Unpacking and Setting Up the Office

Saturday the three of us staff members met at the office to unpack the boxes that had been shipped from the Anchorage office.   This is part of the glamorous work of being a legislative staffer.  Rep. G. and his wife arrived on the Alaska ferry from Whittier about ten am.  People said it was a three day crossing and part of the trip had some decent swells.  We also compared notes about what we'd heard in the training, both from the presenters and from other staffers. 

We all had one experience in common.  When we told people who we were working for, people who've been here before, immediately said, "Oh, Mr. Amendment."  Rep. G has the reputation, we were told, over and over again, of fixing details in bills.  We also hear - this we knew already - that he's smart, extremely decent, and that he'll work us hard.  

We unpacked the boxes with books and put them onto the shelves in chronological order (the series of law books) but decided we should wait for Rep. G to come in to let us know how we wanted the other stuff put away.  All of us are new this year, so we have to rely somewhat on staffers from other offices until we get our bearings. 

Here's Ted.  Another question I got from people when they learned I was in Rep. G's office was, "Are you an attorney?"  Well, Ted is headed for law school. 

And, Gretchen, the other staffer, recently graduated from law school graduate and passed the Alaska bar. 

We took a lunch break.  Gretchen went to walk her dog and Ted and I went to pick up the suitcase he had driven down for us.  The snow was off the steep hill where we live so it was an easy haul.  Then we met back in the office with Rep. G.

Some of it was pretty mundane - where the chairs go, where to file things, settling which staff member is going to focus on which committees and who would be in charge of basic office functions.  There's scheduling and making daily calendars, constituency work, monitoring emails, etc. 

Friday Afternoon Training Sessions

The ethics was in the morning.  J met me in the State Office Building for lunch.  I saw in the newspaper that on Fridays they have an organ concert at noon.  They also have public access wifi from the state library in the building. 

The music was mostly what I'd call merry-go-round organ music.  Inspiring in a very casual way.  You can read several articles on the history of the organ the Puget Sound Theater Organ Society website.  It begins like this:

In 1928, W.D. Gross, pioneer Alaska theater owner, had the organ built for his Coliseum Theater on South Franklin Street. The instrument complemented silent movies and was used until 1926, when talking motion pictures replaced the silents.
 

Obviously, they didn't mean 1926.  It did say it was moved to another theater in 1939. 

The afternoon sessions included presentations by the Building Manager, the Chief of Security, a Fire Safety person, people from the Supply Office and Mail Room, the Accounting Supervisor, people from the Print Shop and Documents offices, the Legislative Information and Teleconferencing Offices, the Director of Legal Services, the Legal Research Manager, and the Librarian.

Everyone was knowledgeable and seemed genuinely interested in making sure we knew what services they provided and how we could contact them and use them efficiently.  They all conveyed that they knew there was lots to learn and it was okay to ask 'dumb' questions.  Someone in the accounting office warned us to be careful what information we put down on accounting documents ('use your office addresses and phone numbers, not your home info') because this is all public information should someone care to ask for it.

The Legislative Information Office was particularly interesting to me.  I was vaguely aware of them but going to the downtown office to participate in a teleconference with legislators seemed pretty intimidating and I was skeptical about the impact.  But I'm ready to take a second look.  The people at that office do outreach into communities across the state to help people be more comfortable about coming in and participating.  I would imagine their impact would be greater in rural communities than in Anchorage where there are so many people.

It would be interesting to know whether people on the other end feel the same way about the LIO.  Did I feel intimidated because of my own expectations or because of how it is?  Since I've never actually tried to go to a teleconferenced hearing, I guess it was my own bias.

But a lot of what goes on in Juneau is also available online.  Here's a link to one of the State pages.
Here's part of that page below:

The Legislative Research Service conducts research for legislators on non-legal issues. Their webpage includes a list of links, including a page where you can search for old reports they've done.

Around 3:30 we moved over to the House Finance Committee Conference Room which is on the fifth floor of the Capitol Building.  (I'll try to discuss the key buildings later when I figure them out.)  This was lead by the chief of staff of the House Rules Committee and included the House Sergeant at Arms, the Chief Clerk, the House Records Supervisor, and one more person who wasn't on our agenda and whose title I think was Rules Committee Aide. 

The Lounge was mentioned.  As I understood it, this is where Reps can go eat and relax.  The only other people allowed there are Sergeant of Arms staff such as the pages.  Staff are not even allowed to knock on the door.  If staff needs to get a message to their legislator, they have to give a note to a page.  But there's a new service this year - again, this is what I understood was said - so that staff can order sandwiches from the Lounge as a separate window. 

They also went through the protocol for the House Floor.  Again, legislators only, plus pages and other Sergeant of Arms staff.  Notes must go through the pages.  Staffers (and the public) can view from the gallery, but even there, no cell phones, no texting, no flash photography.  No disturbances. 

The Chief Clerk went into detail about paper work necessary for moving bills along and how to track them.  Chit sheets are long, narrow yellow sheets with the names of each of the representatives.  I'm not completely sure what these are used for - I think they help keep track of who is supporting bills and I think someone said they were used for voting before electronic voting.  The Rules Chair, we were told, would no longer require these be turned in with each bill.  When we recounted this to Rep. G he had a big smile and highly praised the Rules Chair for this move. 

The Records Officer said all meetings - except  subcommittee and task force meetings - are recorded digitally and then transcribed.  Staff could borrow the equipment for those other meetings if they wished.  I understood that all these are made available on line.  I'm not sure if the recordings are or just the transcripts. But I think the recordings.  I think these can be found on the Media page above. 

It's Sunday morning.  We were supposed to meet in the office at 9am to do more unpacking.  We have a friend coming to meet us at 10:30.  I got to the office and no one was there.  So I checked my messages and they'd decided to come in later, so I took advantage of the break to catch up on the blogging.  But I have to run now.  Have a good Sunday.  The snow is pretty much gone from the streets and sidewalks now.  Just the shrinking berms where snow was pushed and the green areas still have snow. 

Ethics Training Session

We did three and a half hours Friday going over the ethics standards.  This is territory I know pretty well, in general, but I don’t know the details of the State Law, so this was useful.  

Joyce Anderson, the Administrator of the Legislative Ethics Committee, went through a long Powerpoint and fortunately we all got copies so I can go back and remember what was said.  We also got copies of the Standards of Conduct Handbook (pdf). A key point early on, from the slides,  was:

Two aspects to being ETHICAL
Knowing right from wrong
Having the moral willpower to do what’s right (discipline)

So yesterday’s session was designed to help us know right from wrong.  There seemed to be five key areas though considerable time was spent on gifts. 

1. Gifts
1. No gifts over $250 from anyone.
2. No gifts from lobbyists.  Period.
2. Separating Political and Personal Activity from Legislative Activity Paid for by the State 
1. Don’t do Legislator’s personal chores while on the Legislative payroll
2. Don’t do any campaign related work while on the legislative payroll
3. Constituent Services
   
1. Legislators and staff may help constituents determine how to get through the state system, but may not advocate for constituents dealing with state officials
4. Potential conflicts of interest must be Disclosed
5. Other  
1. Legislator or legislative employee may not disclose information deemed confidential by statute.
2. Legislative Employees may not file a letter of intent or declaration of candidacy to become a state or national candidate
3. Legislator or legislative employee may not request or accept compensation greater than the value of the services performed. (To prevent companies from ‘hiring’ legislators in the interim as a form of ‘gift’ rather than serious employment.)
   

I think that those are the basic areas.  But the handbook in the picture is 121 pages long because there are lots of exceptions, gray areas, and examples.  Here's a little more on some of those categories.



Gifts

The $250 limit is cumulative from any one person or entity, but there is no limit on how many people a staffer could get up to $250 worth of gifts from.  This includes everything from Money, Loans, Services (Cleaning, child care, legal advice, etc.), Entertainment, Hospitality (stay at a home, room at a hotel), things (flowers, clothes, etc.), Promise or Other Form.  (Promise of payment whether it's carried out or not.)

Also, there’s a distinction between gifts connected to one’s legislative status and gifts NOT related.  But this too can become complicated if a person is both a good friend or relative and also has business affected by the legislature. 


With lobbyists, there are a couple of exceptions on the no gift policy. 
First the basic rule:

Gifts from a registered lobbyist OR immediate family OR a person acting on behalf of a lobbyist are prohibited.

Exceptions:

1. Food and drink (for immediate consumption)
1. Lobbyist must report to APOC if the value of food and beverage exceeds $15
2. Gifts from an Immediate Family Member (spouse or domestic partner; OR parent, child or sibling under certain circumstances (this means the lobbyist is the immediate family member)
3. Contributions on behalf of a charity or charity event
4. Contributions to a charity
5. Compassionate gift

Let’s clarify.  A lobbyist can take a legislator or legislative staff member out to eat, but only up to $15.  If over $15 it has to be reported.  This includes not just the legislator or staff member, but also their the spouse or domestic partner.

However, “If the food and beverage is provided as part of an event open to all legislators or employees, no disclosure is required.” (Handbook, p. 29)

Charity events are also a big thing in Juneau apparently and it is okay for a lobbyist to buy a ticket to a charity dinner and give the ticket to a legislator or legislative employee.  There is a limit of $250 per lobbyist per legislator per year for charity events. So, if there were a Haiti Rescue Chairty Dinner next week, a lobbyist could buy and give five $50 tickets to Rep. G for him and his staff and wife  to go.  BUT, the Alaska Legislative Council must approve the charity event in advance.

A compassionate gift is when there is a health-related emergency, catastrophe, or tragedy.  To qualify it must have prior written approval from the chair of the Legislative Council and Ethics Committee and some other requirements.  Flowers, fruit baskets, etc. do not require pre-approval. 


Separating Legislative and Personal Status is intended, in the case of staff, to keep the staff from doing the legislator’s personal chores while on the state budget.  The only things staff are allowed to do while being paid by the State are activities that are legislative functions.  The Powerpoint slides tell us, however,

"There is no definition of 'legislative purpose' in the Legislative Ethics Act"

And sometimes the line is blurred.  An example from the handbook (page 10):

Q:  May a legislator or legislative employee ask or allow staff to pick up a clean shirt at the dry cleaners if the legislator or employee just spilled ink on the shirt being worn and must soon attend a meeting?
A:  Yes, this falls within the infrequent and unusual situation rule. 

Staff are not allowed to schedule non-legislative events on the legislator’s calendar, however, they are allowed to record such events, made by the legislator, on the calendar to avoid double booking the legislator.  There's an attempt, in these examples, to have rules but recognize that there are times when it's reasonable to make adjustments.

Also in this category is separating legislative and campaign functions.  So there are strict rules against using State funded legislative newsletters to campaign.  Factors for evaluating if something is allowed include:  Timing (how close it is to the election); Content (is it legislative or candidate info?); and Audience.  But mentioning anything about one’s campaign is prohibited.  Newsletters are not allowed 60 days before an election unless there is prior approval. 

Legislators are not allowed to do any campaigning from the office.  However, if someone calls and asks a campaign question, the staffer doesn't have to just hang up.  The staffer can  refer the caller to a campaign phone number or website.  This same ‘receptive’ rule is in effect if, say, the doctor's office called to change an appointment.  A staffer could check the schedule and change the appointment time. 

Constituent issues.  Legislators and their staff are allowed to assist their constituents with problems with State agencies - say an issue over their Permanent Fund Check.  The assistance is restricted to helping the constituent determine the right office to contact, understand the procedure, etc.  The legislator or staff is NOT to take the role of advocate or tell the State agency personnel how to resolve the problem. 

Disclosure.  There are situations when legislators and staffers must file official disclosures.

Gifts

1. If Legislative related
1. aggregate total under $250 from same person/entity in a calendar year, NO disclosure required. 
2. aggregate total over $250 from same person/entity in a calendar year (some are permitted)  disclosure required.
2. If Non-Legislative related 
1. - over $250 is required and disclosure may be required

Other required disclosures:

1. Membership on a Board of Directors
2. State Benefit and Loan Programs
1. there’s a long list of programs (from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board and Right of Way Easement to the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund)
2. -State Contracts and Grants, if annual value is $5000 or more 
3. Close Economic Association
1. If there is a financial relationships between legislators, legislative employees, public officials (as defined in Statute) and registered lobbyists
2. These might include any business or employment or even rental agreements
4. Financial agreement to represent a client before a state agency, board or commission

The group that interprets the law is the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics composed of

Public Members - Dennis ‘Skip’ Cook (Fairbanks);  H. Conner Thomas (Nome), Gary J. Turner (Chair)(Soldotna); Ann Rabinowitz (Anchorage); Herman G. Walker Jr.  (Anchorage)

Legislative Members - Senator Gary Stevens (Alt Senator Joe Thomas);  Senator Tom Wagoner (alt Senator Bill Wielechowski);  Vacant (Rep. John Coghill moved to the Senate) (Alt.  Rep. Carl Gatto);  Rep. Berta Gardner (Alt. Rep. Les Gara)

I don't recall hearing what the penalties are for violations.  I guess I should look that up.

This is a lot to swallow in three and a half hours.  Just to write this post, I had to go back through my notes and the handbook carefully to be sure I had it right. And I don't guarantee that it is all correct.  But it gives a sense of what all is involved.

That was just the morning session on Friday.  But I'll stop here and try to cover the other afternoon later.

Meanwhile, rain and wind are quickly getting rid of the snow.  I've had a hard time getting to good wifi spots, plus there's just been a lot to do. And the ferry from Whittier arrived this morning carrying lots of legislators and staff members and their cars.  Monday is Martin Luther King's Birthday Holiday, so the session begins on Tuesday.  But things are starting to happen.  We spent part of today unpacking the boxes that arrived from the Anchorage office.

Snowy Juneau

Here's looking down our street this morning at downtown Juneau as I went to this morning's ethics training session. 

The wisdom of this kind of stairway is a lot more obvious when it's snowing than in the summer. This means there's an alternative to getting down the hill on an icy sidewalk.

ADN Outsources to Philippines

I forgot to mention this.  When we canceled our Anchorage Daily News  home delivery before we left.  It took a while to get the operator who turned out to be in the Philippines.  Last time we canceled was in October last year and I didn't notice then that the person wasn't in Anchorage.  Maybe it was already outsourced.  I understand that businesses do this to save money by centralizing their phone answering services nationally and I understand that the ADN is owned by McClatchy.  But still, calling to tell your local newspaper should temporarily stop delivery being answered by someone in the Philippines seems a bit much.  I wonder how much they save by doing that?  And what happened to the person who used to do that in Anchorage? 

Staff Orientation Day 1

This morning was orientation for new legislative staff from 8:30am in the gym in the Terry Miller Legislative Office Building.  It's really close to our apartment - maybe a 5 minute walk, even in the breakup like slush on the streets.  It was packed for the opening with a lot of different categories of folks there - pages, interns, other staff, etc.  The picture was during a break later in the day after most of the others had left and just new legislative staffers stayed.

Rep. Nancy Dalhlstrom, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee welcomed everyone and emphasized the important role that the staff play and the need to respect the office and serve with honor.   


The presentations covered the normal topics for new employee orientation such as employment policies, how to get your paycheck, the benefits package, avoiding discriminatory practices, information services and the do's and don'ts on State computers.





One section, not in the normal employee orientation, was on Citations.  This was about Legislative citations in memoriam or to honor people for outstanding achievements. 




During the lunch break I joined the other two staffers in Rep. G's office and they got keys for the office and key cards to get into other areas.  I'm still in volunteer limbo, so nothing for me.  We then checked out the office which is full of boxes that were shipped down from Anchorage last week.  We've agreed to meet Saturday morning to empty the boxes and set up the office.

The Capitol building is really quite nice with lots of interesting art and historical photos.  I'll surely share some of that as time goes by.  I'm still figuring out where I can get to wifi hotspots and how to get wifi into the apartment.  (There's one in the gym so I stayed here after the others left.  There are several in the Capitol building too I was told.)  I'm starting to meet staff from different offices and trying to keep names and faces straight. 

In the afternoon there was a particularly good video on dealing with people who stereotype people in offensive ways called "Ouch! That Stereotype Hurts."   The Ouch! website offers these objectives for the film:

• Understand the impact of stereotpes and biased statements, even when casually said.
• Identify the most common reasons people sit silent in the face of bias and stereotypes.
• Enhance skills for speaking up against stereotypes without blame or guilt.
  

It gave examples of situations where people say things that could be offensive and ways to respectfully make the point that someone has just generalized about a whole category of people.  It also recognized that people in these situations are often emotional and liable to not articulate their concern well.


Time to get going. I've stuck around in the gym after the training because there's wifi access in here.  Tomorrow we start with mandatory ethics training.

Anchorage to Juneau

Last time we flew was the end of October and the airport's remodeling is done. The old terminal B was fancied up, but basically looks like terminal B. The floor is fancier, the bathrooms at the end are on the other side, and there's this flock of geese.

Here's the Chugach Range from the airport.

And as we waited to take off the sun came out bright.

And we're now above 10,000 feet over the Chugach just past Eagle River.

And soon we're slipping into the clouds.

It was raining when we landed in Cordova. Yes, I know, I should have paid attention and not gotten us on the milk run, but the time was better, the price was better, and we weren't in a great hurry.

There weren't a lot of people on the plane. Never more than twenty I don't think. Here we're waiting at Cordova for a few passengers to come on.

You can see the rain drops on the window as we're about to take off at Cordova.

And a few passengers got off at Yakutat.

And this book Catherine lent me kept my attention all the way to Juneau. We arrived early. The apartment is fine. They had a snow storm yesterday, but the streets have sort of been cleared and the walkway to our basement apartment was cleared. We're on a hill and face south onto a garden.

On this day as Bill Allen adjusts to prison, we had dinner at the Baranof Hotel.

I have training for new legislative staff tomorrow morning at 8:30.  So I need to get some sleep.

Seven Point O

First, I must offer my sympathy to the people suffering in Haiti and their relatives around the world trying to find out what has happened.  This is a tragedy that all of us have to be touched by.  Second, there are organizations prepared to assist the people of Haiti, but be careful of the scammers who are sure to be soliciting money to help in the earthquake.  Give to organizations you know are good.  Charity Navigator is an online site that evaluates charitbable organizations.


The Richter Scale is not understood by many people, especially those who don't live in earthquake country.   One reporter I heard this morning was reporting aftershocks "almost as powerful as the original."  The original is being reported as 7.0.  The big aftershocks she mentioned were "as high as 5.0."

These are not even close.  Every point on the Richter Scale is TEN times higher than the previous point.  So, 6.0 is TEN times more powerful than a 5.0.  And 7.0 is then ten times ten, or, 100 times more powerful than a 5.0.  So, as I say, a 5.0 aftershock is not even close to a 7.0

I grew up in Los Angeles, and have spent most of my life in Anchorage, both in earthquake country.  The largest earthquake I've experienced was a 6.6 in LA in 1971.   In LA, there was some damage at 6.6, and in the epicenter a new hospital collapsed.  But overall things paused for a few days as schools and other buildings were inspected and then life went on.

San Francisco's 1989 Loma Prieta  earthquake "measured 6.9 on the moment magnitude scale^[5] (surface-wave magnitude 7.1) or 7.0 on the open ended Richter Scale.^[1]"(from Wikipedia.)  The death tool was 63.  While there was significant damage (estimated at $6 billion), it appears that the damage and death toll were significantly less than what is being reported in Haiti.  In Port Au Prince, according to the NY Times:

The earthquake, the worst in the region in more than 200 years, left the country in a shambles. As night fell in Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s capital, fires burned near the shoreline downtown, but otherwise the city fell into darkness. The electricity was out, telephones were not working and relief workers struggled to make their way through streets blocked by rubble.
In the chaos, it was not possible for officials to determine how many people had been killed and injured, but they warned that the casualties could be substantial.

A more recent story online reports "a death toll tentatively estimated by Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive at more than 100,000."

Wrath of God or lack of adequate building standards?

God is one of the stories people use to explain how the earth works.  "Government is evil" is another story that people use to explain things.  Another story we can use is that much of what government does is invisible and we don't notice it until it isn't working.  Zoning rules, including building standards, are often seen as one of the evils of government.  People resent government rules that say they can't build a house the way they want or that they have to use a method that will increase the costs considerably. And sometimes general rules sometimes don't make sense in specific situations and there are cases of corrupt building inspectors.

But Port-au-Prince's apparent devastation compared to San Francisco's relatively minor damage shows how science and government can set standards for construction, which, if enforced, save lives.  As individuals we are always tempted to cut corners when our dollars don't match our desires, but the law encourages us to use methods that were developed with potential disasters (fires, hurricanes, as well as earthquakes) in mind.  Again, I realize these rules are not perfect and as the science improves old methods get changed.  And humans who enforce the rules aren't necessarily consistent or honest.  But looking at the difference between the damage in Haiti in 2010 and in San Francisco shows the value good, well enforced, building codes make.   The low death toll in San Francisco is, in part, a result of one of the invisible roles government plays in our lives when it is working right. 



Here's a little more context for the Ricther Scale from the United States Geological Survey.

Richter Approximate Magnitude	Approximate TNT for Seismic Energy Yield	Joule equivalent	Example
0.0	1 kg (2.2 lb)	4.2 MJ
0.5	5.6 kg (12.4 lb)	23.5 MJ	Large hand grenade
1.0	32 kg (70 lb)	134.4 MJ	Construction site blast
1.5	178 kg (392 lb)	747.6 MJ	WWII conventional bombs
2.0	1 metric ton	4.2 GJ	Late WWII conventional bombs
2.5	5.6 metric tons	23.5 GJ	WWII blockbuster bomb
3.0	32 metric tons	134.4 GJ	Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
3.5	178 metric tons	747.6 GJ	Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 1986
4.0	1 kiloton	4.2 TJ	Small atomic bomb
4.5	5.6 kilotons	23.5 TJ
5.0	32 kilotons	134.4 TJ	Nagasaki atomic bomb (actual seismic yield was negligible since it detonated in the atmosphere) Lincolnshire earthquake (UK), 2008
5.4	150 kilotons	625 TJ	2008 Chino Hills earthquake (Los Angeles, United States)
5.5	178 kilotons	747.6 TJ	Little Skull Mtn. earthquake (NV, USA), 1992 Alum Rock earthquake (CA, USA), 2007
6.0	1 megaton	4.2 PJ	Double Spring Flat earthquake (NV, USA), 1994
6.5	5.6 megatons	23.5 PJ	Rhodes (Greece), 2008
6.7	16.2 megatons	67.9 PJ	Northridge earthquake (CA, USA), 1994
6.9	26.8 megatons	112.2 PJ	San Francisco Bay Area earthquake (CA, USA), 1989
7.0	32 megatons	134.4 PJ	Java earthquake (Indonesia), 2009 12 January 2010 earthquake (Haiti)
7.1	50 megatons	210 PJ	Energy released is equivalent to that of Tsar Bomba, the largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested.
7.5	178 megatons	747.6 PJ	Kashmir earthquake (Pakistan), 2005 Antofagasta earthquake (Chile), 2007
7.8	600 megatons	2.4 EJ	Tangshan earthquake (China), 1976
8.0	1 gigaton	4.2 EJ	Toba eruption[citation needed] 75,000 years ago; the largest known volcanic event San Francisco earthquake (CA, USA), 1906 Queen Charlotte earthquake (BC, Canada), 1949 México City earthquake (Mexico), 1985 Gujarat earthquake (India), 2001 Chincha Alta earthquake (Peru), 2007 Sichuan earthquake (China), 2008 (initial estimate: 7.8)
8.5	5.6 gigatons	23.5 EJ	Sumatra earthquake (Indonesia), 2007
9.0	32 gigatons	134.4 EJ	Lisbon Earthquake (Lisbon, Portugal), All Saints Day, 1755
9.1	67 gigatons	477 EJ	Indian Ocean earthquake, 2004 (40 ZJ in this case)
9.2	90.7 gigatons	379.7 EJ	Anchorage earthquake (AK, USA), 1964
9.5	178 gigatons	747.6 EJ	Valdivia earthquake (Chile), 1960 (251 ZJ in this case)
10.0	1 teraton	4.2 ZJ	Never recorded by humans.
13.0	108 megatons = 100 teratons	5x1030 ergs = 500 ZJ	Yucatán Peninsula impact (causing Chicxulub crater) 65 Ma ago.[8][9][10][11][12]

Prop8TrialTracker Day 2 Summary of Perry v. Schwartzenegger

[UPDATE August 4, 2010:  Here's a post on the decision of Judge Walker today]

Here's Day 2 coverage of the Perry v. Schwartzenegger at Prop8TrialTracker.  This is a pro gay marriage site.  If you know of an anti-gay marriage site that is live blogging the trial, let me know.  It would be interesting to hear that take too.

Here's part of the summary.  I've taken a pretty big chunk, but they've been asking people to pass it on, so I don't think they'll mind.  The details as the trial was going can be found on this Day 2 page. (Well, this gets to the website.  If you do it tonight you'll get Day 2.  I suspect if you do it tomorrow, you'll get tomorrow's coverage. 

Wrapping Up Day 2

By Rick Jacobs
Well, that’s it for day two. The pattern looks pretty clear. Our side is saying that gays and lesbians have been harmed for a really long time, that there has been institutional discrimination, that they are a suspect class (meaning they should be covered by the equal protection clause). Our side is also showing that marriage will be strengthened by permitting loving same-sex couples access it, that society will be more stable with same-sex marriage and that there is no harm done at all by opening marriage to same-sex couples.
The Prop. 8 side wants to show that marriage has always (in the US) been a Christian institution between a man and a woman, that heterosexual marriage is really good for kids and that in fact homosexual marriage will “hurt” kids and will degrade the institution. Ultimately, they are trying to show that it will lead to less stability as people abandon the institution of marriage.
They are having a hard time with that because so far the evidence shows that by seeking access to marriage, groups previously excluded, such as slaves, interracial couples, certain classes of “foreigners” and in some cases women, have actually strengthened the institution by obtaining access.
There’s another theme here which is about tradition. Remember the Fiddler on the Roof song? The Prop. 8 side appeals to their concept of tradition. The only problem is that their idea of tradition either never existed or only existed when women and people of color had fewer rights than white men.
There’s so much more, but you all can probably see more patterns than can I because I have been so close to it. What do you see? What do you think? Share it, will you? One big purpose of this trial is to have a national conversation based on a huge body of evidence. Homosexuality and America are on trial here. The Prop. 8 folks do not want you to see what’s going on and they don’t want a conversation outside of the carefully controlled media buys they that are all based on fear. So start talking, start writing.
Courage Campaign Institute started our Courageous Conversations (check it out here). Sooner than later, we need to stories of the plaintiffs out there. That will start to change hearts even as this trial changes minds.
The hard part is living through this. That Anita Bryant segment, the ads, the analysis of the ads by Prof. Chauncey, it is all upsetting. Last night, Cleve Jones and Lance Black showed me Harvey Milk’s Castro Street. Cleve’s mind is a bit scary: he remembers every name and face and place that he has ever been. He’s a walking history book who can translate and apply that history today’s politics even while he designs the strategy for the future. We all know that Lance is a wildly talented writer, but he’s way smart. He lived MILK for ten years before the movie became MILK.
I had never spent any time in the Castro. The truth is that I was afraid to as I was maturing because in my twenties, when I was not out and hated being gay, I was afraid to come to San Francisco because I did not want people to think I was gay. So there I was yesterday listening to how those two couples had gotten mauled by prejudice and how all they want to do is marry and then that night I was walking through gay history with two of the people I most respect. Cleve knew lots and lots of people still even last night. .  .

There's a lot more here.

Interesting Baggage Rules and Exceptions

Some of the legislative staff is driving to Juneau and one of the staffers in my office took a suitcase for us.  Yesterday I went to the Alaska Airlines website to see how much our check-ins would cost.  We pretty much just go carry on these days, but this could be three months, so a little bit more would be helpful.  So here are the basic charges under the new regime:

But, there's another link called Baggage charges and waivers:

Jackpot!! Travel wholly within State of Alaska - THREE FREE BAGS!  Hey Ted, sorry I had you take that suitcase.  I could have taken yours.  The temptation to take six check-ins with us is great.  But, no, we're going to stick to one, maybe two, possibly three check-ins between the two of us.

There's also three free check-ins for military "on orders."  And people going to Guadalajara or Mexico City can take two free bags from Dec. 1 to January 15.  What's that about?

But there's more:

OK, strollers and car seats, wheel chairs.  That certainly makes sense.  And international connections where you can take two free check-ins, that makes sense too.  But there's a special for Santa Rosa in Napa Valley:  one box of wine!

No free boxes of frozen salmon from Alaska, what did Santa Rosa do to get their exception?   But the rules do recognize hunters though.  Here are the rules on raw meat and antlers:

 Here's the link to the Alaska Airlines baggage page with 14 different sections.