Philip Munger: I've been involved in Alaska politics since 1973, and have been on a first-name basis with all my legislators, local, state and national ever since. I've worked at sea, in law enforcement and public safety, and have been a college music teacher since 1995. I'm mostly known in Alaska as a composer. My politics tend to the left, most notably on environmental and social justice issues. My community activism finds me on the board of Friends of Mat-Su, a local body concerned with zoning and quality-of-life issues in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. I'm a Democrat, and am currently volunteering as the Issues Coordinator for the Diane Benson for U.S. Congress campaign. I live near Palmer, Alaska.
Fred James:
Fred won't be able to attend the first part of the trial, as he may be called as a witness for the defense, and Judge Sedgewick has ruled such potential witnesses are barred from the courtroom until they testify. But he isn't gagged or barred from commenting on whatever he finds out through other means.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
New Blog to Cover Kohring Trial
Philip Munger and Fred James have set up a new blog USA vs Victor H. Kohring. They are two Valley residents so they have a particular interest in their representative's trail. They have a long list of links to trial related websites. Here's what they say about themselves:
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Hijacked Linksys Routers
I've spent way too much time in the last two days trying to get my Linksys router sorted out. My son had given it to us a while ago. When I got my MacBook I finally got the wireless working and my wife's computer could still get internet too.
MAC ID
Key Points:
If the Linksys router is simply set up without changing the name and without password protection, it appears that only one Linksys label shows up when you look to connect, even if there are several. Unless you change it like some of my neighbors have to Linksysa and Linksys71.
So, I got on someone else's Linksys connection, changed the name, put on a password. It was only when I wanted to change things that my friend Jeremy pointed out that I wasn't connected to my own router. You can check the MAC ID ((media access control identification card) on the bottom of the router. In Airport, if you click on "Open Internet Connect" at the bottom of the list of connections above you get this next window. The base station ID appears to be the MAC ID.
Killer Tip to Free Your hijacked Router: If someone seems to have hijacked your Linksys router - as I inadvertently did to one of my neighbors - you can reset your router back to the default settings. There's a little hole in the back of the Linksys router. If you push the button in the hole in back (see red arrow in picture of router) for 30 seconds, with a pen point or paper clip, then still holding it, unplug the power for 30 seconds, then still holding it, plug the power back in for 30 more seconds. Those were the instructions I got from the guy on the phone from Bangalore and it worked. The router was liberated, it went back to default settings. By the way, once I figured this all out, with much help, I did go back and liberated my neighbor's router and set it back to the original settings.
So, thanks Jeremy. I owe you big time.
I keep telling myself that all these things one has to learn are good for your brain. If it's true, my brain is really fit.
[I've noticed a few people googling to here and realized the instructions had been cut off so I've added them back in. 11/13/07]
MAC ID
Key Points:
If the Linksys router is simply set up without changing the name and without password protection, it appears that only one Linksys label shows up when you look to connect, even if there are several. Unless you change it like some of my neighbors have to Linksysa and Linksys71.
So, I got on someone else's Linksys connection, changed the name, put on a password. It was only when I wanted to change things that my friend Jeremy pointed out that I wasn't connected to my own router. You can check the MAC ID ((media access control identification card) on the bottom of the router. In Airport, if you click on "Open Internet Connect" at the bottom of the list of connections above you get this next window. The base station ID appears to be the MAC ID.
Killer Tip to Free Your hijacked Router: If someone seems to have hijacked your Linksys router - as I inadvertently did to one of my neighbors - you can reset your router back to the default settings. There's a little hole in the back of the Linksys router. If you push the button in the hole in back (see red arrow in picture of router) for 30 seconds, with a pen point or paper clip, then still holding it, unplug the power for 30 seconds, then still holding it, plug the power back in for 30 more seconds. Those were the instructions I got from the guy on the phone from Bangalore and it worked. The router was liberated, it went back to default settings. By the way, once I figured this all out, with much help, I did go back and liberated my neighbor's router and set it back to the original settings.
So, thanks Jeremy. I owe you big time.
I keep telling myself that all these things one has to learn are good for your brain. If it's true, my brain is really fit.
[I've noticed a few people googling to here and realized the instructions had been cut off so I've added them back in. 11/13/07]
Will Putting Individuals in Prison Change the System?
I'm still sorting through my thoughts on the corruption trials. I did talk to Rep. Sharon Cissna about it a couple of weeks ago. I asked her the question I'd like to ask all our legislators - "You must have known something was going on. Why didn't you do something about it? Ethan Berkowitz did, but what about the rest of you?"
She said that she and other Democrats did do things. They worked hard to keep the worst stuff out of various bills. But they were pretty much cut out of things. The Republican caucus would go off and meet and make all their decisions privately and the Dems would sit in the chambers because the Republicans would come suddenly and call for a vote. At the ending weeks of the session things work quickly and if the Minority are not right there, they lose what small power they have.
She said that there were many times when they spoke up and she even sent me a list of times to look up on the audio recordings of the session. But my Mac couldn't read what she'd sent and I got distracted. My fault. But rather than hold off, I decided to put this up now, especially after reading Saturday's ADN editorial about Tom Anderson's sentence.
But, she said, anyone who came to Juneau with ego issues was an easy target for the lobbyists. And with most people living away from home and often without their families, they didn't go back to their families at night, but rather were out for dinner and then the bars, often with lobbyists right there to pick up the tab.
She even commented on the ethics training that was mandatory for all legislators last January. What surprised her was how the workshop caused her to realize how she herself had been affected by the Juneau atmosphere. She heard grumbling made by some around her and comparing it to the ethics expert thought, "Yeah, I knew that was wrong, but I've been here long enough that my own standards of right and wrong have been blurred." She said other legislators felt that the consultant didn't really understand how things worked. (Michael Josephson specializes in state legislative ethics having studied the issue throughout the US, and he charged around $30,000 for the one day workshop.)
So I think the ADN is right. Tom Anderson was a small fish. We know that he wasn't even a target at first. But Bobrick and Prewitt, who had agreed to cooperate with the Prosecution in order to lessen their own sentences snagged him. Mind you, Anderson had had consulting stints with Veco where he got paid for not doing much at all, and at the Alaska Telephone Association where he was paid to read legislation about rural telephone service and do analysis on it, but had no work product at the end. Even his own attorney on the final day said that Tom Anderson really shouldn't have been a legislator - he needed money and the pay of a legislator wasn't going to meet those needs.
So, Tom Anderson will go to jail. Will that make a difference? Sure, in the short run people will be careful. But it won't last long if the system stays the same. Apparently the main part of the new ethics law that is having any effect is the limit of $15 meals someone can spend on a legislator.
And without the massive investigation including the video recording for nearly six months at the Baranof Hotel and the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored, there would be precious little evidence and we would probably know nothing.
The trials have revealed a lot and as I sort it out in my own head I'll post more.
She said that she and other Democrats did do things. They worked hard to keep the worst stuff out of various bills. But they were pretty much cut out of things. The Republican caucus would go off and meet and make all their decisions privately and the Dems would sit in the chambers because the Republicans would come suddenly and call for a vote. At the ending weeks of the session things work quickly and if the Minority are not right there, they lose what small power they have.
She said that there were many times when they spoke up and she even sent me a list of times to look up on the audio recordings of the session. But my Mac couldn't read what she'd sent and I got distracted. My fault. But rather than hold off, I decided to put this up now, especially after reading Saturday's ADN editorial about Tom Anderson's sentence.
Rep. Cissna's comment was that the system itself is the major problem. When she arrived, if I remember her right, her husband had just recently died. She showed up in Juneau and was surrounded by lobbyists fawning all over her. But given her husband recent death, she rejected their efforts to give her attention. The lobbyists very quickly left her alone. Besides, she was a Democrat without much power anyway.Convicted former legislator Tom Anderson was a relatively small fish in Alaska's corruption scandal. He didn't deserve the harshest possible prison sentence. But his post-conviction display of contrition, and the long roster of support letters he produced, didn't justify the shortest possible sentence, either.
Given the range of prison time Anderson faced, federal Judge John Sedwick's sentence of five years is about right. It sends a strong message that those who get caught violating the public trust are going to pay a serious personal price.
But, she said, anyone who came to Juneau with ego issues was an easy target for the lobbyists. And with most people living away from home and often without their families, they didn't go back to their families at night, but rather were out for dinner and then the bars, often with lobbyists right there to pick up the tab.
She even commented on the ethics training that was mandatory for all legislators last January. What surprised her was how the workshop caused her to realize how she herself had been affected by the Juneau atmosphere. She heard grumbling made by some around her and comparing it to the ethics expert thought, "Yeah, I knew that was wrong, but I've been here long enough that my own standards of right and wrong have been blurred." She said other legislators felt that the consultant didn't really understand how things worked. (Michael Josephson specializes in state legislative ethics having studied the issue throughout the US, and he charged around $30,000 for the one day workshop.)
So I think the ADN is right. Tom Anderson was a small fish. We know that he wasn't even a target at first. But Bobrick and Prewitt, who had agreed to cooperate with the Prosecution in order to lessen their own sentences snagged him. Mind you, Anderson had had consulting stints with Veco where he got paid for not doing much at all, and at the Alaska Telephone Association where he was paid to read legislation about rural telephone service and do analysis on it, but had no work product at the end. Even his own attorney on the final day said that Tom Anderson really shouldn't have been a legislator - he needed money and the pay of a legislator wasn't going to meet those needs.
So, Tom Anderson will go to jail. Will that make a difference? Sure, in the short run people will be careful. But it won't last long if the system stays the same. Apparently the main part of the new ethics law that is having any effect is the limit of $15 meals someone can spend on a legislator.
And without the massive investigation including the video recording for nearly six months at the Baranof Hotel and the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored, there would be precious little evidence and we would probably know nothing.
The trials have revealed a lot and as I sort it out in my own head I'll post more.
Thoughts on the Alaska Political Corruption Trials - Part I Conflicts of Interest, Undue Gain, and Improper Influence
Most people who talk about ethics tell us that public officials and administrators must avoid ‘conflicts of interest.” This is the standard mantra. I’d argue that they CAN”T avoid such conflicts. They are built into being human. There is always the potential for a conflict between our personal and professional obligations. The key is what we do about the conflict. The main potential problems stemming from conflicts of interest are:
Undue gain is perhaps easier to understand if we talk about due gain first. This is what a public administrator or elected official receives in compensation for completing the job duties in the manner set out by contract, policy, law, etc. Generally it includes monetary payment (salary, per diem, etc.), benefits (health insurance, specified leave time, etc.), and possible benefits related to the job (minor use of a copier, tuition waiver for university employees, for example). Anything beyond that is UNDUE gain - extra payments or gifts to do the job one is already being paid for, special treatment of services (free tickets, meals, etc.)
Improper Influence is also easier to understand if we talk about proper influence. Normally, when an administrator makes a decision it is based on some set of decision rules. These could be specific criteria to get, say, a building permit. They could be based on a standard or procedure established for hiring new employees. There are also more general policies and procedures for how to spend money, and rules to prevent unlawful discrimination and privacy violations. Or they could be professional standards (for engineers, attorneys, or nurses, for example) or even unwritten, but known customary procedure. As you go higher up the organization, the decisions are less concerned with individual cases and more with general policy. Policy often takes one into unknown territory and there may not be specific guidelines on how to make decisions. But there will be procedural rules that, ideally, are intended to make the process open and fair. And there are basic management standards and techniques for anticipating and evaluating things like costs and benefits. Improper influence is when you take into considerations factors that are not in the sanctioned decision making criteria, such as whether taking a certain action will benefit oneself and/or one’s friends.
So if we look at the Anderson and Kott cases, we see in the bribery and extortion convictions, that they had undue gain - money and other benefits to do what they were already being paid for by their legislative salaries and per diem. There was also improper influence. The decisions they made were colored with more than the public interest and objective analysis of the issues; they also considered what their benefactors wanted them to do. And while both Kott and Anderson argued that these were decisions they would have made anyway, since they were consistent with their ideology, it is clear that they might not have pursued their positions with such zeal, and that they might have spent more time on other issues their constituents needed.
But it isn’t simply black and white. If a contractor who wants to do business with a government agency leaves a pen with the company’s name on it after a meeting, is that undue gain? If a law firm that does business with the Municipality of Anchorage sends a fruit basket to the Legal Department in December, is that going to lead to improper influence?
Here’s where we see how conflict of interest is a basic tension embedded in our culture (and most others.) Our personal lives are ruled by values of loyalty. Family and friends take priority over strangers. We give gifts and do favors that we freely exchange with people close to us. But when we go into public office, we are expected to make decisions based on the rule of law, on equal treatment to all (rich or poor, stranger or friend). So when people from our personal lives are also involved in our professional lives we have two different standards in conflict. But even strangers we come to know through our jobs should be treated politely and with respect - as people, not as objects. There are human decencies - exchanging pleasantries and doing minor favors - that we do naturally for people we come to know.
Those with an interest in specific governmental decisions take advantage of these impulses to be friendly and helpful. There was a great deal of testimony that Tom Anderson was a naturally friendly guy, eager to help out, to please. Lots of examples. His defense attorney argued that was all he was doing for Prewitt and Bobrick. Other legislators have told me, "I can't be bought for a $10 lunch." In fact they sound like they have been personally insulted when such actions are criticized. "I have to eat. This gives me a chance to talk to my constituents while I'm eating. I'm actually giving up my time." But if we stand back and look at it in terms of improper influence and undue gain, that answer doesn't hold up. If you have to eat, why not pay for your own lunch? Just say, "Fine, let's have lunch, but I pay my own way." If they pressure you or ridicule you, they are really testing your resolve and willingness to play ball. Even if the cost of the lunch doesn't have an effect on your action, the 90 minutes of private time to tell their side of the story, to give you their facts, in private, without someone with a different view their to challenge the accuracy of their facts may well influence your vote.
Of course my argument flies in the face of what's practical. Legislators must listen to constituents, usually in private. They also listen to proponents and opponents of various legislation well before the topic comes up in on the official public chamber. But these one sided conversations mean that legislators often only hear one side of an issue. One way to counter this is to have legislators imply publicly post their work calendars so all people can see how much time they've spent talking with whom. More work? Not too much. They pretty much have to keep a calendar anyway, and logging phone calls is good business practice, and caller id makes this easier to do. Perhaps no one would even look at the information. But at least it should be discussed with an open mind.
The point is to to have legislators themselves question business as usual, to look critically at "how we've always done it" against the dangers of undue gain and improper influence.
I'm going to try to write a series of posts looking at issues relating to understanding corruption using what has come out in the political corruption trials in Alaska. The theoretical framework is based on: Steven E. Aufrecht, “Balancing Tensions Between Personal and Public Obligations: Context for Public Ethics and Corruption” in Dwivedi, O.P. and J. Jabbra (2007) Public Administration In Transition: A Fifty-Year Trajectory Worldwide, Vallentine Mitchell Publishers
- Undue Gain
- Improper Influence
Undue gain is perhaps easier to understand if we talk about due gain first. This is what a public administrator or elected official receives in compensation for completing the job duties in the manner set out by contract, policy, law, etc. Generally it includes monetary payment (salary, per diem, etc.), benefits (health insurance, specified leave time, etc.), and possible benefits related to the job (minor use of a copier, tuition waiver for university employees, for example). Anything beyond that is UNDUE gain - extra payments or gifts to do the job one is already being paid for, special treatment of services (free tickets, meals, etc.)
Improper Influence is also easier to understand if we talk about proper influence. Normally, when an administrator makes a decision it is based on some set of decision rules. These could be specific criteria to get, say, a building permit. They could be based on a standard or procedure established for hiring new employees. There are also more general policies and procedures for how to spend money, and rules to prevent unlawful discrimination and privacy violations. Or they could be professional standards (for engineers, attorneys, or nurses, for example) or even unwritten, but known customary procedure. As you go higher up the organization, the decisions are less concerned with individual cases and more with general policy. Policy often takes one into unknown territory and there may not be specific guidelines on how to make decisions. But there will be procedural rules that, ideally, are intended to make the process open and fair. And there are basic management standards and techniques for anticipating and evaluating things like costs and benefits. Improper influence is when you take into considerations factors that are not in the sanctioned decision making criteria, such as whether taking a certain action will benefit oneself and/or one’s friends.
So if we look at the Anderson and Kott cases, we see in the bribery and extortion convictions, that they had undue gain - money and other benefits to do what they were already being paid for by their legislative salaries and per diem. There was also improper influence. The decisions they made were colored with more than the public interest and objective analysis of the issues; they also considered what their benefactors wanted them to do. And while both Kott and Anderson argued that these were decisions they would have made anyway, since they were consistent with their ideology, it is clear that they might not have pursued their positions with such zeal, and that they might have spent more time on other issues their constituents needed.
But it isn’t simply black and white. If a contractor who wants to do business with a government agency leaves a pen with the company’s name on it after a meeting, is that undue gain? If a law firm that does business with the Municipality of Anchorage sends a fruit basket to the Legal Department in December, is that going to lead to improper influence?
Here’s where we see how conflict of interest is a basic tension embedded in our culture (and most others.) Our personal lives are ruled by values of loyalty. Family and friends take priority over strangers. We give gifts and do favors that we freely exchange with people close to us. But when we go into public office, we are expected to make decisions based on the rule of law, on equal treatment to all (rich or poor, stranger or friend). So when people from our personal lives are also involved in our professional lives we have two different standards in conflict. But even strangers we come to know through our jobs should be treated politely and with respect - as people, not as objects. There are human decencies - exchanging pleasantries and doing minor favors - that we do naturally for people we come to know.
Those with an interest in specific governmental decisions take advantage of these impulses to be friendly and helpful. There was a great deal of testimony that Tom Anderson was a naturally friendly guy, eager to help out, to please. Lots of examples. His defense attorney argued that was all he was doing for Prewitt and Bobrick. Other legislators have told me, "I can't be bought for a $10 lunch." In fact they sound like they have been personally insulted when such actions are criticized. "I have to eat. This gives me a chance to talk to my constituents while I'm eating. I'm actually giving up my time." But if we stand back and look at it in terms of improper influence and undue gain, that answer doesn't hold up. If you have to eat, why not pay for your own lunch? Just say, "Fine, let's have lunch, but I pay my own way." If they pressure you or ridicule you, they are really testing your resolve and willingness to play ball. Even if the cost of the lunch doesn't have an effect on your action, the 90 minutes of private time to tell their side of the story, to give you their facts, in private, without someone with a different view their to challenge the accuracy of their facts may well influence your vote.
Of course my argument flies in the face of what's practical. Legislators must listen to constituents, usually in private. They also listen to proponents and opponents of various legislation well before the topic comes up in on the official public chamber. But these one sided conversations mean that legislators often only hear one side of an issue. One way to counter this is to have legislators imply publicly post their work calendars so all people can see how much time they've spent talking with whom. More work? Not too much. They pretty much have to keep a calendar anyway, and logging phone calls is good business practice, and caller id makes this easier to do. Perhaps no one would even look at the information. But at least it should be discussed with an open mind.
The point is to to have legislators themselves question business as usual, to look critically at "how we've always done it" against the dangers of undue gain and improper influence.
I'm going to try to write a series of posts looking at issues relating to understanding corruption using what has come out in the political corruption trials in Alaska. The theoretical framework is based on: Steven E. Aufrecht, “Balancing Tensions Between Personal and Public Obligations: Context for Public Ethics and Corruption” in Dwivedi, O.P. and J. Jabbra (2007) Public Administration In Transition: A Fifty-Year Trajectory Worldwide, Vallentine Mitchell Publishers
Chinese Blocks on Blogspot Gone?
I've started getting hits from China again in the last week or two. Does this mean that the blocks on blogspot in China are gone? I know that some Chinese bloggers had used proxy sites to get around the blocks. But I've had several know that came directly from China. This would be a very welcome change.
[It's late and I posted the above without even trying to see if there was anything official. And there is some confirmation:
[It's late and I posted the above without even trying to see if there was anything official. And there is some confirmation:
China Blocks YouTube, Restores Flickr and Blogspot
China's Web viewers can no longer access YouTube, but Blogspot.com and Flickr photos are now available.
Steven Schwankert, IDG News Service
Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:00 AM PDT
China watchers, get your scorecards out: Google Inc.'s YouTube is blocked, Wikipedia is still blocked, but, for the moment, Google blog site Blogspot.com is available and some pictures from Yahoo Inc.'s Flickr photos can once again be viewed.
China-based users accessing YouTube since Wednesday afternoon began receiving the dreaded "The server at www.youtube.com is taking too long to respond," the typical response when a user attempts to view a site that has been blocked.
Google's blog site, Blogspot, is currently available after being blocked in June. An unblocking of the site last year led to the availability of a Shanghai-based foreign blogger known as Chinabounder, whose blog recounted the author's sexual exploits with Chinese women while working as an English teacher. The posts ultimately led to an unsuccessful hunt for the author and a temporary closing of the blog. Google did not respond to a request for comment on YouTube's block and Blogspot's availability.
For the rest, go to PC World.]
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Before You Set Up A Blogspot Blog
I had a meeting yesterday with Steve Cleary at AkPirg - the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. We've met each other and had brief conversations over the last couple of years but we've never sat down and talked. He had contacted me about something I'd posted, plus he'd spent seven weeks in India this year. We'd talked briefly before he left and I hadn't talked to him about his trip yet. So we did talk about those things, but we ended up talking about blogging a lot. He's ready to start his own blog. I've had this one since July 2006, and I've only had a few posts about what I've learned, so here's a little bit.
Anyway if you want to start a blog, I think Blogspot (like this one, part of Google's Blogger) is the best way to go for someone who isn't too computer savvy. The other two big blog sites - Wordpress and Typepad - seem to require a little more work under the hood. Ropi just switched from Blogspot to a Typepad blog, so he may have some thoughts on this. (hmmmm. I just went to his blog to get the url and it looks like he's back on Blogspot. Do you want to tell us why Ropi?) [Ropi's comment below finally jarred my memory. It was Joshua Lim in Malaysia who went to Wordpress. Maybe he'll tell us about the benefits and pitfalls.] Anyway, if you want to just jump in and play with a blog, just to see what this is all about, Blogspot is really, really easy. Really. But I would recommend you do the following first:
1. Pick a name you like and go to Google blog search to see if someone already has the name.
2. Pick a url - a www..... address
3. Figure out what sort of template you want
More detail on each below.
1. The actual name - in my case "What Do I Know?" isn't that critical. That's something you type in on a template. It really doesn't matter if someone else has the same name. I discovered the other day there are at least two other blogs named "What Do I Know?" out there. Fortunately they're pretty good - though one doesn't seem to be very active. And you can change this any time you like with little trouble or consequence.
2. The url seems to be the critical one. Mine is much longer than I'd like. I wasn't prepared when I set up my site and when the set up steps asked me for a url, I tried one, but it didn't work. It had an example with a "name-anothername.blogspot.com" and that's how steve got inserted into the name. I've looked and there wasn't another "whatdoino.blogspot.com" but I thought I was following the directions and by the time I started asking questions, it seemed like a bad idea to change the url. Why? Because, by then Google and Yahoo and Technorati (Technorati is a site that monitors blogs) knew where I was and I didn't want to mess with that.
So, figure out a couple of possible url's. For Blogspot, it will be "blogname.blogspot.com". Then go see if anything shows up and sign up right away. But have a couple of backup url's just in case you can't use the first or second one. And in the beginning, before anyone really knows your blog is up, you can probably change it easily or even make a new one.
3. Blogger is going to ask you to pick a template. Panic sets in. What if I pick a bad one? Well, you can change it later. But I'd suggest you check out 20-50 Blogspot blogs.
At the top of a Blogspot blog is toolbar like line that includes the search blog window and a "next blog" link. When you click it you go to some random blog. (It appears that most of them are blogs that just had a new post.) Anyway you can see a lot of different blogs. Look at the design - back ground colors, title boxes, what kinds of columns on the right and/or left, etc. There are also different patterns you can choose from. Look through a number of blogs so you can find templates you like. The Blogger page also has in the lower right Blogs of Note that you can check out to get ideas too.
There's a reason there are so many blogspot blogs. They are easy to set up and maintain. And the help files are pretty easy to follow too.
Alaska Electronic Health Record Initiative
The other day I was invited to go to a focus group today. I only knew it had something to do with health. I had never been to a focus group before, so I thought it would be interesting. Plus they offered lunch and $25.
We got a presentation about the Alaska Electronic Health Record Initiative. We learned that this is being promoted by a couple of groups I'd never heard of. Alaska Chart Link and the EHR Alliance are putting together a plan for electronic health care records in the state of Alaska. They had a grant or two as did 34 other states for this. We were told how this was going to improve:
The quality of health care by
Finally, after about half an hour, we were asked what we thought. Records security was probably the biggest concern. Who would have control? How can you say these are secure? Well, this is inevitable so I'm glad someone is doing it right. These were various reactions.
Then they had us looking at a couple of different logos to get our reactions.
There was a lot more talking to us than I expected. In part they were trying to get the idea across of what Electronic Health Record stuff was about. We did have a pretty lively group and I think everyone spoke up at least once.
No pictures, didn't seem appropriate.
Afterward, I learned that one of the groups was a physician group and I knew (and respect) two of the doctors on the list. Their concern, I was told, was that this was coming inevitably, and the doctors wanted to frame a system that was set up for the benefit of doctors and patients rather than health care institutions and insurance companies. That put a totally different spin on it, which should have been part of the presentation. After all, I do like the convenience of atm machines and being able to get money from anywhere in the world. And I like being able to book my own airline flights and get my boarding pass on my computer. So if electronic health records are coming, it would be better to have doctors and patients having a strong say in how they are structured. But, it's all in the details and you can be sure the large health systems, insurance, and drug companies are going to want to shape this in ways that increase their profits. Michael Moore, are you on top of this one?
Here's a link to a pdf file on this.
We got a presentation about the Alaska Electronic Health Record Initiative. We learned that this is being promoted by a couple of groups I'd never heard of. Alaska Chart Link and the EHR Alliance are putting together a plan for electronic health care records in the state of Alaska. They had a grant or two as did 34 other states for this. We were told how this was going to improve:
The quality of health care by
- improving timely access to records
- increasing health safety
- decreasing health costs
- increasing access to care
- increasing the health of Alaskans in general
- increasing patient privacy and records
Finally, after about half an hour, we were asked what we thought. Records security was probably the biggest concern. Who would have control? How can you say these are secure? Well, this is inevitable so I'm glad someone is doing it right. These were various reactions.
Then they had us looking at a couple of different logos to get our reactions.
There was a lot more talking to us than I expected. In part they were trying to get the idea across of what Electronic Health Record stuff was about. We did have a pretty lively group and I think everyone spoke up at least once.
No pictures, didn't seem appropriate.
Afterward, I learned that one of the groups was a physician group and I knew (and respect) two of the doctors on the list. Their concern, I was told, was that this was coming inevitably, and the doctors wanted to frame a system that was set up for the benefit of doctors and patients rather than health care institutions and insurance companies. That put a totally different spin on it, which should have been part of the presentation. After all, I do like the convenience of atm machines and being able to get money from anywhere in the world. And I like being able to book my own airline flights and get my boarding pass on my computer. So if electronic health records are coming, it would be better to have doctors and patients having a strong say in how they are structured. But, it's all in the details and you can be sure the large health systems, insurance, and drug companies are going to want to shape this in ways that increase their profits. Michael Moore, are you on top of this one?
Here's a link to a pdf file on this.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Lazy Sunday - and shameless pandering pet pics
There was a phone message Saturday evening from our birder friend that we should check out the long-taile
d duck at Lake Spenard/Lake Hood. As it turned out we'd been invited to brunch at a friend's near Lake Spenard for Sunday. We pulled into the parking lot by the little park, took out the binoculars, and confidently walked up to the water. A brief scan spotted a white looking bird, and there it was in the middle of the lake. Clear and beautiful in my binoculars, but nothing in my camera. But we couldn't even find long tailed duck in our Alaska bird book. Then we went to brunch. We were greated by Bracha who was so excited we offered to take her for a walk to work off some of that energy.
Janet's house was really comfortable. She'd set the table so nicely, it all looked so inviting. And the healthy quiche was delicious, not to mention all the fruit. And we talked for several hours. The cat
- well there were two - eventually appeared on my lap while we were eating and talking. Joel, your mother says hello
After we went back to the lake to show Janet the duck. And on our way home we went back to see if it would get close enough to get it in my camera. It got close enough, unfortunately, I didn't get close enough. But this float plane lake is supposed to be one of the busiest in the world. Well, Lake Hood, to which it is connected is.
Later, I looked up long tail dog on the internet and found out it used to be called old squaw. That was in my book. If you want to see one, you can go here. This one looks just like the one we saw.
d duck at Lake Spenard/Lake Hood. As it turned out we'd been invited to brunch at a friend's near Lake Spenard for Sunday. We pulled into the parking lot by the little park, took out the binoculars, and confidently walked up to the water. A brief scan spotted a white looking bird, and there it was in the middle of the lake. Clear and beautiful in my binoculars, but nothing in my camera. But we couldn't even find long tailed duck in our Alaska bird book. Then we went to brunch. We were greated by Bracha who was so excited we offered to take her for a walk to work off some of that energy.
Janet's house was really comfortable. She'd set the table so nicely, it all looked so inviting. And the healthy quiche was delicious, not to mention all the fruit. And we talked for several hours. The cat
- well there were two - eventually appeared on my lap while we were eating and talking. Joel, your mother says hello
After we went back to the lake to show Janet the duck. And on our way home we went back to see if it would get close enough to get it in my camera. It got close enough, unfortunately, I didn't get close enough. But this float plane lake is supposed to be one of the busiest in the world. Well, Lake Hood, to which it is connected is.
Later, I looked up long tail dog on the internet and found out it used to be called old squaw. That was in my book. If you want to see one, you can go here. This one looks just like the one we saw.
Tom Anderson Sentencing - Five Years
Tom Anderson was sentenced to five years in prison today, but a lot more happened in court this morning than that. I'm still sorting through it all. When I wrote my first post on the Anderson trial I said there might be problems because I knew Tom. He'd been my student. In the field of public administration. He'd had ethics in some of my classes. But because of this I couldn't say things that I'd learned in our student-teacher relationship. So I've only written stuff here that has come from other sources - mainly the trial.
It's been difficult acting here in two different roles - one as an amateur journalist, the other as the observer of my former student. It became clear early on that he was guilty and given that, I wondered why did he insist on going to trial? Why didn't he work out a deal like the others? We even learned that he had worn a wire for a while, but not what happened.
Today we got some answers to those questions.
He'd been offered a deaL Basically:
1. He had to plead guilty to one felony charge.
2. There were no guarantees on penalties.
3. He had to do what the government told him to do.
Through testimony from two attorneys who preceded Stockler as Anderson's attorney - Jeff Feldman and Craig Howard - we learned about the deal and the conditions (listed above.) Several things were happening in his life.
1. His girlfriend - and now wife - was pregnant and they wanted to get married.
2. The legislative session was going to begin and the government wanted him to wear a wire in Juneau.
He was getting very stressed working for the FBI. Secretly taping others was uncomfortable. He had been allowed to tell his father (former head of the state troopers) what he was doing but it was difficult lying to his fiance about where he was going all the time. Feldman said that in the summer of 2005, Tom's only job was working (without pay, of course) for the government. The government wanted him to go to Juneau for the session and continue taping people. Feldman said that Tom felt his job as representative was to do the legislative work of his constituents and he couldn't do that if he were working full time as an undercover agent.
You can be skeptical of some of that, particularly in light of his working for what he thought was Cornell instead of his constituents. Yet I think that humans have an ability to delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is ok. I don't think it is far fetched that Tom really did believe that since he agreed ideologically with what he was being asked to do, that it was really ok. Obviously he knew it didn't look good - or they wouldn't have had to launder the payments. As his teacher, these are the points that are haunting me. It wasn't pleasant seeing him sentenced even though it was the correct thing to do.
That doesn't excuse it - as he acknowledged today - but it may help explain it. His choice was to take a single felony - and his first two attorneys said when they saw the tapes they knew he was in trouble - or risk being convicted of what turned out to be seven felonies. He let the first attorney go. It wasn't clear why Feldman did not continue to represent Anderson. The ADN in December 2006 reported Feldman said there was a conflict in schedules. In any case, it appears that Craig Howard was let go because of the requirement to accept one felony. It's not clear what happened with Feldman. Feldman said, not only was the agreement the investigators wanted Anderson to sign unique among the many he'd seen, he also had never seen a client turn down the chance to reduce the charges like this.
Paul Stockler, was a gentler, kinder version of the attorney we saw at the trial. He'd learned a lot from this trial he said. He tried to strike a balance between admitting that Anderson had been guilty of serious crimes and deserved to be punished and advocating for leniency in the sentencing.
Thanks to the Alaska Public Radio Network, who posted the court recording on their website, below is Tom Anderson's statement to the court. You can judge it for yourself.
Tom Anderson's Statement to the Court imported by AKRaven
There's lots more to write about, but I'm trying to sort it out. As you can see from this post, I've got a ways to go.
It's been difficult acting here in two different roles - one as an amateur journalist, the other as the observer of my former student. It became clear early on that he was guilty and given that, I wondered why did he insist on going to trial? Why didn't he work out a deal like the others? We even learned that he had worn a wire for a while, but not what happened.
Today we got some answers to those questions.
He'd been offered a deaL Basically:
1. He had to plead guilty to one felony charge.
2. There were no guarantees on penalties.
3. He had to do what the government told him to do.
Through testimony from two attorneys who preceded Stockler as Anderson's attorney - Jeff Feldman and Craig Howard - we learned about the deal and the conditions (listed above.) Several things were happening in his life.
1. His girlfriend - and now wife - was pregnant and they wanted to get married.
2. The legislative session was going to begin and the government wanted him to wear a wire in Juneau.
He was getting very stressed working for the FBI. Secretly taping others was uncomfortable. He had been allowed to tell his father (former head of the state troopers) what he was doing but it was difficult lying to his fiance about where he was going all the time. Feldman said that in the summer of 2005, Tom's only job was working (without pay, of course) for the government. The government wanted him to go to Juneau for the session and continue taping people. Feldman said that Tom felt his job as representative was to do the legislative work of his constituents and he couldn't do that if he were working full time as an undercover agent.
You can be skeptical of some of that, particularly in light of his working for what he thought was Cornell instead of his constituents. Yet I think that humans have an ability to delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is ok. I don't think it is far fetched that Tom really did believe that since he agreed ideologically with what he was being asked to do, that it was really ok. Obviously he knew it didn't look good - or they wouldn't have had to launder the payments. As his teacher, these are the points that are haunting me. It wasn't pleasant seeing him sentenced even though it was the correct thing to do.
That doesn't excuse it - as he acknowledged today - but it may help explain it. His choice was to take a single felony - and his first two attorneys said when they saw the tapes they knew he was in trouble - or risk being convicted of what turned out to be seven felonies. He let the first attorney go. It wasn't clear why Feldman did not continue to represent Anderson. The ADN in December 2006 reported Feldman said there was a conflict in schedules. In any case, it appears that Craig Howard was let go because of the requirement to accept one felony. It's not clear what happened with Feldman. Feldman said, not only was the agreement the investigators wanted Anderson to sign unique among the many he'd seen, he also had never seen a client turn down the chance to reduce the charges like this.
Paul Stockler, was a gentler, kinder version of the attorney we saw at the trial. He'd learned a lot from this trial he said. He tried to strike a balance between admitting that Anderson had been guilty of serious crimes and deserved to be punished and advocating for leniency in the sentencing.
Thanks to the Alaska Public Radio Network, who posted the court recording on their website, below is Tom Anderson's statement to the court. You can judge it for yourself.
Tom Anderson's Statement to the Court imported by There's lots more to write about, but I'm trying to sort it out. As you can see from this post, I've got a ways to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)