New Legislator Bikes To Work

Alaska's youngest legislator,  newly elected Jonathon Kreiss-Tomkins, is using his new legislative license plate on his alternative-energy vehicle. From his Facebook page comes this picture:

Click to enlarge

Latest Kulluk Update

There was a new Update today.  It's been almost two weeks since the last one.  Here it is:

DATE: January 30, 2013 9:20:00 AM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command Joint Information Center at (907) 433-3417

Update #44: Kulluk remains stable – engineering analysis continues

Jan. 30, 2013

Unified Command continues to oversee preparations for the next steps in the Kulluk response. Multiple entities remain involved including: the U.S. Coast Guard, Shell, the State of Alaska, Smit Salvage and Det Norske Veritas.

• Unified Command’s priority continues to be the safety of all personnel and the environment.
• Tow equipment has been secured and is currently in Kodiak.
• The Kulluk’s openings on the main deck (i.e., windows and hatches) have been secured and in some cases temporary steel structures have been added to close the openings to make the vessel water- and weather-tight for potential tow operations.  A few remain open to allow for ongoing operations.
• Close coordination with the communities of Kodiak and Old Harbor is ongoing.
• Old Harbor Native Corporation, in collaboration with Unified Command, continues to develop plans to access the shoreline and surrounding area to clean up life boat debris.
• The UC has received confirmation from naval architects that the damage sustained by the grounding poses no threat to the stability or integrity of the Kulluk while anchored in Kiliuda Bay. The next step is an analysis of this data to determine the best course of action to relocate the Kulluk for permanent repairs. The UC will not speculate on this next step until the DNV and USCG give their recommendations for safely relocating the Kulluk.    

Does this debunk Phil's post from yesterday?  I don't know.  What questions does it raise?

•  The Kulluk’s openings on the main deck (i.e., windows and hatches) have been secured and in some cases temporary steel structures have been added to close the openings to make the vessel water- and weather-tight for potential tow operations.  A few remain open to allow for ongoing operations.

I guess this means that the  "openings on the main deck (i.e. windows and hatches)" were damaged enough that they couldn't just fix them.  They had to add 'temporary steel structures.'   Assuming that their use of 'i.e.' is correct, then windows and hatches are the only openings that have been secured this way.  (See Grammar Monster for difference between i.e. and e.g.)

• Tow equipment has been secured and is currently in Kodiak.

Is this in addition to all the tow equipment that was already on hand and that got the Kulluk from its original grounding spot to Kiliuda Bay?  

• Close coordination with the communities of Kodiak and Old Harbor is ongoing.
• Old Harbor Native Corporation, in collaboration with Unified Command, continues to develop plans to access the shoreline and surrounding area to clean up life boat debris.

Basically this is a "we're doing good things" statement without giving any details.  What have they given Kodiak and Old Harbor in exchange for their cooperation?  We know that the Executive Director of Old Harbor Native Corporation, Carl Marrs, wrote a glowing op ed piece for Shell.  But we don't know what Shell promised in exchange.  I understand that Shell might react to this with frustration.  "We're doing everything that we should be doing and the bloggers still complain."  But since we have no idea what it is you are specifically  doing, we can only speculate.  And if our speculation is on the negative end, it's only because we assume that if you had good things to say, you'd tell us.

You do say that you are collaborating with Old Harbor Native Corporation on clean up plans.  What exactly does 'collaborating' mean?  How many jobs for how many dollars per hour will the Corporation members get?  For how long?  What else have you given or promised to give them?  I realize that you don't plan to tell us.  And so we are left to raise questions and to speculate until we get more specific answers.  If everything you were doing were praiseworthy, you'd tell us.  Like the recent story about your helping the Food Bank on Kodiak.

• The UC has received confirmation from naval architects that the damage sustained by the grounding poses no threat to the stability or integrity of the Kulluk while anchored in Kiliuda Bay. The next step is an analysis of this data to determine the best course of action to relocate the Kulluk for permanent repairs. The UC will not speculate on this next step until the DNV* and USCG give their recommendations for safely relocating the Kulluk.   

So long as the Kulluk sits anchored in Kiliuda Bay, it will be ok.  What about when it gets moved out of the Bay?

I understand that you are doing analysis, but according to UPDATE #43, you were finished with the data collection at least by January 18, twelve days ago.  I would have assumed that the data analysis would have started then.  Surely, by now you must know what your likely options are.  What are you trying to protect by not sharing what's going on?  Shell stock prices?  Letting your competition know?  (Surely they talk to the salvagers and know what's happening.)  Preventing those with interests and concerns from mobilizing with the information?

Am I being unduly harsh on Shell here?  Look, I'm one little blogger asking questions of one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world.  And Shell isn't being responsive at all, using the Unified Command and the Coast Guard to refuse to answer very reasonable questions about their operations in Alaska.  I know that they did horrendous things in Nigeria in the 1990's.  There's enough evidence that they've gotten some standing - however temporary - in a US Court.   I don't know  what they've learned from that situation.  But my suspicion is that they will do whatever they can get away with - less where laws and the justice system are stricter, more where they are not.  And even where they are good, Shell's enormous wealth can buy them the best lawyers available.  So, no, I don't think I'm being harsh.



*DNV = I gave a little background of Det Norse Veritas here.

Bloggers, Media Ethics/Standards, And The Kulluk

Bloggers are still writing their own rules about how to go about reporting the news.  Traditional journalists used to have strict rules about confirming what they write. There seems to be a spiraling down of such standards these days though. 

This all comes up because a fellow Alaska blogger posted Monday that Shell's oil rig Kulluk is significantly damaged and may be sent to Asia for repairs.  This would be a pretty big story if it turns out to be true.  There's been no hint of something like this from the Unified Command, which has been silent for over a week now.  I don't have enough knowledge about oil rigs and shipping to read between the lines of their reports that say "the Kulluk is stable and no oil was released."  Nor do I know how significant seawater leakage is.  But the Unified Command's minimalist updates have raised the question: 

What are they hiding?  

So, what should bloggers do when people on the scene give them information that isn't available through the formal channels but hard to verify further?  And what should other bloggers do when they see such stories?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.  I ask questions like that of myself a lot.  Blogs and Twitter and Facebook have tempted traditional media sources into reporting some events without traditional fact checking.  The race to be first to report has a pull, similar to taunts that get teenage boys to do things they oughtn't.

But I've also seen a positive side to alternative media reporting events that haven't been 100% confirmed. 

Individual bloggers don't have the clout or resources that a traditional newsroom has.  (A lot of current traditional newsrooms don't either any more.)  I see a phenomenon happening.  Bloggers each add a little information to the public debate.  Individually, they don't have enough information, but collectively they get important information out into the open.  As long as they give information on how they got the information so others can assess it and they qualify it appropriately, it's ok if it isn't always 100% accurate.  My personal preference is that bloggers consider the impacts of tentative information on the people it's about so they don't unnecessarily do damage.   It's like the traditional newsroom conversations about what to post, except it is publicly available. 

I'm torn about what my proper role is here.  Do I point out Phil's story to others - since it is out there and surely Shell knows about it and - according to Phil's post - wouldn't comment?  Will this needlessly spread rumor that may ultimately prove to be false?  Will it lead others to find other contacts who can help verify what Phil reports?

If it is true, does it matter if it's posted today or waits until Shell is ready to tell the world? I'm guessing that the sooner we know things the more questions there will be and that seeking answers before the corpse is removed will reveal more of what happened.  

A further wrinkle in this for me is that Phil cites this blog's concerns about how sparing Shell and the Unified Command have been with information.  Will pointing out the post be seen as blowing my own horn?  People will see what they want to see, so I can't worry about that.  Phil and I are not working together on this stuff and I didn't know about his post until I saw it posted.

The real questions seem to  me to be:
How newsworthy is this if it's true? 
How well did Phil document the story?

The answer to the first is: very.  To answer the second I asked myself how a traditional newsroom would handle this?  That isn't necessarily the standard that unpaid individual bloggers should have to follow, but it is at least a standard to think about it. 

So I looked up journalistic sourcing online and found that Reuters has an online journalism guide which clearly states that everything must be sourced. 

You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene. Good sources and well-defined sourcing help to protect the integrity of the file from overt outside pressures and manipulation and such hazards as hoaxes.

If an event is not contentious it may be legitimate to begin a story with a paragraph that does not contain a source, as long as the sourcing is clearly given high in the story.

 I take most of this as a given for this blog and Phil does source his allegations.

Reuters goes on to talk about where to place the source.

Newsbreaks should be sourced within the first two paragraphs. You should generally lead your story on the news, not the source, except in the following cases:

• If a story is inflammatory or is an allegation, give the source first. Write, for example: “Gallic leader Vercingetorix accused Emperor Julius Caesar of genocide”. Do not write: “Roman Emperor Julius Caesar has committed genocide, Gallic leader Vercingetorix said."
• If the source of a story is a major figure you would also usually put the source at the start. The same is true if the source is a weak one. For example, the secretary of a CEO who confirms that the executive was on his private jet when it crashed. If responsibility for a statement is clear, do not repeat sourcing unnecessarily.
• If there is an element of doubt in a pick-up, you would normally put the source first e.g. “A leading Manchuk newspaper reported on Friday that the President Mabee Iznogud was on the verge of resigning.”

Phil's post leads with the sources:

"I have now received word from two anonymous sources on Kodiak Island that it appears damage assessment of the Shell Oil drill rig Kulluk is far worse than has been thus far disclosed by the Unified Command."

But when can we use with anonymous sources?   Reuters addresses that:

The weakest sources are those whose names we cannot publish. Reuters uses anonymous sources when we believe they are providing accurate, reliable and newsworthy information that we could not obtain any other way. We should not use anonymous sources when sources we can name are readily available for the same information.

When I first saw Phil's story, I emailed him asking pretty much those questions:  how reliable are these sources?  Phil seems to think they know what they are talking about, but others interested in this aren't ready to go public with it.  He also lists the official sources that he has contacted and who have not responded to his queries. 

I myself contacted the Unified Command a week ago and got a form reply saying that they won't add information to the public updates.  (Someone did manage to let AP know that Shell was helping the Food Bank get food to remote Kodiak villages, so it appears that news that helps Shell's image is shared.  So perhaps news that isn't shared will do them harm.)

Unnamed sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us, or must represent an authority with direct knowledge. Remember that reliability declines the further away the source is from the event, and tougher questions must be asked by reporters and supervisors on the validity of such information.

I don't know if the sources had direct knowledge or not.  But I understood that two separate sources gave him the same information.

Responsibility for reporting what an anonymous source says resides solely with Reuters and the reporter. There is no liability or potential reputational damage to the source, making this the least watertight form of sourcing. We should convey to readers as clearly as possible why we believe the source is reliable, and what steps we have taken to ensure we are not being manipulated. This is done most effectively by the way we describe the source. The more removed the source is from a subject, the less reliable the source is likely to be. Reporters and editors should question the validity of information from a source remote from the action. 

Any media's reputation is based on its credibility.  So to maintain that credibility you want to be sure you report only what you can confirm.  But do you ever take risks because a story is really important to publish?

Be as specific as possible. Negotiate hard with your source to agree a description that is sufficiently precise to enable readers to trust the reliability of our anonymous sourcing.
“A source” or “sources”, “observers” or “quarters” with no further description is vague and unacceptable. So is the use of “informed sources” or “reliable sources”. Would we quote an uninformed or unreliable source?
When reporting a corporate deal, describe the source as specifically as possible. Use “a company executive/banker/lawyer close to the transaction” to convey the fact that your source is directly involved in the deal, but “a source close to the transaction” is also acceptable if the source is unwilling to be identified more specifically. “Banking sources”, “industry sources” and “financial sources” can imply that the source may not have first-hand information and is therefore less authoritative. Always be as specific as possible.
Stories based on anonymous sources require particularly rigorous cross-checking. We should normally have two or three sources for such information.

My sense is that Phil's sources believe they risk retaliation if they are identified which is why they are not named.  He has two different sources.

Stories based on a single, anonymous source should be the exception and require approval by an immediate supervisor – a bureau chief, head of reporting unit in a large centre, or editor in charge.

This is a luxury that bloggers don't have.  And in this case there are two sources.

Bloggers aren't bound by Reuters' rules.  But I do think that Phil has clarified where he's gotten the information.  He used terms like "appears to be"  and "supposedly" to qualify the allegations.  He reports his unsuccessful efforts to get information from Shell and from the Coast Guard. 

I think this story is important enough for other bloggers and for mainstream media to start checking on it and if they find other sources to support Phil's story they should be sharing what they know with the world. 

Shell has assured the US government and the world that they are well experienced in Arctic drilling and that there will be no serious problems that they are unprepared for.  Yet there's been a series of embarrassments with their oil rigs in the last year.  In this case, the rig broke loose from the tug which lost power very close to the last Coast Guard base on the way north.  If they had hit a storm in the Bering Sea and lost the rig there, the story would have been much worse than this will turn out to be.  Shell has been doing its best to minimize the information that gets out to the world.  Journalists have an obligation to get independent information so that Shell isn't in charge of packaging the story of what happened.

How To Cancel An Alaskan Airlines Ticket Without A Fee [NOT]

[UPDATE Feb. 17:  It didn't work.  When I tried to apply my balance to a new ticket, they added the $75 penalty fee I hadn't paid yet.  I knew it was too good to be true.]

[UPDATE June 5, 2015:  Cancellation fees were raised to $125 a while ago. Not all fares have cancellation fees.  My sense is these fees have nothing to do with costs.  It's extortion.  They do it because they can.  Finding this on their website is hard.  However, the Ask Jenn feature did give me the page quickly. ]


[UPDATE Aug 8, 2014:  There is a way - be in the MVP Gold (40,000 or more miles) category.  A table on Elite Status says "Fee Waivers - Call Center Ticketing Fee, Ticket Change/Cancellation Fee, Left on Board Item Return Fee."   Oh dear, I didn't know there was a fee for getting something you left on board.]

When you buy the cheap tickets on Alaska Airlines, the agreement says you have to pay a $75 change fee if you change on line and $100 if you do it by phone or in person.  But a cancelled credit card led me to an option with no fee.  The canceled card kept me from cancelling the ticket on-line, because I couldn't pay the fee with my old card.

[Note:  You can change or cancel an online booked Alaska Airlines ticket within 24 hours for no fee.]

(If you want to skip the background and just find out how to cancel without a fee jump down to 'back to the Alaska Airline ticket.)

So, we have an Alaskan Airlines credit card.  It got rejected back in December when I was trying to pay my way out of the Anchorage Airport parking lot.  That night the operator said it had been cancelled by the cardholder, neither I nor my wife had cancelled it.  And, she noted, people who mess with your card usually do so to use it, not to cancel it.  The next morning when I got the accounting office they said it was cancelled because they didn't have my wife's social security number.  That they'd sent us a letter and we hadn't responded so they cancelled it.  I didn't remember getting a letter when we talked, but since then I remembered.  It was pretty dicey looking - the pages looked xeroxed and the logo was black and white and not in color.  I even called my tax person and asked why my credit card would send a letter asking for my wife's social security number.  We decided it was snail mail spam.

But the operator told me this was required by the Patriot Act and I pointed out it had been passed ten years ago, so it seemed they'd survived all this time . . but she said there were new directives enforcing it and requiring banks to get all the info.  And the reason it said that the customer cancelled the card was to not hurt our credit rating by having something say the bank cancelled our card.  And then she said we had to fax or mail the number in - we couldn't do it by phone.  Not sure what I said in reply (I was polite, but I'm sure I had some smart retort) and she consulted her supervisor and took J's SS# over the phone.

Then, in LA just now, the restaurant said our card was declined.  We called Visa from the restaurant and were assured it was good and transferred to Security, but it disconnected.  So I called again and again was told the card was good and this time he suggested the restaurant's card reader was bad.  We paid cash.

The next day my wife had the card refused somewhere else.  We called again and this time we were told that it was cancelled because one of the vendors we'd used had a security breach and so the cards were cancelled.  They'd sent us a new card.  But we were in LA and the card went to Anchorage.  And we were getting ready to go to Seattle.  They'd fed ex it to Seattle.

Back to the Alaska Airline ticket.  I'd made a reservation to fly to Seattle to Anchorage, but we'd had to go to LA first to check on my mom.  So I wanted to cancel the original ticket.  But when I tried to get the cost of the ticket put into my 'wallet' (Alaska Airline's name for a customer account that can be used to buy tickets or food on a flight) I couldn't because I needed a good credit card to pay the cancellation fee.  (Visa did say I could get a security code for each transaction by calling them when the vendor tried to use the card, but that doesn't work online.) I thought maybe they'd just take the fee out of the money they were putting in the 'wallet' but no, I had to pay that extra.

So I called Alaska to explain my plight:  I can't pay the fee because my Alaska Airlines credit card was cancelled and new one hadn't arrived yet.    That's when Adonica told me to choose the last option - to have them email me my ticket number which I could then apply to another ticket within a year.

"But how do I pay the penalty fee?"

And she said the magic words, "There is no fee if you do it this way." [UPDATE:  Well, there was no fee when I canceled the ticket, but later when I tried to apply the money to another ticket, $75 was added to the fare.]

So, even though you have to pay a change fee of $75 to $100 (online or phone), if you cancel the ticket and apply it to another ticket in a year, there's no fee. [UPDATE:  Again, turns out not to be so.] If I hadn't had my credit card cancelled, I don't think I would have found this out. [But again, this is just a delayed fee, not no fee.]

Keep looking for those silver linings.

Speaking of which, we saw Silver Lining Playbook.  I think if I hadn't heard that it was a good movie and that it was one of the five up for the Academy's best films, I would have liked it much more.  It's good.  Characters are good.  Acting is good.  But it just isn't a heavyweight film in my mind. 

Oh yes.  We got the new cards later that day.  Then the next day I got an email from Visa saying my new credit cards had been sent and should arrive soon.  Sigh. 

Another Five Days or More Until Kulluk Can Be Moved

I posted about Shell's pledge to not move Kulluk until after the Tanner Crab Season which was dated January 16.  I haven't gotten an update from the Kulluk Unified Command since January 18. Today is the 26th.  So that's over a week.  And since I'm not in Anchorage, I thought maybe something got by me.  The Tanner Crab season should have been over by now based on what Mark Stichert, the Shellfish Management Biologist for the Alaska Department of Conservation, in Kodiak told me.

(Shell had said that they wouldn't move the oil rig until after the Tanner Crab season closed.)

So, I called Mark back on Friday (January 25) to find out if it had closed.

He said the season is still open at Kiliuda Bay.  There'd been some bad weather and the ships crabbing are small (40-60 foot) and go in during bad weather.  He said they were down to about 26 boats from the 44 that started.  There was still 140,000 pounds of crab (of the original 520,000 lbs) to be caught before the season would be closed.  

I asked him about a 660,000 pound figure I'd seen on a couple of websites (Island Seafoods and Deckboss).  Mark responded that there were more than one Tanner fishery and that was the combined target.

He said very clearly where it would be open and closed, but my notes aren't consistent so I'm not 100% sure.  My understanding is that the inshore quota has been reached, but not the offshore quota.  But parts of Kiliuda Bay are still open.

How much longer before the season closes (and Shell can move the Kulluk based on their pledge to not move it until the season closes)?

Could be five more days, could be longer.  They've been getting about 30,000 pounds a day, which would be about five days, but it depends on weather and how many boats keep fishing.

So, if someone wanted to keep the Kulluk there, maybe they could call most of the boats in and not get the quota for a while.  I didn't think of that when I was talking to Mark.  What happens if they don't reach the quota?  Is there a time when he closes it even if the quota isn't met?

Allowing Women In Combat Is Wrong Move

 Instead, we should be banning men from combat.

". . . they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." [Isaiah 2.4]

Now this is a bible passage that I'd like to see more pastors getting fanatical about.

"Erik" Eareckson Hero Of Aleutian War - But Was The War Necessary?

"Major William O. Eareckson, forty-one, a raffish aviation pioneer who had been piloting fabric-and wood biplances when some of his squadron's young officers had been in safety pins.  A crack pilot who flew with his fingertips.  Eareckson was headstrong and sometimes arrogant;  he had a contagious drive and a romantic recklessness that infected his young pilots with the notion that pilots were a breed apart, a race of giants." (p. 53)

William "Eric" Eareckson is by far the clearest hero in Brian Garfield's Thousand Mile War about WW II in the Aleutians.  In fact, Part II of the three part book is titled "Eareckson's War."

He was the right person in the right place.  His personal set of skills - an ability to fly any kind of plane in any kind of weather,  an ability to think up new ways to do things when the regular way doesn't work,  a belief in his own immortality, and a drive to be the best - fit perfectly for the job he had to do.  He flew planes in the Aleutians to bomb the Japanese in Attu and Kiska and created a lot of new tactics to overcome the constant fog  (other severe weather conditions) and the Japanese anti-aircraft weapons - like flying in at water level to do the bombing.

He could do crazy things like have his squadron buzz downtown Reno at almost street level for his wedding.  But he also worked his squadron hard, making sure they were as well trained as they could be.  For example:

"Colonel Eareckson put his crews through the daily hurdles of deck-level practice missions at altitudes as low as 75 feet." (pm 112)

But while his squadron idolized him, not all those above him felt the same.

The Army did not like lone wolves;  and Eareckson, in Colonel Lawrence Reineke's words, was "the honest sergeant on the police force.  He bucked the system, and suffered for it."  Lucian Wernick recalls, "Eric was absolutely incapable of bowing and scraping.  He refused to show respect for superiors unless he felt it, and up there he didn't have very many opportunities to feel it."  (p. 156)

His superior in Alaska, General Butler tried to retire him to training status in California.  In a pile of complaints to General Buckner he

". . . suggested that Eareckson had too many missions under his belt, that he was flak-happy, that he had been warned to stop trying to be both commander and crew, and that he needed a rest." (p. 156)

Buckner didn't want to lose Eareckson, so he transferred him to his own staff.

But carrying out your orders well, if the orders aren't good in the first place, raises questions and  I've been wondering throughout the book whether we even needed to be fighting in the Aleutians.  The terrible weather - it's not horribly cold, but has constant rain, wind, snow, and cloud cover - gave the Japanese (and the Americans) enough trouble.  But hindsight is easy.  Just as the Americans - particularly General Buckner - saw the Aleutians as the pathway to invade Japan, they also saw it as a way for Japan to have bases closer to the US.  

You can see in the map how close Attu is to Japan.  (The reddish dot is Attu and the green dot is Anchorage.)

So, bear with me as I try to pull a number of different ideas together here.


In 1943, the US mounted an invasion of Attu, American territory then occupied by the Japanese.  They planned to take over the island in three days.  It took more like 17 days.  It was the first island landing.  It was the second most deadly of the Pacific war.

"In proportion to the numbers of troops engaged, it would rank as the second most costly American battle in the Pacific Theater - second only to Iwo Jima.  Total American casualties amounted to half again the number of Japanese troops on the island; the Japanese force suffered annihilation, almost to the last man.
"Landing force Attu had suffered 3829 casualties;  killed, 549; wounded, 1148;  severe cold injuries, 1200; disease (including exposure), 614;  other casualties (including self-inflicted wounds, psychiatric breakdowns, drownings, and accidents), 318 men." (p. 256)

Heroism is a tricky concept.  Some people fall apart under pressure.  Others firm up.  You don't know how you will react until you're in the situation.  Some people did crazy things and for some it turned out ok, for others not.

Two companies of Buckner's 4th Infantry got pinned down at the base of the ridge by nine Japanese machine-gun nests.  Private Fred M. Barnett remarked to a companion that he was fed up.  He walked up into the snowfall, carrying only his rifle and a string of grenades.  He disappeared, climbing, and his companions heard furious volleys from machine guns, rifles, and grenades.  The racket faded toward the distance, there was a single ragged aftervolley, and then silence.
Private Barnett reappeared and walked unhurriedly downhill.  When he was in full sight he stopped and waved the two companies forward.  The troops stepped from cover and climbed cautiously.  Barnett turned and joined the front rank.  The companies found the Japanese trenches free for the taking - Barnett had charged nine successive Japanese emplacements, wiped them all out and emerged without a scratch.   (p. 244)

Just five pages later we hear a different story.

Private Joe P. Martinez from Taos, New Mexico, was an automatic rifleman in Company K of the 32nd Infantry.  With the company stalled by enemy trenches, Martinez walked into the enemy fire, slaughtered five Japanese soldiers with grenades and his BAR, and reached the crest of the ridge before he collapsed with a mortal wound he had taken fifty yards down the hill.  Northern Force followed him up and took the northwestern razorback of the Fish Hook, which Martinez had cleared:  but it was too late for Martinez, whose posthumous reward was Attu's only Medal of Honor. (p. 249)

But based on this book's account, Eareckson seems to have been a true hero.  A good part of this was having skills and disposition that fit him perfectly into this sitution.


While he irritated his commanders, he also had their begrudging respect.  On May 21, 1943 during the battle of Attu, on a ship, visiting General Buckner got Eareckson to give him a ride over the island to see things first hand.  After they got back the weather was so bad, there was no chance of more flying.  Eareckson went ashore with Buckner.  He hadn't spent any time on the ground and wanted to get a sense of things.

He walked up to the front line, borrowed a rifle and started shooting at Point Able.
He had fired three shots when a Japanese sniper's bullet creased him across the back.  Eareckson emptied his rifle in a furious barrage;  several witnesses claimed he killed the sniper.  His wound was dressed at an aid station, after which Eareckson walked back down to the beach.  Simon Buckner was there, looking after his 4th Infantrymen.  Buckner found a Purple Heart medal, pinned it on Eareckson's chest, and then turned Eareckson around and kicked him with a hard combat boot in the buttocks, "for being where you had no business being." (p. 241)

Eareckson made things work.

Japanese planes were trying to sink US ships at Adak and the American planes coming a distance from Unmak to combat them, didn't have enough fuel capacity to fly around waiting for them and it was hard to find them in the fog anyway.

. . .especially for American fighters which had maneuverability and firepower, but no radar.  Eareckson solved the problem with typical inventiveness.  No one had ever heard of using bombers to escort fighters:  traditional air tactics worked the other way around.  But traditional tactics had not been devised with the Aleutians in mind.  Eareckson's new P-38 "Peashooter Patrol" sent five radar-equipped B-17 bombers out, as mother ships to a pack of Lightning fighters. . .

. . . a B-17's radar flushed the three oncoming enemy bombers.  Fed range and directions by radio, the P-38 fighters dived straight into the soup and broke through shooting.  The . . . chatter of their cannon and machine guns caught the big Kawanishi 97s totally by surprise.   (pp. 111-112)

Their bombing missions faced

"the heaviest flak concentration of any forward Japanese base in the Pacific . . . but  Eareckson seldom lost a plane to enemy flak:  he made it a point to brief every outgoing mission on the exact location of every antiaircraft gun, as determined by weather planes' photoreconnaissance." (p. 113)

But as mentioned above, he had no respect for the official way if it didn't suit the conditions and created his own ways that allowed him to fulfill his mission.

General Butler's staff included a number of paperwork addicts who demanded "certificates of airworthiness" before releasing grounded planes, condemned beat-up engines and tires as "unfit for use," and tried to ensnarl Eareckson's Bomber Command in the kind of red tape loved by all military organizations.  Eareckson bulldozed his way through it all.  In the process he became known as "Commander in Chief, Junkman's Air Corps." because every plane in his command was composed of the cannibalized parts of at least three wrecked bombers.  . . "(p. 113)

The Japanese knew about Eareckson because he

"heckled the Japanese by radio - "How'd you like that bomb, Tojo?  Give Tojo headache maybe?"  It quickly became a daily trademark and before long Tokyo Rose was airing sarcastic remarks aimed at Eareckson by name." (p. 98)

        At Kiska the Japanese order came down:  "Get Eareckson"  (p. 115)

When Eareckson went to California to help plan the invasion of Attu, the Japanese no longer heard his taunts.

"Tokyo Rose announced with grim satisfaction, "Our very good friend, Colonel Eareckson is no more.  He was shot down in the sea on January 13."
"When Eric learned of this,"  recalls Colonel William Alexander, "he said, 'Why, the little bitch, wait till I get back up there!" (p. 157)

From most people that would be seen as just empty boasting, but as Eareckson is portrayed in this book, it's genuine.  


Was the Aleutian War Worth It?

In 1943, Earickson had been pulled off bombing Adak and Attu to go help plan the invasion with the chosen force - made up of Southwesterners headed by a general from South Carolina - in the San Diego area.

Earickson's experience in the Aleutians caused him to question the wisdom of trying to retake Attu.   He penned a limerick (another example of his unique abilities was his ability to question his bosses without penalty):

In viewing Attu's rocky shores
     While planning how to take it,
This thought impresses more and more:
    The Nips should first forsake it.
Since Attu ain't worth a hoot
    For raising crops or cattle,
Let's load with booze and take a cruise
    And just call off the battle. (p.204)

Despite advice from Alaskan-experienced officers like Eareckson, the troops were grossly under equipped for the weather and terrain.  Despite warnings that the trucks would get mired in the wet tundra, large guns and equipment were shipped to Attu only to be left on the beaches.

I was reading the attack on Attu on the ferry from downtown Seattle to Bainbridge Island, when the speakers announced that we shouldn't worry that we were being escorted by the Coast Guard, that this was a routine Homeland Security activity.  Which got me thinking about the Coast Guard working closely with Shell right now near Kodiak.


And I thought about the Kulluk again when I read about the lack of news coverage of Attu.  Despite the importance of the operation there was very little publicity about it, especially compared to other Pacific battles.

Attu veteran George F. Noland recalls wryly:  "No Marines - other wise it would have been world history."  Attu did receive some press coverage, provided by the nine American war correspondents on the scene, the belated and superficial announcements of the Navy in Washington, and the daily accounts broadcast by Radio Tokyo on short-wave.  But the battle was soon eclipsed by developments in other theaters.

And here's where I perked up:

Meanwhile Washington's official information offices, embarrassed by the mistakes and failures of Attu, were not eager to encourage the public to ask questions. 

Sounds a little like the Kulluk Unified Command, apparently led by Shell, the company that has said how prepared they are for anything that could come at them in the Arctic, also limiting information about what is happening in the rescue of the Kulluk.  Their current embarrassment is at the eastern end of the Aleutian Chain.  

In part, the higher ups wanted to retake Attu because it was US territory.  And its possession gave the Japanese a base from which to protect their North Pacific Fleet and potentially attack the US mainland.  The American repossession would put the US within air striking distance of Japan.  In hindsight, neither of these scenarios happened.  The daily US bombing of Attu and Kiska when they were occupied by the Japanese prevented any offensive action by the Japanese.  Would it have been different without the bombing?  We don't know.

But the cost of retaking Attu and Kiska in lives and equipment lost, not to mention the pulling away of troops from other theaters, was high.

In Attu it was high because the Japanese soldiers stranded there fought to the death and the invading American troops were not prepared for the conditions they faced.

In Kiska, the Japanese had managed to sneak all their men off the island before the attack, but the US didn't know this, though the lack of movement on the island as observed by pilots raised this possibility.  This meant the Japanese soldiers didn't have to die in battle or through suicide.  But it didn't prevent American casualties:

"Twenty-four men were shot to death by their own comrades in the fog.  Booby-traps and mines killed four others.  Fifty were wounded - booby-trapped or shot by mistake.  One hundred and thirty men got trenchfoot.

Patrolling destroyer Abner Read  struck a Japanese mine moored in a Kiska cove.  It crushed her stern plates and filled her hold with asphyxiating smoke - several men died there, and then the ship's stern broke off and sank, carrying men down.  The final toll from Abner Read was seventy-one dead, thirty-four injured." (p. 288)

Garfield writes:

The outcome [the retaking of Kiska] was satisfactory, but nothing could disguise the fact that for more than two weeks the Allies had bombarded an abandoned island, and that for a week thereafter they had deployed 35,000 combat soldiers - 313 of whom became casualties - across the deserted island.   .  .  The Kiska operation reddened faces from Anchorage to Ottawa to Washington.

The positive outcomes, aside from getting the Japanese out of US territory, according to Garfield were the lessons that were learned in Attu and Kiska that would be applied elsewhere in the war. 



 

Grandpa Meets Granddaughter

My family prefers not to appear on the blog and I mention them, usually, only in passing to give regular readers some context for my comings and goings.  But there are some events that demand more than the cryptic message I posted when she was born last week.  Meeting and greeting my new granddaughter is one of them.

There is no shortage of new children arriving into the world every day.  According to the BabyCenter a little over 4 million are born each year in the US alone, which comes to about 11,000 each day.  Vizwiz tells me that her birthday ranks 337 out of the 366 possible birthdays.  Christmas ranks 365 and February 29, leap year day, ranks 366. 

Yet each birth is an amazing event.  Connecting us to our pasts and our futures and stirring mystical bonds and giddy expectations that the world can be a better place.  What an honor and treat to hold this precious child. 

"Hipsters" (Stilyagi) DVD Coming Out With English Subtitles

The 2009 Anchorage International Film Festival winning feature - Hipsters - is coming out in DVD with English subtitles!  This was a wonderful giant Russian musical a about hipsters in Moscow in the 1950's.  In the drab Soviet Union, these kids with their wild suits and big hair and rock and roll music really stand out.  This is a fun and lively musical with big sweeping musical scenes and great music.

Chris left me a comment on one of the older posts about the movie when it was at the festival.

Hipsters is finally being released on DVD with english subs! Hipsters DVD release with english subtitles from amazon

[UPDATE November 16, 2014:  Unfortunately the link goes to a Go Daddy ad for the url.  Not sure where this movie is available with English subtitles today.  Anyone know?  Leave a comment and link.]

Do share as I know alot of people have been waiting for this one!

It appears that Chris works for the company that did the subtitles - Subtitlemeplease - where the link takes you.


This is a feel good movie and the music will grow on you.  (I got to see it three times at the festival.)  It beat out some really strong competition that year.  Here's the subtitled preview:

The Unified Command Totally Unresponse To My Query

In a post Sunday, I went  went line-by-line through two Kulluk Unified Command Updates (#s 42 and 43) pointing out the ambiguities, the self-congratulations, the repetitions,  and general lack of forthcomingness.

But I held up posting it.  I decided I should at least submit some questions and give them a chance to answer.   I went to their page and filled out their comment/question form. (There's no phone number or email address on the Kulluk Unified Command page.)  After I got their response, I posted the previous post.

So, here's what I asked:

"Following up on Update #43.

You write:  "The damage discovered on the Kulluk is consistent with what is expected from a vessel of this type being on hard ground."

Can you tell me:
1.  What do you include in "vessel of this type"?  I assume off shore oil rigs.  Is that correct?
2.  How many vessels of this type have been 'on hard ground'?
3.  Can you give me the vessel names and dates?
4.  Specifically what damage "is expected from a vessel of this type being on hard ground"?
5.  You say the damage on the Kulluk is what is to be expected.  If you know that, then you must know what damage the Kulluk has.  Can you please detail that damage?

Thanks.

And here is the speedy answer back:

The following inquiry was submitted to Kulluk Tow Incident | Coast Guard,
Shell, Kodiak Borough, Alaska DEC, Noble on 01/19/13 08:49 (1117123):
From : Deb Sawyer
Date : 01/19/13 10:45

Thank you for contacting Unified Command. The information provided in the
most recent update includes all the details that have been released to
date. The report continues to be reviewed. Unified Command will not
comment on the damage assessment until the report is finalized. 

Deb Sawyer

 If you read my questions carefully, you'll see that four out of five of them have nothing to do with the results of the report or the damages of the Kulluk.  They are about past events about other incidents that have nothing to do with the Kulluk, except the previous update referenced them.


It's not just me thinking this.  Here are some other responses:

• Salvagers tight-lipped on recovery of Kulluk drilling rig that ran aground - Associated Press Headline at  The Oregonian  (Variations on this picked up at various others like The SeattlePI ,    The Olympian and the Albany, NY TimesUnion.)
• Unified Command Mum About Kulluk's Future   - Headline from KUCB Unalaska
• 'Unified Command' Tight-Lipped About Kulluk - Headline KMXT Kodiak
• After Kulluk Hull Damage Assessment, Shell Mum on Damage Extent – State of Alaska Could Care Less - Alaska blogger "Edward Teller" at Firedoglake 

But they aren't just mum about damage extent.  They are mum about everything.  At least at the news briefings there was a chance to ask questions to real people.  But the last one, to my knowledge, was January 5.