New Seward Repairs and Campbell Creek Bike Trail Start Today for Two Years

Between Tudor and International Airport Road

First Southbound - Starting May 2 - the frontage road will be closed.  They're getting it ready to take the Seward Highway traffic for when it gets closed down, later.

Then they'll do the same Northbound.  From DOT (with some reformatting): 

The Department of Transportation, in partnership with QAP, is working to improve the New Seward Highway, from Dowling Road to Tudor Road. Improvements will include

• added lanes, 
• resurfacing and 
• Campbell Creek bridge replacement.  

The Homer Drive and Brayton Drive frontage roads will also be improved with

• resurfacing and 
• the addition of multi-use trails. 

We will do our best to keep you informed as work continues, and appreciate your patience and cooperation during construction. This project is scheduled to be complete by June 2014.

In addition to the highway work - the bike trail along Campbell Creek under the Seward Highway is scheduled to be completed.  Here's a picture from 2007.  You have to walk your bike and duck low.   They also say they will have trails along the frontage roads when they are done.


There will be a public hearing Thursday night at Dimond High

A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE will be held at the Dimond Center Hotel (700 E. Dimond Boulevard), on Thursday May 3, from 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Project teams will be available to review the scope of work and provide detailed information about the project. 

Redistricting Board's Supreme Court Appeal

The crux:

The transcripts from the April 24 meeting say:

BOARD MEMBER MCCONNOCHIE: My first motion would be to authorize our counsel to appeal the trial Court's April 20th decision to the Supreme Court. I so move.

I  thought that was fairly vague.  What exactly were they appealing?  All of it?  Some of it?  On what grounds?

So after the meeting I asked Board attorney White what they were appealing and on what grounds?  He refused to be recorded but agreed to answer otherwise.  Thus what I have is not as precise as it could be.  What I heard him tell me was that they needed the court to give them guidance on how to comply.   There was frustration in his voice.  It sounded like he was saying, "I give up, just tell us what you want so we don't have to keep guessing what you want us to do."

Then, the Board's website (April 25) adds a bit more detail:

The Alaska Redistricting Board voted unanimously today to appeal Judge McConahy's recent decision in 2011 Redistricting Cases v. Alaska Redistricting Board with the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Board will ask the court to overturn Judge McConahy's decision and approve the Amended Proclamation Plan as adopted on April 5, 2012. [emphasis added]

These are the important dates that come out of the Supreme Court's order posted on the Redistricting website April 27, 2012.  I put them into table form. 

May 1, 2012 4:30pm	May 9	Week of May 21
Petitions for review of Superior Court’s 4/20/12 order	Responses to the petitions for review	Oral argument if allowed.

From the Supreme Court order posted on the Board's website, I figured these are the important dates.  Presumably, shortly after May 1 and May 9, the petitions and responses will be posted on the Board's website.   And if it's decided oral arguments before the Supreme Court are needed, the dates will be announced there too. 



The Background, in more depth, and translated so normal people can understand (I hope)

Keeping track of the Redistricting Board is getting harder.  The Board is being good about posting things on their website and emailing people who sign up, but they've been to the Superior Court a couple of times and now they are on their way back to the Supreme Court.  And things are happening sporadically.  It's easy to get distracted by other things.


What is being appealed this time? 

The Hickel Process

The first time round, the Supreme Court told the Board that it hadn't followed the Hickel Process and to redo its plan using the Hickel Process.  [What is now being called] the Hickel Process was spelled out in Hickel v. Southeast Conference, a 1992 Alaska Supreme Court case on redistricting.  It said

“[t]he Board must first design a reapportionment plan based on the requirements of the Alaska Constitution. That plan then must be tested against the Voting Rights Act. A reapportionment plan may minimize article VI, section 6 requirements when minimization is the only means available to satisfy Voting Rights Act requirements”

I understand this to mean that the board needed, originally, to develop a plan that met the Alaska Constitutional requirements. (You can see the Board's list of various requirements, including the state constitutional requirements, they must meet, here. )

Mainly this means that every house district needs to be compact (as small as possible to get in the required number of people - 17,755/district); contiguous (every part must be connected);  and socio-economically integrated (the people in the district must be seen as much as possible to have the same interests.)  I've said, somewhere here before, I'm not sure it's possible to get every district close to equal size AND have every district compact.  The state is just too big and the population too spread out.  So creating a map that complies with the state constitution and demonstrating that can be tricky. 

Then, when a constitutional plan is created, if that plan does not also meet the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Board can make what minimal adjustments to the original plan it absolutely must make, to make it also comply to the Voting Rights Act.  Since the federal Voting Rights Act legally trumps the constitution, there can be some minimal deviations from the constitutionally perfect map, if the deviations are the only way to meet the VRA.

The Supreme Court ruled the first time that the Board developed its plan with the VRA in mind mainly and did not first come up with a constitutional plan.  It told the Board to come up first with a constitutional plan.  The rationale behind this was that the court needed a baseline constitutional plan against which it could measure any deviations required to comply with the VRA.  They'd take the districts in the baseline map and compare districts in the new VRA compliant map to check the deviations were the minimal they could be to get VRA compliance. 

So, the Board redid their plan.  They assumed that the parts of the plan that were not challenged, could be considered as meeting the state constitution.  They worked on the parts that had been declared unconstitutional by the courts.  Fixed them. (Obviously the parties that filed with the court didn't agree they did fix them.)  And sent it back.

Judge McConahy at the Superior Court then responded:

• The Hickel Process required them to show that every district was constitutional, which they hadn't done.
• And that in Southeast Alaska the districts had been drawn in a way to create what was called a Native Influence District which at that time was assumed to be required by the Voting Rights Act. McConahy says Southeast was 'compact enough' because of the necessary influence district.  But in the mean time such a district (Native Influence)  has been shown to be no longer required.  But this meant the districts in Southeast hadn't needed to be tweaked so they were 'compact enough.'  So the judge told them now to make the compact - without the qualifying enough.
• So McConahy said, "The matter is REMANDED to the Board to draw a redistricting plan solely compliant with the Alaska Constitution and to make findings of fact sufficient to allow this court, and the Alaska Supreme Court, to "independently measure each district against constitutional standards."

The Board's attorney's analysis - handed out at the April 24 meeting but I can't find a copy on the Board's website - of Judge McConahy's order says, in part:

In sum, the trial court rejected the Board's Amended Proclamation Plan because the Board did not redraw every House district or make specific findings that each and every district meets the constitutional standards.

As I reread McConahy's order I don't see where it says the Board had to redraw every district.  It DOES say that they have to show that every district is constitutional.  The Board simply assumed that the districts not challenged in court could be considered constitutional.  The only districts they bothered to demonstrate as constitutional were the ones the court found problematic.  The judge did specifically mention the districts in Southeast for the reasons mentioned above.  They were clearly drawn originally in a way that stretched constitutional standards in order to create a Native influence district.  McConahy said:

"The Board did not make specific findings by district, that each of the unchanged Proclamation Plan districts satisfied the requirements of the Alaska Constitution."

I see that only saying that they had to show that the unchanged districts did meet the Alaska Constitution's requirements.  Not that they had to redraw them all.

Of course, if they don't meet the requirements, they'd have to be redrawn.  And if you redraw a line for one district, you will have to redraw the line of at least one other district.  Possibly more. 

And yes, the Southeast districts need to be redrawn.  But if the rest of the districts can be shown to be constitutional - as the Board believes - they merely have to go through each district and explain why they believe that.  They don't have to redraw them all.  But they have to look at each district objectively enough that an outside body would also agree.  Not finding them constitutional because they need them to be.  As I implied above when I said this is almost impossible, I think that there will have to be at least one very large - hardly compact - district because of Alaska's geography.  They should just say that and that they don't know how else to get all the districts within a legal deviation from the 17,755/district without at least one less than ideally compact district.  They could point to similarly large districts in all the private plans.  But they shouldn't try to pretend that district meets the compact standard. 

At least that's how I see.

What's Going To Happen?

It seems to me the Supreme Court is going to side with the Superior Court and they will be scratching their heads trying to understand why the Board is having so much trouble here.  Whether that consternation shows through in their decision or not remains to be seen.

Today (Tuesday May 1) petitions are due.  The Supreme Court's order says all of the original petitioners are eligible to file again.  If there is a new amicus party that wants to file, they have to "move for leave to participate."

The Board's been good about posting all the court filings so maybe by Wednesday we can see what they look like.  People with access to the State Court docket online should be able to get them tomorrow as they get filed.  

Then there's a week for everyone to respond to all the petitions. 

Obama Can Learn From FDR

I'm sure that folks around Obama have read No Ordinary Time, in which I now have about 80 pages left for tonight.  (I'm 50 pages from my scheduled 100 per day for the last three days, but I didn't count the 36 pages past page 600.) 

There are many similarities between Roosevelt facing the 1944 election and Obama facing the 2012 election.  (There are many dissimilarities as well.) 

Race - A lot of Southerners (and Northerners) are incensed over racial issues.  FDR's  [I usually don't use acronyms without spelling them out, but I figure that people should know this stands for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but there's no reason everyone should, so there it is.] constant push to get the navy and other services to treat all military men equally regardless of race is a big issue.  Eleanor's constant championing of equity gets her many hateful letters.  It seems that Obama's being half black by itself has stirred similar strong feelings in a very vocal minority. 

Economy - FDR came into office with a huge economic crisis he inherited from his Republican pro-business predecessor, much like Obama. 

War and returning veterans - FDR, in 1944, was in a war in Europe and Asia and Africa that was winding down.  The US had been officially in that war since Dec. 7, 1941.  Obama finds himself waging two, maybe three if you count Yemen, wars in the Middle East, which are also supposed to be winding down.  Roosevelt was pushing hard to prepare the economy for returning GI's - with housing, unemployment insurance, the GI bill for college funding, and other issues.  Obama has as well and has to let people know this in the campaign. 

Here's part of a speech Doris Kearns Goodwin offers, that FDR gave to Teamsters in Washington DC, which apparently was broadcast to the nation.

After joking a bit about his advancing age,

Roosevelt proceeded, with a voice that purred softly and then struck hard to ridicule the Republicans for trying to pass themselves off every four years as friends of labor after attacking labor for three years and six months.  "The whole purpose of Republican oratory these days seems to be to switch labels.  The object is to persuade the American people that the Democratic Party was responsible for the 1929 crash and the depression, and that the Republican Party was responsible for all the social progress under the New Deal.

"Now,"  he said drawing out his words, "imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery - but I am afraid that in this case it is the most obvious common or garden variety of fraud."  Indeed, he went on, when he first heard the Republicans blaming the Democrats for the Depression, he rubbed his eyes and recalled an old adage: " 'Never speak of rope in the house of a man who has been hanged.'  In the same way, if I were a Republican leader speaking to a mixed audience, the last word in the whole dictionary that I think I would use is the word 'depression.'

The audience loved it.  They howled, clapped, and cheered. . .   (p. 548)

It seems to me that Obama, when he's talking genuinely from his heart about what he believes, can be just as charming and convincing as FDR.  I'd like to see him come out in this campaign, not defensive, but offensive.  We somehow seem to think that Fox news and modern talk radio invented political hit men.  But they've been alive and well in FDR's time and earlier.  

Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay

That's the title of a New York Times article today.

Here's what I wrote in 2009 in a post I recently reprinted as the topic came up again in Anchorage over Prop. 5.

When people focus so strongly on demonizing people over their sexual practices, one wonders what they themselves are trying to hide. Is the lashing out at others a way of projecting punishment for their own desires or guilt? Is it 'just a veneer?" I'm sure for some that is the case. What drives the others to such extremes?

All this made me think we could end vocal nastiness against gays if we had evidence that such behavior indicated repressed homosexuality among the strongly anti-gay.   If their vocal homophobia is a way to hide their own same-sex attractions, then exposing homophobia as a sign of homosexuality might cause them to stop taking those stands because a strong homophobic position would be simply outing yourself. 

It's nice to have one's hypotheses supported by scientific studies.  Of course, there's always the temptation to accept studies that support your beliefs without careful scrutiny. I need to read it more carefully.   Nevertheless, I'll offer a bit from this New York Times article that supports the notion that some (some, not all) homophobes have same-sex attractions themselves. You can judge for yourself.

[I'm not sure who can read the NYTimes online anymore.  They've limited how many articles non-paying subscribers can read.  But if you have an Anchorage library card you should be able to read the article through the library website.  Here's the link and title if you can't get to it this way.  "Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay" by Richard M. Ryan and Robert S. Ryan.  April 29, 2012.]

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.

What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.

My understanding is that Jerry Prevo had a very strict (ie controlling) father who certainly would not approve a gay son.   There are places, Jerry, where you can talk to people about your repressed desires.  Places where you'll be shown a compassion you have not shown to others.   And as my post cited above shows, you have plenty of brethren among homophobic clergy and politicians who have turned out to have same-sex attractions.

Civil Rights, White House Intimacy, and Other WW II Thoughts To Ponder Today

As I read Doris Kearns Goodwin's No Ordinary Time I'm constantly thinking about how things were 70 years ago compared to today.  A few things that stood out in the last 100 pages.

1.  Civil Rights Issues  - clearly things are much changed today, but there are still people infected by racism.  It's not as blatant nor as widespread as this book reminds us.  Back then Eleanor was pushing her husband to have the Navy open more than mess positions to black sailors.  There was strong resistance by the Navy to FDR's request for the Navy to review ways to bring black seaman into more than mess jobs.

"Two weeks later, the board reported back, concluding in no uncertain terms "that members of the colored race be accepted only in messman branch."  The rationale once again was the intimate nature of life on a ship.  "Men on board ship live in particularly close association, in their messes one man sits beside another, their hammocks or bunks are close together, in their common tasks they work side by side . . . How many white men would choose that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, in mess be of another race?"

But FDR didn't accept this and demanded further study.  He was backed by popular pressure.

Through February and March 1942 every black newspaper carried the story of black mess man Dorie Miller, whose heroic exploits on the bridge of his battleship at Pearl Harbor earned him the Navy Cross.  The example of Miller's heroism became a principal weapon in the battle to end discrimination in the navy.  Here was a high-school dropout who raced through flaming oil to carry his captain to safety.  Seizing a machine gun left beside a dead gunner, Miller, without any weapons training began to fire at the oncoming Japanese planes, downing one or maybe two of the enemy aircraft.  Only after his ammunition was exhausted, the ship sinking rapidly, did he finally obey the order to abandon ship.    

Although Miller's acts of heroism were mentioned in the first navy dispatches, he was referred to simply as "an unidentified Negro messman."  The navy, it seems, did not want the first hero of the war to be a black man.  That honor was reserved for West Point graduate Colin Kelly, who perished three days later.  When Miller's name was finally released in March, the result of a determined effort by the Pittsburgh Courier, bills were introduced to accord him the Congressional Medal of Honor, and schools and parks were given his name.  But "the greatest honor that could be paid mess attendant Dorie Miller,"  the NAACP argued, "would be for the U.S. Navy to abolish restrictions against Negro enlistments at once."  (329-330)

The new policy allowed for Negroes to enlist in other positions, but only as long as training and the units remained segregated.  It was a start.

Japanese internment was a less positive effect of the war.  Despite Eleanor's pleas, FDR followed the united front of West Coast politicians and the military to evacuate Japanese Americans into internment camps.  (I'd note that I had Japanese American classmates in elementary, junior high, and high school who had been born in these camps.)

Though the Army's West Coast commander, General John De Witt, admitted that nothing had actually been proved, he proceeded, in a tortured twist of logic to argue that "the very fact that no sabotage has taken place is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action  will be taken." (p. 321)

Born in Seattle, Washington, Nakashima was the third son of Japanese parents who had been in the United States since 1901.  His father was an editor, his oldest brother an architect, his middle brother a doctor.    Yet all three brothers and their parents were forced to leave flourishing careers behind and spend their days amid the suffocating smell of horse manure in a stall that was only eighteen feet wide by twenty-one feet long.
"The senselessness of all of the inactive manpower,"  Nakashima observed.  "Electricians, plumbers, draftsmen, mechanics, carpenters, painters, farmers - every trade - men who are able and willing to do all they can to lick the Axis . . ." (p. 323)

"Originally," Eleanor wrote, the Japanese immigrants "were much needed on ranches and on large truck and fruit farms but as they came in greater numbers, people began to discover that they were not only convenient workers, they were also competitors in the labor field, and the people of California began to be afraid."  Though Japanese-owned farms occupied only 1 percent of the cultivated land in California, they produced nearly 40 percent of the total California crop.  One pressure group, the Grower Shipper Association, blatantly admitted wanting to get rid of the Japanese for selfish reasons:  "We might as well be honest," they said, openly coveting the rich farmland of the Japanese. (p. 321)

That's a pretty amazing statistic (40%).  I've emailed Richard Lingeman, the author of the book cited, Don't You Know There's a War On?, to double check.  [UPDATE April 10:40am:  Mr. Lingeman emailed back, "The only relevant quote in my book is:  'they [Japanese Americans] had specialized in vegetable farming, raising more than one-third of the total California crop.'" We can see here how things can easily get distorted.  First we go from "more than one-third" (33.3%) to "almost 40 percent."  Another problem is that Goodwin first talks about Japanese working on truck and fruit farms.  Then she's talking about them owning 1 percent of the cultivated land.  Does that include grains and other crops?  Because Lingeman's data are only for vegetable farming. Goodwin's had a plagiarism controversy in the past.  If one took Goodwin here as a source and reworded it a bit to change the meaning a little more, you can see how the truth can get stretched.]

2.  Close Quarters in the White House

I'm not sure how they do things now, but Roosevelt had a lot of his officials sleeping at the White House and sometimes when guests came they slept their too.  Churchill lived there on several extended visits.  It seems that the intimacy of staying at someone's home - even if it is the White House - allows for much closer relationships.  In one scene, Goodwin has FDR coming into Churchill's room as he walking, fully nude, out of the bath.  Churchill responds by saying that nothing his hidden between the prime minister and the president.

Perhaps this was the legacy of FDR's wealthy upbringing in which guests visiting his Hyde Park home stayed in the many extra rooms for days or longer.  It struck me as an interesting aspect that probably bears greater scrutiny.  Was this common then?  When did it end?  Was it unique to the war years?  What other presidents practiced this sort of hospitality?



3.  Productivity and Creativity

During the war there was a shift from the production of domestic items to war items of amazing proportions and consequences.  On a lighter level first.

. . . manufacturing concerns of every imaginable type were moving to concert old plants to the productions of weapons.  A merry-go-round factory was using its plant to fashion gun mounts.  A corset factory was making grenade belts.  A manufacturer of stoves was producing lifeboats.  A famous New York Toy concern was making compasses.  A pinball-machine maker was turning out armor-piercing shells.  Despite continuing shortages of raw materials in 1942 would  witness the greatest expansion of production in the nation's history. p.  (p. 316)

Ford, GM, and Chrysler were turning out aircraft, tanks, and weapons.  Steel man, Henry Kaiser, took over shipbuilding.  All of them began to turn out products in record numbers.

At the time of the president's visit [September 1942], tanks were rolling off the assembly lines at Chrysler, Cadillac, and fifteen other plants at the phenomenal rate of nearly four thousand a month.  This extraordinary level of achievement an best be understood by recognizing that Germany, the previous world leader in tank production, was currently producing at a rate of four thousand a year.  In September, Hitler announced a major expansion in Germany's tank production.  The goal he set - eight hundred tanks per month - was less than 15 percent of Roosevelt's objective for 1943!  (p. 363)

 "Under Kaiser's leadership, the average time to deliver a ship was cut from 355 days in 1940 to 194 days in 1941 to 60 days in early 1942" (p. 318)

Women and, to a lesser extent  blacks, came into factory jobs and won the grudging respect of the male supervisors who opposed them at first.  


4.  The President's Ability to Call On People's Patriotism 

Silk and rubber - but not girdles

Rubber sources had been taken over by the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia and so there was a great push to limit the purchase of tires, where 80% of US rubber was used.  An attempt to limit rubber in women's girdles was quickly abandoned when it met with massive resistance.  Gasoline was limited, not because it was short supply, but because reduced driving would reduce the demand for rubber tires.  A two week period was set aside in to collect rubber in June 1942.

The response was overwhelming.  In the course of two weeks, the nation's stockpile was increased by more than four hundred tons, the average contribution was almost seven pounds for each man, woman, or child. (pp. 357-8)

 Rationing was also begun on the grounds that basic goods shouldn't simply be available to the wealthy.  Everyone was guaranteed a base level amount.

To a large extent this was brought about by the president's ability at his fireside chat radio programs to inspire the public to support the war and to make sacrifices.

A sharp contrast to today where most people hardly know that a war is going on and are happy to let those involved do all the sacrificing.


5.  A good dose of vitriol aimed at the Roosevelts

It wasn't all warm and fuzzy in face of the enemy.   Roosevelt's stretching of government authority in price ceilings, rationing, and pressuring auto plants to switch to war production caused a great deal of hostility.  So did Eleanor Roosevelt's strong support of rights for blacks and support for women in factories. 



Enough for now.  But if I'm going to blog AND get this book finished, you're going to get book reports.  And it's a good book, worth reporting on. 

Spring Showing and a Bit of Nutcracker Keep Me From Reading

I've got 100 pages targeted for each of the next three days to get this book finished by Monday night's book club.  So I'm going to minimize my time here.  You can see by the bookmark, I'm only halfway through.  It's great reading.  I just have to keep away from this computer.

Meanwhile the birch buds are showing.





And the daffodils are coming up.

I'm not sure what this is.  Something new I got last year.  But it shows you the struggle I'm having with my camera's automatic focus.  Usually I can figure a way to trick it into getting what I want sharp, but it sure liked the background leaves better than the bud, and no matter what I did, it wouldn't yield.









And finally a little music from Yeonhee Freeman's music students who put on a recital today.  What a delightful interlude.  This is one of our honorary nieces in the red dress.

Did Roosevelt Know The Japanese Would Attack Pearl Harbor? - What Did The President Know and When Did He Know It? Part II

Here's the end of "What Did The President Know and When Did He Know It? Part I - which discussed comments by Neal Conan at the Alaska Press Club conference a week ago.

So last night, reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's No Ordinary Time in bed after hearing Neal Conan,  I got to Franklin Roosevelt's Atlantic 'fishing trip' which turned into a secret meeting at sea with Winston Churchill in August 1941.  Part of the discussion at the "Atlantic Conference" was about the negotiations between the US and Japan.  Which brought to mind, Conan's mention of "What did the president know   . . .?" and the debate WW II buffs have had over whether President Roosevelt knew in advance about the Pearl Harbor attack.

I was going to include that here, but I think this is enough for one post and I'll follow up with another post on that topic. 

This is that follow up.

Roosevelt and Churchill are at sea.  It's August 1941.

The opening discussion centered on what to do about Japan's increasingly aggressive stance in the Pacific.  For more than a year Roosevelt had  been trying to avoid a showdown with Japan, whose expansionist policies under Premier Fumimaro Konoye threatened American interest in the Pacific.  To the president's mind, a détente with Japan was essential to gain the time he needed to train the armed forces and mobilize the factories to accomplish the real end of American Foreign policy - the destruction of the Hitler menace.  Roosevelt believed an early war with Japan would mean "the wrong war in the wrong ocean at the wrong time." (p. 265)

There had been earlier disagreement in the cabinet. Some, including Treasury Secretary Morganthau, wanted a total embargo on oil to Japan, while Secretary of State Hull felt that would precipitate war.

In June, the debate over the oil embargo had assumed political significance at home when Ickes, in his capacity as fuel administrator, was forced to ration oil in New England.  "It's marvelous,"  Morganthau taunted the president, describing a cartoon just published in the Washington Star.  "It's got a car driving up with a Japanese as a chauffeur and Hull filling the gas tank. . ."

Roosevelt was afraid an embargo would drive Japan to the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and Roosevelt didn't have enough navy for both the Atlantic and Pacific.

"The Japanese are having a real drag-down and knock-out fight among themselves,"  Roosevelt further explained, "and have been for the past week - trying to decide which way they are going to jump - attack Russia, attack the South Seas (thus throwing in their lot definitely with Germany) or whether they will sit on the fence and be more friendly with us.  No one knows what their decision will be."

But in mid-July, when forty thousand Japanese troops invaded rubber-rich Indochina [the French colony, now Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia] and quickly took over the country, the president finally agreed to take retaliatory action.  He froze all Japanese assets in the U.S., notified Japan that the Panama Canal would be closed for repairs, and announced that he was cutting off all high-octane, [sic] gasoline.  Whereas [Secretary of War] Stimson and [Secretary of Interior] Ickes believed that all gasoline - not just high-octane, suitable for airplanes - would be embargoed, Roosevelt preferred to move one step at at time, "to slip the noose around Japan's neck, and give it a jerk now and then." (pp. 265-266)

 So in July before the December Pearl Harbor attack, the US was still selling oil - but not high octane - to Japan.   That doesn't sound like he was expecting to be attacked by Japan.  Actually, it turned out, while Roosevelt was with Churchill in August, "implemented by subordinates  . . . the limited embargo he had sanctioned had become full-scale." (p. 283) 

At the August Atlantic Conference, Goodwin reports that Churchill wanted Roosevelt to get tough with Japan.

Roosevelt seriously considered Churchill's proposal [warning that Great Britain and the US would be compelled to go to war if Japan encroached the South Pacific], but in the end settled on a softer, unilateral message, fearing that the strong language of the joint declaration would guarantee war. (p. 266)

In the fall of 1941, the president wanted to arm merchant ships taking supplies to Great Britain.  Congress balked, believing the president was trying to provoke a war with Germany.  It passed November 8 after 11 days of debate.

The closeness of the vote made it clear to Roosevelt that, short of some dramatic event, there was no chance of getting Congress to vote a declaration of war against Germany.  "He had no more tricks left,"  [Playwright, biographer, and FDR speech writer] Robert Sherwood observed.  "The bag from which he had pulled so many rabbits was empty."  His only recourse was to wait on events. (p. 283)

  Meanwhile,

Japan could not tolerate the embargo on oil.  The crisis strengthened the hand of the military.  On October 16, War Minister General Hideki Tojo replaced Fumimaro Konoye as premier, and gave Japanese diplomats until the last day of November to arrange a satisfactory settlement with the United States that would end the sanctions;  if they failed, war would begin in early December.  In the meantime, active preparations were under way for a massive air strike against Pearl Harbor.

The stumbling block in the negotiations was China.  Whereas Japan was willing to remove its troops from Indochina and promise not to advance beyond current positions in return for America's lifting of the embargo, she refused to withdraw completely from China.  For a time, it seemed that Roosevelt would accept a partial withdrawal of Japanese troops from China, but strong protests from Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-Shek hardened the U.S. position. (p. 283)

 Goodwin then writes about other events going on from Thanksgiving dinner to a coal strike.  After the coal settlement, the president was heading for a break in Warms Springs when word came that a Japanese expedition was headed south from Japan.  Roosevelt responded angrily at the evidence of Japanese bad faith.  It was now the last days of November.  Admiral Stark warned:

Japan may attack:  the Burma Road, Thailand, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, the Philippines, the Russian Maritime Provinces  . . . The most essential thing now from United States viewpoint, is to gain time.  Considerable Navy and Army reinforcements have been rushed to Philippines but desirable strength not yet been reached.  Precipitance of military action on our part should be avoided so long as consistent with national policy.  The longer the delay, the more positive becomes the assurance of retention of these Islands as a naval and air base."

The President agreed with Stark about the importance of playing for time.  Though he had little hope now that an agreement could be reached, he instructed Hull to send a proposal to the Japanese demanding that Japan leave China and Indochina in return for an American promise to negotiate  new trade and raw-materials agreements.  The note reiterated what the United States had been saying for months:  that Japan could at any moment put an end to the exploding situation by embracing a peaceful course, and that once she did this her fears of encirclement would come to an immediate end. (p. 286)

Then the president proceeded on his trip to Warm Springs.  But shortly after he arrived,  he got a call.

When Hull called at 9 p.m. he told Roosevelt that he had just finished reading an explosive speech which Premier Tojo was scheduled to deliver the following day.  The speech called on Japan, "for the honor and pride of mankind," to take immediate steps to wipe out U.S. and British "exploitation" in the Far East.  Hull was convinced that a Japanese attack was imminent;  he advised Roosevelt to return to Washington as soon as possible.  The president agreed to leave the following day. [which would be November 30] (p. 287)

The Japanese intentions had everyone's attention the next week and Goodwin [I'm sure some of you have forgotten Goodwin was the book's author] reports that at a meeting on Friday, December 5 there was discussion of where the Japanese fleet was.  Secretary of the Navy Knox assured the president they would know in a week.  Saturday afternoon they had an intercepted Japanese cable to the negotiators in Washington rejecting the first 13 points of Hull's proposal and promising the 14th on Sunday.

The improbable hope of Saturday night was crushed on Sunday morning, December 7, when the fourteenth part of the Japanese message terminating diplomatic negotiations arrived.  Within minutes, a second message came through, instructing Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura to deliver the entire fourteen-part reply to Secretary Hull at precisely one o'clock.  To colonel Rufus Bratton, chief of the Far Eastern Section of the War Department, the timing of the 1p.m. deadline seemed significant.  With a sinking heart, he told General Marshall that he feared it might coincide with an early-morning attack somewhere in the Pacific.  "The Japanese are presenting at 1p.m. EST today what amounts to an ultimatum.  Just what significance the hour set may have we do not know, but be on the alert."  Uncertain of the security of the scrambler phone, Marshall opted to send his warning by the slower method of commercial telegraph.  In order of priority, the warning was to go first to Manila, then to Panama, and finally to Hawaii.  By the time the message reached the telegraph station in Honolulu, the attack on Pearl Harbor had already begun. (p. 288)

 So, when I finished this section, it was clear that Goodwin did not think the president knew before the attack.  A few pages later she punctuates that conclusion.

"I remember," Perkins later said, "the President could hardly bring himself" to describe the devastation.  "His pride in the Navy was so terrific that he was having actual physical difficulty in getting out the words that put him on record as knowing the Navy was caught unawares. . . I remember that he said twice to Knox, 'Find out for God's sake, why the ships were tied up in rows."  Knox said, 'That's the way they berth them!'  It was obvious to me that Roosevelt was having a dreadful time just accepting the idea that the Navy could be caught so off guard." (p, 292)

Goodwin addresses the title question explicitly on the next page:

Historians have focused substantial time and attention trying to determine who knew what and when before the 7th of December - on the theory that Roosevelt was aware of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor but deliberately concealed his knowledge from the commanders in Hawaii in order to bring the United States into hostilities through the back door. (p. 293)

She goes on to address why she is convinced that he didn't.

Here it is, 61 years later and the question of what the president knew and when he knew it is still being debated.  I'd like to think that given our greater access to information and ability to disseminate information, we'll get the answers faster now than in the past.  

ReStore - Habitat For Humanity Thrift Shop For Building Supplies

I had to bike to Central Plumbing on International Road Monday and since the sidewalk on International is more theoretical than real I decided to go exploring down side streets on the way back.

I immediately discovered Restore - the Habitat for Humanity's thrift shop for building supplies.  Their website says

The Habitat ReStore is a retail business which sells donated new and used building materials, electrical fixtures, appliances, kitchen cabinets, and more - at greatly reduced prices.
We accept new and used building materials in 100% working condition from remodeling jobs, business closeouts, contractors and builders.  
The income generated from a ReStore is used to support Habitat's mission of building homes for families in order to eliminate substandard housing in Anchorage.  

The part that really caught my eye was this line:

"Since 2004 the ReStore has diverted over 6 million pounds of product from the Anchorage Landfill."

But Monday I didn't know any of this.  As I rode past I decided to check it out.  




There's all this stuff sitting around.  A lot of it had sold stickers.  We're trying to get rid of stuff, not buy more stuff.  It says they will pick up things.  I like that idea a lot.

There was also an inside section.






For someone who wants inexpensive stuff and is willing to refinish or paint, this is a great opportunity.  It's been there since 2004.  Am I the last person to know about this place?

But now I have found it,  all because I was on a bike, not in a car.  

The proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity.

Here's the link to their guideline for donations. (It's a PDF file)







So,

• there's lots of inexpensive stuff
• much of what they have would have gone to the landfill otherwise even though it's perfectly reusable
• you can get rid of stuff here
• it all benefits a good cause

Just so you know, recycling is chic.  Check this page at the New York Times:

At this year’s International Furniture Fair, pieces made of industrial waste contrasted with luxurious items like deep-cushioned sofas that provide infantile comfort.

 After reading the whole article, there's a lot more luxury than landfill in the Milan exhibit.

Music Licensing Fees Keep Wrecking Crew From Commercial Release

I was recently thinking about doing some posts on the fate of the best movies that have been at the Anchorage International Film Festival.  Whatever happened to them?  Did they fade away?  Did they get audiences?

Today I saw this New York Times article about The Wrecking Crew.

The Wrecking Crew wowed the people who saw it at the Anchorage International Film Festival - in the museum theater - and it won an Audience Award for Best Documentary.

On December 12, 2008, I wrote:

Then we saw one of my favorite films of the week - The Wrecking Crew. When I first saw it in the schedule I figured it had to be good if just for the music. The Wrecking Crew was the backup band for most of the big hits in the late 60s pop music in California. It turned out to be an interesting movie that filled in a lot of gaps - these guys and one woman - played in literally every big hit. It was sort of like a public television fundraiser oldies show, but much, much better.

That was typed in quickly and without enough reflection time at the Bear Tooth just before a final movie for the day.  As the days went by, the power of the The Wrecking Crew story, highlighting the musicians who backed up so many of the great songs of the 60s, sank in.

And all that great music is the problem.  They are still struggling to pay the royalty fees for 132 music cues.

In the 1960s many of the hits coming out of Los Angeles under the names of
the Beach Boys, Sonny & Cher, the Mamas and the Papas, the Monkees and other top pop acts were actually recorded by an elite but largely anonymous corps of studio musicians nicknamed the Wrecking Crew. To gain them some belated public recognition Denny Tedesco, a son of one of the most prolific of those session players, spent more than 15 years making a documentary about the ensemble.

But there’s just one problem, and it has held up commercial release of “The Wrecking Crew” since 2008, when the documentary made its debut at the South by Southwest film festival. The film includes dozens of snippets from songs the Wrecking Crew played on, but the record companies that own the recordings want so much money from Mr. Tedesco, whose total budget was less than $1 million, that he has turned to a fund-raising campaign, including an event scheduled for New York in mid-June, to meet their demands. [Read the rest here.]

And go to the Wrecking Crew website just to hear the music.  

And it's coming soon to

• Annenberg Center for Performing Arts - Philadelphia, April 28-29
• Woodlake Elementary School in Woodland Hills, California, May4
• The Cutting Room in NYC on June 13.

Check here for details and other upcoming showings or if you want to put one on.

Polling Gap - Dittman Confirms It's the Biggest

A Dittman poll predicted 50% for and 41% against Prop. 5 a week before the April 3 Anchorage Municipal election.  The actual outcome was 58% no and 42% for - a 17% switch in the 'no' votes.

That seemed like a huge switch in a week.  Polling has gotten to be pretty sophisticated and more accurate in recent years.  When all the other issues in this election began to come out - see Bent and  Mudflats  - this seemed to be another anomaly that should be in the mix to be checked out.

So, when I saw that Dittman would be on a panel with the other two best known Anchorage pollsters, I wanted to take the opportunity to see whether this was, as it seemed to me, the biggest difference between polling outcome and election outcome so close to the election.

I got the chance to ask.  I had to ask three times before Dittman confirmed my suspicion.  I've tried to focus just on that part of the video.


[UPDATE 4/29/12 - Someone suggested I add the transcript from the video.

Steve:  Can you think of an election where there was such a big shift [from the poll prediction to the election outcome]?
Dittman:  No.  The answer is no.  I think if you look back historically, the polls have been pretty darned good.  We have on our website the graphic tracks, we have the final poll and the election, it’s just within a percent. It’s dead on. And I think if you look back over time, the polls have been pretty darn reliable.  And in this case you’ve got like a ten percent shift or maybe even twenty . . .
Steve:  Well, it’s almost twenty for the no people.
Dittman:  Yeah.  When you look . .I think that’s one of the highest I can remember.]

Does this even matter?

Some people I've talked to about what I'm calling anomalies in the election have said, "So what? That doesn't prove anything." But I'm working on the grounds that when you're in a situation and you notice things that seem unusual or abnormal, these are signs that something may be amiss. "How to develop Sherlock Holmes intutition" at WikiHow talks about reading the situation.

Understand how to read a situation. There are three parts to reading a situation:

• See. What do you see that is happening? 

• Observe. What do you notice that is different; a stain, a crease? 

• Deduce. What does this imply?

See:   We had an election that ran out of ballots and people were turned away.
Observe:  This is the step that I and other bloggers are going through.  We're looking for things that are different.  The polling gap is one of five or six 'differences.'  In this case it is the extreme variation between the predicted and actual outcome of the election - a greater variation than veteran Anchorage pollster Dave Dittman can remember.
Deduce:  The 17 point shift among 'no' voters - from 41% no to 58% no - that something is different here from other elections.  The two obvious implications are:

1. The polling was inaccurate or
2. The vote counting was inaccurate.

[NOTE:  Never be taken in by such either/or options.  There are others (i.e. it just was an odd set of circumstances, like winning the lottery), but for now these are the key ones and most of the others are subsets of these.

The panelists in the video, all pollsters, focused on their area of expertise (polling) and discussed what could have gone wrong with the polling.

• Polls asked wrong questions - focus on discrimination v. focus on freedom;  use of term gay v. homosexual - will all result in different responses 
• Voters changed their minds - negative campaigning - the panel suggested the no campaign might have frightened voters and the yes campaign may have irritated voters
• Size of turnout -  Craciun said that the low percentage of people who vote in general is a serious problem.  Moore said this was the highest turnout election.  (In the end, the turnout edged out the 2006 Mayoral race by 240 ballots, and Prop. 5 had the most people voting.)

Nevertheless, all these possible polling errors can happen at every election and these are experienced pollsters who can explain the ways polls go bad and are paid to avoid these types of bias in their polling. At this election, Dave Dittman agreed this was the highest deviation between what was predicted and the outcome in a week's time [that he could remember.] 


The other option: there was an irregularity in the election itself and how the votes were counted. 

This all came to light when polling places ran out of ballots.  We also know that Jim Minnery sent out emails to evangelical Christians telling them they could register on the day of the election, even though he'd previously sent out an email telling them to get registered 30 days before or they wouldn't be able to vote.
We also have reports of broken seals on ballot boxes and the deputy clerk in charge of the elections telling a polling worker not to worry about the broken seals.

Back to the Sherlock Holmes webpage:

"It is the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize out of a number of facts, which are incidental and which are vital."[7]. And don't dismiss the smallest details - Holmes made it clear that "The little things are infinitely the most important."[8]

There are lots of individual pieces.  Some, like the broken seals and the missing ballots, should call for an investigation on their own.  Elections are simply too important to not make sure that any problems this time, won't happen again.

This time, the vote was not close in any particular race.  Thus, the investigators need not worry about the political consequences of their findings.  Though there are potential consequences for individuals who may have fallen down on the job.  Higher level public administrators are not merely supposed to do things the way they've always been done, they are expected to be aware that the world is constantly changing and they have to be adapting to those changes.  Based on the video I did with former elections head, Lupe Marroquin, some good things from the past weren't done and some new bad things were.

In any case, I'm adding this long explanation so that people understand that the video, which raises the issue of the gap between the predicted outcome and the actual outcome is simply one of many clues that, all together, raise serious questions about the integrity of the election.

When there is an accident, the police can conclude it was simply an accident and move on, or they can notice clues that suggest that perhaps there was more to it.  I'm just saying, along with others, that there are enough clues, little things that are out of place out there, that suggest there is possibly something more than just an accident.

The Assembly Chair seems to agree, because he's going to appoint an investigator.  I'm just adding this bit of evidence into the mix so that it's considered during the investigation.