Keller's Privatize Our Schools Bill - No! No! No! No!

Rep Keller at ALEC Presentation Feb 2011

[Reader Alert:  This is a topic I feel strongly about and sometimes that affects how I present the content.  Also there is a lot of background I don't have time to put in here.  So, if you have a problem with anything, comment or email and we can continue the discussion.]



The Alaska Dispatch has an article today on Wes Keller's HB 145 to create "scholarships" for parents to use state money to send their kids to private (including religious) schools in Alaska.

Keller's from the same part of Alaska that gave us Vic Kohring and Bill Stoltz (who most recently has refused to release a bill from committee for a house vote - already passed by the Senate - to give state funding for school meals for the low income kids).

Keller is also a member of ALEC - the Koch brothers sponsored organization that prepares model legislation for state legislators and whose agenda is basically to make government as marginal and ineffective as possible.  Here's an early (2005) piece of model legislation called Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act posted at Heartland Institute (an organization similar to ALEC which champions free enterprise and believes global climate change "is basically irrational, ideological, and profoundly anti-science" - if you want to learn more, contact Rep. Gatto, he goes to their meetings) which cites "ALEC staff."

I posted about an ALEC meeting in Juneau last year - Keller was one of four legislators who sponsored ALEC and attended.  The others were Rep.Carl Gatto (Wasilla), Rep.Tammie Wilson (North Pole), and Sen. Fred Dyson (Eagle River.)

ALEC Materials at Juneau Presentation

From a Nation article posted at Susan Ohanian.org

"Public schools,” ALEC wrote in its 1985 Education Source Book, “meet all of the needs of all of the people without pleasing anyone.” A better system, the organization argued, would “foster educational freedom and quality” through various forms of privatization: vouchers, tax incentives for sending children to private schools and unregulated private charter schools. Today ALEC calls this "choice"--and vouchers "scholarships"--but it amounts to an ideological mission to defund and redesign public schools.








There's lots that's been written exposing ALEC's agenda.  Basically it seems to be set on making government as ineffective as possible so that businesses can do whatever they want - gut labor laws, environmental regulations - and to give government assets and infrastructure over to the private sector.  This bill is a case in point.


Sec. 14.31.030 of  HB 0145B gives schools that lose students to the 'scholarships' and fall under the required 10 students [UPDATE: an issue in many of Alaska's small communities] to keep a school open, two years to operate.  Then, as I read this, the private school can petition to take over the school. 

Sec. 14.31.030. Effect on districts. (a) A school that, as a result of the program, has an ADM of less than 10 but five or more shall be treated as if the school had 10 students for a two-year period following the date on which the ADM is reported to be less than 10 but five or more for purposes of calculating state aid under AS 14.17. In this subsection, "ADM" has the meaning given in AS 14.17.990.
(b) If requested by a participating school, a school district that receives a payment under AS 14.31.020(b)(1) shall enter into a lease agreement with the participating school for space controlled by the school district if
(1) the lease is offered with reasonable terms; (2) the space that is subject to the lease agreement is available; and (3) the agreement is consistent with applicable state law.

In Sec. 14.31.035  the Education Department is to pay the 'scholarship' directly to the private school.

Sec. 14.31.035. Departmental duties. (a) In implementing the parental choice scholarship program, the department shall (1) obtain from the participating school a count of the number of participating students in the program; (2) make scholarship payments directly to the school quarterly after receiving proof satisfactory to the department that the student claimed under a scholarship attends the school on a full-time basis;

I feel very strongly about public schools.  It's the place in the United States where people can become Americans, where they mingle with people whose beliefs are not totally like their own family's.  There is a lot wrong with American public schools and I can make lists of the problems just as well as anyone else, but the answers lie in fixing how we deliver public education, not destroying it.

People complain about the polarization of US politics.  I would argue much of that has to do with the balkanization of schools into more and more specialized private religious school programs where students are taught that their group's truth is the only one.

Sure, neighborhoods segregated by race and income also produce similar effects in public schools.  It's a problem.  The disparity between good and bad schools is a problem.  But private schools, that can refuse to serve the problem students - whether the 'problem' is behavioral, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, or cross-cultural differences - are NOT the answer.  Especially for-profit private schools whose top priority is profit.  (Remember those financial institutions we recently bailed out?)

No Child Left Behind is part of this attack on public schools.  The testing was set up to label public schools as "failing" to turn the public against public schools and susceptible to voucher programs that would let them take public money and spend it at private schools.

Well, now they are calling the vouchers "scholarships."

I call them subsidies to private businesses.

I did a post in December on how the right wing attack on public education is also happening at the higher ed level.

ALEC's Clinton Woods Helping Legislators Fight Obamacare, the EPA, and Other Conservative Nightmares

Like lots of other people, I looked into room 106 of the Capitol because it was lunch time and someone had provided free sandwiches, potato chips, fruit, and cookies to attract legislators and staffers to their talk.  I had no idea who was talking.   The bins were full.  You can see that lots of folks made off with sandwiches.  But only a few stayed.  I got a sandwich for a nearby staffer, but there was nothing vegie, and I had brought my own, so I only took a banana for me. 


It turned out to be the American Legislative Exchange Council - an organization I hadn't heard of.  A young man named Clinton Woods was recruiting people for this organization which is a smaller competitor of two other organizations state legislators traditionally belong to:

•  the National Council of State Legislatures and 
• the Council of State Governments. 

These are non-partisan organizations dedicated to basic principles of good government such as these:

The National Conference of State Legislatures is a bipartisan organization founded to:

• Improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures;
• Promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures;
• Ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (he kept calling it ALEC) clearly states that they are based on Free Market, Jeffersonian Principles and are open to the private sector members as full partners.

I noticed Rep. Carl Gatto there. He reported last year getting $2249.68 to attend a Heartland Institute conference in New York on International Climate Change.  Heartland doesn't believe much in Climate Change and pushes market solutions in any case. Also present were Reps. Keller and Tammie Wilson and Sen. Dyson.

Their brochures made their position on the political spectrum fairly clear.  This is not a neutral better government organization.  It's an anti-government organization.   


In his talk, Clinton Woods said they create model legislation for their members to push, "Over 1000 of our model bills spread across the US with 20% enacted."

Clinton Woods

They have various task forces working on these model bills. 

• Civil Justice (working on tort reform, which tries to limit the liability or organizations who have done harm) 
• Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development
• Education
• Energy, Environment and Agriculture (lots of stuff on fighting the EPA)
• Health and Human Services (repealing Obama's health care legislation)
• International Relations
• Public Safety and Elections
• Tax and Fiscal Policy
• Telecommunications and Information Technology
• Federal Relations

Wikipedia's post on ALEC includes charges that the corporate members call the shots on the kind of policies they pursue:

Criticism

ALEC has approximately three hundred private sector members including corporations, state and national think tanks, and trade associations. Some corporations and trade groups that have supported ALEC include: American Nuclear Energy Council, American Petroleum Institute, Coors Brewing Company, Texaco, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, VISA, Exxon Mobil, the National Rifle Association, Amway, Koch Industries, and others. Groups critical of ALEC claim that the organization is controlled by the entities that fund it, subsequently promoting donors' agendas and goals, along with attempting to advance legislation that favors their interests. NPR reported that the Corrections Corporation of America was present at meetings when legislators were introduced to model immigration laws, used for example as the template for Arizona SB 1070, passed in 2010. The report suggested that the group could be used to avoid state laws requiring legislators to disclose meetings with and gifts from politically unpopular corporations. Shortly after the report was published, ALEC released a response statement addressing some of NPR's accusations.

People for the American Way, the self-proclaimed left-wing advocacy group, refers to ALEC as "a right-wing public policy organization with strong ties to major corporations, trade associations and right-wing politicians" with an agenda that includes "challenging government restrictions on corporate pollution, limiting government regulations of commerce, privatizing public services, and representing the interests of the corporations that make up its supporters."

Truthout identifies ALEC as a Koch Industries supported organization that has helped Wisconsin's Governor in his labor busting attempt in Wisconsin:

A Koch-financed front group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, has prepped Wisconsin GOP lawmakers with anti-labor legislative ideas.

I haven't been able to verify that.  Charity Navigator rates them 49 (out of 70) and got two ** out of four.  It says they do not have audit data, nor are IRS  990 forms available so their accountability is low. 

 
You can watch part of Clinton Woods' presentation. 






[UPDATE March 19, 2011: Hector Solon at Daily Kos has a more thorough piece on ALEC, links to this post. It would be nice if he also credited the photo of the brochures from here that he posted.   LATER, as he says in the comment below, he added the links and credits.]

National Right Wing Context Of Alaska State House Sustainable Education Task Force Report

This is Part 2 on the Task Force.  Part 1 gives an overview of the different contexts of this report and focuses on the task force membership.  All three House members are Republicans and the other members, if not all Republicans, heavily lean that way.  This is clearly a House Majority task force (as the url says) and not a House task force.

In this post I want to look at the national context of this report which includes advocating for school vouchers and charter schools as well as cutting the education budget. 

Nationally the attack on public schools comes from different aspects of the right. 

• There’s the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
• There’s ALEC’s free market educational philosophy and agenda.
• There’s the religious right’s attempts to get vouchers to pay for private religious schools, and ongoing efforts to add prayer and 'intelligent design' to public schools. 

No Child Left Behind - had standards that were guaranteed to label more and more public schools as ‘failing.’  There's plenty out there on this point. You can look at this example in Vermont  or this one about Texas.

Diane Ravitch served as Assistant Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush and advocated for NCLB testing and for charter schools.  Since then she's changed her assessment and written a book called:  The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education.  Here's a bit of what Diane Ravitch told NPR.

RAVITCH: When I believed that they would work, they hadn't been tried. Once they were tried, I was convinced that they didn't work and, in fact, not only were they failing, but they're ruining American education and they're actually leading the way today towards privatization of public education, which I think would be a disaster.  [In the context of the interview, 'they' refers to 'these ideas,' which seems to refer to standardized testing and charter schools.]

Many people, like Ravitch, believed this would help schools.  But I believe there were others who intended this to label public schools as failing so that it would be easier to get voters to approve voucher systems that would take public money and give it to private schools.  We’ve seen what a monumental failure that was with higher ed where private, for profit schools popped up, helped students apply for federal loans which went directly to the schools, and left the student to pay off the loan whether they succeeded in school or not. 


ALEC - is a Koch Brothers funded organization that focuses on state legislatures.  I first noticed and blogged about ALEC when I attended a lunch presentation they gave in Juneau in 2011.

ALEC has taken as its apparent structural model the non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures, whose mission is to:

• Improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures.
• Promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures.
• Ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.

and Council of State Governments which

"fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate and create problem-solving partnerships."

While no organization is free of some sort of ideology, the NCSL and CSG have had as their key 'ideology' good government in general without a right or left wing bias.  Both Republican and Democratic legislators are members and attend their conferences.

ALEC, on the other hand, uses the NCSL and CSG model and inserts a highly ideological right wing agenda.  ALEC has corporate members as well as legislative members.  Reading their September/October 2013 Educational Edition of Inside ALEC plus what I've learned about them over the last two years, I'm convinced their educational strategy is basically to

• Declare Public schools as failures, and
• Use the language of choice to transfer public education money to private schools

1.   Declaring Public schools failures

ALEC does this subtly in its September/October 2013 Inside ALEC Education Edition.

Traditional US public schools, it tells us:

“are local monopolies with all the attendant inefficiencies and perverse incentives common to such entities.”   The solution to local monopolies “shifted control over the schools further away from the parents and children to distant state and federal bureaucracies.” (p, 9)

Basically they are saying, since the local system didn't work, it got taken over by state and federal bureaucracy which also doesn't work.   Thus, there is no way for public schools to work. - locally run is bad and state and fed run are also bad.  Just like with NCLB, public schools are failures.  The solution is private schools. Of course, there is some truth to what they say because every solution comes with unintended side effects.  However, they fail to acknowledge any such negative side-effects with their solution - the market.  We've seen in the last decade some of the serious problems of letting the market solve our problems. 

2.  Using the language of choice,  their strategy is to destroy public schools by transferring public money to private schools.


Inside ALEC’s Education Edition has a couple of articles that highlight programs that transfer money from public schools to private schools.  For example:

“Educational Savings Accounts

Eligible parents can choose to withdraw their child from the assigned public school if they feel the school is not meeting their child’s learning needs. Arizona deposits 90 percent of the money the state would have spent on the child in the public school into the parents’ Empowerment Scholarship Account. Parents can then use those funds to pay for private school tuition and a host of other education-related services and expenses.
That flexibility is what makes an ESA unique: the accounts are distinct from school choice options like vouchers or tax credits because they allow a parent to divvy-up their funds and purchase educational products, services and schools in an à la carte fashion.” (pp 10,15)

It's that easy.  We take 90% of the money from the public school and let the parent spend it on private sector options.  The articles raise important issues, but ignore the problems with vouchers.  That's a whole other discussion.  Now I'm just putting the Alaska Task Force Report in context of these national forces. 

Religious Right

I know.  Such labels are tricky.  I'm referring to those members of (mainly Christian) denominations who believe their view of the world is the only correct one,  that everyone else is just wrong, and who fight legislation and court rulings that separate (Christian) religion from state sponsorship such as prayer in school, public displays of religious symbols, religiously based bans on abortion and homosexuality, etc.

These folks send, or want to send, their kids to private religious schools instead of public schools.  Or they run the private religious schools.  In either case, in addition to their religious beliefs, they have a financial interest in spending public funds on private religious schools.  I can understand a parent not wanting their kids to go to schools that teach them values different from what they believe.  But inserting Christianity into public schools does the very same thing to the kids of non-Christians.  As a democracy, public schools should be the place where people learn to respect people of other faiths and backgrounds.  But that's a discussion for another day. 

A number of Christian schools encourage their members to take advantage of existing voucher programs.  For example:

"Many families desire a Christian education for their children; but limited finances have prevented this from being an option – until now!
Indiana’s recently passed School Choice (voucher) program allows qualifying families to receive a credit (school voucher) toward their education at a private school. If you are such a family and you meet financial and admissions qualifying criteria, now is the perfect time to consider Blackhawk Christian School for your child’s education." 

(I find this Christian school's 'brand' interesting. Blackhawk was  Native American who fought with the British against the US.   Blackhawk is also the name of a military helicopter.  WWJS?)

More examples of the transfer of public money to religious schools through vouchers can be seen here.

One school in North Carolina made it a policy to refuse public vouchers.  Their reason:  to maintain the right to refuse students - like the children of gay couples. 

Even Orthodox Jews often support vouchers,  The separation of church and state seems to be less important than financing their religious schools  But Conservative and Reform Jews  whose kids are more likely to go to public schools, do not support vouchers.

But some of the supporters of vouchers in Tennessee and Louisiana had second thoughts when they found out that Islamic schools would also be eligible for public funding.   

These reactions against Islamic schools getting voucher funding demonstrates my points above.  These are folks who, despite the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion,  believe that this is a Christian nation, and those guarantees only apply to Christians.   Their proclamations about religious freedom really are about Christian freedom.


For many, it's less about education than it is about being anti-government and about moving public education money over to private, Christian, schools.



Conclusion

The national trends affect Alaskan Republicans.  Some attend ALEC conferences and use ALEC's model legislation to write their own.  These national ideas get into their Party Platform.   Here are some excerpts from the education section of the Alaska Republican Party platform:

"A. We support parental choice of public, private, charter, vocational and home-based educational alternatives for Alaska’s students.  .   .

B. We support accountability in public education, including measurement of student academic achievement and cognitive ability by standardized testing in reading, writing and mathematics. We support local control of public education provided it does not limit competition or parental choice. We oppose all federal control of or influence on education. We support the parental right to have access to all educational information reaching their child.

Accountability sounds good and some kinds of testing are necessary.  But the language that comes next echoes ALEC's proclamation about local government control being problematic along with federal control.  Notice, they don't oppose state control though.

C. We support daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words “under God,” proper display of the United States and Alaska Flags, and active promotion of patriotism in our schools. We also support teaching the accurate historical Judeo-Christian foundation of our country and the importance of our founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, federal and State constitutions, and other founding documents."

To their credit, they also support learning about Alaska Native people.

"D. We support the teaching of Alaska’s history and geography with appropriate acknowledgment and respect for Alaska Native people, cultures, and languages."

But, then they also support Creation Science:

"F. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be taught."

That national context seems to have had its influence on this Alaska task force.  I'd note that one of the co-chairs - Rep. Tammie Wilson - was one of only four legislators to attend (well, to stick around after getting a sandwich)  the 2011 ALEC presentation in the Capitol in Juneau (along with Reps. Gatto and Keller and Sen. Dyson.)

Any person who pays attention knows that American public schools have serious problems.   The left and the right agree on this.  I have lots of issues with the public school system and I suspect that a number of them overlap problems people on the right have.  It's the solutions we seem to disagree on.

The anti-government philosophy of many on the right would destroy public schools altogether.  The Starve The Beast philosophy that arose in the Reagan era is alive and well still today even though the facts would say it doesn't work.  These folks want to move public education money into the private sector. 

In the final installment on this Task Force Report, I'll look at the full two page report and what it says. 

People Born In 1914: Superman, The Lone Ranger, and Obiwan Ben Kenobi

When I did my first post on people born 100 years ago - 1908 - there weren't many lists like that available.  Nowadays, there's a lot more available. And mine got so elaborate that they took forever to write. So I'm going to leave it to others now to do the comprehensive lists and just focus on a few folks that were important to me and to the world.  To see one of the more comprehensive lists go to NNDB.

Here are two people whose roles were their public persona:  George Reeves (Superman) and Clayton Moore (The Lone Ranger.)  And one more - Alec Guinness - whose acting career was much greater than the only role that many know him as - Obiwan Ben Kenobi. 

Alec Guinness April 2, 1914- August 5, 2000 (86) Guinness was a great actor.  I first remember him from The Horse's Mouth.  He went on to win an Academy Award as a Colonel in Bridge on The River Kwai.   He was a prince in Lawrence of Arabia and a general in Dr. Zhivago. A Business Insider article in 2013 quotes Guinness' biography: "I have been offered a movie (20th Cent. Fox) which I may accept, if they come up with proper money. London and N. Africa, starting in mid-March. Science fiction – which gives me pause – but is to be directed by Paul [sic] Lucas who did "American Graffiti, which makes me feel I should. Big part. Fairy-tale rubbish but could be interesting perhaps." Guinness goes on to recall Twentieth Century Fox offered him $150,000 plus two percent of the producer's profit in January 1976 for the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi – double what they offered him the week before." More about this great actor of the 20th Century here  and here.

George Reeves January 5, 1914 - June 15, 1959 One of my first memories of irony was that the man of steel committed suicide.  Below is a video bio of Reeves.  The video suggests maybe he didn't commit suicide.

From a Clayton More website Jack Carlton Moore was born in Chicago, Illinois on September 14, 1914. He was the youngest of three boys who grew up in a loving family home. His father was a real estate developer. Before his rise to the silver screen, Moore first became an acrobat in a flying circus troupe when he was in his twenties. This troupe of talented daredevils was the first to work without the benefit of a net, and the first to work over water. After Moore left the troupe, he went on to do some modeling jobs in New York before he finally found his way to Hollywood in 1938. He had changed his name to Clayton Moore in the mean time, and he did some stuntman work and some extra parts for the movie industry. By 1941, Moore was working steady for Republic Pictures. He portrayed heroes, the guys in the white hats, as well as bad guys, who always wore the black hats, of course, in several western movies. But it was 1949 when Clayton Moore finally got the big break that would change his life forever. "The Lone Ranger Show" had been on the radio for fifteen years by now, and Republic Pictures had already produced a couple of low-cost Lone Ranger films. But the studio decided it was time to make a weekly series out of the famous "Lone Ranger." (From Weirdscifi - I originally got the picture above from there too, but it really is weird because the picture changed to something pretty weird and I had to find a new source.)

There are others of significance born in 1914 and I may do additional posts to cover some of them.  But for now, here are some highlights.

Jonas Salk Oct 28, 1914 - June 23, 1995 (80) - Probably the man born in 1914 who had the most positive impact on the world was Jonas Salk, the man who invented the polio vaccine.

Kenneth Bancroft Clark  - July 24, 1914 - May 1, 2004 (89) The first black fully tenured professor at City University of New York and first black president of the American Psychological Society, his study of the effects of discrimination in the US played a key role in the landmark Supreme Court Decision Brown v. Board of Education.  Also worked with Gunnar Myrdal on his classic study of race in the US. 

Sports:
Joe DiMaggio   November 25, 1014 - March 8, 1999 (84)
Joe Louis  May 13, 1914 - April 12, 1981 (66)
Tenzing Norgay  May 15, 1914 - May 9, 1986 (71)

Writers:
William Bourroughs  Feb 5, 1914 - August 2, 1997 (83)
Ralph Ellison   March 1, 1914 - April 16, 1994 (80)
John Hersey June 17, 1914 - March 24, 1993  (78)
Bernard Malahmud  April 26, 1914 - March 18, 1986 (71)
Octavio Paz  March 31, 1914 - April 19, 1998 (84)
Dylan Thomas October 27, 1914 - Nov 9, 1953 (41)

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377#sthash.H0fnXwbZ.dpuf 

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377#sthash.H0fnXwbZ.dpuf

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377#sthash.H0fnXwbZ.dpuf

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377#sthash.H0fnXwbZ.dpuf

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377#sthash.H0fnXwbZ.dpuf

Alaskan Related:
Hale Boggs  Feb 15, 1914 - Oct 16, 1972  - Louisiana Congressman, and father of Cokie Roberts, died in plane crash with Alaskan Congressman Nick Begich. 
William A. Egan  Oct 8, 1914 - May 6 1984  - Two time Alaska governor.


War and Space:
 James Van Allen  Sept 7, 1914 - August 9 2006 (91)
William Westmoreland March 26, 1914 - July 18, 2005 (91)

AIFF 2010: Features - My Choices v. Festival Choices

 Three films in each category got recognized by the Anchorage International Film Festival juries and by the audiences.

AIFF 2010 Jury Awards - Features

Winner The Wild Hunt Alexandre Franchi (Canada 2009)
Runner-Up The Drummond Will Alan Butterworth (UK 2010)
Honorable Mention Bai Yin Di Guo (Empire of Silver) Christina Shu-hwa Yao (China/Hong Kong/Taiwan 2009)


AIFF 2010 Audience Awards - Features

Winner Bai Yin Di Guo (Empire of Silver) Christina Shu-hwa Yao (China/Hong Kong/Taiwan 2009)
Runner-Up Son Istasyon (Last Station) Ogulcan Kirca (Turkey 2010)
Honorable Mention The Drummond Will Alan Butterworth (UK 2010)

My choices (With a caveat, of course.  It really makes no sense to make films compete for various reasons I'll mention below.  But I've decided to bite the bullet and pick three that make me feel most satisfied looking back at the festival.  And I've added two extras.  The first three are not distinguished in priority. The fourth is a runner up, and the fifth is in a different category as an invited film)

What Do I know?  Most Satisfying/Thought Provoking Features (three way tie)

Fanny, Annie, and Danny,  Chris Brown  USA
Temptation of St. Tony Veiko Õunpuu  Estonia
Hello Lonesome Alan Butterworth UK

Runner Up:  22:44   Markus Hautz   Austria


I'll add one more which was a special feature (meaning it was invited and not in the running for an award)

The Red Machine  Alec Boehm  S. Argy   USA

Below is the list of all the features at the festival.  As I compiled the list, I realized that we saw all but two.  Those two are at the bottom.  

Films I saw:
22:44   Markus Hautz   Austria
Ashes  Elias Matar  USA
Bai Yin Di Guo [Empire of Silver]*   Christina Shu-hwa Yao  China
The Drummond Will*  Alan Butterworth  UK
Fannie, Annie & Danny  Chris Brown   USA
Hello Lonesome*   Adam Reid   USA
Karma Calling*  Sarba Das  USA
The Red Machine  Alec Boehm  S. Argy   USA

The Silent Accomplice  Erik Knudsen  UK
Son Istasyon [Last Station]*  Ogulcan Kirca  Turkey
Temptation of St. Tony*  Veiko Õunpuu  Estonia
Ticked Off Trannies With Knives  Israel Luna  USA
The Wild Hunt*  Alexandre Franchi   Canada

Films I didn't see:  
Rocksteady   Mustapha Khan  USA
The Violent Kind   The Butcher Brothers   Phil Flores  Mitchell Altieri USA

* means in competition

My Problem with Choosing "Best"

In the Olympics, in sports like diving and gymnastics, they give people more points if they do a more difficult dive or routine. If you make a mistake in a harder routine, you could still beat a perfect, but less challenging one.

How can you compare a multi-million dollar movie with one that cost a half-million, or one that cost $50,000? How do you compare a movie that does a good job in a fairly familiar genre from one that takes risks by trying something different? I could do several lengthy posts on this topic, but you get the point. 


Why my choices compared to the Jury and Audience choices.

The Festival winners:

Empire of Silver was an epic historical drama full of magnificent photography and interesting characters. I must admit some bias against the film at first, because the reviews I read from Hong Kong and Taiwan weren't very good. From screen daily review

[Empire of Silver] will have some purchase in Asia. But elsewhere, this will face the distribution dilemma of decent but unexceptional Chinese costumers like The Banquet: there’s little beyond one relatively flatline swordfight here to keep the action fans happy, and not enough dramatic substance for more highbrow audiences. 

And this Twitch review:

Down but not completely out, then, Empire of Silver is far more than a curio. Its weaknesses may condemn it to relative obscurity outside mainland China or the main Asian markets but for anyone willing to look the other way every so often it is still very much worth watching. Gorgeously presented, with enough star power to keep the viewer engaged, while undeniably incomplete what's left here comes recommended nonetheless.

So when I finally got to see Empire of Silver I was pleasantly surprised.  The cinematography is beautiful.  The movie comes from a trilogy by Cheng Yi, so condensing three novels into a two hour movie already sets the viewer up for some confusion.  Plus viewers who know nothing about Chinese history have no context.  I was even more frustrated because two nights before I finally saw the film in Best of the Fest, I had driven director Christina Yao back to her B&B and wasn't ready to ask the questions I wanted to ask after the film.

Clearly the Anchorage audience wasn't too upset about following all the details, because they chose it the Audience Award winner.  And its coverage of a banking crisis 100 years ago certainly gives it more relevance to US viewers today.  The website - which I avoided before the movie - gives extensive explanation that I would recommend to read before the movie to help viewers appreciate it at a richer level.

I'd also like to know more about the role of Chinese women directors and what I thought was a lot more focus on women's rights than I recall from other Chinese movies.

This was clearly a well financed movie that tells an interesting story reasonably well and I don't quibble with the the jury or audience awarding this film.  I just was more stirred by other movies.

The Drummond Will

I also enjoyed this - in Best of the Fest - but didn't move me particularly.  It was a British murder comedy and I didn't think it did anything particularly new or inventive.


The Wild Hunt

I've written about this one already.  It had lots of potential as it explored notions of reality and fantasy but I found the main female character particularly empty.  While she may reflect lots of young women, we didn't learn much about her except that she dumped her boyfriend in a way that kept him dangling just in case and went off to explore some bizarre options. 



The Last Station

This one was mainly interesting to me because of its glimpse of modern Turkey.  It had the feel of a soap opera, but was an engaging movie. The discussion  after the film with the film maker and his father - the lead actor - added some context I could only guess at.  The film addressed similar issues (conflicts between old and new values as capitalism creates new winners and losers** and ethical challenges) that were addressed in the Temptation of St. Tony in a more accessible film style and with less depth.  But while the film gave us an in-depth understanding of the older generation's perspective, it wasn't clear to me how all the children went so astray.  Especially since the best friend's son did not go astray. 

Let me end here and discuss the ones I chose in part 2. 

**St. Tony's creators would probably say only losers, the winners only are materially better off.

Redistricting Board Goes To Redistricting Seminar in Salt Lake City Next Week

I was tempted put the word 'junket' in the title, but I wasn't sure everyone would know that I was just joking.  This is a serious conference that the Board members and staff should attend.  Not only will they get more information about the latest ideas on redistricting (like how the recent US Supreme Court decision to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act might mean), but also to meet people from other states doing redistricting.   

The latest announcement from the Board:

"Alaska Redistricting Board Member Attendance at NCSL

A quorum of the Alaska Redistricting Board will attend the "Get Ready to Redistrict" seminar hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures in Salt Lake City Utah from Wednesday, July 14 through Friday, July 16 for educational purposes only.  No Board action will be taken.

What: Educational seminars, NCSL Redistricting Conference

Where: Downtown Marriott at City Creek, Salt Lake City, Utah

When: July 14 - July 16, 2021"

While this is NOT a board meeting where official action will be taken, all the Board Members, apparently, are going to Salt Lake City, so they are required to post an announcement.  It's one of those sticky areas.  Surely, they will have three or more members together talking about what they learned.  Maybe over lunch or dinner.  And those conversations should be available to the public by law.  

When legislators go to such conferences, only a few go to anyone single conference, so there's usually not a quorum.  Perhaps it would be useful for a Board member or the staff to do some unofficial minutes of any meetings of three or more members to let the public know what they're learning and how they think it affects what they'll be doing.  

The conference is put on by the NCSL (National Council of State Legislatures).  Their mission is:

"NCSL: Our Mission

NCSL, founded in 1975, represents the legislatures in the states, territories and commonwealths of the U.S. Its mission is to advance the effectiveness, independence and integrity of legislatures and to foster interstate cooperation and facilitate the exchange of information among legislatures.

NCSL also represents legislatures in dealing with the federal government, especially in support of state sovereignty and state flexibility and protection from unfunded federal mandates and unwarranted federal preemption. The conference promotes cooperation between state legislatures in the U.S. and those in other countries.

In addition, NCSL is committed to improving the operations and management of state legislatures, and the effectiveness of legislators and legislative staff. NCSL also encourages the practice of high standards of conduct by legislators and legislative staff."

This organization has traditionally been bi-partisan, with the goal to promote effective and efficient practices in state legislatures.  I haven't kept track of them lately, but their values used to be (and probably still are) following the rule of law for the public interest.  

Highly partisan organizations, like ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), have tried to mimic the look of NCSL, but with a heavily partisan twist.  While NCSL offers states model legislation to neutrally (as I said above, to promote the rule of law and the public interest) ALEC offers model legislation that pushes the agenda of their sponsors, like the Kochs.

Here's the agenda for the conference next week. (You have to scroll down the page and then select the day you want.  This is pretty long, so you might consider reading these on the days they are happening.)

Wednesday, July 14

2-3:30 p.m.: Optional: Redistricting Basics

If this is your first redistricting cycle, join us for this session. Experienced legislative staff will provide a foundation on redistricting based on NCSL’s Redistricting Starter Kit.

3:45-5 p.m.: Option A: Race and Redistricting: Civil Rights Groups Speak

French fries and ketchup. Sunscreen and the beach. Redistricting and lawsuits. Three classic pairings. Hear from groups that represent minority communities in the U.S. on what they’re focused on this decade when it comes to redistricting. Who knows—maybe what we learn will forestall a lawsuit or two.

3:45-5 p.m.: Option B: Census Redistricting Data Program Evaluation | Primary Topic: "Geography"

In this session, census redistricting program liaisons and other users of census redistricting geographic data are invited to come talk through the strengths and weaknesses of the already completed geographic definition and delivery of geographic materials from the 2020 census. Feedback on the 2020 redistricting data program's geographic operations will be used in the formulation of the 2030 census redistricting data program. Feedback is also welcome on other aspects of the program.

5-7 p.m.: Welcome Reception

Thursday, July 15

6:45 a.m.: Optional Morning Run

Studies show exercise improves brain functionality. This run, though, is all about going slow and being social.

7 a.m.-3 p.m.: Registration

7:30-8:45 a.m.: Breakfast and Welcome

Eat first, then at 8:15 a.m. we’ll welcome everyone and review what's ahead

9-10:15 a.m.: The Census

Option A: Census and Data for Beginners

Are you a non-data expert working on redistricting? This session is for you. Learn what data the census will be released, a bit about how it can be used and an introduction to other types of data used in redistricting so you and your data colleagues can communicate effectively with each other.

Option B: Census and Data for Experts

In this advanced session, we’ll cover differential privacy (and if it makes a difference), working with race and ethnicity data, how election turnout impacts the accuracy of political data, and the use of party registration as a data layer. Warning: nerding out likely.

10:30-11:45 a.m.: Take Your Pick

Option A: Meet with Your Redistricting Software Experts

Your state has probably chosen its redistricting software by now. Here’s your chance to meet your software vendor, discuss its features and pick up tips. These sessions will be run by the vendors themselves, not by NCSL.

Option B: Short Takes on Three Key Issues

Gain insight into three issues that are easy to overlook: local redistricting (yes, it’s required by law); the “hand off” of redistricting data to election officials so they can prepare for next year’s primaries; and why some states are adopting inmate data reallocation laws.

Noon-12:45 p.m.: Lunch

1-2:15 p.m.: Choose Your Own Adventure

Option A: Balancing Conflicting Criteria

Criteria (or principles) are the rules of the road in redistricting, and they vary by state. Sometimes, though, they pull in opposite directions and it’s hard to comply with them all. Hear veterans of the redistricting process explain how to strike a balance between potentially irreconcilable mandates.

Option B: Data Details

What can redistricters learn from data sources beyond the census? For instance, in redistricting, what does voter registration provide and how does it differ state to state? Does it matter whether votes were cast by mail, in-person on Election Day or during an early in-person voting period? How does party enrollment data inform decision-making? Is there a way to know just how independent the non-D and non-R voters are? What’s turnout got to do with it? Dig deep with data experts.

2:30-3:45 p.m.: Redistricting Litigation in the 2020s

Redistricting litigation for the 2010 cycle didn’t end until 2019. Will the coming cycle be just as intense? Hear nationally recognized litigators discuss the current state of the law, new trends to watch in the 2020s, and possibly make predictions for the future.

4-5:15 p.m.: Threading the Needle: The Voting Rights Act and Racial Gerrymandering

Two federal requirements governing redistricting involve race. The Voting Rights Act directs states to ensure that certain minority groups have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, whereas the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits race from predominating during redistricting decision-making. Confusing, right? Listen as two expert litigators parse the nuances created by the U.S. Supreme Court and how states can walk the legal compliance line.

5:30-6:30 p.m.: Connecting With Your Peers

Option A: Republicans

This is an ancillary session run by Republicans, for Republicans. For more information, contact Kylie Bongaart.

Note: This is not an NCSL-sponsored session.

Option B: Democrats

This is an ancillary session run by Democrats, for Democrats. For more information, contact Jeff Wice.

Note: This is not an NCSL-sponsored session.

Option C: Nonpartisan Staff Reception

If you’re a legislative staffer and don’t belong at the partisan sessions, get to know your colleagues from around the nation.

Evening on your own

Friday, July 16

7 a.m.: Optional: Walking Tour

See the sites with Brian Bean, a staffer with the Utah Senate. Meet in the lobby.

7:30-8:45 a.m.: Breakfast

Eat first—then at 8 a.m., choose which break out session at attend.

8-9:15 a.m.: Getting Along

Option A: Lowering the Temperature When Legislatures Redistrict

If you read the press, redistricting boils down to just one thing: power. Is that really true? Bring your breakfast to hear from legislators who have threaded their way through the trials and tribulations of legislative infighting.

Option B: Working With Your Commission

In states where commissions have primary responsibility for redistricting, what’s the legislature’s role? Bring your breakfast and hear from former commissioners and legislators who worked with commissions to find out how colleagues in prior decades stayed engaged while respecting the legal division between line-drawers and policymakers.

9:30-10:45 a.m.: Unseen Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

You don’t know what you don’t know. Fortunately, there are people who have done redistricting who DO know what you don’t know. Attend this session to learn from attorneys the pitfalls that can trip up the best-planned redistricting process—so you can avoid their mistakes.

11 a.m.-Noon: Legislative Privilege and Transparency

Legislative privilege is a critical part of the lawmaking process. Without it, policymakers wouldn’t be free to ask candid questions and talk openly with their staff. And yet, in this cycle “transparency” is being heralded. Learn the nuances of this area of the law so you can better understand what will happen when you end up in court over redistricting.

12:15-1:30 p.m.: What Court Will Look Like (and Box Lunch)

Odds are, you’ll be sued over redistricting. What will that lawsuit look like? This panel of litigants, litigators and a judge will walk you through the life of a redistricting lawsuit so you have an idea of what may happen if your maps end up in court. Bring in your box lunch.

1:30-2 p.m.: Ask Us Anything

Faculty will answer anything anyone cares to ask so we leave the Beehive State with exactly the information you need for the redistricting work about to begin.

3-4 p.m.: Optional: Tour of Utah State Capitol 

Climate Warming Denier ADN Letter Writer Dr. Maccabee Linked to Koch Brothers

Dr, Howard Maccabee wrote a letter to the Anchorage Daily News ridiculing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draft report. 

His letter begins:

"Justin Gillis' Aug. 20 article "Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100"  is speculation, not science.  The assertion that seas will likely rise by 3 feet is almost absurd, since current levels rise about 2 mm. per year (about 6 inches in 80 years)."

The title of Gillis' article in the print version of the ADN is unfortunate, but not inaccurate reporting.  The online title is "Climate Panel Reports Near Certainty on Warming" the same title as the original NY Times article.

In any case, the article does NOT assert "that seas will likely rise by 3 feet."  What the article actually says is

"that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than 3 feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace."

 I would say that "could conceivably" is not even close to Maccabee's "will likely."

The online article has more of the original NYTimes article than the print version.  It says, later in the article:

"Regarding the likely rise in sea level over the coming century, the new report lays out several possibilities. In the most optimistic, the world's governments would prove far more successful at getting emissions under control than they have been in the recent past, helping to limit the total warming.

In that circumstance, sea level could be expected to rise as little as 10 inches by the end of the century, the report found. That is a bit more than the 8-inch increase in the 20th century, which proved manageable even though it caused severe erosion along the world's shorelines.

At the other extreme, the report considers a chain of events in which emissions continue to increase at a swift pace. Under those conditions, sea level could be expected to rise at least 21 inches by 2100 and might increase a bit more than three feet, the draft report said."

 The "8-inch increase in the 20th century" is very close to Maccabbee's own figure of "6 inches in 80 years."  Actually, Maccabee's figure comes out to 1.5 inches per 20 years.  Add 20 years to Maccabee's figure to get a century and you're at 7.5 inches. Another two inches in the 21st century is not only conceivable, but probably highly optimistic.

Maccabee asserts this is 'speculation, not science' but goes on to use words like absurd and ridiculous - distinctly unscientific terms - to challenge the report.

I've linked Maccabee to the Koch brothers in the title. I don't want to commit the rhetorical fallacy of guilt by association.  The facts about how Maccabee mischaracterizes the report speak for themselves.   However, to a certain extent, it doesn't hurt to look at the credentials of the people involved, how they do their work, and who supports them.

The IPPC is made up of climate scientists from around the world reviewing the scientific works on these issues.  They won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for their work.  You can read more about what they are doing and how here. 

One should also ask about Dr. Maccabee's credentials on Climate Change.  He's an MD who has a UC Berkeley PhD in Radiation Biophysics.** A Heartland video presentation he made on Climate Change says Dr Maccabee is the President of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.  His environmental resume says he was President from 1982-4 and is still on their Board.   Their website has lots of pseudo scientific articles that deny climate change.  But there is nothing on it to say who they are or who funds them.  But Sourcewatch reports:

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) "promotes homeland defense and prudent preparedness for disasters of all kinds, including war or terrorism," according to its website. Topics addressed by DDP include "global warming, ozone 'depletion,' radiation hazards and radiation hormesis." ^[1]
DDP is skeptical of climate change, as the title of their web page on the subject suggests: "Ozone hole, Global warming, and other Environmental Scares." ^[2]Doctors For Disaster Preparedness was a co-sponsor to the Third International Conference on Climate Change , which in turn was sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Insitute is  funded by ALEC and the Koch Brothers - the main source of Climate Change Deniology. ( I first wrote about ALEC when I attended a presentation they gave to legislators in Juneau in February 2011.)

These are the hard core climate deniers.  Guilt by association can be fraught with logical dangers.  But it's also helpful to know where speakers come from.  Using someone from the Heartland Association to talk about climate change is like inviting a member of the Nazi Party to talk about Jews.  (I know that using Nazi similes is frowned on, but I'm reading a book that takes place in Berlin in 1933 and the similarities are striking for both make a science of propaganda.  I'm not saying these people are Nazis, but their objectivity is about the same as Nazi objectivity.  And Climate Change deniers, to the extent that they hold back Congress and other governing bodies from taking serious action now, could endanger the lives of far more people than the Nazis killed.) 

Here's another article by Gillis specifically looking at water level reports.

** This is almost totally unrelated, but quirkily interesting.  When I first tried to look up Maccabee's academic field, I switched around the terms and googled "Bioradiation Physics" I didn't find anything until page three where I found "professor of medical radiation and physics."  Clicking on it got me to this page of  Berkeley at War : The 1960s

by W.J. Rorabaugh Professor of History University of Washington.

click to enlarge and focus  from Berkeley At War

Heynes was the new UC Berkeley Chancellor in 1965 after the Free Speech protests on campus.  I'd note these events at the Berkeley campus took place 30 years before Maccabee got his PhD there and that Professor Jones was probably long gone.  But it is eerie. 

The Membership And Context Of The "State House Sustainable Education Task Force Report"

They say that context is everything.

Others say it's all in the details.  I'd say that without the context, the details mean nothing.  But context with no details is also problematic.  We need both. 

This started with this Dec. 31 Anchorage Daily News story:  

"Task force members clash on education funding"

There are so many contexts to examine here. 

[Before getting into them, let me just say, this post grew on me and I'm going to focus on the first context in this post - task force membership - and give a brief overview of the other contexts.  I'm hoping I'll be able to write followups a couple of the other contexts.] [Here's the follow-up]


1.  The political context of this Alaska task force.

The report is identified as coming from "State House Sustainable Education Task Force."
However, it's available at

http://www.housemajority.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Final_Report_Sustainable_Education_Task_Force_20140101.pdf  (empahsis added)

And it looks like most if not all of the members are Republicans.  The ADN article identifies the members:

"The panel includes three lawmakers, Republican Reps. Tammie Wilson, Lynn Gattis and Charisse Millett. The resolution setting out the task force also called for one member representing a regional Native corporation, in this case, Andy Baker; two educators, Jerry Covey and Nees; and two representatives of the business community, Halcro and Keithley. Wilson and Gattis are co-chairs. "

The three members of the house are all Republicans.  And, given this is an Education task force, I guess it's not surprising they are all women.   Apparently no male legislators thought it important enough to get on.  But all the outside members are men.  What does that mean? 

I'm only vaguely familiar with the others, but here's a little of what I found online.

Andy Baker is listed as vice-president of Baker Aviation in a 2007 Bienniel Report, a company his parents created in 1964.  However, the state of Alaska has a Certificate of Involuntary Dissolution/Revocation on file for Baker Aviation dated June 11, 2013.  In 2007 he was listed as a lobbyist for Teck Cominco AK.

Jerry Covey is an Anchorage based consultant and former teacher and Commissioner of Education appionted by Gov. Wally Hickel in 1990.

David Nees is a math teacher, has been an Anchorage school board candidate, and, according to the Anchorage Press, is a Republican who was supported by Anchorage mayor Dan Sullivan.

Didn't know much at all about Brad Keithly before reading this article, but apparently I should have.  He is an oil industry consultant/attorney who has stopped writing his Alaska Business Review column because, as his says on his website

"I have suspended that column while some talk about me running for Governor (ABM’s policy understandably is to discontinue any “writings” by formally announced, or potential candidates)." 

He's also been banned by the University of Alaska Anchorage from being involved in UAA Athletics and some women he's dated are pretty pissed at him (I'll leave it at that and not link to the site.)  In trying to confirm he is a Republican, I found another Amanda Coyne piece that reports some Republicans saying he's a stealth Democrat from Texas who might run for governor as an Independent.  

Andrew Halcro is a bright former Republican state house member and Indepndent gubernatorial candidate and runs (has run?) the family Avis franchise and is the new president of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce.  He does things his own way and frequently ruffles feathers as he seems to have done on this committee by being the lone dissenter. 

This is clearly a House Majority task force set up to come to fairly predictable conclusions.  There are no House Democrats and most of the outside members seem to be chosen more for their support of budget cutting than their educational expertise.  Only Halcro has not gone along with the script. 


2.  The larger partisan political national context which might influence the study. 
This was what I was originally going to write about - the general right wing movement to cut government spending in general, and in education, to push vouchers and other ways to get hold of public school money and move it to private schools.  When I first reported on the Koch Brothers supported ALEC, which champions the free market as the cure for everything,  Rep. Tammy Wilson attended the presentation along with Reps. Wes Keller and Carl Gatto, and Sen. Dyson.  I'll try to add this context in the next installment.


3.  The context of past studies of education and education funding in Alaska.

Alaska education reports are a dime a dozen.  The legislature has its fair share of reports.  I remember one being set up in the legislature when I was blogging it in 2010. It would probably be more productive to have a task force simply review the findings of the last ten legislative reports on education and identify:

• all the recommendations made
• how many times the same recommendation is made in different reports
• which recommendations have actually been followed
• which recommendations have not been followed
• why some were and weren't followed through on

Here are some that are just reports written for the legislature:
2001
2007
2011



4.  The context of the Anchorage Daily News coverage.

I won't spend much time on this, but I thought it interesting that the ADN focused on the clash in the committee.  The title is about the 'clash,' and the first sentence focuses on the clash as does the last sentence in the first paragraph:

"The disagreement came over whether to include proposed language that, in the current budget environment, state education funding needs to be reduced as well. "

From what the article reports, Halcro was the only member opposed.  While I think the issue is important, I wonder if Halcro hadn't dissented, would it have even been reported?


5.  My own context.

I'm preparing to teach the UAA MPA capstone class in which students show their understanding of what they've been learning in the program by doing a management research project and reporting on their findings.  I've taught this class numerous times over my career and this is the first time since I retired in 2006.  So, I've been thinking deeply about reports that analyze government programs and policies and how to research and write reports that come as close as possible to objectively finding useful data and interpreting and presenting it so that the reader can understand

• what theoretical models were used to organize the study, 
• how data were collected, 
• how the researchers interpreted the data and came to their conclusions

It's also important to see the data.  Not necessarily the raw data, but enough of the data that the knowledgeable reader can see how the researchers got from the data to the conclusions.  If the data are there, the reader who disagrees with the conclusions, can still use them to follow other possible implications. 

When I look at the full two page report itself - which you can see here - I'll use my own training and experience in what a good policy report should cover to review this report.

Here are Some first, quick reactions: 

This report is a bit thin.  The URL hays "Final Report" in it,  but the two page document calls itself an initial report.  The ADN article reports:

The panel was created by a House resolution last April and charged with "examining the efficiency and effectiveness of public education delivery." It faced a Wednesday deadline for submitting its recommendations and findings to the governor, Legislature and state education department. The panel is scheduled to expire Jan. 1, 2015.

So, they've had the interim in the legislative session to prepare a report - about seven months.  Despite being an 'Initial Report' it manages to reach conclusions without reporting any supporting evidence for the conclusions. My students will only have about three months to come up with much more substantive findings.  They'll have no staff and no budget.  But they'll come up with real reports with support for their findings. 


6.  The context of Alaska's difficult educational environment.  Alaska has many small towns and villages scattered across a huge geographical area and a few 'urban' areas most of which would not be recognized as urban in the rest of the United States.  So many small populations, off the road system give Alaska challenges significantly different from what other states face.  Added to this is the mix of Alaska Native culture and the dominant non-Native culture and the lack of serious cross-cultural understanding.  

This context is worth several books and I won't try to do more here.  But I did want to mention this as a critical context.  And you'll note that the Task Force says they have traveled the state and taken testimony.




Again, this post focused on the membership and the various contexts of this issue.  I'll  write more about the national political context of this topic and then focus specifically on this Report. 

Apparently Phony Buffett Email Chain Letter To Strip Congress of Pension and Health Care

If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.  Hey folks, read stuff before you pass it on.  Here's an email I got from a friend today:  [My comments in brackets]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the
    best quotes about the debt ceiling:

['recent' turns out to be a July 7, 2011 Idaho mountainside interview with Becky Quick on the impending Congressional default on the national debt. ]

 

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a  law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of  GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

[He doesn't say this until 5 minutes and 24 seconds into the 8 minute interview.  While I'm guessing he'd thought about it before the interview, I don't think he had any thoughts of this being a constitutional amendment when he said it.]

 

 The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why? Simple!  The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

 

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

 

Warren Buffet [sic] is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

[I looked online to see if I could find any evidence that Buffett was asking. I couldn't.  I did find my way to  Rumor Has It which says there was a similar email, without the Buffet introductory reference in 2009.  It then goes on to fact check the rest of this.]

 

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.  This is one idea that really should be passed around.

 

 _*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*_

[An "Act" tends to be something passed by Congress, not a Constitutional Amendment. More evidence that this was cut and pasted onto an older document, that was a Constitutional Amendment.]

 

  1. No  Tenure / No Pension.

 A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

[This sounds more like the  governor of Wisconsin who ended collective bargaining for public employees and Koch brothers sponsored ALEC - who have all kinds of proposals for defunding government including cutting public pensions.]

 

 2.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

[The Snopes link says they are part of Social Security as of 1984.  Here's a link on this from the US Senate. that says members of Congress DO pay the same Social Security everyone else does.]

 3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan,  just as all Americans do.

 

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

 

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

 

 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

 

 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

[Not sure what contracts this refers to.  But the 1/1/12 date - less than three months away - adds credence to the idea that this isn't a new proposal.  There's no way this could become effective that soon.  Besides, stereotypes of Congress members are like all stereotypes - there are enough examples to make them believable, but you have to judge each person individually and not because of the class they're lumped in.  When it comes to public pensions, people like me, who have made career decisions that traded higher salaries for secure pensions, breaking those contracts is unthinkable.  It's a legal contract that we entered into and performed our end of the bargain.   Changing future conditions is more acceptable if there truly is an impending crisis.  But we know that Alaska legislators made such changes based on faulty contractor predictions which led to a $500 million settlement paid to the state by Mercer.  So let's be careful here when we make these kinds of decisions.]

 

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message.  Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

 

If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.

You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going, and thanks.

[A couple more comments.

1.  This proposal never actually addresses what Buffett proposed - ending the terms if they get the deficit is over 3%. 
2. The judges in the Alaska Court system have their pay withheld if they have have any decisions uncompleted or undecided for more than six months.  (See this memo for details.)  That seems like a much better option.  This could be used, particularly for important Congressional functions like passing the annual budget on time.  Though the pressure would be less on wealthy members of Congress and there might be incentive here for lobbyists to make up the salary.
3. In general Constitutional Amendments should be reserved for important general principles, not for details that then become very difficult to fix as unanticipated consequences show up.  And in this case Constitutional Amendment and Act seem to be mixed up.  There's no way Congress would pass this.]