in '24: trying to push Mary to the left (like she wouldn't support Kamala Harris before the primary and really not for a very long time) but getting a hundred or so votes (I finished tenth out of 12) and then endorsing Mary. Because anyone with any sense understands there are only two people who matter in this election. I don't think the mailings will do any good. They will just annoy people, and I am getting lots of annoyed emails and angry phone calls. So I think and hope I will finish far below the Top Four.
If you want to know more about me, you can google my name (or as people who are not elderly like me say, search it up) and "candidate" or "writer." I have been in newspapers since 1979 when I was 28 and running for vice president. I'll link to a couple of things below.
Thanks again. I hope I've answered your questions. Again, thank you for being civil.
Best,
Richard
So our attention should be focused on Fair Deal Alaska. And everyone should already be suspicious of PACs named with empty feel good phrases like "Fair Deal." The same goes for campaign ads that promise apple pie but with no recipes for how it will be made.
He attached some of the old references. (Not sure why the images are black, but I'll leave them for now because they're attached to the headlines below.)
Richard Grayson interview in Arizona 2024. He's clearly doing this for giggles. He says in the video that most of his voters were probably mental patients. After watching the video, I even wonder whether he is even connected with the flood of flyers coming to left-leaning voters in Alaska that push Grayson as a progressive candidate on one side and trash Mary Peltola on the other side.
[This starts with an introduction that you can easily skip. "Starts Here" is where I get into some recommended reading. Not books, Not 280 character platitudes. But serious, thoughtful articles.]
INTRODUCTION
'Influencer' as used today is a disgusting word for me. I was reminded of this last night when we watched Manosphere on Netflix. Louis Theroux interviews 'manosphere influencers,' basically men who populate social media on various platforms advocating for a world of alpha-males and subordinate females and showing off their (apparent) wealth. Basically, it would seem they are using the internet to make as much money as possible. It doesn't matter to them if they say hateful and stupid stuff; truth and reality are irrelevant. Just hits and followers.
As a novice blogger 19 years ago, I quickly learned that various businesses were willing to compensate me to plug their products (always said, no thank you) and that the more controversial my headlines, the more hits I would get. (That was back in the day of Sarah Palin, and if I mentioned her in a headline, I'd get considerably more hits.)
I wouldn't say the show is hard-hitting, but for people who don't wander off into the darker corners of the internet, it's probably enlightening. It helps to understand where the White Christian Nationalist and bullying cosplayers in the Trump administration get their material. The BBC has its own review that highlights some young men who follow the toxic ranters and say, "Wow, I didn't know it was that bad." Is that supposed to reassure us?
In the worlds of Twitter, and TikTok, Only Fans, ad nasuem, this has become a way for some folks to make decent money, and has turned what was once a potential international communication, exchange of ideas platform, into a medium whose monetization logic promotes hate and extremism.
But even among those platforms who offer no hate (well try to minimize it), there's still a good deal of attention seeking and fluff. You can read a 2013 post explaining my reluctant dive into Twitter. I stopped checking Twitter when Musk bought it and moved to Spoutible and Bluesky. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but the toxicity is kept to a minimum and both get me links to stories and articles I wouldn't see elsewhere. I share a few below.
POST STARTS HERE
There is so much 'news' happening daily that it's almost impossible (and unnecessary) to have a deep understanding of everything. Rather, I wanted to point out some articles that cut through to the guts of some issues.
"After six months and eight failed bids, the Ellisons made the Warner Bros. Discovery board an offer they couldn’t refuse. The potential Netflix acquisition would’ve been akin to fusing LVMH and Walmart — HBO’s prestige TV and Warner’s iconic IP, plus Netflix’s scale. Paramount Skydance buying WBD is the fusion of a dog and a car bumper traveling 80 miles an hour. Spoiler alert: It’s not going to end well."
This is an amazing piece that tells a story I did't get about this merger elsewhere.
Jürgen Habermas died last week at the age of 96. He'd kept writing almost to the end.
"To some, Habermas is the greatest philosopher of our time. . . For others Habermas is the court philosopher of the German center-left SPD or perhaps at most the EU."
I briefly dipped into the world of Jürgen Habermas as a grad student. I was mightily taken by what I read, but never took the time to delve deeper into his other works. But he's an important figure in 20th Century thought who, I'm guessing, most people have never heard of. This is a chance to learn a bit about him in a relatively easy essay on two books about him. (This is a substack article that while not requiring money, does make you pay with your email address. I have found putting a fake email seems to work, at least for now.)
I think Governor Gavin Newsom has been useful in the fight against Fascism, but I wouldn't want him to be president. I didn't know much about Governor Shapiro beyond election headlines. This article raises some issues we should pay attention to. In any case, Nick Field gives more background to store as the presidential primaries come into view.
The arts are important to human life. I didn't know this performer, but found the interview interesting.
This article includes Riz in various fashion shots
I'm going to check out Relay on Netflix tonight to see him act.
Anyone paying attention has noticed the rising number of people of South Asian heritage in a variety of fields in the US and the UK. This interview gives a glimpse at what the world looks like from their perspective.
"Ahmed describes Mirza [his wife] as 'a truly creative person' whose writing 'floors me every day', though he says they try not to discuss work too much at home. 'I probably try and hassle her for her opinion on things a lot more than she needs to hassle me for mine on writing. She doesn’t want my GCSE English ideas,' he says, self-deprecatingly.
But while he may wear it lightly, Ahmed’s intellect is no secret. A working-class British Pakistani kid from Wembley who won a scholarship to private school, he got into Oxford to study politics, philosophy and economics, a typically star-making degree favoured by politicians, broadcasters and public intellectuals. He has never felt as if he was a natural fit for the establishment, but has always found a way to navigate it."
A reminder that people of color often have much better credentials than their white counterparts, credentials that belie the claims that somehow they got their positions through 'DEI.' He sounds like a much healthier male than those interviewed by Louis Theroux.
"How often does he see his parents these days? 'All right, Auntie. Jesus Christ! You’ve got me on the hook here. Lemme get my calendar out,' he says, pretend-reaching for his phone. 'I try to see them very regularly,' he says. Every week, every month? Ahmed looks at me quizzically. 'Are you Asian?' he says, noting my own Punjabi-Sikh heritage. 'You’d have a chappal flying at you through space and time if it was every month.' A chappal is a slipper, jokingly deployed by Asian parents of all backgrounds as a form of discipline. 'Of course, at least every week. A few times a week.'”
I've got a few more saved up, but this should keep you more than occupied if you follow the links.
There are so many pages of documents in the Epstein files that have been released so far, that any kind of definitive conclusions are a long way off. They have to be read, put into some kind of context, and links between documents have to be figured out. Then links between the Epstein files and other data bases - court records, news articles, and other breaches like the Panama Papers. Plus, many released files are still redacted and unredacted in ways they shouldn't be (hiding names other than victims, not hiding all the victim data.)
What's public so far is about 50%. There are millions of files left, which the administration seems to hope they won’t have to release. People speculate these have more damning information in them. That’s one logical train of thought. Another is that the DOJ staff aren’t that organized that they can separate out the worst. Another strategy would be to have them be nothing revealing as a way to tease, and then shut this all down. That doesn’t seem too likely either.
When I looked into one set of the Epstein files - court documents - there were hundreds of pages of routine court documents as lawyers made motions and set deadlines that seemed to be of little consequence, with a few more substantial documents about the specific court case (Epstein suing someone, Wexner?, but nothing terribly revealing stood out to me at first glance. Boring procedural motions and rulings mostly.
Some online commentators are writing breathtaking headlines, overusing words like "BREAKING" and "BOMBSHELL" (all caps in originals) pointing to a newly revealed name, or evidence of the very sexual nature of Epstein and his clients/friends.
Whether there is an important story or it's just more clickbait can be discerned by whether the 'punchline' is revealed in the social media post or whether you have to click to find out the allegedly important nugget. Most of those nuggets will be micro level news.
The meaning and context of everything will take a while to tease out. After all, historians are still finding new twists to justify new biographies of people like Abraham Lincoln and there is far less actual information about Lincoln than there is, probably, about Epstein and his buddy Donald.
The Bigger Picture
It’s clear to me that there is a bigger, complicated web of connections, influence, and crime. Some sex trade related, some financial, some political, some national security related. And while I write ‘some’ as
though these are all separate categories, I’m sure the Venn Diagrams will show a lot of overlap.
I’ve seen several story lines that seem pretty likely and worth thinking about already: The first is the idea that the culture of male power (sexual and otherwise) over young (and even older) females is not restricted to Epstein’s island and other properties or Mar-a-lago.
1. Rather it IS the culture of the US and probably most of the world.
From Carole Cadwalladr's Substack, How to Survive the Broligarchy, We all live in Jeffrey Epstein's world , here are a couple of excerpts to give you a sense of her story (and which will come as no surprise to most women and the men they trust to talk to):
“Epstein has given us an extraordinary portal through which we can now see how hostile state influence, criminality and the impunity of the billionaire class are intimately enmeshed. That’s the piece I still want to write. But we can’t understand any of this until we realise that Epstein isn’t just a doorway, he’s also a mirror. His culture is our culture.
The latest tranche of Epstein documents made it obvious. Consider all the “contrarians” and “anti-woke” warriors who show up in the latest dump: Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Larry Summers, Steve Bannon, and of course, Donald Trump. With apologies to George Carlin: It’s a big club, and the worst people are in it — because their interests are all aligned. Pushing back on social justice, it turns out, was coordinated.
Being able to see their emails makes something very clear: The “anti-woke” movement was not a genteel intellectual inquiry, made by disinterested parties who cared deeply about free speech. It is a social circle of powerful people who feel threatened by #MeToo. Reading through the emails, it’s possible to see that Epstein himself coordinated pushback against #MeToo. Looking back, it seems obvious that sinking #MeToo also led to where we are now: a place where laws simply don’t apply if you have enough money and power. The same players are involved.” (Emphasis added)
2. "kind of a super concierge" In this one, Epstein is a fixer for powerful people, to the point that a lot of people owe him favors. This one gets into financial issues (to an extreme with Wexner) and politics
Molly Jong Fast's New York Times opinion piece, says the Epstein files show that it's more than just sex, "Mr. Epstein won favor and friendships by acting as a kind of superconcierge." Here's an excerpt:
"Many people stuck with him even after he had gone to jail in 2008 in Florida for sex crimes, and in some cases even after he landed in jail again in 2019 on sex-trafficking charges. Back then, the plight of the victims often seemed to be an afterthought. That’s most likely because whatever they received from him in the past — access to career-enhancing people, access to young girls and an endless supply of freebies — might still be on offer. This is the nature of the Epstein files: It’s the record of what a global class of very privileged, accomplished and self-important people want to get gifted.
Sometimes it was a Prada bag. Other times it was a flight on Mr. Epstein’s jet, or a weekend at his island. Sometimes it was a donation to a charity or school. Or a job for their kid working on a Woody Allen film, or a shortcut for Mr. Allen’s own kid to get into Bard. Sometimes it was a “tall, Swedish blonde.” Other times it was a young woman who might be a “a little freaked by the age difference.”
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
In writing about an earlier tranche of emails, in The Times, Anand Giridharadas asked: “How did Mr. Epstein manage to pull so many strangers close? The emails reveal a barter economy of nonpublic information that was a big draw. This is not a world where you bring a bottle of wine to dinner.”
Inside dope wasn’t the only thing Mr. Epstein had on hand. The picture provided by the latest files shows how Mr. Epstein won favor and friendships by acting as a kind of superconcierge. Sometimes that meant sending the helicopter to pick up guests, as Mr. Epstein offered to do for Elon Musk in a 2012 email, writing, “How many people will you be for the heli to island?” On another occasion, Mr. Musk asks his concierge Epstein, “Do you have any parties planned?” Mr. Epstein provided private plane trips, internships, Apple Watches, Hermès bags, extra-large zipper sweatshirts (those went to Steve Bannon), nearly $10,000 worth of boxers and T-shirts (Woody Allen) and an XXL cashmere sweater (Noam Chomsky). And then there’s the resistance Substack star Michael Wolff, who is all over the Epstein files, who emails Mr. Epstein, 'Shoes are very nice. Thanks.'”
3. Epstein's Russian connections -This one takes us into national security and politics
"... another batch of millions of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files were released and they made a very strong case that Epstein was closely linked to elements in Russian intelligence. There were trips, emails, and other assorted hints that Epstein was associated with and even coordinated activities with members of the Russian intelligence service. The evidence was strong enough that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a man not prone to histrionics or overstatement, said that the Poles were investigating whether Epstein had been a Russian agent. Tusk’s exact words in a government meeting were:"
Even if the next set of documents released by the Department of Justice includes a video tape with a naked Donald Trump humping a 14 year old, that won't be the end of the insights we learn about the United States, about the very rich, about male privilege, especially while male privilege, about the network of ultra rich, and even international links to nations that are not considered our friends that amount to serious breaches of national security.
It's going to take many years to map out all the connections and how those connections set up a class of people who, for the most part, have been above the law, and have perverted democracy in many ways.
Stay tuned. But don't hold your breath. This is not a television mystery that ends with a neat conclusion after 90 minutes. This is more like an archeological dig that will take decades to tie up the many threads and loose ends.
The calendar has caught up with me. I was ready for you all up through Sunday and would love to highlight today's offerings, but I also want to say something about two good films I saw yesterday.
You're No Indian
I'd seen In the Wake of Justice Delayed and Remaining Native on Saturday. Both are good films which tell important stories about being Native in the United States. They do an excellent job of conveying the emotional impacts of the abuses Native peoples have suffered and the lasting impacts. Their films mention court cases (in Justice) and historic abuses of boarding schools (in Remaining.) Their both solid, important films.
I was wary about You're No Indian because it was about disenrollment. I co-authored an academic article on Native American Law and I know that topic gets complicated quickly and that there is so
Ryan Flynn and Santana Rabang left
much that most people have no idea about. How can someone make that into an interesting movie?
They managed to do it. You're No Indian powerfully highlights both the emotional and cultural impact of disenrollment and also collects a pile of evidence to show that the disenrollment process in many tribes - particularly those with lots of casino money - is aimed at reducing the number of people with whom they have to divide casino profits and at getting rid of opponents to their power in the tribes. [Blogger doesn't recognize the term disenrollment and underlines it in red each time I type it.]
They offer shocking evidence of tribal leaders denying the validity of members' documented birth records, and in one case, where the tribal leader's ancestry includes the same ancestors as the people he disenrolled.
They include those records. They include a historian of Indian records hired by the tribe to do research. When the expert they hired gives them conclusions they don't want to hear, they reject it. There's also a Native attorney who is banned from coming into the hearing to represent his client.
The part that will leave most viewers who are not well-versed on Native American law still scratching their heads, is the lack of a way to appeal the disenrollment decisions. Essentially, Native Americans have fought over the years to have sovereignty over their own affairs on Indian country. There are rules about who has jurisdiction over different kinds of cases based on where the infraction occurred (Native land or not), who was involved (Native or non-Native), and the type of crime. Natives have accomplished a certain amount of autonomy on Native land, which prevents the state from meddling in Native affairs, but this documentary shows how that victory has left holes that allow tribes to commit serious offenses against fellow tribal members.
The film and the discussion afterward mentioned that the film makers have received cease and desist orders to stop them from showing the film. Film festivals have also received such threats (including the Anchorage International Film Festival). Some festivals are wary of being sued and have not shown the film. Fortunately AIFF showed the film. My thought is that when you get such threats, it means you're hitting a nerve. If they had legitimate legal claims, the opponents of the film would file those claims in court.
This was the movie I said, yesterday morning, that I hadn't seen yet - the movie that works for me on all levels. And as I say this, I also acknowledge my own bias for a strong rational argument, which this film presents. They've simply made a very strong documentary on an important topic. While some might say this is a pretty esoteric and small group, the film does a good job of pointing out the significance.
They say 11,000 people have been disenrolled in tribes around the country. They further point out that the living and future offspring of those 11,000 people have also been effectively disenrolled.
Compounding this is the destruction of Native culture in the affected tribes. Money, not cultural traditions, win out. And the number of Native Americans dwindles. They also point out that disenrollment was used by the US government to eliminate Native Americans as part of their campaign to assimilate (as in the Boarding schools), remove (from their land to reservations), or eliminate (kill) Native Americans. In this case, it's Natives doing this work.
A powerful and well documented movie that keeps the audience's attention throughout. The museum was packed and there were lots of questions and comments at the end.
A Little Fellow: The Legacy of A.P. Giannini.
The other movie I want to point out is A Little Fellow: The Legacy of A.P. Giannini. I don't have time now, but I will get back to this film which tells the story of the founder of the Bank of Italy in San Francisco, a bank focused on the small businesses and everyday people, who were excluded by most other banks. There are many amazing stories about Giannini in this film, and about the bank that eventually became, under Giannini's leadership, The Bank of America. (Though, since 1998, when Bank of America was bought out, no longer practices those principles Giannini set up for his bank.)
It's a generally unknown story, told well in this film. More later I hope.
I'm headed out to the Alaska Experience Theater for Uncensored Shorts at 10:30, then The Collaborator at 1pm and then for Female Filmmaker Showcase at 5:30 at the Bear Tooth and then Rosemead at 8:30.
J took our guests to the 9am meetup and pitch session. There's also a film maker pizza party later and their meeting the Austrian Honorary Consul General - Katrine is Austrian - and the Consul has been supportive of the film.
On my bike ride back from the Muldoon Saturday Market at Chanshtnu Park, I rode through the parking lot of the Totem Theater. I've passed by several times this summer and noticed that while things look dead, once in a while I see someone go in. And two weeks ago they said they were showing Freaky Friday on the marquee.
And today again I saw someone going in.. So biked over to the entrance and the man came out. I asked what was happening and he said he didn't really know. But Totem was pretty much closed down. I asked about the possibilities I've thought about as I've come by here over the summer. The individual theaters could be used for church services, for musical events, theater, speakers, weddings, all sorts of things. Even showing movies.
He said it was a Regal theater - like the Dimond Mall theaters and Tikahtnu. That the company is owned by a corporation in England.
"Regal Cineworld Group (trading as Cineworld) is a British cinema chain and operator. Headquartered in London, England, it is the world's second-largest cinema chain (after AMC Theatres), with 9,139 screens across 747 sites[3] in 10 countries:[4] Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the United States.[5][6] The group's primary brands are Cineworld Cinemas and Picturehouse in the United Kingdom and Ireland, Cinema City in Eastern and Central Europe, Planet in Israel, and Regal Cinemas in the United States."
There's a long history including being bought by Blackstone private equity company and then later being sold, buying Regal, COVID, bankruptcy, not necessarily in that order.
Regal, by the way, is headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee.
"By 2001, Regal was overextended, and went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It became the namesake for the theater chain in which it would be merged into with the Edwards and United Artists chains.[10][11]
When all three chains went into bankruptcy, investor Philip Anschutz bought substantial investments in all three companies, becoming majority owner.[18] In 2002, Anschutz consolidated his three theatre holdings under a new parent company, Regal Entertainment Group.[19] Regal's Mike Campbell and UA's Kurt Hall were named co-CEOs, with Campbell overseeing the theatre operations from Regal Cinemas' headquarters in Knoxville, and Kurt Hall heading up a new subsidiary, Regal CineMedia, from the UA offices in Centennial, Colorado. The Edwards corporate offices were closed." (from Wikipedia)
The movie theater business has had tough times since Blockbuster came on the scene. Then streaming video added to the problem and bigger and bigger home screens, and of course, COVID.
But what happens to a community like Anchorage when big pieces of real estate are owned by far away - Knoxville and London - corporations? What say do we have? Who do we talk to and why would they even care? It doesn't seem to be for sale, yet. The building and the parking lot are pretty big. But at the moment we're losing population. Who locally would buy it? A developer?
The man I talked to said that the Totem theater was his first job when he was 16 years old. He stayed with the company until he was 19, when they first got bought out. That there were a lot of changes all at once so he decided to leave and try something else.
One day, he said, the general manager, who was also his good friend, called and jokingly asked if he wanted to work at the Totem again, and the he surprised his general manager friend by saying yes. That was when he was 21.
He said he is 26 now and that he literally 'grew up here" in the building and that he's sad to see it go.
"I'll always appreciated the buiding and what it stood for."
Talking to him I was convinced - vibes as much as words - that he's a serious worker, takes the job to heart, and if I had a position, I'd hire him in a minute.
Then I went over to get a picture of the marquee and I see that across the street from the Totem, the Wayland Baptist University, has a For Sale sign up. If you want to buy it, the number is 907 762 5801.
"Texas-based Wayland Baptist University (WBU) is emptying its Alaska classrooms and transitioning to online instruction only. The school’s campus in Anchorage will be sold, its leased location in Wasilla vacated, and classrooms at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Fort Wainwright, and Eielson Air Force Base returned to military service."
How many low cost housing units could be built on the Totem's big parking lot? How many empty buildings like WBU do we have now? I say we should look at these as opportunities to reimagine how they can be used and not just let them rot.
I'm listening to the live House Rules Committee hearing on the "The One Big Beautiful Bill" (as the Republicans call it) at 10:30 pm Alaska time. That makes it 2:30am in Washington DC. As Democratic and Republican House members take turns; It's as though the Democrats and the Republicans are talking about completely different bills.
“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.
“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.
“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked
like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched a different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”
Giving the best interpretation, the Republicans and the Democrats, are talking about different parts of the bill. One Republican said something like, "The Democrats don't want to support police and fire fighters.." I don't know what those parts of the bill actually say, but if those aren't the parts the Democrats are complaining about.
The Democrats are saying the bill:
1. Destroys medicaid
2. Gets rid of food assistance for children 5 million more hungry Americans
3. So people making over $3 million a year will get hundreds of thousands of dollar cuts in their taxes.
But I'm not sure that conclusion in the blind men story is accurate when it says that everyone is right because everyone is describing a different part of the elephant.
I'm inclined to believe that Democrats are doing a more accurate job of describing this bill. Why? Because this is Trump's bill and Trump lies more than all the previous presidents combined. In just one day. We also know that Trump has pushed hard on Republicans to vote for his bills and to support them. But I know that die-hard Republicans would reject my interpretation. We truly are living in completely different realities. For instance, the Republicans are focused on the fact that Federal employees get a better pensions than private employees. They don't mention that private employees tend to get paid more. And even more importantly, that private companies have been cutting retirement benefits for their employees. And they are succeeding in that because Congressional Republicans have weakened unions for 50 years. And finally, Federal retirement systems should be the aspiration of private sector employees, and that may be one of the reasons private sector employers do not like Federal retirement systems.
I also believe this because I was just at a public meeting hosted by the League of Women's Voters and the ACLU and the Native American Rights Fund, discussing the Save Act. This Act being pushed by Republicans is essentially a voter suppression bill. I'll get to that in the next post.
And Democrats are citing Conservative think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and Moody's lower the US credit rating, that the bill will raise the debt significantly. And they are quoting Republican Senators who say it will blow up the deficit.
For those of you reading from other parts of the world, you can listen in if you find this right away. I don't know if YouTube will leave this hearing up after it's over. If so, you can listen in and evaluate my perception.
[Guide to this post: This post reminds me of the rambling posts I used to do regularly. And it feels good, because the world is tangled up in complicated ways - there are few straight lines. This began as a post about the movie Sinners. But immediately got hijacked by some observations about movie theaters these days. There's a nod to Clarksdale, Mississippi. But then I switch quickly to what I think is a much more important movie - The Laundromat. But that too gets delayed as I talk about Lisa Murkowski's appearance today on Talk of Alaska and her interpretation of her recent "We're all afraid" comment. Which requires some background into what ecumenical means.
If you only want to read one part of this post, I recommend learning about The Laundromat. It's still available on Netflix if you have that. Skip down to that heading - bold and in capitals. Then skip past the part on Murkowski to learn about why I think the film is important.]
We haven't been out to see a movie very often lately. A couple of times while we were in Bainbridge - A Complete Unknown and The Brutalist. Two movies worth seeing.
I'd been hearing about Sinners on Spoutible and BlueSky. Not a lot, but that it was a sleeper big hit, it was a Black themed film. The parts that had me a bit skeptical mentioned horror elements.
Well Monday night is a discount night, as two seniors, we got in for a total of $14!! The tariffs haven't hit Anchorage theaters yet. But our choice of seats was front row or two separate single seats further back. We chose the later. Inside, it was actually pretty empty and we took one of our seats and I sat in the one next to it, my actual seat in the row ahead.
It did fill up a bit more, but no one claimed my seat.
When I say it was full, I probably have to remind folks that the theaters have all been remodeled. There are far fewer total seats, and the ones you get are lounge seats where the head tilts back and the feet up. So a full theater has a lot fewer viewers than in the past.
Later: I didn't finish this. Sinners is a forgettable movie. Except for the music. I don't know what the creators were thinking. We'll do some Black history, but that doesn't sell enough (a dubious premise) so we'll add some great blues music, and to catch today's audience, we'll add in a vampire massacre. And we'll locate it in Clarksdale, Mississippi - the Birthplace of the Blues. (We actually visited Clarksdale and the Blues Museum. Visiting Mississippi was sort of like visiting Albania or North Korea in my mind - a place forbidden and evil. It wasn't our destination, but it was between Chicago and New Orleans by car. But that's a story for another day.)
This feels like one of my old blogposts, that wandered and jumped, as life does and as thoughts do. So let's jump back into the present future.
Why do people say the Democratic party is not really any different from the Republican party? Because deep down, they are both corrupted by money and protection of the wealthy. The Republicans are a lot more open about that. They think rich people are the product of hard work and deserve all they get.
The Democrats are a little embarrassed by their dependence on the rich. They cover this addiction (well it's almost required if you want to have enough money to campaign, thanks to Citizens United) by trying to make the lives of those screwed over by the system a little more bearable. They try to spread a bit of equality to more people, but their hands are just as dirty with money, and they go to parties with lots of people whose wealth comes from less than pristine morals and behavior.
NO, NO, NO, I'm not saying they are the parties are the same, or that life under a Harris administration would have been no different from the disaster of the current Republican Administration. [Someone suggested online today, not to mention his name, but to say Republican Administration instead to make sure all the cowards in the House and Senate are fully implicated in what's going on. After all, they could end this non-violent coups if they chose to. What do you think?)
THE LAUNDROMAT
So, tonight after falling asleep listening to Lisa Murkowski on Talk of Alaska, in what seemed an attempt to clean up her confession to being afraid, that 'We are all afraid' by saying, "It was kind of an ecumenical 'we' . . . When I say Lisa Murkowski is afraid, it's not in a cowardly way." She's not, afraid of things like being primaried, she said. She's hearing from Alaskans who are losing their jobs, from Alaskans whose grant monies and contracts have been halted. "So when I say 'we' I have to include myself as an Alaskan. She also spoke of her oath to uphold the Constitution and her responsibilities under Article 1. "I'm seeing an erosion of the boundaries, if you will, between the Executive and the Legislative branch..." As I say I fell asleep during this and I'm resurrecting her words through the podcast up at Talk of Alaska. (The comments I'm referring to start around 6 minutes in.) And if you are a little confused by her reference to the 'ecumenical we' as I was, here's a little refresher. Maybe she didn't want to say the 'royal we' and 'ecumenical' was the only other 'we' she could think of. Maybe she thought it would imply some sort of bi-partisan message. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics, not included I guess.
"The Ecumenical Movement is a key effort in the Christian faith. It works to bring different Christian groups around the world together. Its importance is seen in religious fellowship and the chase of shared goals. The word ‘ecumenical’ comes from ‘oikoumen?,’ the Greek word for “the inhabited world.” Over time, it has gained a special theological meaning. The word’s evolution shows a move from ordinary to sacred, going from a word about geography to a sign of hope to unite Christians.
"The Ecumenical Movement started as an answer to the need for unity in the Christian church. The church was split by arguments over belief and competitive missions. Through history, ecumenical councils played key roles. They helped form the faith’s theology and practices. This includes councils from the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. These meetings show the ongoing effort to find what the Ecumenical Movement is today. This effort is helped by groups like the World Council of Churches and places like Taizé that focus on community spirituality." (From Faithonview.com)
But all th's Murkowski stuff slipped in because I got a bit of a nap this evening so I felt like I could partake in a bit of Netflix and while randomly exploring, found a movie called The Laundromat. It turns out I saw this already on Netflix.
It's an important film for USians to watch to understand why some people say there is no difference between the two political parties. The very rich invite politicians of both parties to their parties, and most politicians accept the invitations. (OK, I'm just saying that. I don't have statistics. But I'm pretty sure it's true in a general sort of way.)
It's not your run of the mill movie. It's a semi-fictional account of a woman whose husband dies in a freak boating accident and she learns that the boating company's insurance isn't going to pay. She is told about shell companies and holding companies and off shore accounts. We also meet a couple of wealthy men, business partners, Jürgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca who tell us their side of the story.
Mossack and Fonseca. Is that ringing any bells? Remember the Panama Papers? When a law firm in Panama got hacked and all their clients and shell companies got exposed? That was Mossack and Fonseca.
It's essentially a movie that attempts to tell us in a down-to-earth way about how the world is rigged against most people by the very wealthy. Generally we just hear stuff that says we're screwed.
" 735 U.S. billionaires hold more wealth ($0.4 trillion more) than the bottom 50% of American households." (I picked this claim because this is from Snopes checking out a statement by Robert Reich, so it was fact checked somewhat.)
The movie tells us a little bit more about how it happens.
Wikipedia says the movie got mixed reviews. But I'm guessing because it's imaginative, clever, and takes a very dry and difficult subject and makes it relatable to the average person. And the only vampires are allegorical blood suckers.
Steven Soderbergh (a very inventive filmmaker) directed it and it stars Meryl Streep as an ordinary USian who wants to know who is screwing her over. Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas play the two Panama lawyers who got hacked.
As Trump is leaning on Congress to pass a huge tax cut for the very rich, this film does give us a glimpse of how slimy it all is.
