UC Tuition Hikes - Some Perspective

From the Daily Nexus, UC Santa Barbara's student newspaper today:

Council Adopts Tuition Increase

By Maane Khatchatourian / Staff Writer

Published Thursday, November 19, 2009

Issue 42 / Volume 90

The UC Board of Regents finance committee approved a proposal that will push student fees to over $10,000 next year.

The committee voted almost unanimously to recommend the 32 percent student fee increase to the full board at its meeting yesterday. If passed by the Regents today, California residents’ education and registration fees will be raised in two stages — from $7,788 to $8,373 by Winter Quarter and to $10,302 from summer 2010 through the following academic year. This fee hike will mark the ninth time in seven years that the UC Regents would have approved an increase in undergraduate tuition fees.

I entered UCLA as a freshman in the spring semester of 1963.  As I recall, my tuition and fees that semester came to about $68 and change.  Yes, I was a full time student.  By being in the top 12% of California high school students based on test scores, I got automatic entry to a  first class faculty and very good fellow students on a beautiful campus.  As an extra bonus, we were going to have the national basketball dynasty starting the next year and we even had a Rose Bowl trip. 


I was lucky.  My parents were immigrants.  They really had no idea how the US college system worked, and even if they had, the tuition at private universities was out of the question.  But my local state university happened to be a half hour bike ride from our house and also a first rate school at a very affordable price.

The first year and a half I lived at home.  Then I studied the next year in Germany as part of the UC education abroad program.  The last year and a half I lived on campus.  I was able to pay for my tuition, books, and room and board by working fifteen hours a week as an elementary school playground director.

It wasn't until later when Reagan started cutting the university budget that I began to realize what luxury California had afforded to its top students.  One example was gym.  All gym clothes - shorts, t-shirts, socks and jocks - along with towels were provided.  After each class, you just tossed your dirties into the laundry bag and got a set of cleans.  It was like a country club.  I suspect this was so because originally the wealthy - at least the upper middle class and up - were the people mostly served by this public university.  They expected the best for their children  But once more and more students from other backgrounds became a larger proportion of the student body, and the more privileged began moving to the elite private universities, these  perks began to fall by the wayside and the cost started going up faster and faster. Proposition 13 in 1978 made that decline even faster.

 As I said, when I was getting into UCLA, all I needed to do was be in the top 12% of high school seniors.  Today's admissions are much more complicated.  I went through the online calculator and put in 4.00 GPA and 700's on all the SAT test scores.  That made me eligible in general, but not for any specific campus.  Here's what it said:

Keep in mind that meeting these minimum requirements is not the only way to become eligible for UC (students also may be designated eligible by being in the top 4 percent of their high school's graduating class or by achieving certain exam scores alone). Becoming eligible, however, does not guarantee admission to a particular campus. In selecting students, each UC campus considers a range of factors in a comprehensive review of applicant information. For an explanation of the admissions process, read ... [emphasis added]

From Mixx.com we see UCLA students' reaction to the tuition hike:



A little more perspective.  My 1963 tuition was $68.  The newly set 2010 tuition will hit $10,300. There were semesters when I went to UCLA (quarters started my last year) and quarters now.  I think the $10,304 figure counts fees for the whole year.  If that's correct then  the 2010 tuition will be 75 times higher than the 1963 price. 

My parents bought their house in 1957 for $17,000.  Let's assume it went up to $25,000 by 1963.  Its current price has fluctuated with the housing market, but a similar house up the street with a second floor added on was on the market for $850,000.  That means the my mom's house, which hadn't begun to take off when I started college, went up about 32 times  in the same time period. 


I understand that the President of the University has to make his budget work.  And I'm sure he feels he is being responsible by making this decision.  But  I suspect there are some people who, in that position, would  resign and refuse to be part of this.  Given California's budget woes, the President, would say, he has no choice.  And if he doesn't make the cuts, he would be replaced by someone who would.  But let's step back a bit and put this in context. 



From what I can tell, the University of California received about $3 billion from the State of California in 2008.  I take this from a statement by the UC President Mark G Yudoff:

"That budget proposal, which Regents approved on Nov. 20, asks the state to provide $694 million more than the roughly $3 billion in funding we received this year."

 That's a half billion dollars more than what Californians spend a year on ice cream.*
 And less than a fourth of what they spend on alcohol a year.*

I'm not saying Californians should stop eating ice cream or drinking margaritas, but if they look at all the other discretionary expenses they have, they might find ways to pay for their kids' education without really sacrificing too terribly much. 

I graduated UCLA owing nothing.  I didn't need student loans.  And I could afford to pay my bills working 15 hours a week.  (My mother reads my blog so I better acknowledge that my parents paid the tuition for the first 2 1/2 years, because it was very affordable and they believed strongly in my education.)  It was not only possible for a good student from family without a lot of spare cash to afford UCLA, it was easy. 

How many hours a week do you have to work to pay off $10,000?  The California minimum wage appears to be $8/hour.  Rounding it off to $10/hour to make it easy to figure, that comes to about 19 hours a week for 52 weeks.  And that doesn't count any deductions.  That is if you can find a job in California. 

It seems to me Californians need to rethink their whole way of life.  [Remember, it's 0˚F outside in Anchorage as I write; moving to Alaska is not an option, trust me.  It's cold and miserable and dark and you'll spend all your tuition money on alcohol.]

The New York Times gives another perspective on the decline of the University of California. 

*California has about 36 million people which is about 12% of the total US population of 304 million.  (2008 Census estimate).  Americans spend about $21 billion ice cream a year, so California's share of that would be about $2.5 billion. 
Americans spend about $115.9 billion on alcohol, so California's share would be about $13.8 billion.  That's probably a low estimate because these were 2003 statistics.

Mischievous Technology Tricks

Last night at a talk, I took three video clips. The first one was fine (well, fine for a small digital camera in a room with a thin sound system.) The second clip had a strong buzz, like the camera had a motor, which blocked what I was trying to record. And the third clip was fine again. This has never happened before on this camera and I have no idea why this happened. I certainly didn't hear any difference in the room and I don't think I did anything different.

Then this morning I turned on the AM/FM receiver (yes I know I'm still in the dark ages) and got this:

I'm sure you're saying, "yeah, so what?" Well, the light in there has been off for at least six months or more. We've learned to find channels without seeing any sort of information. We were resigned to the slow deterioration of our sound source. We didn't know it was just on vacation. Again, we didn't move anything, didn't try anything new or different. It just turned on today after months of black.

Should Lincoln Have Let the South Go?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.  [From showcase.netins.net]

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863


I had to memorize this when I was a kid in school.  I do think that memorization is a discipline we ought to practice more often.  Not for many things, but for enough so that we remember that we are capable of such feats.  It was not quite the 100th anniversary of the Address when I had to memorize it.  I tried today, the 146th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, to see what I could remember before looking it up.

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal established this great nation.  We are now engaged in a great battle to determine whether that proposition shall stand.  Few will remember what we say here, but what they did here will long be remembered.  Those who fought here have consecrated this ground with their blood so that this nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth."

I've condensed Lincoln's already minimalist speech, but remembered key passages and the basic idea.

But I'm also wondering whether sanctifying this speech isn't just part of the United States' general sanctification of war.  Was the Civil War justified?  What if Lincoln had allowed the South to secede? 


After the 2000 US Presidential election ended in such a split nation, I mused about the possibilities of the internet. Why not let both win and let the right wing media and blogs follow the world of the Bush presidency and let the left wing media and blogs follow the world of the Gore presidency? We could have two virtual realities. Each side could live its fantasy.

Well, I didn't realize how much that would actually happen. Right wing media covered one world and left wing media outlets covered a totally different world.  Some people seem to be living in totally different worlds.

Well recent events, culminating in right wing commentators saying the President of the United States shouldn't be allowed to address school children have pushed me to the limit. I mumbled to a friend that the civil war was a great mistake. The North should have counted its blessings when the South departed. Is it too late now? She sent me a link to a site that stated these ideas much more forcefully in 2004. It begins - well I cut out a couple of expletives - like this:

We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

And then it goes on to give lots of reasons why we'd be better off without them. Back in the 1860's certainly one key reason not to just let them go involved the 3.9 million slaves they would have kept in slavery. While that was about 11% of the whole US population of 27 million then, the percentages in the Lower South were much greater. Civilwarhome.com offers a series of tables. Here's the one for the Lower South.




While others suggest that slavery would have petered out due to a natural cycle that made it economically unsustainable, it would have taken a while.

Some white supremacist groups already expect a new bloody civil war to lead to a split in the US. At this point I'm wondering whether we might want to spare the bloodshed this time and just do it. I already posted this example from a white supremacist group on a post in early August on how to gauge legitimate protest:

Within our lifetimes, the United States of America as we know it will cease to exist as one united country. Rather, it will Balkanize into several racially-based smaller states after an awkward period of racial civil war. It will be unpleasant. It will be bloody. It will be messy. Millions of people, both innocent and guilty, White and nonWhite, will die. But, it is inevitable. Multiracial democracy founded on the myth of racial equality cannot succeed. What cannot fly, should fall, and what is falling, we should still push, and say, fall faster!

Watching the meanness, the blatant distortions, and other tactics being used to incite people's worst fears into hate and license to do violence, I'm beginning to think these guys might be right. Let them have their own country. Let them take their creationism, their guns, their religion, their ignorance, and show us how they could run their own country. And let us have ours back. (Hmmm, that sounds strangely like their plea.)

OK, this is the 'easy', quick fix way out. I'm not sure I'd like a country like that on our borders. (But it could be better than having those people in our country and voting.) There'd be a giant fight over what states they could have. The original confederacy would be a lot of states, and Virginia is just across the river from Washington, DC.

Map from wtv-zone.com

What about Idaho?   Oh sorry, I forgot, Idaho doesn't exist. How would we decide? Would each state get to vote? What if they weren't contiguous? Would we have a Gaza - West Bank situation or a Lower 48 - Alaska situation? What would happen to people who weren't happy with their state's decision? Would the move be like the Muslims and Hindus moving to Pakistan and to India at partition?

Would there be preconditions such as "people who want to emigrate can get into the US and vice versa?"  Would minorities and gays be allowed to get out if they found themselves stuck there? Could they be allowed to have a white only country? How would they define and test for whiteness?

But there are other options. As I've said before, people's willingness to believe demagogues relates to their fears, their insecurities, their never having actually grown up. We could address those issues - both forcefully with those who refuse to allow rational debate and the others by treating the underlying problems.

So, who do I think these people are who want to oppose Obama at any cost? People who fight with out-and-out-lies;  and a Congresswoman, with barely concealed racism calling for the Great White Hope!  I'm guessing there are a variety of people in the Beck/Palin/Limbaugh fan club:

• The scared and insecure
  - those who have lost their jobs and homes and see no future
  - those who see a black president as the symbol of the non-white takeover of the USA
  - those who generally see their privileged positions slipping away as women gain
  
• those who are biologically unable to grasp reality
• those who learned at home that violence and aggression were the only ways to deal with conflict
  
• those under the sway of religious institutions, some mainstream and some clearly renegade groups led by self-proclaimed interpreters of God's word
  
• those who simply have been around right wing fanatics all their lives and haven't been exposed to other views
• those who will do anything to hurt the President in hopes of a Republican victory in future elections
• Sociopaths
• Capitalists who simply want to make money and prevent government regulation of how they do it
• Capitalists who don't care about politics, but make money from conflict
  
• Criminals who benefit from weak government

This is just a starter list. I suspect a number of people who called their school superintendents to protest the president's speech in the schools could check off three or four or more of these characteristics.

Can you imagine what would have happened if people protesting George W had brought semiautomatic assault weapons with them? People opposed to Bush were harassed for carrying signs. If someone had flashed a gun at a Bush rally, the Secret Service would have been on top of them in an instant. These are people who would cheer if someone shot Obama. They have to be taken very seriously.

So are there paths toward reconciliation short of splitting the union? Is this merely a demographic waiting game? The teabaggers and the rest are a small minority, but they seem to be seriously inflamed. And a small minority can do a lot of damage. Do we want a fanatic minority that really feels oppressed and is willing to fight within our borders, constantly preventing progress? This is like having severely disturbed kids mainstreamed into regular school classes. The teacher can't do any real teaching because she's always dealing with the kids who can do nothing but disrupt. [There are many situations where mainstreaming is both the morally and practically right way to go.  But there are situations where the mainstreamed kid hinders everyone, including itself.]

It seems to me that if we separate out those who are not terminally anti-social, the problems and needs of the others could be resolved. That still seems like the best option. Better than two separate nations. But I think that option needs to be on the table too.



While letting this piece sit a while, I did consider that there must have been people who were opposed to the civil war before it began. I did find one article on that. It would be instructive to know more about their arguments and why they lost. Here's the beginning of an article by Sheldon Richman that was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1981 that looks at abolitionists who were opposed to the Civil War:

Since the victors of warfare write the histories, one must look long and hard to find recognition of the radical critics of any given war. No matter howsubstantial or respectable anti-war sentiment may be as a conflict approaches, once the pro-war spirit gets rolling, like a snowball down a mountain, it sweeps aside everything in its path. The War between the States is no exception. In most accounts, the necessity of the War, as in most other wars, is taken for granted. Those who argued against it in advance are ignored (or forgotten) on the grounds that, since the war occurred, they must have been mistaken.1 This is not to say that all the critics are dispensed with. Some serve useful purposes. The Copperheads, with their softness on the slavery issue and conservative longing for the status quo, cast a flattering light on the pro-war Radical Republicans in
some observers' judgment.

It's time to all start studying non-violent conflict resolution, as well as studying the split of Czechoslovakia, the split of Yugoslavia, the creation and splitting of Pakistan, the split of Korea and Germany and the Soviet Union. We also need to learn a lot more about mental health, about how people learn conflict resolution, about debate. My sense is that a little more tolerance on everyone's part, a little more respect to others, a little less greed and self-centeredness would take care of a lot of the problems. But I also recognize that you have to take action against those who refuse to let others live in peace.

I wonder what Lincoln would counsel us today.

Midtown Fire This Afternoon

[Tea, skip this one.]

I'd considered biking, but it was cold, sort of far to go, and I needed to pick up a shoe at the shoe repair afterward.

So I was driving down 36th around 3:20 when I saw smoke ahead.

 

As I got closer, it seemed to move further away.

I'm finally pretty close - at Arctic.  Fortunately the traffic
was slow and I could blindly shoot pictures. 

The smoke was really thick.

Police were there, but no fire trucks.

Here's that same picture enlarged.

By Spenard, this was the second fire truck that passed.

I don't want to give any false alarms.  I know I passed Arctic and I checked the next street which was North Star, so I'm pretty sure this was on Indiana, but I didn't actually see a street name when I was passing the fire (I was on 36th). 

I got where I was going a little late.  And when that was over, picked up my repaired shoe. 

AIFF 2009 - Features in Competition

[Updated December 8, 2009 - BIRTHDAY is also a feature in competition.  The Festival materials identify the the films in competition quietly with an * online and from what I can tell, not at all in the printed program.  Birthday doesn't have an * online or in the list I got so I didn't cover it in this original post.  So after watching it last night I emailed Tony Sheppard to find out why it wasn't in competition.  He emailed back that it is.  Good.  Go here for my review of Birthday.]
There's a second showing Saturday night at 10:15pm at the Bear Tooth.  The director and co-producer/lead actor are also here.  Monday night's showing was a World Premiere (I think that means outside of Australia, I need to check) and I'd recommend doing whatever you can to see it.

[Updated November 24]
The Festival awards will go to those that have been selected to be 'in competition.' (For clarification of the Festival terminology go to this post from last year.)   There are five features in competition - a total of 7 hours and 53 minutes.  They are listed below.  Times and locations (all these are at the Bear Tooth) are now up.

Features are the movie equivalent to fiction.  Over 55 minutes is a 'feature.'  Under 55 minutes compete in a different category - Shorts.  Click the link to see a similar post on   shorts in competition.  Documentaries in competition will be up soon. 
 
ALERTS:
1.   Hipster, first showing is part of the opening night Gala - $25 ticket includes movie and  party afterwards.  All Films AND All Events Passes include both movie and party free.  "All Films Passes" DO NOT get you in.
2.   Bomber is only scheduled once - at the beginning!  Sat. Dec. 5 at 7:45pm at the Bear Tooth.  
3.  There will be additional showings of the winning movies Dec. 14 - 17.  Check AIFF Website and this blog. 

Against The Current  US, 84 minutes
 • Directed by Peter Callahan
Wed.  12/9 5:30 Bear Tooth
Sun    12/13 3:15 Bear Tooth  (right before Dear Lemon Lima)

With the five-year anniversary of his wife and child’s death rapidly approaching, Paul (Joseph Fiennes) recruits his friends Jeff and Liz to help him realize his all-consuming goal of swimming the length of the Hudson River. Sensing that Paul is hiding something, Jeff discovers that the trip is Paul’s way of saying goodbye to a life that has dealt him too much tragedy. Despite his friends’ efforts to convince him otherwise, Paul is firm in his belief that there is nothing left for him now that his wife and child are gone. Justin Kirk turns in a particularly strong performance as Paul’s sarcastic, unsentimental best friend. Appearances from Michelle Trachtenberg and Mary Tyler Moore round out an excellent ensemble cast. Set against the backdrop of the Hudson River Valley in summertime, the film explores the dark landscape of life after loss and delivers a strong finale sure to stay with you long after the film’s conclusion.

This is clearly a film with established actors.   Here's the trailer from the Against the Current's website:



 You can also hear a radio interview with the director from Woodstock, NY on  WAMC.

Bomber  UK  85 minutes
• Directed by Paul Cotter 
Sat.   12/5 7:45   Bear Tooth (right after Dear Lemon Lima) 
(There's only ONE SHOWING)

 In this bittersweet comedy about love, family and dropping bombs, an 83-year-old man returns to Germany for a long planned journey of atonement. When his useless son Ross agrees to drive him there, a nightmare family road trip ensues.

Bomber Trailer

Bomber, The Movie | MySpace Video


Here's a glimpse into Paul Cotter from an interview on Spout:

Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature?

Ikiru (aka “Living”) by Akira Kurosawa.  This is the greatest film I’ve ever watched, and I never tire of seeing it.  It’s so small, yet so big.  A tiny film about a clerk in a city municipal office who is dying of cancer.  It is small in where the plot goes, but massive in where it takes you as a human being.  If I could ever get close to what Kurosawa did in that film, I would die a happy man.

The second film would be harder to say.  Kieslowski’s Dekalog maybe, because there’s a lot in there, but that’s kind of a depressing collection isn’t it.  So maybe “Zulu” because it’s a mindless war film with lots of bright colours and that might cheer me up - especially if I’m about to get executed.

Have you noticed a pattern here?  Road trips with friends/relatives where people explore who they are and their relationships?

But the next one should be quite different.  It sounds like the misfits kids show the world type movie. 

Dear Lemon Lima  US  87 minutes
• Directed by Suzi Yoonessi  [Lima is pronounced like the bean, not the city in Peru]

Sun    12/13 5:30  Bear Tooth  (right after Against the Current)

Sat.     12/5  5:30  Bear Tooth  (right before Bomber)

In this charming coming of age comedy, a 13-year-old half Yup’ik girl in Alaska navigates her way through heartbreak and prep school by rediscovering the spirit of the World Eskimo Indian Olympics.

A couple scenes of this film were entered as a short in the 2007 Anchorage International Film Festival.  The colors were brilliant and children were real, developed characters, just in the ten minutes maybe the short lasted.  That's a pretty remarkable accomplishment.  I can still see the scenes vividly.   So I was surprised to learn that the film is set in Fairbanks, Alaska.  The light and structures and scenes were distinctly not Alaskan in my memory.  I chided the filmmaker in the blog for planning to make the rest of the movie in Washington State, and not doing it in Fairbanks.  Amazingly, she responded asking if I had suggestions for overcoming the costs of doing it in Alaska.  [The new law that supports filming in Alaska wasn't yet in effect.]  I blogged about her needs and also contacted Fairbanks bloggers.  I don't know what happened, but based on what I saw on the Dear Lemon Lima website - there's a trailer there I couldn't embed - I suspect that I may like the film as film, but be disturbed by what I'm afraid will be its pseudo Alaska-ness.  And regular readers know I have concerns how Outsiders portray Alaska Native culture.  We'll see.    I'll check and update.  [Update Nov. 18:  I've got an email from Suzi and I'll post it when she says that's ok.  She does sound like she made great efforts to make this as genuine as possible within her budget.] But do go look at the website.  It's not your run-of-the-mill website.
 

The next movie will be shown as part of the Opening Night Gala.* 


Hipsters (Stilyagi)  RUSSIA, 125 minutes
• Directed by Valery Todorovsky
Fri. 12/4   7:00pm  Bear Tooth  * $25 or free entry with ALL FILMS & EVENTS PASS. (All Films pass is not good for this)
Sat. 12/12 7:30pm Bear Tooth

An energetic, impressive production already garlanded with four Nikas (the  Russian Oscar) for best film, production design, costumes and sound, Valery Todorovsky’s attempt to revive the immediate post-Stalinist era may appeal initially to Russian audiences, but should easily navigate international markets after an enthusiastic reception at Karlovy Vary.

A portrait of a grim period, Hipsters is almost a Russian version of Grease – as fanciful and unrealistic as its American counterpart, but with more of a political subtext to sustain it. It’s set way back in 1955, when, in an attempt to establish their independence against the backdrop of grey uniformity surrounding them, young Russian rebels (“hipsters”) copied American fashions, hairdos and slang.  Featuring a cast of young energetic hopefuls and several seasoned veterans in cameo roles (Sergey Garmash, Oleg Yankovsky), critics might carp that Hipsters offers perhaps an overly gentle and forgiving image of that time, hiding behind colorful sets and costumes which border on caricature. But general audiences are likely to be much more forgiving.

Hipsters centres around a shy, nerdy Communist youth (komsomolchik) called Mels, played by Anton Shagin, who falls for luscious blonde hipster Polya (Akinshina) and turns his back on his pretty but strict brigade commander girlfriend (Brik). He takes up the tenor saxophone instead, raises some hell of his own and ends up marrying his blonde bombshell and even having an unlikely child with her before Todorovsky wraps it all up in a rousing finale.

Hipsters’ score, a lively mélange of updated Soviet hits and fresh numbers written specially for the film, pumps away energetically, while clever art direction blends real-life locations with studio sets to create a world apart. Throughout it all, the cast seems to be having the time of its life.

Стиляги - тизер
by centralpartnership

Son of the Sunshine  CANADA  92 minutes
• Directed by Ryan Ward 
Tues.   12/8    8:00 Bear Tooth
Fri.     12/11   5:30 Bear Tooth

From the dirty streets and cool fields of low-income Ontario, Canada, comes the story of Sonny Johnns, a young man with Tourettes Syndrome.

Fed up with his existence in an angry, co-dependent relationship with his maudlin mother and his tough as nails sister, Sonny spends his savings from years of disability payments to undergo an experimental procedure that promises to eradicate his symptoms.

Upon his recovery, Sonny, entirely cured of spontaneous outbursts, garners the courage to live a normal life - but not without a price. Sonny discovers that the surgery has somehow smothered an amazing supernatural gift he has had all his life: the uncanny ability to heal the sick and the dying.

A story of the truly extra-ordinary, littered with the fiery angst of a young man and his quest for the all-healing power of love.  [This synopsis and the photo come from the Son of Sunshine website. ]

  This was a Sundance Selection and has won prizes at a number of festivals.  The summary raises an interesting paradox I've come to notice, but I don't think is commonly understood by people who are not close to someone with different brain activity.  While they have some issue that makes them seem, to most people, "less" than normal or 'disabled', they also have some abilities - usually invisible to most - that also make them 'more' than normal folks.  Should be an interesting movie.



Go to the AIFF website for more festival information.

Peter Kott - Oral Arguments on Motion Seeking Release from Convictions

9:00 AM

3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS

Judge Sedwick

Anchorage Courtroom 2

USA

vs. PETER KOTT

(Peter Koski)

(Margaret Simonian)

(M. Kendall Day)

(Sheryl Gordon McCloud)

(Marc Elliot Levin)

(Kevin R. Gingras)

(James M. Trusty)

(Karen Loeffler)

(Kevin Feldis)

ORAL ARGUMENT

Pete Kott's attorney has requested that because the Prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence during the trial that Kott should be released from his convictions.  Today was the oral hearing on that motion, if I understand this right.  Below are my notes from 26 minutes in the courtroom. But I'll try to summarize what I think happened.  (I would note that this took place in Courtroom 2, not Courtroom 3 that has been the location of the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials and sentencing.)   [For my accounts of the trial itself you can link here: Kott trial, or go to the Kott trial label below right.]

As I understood this,  the defense is arguing that there was evidence in the 4700 or so documents that were released post trial that would have refuted the evidence that was used to convict Kott.  The judge asked the two sides to address two things:
1.  Address how the withheld evidence affects the outcome of the trial
2.  Talk about remedies should we find there be a finding that agrees with the defense motion.


 The defense mentioned three statements that specifically questioned Allen's credibility on the stand and Kott's guilt:

1.  In trial, it was revealed that VECO had paid for a poll that the Kott camp said they neither wanted nor needed.  But the value of the poll was a factor in the trial.  Sheryl Gordon McCloud quoted from the new evidence: 

Allen:  “You don’t owe me, [curse word], here’s the check.”

2.  In trial there was a lot of debate over the payment of $7000 above the bill submitted by Kott for doing flooring work at Bill Allen's home.  Prosecutors said it was an illegal payment.  In court McCloud brought out this new quote from the evidence not turned over to the defense until now, to show it wasn't:

"Allen said he gave him substantially more as a bonus, because they worked hard, worked their butt off, and it was “for the flooring work.”"


There were a few more like that.  The Prosecutors responded by saying the quotes were taken out of context and there was considerably more evidence including all the tapes.

The judge appeared concerned about the withheld evidence.  He now has to make a ruling.  After the hearing, McCloud was asked by the media when there would be a decision.  She shrugged and said it was a complicated case and it could be a while. 

Here are my notes from the hearing itself.  As always, a lot is missing cause I just couldn't keep up.  I did go back and use spell check, but otherwise they are pretty rough.  

9:02 Judge Sedwick  Kott’s motion seeking release from his convictions.  Want argument focused to make good use of time.  Jury returned general verdicts, based on specific acts.  $ with hardwood floor refurnishing, $1000 for campaign contribution, $5000 for down payment on truck, &  one more. [was it poll done for campaign?  not sure.]    Any one act could have been the overt act but we don’t know which act the jury relied on,  Same on count 2. 

Nature of relief if the motion granted.  We would discuss if charges should be dismissed with prejudice, or recharged?  and why.

Defense Attorney Sheryl Gordon McCloud for Kott: 
Elements of crimes, for extortion, court had to produce evidence Mr. K induced the payment and there was a quid pro quo.
Sencond  count - public official
Third count Conspriacy.

Tapes were lacking quid pro quo on campaign contribution, $7000 check for flooring, ????, and truck.  Talked about money, but not quid pro quo, exchange of items, or Defendant being one who induced those items.

Instead, Bill Allen, on the poll, said, “You don’t owe? me, curse word, here’s the check.”

Smith saying job was quid pro quo,  Allen saying $7000 to go to Pete jr. not  Pete Sr.

$5000 for the down payment of the truck.  Government argued this is ridiculous to believe this was just a loan.  “If you can’t believe him about interaction with Allen, what can you believe him about?”

What Allen said on the evidence was that he never ???

Chad Kadera [FBI agent]:  Roger? told BA that he couldn’t give him the truck, he was too proud. 

Undermined Kott’s total lack of credibility, here and elsewhere.

Flooring.  Paid $7K over the cost and the money to funnel money to Pete jr. for the campaign.  And Pete didn’t do work for the money.

New documents said, Allen said he gave him substantially more as a bonus, because they worked hard, worked their butt off, and it was “for the flooring work.”  

No solicitation for the $7K, no quid pro quo, it was to pay him for the flooring work. 

Truck and flooring were both relevant to the bribery, extortion convictions.

Nature of relief:  depends on nature of the problem.  I don’t think the nature of the problem completely clear yet.  We got 4000+ documents.  Govt. accuses us of taking things out of context.  Well we did our best, we only had the documents.  No evidentiary hearing.  Then we might find out that Allen perjured himself on the stand, because the documents conflict with what he said.

If the Govt. knowingly suborned perjury, then we have a higher standard - ref: Illiniois

Whether government knowingly suborned perjury. 
Relevant whether dismissal with prejudice.  Only if there was government misconduct.  The evidence doesn’t tell me the govt knowingly ….. they suggest, but I don’t know. We don’t know what Agent Kepner knew.

I think court should reverse convictions.
On the relief, we need an evidenciary hearing to know how culpable the govt. was.


Federal Prosecutor Trusty:  None of the charges are constitutionally ????  The $5000 “loan” was not affirmatively charged.

Judge Sedwick:  Allen should have been subject to different kind of cross examination.  There may be some testimony from Smith that defense has less ….   We might have Kott v. Smith.  Concerns of Smith do not rise to level of concerns about Allen.  Some significance

Trusty:  Obviously, your honor sat here and heard it first hand.  My understanding is that Mr. Kott opened - hadn’t received any cash except the $5000,

Judge Sedwick:   Yes.

Trusty:  really a sham of a loan.  Completely fair game to impugn Kott’s credibility on that..

Judge Sedwick   We now have information to question

Trusty:  Mr. Kott had the $ in his possession.

Judge Sedwick: Then Kott argued about the hardwood floor.

Trusty:  Trying to draw the disconnect ...where Allen was not necessary. 

Judge Sedwick:  but Allen was needed for $7K

Trusty;  Mr. Allen testified PK extorted him.  He didn’t say that.  He never alleged, in the true sense of the word, that there was some sort of blackmail.  A statement that should have been turned over, but doesn’t change things.  Three components that were turned over
302 [reference to rule or code by that number  a"302" is a report by an FBI agent summarizing an interview. (thanks CG)]  3 phrases that were turned over:
reference to it being a bonus
PK worked hard for it
Was part of his payment

that he worked hard - in Brady analysis - is not favorable to Kott.  This was a plan to inflate PK’s  payment for the floor.  The same 302 read in its entirety.  The tape shows them discussing a fool proof plan that overrides this characterization of this as a bonus.

About the truck:  during the sentencing you discussed whether it was a gratuity or bribe and how to consider it in the guidelines.  Your honor characterized it in an accurate way:  The parties called it a loan, a good way to save face, but it really wasn’t a loan.

It played out that way with the jury.  That loan, was something that didn’t make him a credible witness, a fair credibility knock at PK’s expense.  The big picture, fair to say, some materials, should have been turned over, but the Brady analysis, Constitutional analysis, whether things had to be turned over.  There really is no charge of bad faith, intimations, but nothing in the pleadings of the defendant.  Nothing that argues dismissal.  Dismissal where case was weak, facts weak, some bad motivation,.  Case where the government bent the rules to make a conviction happen.  Not what happened here.  The court had 56? tapes.  Case had overwhelming evidence.  This doesn’t call for dismissal or dismissal with prejudice. 

A good number of other areas pleaded here if your honor wants to ask, but mindful of the time. 

Judge Sedwick:  We need to clear courtroom quickly.

McCloud:  Counsel correct that PK had information in his possession - it was in his mind - but he had no proof.  What the government had was independent proof thru Allen and Smith.  Certainly Kott had the info, but he couldn’t prove it.

Also, the new info is not only relevant to credibility but also trial strategy.

Judge Sedwick: I understand, that’s in the briefings.

PK Defense:  When I say they suborned perjury, that’s the point of bad faith and needs to be examined in ….

Judge Sedwick   We’re going to adjourn  [9:28]

Flame and Citron - Left Me Speechless

Really, I have nothing to say.  I've linked to two reviews below, but talking about the movie just trivializes it.  The reviews don't tell you much more than the reviewers' knowledge of film history and the technical side of the movie.

It was like a strong wind blew through my mind, stirring up old ideas that had long ago settled like dust in my brain.  I have no idea how to grasp hold of any of those specs of dust, and really no desire to.  I'll just let them naturally find some place to rest and perhaps it will all make some sense later on.

If that makes no sense:  I was blown away by the movie.  But even to tell you what it's about (Danish underground in WWII) is like describing a shiny red Porsche as a vehicle to get from here to there.  At this point, for me the film is just something shiny that has whizzed by and I don't yet know enough to label it a Porsche or even red.  But maybe the words will come in the next week or so. 


For those who need specifics here's Robert Ebert's take.  And here's what Manhola Dargis at the NY Times had to say.



No, we didn't bike to the Bear Tooth.  It was 5˚F and falling and getting dark.  But there were two bikes there.  And they weren't covered with snow or ice.  And we did see two other people riding as we came.  It seems to me each year Anchorage has significantly more people riding as a regular mode of transportation, not just recreation, and not just in the summer.  I did bike Monday to Bede's anniversary.  But it was warmer - about 12˚F -  and sunny.

Why Isn't Obama Making His Decision on Afghanistan?

 The Asia Times Online reported on Nov. 6  a possible reason why Obama hasn't made his final decision on Afghanistan.  It the report is accurate, perhaps he was awaiting the results of various negotiations.  Then there was Fort Hood and now he's in China.  Just a possibility. 

ISLAMABAD - Abdullah Abdullah, who this week withdrew from the presidential election runoff in Afghanistan, thereby handing victory to the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, did so under pressure from the United States, Asia Times Online has learned.
In exchange for the pullout of the non-Pashtun Abdullah, Pakistan's military has agreed to actively mediate between Washington and the Taliban over a reconciliation plan that will allow the US to exit from Afghanistan, as it is doing in Iraq, with a semblance of success.
A senior Pakistani diplomat involved in backchannel negotiations on Pakistan, Afghanistan and US relations told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity that the deal over Abdullah, whom Islamabad considers to be pro-India, was made during the three-day visit to Pakistan last week of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Apart from other senior officials, Clinton met with the chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, and the director general of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha. It was agreed that all US-led negotiations with Abdullah, which included offering him the position of chief executive officer of Afghanistan, would stop, and Karzai would get full backing for a second five-year term.
It was also acknowledged that Washington's political leadership, like the Pentagon, now accepts that the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan is best tackled with contact between the Pakistan armed forces and the Taliban, and not by the political governments of the region.
Clinton's visit came at a crucial time as Pakistan is engaged in a battle against the Pakistani Taliban and other militants; if it fails, there will be a cascading effect in the whole region and a sure defeat of American interests in Afghanistan.(the rest can be read here.)

Watching for Meteors

I posted about the Perseids in August and that is getting people here looking for information on the Leonid meteor shower which is peaking at 13:00 Universal time.

This isn't an astronomy blog but since people are getting here because of the previous post, let me offer directions to a meteor blog:


meteorblog   This page tells you about current meteors.  A post November 10 on the Leonid Meteor shower says:

This year during their peak, which is November 17th, the Moon will be a waxing crescent with 1% of the Moon’s visible disk illuminated! This means that the sky will be very dark so the Leonids have a chance of being a very strong meteor shower showing. Over a decade ago the parent comet, 55P/Temple-Tuttle passed close to Earth and this comet is responsible for the Leonids meteor shower each year.
The Leonids are ultra famous because of amazing meteor storms in the past. The Leonids generally have been some of the most brilliant meteor showers over the years and take their name from the position of their radiant near the constellation Leo the Lion; this is because the meteors seem to materialize from that point in the sky. I would love to tell you that this year the Leonids will be a meteor storm, but meteor showers are one of the most unpredictable events.

meteor shower viewing in general - where and how and when to look.



For those interested in tonight's excitement 13:00 universal time converts (for North America) into:

UTC (GMT)	PACIFIC STANDARD	MOUNTAIN STANDARD	CENTRAL STANDARD	EASTERN STANDARD
13	5 am	6 am	7 am	8 am

(Chart from http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/zones2.html )

That's 4 am here in Anchorage.  And now at almost 9 pm the temperature is 0˚F (-18˚C), so it will probably be below 0 at 4 am.  BUT, the sky is clear which is the most important thing for watching meteor showers.

Enjoy.

AAIF 2009 - Shorts in Competition

"In Competition" means that the initial reviewers picked these films from the other shorts to compete for awards in the Festival.  I'm going to try to get all the films in competition in each category listed in separate posts.  There are about 17 other shorts (besides the animated shorts) in the Festival.  I'll add stuff to this page if I learn more.  And I'll put together a Festival overview post that will link to these other key posts.  (The descriptions come from the Anchorage International Film Festival (AIFF) site unless otherwise noted.  Picture sources are all listed with the film.)  Based on awards already won, there are some good films here. 

The Capgras Tide  UK  15 minutes
Director: Adam Hutchings

A man returns home from the hospital after suffering a concussion convinced his father is an impostor. In an attempt to prove his theory he uncovers a more shocking truth.  (AIFF description)

You can see a one minute clip at Adam Hutchings' website.

Note:  I became aware of Capgras reading Richard Powers' gripping book, Echo Maker. Capgras results from a head injury and causes one to believe that a close relative is really an imposter.  The book is also of interest to Alaskans because it takes place in Kearny, Nebraska where the Sandhill Cranes gather.  Powers weaves in the theme of memory that the cranes have to find their way back to Alaska and the memory of his capgras patient in the book.


 

Free Lunch  US 30 minutes
Director: Rick Curnutt

Walter Tanner Jr. is done with his privileged past, so he sets off on the road in a lunch truck with his friend Casey to serve the working people of Los Angeles who live their own real struggles.

Luksus (Luxury) Poland, 38 minutes
reżyseria     Jarosław Sztander

Here's Google's translation from the Polish website:

History seventeen boy - luxury, which after several years of living under the care of her pimp - Popers, became too old for customers - pedophiles. For this reason Popers abandons boy at the central station. Luxury can not find in the new situation and by all means try to go back to "business" and her pimp.

Or you may prefer how the Brooklyn Film Festival site (photo also from Brooklyn Film Festival site)  described it:

Synopsis
The lives of two boys converge at the central train station in Warsaw a day before Christmas. One is a teen prostitute nicknamed Luksus (Luxury) and the other is a beggar with a dog. The older one, because of his age, has just finished his 'career'. The younger one is only a step away from it as he has come into possession of a valuable notebook with the addresses and telephone numbers of clients. A local taxi driver, the main client and agent in the underage sex business, offers Luksus a job as a tout. Will the boy exploit his younger friend or will he help him escape pedophiles' clutches? Painfully realistic, photographed in the authentic setting of the station, Sztandera's film touches upon a real problem often ignored by Polish cinema.  [From the Brooklyn Film Festival site]

Miracle Fish  Australia 18 minutes
Director: Luke Doolan

" Eight-year-old Joe has a birthday he will never forget. After friends tease him, he sneaks off to the sick bay, wishing everyone in the world would go away. He wakes up to find his dream may have become a reality."
Photo from Short Film Central

Miracle Fish was shown at the Sundance Film festival this year.  According to a short audio interview with Doolan, Miracle Fish first got Italian money and only got Australian backing after it got into Sundance. 








Next Floor   Canada  12 minutes
Director: Denis Villeneuve

This film won the Canal+ award for best short film at this year's Cannes film festival.

During an opulent and luxurious banquet complete with hordes of servers and valets, 11 pampered guests participate in what appears to be a ritualistic gastronomic carnage. In this absurd and grotesque universe, an unexpected sequence of events undermines the endless symphony of abundance.  [Photo screen shot from trailer at metacafe.]

She's a Fox   US  18 minutes

Director: Cameron Sawyer

Infatuated with the hottest girl in school, fifth-grader Cameron Sawyer puts everything on the line–including his mullet—to win the girl of his dreams.

[Photo from Heartland Film Festival site.]




True Beauty This Night   US  10 minutes
 Director: Peter Besson

 "Last night, Rhett Somers met the love of his life. Now all he has to do is convince her she’s the one. Not an easy feat considering how they met…"

The True Beauty This Night blog says the film won the Best Short Award at the San Diego Film Festival.  And there's a long list of other prizes at other festivals. Besson also relates some frustration with someone who interpreted the film differently than he did in a Q&A after a showing in Ojai, California. 


Dan Ito at Festivus Film Festival tells us in the video that he liked True Beauty This Night.