Alaska Redistricting Board Meets Under Uncertainty To Plan Next Steps

With a petition pending before the Alaska Supreme Court and a US Supreme Court case challenging Sec. 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, the Alaska Redistricting Board met to plan out its next steps.  I listened to this online.  I missed the first ten minutes because it wasn't connected through the online link.  I heard part of it through a phone link and when the online connection came on, through there.  I didn't really get on until they began asking questions of the attorney after his briefing of the legal issues.  Some of the discussion was hard to hear.  So, below is what I caught - first an overview and then my rough notes.

Members present:  A couple of times the Chair said something that sounded like all the members were present at the meeting in Anchorage and not there by phone.  All spoke at one point or another.

Time:  
The Board met for about 70 minutes, took a 15 minute break and then went into Executive Session, which lasted twice the Chair's estimate of 45 minutes.   
Finally they met in a public meeting for about 5 minutes.


Actions: 

• Mapped out a very tentative time line
• Authorized the Board Chair to initiate the hiring of a new Executive Director starting today
• Authorized attorney, if their petition is rejected, to seek clarification from Supreme Court about what they can and can't do in redoing the plan. 

Topics Discussed:

• Possible Appeal of Alaska Supreme Court to US Supreme Court
• Shelby County v. Holder case which challenges Section 5 of the US Voting Rights Act (VRA)  - for more information on that case which is scheduled for Feb. 27 you can look at Lawyerscommittee and Alabama site al.com. The first link has links to all facets of the case.
• The impact of both court decisions on the Board:
•   have to wait for Alaska Supreme Court decision to know what they need to do
•   wait for US SC decision to know whether still covered by Sec. 5 of the VRA.
• They could do their “Hickel” Process plan and then wait until the US SC decision on the Shelby County Case is in before working to meet the VRA.  That should be in by July 2013.
• Meaning of Alaska Supreme Court Decision:
•  Do they really have to start every district from scratch?
• What happens if districts, say, in Anchorage are the same?  Or District 40? 
• Who would be able challenge the result? (Attorney: Probably no new parties could, but if maps were changed, old parties would likely be able to challenge them.)
• What steps of review?  We don’t need to get Court approval each step of the way, but then they could go back and challenge our process anyway?
• Can we ask that the new Supreme Court justices recently appointed take over from the retiring judges? (Attorney:  no, but who knows what they will do?)
• What will the VRA benchmark be?  The one we used or the one approved by DOJ when they approved our Plan? (Attorney:  The new one probably.)
• Was Hickel Plan an issue in 2000 process?  (Attorney: no)
• If Shelby County case overturns Sec. 5 how does that affect the rest of the VRA? (Attorney:  Sec. 2 still holds, but only apples to intentional discrimination.)
• Timeline:   Chair Torgerson had a draft plan which they discussed. (I was able to get a copy of this from the staff via email).  This was just the roughest of plans, given the uncertainties, but at least it allowed them to get a sense of what needs to happen and how long it might take.  They made some adjustments in the discussion. 

2-12:  Board Meeting
2-12:  Board Authorizes Hiring Executive Director
2-12:  Start Hiring Process
3:14:  Board interviews:  (in person)
3:15:  Board hires Executive Director
3-18:  New Director works with Taylor Bickford (old Director)
4:02:  Board Meets; start drafting Hickel plans
4:05:  Board Adopts Hickel Plans
4-06:  Board Meeting if needed
7-15:  US Supreme Court rules
8-09:  Board Adopts final plan
8-19:  Board forwards final plan to Superior Court
8-20:  Superior Court reviews
8-29:  Superior Court set schedule for hearing on Plan
9-09:  Superior Court Hearing (Fairbanks)
9-20:  Superior court issues ruling
9-30:  Appealed to Supreme Court
10-08:  Supreme Court Hearing (Anchorage)
11:-1  Supreme Court ruling
11:15:  Submit to Department of Justice (if needed)
1-15-14:  Approval from DOJ received.

Below are my rough meeting notes.  As always, beware.  There are omissions, gaps, approximations, and other distortions that will have to be endured until official transcripts are available.  The purpose of these notes is to give a sense of what was discussed and a place to start to ask other questions.  Don't rely on these except as a starting point to get better confrimation. 

Board Meeting  2/12/13

1 855 463 5009 call in number

10:10am AK time finally got through

Board Attorney Michael White:  Going over his memo,

We have no idea when the decision will be.  I suspect sometime in the next month we’ll get some guidance. 

Board Options:

Switched from phone to online.


Seek US Supreme Court to review AK SC decision.  Appropriate for US SC to review if there is a federal question.  They have violated the Supremacy Clause by dictating the process we have to use.  Looked at it, and not optimistic there’s a question there or that SC will accept it.

Memo explains the rest. 

Chair John Torgerson:  Start with federal.  SC said we have to ignore the federal law and constitution as we start.  And then we can start for real.  Upside down in terms of which law takes precedence.  You called it the Supremacy Clause and for me it’s Separation (Usurpation?)of Powers.   Hope we look at SC as an option.

White:  We could.  90 days to request the court to review it.  Now pending.  Time line of 90 days still going. 

Torgerson:  Challenge to VRA Sec. 5 itself in US SC now.  If we filed an action to overturn AK SC - would it get wrapped up in this issue?  You sent a memo, don’t know if other members got to read it.

Lastly, should we wait til we get ruling before going to SC?

White:  Case challenging constitutionality set to be heard Feb. 27.  US SC has lots of issues before them.  Unless of a clear mind and quick decision, probably no decision til end of June.  Checked with my sources in DC, say decision at end of June.
If declare Sec. 5 unconstitutional, they’ve have a split decision  Shelby County Case - lined up pretty clear up and down
Could be unconstitutional all states or just Shelby County.
Unless Congress acts very quickly,
If unconstitutional, then board faced with different set of circumstances.  Makes sense to wait until that decision comes down before deciding what to do.  Perhaps get the Hickel part done,  if don’t have to deal with Sec. 5, then no need to revise that plan. 
My advice, to wait to adopt a final plan, no time pressure now.  No deadlines in court case.  If we start over, not the same as 2011.  Same place as last April when we got Court order to do Hickel process.  No timelines or deadlines we face except 2014 election, so by June 2014 or whatever date the division of elections needs. 

Torgerson:  Earlier said, Court was telling us to start over.  Majority or dissenting don't remember who said it. 
White:  Never exactly said.  Said do Hickel process.  Minority said you’re wrong making them go back to beginning.
Torgerson:  30 days to sue after we adopted a final plan.  Who can sue us?  Goes to Superior Court ???
White:  SC said, ??? Board would have to go to process. 2nd Amended Plan to trial court.  Under old order, we had 30 days.  I don’t think new parties should be able to come in.  They’ve allowed challenges, but not new parties.  I’d ask court to prevent new parties.  The others would be allowed.
Torgerson:  Fact of law or can judge allow it.  History with this judge, he allows everything, truth, untruth, no one seen it, bring it on.
White:  …. I like our argument, still involved in the same process as before.  Doesn’t mean that if the districts are changed, then the parties already in the case could challenge it.  Say, we redraw a Matsu district, party already in the case could raise a challenge even if not challenged before.  New parties not allowed, but if new district.
Torgerson:  [Sarcastic comment.]
Clear under your findings, we need to draw a Hickel plan.  Need to move all the districts around.  No review of any court - no district by district explanation of why we did it.  Then go to process of adopting new Proclamation Plan.
White:  Have to start without considering the VRA.  If you draw district 40 the same as before w/o considering VRA?  Majority really didn’t like that they kept the same old districts in the template.  They thought the Hickel template tainted things, so court couldn’t determine ?? final plan.
Torgerson:  In my interpretation, comes down to redrawing Anchorage. ??? SE, is really there issue, not our issue if its the same.  Clear as mud.
White:  You said not subject to review.  Not prior to next step.  But in the opinion, seems to have established new area to Challenge.  Could challenge one district in the Hickel plan not constitutional and reverse.
Torgerson: Good strategy to talk about this later on? [in Exec session?]  Potentially Hickel plan will be reviewed, we just don’t have to submit it and say here you are.  You’ll refer to it as a footnote.
Jim Holm:  Confused.  Majority opinion - petition for review says:  Board failed the Hickel process, but then said, no requirements by constitution to submit a plan at any stage of the drafting to see if it applies.  How specifically could we prove, if we look at each district, we looked at compactness, socio-econ integrity.  We did all that and set up template based on that.  I don’t understand how they can have it both ways.  You aren’t required to submit it, but you are required to have Hickel plan.  Makes no sense to me.
White:  Sometimes difficult to understand what is required.  I think they said, we can’t tell if Constitutional, if it was necessary from strict compliance, because when you started you started with a plan originally where first priority was VRA.  Yes there was some ripple effect, but not every single district.  If not challenged up to this point, why do we have to go to the drawing board.  Majority said, we don’t care about that, may have limited your options and affected your final plan.  So go back.
Holm:  I agree with you.  Most confusing to me.  I believe that this Board took all those considerations.  I’m kind of like you I don’t quite understand.
White:  Hung up with 36 unchanged districts - true in template - but that was starting point and then we drew 4 different plans, without regard to VRA.  We had to take pop out of some urban areas in order to comply.  We then considered all major urban populations to get extra population. 
Opinion here:  By doing this you limited your options.  Of course you do that, one challenge from a party was proportionality issue.  10% out of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Kenai, but then proportionality issues.  Matthews in dissent  …. majority rules. 
Unless they reconsider, deal with that.
Mr. Brodie:  started with ??? people, and now midtown and Spenard?  ?????  Every district start over, not allowed to have any districts unchanged?  Enunciated by the minority.  How much weight does that category. ???
White:  Obviously 2/5 [minority judges] will also weigh in on final.  Does that mean no line can be exactly the same?  We can’t change anything?  Remains to be seen. Forms perfect districts for those area because % of Natives in that area is exactly 57%.  Do we have to throw that out?  I don’t know.  From majority, you may have limited your options so draw the Hickel plan.  All you’re doing is - we can’t tell if districts were tainted by VRA considerations.  thus, has ripple effect across the whole state.  We can’t tell if a better Hickel plan ????  Every line has to change?  Anchorage?  Everyone on board believes VRA did not affect Anchorage.  We have to change Anchorage around?  I suggest Majority opinion says start with blank template - start from scratch.  Seems to be saying.  Is that what they meant?  If we look at it and draw it same or close to before, will the court allow that?  Court doesn’t tell us. 
Brodie:  Use data????  change benchmark?
White:  Lisa Handley new benchmark will be the interim plan.  It’s been approved by court and DOJ, that would be the new benchmark.
Torgerson: Which makes interesting bedfellows.  I would think hard before I asked the board to start with new set of numbers.  I don’t think it’s right.  We know VRA takes nothing of real life into effects ?? - 10 candidates or whatever - not about racial bloc voting analysis.  To walk in now, this new analysis says we should be 60% instead of 32, I don’t know.  Talking about it earlier. 
I understand Michael saying you established, by law, a new benchmark.  Under that scenario we could redraw every two years.  Who would stop us?  When the rest of the law so rigid, this seems to be floating around.
What merit that in 2002 the Hickel process was never brought up, but now all of a sudden an issue?
White:  We pointed it out in hearings - they seem to think none.  No one even considered Hickel in 2002.  But now we know SC said, Hickel process is one you have to follow. 
Torgerson: I already know the answer, but say for the record.  We know two new SC justices approved, can we petition, beg, have new justices review the case?  Rather have justices who will have to live with their decision.
White:  You know the answer.  Carpeneti retired in January.  I can’t believe  . . . nothing we can do.  I don’t think Matthews, whether Carpeneti will continue because it will go so long… impossible to say.  More likely than not, continue. . .???
Torgerson:  this is a statement court made:  After setting forth the correct process for board to follow according to Constitution. . . they say themselves they are setting up a process, then say they only rule on constitutionality, but they are saying their process is the only correct one.  Not that it means anything.  Good to get it on the record I suppose. 
Article 6 Sec. 10 11 -- no where do they state two state majority required????
White: ???
Torgerson: This is Constitutional that SC has to uphold.  Only applying it to trial court, not to themselves. 
I think I’m about done.

Other things I want you to explain before we go to Executive Session - limit that to just strategy.
Sec. 2 violation of VRA - VRA isn’t going away?
White:  Only Sec. 5 challenged.  Sec. 2 prohibits intentional discrimination.  Prophylactic.  Congress tired, after passed VRA, had to go back in and have to knock down poll tax and other such laws.  Switched the burden - you can’t make any change in election.  You change a precinct line or polling place, you need pre-clearance.  That’s a problem states have with all those details. 
Sec. 2 - if you have the affect of discrimination - in Texas, court found intentional discrimination, showed how the legislature manipulated the system.  Thru emails, people drawing map made it look like they complied with VRA, but were actually making it worse.  Using same standard for intentional ???? in sec 5 either.
Torgerson:  said racial discrimination?  Only Alaska Natives?  Can non-native claim discrimination?
White:  Have to be a protected class, large enough to vote cohesively.  Under Sec. 2, doesn’t apply. Doesn’t apply unless protected class is majority in the district.  Has to be compact and contiguity requirement - not under Alaska law, but federal.  Remember in DC they showed you different districts.  Can’t gerrymander to create Alaska Native district.  In AK only Alaska Native covered.  Higher standard.
Torgerson:  If they throw out sec. 5 we need to spend an hour on Sec. 2
White:  Designed to protect the same people and same rights, to prevent intentional discrimination. 
Torgerson:  could take the place of Sec. 5?
White:  could, but not as rigorous.  Retrogressive? 
Torgerson: Benchmark on Sec. 2?  No requirement for present hearings or time line at all? 
White:  No.  only the election. 
Torgerson: other questions?  We went through ??? stuff?
Timeline before Exec. Session.
Starting point.

Hire ED - month, if we start tomorrow March 14 ready for interviews.  Have to fish for dates.  In-person interviews by board.  Hire next day.  Fridays and Mondays.  Bring Taylor [Bickford, former director] in that week as much as he can to work with new director. 
April 1 - draft Hickel plans all that week.
4/6 - adjourn until US SC ruled on Section 5
July 15, if court has something we can read
drafting and adopt final plan in Aug.   around 19 to Superior Court
stab  = review and cross motions - hearing 405 days
Ruling
Appeal to SC
Hearing in 8 days, and rule in 20 days
Final around Nov. 1
Final by January 14

Started working backwards from June 1.  Nice to have out 90 days before filing deadline.  Mar. 1 should be drop dead for DOJ approval.  If I had a goal, that’s what I’d shoot for. 

10 or 12 days depending on trial. 
No action to take on that at this point?
Brodie: ??? Look forward to meeting in August. . .
White:  Didn’t have anyone’s schedules but mine.  Hope that couple of, one Decision Making point - authorize me to start process to hire ED.  Workplace Alaska quicker and easier it says.  Should have this person by middle of March.  We could move interview

PeggyAnn McConnochie :  Because I know hiring never goes as fast as you hope, so I move that you start the process to hire ED.
White:  discussion?  Objection?  Hearing none, adopted,  Skip roll call since we’re all here.
I will start later today.  Rest is very fluid.  We could move to September  No idea what court calendar is if it ends up in Court.
Checked on software licensing - it’s ours.  We bought the software itself, no license requirement, but if we needed an update, there would be something associated with that.
Take a ten minute break, back at 11:25.  Anticipate not more than 45 minute Exec. Session.  Stand in recess til 11:25. 
Get back on after the exec session.

12:57 pm  Back from Exec. Session
Back on record - echo
Torgerson:  all members present. ES @ 90 mnutes
The uncertainty precludes doing too much now

Brodie:  ???
Torgerson:  Motion to authorize Mr. White to request clarification;
If SC does not honor our request for reconsideration, we file a motion for clarification to ask Court what they are asking us to do?
Adopted.
Brodie:  ??? can’t hear.  time and enrgy . .. personal time  . . .
Holmes: 
Greene:  Thank you chair for his efforts to learn more about what’s before us and what’s going to happen.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: Thank you to everyone for all your time, much appreciated, even if some in other areas don’t appreciate it, I do.
Torgerson: Next meeting around hiring and intrviews for ED.  About one month away, abut 14 March.  Could slide in either direction.  Would like all Board members here.  Could be two days depending on how many candidates we have to interview.  Mr. White, other than you’re a grandparent?
White:  ????to soft to hear clearly. 
Torgerson:  Adjourned 1:03pm  Thank you all for traveling. Adjourned.

Court Says No Time Limit on Response

The Redistricting Board has put up documents for today's (Tuesday) meeting (See details below.)  They include the agenda, which I posted Friday. 

Also up are the Dec. 28 Supreme Court Decision and the Board's petition to reconsider that decision, which was to have the Board start all over from scratch. 

There is also the ten page  Legal Memorandum, which is addressed to the Board and explains the Court's decision.  I have to confess I read it while rocking a baby in my arms (she's sleeping on my lap now as I type) and trying to get her to burp.  I even read some of it out loud to her, thinking it might put her to sleep, but she listened attentively. 

So I confess, I may have missed some important points, but the only new information I saw was in the conclusion.  Unfortunately, many of these documents are in a pdf format that I can't cut and paste from, so I have to retype them or give them in image form, which can't be read by sight impaired readers. 

Anyway, here's the stuff that was new to me.  From the conclusion:

"The Court has not yet ruled on the Board's Petition for Rehearing.  The clerk's office has indicated the Court is still considering whether or not to grant the Board's request for a rehearing and revision of its opinion.68  Pursuant to Appellate Rule 506, the Riley Plaintiffs are not permitted to file a response or opposition to the Board's Petition for Rehearing unless the Court expressly allows it.  The Riley Plaintiffs' attorney has informally requested such an opportunity, but the Court has not granted them permission.69"

68 Our office contacted the Alaska Supreme Court on January 29, 2013, to inquire as to whether a Petition for Rehearing is deemed denied after a certain amount of time, similar to a Motion for Reconsideration before a trial court which is deemed denied after thirty (30) days with no ruling from the court.   See Alaska R. Civ P 77(k)(4).  We were later informed that no such rule exists for a Petition for Rehearing and advised we would need to be patient as the Court is not required to make a decision on the Petition for Rehearing within any set time frame.  Moreover, we were advised that the Court was still deciding whether to entertain the Board's Petition for Rehearing and/or whether to allow the Riley Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.

69 Mr. Walleri [the Plaintiffs' attorney] informed Nicole Corr [who co-signed the Board's petition for reconsideration] during a telephone conversation that he had contacted the clerk's office soon after the Board filed its Petition for Rehearing and requested an opportunity to respond.  The Riley Plaintiffs did not file a formal written response.

The meeting is at 10am Alaska Time February 12, 2013 at the Board's office

411 W 4th Avenue, Suite 302
Anchorage, AK 99501

or, like me, you can listen in through the Alaska Legislature online link.

"Covering your feet with cushioned shoes is like turning off your smoke alarms."

As I kid I spent a lot of time barefoot, so when talk came out about barefoot running, my ears perked up.  I really like to run but I could never understand why running shoes were so expensive.  My doctor would always nag me about how running was bad for my knees.  But I didn't seem to have much trouble.  I don't run all that much.  Maybe 3.5 mile runs. My goal is three or four times a week, but it's easy to let cold weather or icy trails be excuses to slow down starting in November.  Shoveling snow, cross country skiing are also aerobic exercise.  But when I visit my mom in LA, I run more often. Because shoes are so expensive I tend to keep running in the old shoes even when it's clear the cushion effect is gone.  I like being able to feel my feet again. 

When the barefoot shoes came out, I checked up on them.  The blue shoes with the toes were just too weird for me but I did ask people wearing them how they felt.  I did read about barefoot running and like people who love the idea that chocolate and red wine are good for you, I was enjoying the reports on barefoot shoes.  I looked at videos like this one and realized that my natural running form is the barefoot way - landing on my forefoot and not on my heal. 

So in January, when we got to LA and we were walking around the Santa Monica mall on the way to a movie, I found a pair of minimalist shoes at the Sketchers store.  They still look like running shoes, but they have very thin soles by running shoe standards and there's lots of room for my toes to spread out. And they weigh almost nothing.

Here they are on my first day of running in them.  They felt great.  I can really feel the ground with these.  It's like running barefoot except all the little rocks are softened a bit when you step on them.

And then, I got the email that my book club was going to read Born to Run:  A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen  by Christopher McDougall.  The book mixes McDougall's personal story of running and having all sorts of typical running injuries and going to Mexico to find the super runners for a magazine story he's writing.  It wasn't until about page 150 that he actually starts talking about the research findings on running shoes and barefoot running.  He mixes a bunch of stories about different ultrarunners and barefoot runners and races, and the people who participate in with the info on the shoes.  The kind of thing I've been known to do here on the blog. 

The basic idea is that people have been running for thousands of years.  For many this was how they caught food.  They'd just keep running down an animal until it got exhausted.   So, this argument is that running is natural to humans, that we run to get food and that running keeps us healthy

The problem with running shoes is that instead of letting the foot feel the ground and react to those messages it gets back, the cushioned feet get lulled and stop doing what they need to do to naturally cushion the the body.

Quoting Stanford's NCAA Cross Country Coach of the Year, Vin Lananna:

"I think you try to do all these corrective things with shoes and you overcompensate.  You fix things that don't need fixing.  If you strengthen the foot by going barefoot, I think you reduce the risk of Achilles and knee and plantar fascia problems." (p.a69-70)

Or this from a study by Dr. Craig Richards, an Australian researcher:

"Runners wearing top-of-the-line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap shoes."  (p. 171)

 Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40. 

 And here's one that I loved hearing:

"As running shoes got worn down and their cushioning hardened the Oregon researchers revealed in a 1988 study for the Journal of Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy, runners ' feet stabilized and become less wobbly.'"

Now this is stuff I want to believe.  It also fits with my personal experiences.  But I did start carefully with the minimalist shoes. So far, running in the new shoes feels great.

But I am looking at other research on this.  

Here, for example, is a Harvard explanation with photos of ways the foot hits the ground.

It's also a warning, like so many others, that consumers should be careful of the claims of companies that make lots of money telling you their product - which fills a need people didn't know they had -  is good for you. In this case, it seems to be a need we didn't have and caused lots of people a lot of pain and suffering.  There is a section of the book that talks about the Oregon coach who first created fancy running shoes and the company Nike and how even Nike got around to pushing the benefits of running barefoot, but with their minimalist shoe on your foot.

Snakes Take Their Failures Hard - Happy Chinese New Year

Today begins the year of the snake.  We saw a little early celebration last week in the Seattle Chinatown.  Enjoy.









From Hanban:

2013 is the year of the black Snake begins on February 10th shortly after the New moon in Aquarius, the humanitarian of the zodiac. This 2013 year of Snake is meant for steady progress and attention to detail. Focus and discipline will be necessary for you to achieve what you set out to create. The Snake is the sixth sign of the Chinese Zodiac, which consists of 12 Animal Signs. It is the enigmatic, intuitive, introspective, refined and collected of the Animals Signs. Ancient Chinese wisdom says a Snake in the house is a good omen because it means that your family will not starve.

The Common Character of People Born in the Year of Snake
People born in the Year of the Snake are reputed to be thoughtful and wise and to approach problems rationally and logically, seldom instinctively. Such people are complex beings, they are clever and men of few words from their birth. Their business is always going well, but they are stingy very often. They are sometimes egoistic and conceited. However they can be very active in their friends’ life. They are often too active, not believing other people and relying only on themselves. Snakes are also very insightful and naturally intuitive. If anyone has a sixth sense, it's those born in the Snake year. This is partly what makes them so mysterious.Snakes come in all varieties of colors and patterns. And maybe that's why people born in the Snake year love to appreciate beauty. People with the Chinese zodiac snake sign are very stylish, fashionable and have exceptional taste.

People born in the Year of the Snake also have a sure touch in money matters but are also inclined to be greedy and somewhat egoistical. Determined and ambitious characters of Snakes take their failures hard. They are usually very attractive on the outside and inwardly, that, taking into consideration their frivolity, can lead to some family problems.

Reptile Man, Soccer Game, And Pigs' Ears

Been busy with the family here.  Last night we went to see the Reptile Man at R's school. 

An hour of aligators and snakes.  The kids really ate it up.   A good way to welcome in the Year of the Snake. 








Today, we went over an hour - car and ferry - to Snohomish for T's soccer game.  It was gray and slightly drizzly the whole time, but I got to walk about 3.5 miles around the track while I watched the game. 

This turned out to be the winning goal was made in the first ten minutes or so.

 

Then, after a Pho lunch, we went to 99 Ranch in Lynnwood on the way back to the ferry to Kingston.  This is a huge Asian grocery store.  And on the day before Chinese New Year, it was really crowded.  But lots and lots of great things.  

 

Instead Of Writing A Book, Write Letters And Save The Post Office

According to writer Joseph Epstein*, “81 percent of Americans feel that they have a book in them — and should write it.” That’s approximately 200 million people who aspire to authorship.

The Publisher Perspective piece goes on to say most won't.  And given the publishing business can't.

The US Post Office announced the other day that they want to stop Saturday delivery.  I suspect that probably will be ok, unless that is just a step toward cutting off the rest of the week, one at a time.  

So, I'm calling out to the 200 million would be writers to instead write letters.   If each would be writer wrote and sent two letters, at the current rate for a one ounce letter, it would raise $180 million for the post office.  If they wrote two letters a week for a year, it would raise almost $10 billion a year for the post office. 

And if one out of ten letters they wrote were answered, that would raise another $1 billion. 

These could be personal letters to friends and relatives.  Or they could be bits and pieces of their book.  They could send out their book in serial form.  They could make copies of each, sign them all individually, and send them out to five or ten people each time.  Maybe they could get subscribers.

The post office still has beautiful stamps.  We just got a set of the Earthscape stamps above. 

Even if you don't aspire to write a book, you can write some letters to people you care about.  I promise you they will pay more attention to it than to your email.  And they'll still have it in five years. 

I think about the letters I have in boxes downstairs.  Letters from my grandparents written before I was born.  Some are to my father who had made it safe to the US as they were trying to get visas to escape Nazi Germany.  They never got the visas.  They never got out.  I never met them.  But I do have letters they wrote.  There are some from my grandmother written to her sister in the US around 1910.  These are one of the only ways I can directly connect with my grandparents - the words they wrote give me a hint of who they were.  The paper and ink give me a way to touch something they touched. 

Perhaps that's why I'm taking this grandfathering stuff so seriously.  I have no real confidence that this blog will survive for my granddaughter to read it in digital form.  But for the time being, I'm here in real life for her.  

How many of your emails will your grandchildren read?  How many are worth reading?  But pieces of paper with your words on them take more effort and you'll probably say something more significant.  And one of the grandchildren will find them one day and connect to you in a totally new way. 

So write to keep the post office, letters, stamps, and your history alive. 


*I didn't know who Joseph Epstein was, so before posting this I decided to check.  His Wikipedia page talks about a 1970 article he wrote that

"has been identified as a significant turning point in the gay rights movement of the early 1970s^"

And not in a good way.  But no one should be held to everything they wrote 45 years ago, though he's a contributing editor for the Daily Standard, which, unfortunately, continues his deleterious view of the subject today.

Pino's Pasta At Via Rosa 11

Once in a while I go into a shop and immediately know it's special.  That happened here on Bainbridge Island when I stuck my head into Via Rosa.  It looked and smelled just right.  And when we started talking to the owner - Pino Sordello - and we had a long, wandering discussion about mushrooms.  

Pino and customer

You can buy fresh pasta and different sauces to take home and make for dinner.  There's Italian style pizza and lots of other goodies.  

For lunch at the shop we had the soup of the day, a lentil soup like I've never had before. Along with a couple slices of pizza and a baked tomato. 

It's really more for take home.  There are only a couple of places to eat there.   We took home some pasta and his special mushroom sauce for dinner.  So good.    Just look at all the freshly made pasta.

Oh yes, it's in Rolling Bay at 11201 Sunrise Drive NE,  on Bainbridge Island.  At Valley and Sunrise, across the street from the Post Office.

Next Redistricting Board Meeting To Discuss Staffing And Strategy - Tuesday February 12,

The Supreme Court has decided that Alaska Redistricting Board needs to start from scratch to create a new Plan (map of the House and Senate districts) for the 2014 election.  The Board has petitioned for reconsideration.  I got an email yesterday that the Board will meet next Tuesday.

I checked with the Board to see if there was any word from the Supreme Court and was told there hasn't been a response or even an indication when there might be one.

In the past, the Court has been pretty quick in their decision making for the Board. It's been month now since the Board filed its petition.  Does the delay indicate that the division among justices in the decision (3-2) has continued and they haven't reached a final decision?  Or is it because the urgency that existed before the 2012 elections is not an issue now and the Court has other cases to decide?  Though this one has big consequences for Alaska.

In any case, if the Board does have to start over again, they're going to need to hire new staff and part of the meeting agenda has budget and staffing discussion.   There's also time allotted for discussing the legal issues, both in the public hearing and in executive session.   Finding people up to speed on the redistricting software and process isn't going to be easy.  It's a pretty specialized field, happens every ten years, and the details for the state change every ten years.  Mary Core has been kept on staff all along, but Taylor Bickford, who was the Executive Director, took a job with Strategies 360.  Taylor was the one who made sure the website was kept up-to-date, so their homepage's most recent announcement is dated June 27, 2012.  The Assistant Director Jim Ellis is now staff for Valley representative Lynn Gattis.


My guess is that unless the Court's decision is released before the meeting (a call to the Supreme Court office got no predictions on when that will happen) the public meeting will be a pretty short. Here's the agenda I got from the Board:

BOARD MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday,  10:00AM
February 12, 2013
Anchorage, Alaska


CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Budget
Staffing
LEGAL REVIEW OF LATEST SUPREME COURT DECISION
EXECUTIVE SESSION:  LITIGATION STRATEGY AND ADVISE FROM COUNSEL
BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
NEXT MEETING

ADJOURNMENT

Here's the email announcement (the easiest way to find out when they are meeting or doing anything is to get on their email list - at their website right hand column) of the meeting with information on how to livestream it.

February 5, 2013 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting Notice

Anchorage, Alaska - The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 to discuss administrative matters and and receive a briefing from its attorney on the recent Alaska Supreme Court decision. All Board meetings are public meetings. Members of the public may attend in person at the Board's Anchorage office (411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302, Anchorage, AK 99501) or listen via live stream at www.aklegislature.tv.   Anyone needing special accommodations is requested to call 907-269-7402 or email info@akredistricting.org.  ###  CONTACT:  Mary Core, Administrative Assistant Phone:  (907) 269-7402 Email:  mcore@akredistricting.org

Trolls or People? Commenters Who Push My Civility Standards

"Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment."

These are the words at the end of each post, above the box where people can comment.  

A troll, as defined by Wikipedia is

"someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. "

To the extent they actually engage the topic and force people to confront ideas that group think would otherwise keep off a particular site, they serve a positive role.  To the extent that they simply insult and upset folks, they don't. 

I’m lucky.  I don't see many trolls here.  Most commenters stay within the bounds of civility I've laid out.   Nearly all of the comments I get - even the spam - are polite.  If people disagree, they explain, sometimes with a link.

But once in a great while, I get commenters who have a different standard of decorum.  What seems like anger to me might be their normal talking voice.  And my anger may seem calm to them. So my job then is to tease out whether this is just a different standard, an emotional outburst, or an intentional disruption.

I tend to be understated most of the time, relying on readers to recognize that lack of hyperbole and insult doesn't mean I'm not emotionally engaged.  I just don't think disrespect is likely to win over people who disagree with me.  And on basic beliefs, most people aren't going to change anyway.  But much of what we talk about is on the edges of or even beyond basic beliefs, a space where people can more comfortably rearrange their mental furniture.  But only when they are emotionally ready to do that.  That's why being respectful is important - not just polite, but authentically respectful.


END OF CONTEXT, INTO THE BACKGROUND

So, the other day, I got a comment that violated my guidelines.  In my mind, it had ‘personal insults’ and came pretty close to being a ‘rambling tirade.’  Was this an internet assassin or just someone who angrily disagreed?   While I understand that this commenter might simply be a troll who's decided to make someone’s life difficult (the attacks were aimed at another blogger I'd mentioned, not at me) my preference is to address the problems I have with the comment and give the person a chance to clarify.

I responded briefly asking Anonymous for some back up and some links to support what I saw as personal attacks on Progressive Alaska blogger Phil Munger. 

Anon's response to my short (I had to catch the ferry) comment was more than twice as long as the original comment and didn’t really address my concerns.

My next brief comment - I was busy this weekend - said there was still no back up and if the commenter continued in the same vein, I’d delete the comment. 

I got one more long comment - posted in three parts.  The tone was ratcheted down and the second two parts raised legitimate questions. 

So, what should I do?  I didn't want to continue the discussion in the comment section.  I knew it was going to be way too long and complicated. Should I just delete and ignore?  But there was a good chance it wasn't a troll, that it was someone seriously upset trying to express their displeasure.   I thought I should give the person the benefit of the doubt and see if we can engage in real conversation. 

Even if I can't find some common ground with the commenter, I can at least try to practice what this blog is about - exploring how we know things - by treating people with respect, while rigorously examining the evidence.  It's not an easy thing for most of us to do and I may not completely succeed.

So, here goes.

INTO THE ISSUES

The whole exchange, up to this point, is in the comments section to a previous post on whether I should write about  Phil Munger’s post at Progressive Alaska reporting that two anonymous sources said the Kulluk damage was greater than the Unified Command has suggested and that the Kulluk might be headed to Asia for repairs.    I’ll take excerpts from those comments, but to get the whole context, you can go read them. It's not too long.

So take this as the next comment on that post in response to Anon’s last three comments (Feb 3, 2013). 

Steve:

Anon,

First, my post was about how to decide whether to report things other bloggers post, things that may not be fully substantiated.  I used Phil Munger's post as an example.  I was letting my readers know

•  I deliberated about even putting up the post
• why I decided to post it; and 
• what I thought about before posting it. 

I tested Phil’s post against Reuters' guidelines to help me decide.  Phil did reasonably well against the Reuters standard (especially considering those aren't common standards for most bloggers.)   My post itself was only partially about what Phil had written.  It was NOT about Phil.  Yes, Phil was mentioned, but really wasn't the main topic.  You chose to attack Phil instead of either what I said or what he said.  I also felt you made very strong charges, but without evidence.  The irony is that the post was specifically about standards for backing up what one writes. 

In your Feb 1 comment you say things (in response to my challenge to give me evidence supporting your claims) like:

"Little support? All the support needed to demonstrate Munger's hackery is on display on his website. The hackery is and has been on display for quite a long time. His own posted assertions that directly contradict his own later postings of newer or successive assertions are glaringly obvious."

That's essentially an attack on Phil without any evidence other than to say "The evidence is obvious for anyone to see."  If it is so plentiful then it wouldn't be hard for you to say, "For example, see this post about X dated ?/?/? (link) and this one (link)."  Then readers can judge for themselves.

Then you write:

"I'm surprised you couldn't find any instances of anyone else discussing the need for heavy lift vessels for the transport of the Kulluk and indications that the repairs need be done in Asia, and specifically in Korea, instead of facilities on the west coast of the US. All it takes is to Google a few key words and you'll see that has been discussed as far back as at least Jan 7."

Well, I found one, dated around January 20 and it didn’t mention Korea.  All you had to do was give a few of these links.  It's your argument, so, in my book, it's your job to supply the evidence, not tell me and my readers to go search the internet. All you had to do was say:  “There are stories here (link), here (link), and here (link). [Later he objects to using links to sites he opposes and I'll address that later.]


You also follow up a comment I made "like all of us, he's [Phil] a complex person":

"As for Munger being a 'complex' person? More like 'has a few too many complexes'"

Cute word play maybe, but it's just another put down which doesn't offer any substantive response to my remark about him being a complex person. 

 
Let’s go to your three Feb. 2 posts. (Again, you can see all the comments complete here) Part 1 begins:

Anonymous

Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 7:14:00 PM AKST
Steve, First, I'd like to make note of an inconsistency in equivalency, or is it simply a lack thereof? After, I'll attempt to speak to a couple of other points.

You made reference to 'harshly' challenging an unstated number of 'charges' Munger has made, I don't see any links or any more easily confirmable evidence of these as yet indeterminate charges which you harshly challenged.


In terms of the discussion here in the comments, I didn’t see the need to link because I’m conceding that you are right on this.  I’m conceding that there are times when Phil makes wild allegations and uses unnecessarily insulting language.  Isn't it enough that I just acknowledge you're right?  Since you already believe this, why do I need to give you further evidence?

Now, if you think that I’m lying, and that haven’t challenged Phil and that I’m just saying that to appease you, well, then I can understand why you might ask for evidence.  If that is your concern, here’s a post where I harshly, for me, called Phil on what he wrote.

I’ve also made comments on Phil’s blog in the past when I thought he’d gone too far.   I did use his blog’s search function to see if I could find some examples, but it doesn’t search the comments.  It's just too long ago for me to remember or to search for.  You’ll just have to trust me.

Another excerpt from your comment:

“Am I correct in perceiving that I'm to be held to a far different standard when it comes to participating in a discussion? You're allowed to be indeterminate or unspecific to a fairly high degree, ...and yet I'm deemed to be held to a different level . . .”

If you read my blog, you'll know that I frequently supply links to supporting evidence.  And sometimes I've even changed what I say because I've found, searching the net, that I was wrong.

In this situation, our discussion was taking place in the comments section of a post. I was  referring to comments you’d made in the comment stream above.  There was only one other short comment by someone else.  I figured a reader could just look up there and see your comments.  Things like:

“you're looking for journalistic integrity or some ethical mores or just plain old honesty from Phil Munger?”

I took that to be a rhetorical question which was essentially saying that he had no journalistic integrity or ethical mores and he was dishonest.  I don’t think my readers failed to find what I was referring to.  Or,

“all Phil does is stand on other people's work.”

I was referring to your comments in the same thread on the same page.  Your two comments totaled about 750 words.  And they were right there above what I had written. You were referring to unspecified posts on unspecified topics in a blog with thousands of posts.  I don’t think there was a double standard here. 

In the 4 pm post, you start to give some examples.  Examples that allow me to see what you're complaining about.  You identify two of Phil’s recent posts - one about the number of military suicides during President Obama's term in office and the other on President Obama's second Inaugural address.

On military suicides you write:

“In a post purporting to claim concern for victims of military suicide, Munger makes the bald faced assertion that our president has not been at all responsive to the problem. The facts are, that those closest to this issue, those in all levels of the military and groups outside of the military, professionals, policymakers, veterans organizations and military family groups, have all very publicly noted that president Obama has done more to address this issue than any other president.”  [emphasis added]

I searched his blog for military suicides and found a Dec. 28 post.  It quotes the Veterans Administration statistics (via another website) on military suicides and then Phil comments on the numbers:

“Obama certainly isn't responsible for each of these deaths, but he is as responsible for the growth of this tragic epidemic as is anyone.  Now that he has been re-elected by Americans, will he do something about it?

I doubt it.”

What you said he said is really a distortion of what Phil wrote.  He doesn’t say “our president has not been at all responsive to the problem,”  He said the president is “as responsible as anyone.”   This is more opinion than fact.  I’m not sure how you can prove something like that, but he is the President and has more authority than anyone else to make sure policies to prevent suicides are followed.  Who might be more responsible? (Please don't say "the soldiers committing suicide.")  It doesn’t mean Obama is encouraging people to commit suicide or that he isn’t concerned about it.  Or that he isn't the most responsive president ever.  (I'm not sure it was an issue of big enough proportion in the past that presidents were called on to do something.  We've never had a such a long war with soldiers repeatedly returning to combat.) 
OK, you could infer from the question about whether he'll do something about it in the second term,  that he'd done nothing in the first term.  But it's hardly a 'bald faced assertion."  Again, it's opinion. 

I think that Phil’s tone often tends to be provocative, and it's a bit ironic that I find myself defending him, but I don't think you characterized his comment on climate change in the Inaugural correctly either.  You wrote:

“Recently, speaking of our president's 2nd inaugural address, Munger very specifically asserted that the president made no mention of climate change.”

What Obama said was:

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Phil didn’t say that Obama didn’t mention climate change.  Phil spent most of the post comparing Martin Luther King's (the Inaugural was on MLK Day) anti-war stance to Obama's.  He lamented that under Obama our military budget is a much higher percent of the total budget than when MLK spoke. 

Specifically, he said:

“Indeed, our pro-war mindset has numbed us to almost too many things to list. Non-response to the real dangers of climate change, degradation of lands and oceans through insane agricultural practices that poison each almost irremediably, decaying nuclear plants and the ticking time bombs of nuclear waste in spent fuel pools, top my list.

Of course, none of these dangers came up in Obama's second inaugural speech today. ”

As I read this, Phil isn't even talking about Obama's speech in the first part.  He's talking generally about the American people.  In the final sentence he specifically says "none of these dangers came up."   It's true, what you say, that Obama did mention climate change in the speech and even promised to do something about it.  But that doesn't make Phil's comment false.  Yes, climate change came up, but "the dangers" of climate change that Phil said weren't mentioned, didn't.

Part of me thinks Phil’s regular complaints about Obama are tiresome.  But part of me knows that Obama gets far more pressure from the right.  Critics on the left, like Phil, give him ammunition to say, "I can't do that or my own party members will fry me." I first saw how this worked during the Vietnam war.  The most extreme protesters, like those who poured blood on draft board records, made other protesters seem reasonable in comparison. 
 
You write further on this:

“The fact is, Obama made very implicit and unmistakable mention of a promise to address climate change. Ah, but the facts don't mesh with the false narrative Munger wished to promote in his 'construction', so his false assertion was that the president ignored and did not even address climate change. “

I often read something and then when I go back I realize that it didn’t quite say what I thought.  You’re right, Obama made an (I think you meant) explicit and unmistakable promise to do something about climate change.  But Phil didn’t didn’t say, as you portray it, that “the president did not even address climate change.”  He said the we all are “non-responsive to the real dangers . . .” and that "none of these dangers came up in Obama's second inaugural speech."

It's hard to write clearly and unambiguously.  Readers have an obligation to read carefully, especially before they publicly complain about what they read. Phil could be clearer.   I could be clearer usually too.  And so, Anon, could you.   I can see how someone could take ‘non-responsive’ and interpret it to say that Obama “didn’t respond” and then slide over to “he never mentioned. . .”  Even when someone is perfectly clear, many readers read what they expect to see instead of what someone actually wrote. 

That’s why it’s important to supply the examples.  If you had actually quoted what Phil said, you might have recognized that Phil didn’t quite say what you accused him of saying.

OK, I think I’m beating a dead horse now.  But getting the details right is important in disputes like this.  It's also what makes them so tedious for many. 

The third part of your Feb. 2 comment raises your reluctance to link to sites you don’t wish to promote.  I understand your sentiment here.  I've had the same concern.  Not so much for blogs like Phil's, but for true hate group websites.  I’m not sure your concern is still totally valid. My understanding is that since Google found that spammers put up comments specifically to get their clients’ websites higher ranking, Google has stopped using such comment links in their calculation of web ranking.  And they even penalize some.

I don’t know how that affects links that non-spam commenters might make.  But you needn't have put the links in.  If you just put the URL, Google wouldn't count it.  Readers could cut and paste.  Or you could give dates and topics of posts so readers could find them. 

Besides,  I wasn’t asking so much for links to Phil’s posts which I later could find once you gave me topics.  I was really asking for links to the sites you said talked about the damage to the Kulluk and its possible relocation to Asia.

It's your turn Anon.  I'm sure you'll find problems with my response.  And try to keep in mind my comment guidelines.  

[Disclosure:  I met Phil while blogging the political corruption trials in 2007 and 2008.  He'd read my blog and introduced himself.  He's been unfailingly supportive and generous to me, even when I've criticized him.  He's got lots of knowledge about a number of disparate topics.  But he certainly doesn't follow my comment guidelines on his blog.  But it's his blog and he can follow his own heart there.  I'd note that his post I referenced was quite carefully written and Anon had no comments about it except to say that others had already posted the same points.  But he didn't tell us where.]

Snow Birds

For you folks in Anchorage, some of our geese are spending the winter in the Puget Sound area.