For the Snowbound - Consider a Break in Springlike Juneau

I'm afraid these aren't great photos, I've been trying to get some shots, while rushing to work in the mornings,  that would show off why the snow bound might want to consider a weekend break in Alaska. 

 

 Wednesday

Wednesday - This is Franklin Street.  

Notice the snow is on the mountains, not in the streets.

Thursday. Mountains, not in the streets.

Today.  With Sunshine. From our window.

Today, sun and blue sky.  From another window.

And just so I don't get accused of misleading you, here's a map of Alaska, showing you that Juneau is in what is called Southeast Alaska.  To get your bearings, Southeast is north and west of the US Northwest.  The map will enlarge a lot if you click it.

And for those who want to wish Abraham Lincoln a happy birthday (and Charles Darwin), you can singalong at least year's post on this day with the Anchorage cast of Hair.

Security Cam

The Thomas B. Stewart Building just opened recently after being remodeled. It's still not quite finished. The stairwells, for example, aren't done. The new staff and public lounge is here at the end of the bridge from the second floor of the Capitol.

So, Thursday as I was typing away, the worker came in and installed this new security camera. I asked him where I should sit so the camera wouldn't see me. He said, they're installing it to keep an eye on bloggers. (I realize as I write this now, that some people might not realize that he said this jokingly, having seen me doing video interviews in this room.)

Boyd McFail Lobbying Against Mandatory Car Daytime Headlights

I keep being amazed by the number and variety of people walking the halls of the Capitol to make their case to legislators. Alaskans complain that Juneau is far away and isolated and people can't get to see their legislators. It may be hard to get here, but once people get here, I imagine any other state Capitol buildings being more accessible than Alaska's. And people manage to get here.  It's crawling with people from all over the state. And you can walk into a legislator's office and if you can't see the legislator right then, they'll probably offer you another time or a staffer who will take down your story. I've never been in another state's legislative building during a session so I don't know how accessible they are, but here the building is wide open for any and everyone to walk into the building and into most anyone's office. Among the many people in the halls today were a group from Bristol Bay, the Alaska Humanities Forum (I'll try to get a post up on them) dentists, people advocating for public transit, and who knows what all else.

Here's a video Boyd McFail explaining why he's against mandatory daytime headlights on Alaska highways just before talking to Rep. Max Gruenberg.

Sorry about the audio, I've turned off the autostart

The Gavel to Gavel embedded audios in the last two days, unfortunately, were set to start playing audio automatically. I had this problem once before with a video but it was a while back and I had to go look up how to turn it off.

It's really not to hard. Just look in the embed code. It will say 'autostart' somewhere followed "true." The true makes it turn on automatically when someone opens the page. You just have to replace the "true" with "false" and then people have to click on it to start it.

It's a real pain - especially on blogs - and I'll try to talk to the Gavel to Gavel folks and get them to change the embed codes so it doesn't go on automatically. For more information about the codes, this Apple tutorial makes it easy.

Why It's Clear as Mud or Who's on First?

[I would note that the Department of Law attorneys seem to have refined their answers since last week's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I'm guessing that they've absorbed enough questions from people and are now better prepared for the kinds of questions people are asking. But that doesn't make things clear.  That lack of clarity is perhaps more precise though.]

I'm trying to figure out how to write about this morning's State Affairs meeting. See previous post for the audio.  You'll get some idea of the problem when I say that a lot of the discussion revolved around the meaning of words.  The Citizens United v. FEC decision means that there can't be restrictions on corporate independent expenditures on political speech, but it doesn't affect limits on contributions made directly to candidates. 

It does NOT affect disclosure and disclaimer laws.  So the question is, how does this impact Alaska law?  Alaska banned all issue advertising by corporations (and labor unions), so Alaska has no laws requiring disclosure or disclaimers for corporations and labor unions  since they had nothing to disclose.

So, what does Alaska need to do to be able to keep corporations and labor unions from distorting the elections through unlimited spending on campaign issue ads and other 'independent expenditures" on political issues?  Making sure that the public knows who is paying seems to be the first answer:  making sure disclosure and disclaimer laws apply to corporations.

One of the problems is that the Federal language and the State language are not the same.  And much of the discussion got bogged down in questions about what words mean:

[Note:  The words are from my rough notes taken at the meeting.  I've gone through and cleaned them up a bit, but not completely.   Again - read with caution and go to the Gavel to Gavel audio in the previous post to get the actual words used.]

Johnson:  Political speech - is there political speech outside an election?  Say, opposition to particular election or legislator, is that political speech?

Johnson:  with ballot initiatives you could name yourself anything you want.  Will this require us to include contributors to these groups?  Can’t be anonymous.  If a group, do they have to list all of them now?

 [Johnson is Rep. Craig Johnson]

or

Johnson:  In prohibited expenditures in our statutes:  Can’t be anonymous unless printed material other than ad in newspaper.
Ptacin:  I believe that only applies to individuals
p. 28 AS15.13.084
Johnson:  It says a person…
Ptacin:  Person includes labor union and corporations, separate from individual
Johnson:  Here it says person, which means corp.  so as I read this a business could do anything other than a newspaper anonymously.
Ptacin:  A person is not entitled to make an expenditure anonymously, except….
Johnson;  Except read ....
Ptacin:  that exception qualified by (a) refers to individual
Petersen:  One step further...but an individual could print up flyer without name on it and go door to door, no disclaimer responsibility.
Ptacin:  Under this distinct set of circumstances, yes.
Seaton:  A little confusing.  Corporation, individual, natural person, person, all those could you clarify?

[Dept.of Law attorney John Ptacin; Rep. Pete Petersen;  Rep. Paul Seaton]

or

Seaton:  Person includes corporations and labor unions but excludes natural persons?
Johnson:  I want clarity, I think a natural person is a person
Ptacin:  Law distinguishes between natural person (individual) and person applies to labor unions and business
Seaton:  You're saying person excludes individuals and natural persons
Ptacin:  Mr. Dosik is on the phone Atty General’s office, he can answer better.
Dosik:  A person is broader group than individuals - includes individuals and entities and organizations ???  seems to conflict

[Dept. of Law attorney Thomas Dosik I believe]

There were also problems with how to get the actual contributors to disclose who they are rather than hiding behind names like "Alaskans for Good Things."

Johnson:  with ballot initiatives you could name yourself anything you want.  Will this require us to include contributors to these groups?  Can’t be anonymous.  If a group, do they have to list all the contributors? now?
Ptacin:  Doesn’t change laws regarding groups - reports in 30 days.  Expenses and contributors.  With independent expenditures different.  If corps and labor unions entitled to make independent speech, they would tell us in ten days.
Gruenberg:  AS 15.13.084 (2)  A person may not make an expenditure using a fictitious name or name of another.  I can’t find definition?  Do regs define that or precedent that defines that?  If not, what is the legislative history?  The intent?
Ptacin:  I don’t.  Regulation on … Give me a minute
Gruenberg:  Question can be for anyone else?  Any agency common law decision?
Holly Hill from APOC by phone:  There is a current case before the Commission that we aren’t at liberty to discuss.
G: Is one of the issues fictitious name?
Holly Hill:  0901cd  assigned to hearing officer:  APO-01   Asst. AG Dosick may be able to tell us when it will be decided.
Dosick (Dept. of Law attorney by phone):  Within several months.
Lynn:  So about election time?
Dosick:  Yes.

[Rep. Max Gruenberg; APOC is Alaska Public Offices Commission]

 The current statutes don't help a lot:

From AS 15.13.400 Definitions
(11) "individual" means a natural person;
(14) "person" has the meaning given in AS 01.10.060 , and includes a labor union, nongroup entity, and a group;
(13) "nongroup entity" means a person, other than an individual, that takes action the major purpose of which is to influence the outcome of an election, and that
(16) "publicly funded entity" means a person, other than an individual, that receives half or more of the money on which it operates during a calendar year from government, including a public corporation.  
(8) "group" means

(A) every state and regional executive committee of a political party; and

(B) any combination of two or more individuals acting jointly who organize for the principal purpose of influencing the outcome of one or more elections and who take action the major purpose of which is to influence the outcome of an election; a group that makes expenditures or receives contributions with the authorization or consent, express or implied, or under the control, direct or indirect, of a candidate shall be considered to be controlled by that candidate; a group whose major purpose is to further the nomination, election, or candidacy of only one individual, or intends to expend more than 50 percent of its money on a single candidate, shall be considered to be controlled by that candidate and its actions done with the candidate's knowledge and consent unless, within 10 days from the date the candidate learns of the existence of the group the candidate files with the commission, on a form provided by the commission, an affidavit that the group is operating without the candidate's control; a group organized for more than one year preceding an election and endorsing candidates for more than one office or more than one political party is presumed not to be controlled by a candidate; however, a group that contributes more than 50 percent of its money to or on behalf of one candidate shall be considered to support only one candidate for purposes of AS 15.13.070 , whether or not control of the group has been disclaimed by the candidate; 

 

Is your head spinning yet?  Translation (I think):

Individual = Human being, with a body, blood, brain, etc.
Person = Corporation or Labor Union
Publicly Funded Entity = non-profit organizations  (I think)
Nongroup entity = appears to be a group formed by a corporation or labor union to affect elections like a PAC

Here is the whole list of definitions from this section of the Statutes (I'm not including 8 again to save space but it is above.)

AS 15.13.400. Definitions.

In this chapter,

(1) "candidate"

(A) means an individual who files for election to the state legislature, for governor, for lieutenant governor, for municipal office, for retention in judicial office, or for constitutional convention delegate, or who campaigns as a write-in candidate for any of these offices; and

(B) when used in a provision of this chapter that limits or prohibits the donation, solicitation, or acceptance of campaign contributions, or limits or prohibits an expenditure, includes

(i) a candidate's campaign treasurer and a deputy campaign treasurer;

(ii) a member of the candidate's immediate family;

(iii) a person acting as agent for the candidate;

(iv) the candidate's campaign committee; and

(v) a group that makes expenditures or receives contributions with the authorization or consent, express or implied, or under the control, direct or indirect, of the candidate;

(2) "commission" means the Alaska Public Offices Commission;

(3) "communication" means an announcement or advertisement disseminated through print or broadcast media, including radio, television, cable, and satellite, the Internet, or through a mass mailing, excluding those placed by an individual or nongroup entity and costing $500 or less and those that do not directly or indirectly identify a candidate or proposition, as that term is defined in AS 15.13.065(c);

(4) "contribution"

(A) means a purchase, payment, promise or obligation to pay, loan or loan guarantee, deposit or gift of money, goods, or services for which charge is ordinarily made and that is made for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of a candidate, and in AS 15.13.010(b) for the purpose of influencing a ballot proposition or question, including the payment by a person other than a candidate or political party, or compensation for the personal services of another person, that are rendered to the candidate or political party;

(B) does not include

(i) services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their time on behalf of a political party, candidate, or ballot proposition or question;

(ii) ordinary hospitality in a home;

(iii) two or fewer mass mailings before each election by each political party describing the party's slate of candidates for election, which may include photographs, biographies, and information about the party's candidates;

(iv) the results of a poll limited to issues and not mentioning any candidate, unless the poll was requested by or designed primarily to benefit the candidate; or

(v) any communication in the form of a newsletter from a legislator to the legislator's constituents, except a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or a newsletter or material in a newsletter that is clearly only for the private benefit of a legislator or a legislative employee;

(vi) a fundraising list provided without compensation by one candidate or political party to a candidate or political party;

(5) "electioneering communication" means a communication that

(A) directly or indirectly identifies a candidate;

(B) addresses an issue of national, state, or local political importance and attributes a position on that issue to the candidate identified; and

(C) occurs within the 30 days preceding a general or municipal election;

(6) "expenditure"

(A) means a purchase or a transfer of money or anything of value, or promise or agreement to purchase or transfer money or anything of value, incurred or made for the purpose of

(i) influencing the nomination or election of a candidate or of any individual who files for nomination at a later date and becomes a candidate;

(ii) use by a political party;

(iii) the payment by a person other than a candidate or political party of compensation for the personal services of another person that are rendered to a candidate or political party; or

(iv) influencing the outcome of a ballot proposition or question;

(B) does not include a candidate's filing fee or the cost of preparing reports and statements required by this chapter;

(C) includes an express communication and an electioneering communication, but does not include an issues communication;

(7) "express communication" means a communication that, when read as a whole and with limited reference to outside events, is susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation but as an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate;

(8) "group" means [already listed above, not repeated here]

(9) "immediate family" means the spouse, parents, children, including a stepchild and an adoptive child, and siblings of an individual;

(10) "independent expenditure" means an expenditure that is made without the direct or indirect consultation or cooperation with, or at the suggestion or the request of, or with the prior consent of, a candidate, a candidate's campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer, or another person acting as a principal or agent of the candidate;

(11) "individual" means a natural person;

(12) "issues communication" means a communication that

(A) directly or indirectly identifies a candidate; and

(B) addresses an issue of national, state, or local political importance and does not support or oppose a candidate for election to public office.

(13) "nongroup entity" means a person, other than an individual, that takes action the major purpose of which is to influence the outcome of an election, and that

(A) cannot participate in business activities;

(B) does not have shareholders who have a claim on corporate earnings; and

(C) is independent from the influence of business corporations.

(14) "person" has the meaning given in AS 01.10.060 , and includes a labor union, nongroup entity, and a group;

(15) "political party" means any group that is a political party under AS 15.60.010 and any subordinate unit of that group if, consistent with the rules or bylaws of the political party, the unit conducts or supports campaign operations in a municipality, neighborhood, house district, or precinct;

(16) "publicly funded entity" means a person, other than an individual, that receives half or more of the money on which it operates during a calendar year from government, including a public corporation.

"I think it’s a mess at this point."

That was State Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Bob Lynn's characterization of where things stand regarding Alaska's campaign spending and disclosure laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision and after listening to an hour of discussion this morning.

Rep. Lynn's take was significantly different from Department of Law attorney Alpheus Bullard who said, "It's clear as mud."

I've got 13 pages of rough notes - too rough  for me to post right now, and I haven't had time to think this through enough and there's a meeting at 11 on funding for the Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA) funding which should prove to be interesting.

Basically, the committee decided to have Chair Lynn send a letter to the Governor asking the administration to draft legislation for the legislature to work from since the Dept. of Law seems to be the source of most expertise on this.  Outside the meeting, someone said that Sen. French is also drafting a bill.

This discussion was different from last week's Senate Judiciary hearing - even with the same attorneys testifying.  I'm still trying to figure out specifically why.  I think the attorneys have had more time to think things through and were more specific about where there were issues.

And the line of questioning from he committee seemed more detailed and informed.  One issue that seemed new, was looking at the issue of tax deductibility for independent expenses related to political speech.  Rep. Seaton suggested that if corporations can deduct expenses spent on political speech, but individuals couldn't, there would be a clear unfairness.

Another indicator of the difficulty, here's attorney Bullard in response to a question about what kind of disclosure can be required of corporations in political speech ads:

Rep Johnson, through the chair. [they have to address specific members through the Chair] It’s difficult [to answer your question.]  In other states, there are major requirements to have disclaimer, they might have to reveal the five largest contributors.  At a certain point, we get to the anonymous contributor of $5 who bought a raffle ticket. This is the opposite end of the continuum.  The answer to your question lies somewhere in between. 

I'll clean up the rough notes and try to summarize the key issues.  You can also listen to the whole thing on Gavel to Gavel.  (It says it's 47 minutes, but the session was close to two hours.)

University Caucus Formation Love Fest

 University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton addressing

the new University Booster Caucus

At 4pm Wednesday in the Senate Finance Committee room the University of Alaska Caucus was officially formed.   I've been looking at all the caucuses listed in the schedules of meetings and trying to put together a post about them.  Basically, these caucuses are formed by legislators who are interested in supporting a particular issue.  Some of the caucuses include:

• Anchorage Caucus
• Bush Caucus
• Fish Caucus
• Majority and Minority Caucuses

And now the University Booster Caucus joins these.


The three chancellors, Fran Ulmer, UAA;  John Pugh, UAS;  and Brian Rogers, UAF.

Everyone said nice things about each other and it was a different atmosphere from most of the other meetings I've been to.  But then that is what the caucus is supposed to do - promote the university. 

I guess I should add, that I am a professor emeritus (fancy word for retired but still connected to) at UAA and I know some of these people. 

I support the cause of higher education in theory, but would love to see the practice more efficient and effective.  I do hold the UAA Chancellor in high regard. 

The caucus members are listed as
Co-chairs:  Sen. Johnny Ellis; Sen Joe Thomas;  Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom; Rep. Anna Fairclough

Members:  Sens. Bettye Davis, Dennis Egan; Hollis French;  Linda Menard;  Joe Paskvan;  Gary Stevens; & Bill Wielechowski
Reps.  Les Gara; Berta Gardner; Carl Gatto; David Guttenberg; Lindsey Holmes; Scott Kawasaki; Mike Kelly; Beth Kertulla; Cathy Munoz; Pete Petersen; Jay Ramras; & Chris Tuck

Although the Chancellors mentioned how the University has branches all over the state, this caucus is clearly heavy with the Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau legislators. 

Alaska Community Services Lobbying for Mentors for Those Aging Out of Foster Care

The hallways of the Capitol are crawling with people lobbying for one thing or another.  While there are professional lobbyists, most seem to be relatively ordinary people with ordinary jobs who only come down here once in a session.   Here are two people talking with a legislative staffer about their program and he's gathering data for his boss.  This is in the new public lounge in the Thomas Stewart Building. 

In my new perch in the staff/public lounge I get to meet a few, but there's a limit to how many I can film and post about.  But I do want to keep putting people up so you don't forget that they are here.  I wanted to get a picture of the stairwell today, packed with people, but I was already late for something.

Here are two people from Alaska Community Services who were lobbying for a program to recruit, train, and coordinate mentors for kids aging out of the foster care program.  I have a soft spot for this sort of work since I did some mentoring for kids like that at Covenant House.


Studies show mentors have a big positive impact on kids like this.  Here's a quote from a former foster kid from their handout about the transition he had from being in the foster care system and then aging out:

"It's just like one day everybody is there for you and the next day, you are on your own.  I didn't understand what my credit score was.  I didn't understand anything about how to find an apartment, or how to buy a car or how not to be taken advantage of."

All the ways that mothers and fathers and older siblings and aunts and uncles and family friends their their young adult relatives, these kids have to figure out on their own, because that network doesn't exist for them at all.  Think what you or your children would have done at that age thrown out into the world with no one to go to for help.  That's why mentors can make such a big difference. 

[In the background in the video, you can see Sen. French come into the Thomas Stewart building from the bridge from the Capitol Building, the try to go up the stairs and see they are blocked off because they are finishing them, then head to the stairs at the other end of the building.]

"sifting through haystacks of legislative history searching for the needle of legislative intent"

Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti gave the Annual State of the Judiciary Address to the Joint House and Senate at 11 am this morning.  He began by acknowledging the need for separation of powers, but today emphasized the importance of cooperation and collaboration.  



This is well worth listening to and today I figured out how to embed Gavel to Gavel video. [Turns out to just be audio.]



Basically he said:

• We're set up to have separation of powers and that's important  but  today he's going to focus on our interrelationships though
• Introduced Supreme Court Colleagues
• Reasons why the court sometimes seems aloof
• required by law not to talk about cases
• must be impartial, not influenced by public opinion, political pressure 
• Gave examples of Court System Collaborating with other branches
• Criminal Justice Working group - with members including Commissioners and court employees, meet 8 times a year to resolve minor problems that balloon into much bigger and more expensive problems.  
• One example:  Not enough space for attorneys to talk to clients, so the attorneys began calling for hearings just so they could talk to their clients, but that triggered very expensive response to set up the often unnecessary hearings
• Two example:  Working on astounding 66% recidivism rate
• Judicial Council and ISER research project to reduce the  - first couple of days out of prison the highest risk.  
• Alaska offender reentry task force. 
• Court system reaching out to schools 

• holding oral arguments at high schools 
• youth court support
• work with teachers
• Color of Justice program 
• Mini Lunch seminars with legislators
• Recognizing the Alaska Judicial Council 
• evaluates applications for judicial office
• Evaluates judges standing for retention
• Volunteers do enormous work and make ours "one of the finest and most professional court system in the world"
• The numbers 
• Court is 1% of the State Budget - 800 employees  44 locations
• Compare to US Supreme Court
• US -  9 justices,  77 opinions per year  or @ 8/judge
• AK Supreme Court - 5 justices, 110 opinions or @ 22/judge
• AK Appeals  - 3 justices, 65  opinions or @ 22/judge
• Trial courts
• Alaska Superior Court:  500 cases per judge per year
• Federal District Court:   200 cases per judge per year
• The Odds
• Here he looked at Alaska's tiny 700,000 population within a country of over 300 million, yet five national justice related organizations are headed by Alaskans this year - what are the odds that would happen?

• National Association of Women's Judges - Dana Fabe
• National Appellate Court Clerks - Marilyn May
• National Conference of State Court Administrators - Stephanie Cole
• National Association of Law Librarians - Catherine Lemann
• Chair of the National Center for State Courts’ Consortium for Language Access to Courts - Brenda Aiken.

 As I was trying to verify the names on that final list, I discovered the text of his speech is at the Alaska Supreme Court Site.

[Pictures of Justices standing for the introductions:  1.  Stowers; 2. Christen;  3. Winfree;  4. Fabe]

[Update:  I forgot to connect to the haystack reference.  It's in Chief Justice Carpeneti's speech:

These mini law seminars will address topics identified by you as particularly helpful to your work crafting the laws of our state. It is our hope that they will also help members of the judiciary learn more about the legislative process — a process that can seem as mysterious to us as the legal process must sometimes seem to you. As someone who has spent many hours of my judicial career sifting through haystacks of legislative history searching for the needle of legislative intent, I very much look forward to these sessions and am confident that they will be mutually beneficial.]

Blogger Tourettes

"Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (Tourette Syndrome or TS) is a neurological disorder which becomes evident in early childhood or adolescence before the age of 18 years.  Tourette syndrome is defined by multiple motor and vocal tics lasting for more than one year.  The first symptoms usually are involuntary movements (tics) of the face, arms, limbs or trunk.  These tics are frequent, repetitive and rapid.  The most common first symptom is a facial tic (eye blink, nose twitch, grimace), and is replaced or added to by other tics of the neck, trunk, and limbs. . .

There are also verbal tics.  These verbal tics (vocalizations) usually occur with the movements.  These vocalizations include grunting, throat clearing, shouting and barking.  The verbal tics may also be expressed as coprolalia (the involuntary use of obscene words or socially inappropriate words and phrases) or copropraxia (obscene gestures). Despite widespread publicity, coprolalia/copropraxia is uncommon with tic disorders." [From here.  Emphasis Added]

So, if a blogger whose career has included being in corrections, a Harbor Master, in radio, and a respected classical musician among other things who writes about politics has outbursts of "[seemingly] involuntary use of obscene words or socially inappropriate words and phrases" are we seeing a case of blogger Tourettes?

Words fascinate me and I like to watch people who know how to use them well. It's an art form.  Some words, like fuck, used to be reserved for very special situations and settings.  When someone used them outside those settings, they got people's attention because they were so rarely used in what used to be called "mixed company."  But now the words are used so often that they have little shock value, though people still notice their inappropriateness.  I lament the loss of those words which can be used in times of crisis to communicate how extreme the situation is. 

To throw them at someone like mud, doesn't fit my notion of 'appropriate' on a blog that purports to be a serious force for social and political change. When Phil Munger called Sarah Palin a slut, I winced.   As I walk around the Capitol building these days and introduce myself as a blogger, people's eyebrows rise and I hear words like credibility.  In part this is due to people like Phil when he's having a bout of blogger Tourettes.

And so when he gets threatening comments in response, my reaction is similar to when someone jumps into the lion's cage at the zoo.  I'm sorry he's hurt, but that's why they give out Darwin awards. I'm sure someone will accuse me here of blaming the victim, and I agree that the threats are inexcusable.  But given that other local bloggers have suffered the same fate, it seems prudent not to poke the crazies (on the other side) in the eye with gratuitous insults.  Can you explain how this is different from Limbaugh and Fagan?  You give the Tea Party folks solid evidence that the left has its share of frothing madmen.

Free speech gives us the right to say many things (though not to libel), but just because one may, doesn't mean someone should. 

I've covered this ground in other posts (here's one on blogging guidelines for instance) and I'm tired of repeating it. And Mel Green has already done a better job than I'm doing.  But I do want to say this on the record.  I've emailed Phil with my specific problems and asked him to explain himself.  I'm not objecting to obscenity per se, but I think it is counterproductive in a serious political blog.  Unless it is necessary to the story (and sometimes even then) it distracts from the message, alienates some allies, and confirms the negative stereotypes of those of differing ideological persuasions.

So, Phil, I ask you again to explain the purpose of your expletives and gratuitous insults and why you think their use does more good than harm on your blog. Or perhaps get tested for blogger Tourettes.