Into Anchorage With New Camera - Chugach Peaks and Fire Island Windmills

There was a strange mix of clouds and sun as we neared home, but Anchorage was in the sun that set about 11pm.

Foraker and Denali in the background

Fire Island windmills

WW II Shipbuilders Put Out Ships In A Week, Why Nine Months Plus For Tustumena Repairs?

The Department of Transportation put out a press release with the following headline:

Tustumena Return to Service Delayed Indefinitely,
Schedule to be Reconfigured to Meet Community Needs

The Tustumena has been in repair since November 2012.  We're four months shy of a year now.  

All this brought to mind our visit to the Rosie The Riveter National Park in Richmond, California earlier this year.  It's a Historical Park in honor of the World War II ship builders  who put together whole ships in a week or less sometimes!
 
From a long essay at a National Park Service site on WWII ship building practices, we learn: 

"During World War I, steel shipbuilding followed tradition, calling for riveted hulls with each vessel custom built on site, a labor intensive, relatively slow process. In 1917, for example, a typical steel vessel took 12 to 14 months from keel-laying to delivery. At the peak of production in World War II, the work could be accomplished in four to six days." (emphasis added)

 From another Park Service page: 

The Liberty Ship Robert E. Perry was assembled in less than five days as a part of a special competition among shipyards; but by 1944 it was only taking the astonishingly brief time of a little over two weeks to assemble a Liberty ship by standard methods. Henry Kaiser and his workers applied mass assembly line techniques to building the ships. This production line technique, bringing pre-made parts together, moving them into place with huge cranes and having them welded together by "Rosies" (actually "Wendy the Welders" here in the shipyards), allowed unskilled laborers to do repetitive jobs requiring relatively little training to accomplish. This not only increased the speed of construction, but also the size of the mobilization effort, and in doing so, opened up jobs to women and minorities.

I understand that regulations for the ships and for the workers were a lot less stringent in those days, but if they could build a whole ship in five days, they ought to be able to repair one in less than a year.  

Is it because this administration is lax in oversight of its contractors?  Is Seward Ship’s Drydock just not competent for a job like this?  Or that ferry service is a low priority?  Or perhaps maintenance was delayed so long that there were lots of unexpected problems as the Fairbanks News Miner reported earlier this year:

"The 50-year-old ship went in for maintenance in November, and it turned out to be in worse shape than thought. It will now be in the shipyard until June, the Kodiak Daily Mirror reported. "

I'm sure there are other possibilities and probably more than just one applies.

I'm using the WW II shipbuilding times just to give this situation some perspective.  If the right people really cared, this could have been done a long time ago.  Meanwhile the people out on the Aleutian Chain are still waiting for their ferry service. 

Took New Camera To Mariners Game - They Won, But Modern Cameras Can Be Creepy

Went to the Mariners game with Minnesota Thursday night.  It was balmy and shirt sleeves were comfortable even on the ferry ride back.  I also brought my new camera on this trip - my daughter's request - and I'm figuring out more things I can do with it.

But I've also concluded it can be a lot more clinical, almost forensic.  We were in the upper bleachers. Though this photo of the strike was a little closer.  R wanted to see what things looked like from the top of the bleachers in right field. I took this on the way back.

Strike

Safe at first

This was the beginning of the game.  I haven't been to a major league ball game in probably 15 years or more.  I remember when ball fields were named after the ball team - like Dodger stadium.  Nowadays companies buy the right to put their name on the stadium so every time you refer to it, it's a mini-advertisement for the comapny.   I don't do advertising here - though sometimes I'll tell people about something I thought was really good - so I won't mention the name of the field.  I'll just call it Mariners Field.

Seattle started scoring early.  They got six runs in the second inning.  This one is the first or second run. 

I took these pictures from up in the bleachers.  This camera takes really sharp pictures.  I have to learn how to make this less about sharp and more about beautiful.

When R and I went to check out right field, I saw how intrusive this camera can be.  Look at this:

 

The people in the bubble - upper right - were blown up from the little circle in the stands.  You can take pictures with cameras anyone can buy and get sharp enough pictures to id people from about a quarter of a mile away.  The right field was 326 feet from home plate and we were in the upper upper bleachers. It's a little creepy.  

It was knitting night at the game and we were sitting in the middle of the knitting section.  My son had his knitting with him.  More on that in another post.

R made sure he got some blue cotton candy before we got back to our seats.

And I made sure I got this picture of Mt. Ranier in the evening sun before we got back to our seats.

We left in the 6th inning.  It was 8-0 Mariners and we'd promised to try to get the 10:05 ferry back to Bainbridge so R could get to bed by 11pm.  Here was the view as the ferry was pulling out of downtown Seattle.  The Ferris wheel was more like the blue in the water, but I couldn't figure an easy way to get the right color.

And as we got into Bainbridge, they announced over the loudspeaker that the moon had just risen over Seattle.  So I went out and got this picture.  Other than using a telephoto lens and boosting the exposure - after the fact - of the city lights, this is pretty much undcotored and what it looked like.

Thanks J, it was a fun night out. 

Are All These Films Real? Are Film Makers Finally Avoiding Alaska International Film Awards?

Once again, the dubious Alaska International Film Awards has their list of winners on their website.  I first ran into this organization when they were the Alaska International Film Festival - a name so close to the real Anchorage International Film Festival that even I, a blogger who covers the Anchorage Festival, was confused.

This is an organization that has no connection to Alaska I can find other than a rented mail box with a forwarding service in Spenard.  They have no festival.  There's no public showing of films. People send them films and money and in July they put up a list of winners.  Then they ask the winners to buy their awards.

This is very different from the Anchorage International Film Festival which has  nine exciting days and nights of film in early December.  Their motto is "Films Worth Freezing For."

I've written a number of posts about this starting when I first discovered them and asked
Film Festival Scam?  AIFF is NOT AIFF.

Several months later an attorney sent me a letter threatening to sue me.

My attorney called his bluff.  

When I contacted winners that first year, I learned that all of them were told they could get nice awards if they wanted to pay for them - not something that legitimate festivals do.  That's when I did a three part post:

• What's a Scam?
• What's a Film Festival?
• Comparing the Anchorage and Alaska International Film Festivals

In 2011 I did a post on the Winners of the now "Alaska International Film Awards."

This year I thought I should check again.

2013 finds far fewer winners than there have been in the past.  Last year (2012), based on the list on the AIFA website, there were 21 Main Awards (Best This and Best That) plus 30 Special Awards - Kodiak Award, Denali Award, and Northern Lights Emerging Talent Awards each had ten winners.  Then there were 21 more Screenwriting Awards.

This year (2013) there are still 21 Main Awards, but only 3 Special Awards and 3 Screenwriting Awards.  When I searched for ways to contact the winners, there were only a few that showed up on google anywhere except at the Alaska International Film Awards website.  I've sometimes had to work to track down film makers (from the previous AIFA winner lists, or the submissions to the Anchorage International Film Festival), but eventually, I've found some mention if not an actual website for nearly every film.  This time is was blank after blank after blank.  

What does this mean?  Obviously I can only guess.  Some possibilities that come to mind:

• They are getting fewer submissions so they couldn't give out as many awards.
• The quality of the films submitted has dropped sharply.
• They are making up film names and directors so that they have a winner for each category.  (I find this one hard to write because for me it seems so outrageous.  But since I can't find so many of their winners online, it's possible.)

The last option seems so outrageous that  I was hesitant to put it up.  But in the past, when I looked up the films and contacted some of the film makers, there clearly were high quality films, films that had won awards in other festivals.  This time I found only a few films that had been in other festivals. And, as I said, I couldn't find anything about most of the films or the film makers.  Most film makers usually have at least a Facebook page if not their own website.  But not most of those listed as winners. 

Two of the 'winners' responded to my emails and confirmed that they were offered the opportunity to buy their awards again this year.


Below are some examples of my failed google searches.  Perhaps readers can do better than I.

• The Best Alaska Film is Darkness Under the Sun by Ousman Jarju.  Using the name of the film and director, the only hits I got were two from the Film Festival website.  Just looking up the name - Ousman Jargu - I got seven Gambians on LinkedN, one of whom is the Director of Water Resources in Gambia and seems to have a connection to the United Nations.  I realize that there are Gambians living in Alaska, but it does seem odd that I can't find anything about this film and why it's the Best  of Alaska
  
• Best Comedy - Ian Schmidt, Happy House.  Again, the only thing I can find Googling is the Film Festival announcement.  I can't find a film website or FB page for this.  There's an Ian Schmidt who does F/A 18 films on YouTube.  Looks like a military guy video taping his flying. 
  
• Best Director:   Verme,  Simon Abizmal  - Same problem.  The only hits are the AIFA website.  Google asks me if I want Simon Abysmal?
• 
  
• Best Documentary:  The Lonely Life by Julia Preston.  Same problem.  Nothing shows up.
  
• Drama: Enough of Love directed by Zach Jones  - same.
  
• Educational Film: Fighting for Rights directed Joey Bryan - same.  Well, this actually took me to other pages.  I got something on Fight Club and lots of others that had nothing to do with the film or film maker. 
  
• Experimental Film: Kumme directed by Amanda Lipariti - Same
  
• Family Film: Beautiful Underneath directed Dan Calano - same, though there is a Dan Calano or two.
  
• Best Foreign Film: Cercando di Amare directed by Andrea Gallo
  Closest I got besides the Awards website was this:

  Mozzarella Stories
  Edoardo de Angelis
  2011, Comedy
  Luisa Ranieri, Massimiliano Gallo, Andrea Renzi, Giovanni Esposito

• Independent Film: Carry On Song directed by Carrie Sande - nothing
  
•  Best Romance:  Ser Valiente directed by Graziele Ferriera
  
• The only Graziele Ferriera was spelled Graziele Ferreira

Here's the trailer from the Grand Jury Award:
Lure trailer from bethmoves on Vimeo.

This is only the trailer, so maybe there is something more about the film that the trailer doesn't capture to explain why this won the big prize.

I hope this all means that people are being more careful about where they submit their films and read the rules and the websites.  When they don't even show the films, one should already be pushing the delete button.  

Leisurely Birthday Hike Grand Forest Bainbridge Island

My daughter asked me to bring the new camera along on this trip.  I've been lazy about taking it where I actually have to carry it - like on the plane - but a daughter's request has more power.  I'm still not anywhere near figuring this camera out, but these basic in the forest shots were ok.  With a little photoshop help you can get a sense of the forest trail.

The spider web was a little harder.  The auto focus didn't see the web at all, but I have figured out how to turn it off and use the manual focus, though it doesn't feel near as precise as my old film Pentax lens.

 

It was a really small web (maybe six inches across) and a tiny spider (it's in the middle of the web.)  You can click it to enlarge it.  But with film I wouldn't have it ready to post yet either.  

I still have to figure out how to work the manual speed and aperture.  When M tried to take this picture of me and Z in the old tree trunk, the speed was way too slow.  I'm trying to just figure it out by playing with the camera, but I think I'll have to check the manual.

But it was nice to be in the woods with my son and daughter, grand daughter and daughter-in-law. 

The Corporate State Of Alaska - And Now GCI and ACS Officially Create AWN

[This post has been sitting here partially written as I travel around and play grandpa, visit my mom, and I don't seem to have the time to get it done right.  Then there was more redistricting.  I didn't quite understand all the implications of this, but the potential negatives were being sent to me by my friend Jeremy Lansman who is one of the best informed people on radio, television, and other electronic technologies of communication.  I was going to claim my 'blogger's license' (a relative of poetic license) and just post it in draft form because I thought the issue important and I didn't see a lot of coverage elsewhere.  But it appears to be a done deal now so I'm putting this up as it was last March, with the addition of part of the Begich press release I got this morning.]

From a press release I got via email today:

"U.S. Sen. Mark Begich offered his support following today’s announcement from Alaska Communication Systems (ACS) and General Communications Inc. (GCI) that the two companies closed a transaction to create the Alaska Wireless Network (AWN), after receiving approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  AWN is a wireless infrastructure joint venture that will combine the wireless networks of ACS and GCI.

“I applaud ACS and GCI for their willingness to be innovative and aggressive in the telecom sector,” said Sen. Begich. “They will not only be working together to build this robust wireless network, but they will also continue to compete for customers. It is critical for Alaskan companies to find ways to attract customers as big businesses, like Verizon Wireless, enter into the Alaskan marketplace.”

This begins the long rambling background to what's been sitting in my draft post file since last March 23:

One of the arguments for Alaska Statehood was to gain sovereignty and control over Alaska resources. Alaska had been essentially a colony that was exploited by different corporate interests like fishing, timber, and copper.  Decisions about Alaska resources were made by corporations operating Outside the state.

Today again, after only six years since the first political corruption trials began and about a dozen Alaskan politicians and businessmen were convicted of various forms of abuse of public trust, the Republicans have regained full control of the Senate, House, and Governor's office and things are in full swing.

We have a governor - a former Conoco-Philips lobbyist - who has been using the governor's office to try to give the oil companies about $2 billion a year tax cuts - while arguing we don't have enough money to take  care of relocating Alaska native villages that are threatened by the effects of oil on the climate. [Since I wrote this, the bill was passed and the referendum to repeal the bill has gotten enough signatures to get on the 2014 ballot.]

Fishing is still a murky mix of Alaska fisherman and international fishing companies.

Providence Hospital is already the largest private employer in the state, charges a lot more for health care than the rest of the US, and I'm guessing a lot of that money goes to the Providence mother ship Outside. 

The Governor has also helped get rid of coastal communities' rights to have a say on development that affects their livelihood and way of life by helping to destroy the coastal zone management act.  So that now the state with the most coastline is the only coastal state without a Coastal Zone Management Act.  This is part of the process of getting rid of any obstacles to big business development, any bumps along the way where the public can stand up and demand some sort of accountability. 

The Citizen Initiative to keep cruise lines from dumping their wastes in Alaska waters (among many other things) has now been gutted.  

In each case, the common theme is that large, Outside corporate interests, supported by the governor and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, have worked to overturn protections for the Alaskan environment and people.  And most Alaskans either think this is good, don't know anything about it, or feel helpless to do anything, or they just buy new apps to distract themselves from all this.

GCI-ACS Merger

Now let's look at one more situation that is happening more quietly behind the scenes.  GCI (General Communications Inc.) has submitted a request to the Federal Trade Commission (FCC) to share facilities in rural Alaska with ACS (Anchorage Communications Service).  GCI has also is seeking to buy a CBS affiliate and an NBC affiliate.

[Note:  ACS was ATS, Anchorage Telephone Service, a telephone utility that was owned by the Municipality of Anchorage.  The City sold the telephone service and it is now a private company.  GCI is an Alaska based company that began as a private company offering competing telephone service, cable, and internet.]

This is noteworthy because GCI now controls about 70% of cable.  It's also noteworthy to remember that Ted Stevens was flying on a GCI plane with GCI executives to a GCI retreat that he regularly attended when he and others died when the plane crashed.  (Yes, the US Senator should know people from all sectors, and Stevens did.  But it's clear that those with big bucks who can host our politicians on sweet fishing junkets have more say than those of us who can't.  Not because their message is more right, but because they have more access and influence.)


Jeremy Lansman, the owner of Fireweed Communications, including KYES, Anchorage Channel 5, has submitted comments to the FCC.  (I'd note that KYES is one independent  locally owned televisions left in the United States.)  Unfortunately, the arguments are fairly abstract and complex.  There are a whole lot of issues intertwined from costs to consumers in dollars, to accessibility of programming, to democracy itself.  Here's an example from Fireweed's initial filing:

Part VI: Risks of Monopoly
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has stated that in enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust and Heart-Scott-Rodino act is necessary to look beyond the situation of the present moment to see if a monopolist might have power to increase consumers’ costs in the near or far future28.    Furthermore in the area of Information Communication Technology and Broadcasting, that apart from keeping the marketplace working, it is well understood that freedom of the press is a prime condition to enable democratic processes of the forming of opinions.    There are two different, albeit related issues at stake here. Even if a door hinge manufacturing monopolist can charge outrageous prices, hinge technology (for example) would not affect our democracy. However, the nature of Technology that transports news, opinion, and viewpoint would automatically influence the nature of our democracy if in any way the technology were used in a way that might favor one opinion over another. Even entertainment TV drama carries and brings across the normative value system of the scriptwriters and their view of the world in terms of past, present and future. For this reason concentration of control of the technology of media deserves a much higher level of scrutiny than other goods and services.

[Since I wrote this, he's posted more challenges, as have others.]

I contacted Fireweed owner, Jeremy Lansman, a friend of mine, and gave him a set of questions that I though might make this clearer to the public.  Here are the questions and answers:

What Do I Know?   1.  What will be the possible
consequences for the Alaskan consumer?

Lansman:  I can see two extreme  outcomes, and possible shades between the
extremes.  One, especially in the rural areas...   a nasty monopoly.  
In this scenario the two companies, ACS and GCI, would own the only
physical facility Alaska Wireless Network (AWN) in the bush, and would
not be price regulated, and could charge the owners (ACS and GCI) a lot
more than it would had competition continued. ACS and GCI would pass the
monopoly cost along to consumers.  AWN would be very profitable, and
pass the profits back to its owners, who would be rewarding their
investors with monopoly "rents".

In another extreme scenario the common company, AWN, would only charge
its reasonable costs, not have profit, and pass the savings of joint
operation on to ACS and GCI which then would pass the savings on to users.

In the first scenario you might see some resemblance to Aleyaska
Pipeline.  The Alaskan oil pipeline is jointly owned by oil producers,
and charges producers to transport the oil to Valdez. Aleyaska is price
regulated, a big difference.  We found nothing about regulating AWNs
rates. The State of Alaska tax revenue gos up if the oil companies
charge less to transport oil, so the owners have an incentive to raise
prices, in order to reduce taxes. Increased in transport fees are given
back to the owners, so the argument is about what is a fair price for
transport.  As the pipeline is regulated, the tussle over fair pricing
is played out at in public at the regulator, the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska (RCA).  Unless special provisions are put in place, AWN will
not be subject to price regulation.  So all that could take place in
private.

  What Do I Know?  a.  in urban areas

Lansman:  AT&T and soon, if their plans pan out, Verizon, will have physical
facilities (towers) in urban Alaska.  From what I have read, economists
believe the ideal number of mobile phone competitors is three.  Fewer
results in less competition, thus higher prices, while more results in
more physical facility cost, thus higher prices.   This theory is not
iron clad, as one of the highest per minute cost locations in South
Africa with 3 operators, and lowest cost is India with far more than 3. 
Anyway, with AT&T, Verizon, and  GCI maybe combined with ACS we will get
3 or 4 competitors, so the expert forecast might be that the result in
urban AK would be close to ideal.


What Do I Know?   b.  in rural areas

Lansman: I covered that above.

What Do I Know?   2.  Consequences for television
stations in general or KYES and how does that affect the viewer?

Lansman:   As I point out, TV viewing is migrating to various platforms, and
studies show a rapid uptake of use by mobile devices.   I defined TV to
include any audio/video material that is sent to multiple viewers, at
any time.  That makes your videos .. the ones you post.. TV.   So the
question I raise, can AWN, GCI or ACS block your videos...er...pardon...
short TV shows?  THe answer is a conditional yes.  I believe they cannot
on "wireline" internet.  That I think is covered under the new network
neutrality rules.  The same rules do not apply to "wireless".  Wireless
is known as cellular.  However, we see some new services that link to
your mobile device.. which might be a tablet, or cell phone, or laptop
with a cellular dongle. The services might be special wi-fi signals that
operators send out in hot spots, or might be little cell phone base
stations that people are putting into their homes, or may be regular
cell towers. So, I believe that if ACS and GCI live with net neutrality,
all will be well in terms of overt censorship.

On the other hand, GCI will have quite a powerful influence over
conventional TV broadcast.  And a lot of people still use conventional
TV.  The influence GCI has will be due to their cable penetration.   The
leverage will be very powerful.  Until most viewing migrates to other
signal streams.. GCI will be able to determine who wins in the TV game.
  
What Do I Know?  3.  How could GCI and ACS get the
economies of shared rural facilities yet still protect internet and
television and phone users?

Lansman:  One way?  Make AWN a not-for profit.  You have any ideas?  As for TV,
apply net neutrality to AWN and its users.  As for GCI and the network
affiliates?  Maybe the purchase just cannot be allowed. That is, GCI has
an incentive to shut down competitors.   Think about that.
 
What Do I Know?: 4.  Could Verizon provide the
competition and thus lower all the internet and phone service?

Lansman:  I doubt it.   It is not efficient to build overlapping rural cell
service... besides GCI and ACS get federal funding, broadband and
Universal Service money for their rural services.   I don't yet know a
lot about how that works.




Those who say government is the problem forget that Business essentially runs government - through lobbies, campaign contributions, and their access to Congress and ability to influence them.

I don't know if this deal is good or bad for Alaska.  We have two locally started companies  in competition with national giants.  Perhaps consolidation makes some sense for Alaska as they compete against the big players.  But I do know that our Anchorage internet access costs more and is much slower than you get Outside and GCI and ACS have been the big players there.  

And media plays a big role in influencing how people vote.  The media that package the news for most Americans is getting more and more consolidated.  

From here.

Happy Birthday Moni, Ropi, and Alex

Sharing a birthday with someone is its own kind of special bond.  I hope you three all have a wonderful birthday and anyone else whose birthday is today, you too. 

If I Had Time For A Post Today, What All Would I Write About?

I'm on Bainbridge Island, outside of Seattle visiting my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter and other family members.  J has already been here several days (while I went to LA).  My son and his wife arrive tomorrow to celebrate some birthdays.

I was on the phone today with the accountant on how to do the payroll taxes for my mom's caregiver.  There are too many things like this I'm dealing with.  But I'm not complaining, really.  I'm just glad we can afford a caregiver.  But there are other things I'd prefer to do,

like play with Z who turned 6 months last week and is sitting up and grabbing everything in reach with her active fingers.  She has two teeth partway in already.

And the birth of the British royal baby yesterday had extra meaning as I get toward the end of Bring Up The Bodies which is about Henry VIII's inability to produce sons (except for one with someone not his wife) leading to getting rid of Katherine and now Anne Boleyn is in the Tower of London.  It's truly ironic now that they changed the rules to allow a female royal equality that they had a boy.  And what is it about the fascination about this royal that costs the English people a fair amount of money, has minimal actual power, though lots of symbolic power?  I still believe that hierarchy is part of our genetic code. 

I haven't mentioned Syria.  Too, too much to think about.  We've put ourselves (the US) into this position of being the world dominant country, which gives other countries the freedom to back out of their responsibilities and defer to us to take care of any problem anywhere.  How do you deal with the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of hundreds of thousands?  If the rebels hadn't rebelled, Asad will tell you, then none of this would have happened.  But at what point in the curtailment of universal human rights, are a people justified to rebel?  Can we get to a point in world history where, when that point is reached, the rest of the world steps in and bloodlessly allows more freedom?  We act as though the world is more civilized today than in the past, but the sheer number of people suffering from hunger and war is probably greater than any time in history.  It's true that more people have swimming pools and SUV's and flat screen TVs than ever before too, but wouldn't you trade those things in for everyone having peace and enough food?  I'm afraid that a lot of people would say 'no.'  Depressing.

There's more redistricting news - court filings challenging the new plan.  But I haven't seen the documents so I don't know enough to write about, but meanwhile you can check on the Fairbanks NewsMiner editorial on the Fairbanks challenge.

There's lots more, but you get the point.  

Non-Citizens Used To Vote in USA - The GOP's Immigration Pickle

From what I understand listening and reading the news, the GOP is in a pickle. 

The GOP isn't doing well at the voting booth with Latinos who make up a huge portion of immigrants, including undocumented folks residing in the USA now who would like their status legitimized.

The GOP is split on the concept in general.  On one extreme are businesses who employ immigrants and want their workers to be able to stay in the US.  On the other end are party members who want to send 'them; all back.

On the one hand the GOP want to look supportive of immigration, one of the most important Latino issues, in order to attract more Latino voters.  On the other hand, they are afraid that if Latino immigrants get citizenship, they will overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

So, their answer seems to be to have immigration reform that does not include citizenship.

That's where I want to start this.

Needing to be a citizen to vote is not a US Constitutional requirement!

Voting has NOT always been tied to citizenship.  In the beginning, except for the Native Americans, who were not allowed to be citizens,  most people were from somewhere else. 

Robert Caro, in his first Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Power Broker, describes Tammany Hall, New York's Democratic political machine, greeting immigrants as they land. 

The wheels of the Tammany war machine might be greased with money, but the machine was pulled by men, the men who voted Democratic themselves, the men who rounded up newly arrived immigrants and brought them in to be registered Democratic, the men who during election campaigns rang doorbells and distributed literature to those immigrants and to their own friends and neighbors and on Election Day, shepherded them to the polls to vote Democratic. (p. 71)

If you're paying close attention, you'll notice that they get them off the ships and sign them up to vote.  They could do that because citizenship was not a requirement to vote in those days.

From Wikipedia:

Over 40 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, have at some time admitted aliens voting rights for some or all elections.^[1][2][3][4] In 1874, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett noted that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote."^[5]
By 1900, nearly one-half of the states and territories had some experience with voting by aliens, and for some the experience lasted more than half a century.^[6] At the turn of the twentieth century, anti-immigration feeling ran very high, and Alabama stopped allowing aliens to vote by way of a constitutional change in 1901; Colorado followed suit in 1902, Wisconsin in 1908, and Oregon in 1914.^[7] Just as the nationalism unleashed by the War of 1812 helped to reverse the alien suffrage policies inherited from the late eighteenth century, World War I caused a sweeping retreat from the progressive alien suffrage policies of the late nineteenth century.^[8] In 1918, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota all changed their constitutions to purge alien suffrage, and Texas ended the practice of non-citizen voting in primary elections by statute.^[9] Indiana and Texas joined the trend in 1921, followed by Mississippi in 1924 and, finally, Arkansas in 1926.^[10] In 1931, political scientist Leon Aylsworth noted: "For the first time in over a hundred years, a national election was held in 1928 in which no alien in any state had the right to cast a vote for a candidate for any office -- national, state, or local."^[11]

From what I can tell, Federal law didn't ban aliens from voting in federal elections until recently in the United States.  Derek T. Muller writes in INVISIBLE FEDERALISM AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE in the Arizona State Law Journal:

“Alien suffrage was quite common during the nineteenth century, coming to a peak in 1875 when twenty-two states and territories granted aliens the right to vote.”237 That ended in the 1920s, at which point all states required citizenship as a condition to voter eligibility.238 Today, every state prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.239 Federal law, too,  prohibits aliens from voting in federal elections.240 There are, however, jurisdictions that allow,241 or seek to allow,242 noncitizens to vote in local elections. And as resident aliens have a significant interest in the locales where they reside, and are subject to other political obligations like taxation, there have been particularly strong arguments in favor of extending suffrage to at least a set of them.243

Footnote 240 suggests that the federal ban on aliens voting in federal elections didn't come until 1996:

240.  18 U.S.C. § 611(a) (2006) (“It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for [federal office].”) (enacted as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 100 Stat. 3009–3546).

 Migration Information Source tells us more about the immigrants:

Most of the estimated 12 million legal permanent residents cannot vote although they may work, pay taxes, send their children to school, and serve in the military. This gap between the electorate and the total population raises important issues about government accountability to residents who cannot vote, and the civic responsibilities newcomers are expected to assume toward their communities.

In response, several communities across the United States are seeking to grant non-citizen residents the right to vote in municipal and/or school board elections. Most Americans are unaware that non-citizen voting was widespread in the United States for the first 150 years of its history. From 1776 until 1926, 22 states and federal territories allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state, and even federal elections but gradually repealed this right. The US Constitution gives states and municipalities the right to decide who is eligible to vote. 

Those arguing for non-citizens to vote say that if they pay taxes and have a long term stake in the community, they should be allowed to vote, based on the colonists' argument about taxation without representation. 

I guess we'll just have to see how long Koch (and other) money can continue to stir up enough people to fear and anger on this issue to keep the rising number of immigrants (not to mention all those people who stopped voting because they thought it didn't matter) from voting in their own best interests. 

The Magic Castle - Christopher Hart, Dana Daniels, and Chipper Lowell - Good Fun

RB, a high school buddy, took me to brunch this (Sunday) morning at the Magic Castle in Hollywood.  I'd heard of this place, but had never been there.  It's a big, old house in

Hollywood that looks like a small castle.  Once inside, it has the feel of the school in Harry Potter movies - though on a smaller scale.  You go from the reception room into the castle through a book case that slides to one side to let you in.

From the Magic Castle website:

"The Magic Castle is the showplace for some of the greatest magicians from around the globe. We also take great pride in showcasing the magnificent building that houses the Magic Castle. Built in 1908, this storied mansion has watched Hollywood grow and change for over 100 years while never losing its original charm."

Of course, it's a lot more than that.  It's a club house for the best magicians in the world and they come and perform.  After our shows, magicians were showing up for a lecture on magic.  In this case it was going to be a film of an old magician.  They also teach magic there.   The theaters are small so you are very close to the performers. 









I have to get up early in the morning to catch a plane to Seattle where I will get to see my wife and son and daughter and granddaughter, plus a few other very important folks.  So I'm going to cut this short.

You aren't allowed to do any photography inside the castle, but I did find You Tube videos of the three performers we saw.  Of the three, Christopher Hart was the most magician.  The other two were more comedians with a bit of magic, but they were all funny and Sundays is when kids can come so it was neat watching them all enjoy themselves.  


These are short videos and a good way to start a new week. 

Christopher Hart -

"Christopher Hart is known as “The man with the movie star hand”, after his right hand was featured as THING the loveable disembodied hand featured in three ADDAMS FAMILY Films."

The video shows a couple of acts that we saw Sunday.




Dana Daniels.  And his parrot Luigi.  This is a part right out of the act we saw today. 






Chipper Lowell -

This one has things we didn't see, but this guy was great live.  Great timing and rapport with the audience.