A friend showed me this video last night at the Healing Racism in Anchorage steering committee meeting. Talking about race is usually hard in our society. In the video Ill Doctrine says you should focus on what the people did, not what they are.
But the presentation is what makes it so worth watching.
Invest three minutes of your time. Too long? Just watch the first 30 seconds, you can spare that. But see for yourself, it's like potato chips, you can't just watch a few seconds.
Video Tip: It's easier to learn from mistakes than from perfection and this film illustrates the importance of your background. I'd point out to future film makers something to pay attention to when you're doing a film like this.
He didn't do it all in one breath. There are lots of cuts where they edited different versions together. Nothing wrong with that. This would be hard to do well in just one take. But when you do that, try to get a neutral background. If they hadn't gotten the door on the left in the background, it would be a better film. But, professionals keep telling me that you can overcome video problems if you have good audio which this video does. And the foreground is done well. Only strange people like me watch the background.
Race Conversation Dilemma: At about 1:47, he says, "Just think how a politician or celebrity gets caught out. It always starts out as a what they did conversation, but . . . they start doing judo flips and change it into a what they are conversation."
He doesn't tell us how to counter that manoeuvre. Maybe one could say, I never questioned your character, I questioned your behavior, and that's on the record. You're the one whose changing this to your character. But that's a bit lame. Any other thoughts out there?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Where's this? Please Don't Decorate the Caribou
I did a 'where's this' post a couple of times, thinking I'd make it a regular feature. But I haven't. I do have a backlog of stuff - the Alaska summer is competing with this computer for my attention - and I'm not sure where else this picture fits.
So, where's this?
So, where's this?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Redistricting Board Meets (Mostly in Executive Session)
They met for 25 minutes then went into executive session for nearly two hours. Then they had a short closing. Here are the highlights as I saw them. My draft (very draft; read with caution) notes are below.
1. Pre-clearance Report Time table:
Attorney White said he was hoping to get the pre-clearance report done and to the Department of Justice in 7-10 days. There's lots of back up information to include such as all the emails of board members, all the public testimony and emails and letters, and they have todocument all they did.
2. Final report from consultant Lisa Handley not in yet.
White was very gracious when asked about whether the consultant's report was in yet. Most of it we've heard in public testimony, he said. But the actual report isn't in yet and he said something like, "She's not a board member. She has lots of other clients." But he also said he needs to see her report before he can finish his, which he wants to get done in 7-10 days.
3. The Court Challenges
There are three challenges - two from Fairbanks and one from Petersburg. The Fairbanks challengers want their case heard in Fairbanks. Not Juneau. Not Anchorage. The Petersburg people are content to have the three cases joined and heard in Anchorage.
White's petitioned to have them consolidated and moved to Anchorage. As of today, there's a date in Judge Michael P. Mc Conahy's courtroom this Friday at 8:30am in Fairbanks. White's hoping a new judge in Anchorage will be assigned before that.
4. New Intern Drew and a Transcriber. They've recorded all their meetings and the transcription services they used have had trouble figuring out who was talking so they still don't have the transcripts back. And they need them for the report that is due, soon. Today there was a transcriber in the meeting.
5. Attorney Advises Clients. Attorney White advised his clients (the Board) to say nothing about the litigation and send the press to him. He wants to be sure he knows everything they might have said publicly.
Below are my rough notes:
Redistricting Board July 17, 2011
10:03 open
Torgerson: Agenda approved
Directors Report-
Bickford: -new intern - Drew
I’m the public information officer, we’ve had about 7 requests and worked closely with Michael on those. Cleared on that no pending requests.
Budget update
p. 3 of the binder
FY 2012 projection
FY 2011 summary when all bills paid
FY 2012 - what we have in the bank now going into FY
Money projected for travel,
One or two board meetings by end of year
Possible trip to DC
Torgerson coming to office once a month
Costs once litigation starts.
$100K still in Michael White’s contract, may need amendment
Lisa Handley contract seems ok.
Big bill from here on out will be legal bill.
Next item: Update on Fred’s Contract with City Gate software, may need to reinstate if board needs to come back and draw next year. We still have access to software, but limited support service compared to past.
Transcripts: We have live transcripts writer today, we had trouble with transcripts in past. This will be much faster. All public hearing transcripts completed.
Computer matrix court reporting is working on ?? meetings??.
Public reading file has been updated.
Appendix to this report includes documents.
Public copy available here and online.
Board’s record - we spent our time last month - archiving and building up the record. Some we’ve been doing all along, got the rest done. For Michael - required by the court that the board turn over its copy of the record.
You may notice that your email data bases have been cleared. Had to archive your old emails and turn them in. When we archived them, it took them out of your mailboxes, but you can have them if you like.
Review of litigation from Michael. To the extent that we need to inform you we’ll send out stuff day to day. Busy month, lot of housekeeping items.
Litigation Report [Get a pdf copy of the report here.]
White: Deadline July 15. We have received 3. City of Petersburg and three individuals, assuming qualified voters. Two from Fairbanks. We’ll talk about how I feel about the merits in Executive Session.
1. North Slope Fairbanks Borough and Timothy Beck - challenging house districts 37 and 38 and Senate districts A,C, and S. Geographic proportionality. Although Fairbanks. . . compact and socio-integration effectiveness of 38. Acknowledge VRA and say not required by VRA and thus shouldn’t have trumped. Rep. by in-house counsel. [You can read the court challenges on this previous post.]
2. Riley and Dearborn, represented by Michael Walleri. Same challenges, plus a few more proportionality issue and for Fairbanks as well. Should have been completely different, so one of the house seats should have been entirely in city of Fairbanks
3. Petersburg, represented by Tom Klinkner, geographic proportionality. Say 32 not socio-economically integrated.
We’ve asked Juneau court to consolidate and transfer to Anchorage. That motion should be resolved this week. Originally assigned to Judge Randy Olsen but ??? by plaintiffs and reassigned.
Petersburg case assigned to ??? in Juneau.
Confident they will be consolidated. Where? Not sure. I argued not fair for Juneau folks to go to Anchorage or Fairbanks to go to Juneau. Anchorage in the middle.
If rules are followed we should have a scheduled (scheduling?) conference by the 10th.
Procedural stuff questions, I’ll save my views for executive session.
Juneau doesn’t accept fax filings over 5 pages. We mailed it Friday, more than 5 pages. Hopefully, judges will just talk. Petersburg case is stipulated to consolidate, but Fairbanks people would not.
Preclearance - I’d say about 80% done. Bottom line, we’re on schedule. None of the lawsuits raise VRA claims, don’t say retrogressive. Only FBNS borough only one to mention and said we shouldn’t have relied so much on them.
Most stuff, writing is done. Oe section we need to work on to have final report. Then finalize. File by Friday of this week or early part of next week.
Will talk about implications in ES
Board transcripts hold us up?
White: don’t have them in, holding us up. Some stuff only Eric can do. He and DOJ speak the same language. Large amount of info that goes. My inclination to be overinclusive than underinclusive. I think filed in next 7-10 days. Then can go back to DOJ. 60 day clock starts once we submit. Want all data is submitted electronically. Megabytes and megabytes of information.
Don’t wnat glitch with electronic filing.
Torgerson: I understand Lisa Handley recommends we come back and talk
Bickford: No guarantee they will talk to us. Assumption is that they would meet with us, but we’ll request it.
Torgerson: We make request why we want to do it?
White: Yes
Torgerson: Requested that only Marie and I go back, keep it small.
White: No benefit to have the whole board. Having Ms. Greene ...Native community…
Bickford: Touch on Lisa’s report and where we are. Most public records requests asked for that report.
White: 80-90% already discussed, just a matter of . . . she’s not a board member, has other clients, given us some drafts, not all clear, asked for more info, asked for more and should have in final days. Some records requests for it, we will produce it and provide her report and whole preclearance report. Nothing privliged once it is finalized.
Torgerson: No action required by board. We just receive her report. Already authorized Taylor to sign off.
White: Don’t need to meet again as a board. Just waiting gathering of materials and portion on effect on Native districts I’m still working on, need Lisa’s report to finish mine.
Confident in 7-10 days.
Bickford: Once file DOJ has 60 days to respond, expect in 40-60 days.
White: Want to make sure we have everything there first, rather than have them come back and ask for things, and restart the clock.
Brody: I’d like a prebriefing before you file. I’d like to understand it before it goes out.
White: I’ll have a draft in ES and point out litigation issues.
10:26 go into Executive Session
12:39 back on record after Ex. Session
Exec Section to discuss state litigation and preclearnance
White: Instruction for the board: Publicly tell board we are now in litigation, therefore questions from the press should be sent to counsel and not discussed outside the board room. We have nothing to hide, but common advice I give all my clients. I suspect all of you will deposed and my job will be easier if you haven’t publicly said something that I don’t know about. General comments - we think it is constitutional” then refer people to me.
Nothing further.
Board member comments:
Holm: no
Brody: After your lecture, I guess not. Keep in touch, keep us informed so we aren’t caught unawares.
White: We’ll provide a weekly update. We just got a notice in that the two Fairbanks assigned to Michael P. Mc Conahy. 8:30am in Fairbanks whether he remains, yet to be seen. Fairbanks plaintiffs opposed that. We should have a decision before Friday when we have a conference. WE’ll give you plenty of notice if something required of you. Don’t expect depostions before SEptember. Plenty of notice. Can’t delay until January because of expedited nature.
Torgerson: Thank everybody. Next meeting, maybe teleconference for legal update, let Michael and Taylor control that.
Adjourn. 12:46pm
 |
| l-r White, Torgerson*, Bickford, Brody*, Holm*, Ellis *board members |
1. Pre-clearance Report Time table:
Attorney White said he was hoping to get the pre-clearance report done and to the Department of Justice in 7-10 days. There's lots of back up information to include such as all the emails of board members, all the public testimony and emails and letters, and they have todocument all they did.
2. Final report from consultant Lisa Handley not in yet.
White was very gracious when asked about whether the consultant's report was in yet. Most of it we've heard in public testimony, he said. But the actual report isn't in yet and he said something like, "She's not a board member. She has lots of other clients." But he also said he needs to see her report before he can finish his, which he wants to get done in 7-10 days.
3. The Court Challenges
There are three challenges - two from Fairbanks and one from Petersburg. The Fairbanks challengers want their case heard in Fairbanks. Not Juneau. Not Anchorage. The Petersburg people are content to have the three cases joined and heard in Anchorage.
White's petitioned to have them consolidated and moved to Anchorage. As of today, there's a date in Judge Michael P. Mc Conahy's courtroom this Friday at 8:30am in Fairbanks. White's hoping a new judge in Anchorage will be assigned before that.
4. New Intern Drew and a Transcriber. They've recorded all their meetings and the transcription services they used have had trouble figuring out who was talking so they still don't have the transcripts back. And they need them for the report that is due, soon. Today there was a transcriber in the meeting.
5. Attorney Advises Clients. Attorney White advised his clients (the Board) to say nothing about the litigation and send the press to him. He wants to be sure he knows everything they might have said publicly.
Below are my rough notes:
Redistricting Board July 17, 2011
10:03 open
Torgerson: Agenda approved
Directors Report-
Bickford: -new intern - Drew
I’m the public information officer, we’ve had about 7 requests and worked closely with Michael on those. Cleared on that no pending requests.
Budget update
p. 3 of the binder
FY 2012 projection
FY 2011 summary when all bills paid
FY 2012 - what we have in the bank now going into FY
Money projected for travel,
One or two board meetings by end of year
Possible trip to DC
Torgerson coming to office once a month
Costs once litigation starts.
$100K still in Michael White’s contract, may need amendment
Lisa Handley contract seems ok.
Big bill from here on out will be legal bill.
Next item: Update on Fred’s Contract with City Gate software, may need to reinstate if board needs to come back and draw next year. We still have access to software, but limited support service compared to past.
 |
| l-r Board Members Greene, McConnochie, Torgerson |
Transcripts: We have live transcripts writer today, we had trouble with transcripts in past. This will be much faster. All public hearing transcripts completed.
Computer matrix court reporting is working on ?? meetings??.
Public reading file has been updated.
Appendix to this report includes documents.
Public copy available here and online.
Board’s record - we spent our time last month - archiving and building up the record. Some we’ve been doing all along, got the rest done. For Michael - required by the court that the board turn over its copy of the record.
You may notice that your email data bases have been cleared. Had to archive your old emails and turn them in. When we archived them, it took them out of your mailboxes, but you can have them if you like.
Review of litigation from Michael. To the extent that we need to inform you we’ll send out stuff day to day. Busy month, lot of housekeeping items.
Litigation Report [Get a pdf copy of the report here.]
White: Deadline July 15. We have received 3. City of Petersburg and three individuals, assuming qualified voters. Two from Fairbanks. We’ll talk about how I feel about the merits in Executive Session.
1. North Slope Fairbanks Borough and Timothy Beck - challenging house districts 37 and 38 and Senate districts A,C, and S. Geographic proportionality. Although Fairbanks. . . compact and socio-integration effectiveness of 38. Acknowledge VRA and say not required by VRA and thus shouldn’t have trumped. Rep. by in-house counsel. [You can read the court challenges on this previous post.]
2. Riley and Dearborn, represented by Michael Walleri. Same challenges, plus a few more proportionality issue and for Fairbanks as well. Should have been completely different, so one of the house seats should have been entirely in city of Fairbanks
3. Petersburg, represented by Tom Klinkner, geographic proportionality. Say 32 not socio-economically integrated.
We’ve asked Juneau court to consolidate and transfer to Anchorage. That motion should be resolved this week. Originally assigned to Judge Randy Olsen but ??? by plaintiffs and reassigned.
Petersburg case assigned to ??? in Juneau.
Confident they will be consolidated. Where? Not sure. I argued not fair for Juneau folks to go to Anchorage or Fairbanks to go to Juneau. Anchorage in the middle.
If rules are followed we should have a scheduled (scheduling?) conference by the 10th.
Procedural stuff questions, I’ll save my views for executive session.
Juneau doesn’t accept fax filings over 5 pages. We mailed it Friday, more than 5 pages. Hopefully, judges will just talk. Petersburg case is stipulated to consolidate, but Fairbanks people would not.
Preclearance - I’d say about 80% done. Bottom line, we’re on schedule. None of the lawsuits raise VRA claims, don’t say retrogressive. Only FBNS borough only one to mention and said we shouldn’t have relied so much on them.
Most stuff, writing is done. Oe section we need to work on to have final report. Then finalize. File by Friday of this week or early part of next week.
Will talk about implications in ES
Board transcripts hold us up?
White: don’t have them in, holding us up. Some stuff only Eric can do. He and DOJ speak the same language. Large amount of info that goes. My inclination to be overinclusive than underinclusive. I think filed in next 7-10 days. Then can go back to DOJ. 60 day clock starts once we submit. Want all data is submitted electronically. Megabytes and megabytes of information.
Don’t wnat glitch with electronic filing.
Torgerson: I understand Lisa Handley recommends we come back and talk
Bickford: No guarantee they will talk to us. Assumption is that they would meet with us, but we’ll request it.
Torgerson: We make request why we want to do it?
White: Yes
Torgerson: Requested that only Marie and I go back, keep it small.
White: No benefit to have the whole board. Having Ms. Greene ...Native community…
Bickford: Touch on Lisa’s report and where we are. Most public records requests asked for that report.
White: 80-90% already discussed, just a matter of . . . she’s not a board member, has other clients, given us some drafts, not all clear, asked for more info, asked for more and should have in final days. Some records requests for it, we will produce it and provide her report and whole preclearance report. Nothing privliged once it is finalized.
Torgerson: No action required by board. We just receive her report. Already authorized Taylor to sign off.
White: Don’t need to meet again as a board. Just waiting gathering of materials and portion on effect on Native districts I’m still working on, need Lisa’s report to finish mine.
Confident in 7-10 days.
Bickford: Once file DOJ has 60 days to respond, expect in 40-60 days.
White: Want to make sure we have everything there first, rather than have them come back and ask for things, and restart the clock.
Brody: I’d like a prebriefing before you file. I’d like to understand it before it goes out.
White: I’ll have a draft in ES and point out litigation issues.
10:26 go into Executive Session
12:39 back on record after Ex. Session
Exec Section to discuss state litigation and preclearnance
White: Instruction for the board: Publicly tell board we are now in litigation, therefore questions from the press should be sent to counsel and not discussed outside the board room. We have nothing to hide, but common advice I give all my clients. I suspect all of you will deposed and my job will be easier if you haven’t publicly said something that I don’t know about. General comments - we think it is constitutional” then refer people to me.
Nothing further.
Board member comments:
Holm: no
Brody: After your lecture, I guess not. Keep in touch, keep us informed so we aren’t caught unawares.
White: We’ll provide a weekly update. We just got a notice in that the two Fairbanks assigned to Michael P. Mc Conahy. 8:30am in Fairbanks whether he remains, yet to be seen. Fairbanks plaintiffs opposed that. We should have a decision before Friday when we have a conference. WE’ll give you plenty of notice if something required of you. Don’t expect depostions before SEptember. Plenty of notice. Can’t delay until January because of expedited nature.
Torgerson: Thank everybody. Next meeting, maybe teleconference for legal update, let Michael and Taylor control that.
Adjourn. 12:46pm
Sunday, July 17, 2011
After the Default, Do the Chinese Get to Buy NASA?
And how about rich European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and South African hunters putting in an offer to buy the federal lands in Alaska for a private hunting reserve? Or maybe the oil companies can buy instead of lease the federal oil reserves?
A game of chicken is going on in Congress, but how many of us understand what is really happening and really at stake? I've been reading online for hours trying to make a list of consequences of a default.
It's not easy. Financial collapse isn't as visually dramatic as the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. It happens in slow motion. And there are lots of different ways it could play out.
I've got lots of notes, but I'm not ready to try to outline what I think is happening. But I offer a challenge to gain some perspective on our national debt which I found responding to Ropi's comments on an earlier post on the debt limit showdown in Congress.
The CIA has a list of national indebtedness as a percentage of GDP. I went there to check Ropi's equating the US and Portugal in this area. Just for the fun of it, can you match the following the rankings and % of GDP from the table to the list of countries below?
(Smart folks will see that two of the columns are really easy to match. The third is harder. Those of you who can't understand the table probably should be humble in your opinions about the debt ceiling and solutions for it.)
a. USA b. China c. Germany d. Singapore e. Iran
f. Japan g. India h. Libya i. world j. Mexico k. Russia
You can check your answers against the CIA chart here.
I think you can see (after checking with the CIA chart) that just looking at the % doesn't tell us what makes a stable economy. Nor a country we want to emulate.
(And, of course, the CIA numbers can only be estimates. Countries calculate % of GDP (if they calculate it all) using different criteria and some (many?) don't publish any data, so the CIA has to guess through other means.)
A game of chicken is going on in Congress, but how many of us understand what is really happening and really at stake? I've been reading online for hours trying to make a list of consequences of a default.
It's not easy. Financial collapse isn't as visually dramatic as the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. It happens in slow motion. And there are lots of different ways it could play out.
I've got lots of notes, but I'm not ready to try to outline what I think is happening. But I offer a challenge to gain some perspective on our national debt which I found responding to Ropi's comments on an earlier post on the debt limit showdown in Congress.
The CIA has a list of national indebtedness as a percentage of GDP. I went there to check Ropi's equating the US and Portugal in this area. Just for the fun of it, can you match the following the rankings and % of GDP from the table to the list of countries below?
(Smart folks will see that two of the columns are really easy to match. The third is harder. Those of you who can't understand the table probably should be humble in your opinions about the debt ceiling and solutions for it.)
| Rank | Country | % of GDP |
| 1 | 225.8 | |
| 9 | 102.4 | |
| 19 | 78.8 | |
| 34 | 41.5 | |
| 37 | 58.3 | |
| 45 | 58.9 | |
| 65 | 55.9 | |
| 113 | 41.5 | |
| 116 | 17.5 | |
| 123 | 16.2 | |
| 132 | 3.3 |
a. USA b. China c. Germany d. Singapore e. Iran
f. Japan g. India h. Libya i. world j. Mexico k. Russia
You can check your answers against the CIA chart here.
I think you can see (after checking with the CIA chart) that just looking at the % doesn't tell us what makes a stable economy. Nor a country we want to emulate.
(And, of course, the CIA numbers can only be estimates. Countries calculate % of GDP (if they calculate it all) using different criteria and some (many?) don't publish any data, so the CIA has to guess through other means.)
Alaska International Film Awards - And The Winners Aren't . . .
The Alaska International Film Festival changed its name to 'Film Awards' last year. I and others had raised questions about a festival that had no actual screenings or . . . 'festival.'
There is a real film festival in Alaska - the Anchorage International Film Festival and I have compared the two events here. [July 18: I've corrected this link]
Essentially, the Alaska (not Anchorage) International Film Awards (not Festival) solicits films in the summer, with the first submission deadline in September in a whole myriad of categories and their website says that winners will be announced on July 15 of the following year. That gives them plenty of time to have lots of people submit films and entry fees.
Last year, I contacted some of the winners and learned that, yes they had won, and to get their trophies they had to pay another fee that varied in price.
Today is July 16 and this is what they have on their website under awards. The names of the awards, but not the winners.
I took a screen shot so you could see today's date (July 16, 2011) in the upper right corner and the awards page of their website. Actually, now it's the 17th as I get ready to post, but still no winners announced yet.
Since May 15th was the last submission deadline, and since they didn't have to do any work to set up a festival and show the films, they've had two full months to figure out the winners and post them on their website by the July 15, 2011 deadline. But they didn't.
If anyone submitted a film to the Alaska (not Anchorage) International Film Awards (not Festival) this year, please let me know if you have been notified that you won or didn't win. You can leave a comment or you can email me.
[UPDATE Aug 4: Sometime while we were gone, the Awards folks posted this year's 'winners.' I don't mean to in any way make light of those whose films got awards. I'm sure that many of the films are truly excellent. And I've heard from two people who got letters saying they did NOT win an award. So, not everyone who submitted got an award. However, the list is pretty long. I counted 81 different awards. (In contrast, the Sundance Film Festival seems to have just given out about 40 awards.) And a couple folks who contacted me and said they won, were told they had to buy their own trophies.
I don't know the answer to John's comment. Contacting Without A Box can't hurt. You can also post comments here and in the Without A Box forums to warn others that if they win, they probably will have to pay for their trophies.]
There is a real film festival in Alaska - the Anchorage International Film Festival and I have compared the two events here. [July 18: I've corrected this link]
Essentially, the Alaska (not Anchorage) International Film Awards (not Festival) solicits films in the summer, with the first submission deadline in September in a whole myriad of categories and their website says that winners will be announced on July 15 of the following year. That gives them plenty of time to have lots of people submit films and entry fees.
Last year, I contacted some of the winners and learned that, yes they had won, and to get their trophies they had to pay another fee that varied in price.
Today is July 16 and this is what they have on their website under awards. The names of the awards, but not the winners.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Since May 15th was the last submission deadline, and since they didn't have to do any work to set up a festival and show the films, they've had two full months to figure out the winners and post them on their website by the July 15, 2011 deadline. But they didn't.
If anyone submitted a film to the Alaska (not Anchorage) International Film Awards (not Festival) this year, please let me know if you have been notified that you won or didn't win. You can leave a comment or you can email me.
[UPDATE Aug 4: Sometime while we were gone, the Awards folks posted this year's 'winners.' I don't mean to in any way make light of those whose films got awards. I'm sure that many of the films are truly excellent. And I've heard from two people who got letters saying they did NOT win an award. So, not everyone who submitted got an award. However, the list is pretty long. I counted 81 different awards. (In contrast, the Sundance Film Festival seems to have just given out about 40 awards.) And a couple folks who contacted me and said they won, were told they had to buy their own trophies.
I don't know the answer to John's comment. Contacting Without A Box can't hurt. You can also post comments here and in the Without A Box forums to warn others that if they win, they probably will have to pay for their trophies.]
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Thai Gender Stories in the News
From Thai Visa, a website mainly aimed at ex-pats living in Thailand, I get regular reports of what's happening in Thailand. There were a couple of gender-related stories - one showing progress and one showing some regression. Below are excerpts and the headlines link to the rest of the stories.
Monks teach maleness to Thai 'ladyboys'
Feature - by Janesara Fugal
CHIANG KHONG, July 16, 2011 (AFP) - The 15-year-old aspiring "ladyboy" delicately applied a puff of talcum powder to his nose -- an act of rebellion at the Thai Buddhist temple where he is learning to "be a man".
"They have rules here that novice monks cannot use powder, make-up, or perfume, cannot run around and be girlish," said Pipop Thanajindawong, who was sent to Wat Kreung Tai Wittaya, in Chiang Khong on the Thai-Laos border, to tame his more feminine traits.
But the monks running the temple's programme to teach masculinity to boys who are "katoeys", the Thai term for transsexuals or ladyboys, have their controversial work cut out.
"Sometimes we give them money to buy snacks but he saved it up to buy mascara," headteacher Phra Pitsanu Witcharato said of Pipop. . .
. . . [Phra Pitsanu] told AFP that he hopes the teaching methods will be rolled out to other temple schools to "solve the deviant behavior in novices".
It is an attitude that enrages gay rights and diversity campaigner Natee Teerarojanapong, who said trying to alter the boys' sense of gender and sexuality was "extremely dangerous".
"These kids will become self-hating because they have been taught by respected monks that being gay is bad. That is terrible for them. They will never live happily," he told AFP.
Gay and katoey culture is visible and widely tolerated in Thailand, which has one of the largest transsexual populations in the world, and Natee said the temple's programme is "very out of date". . .
Female bodyguards for Thailand's next prime minister
By Budsarakham Sinlapalavan
Peeradej Tanruangporn
The Nation
When Yingluck Shinawatra takes up her post as leader of the new government, Thailand won't just have a female prime minister. Her bodyguards, too, are likely to be drawn from the fairer sex.
"Female bodyguards are able to remain closer to female VIPs," said Pol Lt-Colonel Korakarn Arunplod, who is among the first generation of female bodyguards in Thailand.
Korakarn started her career as a bodyguard in 1995. Among the VIPs she has taken care of are Hillary Rodham Clinton, Empress Michiko of Japan and members of the Thai Royal Family.
She suggested that PM-elect Yingluck should have both male and female bodyguards. Beyond issues of security, having bodyguards of both sexes would create the best image.
And there are more practical concerns: "It is not appropriate for male bodyguards to enter private spaces such as women's bathrooms." She added that women were better at coordinating than men, though men were generally stronger. . .
. . . To become a bodyguard, the officers of the BPPB must be trained to protect very important persons (VIPs), he said. In addition to the usual police training, which includes guns, driving and parachuting, VIP protection training also teaches crowd-control tactics and techniques for remaining close and attending to the VIP.
Because the task is very physically demanding, requiring the person to be constantly vigilant and sometimes miss sleep, the team consists only of women aged 20 to 35, Prayoon said . . .
Last Minute Salmon BBQ With Friends
At the last minute we ended up with friends enjoying the lovely evening eating salmon on their deck. Pretty simple. Just good talk, good food, good friends.
As we were eating dessert a young woman, barefoot, in wet shorts and T-shirt asked the direction of the Peanut Farm. She'd been kayaking Campbell Creek and overturned and told the others she'd meet them at the Peanut Farm where the car was. As the temperature was cooling (it was about 10pm by then) our host drove her to her destination.
With sweepers here and there, the creek is not as benign as it looks.
Mini adventures.
Then we biked home.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Three Challenges To Redistricting Plan Arrived By Deadline - Cases Attached
[The court filings for all three challenges are at the bottom of this post.]
Yesterday -June [July]
Along with that challenge comes one from George Riley, 'a qualified voter who resides in Ester" and Ron Dearborn, 'a qualified voter who resides in Goldstream.' These are the two, generally considered more liberal, communities just outside the Fairbanks city limits which have been put into the huge new District 38 which stretches out to Hooper Bay. (See the blue district on the map.)
I've only had time to glance at these two challenges. The focus seems to be
1. The board valued minimizing deviation (from the ideal district size of 17,755) too high, short changing other values such as "socially and economically integrated."
2. Thus they put what is essentially suburban Fairbanks neighborhoods into a district with predominantly Native villages with no running water or sewage systems whose socio-economic interests are vastly different.
There's a lot more listed, but on first glance, that seems to be the crux. I need to go back and review more. (So many posts like that unfortunately.) You can read the complete challenges below.
The third challenge comes from the City of Petersburg, and three Petersburg voters - Mark L. Jensen Nancy C. Strand, and Brenda L. Norheim. Their complaint seems to center on the fact that Petersburg is socio-economically integrated with Sitka and other smaller SE villages and has been linked with them in their previous district. Linking them with "with part of the City and Borough of Juneau (in District 32), a municipality with which Petersburg does not share such common socio-economic interests."
The complete Petersburg challenge is below.
My understanding is that all three challenges will be lumped together. While I watched the redistricting board at work and listened to some of the public testimony, it was clear that 'socio-economic integration' means different things to different people. If there's a district that links interior, road-system, basically non-Native towns to roadless, Native villages on the Coast, then complaints by Muldoon folks that they aren't 'socio-economically integrated' with Eagle River are unconvincing (though the board managed to unlink them.)
Petersburg's challenge, it would seem, doesn't have a chance if Fairbanks' challenge to District 38 doesn't prevail.
The Fairbanks News Miner reported on the Borough's challenge. [And they have a link to the Borough's court documents.] So did the Anchorage Daily News. They reported the Democrats and Alaskans for Fair Redistricting are NOT filing challenges because they thought they could better spend the money it would take on elections.
The Board itself will meet Monday, July 18, at 10 am in their headquarters. According to board Executive Director Taylor Bickford, there will be some public meeting to announce the challenges to the board's plan and the status of the preclearance* report to be sent to the Justice Department. Then the board will go into executive session to discuss litigation and preclearance strategies.
*Because Alaska has had Voting Rights Act violations in the past, it is one of 16 states that need Department of Justice 'preclearance' before implementing their plan.
The Court Documents
[Scribd has been having problems. The documents are below, but if they don't show up, be patient and try again soon.]
Fairbanks North Star Borough 's Complaint Re Redistricting Board
George Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board
City of Petersburg Challenge to Redistricting Plan
Yesterday -
 |
| click to enlarge considerably |
I've only had time to glance at these two challenges. The focus seems to be
1. The board valued minimizing deviation (from the ideal district size of 17,755) too high, short changing other values such as "socially and economically integrated."
2. Thus they put what is essentially suburban Fairbanks neighborhoods into a district with predominantly Native villages with no running water or sewage systems whose socio-economic interests are vastly different.
There's a lot more listed, but on first glance, that seems to be the crux. I need to go back and review more. (So many posts like that unfortunately.) You can read the complete challenges below.
The complete Petersburg challenge is below.
My understanding is that all three challenges will be lumped together. While I watched the redistricting board at work and listened to some of the public testimony, it was clear that 'socio-economic integration' means different things to different people. If there's a district that links interior, road-system, basically non-Native towns to roadless, Native villages on the Coast, then complaints by Muldoon folks that they aren't 'socio-economically integrated' with Eagle River are unconvincing (though the board managed to unlink them.)
Petersburg's challenge, it would seem, doesn't have a chance if Fairbanks' challenge to District 38 doesn't prevail.
The Fairbanks News Miner reported on the Borough's challenge. [And they have a link to the Borough's court documents.] So did the Anchorage Daily News. They reported the Democrats and Alaskans for Fair Redistricting are NOT filing challenges because they thought they could better spend the money it would take on elections.
The Board itself will meet Monday, July 18, at 10 am in their headquarters. According to board Executive Director Taylor Bickford, there will be some public meeting to announce the challenges to the board's plan and the status of the preclearance* report to be sent to the Justice Department. Then the board will go into executive session to discuss litigation and preclearance strategies.
*Because Alaska has had Voting Rights Act violations in the past, it is one of 16 states that need Department of Justice 'preclearance' before implementing their plan.
The Court Documents
[Scribd has been having problems. The documents are below, but if they don't show up, be patient and try again soon.]
Fairbanks North Star Borough 's Complaint Re Redistricting Board
George Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board
City of Petersburg Challenge to Redistricting Plan
Don't Like the ACLU? Compare Your Image to the Real Thing - National Head Speaks at UAA Tonight
Do you trust the media? You don't???? Well, here's a chance to compare what you hear in the media against the real thing.
The Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union is talking tonight at
The ACLU has been controversial, on many occasions because of the people they have defended - from the right of American Nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood, Rush Limbaugh's right to keep his medical records private, to the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, as well as the rights of American Muslims.
They would argue that their ideology is the US Constitution and their belief that all Americans are equal before the law, no matter how unpopular their views.
One of the problems I see is that some people tend to think in more concrete terms and others in more abstract terms. Concrete thinkers see what they think is a despicable defendant, and can't quite comprehend that even that person is protected by the Constitution and the bill of rights.
But the ACLU would tell you that when there are 'despicable' people, well, that's why the Bill of Rights was written. They aren't saying these people shouldn't be convicted if they've committed a crime, but that they should get fair treatment from the authorities and get a fair trial. They shouldn't be judged because of their ideas, but because they violated a Constitutional law.
It's much easier to get support to violate the rights of 'despicable' defendants, but that sets a precedent for the next, less despicable, person, and slowly the breach in our rights gets bigger and bigger.
Just as TSA rules were justified to protect us from terrorists and have unraveled to the point that recently a 95 year-old woman in a wheel chair - was forced to take off her diaper before she could get through security. (TSA denied they required diaper removal.)
Whether you are a supporter of the ACLU or a critic, the opportunity to hear - and talk to (he'll be available to talk to at a reception afterward) - is a chance to match the media coverage against the real thing.
Here's what the ACLU website says about the director:
The presentation's main sponsors are the Alaska branch of the ACLU and the UAA Justice Center. The Journalism and Public Communication Department and KYES - Channel 5 - are videotaping the talk. A 60 minute version will be aired on
KYES -Channel 5 - Saturday July 23 at 4pm AND Sunday, July 24 at 9am
For people outside of Anchorage, check the Journalism website - they are putting up a live online stream of the talk.
The Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union is talking tonight at
UAA at 7pm.
Wendy Williamson Auditorium
Free Parking
And the talk is free too.The ACLU has been controversial, on many occasions because of the people they have defended - from the right of American Nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood, Rush Limbaugh's right to keep his medical records private, to the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, as well as the rights of American Muslims.
They would argue that their ideology is the US Constitution and their belief that all Americans are equal before the law, no matter how unpopular their views.
One of the problems I see is that some people tend to think in more concrete terms and others in more abstract terms. Concrete thinkers see what they think is a despicable defendant, and can't quite comprehend that even that person is protected by the Constitution and the bill of rights.
But the ACLU would tell you that when there are 'despicable' people, well, that's why the Bill of Rights was written. They aren't saying these people shouldn't be convicted if they've committed a crime, but that they should get fair treatment from the authorities and get a fair trial. They shouldn't be judged because of their ideas, but because they violated a Constitutional law.
It's much easier to get support to violate the rights of 'despicable' defendants, but that sets a precedent for the next, less despicable, person, and slowly the breach in our rights gets bigger and bigger.
Just as TSA rules were justified to protect us from terrorists and have unraveled to the point that recently a 95 year-old woman in a wheel chair - was forced to take off her diaper before she could get through security. (TSA denied they required diaper removal.)
Whether you are a supporter of the ACLU or a critic, the opportunity to hear - and talk to (he'll be available to talk to at a reception afterward) - is a chance to match the media coverage against the real thing.
Here's what the ACLU website says about the director:
About Anthony D. Romero
Mr. Romero took the helm of the ACLU just four days before the September 11, 2001 attacks and led the national Safe and Free campaign to protect basic freedoms during a time of crisis, achieving court victories on the Patriot Act, uncovering thousands of pages of documents detailing the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, and filing the first successful legal challenge to the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program.
Recently, he has led the fight to restore civil liberties, including pushing for accountability for torture committed under the Bush administration, fighting the practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial and challenging the excessive use of the state secrets privilege to block lawsuits over national security abuses.
The sixth executive director of the ACLU, and the first Latino and openly gay person to serve in that capacity, Romero has been named one of Time Magazine's 25 Most Influential Hispanics in America, and is a frequent media commentator, including guesting on the Colbert Report. In 2007, Romero and co-author and NPR correspondent Dina Temple-Raston published In Defense of Our America: The Fight for Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror, a book that takes a critical look at civil liberties in this country at a time when constitutional freedoms are in peril.
The presentation's main sponsors are the Alaska branch of the ACLU and the UAA Justice Center. The Journalism and Public Communication Department and KYES - Channel 5 - are videotaping the talk. A 60 minute version will be aired on
KYES -Channel 5 - Saturday July 23 at 4pm AND Sunday, July 24 at 9am
For people outside of Anchorage, check the Journalism website - they are putting up a live online stream of the talk.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Republican Attack Dogs Turning On Their Masters
The Republicans have encouraged and benefited from the rise of take-no-prisoners attack politics. A constant dose of acid news via Fox, Limbaugh, and all the others, has infected a significant minority of the population with nasty anger and a belief in simplistic right or wrong, good or evil, ideological narratives about economics, religion, foreign affairs, marriage, and every other topic. (A Gawker piece on Roger Ailes details how he carried out his plans for shaping the news to suit conservative needs.)
As long as the mob was aimed at Democrats, all was ok. But in the 2010 primaries, Tea Party candidates began knocking off established Republican politicians.
And now Senate Republican leader McConnell and Republican House Chair Boehner can't call off their attack dogs.
The no-compromise wing of the Republican party is now demanding the debt be cut by cutting-programs-and-no-new-taxes even if their stance causes the United States to default. Facts, particularly about complex topics, can't compete with ideology and strong emotions.
Mentioning that "the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness" is brushed aside. Even if you add that "David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s."
But McConnell and Boehner understand that defaulting will have huge negative impacts on the world economy as well as the US economy.
McConnell says, after blaming everything on the Democrats' desire for bigger government for 2,300 words,
To prevent default, Sen. McConnell has proposed a twisted piece of legislation that would move the power to increase the debt ceiling from Congress to the President. As Fred Barnes describes it at Fox News:
As long as the mob was aimed at Democrats, all was ok. But in the 2010 primaries, Tea Party candidates began knocking off established Republican politicians.
And now Senate Republican leader McConnell and Republican House Chair Boehner can't call off their attack dogs.
The no-compromise wing of the Republican party is now demanding the debt be cut by cutting-programs-and-no-new-taxes even if their stance causes the United States to default. Facts, particularly about complex topics, can't compete with ideology and strong emotions.
Mentioning that "the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness" is brushed aside. Even if you add that "David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s."
But McConnell and Boehner understand that defaulting will have huge negative impacts on the world economy as well as the US economy.
McConnell says, after blaming everything on the Democrats' desire for bigger government for 2,300 words,
“So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people — which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations. [emphasis added]Boehner says,
I agree with the president that the national debt limit must be raised, and I’m glad that he made the case for it today. But the American people will not accept – and the House cannot pass – a bill that raises taxes on job creators."[emphasis added.][I would point out his use of 'job creators' to describe the businesses that are flush with cash, but not spending it on creating jobs. And earlier in this press release he says the trade off is
"the administration gets its debt limit increase, and the American people get their spending cuts and their reforms."As though only the President needed the debt limit increase - which Boehner says must happen - not all of us, and in exchange the Republicans get their cuts.]
To prevent default, Sen. McConnell has proposed a twisted piece of legislation that would move the power to increase the debt ceiling from Congress to the President. As Fred Barnes describes it at Fox News:
To counter Obama, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell unveiled legislation requiring the president to submit a series of three requests - now, in the fall, and next summer - to increase the debt ceiling.
Each request would have to include spending cuts in excess of the amount of the increase in the limit on borrowing. If Congress rejected the cuts as insufficient by passing a "resolution of disapproval," the president could send a new package of cuts or veto the resolution. Should his veto be sustained - at least 34 senators would be needed - the debt limit would rise with no cuts attached.
The idea behind the complicated plan is twofold. One, it would avert a tax increase. Two, it would, as a Senate aide said, "put all the onus [of raising the debt limit] on the president." Assuming a bipartisan agreement is impossible - and the Republicans assume it is - "this is the only plan that would prevent a default."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)