Mountain Ash Berries on Ice

Big Oil's Still Big Oil

[This began at the end of the previous post on the state censoring a blog, but it got so long I decided to make it a separate post.]


While you check out Alaskan Abroad, don't skip the letter "consultant Daniel Johnston recently sent to legislators." I quote in part:

For those of you who had to suffer through my testimony the past two years you will recall numerous references to risky places like Libya, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Russia where the government share of profits ("take") was in the high eighties i.e. around 85+%.

So now Alaska is considering a change to the petroleum profits tax which will add another 1% or so to Government take. Yawn. [emphasis mine]

This, as we read in today's Anchorage Daily News that Rep. Mike Chenault of Nikiski "successfully pushed through an amendment to bring the rate back down to 22.5 percent." And, "Rep. Mike Hawker objected to raising the tax." If it weren't for Rep. Mike Doogen, I'd be wondering if we shouldn't make Mikes ineligible for the legislature.

These guys are still buying the oil companies' arguments that they will leave for easier pickings. If that's the case, why aren't the oil companies answering the questions about their Alaska profits?

Several state legislators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hollis French, D-Anchorage, and House Resources Committee Co-Chairman Carl Gatto, R-Palmer, have unsuccessfully tried to press the companies for cost and profit information specifically for Alaska.

They've found those who produce oil in Alaska don't like to talk about their profits in the state, and in some cases won't say anything.

Do the Mikes really believe their line about their accounting doesn't break out Alaska finances separately? They're playing hardball and you guys are blinking.

We've watched the surveillance tapes. We know what goes on. Mikes, is your free market ideology blocking your common sense? The free market posits two parties making a deal. The oil companies are making a deal. They are offering much lower than they are willing to settle for. They'd be stupid if they offered their last best level first. And the state, the owner of the oil, this scarce commodity that is now pushing $100/barrel, is the other actor. It should be asking much higher than it's willing to settle for. Given what the oil companies are paying elsewhere, it should be a lot more than 25%. Either you guys are a little slow on how the game is played or you've got reasons to push the oil company line that you aren't sharing.


Call your legislators and tell them not to sell out the state. If this oil was in your back yard, would you settle for 22.5% of the profits and let the guys who got it to market take all the rest, minus their costs? Sure you would.

Remember, these Republican legislators are the same people who have kept Randy Ruedrich as their party chairman. This is the guy Sarah Palin filed ethics complaints against when she quit the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

State Censoring Blogs?

This was posted on the political/oil/Czech rock blog Alaskan Abroad Saturday:

I just found out the state blocks AA [Alaskan Abroad] on state-owned computers, at least for classified employees. The ban doesn't apply for legislators or the Third Floor. How cool is that?

My response? Not cool at all. The most positive explanation would be that something in his plastic people coverage snagged the State internet filter. But then it would have snagged the ADN as well, surely. And I know State workers can get the ADN because they've linked to this blog from the ADN.

And why would the third floor have access? Or do they have unfiltered access to the internet?

So, first, is this really happening? If it is, who sets the State policy on state employee internet access? Why would a blog that focuses on Alaska politics and oil issues get blocked? This is a giant step backward for bloggers.

Watching the Snow Fall

This is the sequel to the thriller, The Leaves Are Falling.






Join me on the deck1234567891011121314151617181920123456789101 All is still, winter snowflakes 12312341234567891234567894567891 only moving things

Refugee Nation

Wow - another story telling show. This time three main story tellers presenting some of the stories of Lao Refugees to the US. They aren't always easy as we hear about the difficulties of adjusting to a new land after surviving war and refugee camps in Thailand. Although the two main actors are from LA, this is not a slick Hollywood production. Rather it is a well acted, genuine performance by people who want to entertain and educate about their people - the Lao refugees in the US. This is still a work in progress and I expect that the transitions from scene to scene will get a little tighter and the film will be better integrated into the rest of the performance. But these are my picky points and they really don't detract from the power of the show. This is a chance to see behind the news images people might have (or as the show points out, not have) of Lao and Hmong people.

The ADN did a great job of covering this show on the front page this morning. Below is a brief video of the question and answer period after the performance with Leilani Chan, Ova Saopeng, and May Lee-Yang.




And according to their blog, they've been having a busy but great time in Anchorage. They've been to various schools, to the Senior Center, met with Alaska Native kids, and tried out several of the Thai/Lao restaurants. Here's what they say about their welcome in Anchorage.

It's been two days in Anchorage and already we feel like part of the family. We've been welcome with warm smiles, hugs and hospitality unmatched beyond any expectation. In these two days so far, we have met more people, been filled with excitement and enthusiasm and gone to several happenin' events in Anchorage that it's like we never left home.

Also check out the website.

I know that Mike Huelsman, the Executive Director or Out North Theater, is responsible for much of the hospitality.

Anchorage is blessed to have such cultural riches and if you don't already have tickets to something Sunday, you should go to see Jack Dalton at Cyrano's and then Refugee Nation at Out North. You can get your tickets online there.

Refugee Nation has a 7pm performance Sunday and 4pm on Monday afternoon.
Dalton's My Heart Runs in Two Directions at Once has a Sunday 3pm show, then Monday - Thursday at 7pm. Cyrano's is on D Street between 4th and 5th Avenues downtown.

Yes, this is less a review and more a shameless plug. But I wouldn't be pushing this if I didn't think it was really worthwhile.

Jack Dalton - My Heart Runs in Two Directions

Just go to Cyrano's tonight. Just do it. Jack Dalton really is a story teller. That's his profession. In the stories we heard last night, he tells his own story. If I were to try to give a synopsis it would be like trying to describe a kind of music you've never heard before. Your brain would try to grab onto the closest images you have to the words I'd use and you'd come up with your own story.

But Jack tells his own story and it is the telling that makes the story powerful. One message he clearly sends is this: He wants through his stories to give others the courage to tell and to live their own stories. I guess I can list the scenes as printed in the program since they are his own words:

Act One: From the Tundra
Can't Sleep
Birth
Byron Scott Dalton
Heathen Savages
Foreigner
Happy Birthday
Really Being Yup'ik
Not Really Being Yup'ik

Act Two: From the City
The Storyteller
My Heart Runs in Two Directions at Once
Ellangellemni: The Moment I Become Aware
Angallguq: One Who Facilitates Healing


I knew Jack casually when he was a student at UAA and a waiter at Golden Pond restaurant long ago. There was always something special about him. The picture above from the program captures a Jack I don't know. The picture toward the end of this postseems to show his warmth and humor better. I also appreciated last night how quick he is. Several times he slipped out of character to make real time comments, and then easily slipped back into character. Or was that part of the act too?

Darjeeling Limited

Light, but not as light as it appeared, and lots of fun. Three brothers on a pilgrimage in India. The India part appealed. They obviously had a good time making the movie. The official webite has lots of material about making the movie and the soundtrack that deftly blends Indian music and Western music.



I've made two versions at different quality to see the difference. I'll post the second one soon. [Here's version two. Is the difference significant enough to justify using 5 times the megabites?]

DOJ Press Release on Kohring Trial

Again (as with the Kott verdict), the Department of Justice tells the world that the defendant was convicted of three counts (bribery, conspiracy, and attempted extortion) but doesn't mention that he was NOT convicted of one count (extortion.) It's one thing for private companies to omit important information to make themselves look good, but it's entirely different when the government does that.

Also of interest is that they say he faces a maximum of 35 years in prison (20 years on the attempted extortion charge, 10 years on the bribery charge, and five years on the conspiracy charge.) If the attempted extortion charge means up to 20 years, what would he have been facing if convicted for extortion? Not only did the DOJ not mention that he was acquitted on one charge, but that he was acquitted on the most significant charge - Extortion.

The last paragraph is also of interest:

This case was prosecuted by trial attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke of the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.

The first sentence includes all four attorneys, though only Sullivan and Bottini actually tried the case. Marsh was there for the first couple of days. He said he was returning to DC after that. Goeke was in Courtroom 3 during most of the Kohring trial, sitting in the back.

The last sentence says the IRS is investigating the case with the FBI. One question that has been raised about the Veco contributions to remodeling Ted Stevens' Girdwood house has been about what Stevens did for Veco in return. Can the Government prove a direct connection? There is the National Science Foundation grant that Veco got. But if the IRS is investigating too, perhaps they are checking on whether Stevens declared the $100,000 worth of work Allen says Veco did for Stevens on his income tax forms.









FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Former Alaska State Representative
Victor Kohring Convicted on Public Corruption Charges

WASHINGTON – A federal jury in Anchorage, Alaska, has found former Alaska State Representative Victor H. Kohring guilty of conspiracy, bribery and attempted extortion, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

Following an eight-day jury trial, Kohring, a member of the Alaska State House of Representatives from 1994 to 2007, was convicted of conspiracy, bribery and attempted extortion, for corruptly soliciting and receiving financial benefits from a company in exchange for performing official acts in the Alaska State Legislature on the company’s behalf.

On May 4, 2007, Kohring was arrested following the unsealing of two indictments charging him and two former Alaska representatives with various public corruption offenses.

At trial, the jury heard evidence that Kohring, while serving as a member in the state legislature, solicited bribes from and took action to benefit the financial interests of VECO Corporation, a major Alaska oil services company. Trial evidence, including more than 25 recordings of conversations involving Kohring and former VECO executives, showed that Kohring repeatedly agreed to lobby his colleagues and, if needed, cast votes in VECO’s favor on a key petroleum production tax proposal pending before the Alaska legislature. In exchange, Kohring received multiple cash payments and solicited a $17,000 payment.

“Former Representative Victor Kohring betrayed his oath of office and the people of Alaska when he deliberately and repeatedly took bribes in exchange for official acts,” said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. “I thank the federal prosecutors and FBI agents who have worked so hard on this case. Their efforts demonstrate that the Department of Justice will pursue public officials who abuse their positions of power for their own financial gain.”

The VECO executives who testified at trial, former Chief Executive Officer Bill J. Allen and former Vice President of Community Affairs and Government Relations Richard L. Smith, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska.

Kohring is the third former member of the Alaska House of Representatives to be convicted this year of corruption crimes. Thomas T. Anderson, a former elected member of the Alaska state House of Representatives, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for extortion, conspiracy, bribery and money laundering for soliciting and receiving money from an FBI confidential source in exchange for agreeing to perform official acts to further a business interest represented by the source. Peter Kott, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, was convicted in September 2007 of extortion, bribery and conspiracy, and is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 7, 2007.

Kohring faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the attempted extortion charge, a maximum sentence of 10 years on the bribery charge, and a maximum sentence of five years on the conspiracy charge. U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Alaska set sentencing for Feb. 6, 2008.

This case was prosecuted by trial attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke of the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.

###

07-878

Back into the Real World - Chester Creek

I had errands to do. The snow is long gone. It was into the low 40s. On the way home on the Chester Creek bike trail I checked out the progress of winter. It's slow this year. Last year at this time we were in New Dehli and Anchorage was going into deep freeze. I love the green feet of this tree.







I stopped to enjoy the music of the water hidden in the middle of Anchorage.

Trial Leftovers - Access to Courts and Credentialing Bloggers

There's a lot of material that I haven't had the time or energy to report, mostly issues that came up during the trials and needed some thought time and some research. One of those topics - one of these days - is the role of wire tapping and other surveillance techniques. But not today. Today I want to talk about a) media access to court rooms and b) the issue of press credentials for bloggers.

Media access to the courtroom in the big picture was not the issue this. Everyone could get into the court room. However, you have to go through more stringent and separate security from the regular security for the federal building. At the Anderson trial, this security meant no cell phones, cameras (still or video), audio recording, or computers past security. Attorney John McKay, hired by the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU jointly, was able to get the Judge and I guess also the US Marshals to allow the press to take cell phones and computers past security. Cell phones had to be completely off inside the court room. McKay was also responsible for getting access for the press to the government's surveillance tapes as soon as they had been used as evidence. The trial coverage significantly changed when they began posting the tapes online during the Kohring trial.

But this sort of access was only a temporary waiver of the rules by Judge Sedwick for the Kott and then the Kohring trials. This doesn't change the rules for the US District Court in Anchorage. John McKay said the Marshals had a number of security issues. Googling didn't really add any other issues.

Issues raised to restrict press (including video/still cameras, audio ) access to courts:
a. space in the courtroom
b. privacy and security of jurors, witnesses (particularly undercover agents and rape victims), defendants (children)
c. disturbance of the court proceedings - basic goal for the judge is a fair trial

Reading the ADN during the trial, I marveled at the photographs of the Linehan trial. Our State Courts have different rules. And some other states allow live audio and video feeds from the courtroom. California has particularly detailed rules for press access including getting permission to bring in video and audio equipment.

Apparently the fact that many laptops phones have video and audio recording capabilities and was discussed in the negotiations, but I guess they decided to look the other way. I certainly assumed that if any video or even a photo of the courtroom showed up in the media, that the computer and cell phone privileges would be gone.

Why press passes may be needed, including for bloggers.

• Determining who gets In
  The courtroom was never so crowded that anyone was turned away. Apparently during the Exxon Valdez trial, this was not the case. So, in the event that a courtroom is too small to hold spectators and press, there is a need to determine a) who is media and b) which members of the media get in. Again, at the Exxon Valdez trial I was told it was first come, first served and that a video room was set up for those who couldn't get into the actual courtroom.
• Determining who doesn't have to leave the cell phone and laptop with security
  This did become an issue for the Kott and Kohring trials. For some journalists, it was not an issue. They simply used their notepads and pencils. But I couldn't have covered the cases the way I did without my laptop. As I think I've related before, the established media folks gave me advice on creating a press pass and wished me luck. I never had any serious trouble getting in. Security knew me from the Anderson trial and let me through. Though once or twice they asked who I was with and I showed my pass and they let me through.
  On the second day of the Kohring trial, one of the guards asked for my url and my email address and said he'd get back to me. And he let me through with the computer. The next day I had no trouble. The next day, when he was back, he told me that they didn't have a policy for bloggers, but the judge said, since I'd covered the previous two trials, I could take my laptop in.

So, if media get special privileges how do you determine who qualifies as media?

In general, your employer, a traditional media outlet - newspaper, radio or television station - gave you a pass. In some cases these had to be approved by the organization you were covering - particularly where there was limited space (White House Press Corps) or special access given to the press. So, what about credentials for bloggers?

In the perfect world, there would be room for everyone. Is there a fair way to determine who is a 'legitimate' blogger and who is not? One could say that people who cover 'news' on a regular basis are different from people who simply post pictures of family or mushrooms. But before the Anderson trial, I had never done any sort of thorough reporting of anything, and who's to say which family blogger won't suddenly get serious about some community issue and want media privileges to bring a computer or camera in?

Googling, I learned that this question about press credentials for bloggers is being dealt with in all sorts of venues. Sports bloggers post a lot on this with different outcomes that seem totally idiosyncratic. One sports franchise rejects bloggers, while another grants them passes, but not access to locker rooms, and a third gives them press passes. The Washington Capitals asked a blogger to come up with a blogging policy. Some other bloggers chronicle their somewhat successful attempts to get AFL press credentials.. The Ladies Professional Golf Association said no. The Latin Grammys also said no to a blogger.

The American Bar Association allows bloggers into their meetings and events, conditionally

“New media” journalists, such as bloggers, must authenticate their status as reporters by supplying links to and/or samples of their blogs or media outlets. Credentials will be granted at the discretion of the Director.

The CIA apparently changed their definition of media to make it inclusive of bloggers.

GovernmentExecutive.com is reporting that the CIA has adopted a new definition of "news media" that could significantly reduce the fees and costs for citizen journalists who request documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

And then there is the Media Bloggers Association that is credentialing bloggers.

Up here in Alaska, I'm not sure there's that great a benefit to the credentials generally, but having my laptop in court sure was a big deal. Reviewing what's out there, it seems there are a few existing standards that have been used by various institutions.

• how long and frequently you blog
• do you cover 'news' in the particular area rather than just post family pictures
  
• % of your income that comes from media work (California legislature)
• affiliation with established media
• do we like what you write about us? This was not listed anywhere, but I assume it is a factor
• links to your post and ratings from blog rating sites like technorati

Coincidentally, The Next Hurrah, a great blog that focuses on the Federal Courts and the Department of Justice among other topics, discussed blogger press passes today because of a New York City case

New York journalist Rafael Martinez-Alequin and his lawyer Norm Siegel are challenging the New York City police department's policies for issuing press credentials. (For somewhat arcane reasons having to do with access to crime scenes, the NYPD issues all City media credentials.)

Marci Wheeler, posting as emptywheel on the Next Hurrah, doesn't think the percentage of income criterion is constitutional. I hope not because it would cause me serious problems. She also emphasized the criterion of links.

I suggested that rather than judging on readership (since really focused blogs tend to spike when their expertise becomes relevant), a Court ought to judge on links. Since linking is a sign of reliability, you'd want to show links to show that you're considered reliable (and, preferably, knowledgeable on the subject) by your peers.

While my blog isn't highly specialized normally, it certainly did spike when I was covering the trials.

A hockey blogger even questioned the whole need for press passes,

What is there to gain by doing it? Really. The key selling point of the blogging community is that we're not the media. We have a hell of a lot more freedom to post a certain angle or perspective that many in the mainstream media cannot get away with. The more bloggers try to "gain respect" within the framework of the mainstream media, the more they have to adhere by certain guidelines and behaviors, and the closer the bloggers are to becoming incorporated to that mainstream.

I did think some of the Media Bloggers Association requirements seemed focused on aggregating power for the head of the organizations:

* Members must be intimately familiar with the MBA Mission Statement and Statement of Principles and support both without reservation.
* Members must be subscribed to the MBA Broadcast e-mail list (MBA-Announce) at all times.
* An MBA event or activity is any event or activity so designated by the President of the MBA.
* Members are expected to promote the organization and portray the organization in a positive light in both word and deed at all times.
* Members are expected to identify and recruit potential members.
(emphasis mine)

I also think that there may be times - like covering Federal cases in Anchorage - where getting accepted as media would be important for my blogging.

And finally, there is the problem of having the agency itself decide who can cover it. It's ok for privately owned sports teams to limit access perhaps, but for government there are additional problems. While I think Judge Sedwick has been scrupulously fair and respectful to everyone in the courtroom [no, this is not sucking up now that I realize he might be reading my blog, I'm still calling them the way I see them] not every judge will be so fair. There is no question that media who are highly critical are not as welcome and may not get their press pass renewed.

Perhaps a committee that has diverse representation could work with the agency. Even this can be hijacked as the history of US regulatory agencies has shown over and over again. But it's more transparent better than just a judge or administrator. And publishing criteria used is also critical.