We haven't been to a movie almost forever - well since we left for Thailand in February. J wanted to go to a movie. The Visitor got the got the highest rating (4*) and had a bizarre enough description in the Anchorage Daily News that we decided to go.
A man sleepwalking through life discovers a way to open his eyes with the help of a Syrian man, his Senegalese girlfriend, an African drum and the myriad depths of friendship.
I guess that's all true, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) also play a big role in this. Anyone with an interest in immigration issues should see this movie. While it doesn't have anything good to say about ICE, it also raises some uncomfortable truths about the immigrants in the movie as well. But basically it tells the story from the perspective of the immigrants.
As a movie, it was a gem.
There were no actors - well, yes, there were. What I mean is that they were all totally the characters they were playing. The camera work was sublime. So much of what we needed to know unfolded naturally. Partly this was through the scenes the writers offered. Partly this was beautiful camera work and editing. We learn a lot about Walter in the scene in the office with the student. We learn his academic discipline through a poster at the conference.
I don't know how much longer it will be in Anchorage.
Hughman pointed out in a comment on the Commissioner Irwin video AGIA post, that Viddler does NOT have a ten minute limit like other video sites, so I didn't need to divide that video into two parts.
Elton John fans benefit from that - if they can bear the few seconds where the sound breaks up do to the decibel levels - because I didn't force myself to keep this video under 10 minutes. (It's 11:52). I also took advantage of John's over-the-top lighting to rationalize that it was ok to experiment with some different transitions and video FX. BTW, one of the neat features of Viddler is that you can make comments right on the video. Click on the little plus (+) sign on the bottom to the left of MENU. It will give you an option to comment anywhere on the video!
Also, as you watch the video, keep in mind Jay's comments to the Elton John v. Talis Colberg post which concluded:
Anchorage should not give itself a pat on the back for having a fun night out. They should reserve that for themselves when they again fight the all too readily justified prejudice that still exists, so strongly, so widely, in the town I grew up in and know so well.
Blessings on you all, but one night does not make it all different. Not at all.
Watching the video should remind us that Elton John, if he lived and worked in Anchorage, would be Constitutionally forbidden to marry the man he loves, and that there are still plenty of people out there that would deny him spousal health benefits if he worked for the state. It seems ironic, if not hypocritical to cheer him on for his singing ability and yet deny him pretty basic rights were he a resident of Alaska. But I'm sure that the people at the concert all voted against the Constitutional amendment in 1998 banning same-sex marriage. (Is there an irony smiley face?)
Notes on the concert goers. I'd guess the average age was about 40 or more. There were some feather boas, big sun glasses, glasses that lit up, and fancy hats. People were incredibly loud, but also very compliant and cooperative with security.
I also wondered if Elton John gets such enthusiastic responses in Las Vegas. People here were completely unpretentious. They were appreciative that John came here and they had themselves a great time. And I suspect the concert was better and longer than it might have been because the audience and the artist fed each other. Thanks, Elton, for coming.
Here's the red shoe Elton John signed in the last part of the video. Patent leather is a bitch to get a good picture of if you want the signature and you don't have a polarizing filter. Anyway, if you move your screen around, you should be able to see it better.
When the price of oil hit $3 people groused, but didn't seem to significantly change their energy use patterns. But now that it's flirting with $4, I'm seeing friends who are reconsidering whether they can use their bikes to commute to work, at least sometimes.
For people to use bikes more, we have to have infrastructures that make bikes more convenient - like good and plentiful bike racks. Portland has lots of bike racks and they are often interesting designs.
Friday afternoon I used this bike rack at the Court building when i went to the wedding.
At the Sullivan Arena for the Elton John concert, we couldn't find the bike racks (I'm assuming there are some somewhere.) Neither could these folks.
Or these folks.
Trees and parking meters and no parking signs are fine right now, but when more people start using bikes, non bikers are going to get tired of bikes tied up to everything strongly fastened to the ground.
And then I always wonder when I see a lock like this. Was the bike stolen? If so, why didn't they at least take the lock home? Or maybe these reflect people who lost the keys for the locks.
joined conservative legal groups in urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage
approximately 22,000 Alaskans spent around $2.5 million to see a married gay man and to cheer him wildly.
[My tiny Canon Powershot SD550 was totally overwhelmed by the noise level at Sullivan Arena and didn't catch many of the decibels flying around.]
Perhaps these 22,000 were among those 71,631 people who voted against Prop. 2, the 1998 Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriages. Perhaps some of these people voted for the ban. Or perhaps they didn't vote at all.
The Amendment passed 152,965 yes to 71,631 no. It wasn't even close. But that was ten years ago. The evidence that sexuality is basically genetic and not a choice has grown, but this isn't something that lends itself to . this clear proof. Logically, to me at least, it makes no sense for so many people to 'choose' desires that result in their being so strongly condemned by society. And why would people who could 'choose' their sexuality commit suicide because their choice was condemned? Wouldn't it be easier to just choose a different desire if they could?
Given the wildly enthusiastic response of the Elton John audience last night, I suspect that today the vote would not be so lopsided. It might not even pass. Especially if the people who went to the concert campaigned against the amendment with 1/10th of the enthusiasm they showed at the concerts. And if they all contributed half what they paid for the tickets to see a man whose married to another man perform.
BTW, $2 from every ticket was earmarked for the Elton John AIDS Foundation, so that would be around $44,000 that Alaskans contributed.
Calculations: The exact figures really don't matter as long as we are reasonably close. Calculations for the number of people who attended the concert were based on reported seating capacity of the arenas for the three sold out concerts (2 in Anchorage, one in Fairbanks) and an estimate of how much they paid given the prices. For this I calculated one figure based on there being as many 'cheap' seats as expensive ones. Then I figured it again with 70% of the seats being expensive and 30% being cheap. Then I split the difference.
Fairbanks (for Hockey) Name of Home Arena: Carlson Center Capacity: 4600 or so Dimensions: 200x100
The largest meeting and exhibition facility is the Carlson Center, which features a 35,000-square-foot arena and several meeting rooms, for a combined total of 50,000 square feet of space that can accommodate more than 1,200 meeting participants, 200 trade show exhibits, or 4,000 people for a concert or sports event.
While I suspect the first website is more accurate, and concerts should have a larger seating capacity than hockey (as in the Sullivan Arena), I'll be very conservative here and round it to 4500 between the two different sources.
Bent Alaska tells us the prices were: $56.50 to $116.50 in Anchorage $75 and $115 in Fairbanks
The image of Talis Colberg in the video comes from the State Website.
Here are a couple of blurry shots to at least give you a sense of the concert. John came out about 8:10pm to a standing, well ovation is to applause what the crowd actually did is to ovation. It was loud and sustained.
We left Sullivan Arena about 11pm. He played non-stop, except for a couple minutes off stage before an encore and about ten minutes of signing albums, t-shirts, pieces of paper, hats, and a red shoe.
Here he is up on the big screen. Some video and more comment tomorrow.
For all the posts on the Elton John concert, including videos click here.
Last week when I had to take the bus home because I got a flat on my bike, I ran into J on the bus who told me he was getting married. Well that was today. Here's J and K waiting to go into the courtroom.
And here they are listening to the magistrate during the ceremony.
And now they are married and checking the rings. Let's all wish them a very happy life together.
It gets better. Suzi, the director of Dear Lemon Lima wrote back in answer to some questions I had:
I'm still trying to find the lead character (in the short, the blond girl). I would like tocast a 13-18 year old Alaska Native actor. Any help spreading the word on that would also be amazing.
Any female Alaska Native actors in the 13-18 year old range?
At the Anchorage International Film Festival last December I saw Miss Lemon Lima. It was a short but with the intention to make it into a feature. I remember lush summer color and very compelling young characters. Some over the top controlling parents, and an ice cream cone that falls to the ground. In fact, I'm surprised at how well I remember it now - the images were so compelling that I can see them clearly.
Why am I seeing Miss Lemon Lima in my mind now? Because I got an email from the director:
Hi Steve - I hope this email finds you well. I am writing regarding my feature film Dear Lemon Lima - I believe that you saw a screening of the short during the Anchorage Film Festival. I am currently prepping to shoot the feature this summer and I am desperately trying to figure out a way to film in Fairbanks. I have accepted that filming the entire film is financially impossible, but am still trying to work out a way to film for 2 days. It has been impossible to find in-kind accommodations, so I thought I would touch base to see if you had any ideas of who might be empathetic with my cause. I've tried to call many bed and breakfast lodges, the tourism office and local hotels, and I'm hitting a brick wall. We are looking for someone to put up 15 people, 12 for 5 days and 3 for two days and hoping someone could lend us a truck, car and passenger van for 5 days. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciation * Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Suzi
So why is she emailing me about this? Because the story is set in Fairbanks. And I fussed in my review of it that the feature was going to be shot in Seattle. In the same post I'd written about a French movie where they actually came to Alaska and went from Valdez to Barrow with horses. Here's what I wrote:
The director - I think that was her role - was there after the film to talk. She also talked about a feature to be filmed next summer that is set in Fairbanks. To her credit, she's been to Fairbanks - after writing several chapters of the screen play - but it will be filmed in Seattle (did she really say Seattle? How can you do Fairbanks in Seattle?) because, you know, it's really expensive to do it in Fairbanks. You know, I think that people in Fairbanks and Anchorage would put the whole crew up in their houses to help you keep the costs down. If those other guys could walk their horses across Alaska, you can surely shoot your film that takes place in Fairbanks, in Alaska. Imagine a movie, "Crossing Alaska with Horses" filmed in the Alps, because, you know, going to Alaska would be so expensive.
To her credit, she's trying to do at least some of it in Fairbanks. Flying fifteen people to Fairbanks isn't cheap. Does she know that there are some really good film people in Alaska? I talked to some at the Film Festival. Maybe she can fly ten up and get five from here. Well, the actors will have to be the same actors. Anyway, let's put our heads together and get some of this done in Fairbanks!
So, to my Fairbanks blogger mates - can you help get a Fairbanks based story at least partially filmed in Fairbanks? It might be too much to get the whole crew in one place, but perhaps in four or five. And maybe you can't get her everything for free, but at least for prices equal to Seattle or less. And get them some salmon and make them tell everyone back home how fantastic it is to actually do the shoot in Alaska.
We've got this fantastic backdrop for films, let's try to get more actually made here. Especially when the story takes place in Alaska. There's an email link to Suzi in the link above to the movie.
What I Learned at the AGIA Forum Today (You'd think I could get the name right at least.)
Overview:
There were four basic questions:
Is TC Alaska up to the task? (TC Alaska is term people will need to know - it is the name of the company that submitted the proposal, Trans Canada Alaska)
Why should the Legislature choose the TC Alaska proposal over the LNG and the Producers (Conoco-Phillips/BP) proposals?
If the Producers control the gas, how do we get them to give us the gas?
Why does the state have to pay $500 million as an incentive?
There are other issues - jobs, energy cost relief now, tariffs - but these are essentially addressed directly or indirectly in the answers to these four questions.
Below, I’ve given a brief outline of the answers as I heard them today. But first a few more overview comments.
At the Special Session beginning June 3, the Legislators will decide whether to license TC Alaska to pursue the various permits they need to build a pipeline. Commissioner Irwin summed up what the legislators face very succinctly. Asked by a legislator something about various choices, Irwin bluntly replied (approximately),
“There are only two choices - yes or no. If you vote ‘no’ on AGIA, you are giving the Producers a free hand and giving up the state’s sovereignty.”
The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the various proposals and decided the AGIA proposal from TC Alaska is best. Of course, there is some history here. Commissioner Irwin and some of his staff were among the state employees who resigned in protest to how Governor Murkowski was negotiating with the oil companies. They felt that he was making far greater concessions than he should.
There is a lot of research that underlies their proposal. Far too much for the average person, and even for most legislators.
Ultimately, the people of Alaska, and their legislators really have to decide if they trust the Department of Natural Resources or ConocoPhillips and BP. I, for one, was very impressed with
the quality of the data, (this was not fluff or buzzwords, it was hard content)
the arguments,
the transparency,
the ability of the staff and contracted experts to answer all the questions easily and in detail,
the apparent dedication to this process and to the people of Alaska
These are competent, skilled people who seem very much to have the public interest as their goal. This is a far cry from the Murkowski administration and the oil companies he negotiated with in secret who, now that their bluff was called, are making a (veiled?) threat of not releasing the gas.
For me the choice of whom to trust is pretty easy. I would mention that one legislator (Therriault, I think) asked if the experts were free to give their honest opinions or if everything was scripted. Irwin responded quickly, that they are expected to give their honest opinions and if anyone has a script he doesn’t belong here. Compare that to the secrecy and deceptions of the previous administration and the oil companies they dealt with.
The Basic Issues
Is TC Alaska up to the task?
They’re a big, well run pipeline company, “one of the best if not the best”
They are Canadian with connections to the Canadian galine hubs we need to go to, and probably will be able to work well with the Canadian regulatory agencies
They are in financially good shape, with strong ratings from Moody and Standard and Poors so they will be capable of getting the financing
The questions raised about former partners suing them for competing with them if they take on this project seem remote and not likely to win
Why TC Alaska over the LNG and Concoc Philips-BP Plans? (I refuse to call it the Denali - with a little trademark symbol - Plan because I think it’s disgustingly arrogant for ConocoPhillips-BP to trademark something as Alaskan as Denali and because that hides who the people behind the plan are. The other way they were described was “The Producers.” Hmmm, maybe we could make a Broadway play about this and the LNG plan)
The TC Alaska plan has the following benefits
It includes an open access policy. Open Access means to the State that anyone producer with gas has access to use the pipeline, not simply the pipeline owners.
It includes an expandable pipeline Expandable pipeline means that the capacity of the pipeline must be increased if there is demand by producers to use the pipeline to get their gas to market. [Both of these were identified as “must haves” by Commissioner Tom Irwin, because they make the long term jobs and revenue potential much greater by encouraging other developers to explore and produce gas once the pipeline is approved.]
It includes lower tariffs
It maximizes state revenue and future economy
It is the only proposal that was responsive to the States requirements and on time.
TC Alaska, unlike the Producers, is a pipeline company, not a producer. Their incentives are to move gas. They aren’t competing with other gas producers. “If the tarifff's high, at the end of the year, a producer owner gets its own tariff money back. The state’s high tariff money goes out of the state and to the producers. Independents just might not want to be here.”
The Producer proposal had no enforceable commitments. No time lines. No specific goals. No conditions on tariffs.
Maximizes state revenue and creates future growth of the state economy and jobs, because open access and expandable pipeline conditions mean more exploration and production and jobs in the future.
The Producers did not submit a proposal to the state under the bidding process. Their later proposal does not meet the conditions set up by the State. TC Alaska had the only proposal that complied with the Request for Application (rfa). The LNG proposal needed some fixing, but when they resubmitted it, it was a totally new proposal. "We feel we need to keep our word and play by the rules to develop credibility with all future bidders." AGIA does not preclude LNG in the future.
There were issues with LNG
The market is Asia. That market requires a higher grade of gas which raises various issues.
With the high price of oil and the US’ need tor energy independence, Congress is not likely to approve exporting our gas to Asia.
Financing is more difficult
Preserve state sovereignty. In the TC Alaska plan, the various state conditions have been met. The Producers have refused to meet the State's conditions - ie, open access, mandatory expandable pipeline, lower tariffs, etc. [Some of this is repetitive because the issues overlap. But the repetition will help you remembr.:) ]
If the Producers control the gas, how do we get them to give us the gas?
Economic Incentives. Even without considering Point Thompson, the Producers will make lots and lots of money from this.
Pressure. There will be pressure from Congress to get the gas to the Lower 48 because of shortages. When stockholders understand the money the Producers will make, they will pressure them too.
Much of this is gamesmanship. They thought they had a deal with the former governor to get an agreement that would give them concessions from the state without their having to make any commitments. The state didn’t fall for their bluff. Now, after the process, they came back with a new proposal, but it still has no concessions. Technically, they could build their own pipeline, but we expect that in the end this is part of their negotiating ploy for when they work things out with the State and TC Alaska.
The regulatory commissions will weigh everything and consider it all. FERC (US) is looking after the interests of the US, not Alaska specifically, so we do have to look after our own interests in what they don’t require.
The Producers say they can't do a pipeline without State concessions.
Potential lawsuit and/or cancellation of their leases by the State.
Ultimately, there is a risk that the Producers could refuse to release the gas or could build their own pipeline, but the various presenters felt that much of this is posturing in hopes that AGIA is rejected and the Producers can then get what they want. Or can negotiate some piece of AGIA after all, even though they have missed the boat now.
Why does the state have to pay $500 million as an incentive?
Shouldn’t think of it as a subsidy, but as an investment.
The beginning is always the hardest part of a big project like this. The money will help show we are serious and help get the project off the ground.
The money we invest at the beginning has a much higher return than money we invest later down the line.
We get the money back in lower tariffs.
This is an incomplete outline of the arguments. I was there for almost eight hours of presentation. But it gives a sense of the basic arguments I heard today. They were backed up with a lot more information, which is further backed up by the report which is available on the AGIA website.
The Executive Summary is 17 pages and fills in some of the pieces I left out above. People who want to have an idea of the issues would do well to read it.
And today's session should be up tomorrow on Gavel to Gavel. The morning session - about three hours - should give you a good introduction as well.
[Blogging on the fly here, so I may give up a little accuracy to get this up quickly. At least the video is exactly what they said.]
Commissioner Tom Irwin gave a brief introduction of the project and then introduced the various experts the State has hired. The videos show that introduction.
[I'll get the second part of this video up later. It is only a few more minutes but Viddler has a ten minute limit so I couldn't do it all in one video]
(6pm - OK, here's the second part of the video)
The report is billed as over 2000 pages - including all the appendices. Essentially, today's presentation came off to me as a sales pitch to the legislature. The pitch is to pass the AGIA legislation which will authorize the pursuit of permission from regulators to build the pipeline.
When I say sales pitch, I do need to qualify this. The State's job is to get the best deal for the State - for the people of Alaska. I believe that the Department of Natural Resources team is dedicated to that goal. I've had the pleasure of a couple of meetings with Marty Rutherford, who is in charge of this project, a number of years ago when I as working as a professor of public administration. They were hour long open ended meetings in which she impressed me as bright and a dedicated public servant.
Additionally, the team working on this is essentially the team that resigned their jobs during the Murkowski administration because they believed the Murkowski administration was giving away the store in its negotiations with the oil companies. My sense, given that history, and listening to them this morning, is that they strongly believe what they are doing is in the public's interest.
Key points the presenters have made are:
The heart of the AGIA - the must haves, our obligation to
Expandable pipeline
Low tariffs
Allows explorers an open basin
Our birthright to protect open access. For these rights we were willing to give something
Move with fixed timelines
Put up $500 million - not a giveaway, our investment to get the gas to market. Most comes back to the state in lower tariffs. Tells them we are serious.
An AGIA project coordinator
Stable production tax rate for ten years - it makes sense from a business perspective
They also spent time comparing the AGIA proposal to the Producer Proposal and to the LNG options. They discussed why the Producers, who control the gas, are likely to release the gas eventually. Rep. Mike Dugan pursued this question when the legislators had a chance to ask question.s
All this will be available on the Gavel to Gavel tomorrow.(The link gets you to Gavel to Gavel, they don't have the link to today's sessions up yet.) I think this morning's session gives a good overview of the areas the state thinks are important and their rational for why this is the best path.
Watch the first couple of hours. They start with an overview. Then the repeat that overview with more detail. Then they open to questions from the legislators.
At one point Irwin responded with something like,
"If we get the state resolve - to protect open access - the companies will adjust to the new realities."
Open access refers to a pipeline where all producers have open access to get their gas onto the pipeline which is different from the current oil pipeline situation as I understand it.
I'm going to stop here so I can get this posted and return to the afternoon session.
