Leah's Bat Mitzvah and Sabbatical Year

I didn't really know Leah, but her Mom is my dermatologist and I like her mom a lot. I was impressed by her poise, her seriousness, and preparation and the thoughtfulness of her comments. Her mom should be (and was) very proud of Leah today. So were the relatives who came from out of state. She even had a moose looking in through the picture window for a few minutes.



Her Torah portion from Leviticus was a reminder of how old the environmental movement is. Moses is to tell his people to rest the fields the seventh year.




And God also tells Moses that the land belongs to God, that people cannot own the land, they can only use it for a while and they must protect the land. Something that doesn't seem to have translated well into most economics texts. Click here for a commentary on this Torah portion.












At the end of the service we had the blessing over the bread and people gathered together for a beautiful meal in the newly enlarged room in the Synagogue.




[Blog etiquette is something I continue to improvise as I go along. Picture taking during the services is generally frowned on and I decided I'd leave out pictures of people altogether for this event. Can't explain why. It feels right.]

Looking for the hooded merganser at Goose Lake

After dinner at the Thai Kitchen, Catherine wanted to look for the hooded merganser she'd seen the other day at Goose Lake. We didn't find the mergansers but there were widgeons, a bonaparte gull, and a pair of magnificent Pacific loons, and a yellow legs.




Joe and I, fooled by the bright sun, and thinking we wouldn't be out long, only were in our shirts. So while Joan and Catherine were watching birds, we took one of the cars home to warm up. When the ladies got home they said the loons 'ran' across the lake several times making all kinds of noise. And the only bird close enough for the camera was the yellow legs.

DELTA Meeting

Spent this afternoon with the Statewide Steering Committee of DELTA, a non-profit that works to prevent intimate partner violence. Given Alaska's position as the state with the highest rate of domestic violence, this is a critical project. See, for example, Amnesty International's Report: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA. We've got a lot of high power talent on the committee, with lots of experience dealing with the issue. Most funding goes to intervention - working with the abused and the abusers after the fact. The emphasis is on prev
ention - focusing on those conditions that contribute to violence in the community and society as a whole so that structural changes can be designed and implemented. We are following a set of steps established by the Center for Disease Control and have been trying to gather data documenting various aspects of the situation in Alaska. We're also mapping people and agenices that deal with intimate partner violence or otherwise affect the lives of the abused and abusers.

Cal Thomas - Victory or Defeat - False Dichotomies and Zero Sum Games

May 01, 2007
Defeat, Retreat, and Repeat (RealClearPolitics
[The title for this at the Anchorage Daily News was "War opponents are wrong; we must stay and fight to win"]
By Cal Thomas
For the sake of argument, let's say former CIA Director George Tenet is right in his book and that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed too hard with questionable or inaccurate intelligence because of a predisposition to go to war in Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. So what? We can't go back and fix the mistakes of the past. Only two choices are available: victory or defeat.

Thomas is presenting us with what is called by many "a false dichotomy". Don Lindsay calls it 'excluded middle:"

"Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot."

To get the point, we could ask Cal Thomas what he means by victory? Maybe he'd say:

Americans can claim victory when whatever Iraqis are left have a peaceful, democratic nation; with an economy that affords Iraqis at least as high an average standard of living as they had under Saddam Hussein; that is friendly to American business interests and has a strong enough military to prevent takeover from Iran or other neighbors.

If not this, what are you willing to settle for Mr. Thomas? What would a victory look like to you? Because I can't see any possible way we'll end up with the one I've pictured here. Here's an alternative to that one.

Americans can claim victory when all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are destroyed and Saddam Hussein is brought to justice.

In this case, we can pull out now.

By giving us the choice of 'victory or defeat' Thomas is giving us no choice. If you buy into that false dichotomy, there's only one option. But as the two descriptions of victory above show, there are a lot of variables he hasn't factored in and probably an infinite number of points on a line from the first victory described above and some equally extreme defeat (maybe Islamic forces led by Osama Bin Laden taking over the United States.)

Let's look at some of the variables:

Number of dead Iraqis (but then this would have to be broken down into types of dead Iraqis - military or civilian; Sunni or Shiite; male or female, under 15 or over 15; wealthy or poor; Southerners or Northerns; educated or un-educated; you get the picture. And if you are thinking these are all false dichotomies too, I'm happy.
Number of dead Americans, non-Iraqis (you can fill in the details here)
Cost to get to the end of the war (we've already discussed lives, but there is also money, prestige, impact on US economy, on familes of soldiers - dead, wounded - mentally or physically; level of environmental degradation, archeological damage, and on and on)
Benefits(here we could list anything from ownership of Iraqi oil reserves; increased skills and abilities -knowledge of Arabic or English, skills with weapons, flying planes, inspiring others, better understanding of geography, and on and on; greater power; and I'll leave it for any readers who make it this far to think of other benefits)
Distribution of the costs and benefits (who ends up with which costs and which benefits will affect the balance of power, in individual families, individual countries, and in the world)

Of course, I'm assuming that Cal Thomas knows all this. His purpose wasn't an attempt to clarify what we know about American defense policy and to help find a path to a policy that is built on models that describe cause and effect relationships that, when implemented, lead to the predicted outcomes. Getting us more accurate models than the one that said, "if American troops take over Bagdad, the people of Iraq will welcome them like heroes." No, people who use rhetorical devices like false dichotomies are trying to hoodwink people into accepting their argument by limiting their choices. In this case he is trying to discredit George Tenet who's written a book critical of Bush by making it look like he's calling for defeat.

While I would hope the reader can see that Thomas' "Only two choices are available: victory or defeat" is a ridiculous false dichotomy, I'm more interested in readers spotting other dichotomies and learning ways to expose them. "What do you mean by victory?" "What do you mean by defeat?" "What do you mean by traitor?" "Who is them?" "Who is us?" etc.

And kids shouldn't graduate from high school without being able to spot and expose the most common logical fallacies. This link or the Don Lindsay link above will give you enough to cover most situations.

And what's the connection to Zero-Sum games? This post is getting pretty long already. Briefly, zero-sum games are those in which there is a winner and a loser, or at least when the players think that way. What the winner gains, the loser loses. It's like sharing a pie. What I get to eat, you can't eat. By framing our options as Victory or Defeat, Thomas is using zero-sum game thinking. But, as I showed above with all the variables involved (number of deaths, other costs, various possible benefits and how they are distributed, etc.) we see that the outcome isn't either/or. It's variable (non-zero sum game is often called variable sum game). We could have 'victory' by killing every last Iraqi and hundreds of thousands of Americans or we could have declared victory when there were clearly no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein was brought to justice. This is a real simplification, but I at least wanted to make the connection. For those who don't know these terms already, you can look them up. I haven't found a good simple link on this, but try wikipedia for game theory, zero-sum games, and non-zero sum games.

Bill Allen of Veco Pleads Guilty

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, MAY 7, 2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of
VECO Corporation Plead Guilty to Corruption and Tax Charges

WASHINGTON – Bill J. Allen, chief executive officer and part-owner of VECO Corporation, and Richard L. Smith, vice president of community affairs and government relations of VECO Corporation, have pleaded guilty to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

Allen and Smith each pleaded guilty at hearings in federal court today in Anchorage, Alaska, to a three-count information charging them with: bribery; conspiracy to commit bribery, extortion under color of official right, and honest services mail and wire fraud; and conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S. Department of Treasury. In filed court documents, Allen and Smith each admitted to conspiring with five current and former members of the Alaska Legislature – identified in court documents as State Representative A, State Representative B, State Representative C, State Senator A, and State Senator B – to provide illegal financial benefits to multiple Alaska elected officials in exchange for those officials’ support on legislation pending before the Alaska State Legislature. Allen and Smith also pleaded guilty to one substantive count of bribery, and admitted that they provided greater than $400,000 in benefits to public officials from the state of Alaska in connection with the scheme.
click herefor the rest of the Justice Department statement.


OK, State Reps A, B, and C have already been arrested. The Anchorage Daily News writes this afternoon:

"But enough information is given in the Allen charges about most of the anonymous players
to figure out who they probably are.
The one exception is Senator A, about whom little data is offered and whose identity remains obscured.
Senator B is described as being part of a conspiracy in which Allen and Smith say they paid him "for giving advice, lobbying colleagues and taking official acts in matters before the Legislature."
One former senator matches the description of Senator B: former Senate President Ben Stevens.

They also say that the deal Bill Allen made in exchange for cooperation was that his son and other members of his family will not be indicted.

This is a big day in Alaska politics. Bill Allen and Veco have had significant influence on the Alaska legislature for years now. Will this convince the The Anchorage Daily News to drop their half page unpaid daily advertising for Veco?* Will Alaska Pacific University change the name of Veco Drive on their campus? Will legislators AND MORE IMPORTANT, will citizens behave better in the future? I wouldn't hold my breath, but this is definitely a teachable moment. For those who believed in the candidates who have been indicted - will they be more questioning in the future? Or will they still be seduced by sweet talkers whose focus groups have told them what words to use to push their emotional buttons? Or will they not distinguish between the corrupt and the honest and just condemn all politics?

Alaska Robotics'video suggests a way to prevent private companies from biying our legislators - the public buys them first! Check it out.

Barbados Free Press Curious About Who Veco's Bought in Barbados

The Barbados Free Press in a May 5th post picked up on Pete Kott's interest in a job in Barbados.

“You’ll get your gas line, the governor gets his bill, and I’ll get my job in Barbados,” … Peter Kott, former Speaker of the House, as recorded during FBI Alaska bribery investigation. Kott was offered a position with VECO involving the new Barbados prison.

Breaking News: On Friday, May 4, 2007, American politicians and businessmen were indicted in a bribery scheme involving VECO Corporation, a company that is heavily involved with the Barbados government and various Barbados politicians and business people. VECO’s Barbados projects include the oil terminal and pipeline, and the building of the new prison.
Which Barbados Politicians Are Involved?

VECO is a huge corporation headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. With close ties to the Bush Republicans and operations in Alaska, Washington State, Alberta & British Columbia - Canada, India, Russia, United Arab Emirates and Barbados, VECO is a powerhouse in the oil and natural resources industry. VECO also has large interests in construction, pipelines & terminals, power generation, manufacturing, biotechnology and military contracts industries.

VECO Corporation and it’s wholly owned subsidiary Commonwealth Construction were the primary contractors on the Barbados Terminal and Pipeline project, and the (then) “$120 Million” new Barbados jail.

The company has often been criticized for having a corporate culture of unethical behaviour, bribes and undermining democracy. (Obviously, the American Federal Bureau of Investigation would probably agree with that statement.)

If VECO Corporation has acted unethically on their home turf of Alaska, one has to wonder what they might be guilty of in a foreign country like Barbados.


We know from media articles that the FBI even has recordings of telephone conversations between VECO officials and the corrupt politicians - where VECO’s Barbados operations were a topic of conversation.

What else does the FBI have?

You can bet that the Prime Minister of Barbados and many of his gang aren’t going to get much sleep in the next little while as they wonder what will surface during the trials and investigations yet to come.

Barbados Free Press will continue to follow up on this important story - even if no one else in the Barbados media mentions it.

Maybe the people of Alaska and of Barbados should be working together here. And where else does Veco do their business?

When Should One Resign?

Resignation of Ambassador Randall Tobias
Resigned when his name came up on a list of call girl customers in Washington,DC. He was working on programs to stop prostitution around the world.

I will not resign, says Wolfowitz
Having made corruption his most important battle at the World Bank, his staffers now say that effort is compromised by Wolfowitz's working out a high paying job for his girlfriend. So far he refuses to step down.

BP boss quits over private life lie Lord Browne has brought British Petroleum from the sidelines of the oil industry to one of the big boys. He's also transformed the image with a strong environmental theme. More recently there have been problems with a fire in Texas that killed workers and an oil spill in Alaska caused by the erosion on neglected pipelines. But it was accusations from his former boyfriend and how he responded to them in court, that caused his resignation this week. He was planning to step down this summer.


Bush rejects calls for Gonzales resignation The list against Gonzales is both extensive and probably better known to most. After a dismal Senate grilling where he 'couldn't recall' over 70 times details of the firings of Federal Prosecutors, even Republicans are calling for his resignation.


Olmert hangs on amid resignation calls The results of the investigation of last year's invasion of Lebanon has reignited calls for Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to resign.


Embattled University of Alaska regent resigns
Jim Hayes, the University of Alaska Regent, only resigned April 27. He was first asked to resign by the governor in January and has been refusing to resign despite being under indictment for felony fraud misusing $450,000 in federal grant money at a non-profit he ran. The Alaska Legislature was working on a bill to give the Governor the power to remove the Regent when he resigned.


We have here three office holders trying to hold on, and three who have resigned in the last week. The only two didn't fight their resignations. How can we balance the public interest with fairness and justice? Well, for one thing, no one is owed public positions, though they shouldn't be removed against their will without some reasonable cause. What are reasonable grounds for asking for one's resignation or for refusing to resign? Here are some preliminary thoughts:

When people should resign:
1. They've abused the public or their employers' trust through misuse of their position - they've used their office for personal gain, and/or they have made decisions based on personal criteria, not the objective, professional criteria required.
2. They have caused harm or damage through neglect, incompetence, or other inability to do the necessary work
3. A significant portion of the public and/or the people who work with or for them no longer trust them or have confidence in them to the point that it affects the credibility of the agency or company

[March 14, 2008: The Spitzer resignation raises a possible fourth category, or maybe it's part of number 3 - hypocricy. If someone is caught violating a value he has espoused strongly, perhaps that increases the pressure to resign.]
When people should fight to keep their positions:
A starting assumption for all of these is that, using as objective evaluation criteria as possible, they are doing a good job.
1. Despite doing a good job others are attacking them This could arise for various reasons:
a. Whistleblowers are often attacked for revealing bad practices.
b. Someone's good performance can make others look bad in comparison
c. Someone else may covet their jobs - it appears this was part of the reason behind the firing of the federal prosecutors
d. There may be a power struggle between different political camps or ideologies
2. They want to finish a project or program they have begun.
3. They want to hold their place until the regime changes - Supreme Court justices may wait until after an election hoping the new administration will replace them with someone of the same legal philosophy


Why people might fight to keep their jobs even if the above conditions do not hold:
1. Stepping down is seen as an admission of guilt, fault, wrongdoing
2. Admitting wrong would result in shame or disgrace
3. Stepping down would result in loss of income, or they may need a little more time in the job to qualifiy for retirement or other benefits
4. They haven't finished the work (legitimate or illegitimate) they want to get done.
5. They want to retain the power or prestige of the position
6. They want to block a rival from gaining the position
7. They honestly believe they are doing a good job
8. Stepping down reflects poorly on their supporters or allies
9. Their personal identity is wrapped up in the job and without the job they have nothing to do
10. They are afraid to face reality and accept that they aren't doing a good job

Of course, more than one could apply.


So we can create 'stories' around any of the headlines above that would justify a swift resignation or a vigorous fight to retain the job. The dilemma for us is to be able to fill in the facts well enough to determine which story actually fits. The media should play a key role in this. And some media do. Unfortunately, the media have various motives other than exposing truth these days. Making a profit is essential for any business. For many media organizations, improving the bottom line is easier if they produce cheap and sensational stories rather than in-depth investigations. Other media outlets are simply propaganda machines to gain power for their ideological causes. There is no interest in the truth, only the appearance of being fair and unbiased. But ultimately, citizens bear the responsibility of knowing about the people they vote for or against. There is enough available information to gain informed judgments, that enable one to determine if Wolfowitz is being hounded because the action with his girlfriend a) was a serious breach of ethics and a crippling blow to the World Bank, b) was an understandable issue to use to oust him for other more serious, but complex problems or c) an issue to be used because he has been threatening the cushy jobs of long time World Bank bureaucrats. I'm afraid it's harder for me to find facts that justify Gonzales' continued tenure as Attorney General. though if his supporters strain hard enough they could argue it is simply a political attack on his ideology. You can evaluate the other headlines yourselves.

Three Republican State Legislators Indicted

[June 24, 2008: For a much more thorough and informed overview of the Alaska US House and Senate races see this post by Phil Munger at Progressive Alaska.]

OK, two are former legislators. Alaskan's have known since August when another legislator was indicted and it was clear the FBI had been to other legislators' offices that something like this was coming. The Eagle River (suburb of Anchorage) voters at least were smart enough to vote out Pete Kott already in the primary, but the Wasilla folks reelected Kohring in the fall. According to several stories in the Anchorage Daily News(ADN) today the three offered and worked to deliver any help VECO, an Anchorage based oil and gas support company, needed with legislation. In exchange they got cash and promises for jobs. Some of this was pretty blatant and the Daily News reported last summer at one point how VECO lobbyists called legislators over to talk to them during the session and seemed to be giving instructions.

Here's an different exchange on the House Floor. First you hear the Speaker recognize Rep. Wehrauch, one of the indictees. This is May 8, 2006 in the legislature. He has just introduced an amendment which passed. Then there is a recess. Weyhrauch gets the floor and apologizes that he wants to rescind the amendment he just introduced. Then Rep. Berkowitz, a Democrat, blasts Weyhrauch charging that he's changing his mind because the lobbyists told him to. Weyhrauch gets the floor again and says he's been impugned and it isn't true. Berkowitz then gives a civics lesson about how legislators are there for the people of Alaska, not for company lobbyists. (This is described in today's newspaper, the audio, from Gavel to Gavel, the state's coverage of the legislature, is from the ADN website.)


[If the audio is not on, first turn up your speakers. If that doesn't work Click on the Yellow Square) First Rep. Weyhrauch speaks, then Berkowitz.
floorexchange2 uploaded by NoKnow

Some thoughts and questions:
1. Liars can sound convincing if we know nothing about them and the context. Just listening we don't know if Weyhrauch or Berkowitz is right. In hindsight, Berkowitz was on the mark and Weyhrauch was lying.
2. This raises new questions aboutWeyhrauch's strange adventure last week when he fell off his boat and swam an hour to shore and spent the night with the mosquitoes until he was rescued the next day. Was the accident really a suicide attempt and he changed his mind in the water?
3. How did the FBI bug the room at the Baranof Hotel? A reliable source who I trust and should know says the hotel knew nothing about bugging the room. And that makes sense. The fewer people who know the safer. So did they do it on their own? Did the VECO lobbyists cooperate with the FBI and does that mean they won't be indicted? The mission of thePublic Integrity Section of the Justice Department which brought the indictments says, "The Public Integrity Section oversees the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government. The Section has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of federal judges and also monitors the investigation and prosecution of election and conflict of interest crimes. Section attorneys prosecute selected cases against federal, state, and local officials ..." Although their language only mentions public officials, their 2005 Annual Report gives an example of a non-governmental target. "On November 21, 2005, former public relations specialist Michael P.S. Scanlon pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud from January 2000 through April 2004." Scanlon worked for Abramoff. Maybe they should add non-governmental targets to their statement.
4. The ADN says a "Senator A" also listed in the indictments did not run for reelection. Of the three who fit that description, two have denied being the person (one was having a baby at the time) and a third, who refused to comment, is US Senator Ted Steven's son, Ben. Will Uncle Ted be able to protect his son? Is there anything that needs protecting?
5. The Baranof Hotel ought to frame the newspaper article and put it in Room 604 so future guests will understand the historical significance of the room they're in. This is where VECO and the boys did their trading of favors. (I know, we should wait until the conviction, but the taped conversations reported in the paper are going to be hard to explain in court. And...
6. These indictments were brought by a Republican Administration. And given the PR fiasco of the firing of the Federal Prosecutors, I guess whoever is in charge of this is safe, even if Republicans are the target.

Spam?

There's a new comment on an old post - the one about branding. The comment is cut and pasted in about a website on Jehovah's Witness lawsuits. The person got there through a google search for Jehovah's Witness. And the commentor got through the screening. So I'm guessing it was a person, not a machine. . It's sort of relevant since JW is mentioned (though there was a much more relevant one that same day..) Should I leave it or dump it? Based on what criteria?

Possible criteria:

1. A real person left the comment
2. There's a relationship to the post content
3. It isn't abusive of someone or a group
4. The information posted might be of interest to a reader
Should "It isn't a cut and paste comment without direct reference to the post" be a criterion?


What should I do?

Number 1500

Here's what Site Meter says about you:

netvigator.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address (PCCW Limited)
ISP PCCW Limited
Location
Continent : Asia
Country : Hong Kong (Facts)
City : Chiu-lung-ku-ch'eng

So leave your email. But 1499 was from France, so if Hong Kong doesn't get back to me, you can claim the prize.
IP Address (T-Online France - Club Internet)
ISP T-Online France - Club Internet
Location
Continent : Europe
Country : France (Facts

Otherwise maybe 1501 will leave a comment and claim the prize.