Delta Buying Alaska? Really Bad News

Rumors. 

It's not just because Alaska Airlines has the name of my state on it (even if it is headquartered in Seattle.)

It's not just because Alaska has been relatively good as US airlines go.  (even if it has taken advantage of its monopoly in the rest of the state.)

It's not just because we travel a lot to visit my mom and have learned how to best use Alaska to travel. 

It's not just because Delta screwed us over in the very worst way once - canceling our trip to Thailand at the very last minute without telling us.  Our travel agent (yeah it was that long ago) checked and found it out and after lots of trouble was able to rebook us on Korean (the flight we were originally booked on with Delta tickets).  And then on the way back, they again changed our tickets, flying my wife out of Thailand two days after her connecting flight out of Seoul (yes that makes it hard to make a connection) and wouldn't let us fly the Seoul - Anchorage Korean flight, but forced us to go Seoul - San Francisco - Salt Lake City - Anchorage  adding over 24 hours to our trip home. 

It's because when there's no anti-trust enforcement, all the good smaller companies get bought up by the less good bigger ones and then there's just a few big companies, there's no competition.  Even if they don't collude, they just copy each other and adjust prices up, add all kinds of extra fees, and generally screw over their customers.   There's nothing good that could come out of this for consumers. 

No, no, no. 

Ideology Is A Bitch

 It allows you to answer all questions with slogans.  It allows you to ignore facts.  It lets you get away without serious analysis and it lets you do horrendous harm to civilization without guilt.

In ideological capitalism, government is bad.  Taxes are bad.  Deficits are bad.  Corporations are good.

Those are part of the mantra of the far wrong.

With these phrases guiding Republicans in Washington and Juneau,  programs that took years to nurture and grow, and which provide benefits not only to the immediate recipients, but to society (and ironically that budget deficit) are being whacked.

The wrecking crews cannot distinguish between the flowers and weeds.  The projects that tend survive are the projects favored by corporate interests. 

There is a commonality between the Republican use of ideology to destroy everything they can that smacks of 'government' and other evils in their interpretation of capitalism,  and the ISIS use of ideology to destroy everything that smacks of idolatry or other evils in their interpretation of the Qur'an.  

So, in the far wrong budget, the military and war and destruction (Lockheed Martin,  Northrup Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and many others) get increased funding.  Programs that grow, nurture, and protect the most vulnerable humans (Headstart, foodstamps, health programs) get dismantled or destroyed. (see NY Times for example.) 

Just like ISIS terrorists who demolish ancient statues that took skill and time to build and, because of their survival for millennia, give us clues to understanding our human cultural origins, the Republicans are attempting to destroy social programs that have taken sweat and ingenuity and dedication to build.  Destruction is easy.  If you've spent time with a two-year old, you know they can knock things down far more easily than they can build things up. They also repeat the word 'no' over and over again.

In Alaska, today's ADN has a front page article about Rep. Lynn Gattis' amendment to scrap WWAMI* - the program Alaska uses, in lieu of a medical school, to grow Alaskan doctors.  The program is a cooperative program with other northwestern states to share medical school investments.  The article says that 14% of Alaska doctors are products of the WWAMI program.  Considering how small the program is, that's quite a bit.  If we consider the costs of just recruiting doctors to rural Alaska, WWAMI is a major investment in lower future costs.  Unlike the ISIS ideologists who condemn the statues they destroy, Gattis at least acknowledges WWAMI and other programs being cut as "great programs. .  .  We just can't afford them."   A variation of the mantra. 

The Institute for Social And Economic Research (ISER) has been predicting the decline in oil revenue for 30 years.  Technology changes and the increase in oil prices have delayed the inevitable to some extent.  And the legislature has at times heeded that warning, and set up rainy day funds.   The Alaska state budget has tripled since 2000, most significantly in latter years when the Republicans have had their greatest power in Juneau.   They funded all sorts of capital projects for the benefit of their contractor supporters - the Knik Arm Bridge, renewed studies for a Susitna dam, a road from Juneau to a mine that Sen. MacKinnon's husband has significant (in terms of money if not percentage) interests in, a loopy program to save orphaned moose.   In my own neighborhood a road has been given $20 million in last minute maneuvering in Juneau - a road that all the community councils in the area have strongly opposed.

While some legislators are raising the politically sensitive issues of increasing revenues (sales taxes, income taxes, marijuana taxes, and dipping into the Permanent Fund), most are either ideologically opposed to such measures or too timid to be leaders.  Instead they will destroy programs like WWAMI.  Dr. Tom Nighswander is quoted in the ADN article,

" . . .  it took years to build the program's capacity to keep students in Alaska for the first two years. He said he fears that if the program disappears, it would not be able to bring back all of the clinical faculty it currently prizes.
“If you dismantle the program, you can’t restart it again,” he said. "

Ideology is a bitch.  It allows you to answer all questions with slogans.  It allows you to ignore facts.  It lets you get away without serious analysis and it lets you do horrendous harm to civilization without guilt

NOTE:  This is more of an opinion piece than I normally do, but sometimes stuff gets so thick, you have to stand up and call it out.  I realize that the ISIS metaphor will attract criticism, but I'm focused on one aspect of ISIS - their ability to use ideology to justify everything they do.  You can kill directly, immediately, using violence and personally drawing blood and you can kill in the long term by destroying institutions that nurture humans, maintain health, and save lives. 

*Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho

Tanaina Update: No Return To Old Sports Center Spot, But University Vows To Help

There was a Tanaina task force meeting Monday afternoon, though the time and place was different from what was decided at Friday afternoon's meeting. 

The basic topic was:  How did the chancellor's cabinet respond to the options the task force presented earlier that day? 

The key points I heard were:

1.  The space Tanaina has been in since it opened in the late 1970s is not an option for interim use.  This had been a key question since the task force had gotten conflicting messages from task force members who are also university administrators. 

2.  The chancellor's cabinet strongly endorsed the idea of Tanaina and offered unspecified support - possibly physical space, possibly financial, definitely moral.

Other things were discussed, but those were the two key issues. 


The task force is looking at three time frames:

Short term - For when they have to move out of the sports center on campus because there is contracted construction scheduled.  That should take the summer and possibly to October or so.  For the summer, Tanaina has an agreement with St. Mary's. 

Mid term - Once the short term is done, the question will be where to house Tanaina until a long-term solution can be realized.  There are some options here, but the one that the task force seemed to prefer - getting back to their old space - was shut down by the chancellor's cabinet which said they are committed to part of student services moving in there.  Staying longer at St. Mary's is a possibility, but there are things that would need to be worked out.  The board of Tanaina has to look at the impacts of moving on enrollment, costs, and income, to determine the overall feasibility.  But there was a possibility that the university might find ways to assist if necessary.  My notes say:  "UAA is vested in your success for the short term, mid term, or long term."

Long term -  This period has the most uncertainties at this point.  Dennis McMillian, the head of Foraker is a part of this task force because of his experience with non-profit development and fund raising.  He voiced cautious optimism about the long term and the task force had a number of serious options that they discussed, but at this point they're vague and there were concerns expressed about the sensitivity of publicly mentioning specifics at this point.

The sense I got from the meeting was one of mixed disappointment and optimism.  Disappointment because the old location has been shut off as a medium term possibility.  Optimism because, as reported by the task force reps who presented the options to the whole task force, the chancellor's cabinet expressed strong support for Tanaina and a continuing relationship with the university and that they were adamant about not closing Tanaina.   What wasn't clear was the nature of that relationship and support.  The possibilities of a physical space on campus or financial support or faculty expertise were brought up at the meeting, but nothing concrete was specified.  It was suggested that during this time of fiscal stress, the administration would have to deal with the immediate problems of the budget cuts on campus before they could commit to anything in the longer term with Tanaina.  But, the implication I heard, was that it would be there. 

It was mentioned that the Tanaina situation has made the issue of child care/development centers a statewide university topic.  Other issues were raised about improving the infrastructure for child care in Anchorage in general, because fewer people seemed to be willing to take on the responsibility of small, home-based child care, so the demand for more institutionalized child care was growing.  There was talk of changing the structure of the Tanaina board, which tends to have high turnover as board members' kids leave Tanaina in two or three years, which hurts institutional memory.  Plus the parent board members, already have very busy lives because of their young children.  And for parents new to Anchorage, with no family nearby, it's even more hectic. 

It was a meeting with mixed messages.  Cutting the ties with the old space seems certain, and facing uncertain change is difficult.  Especially with things that so hugely affect family life as child care.  But Tanaina is ripe for a larger space.  It's just that the path there didn't have to be so disruptive and unplanned. 

No new meeting of the task force was scheduled.  They're waiting until after a Friday meeting with the Tanaina board. 

"Facing Human Vulnerability in a Dangerous World"

I'd love to do an in depth post on this, probably starting with something about how human behavior and moral dilemmas and the debates about what is the right ethical path has been hotly and insightfully debated for over 2000 years.   Professor Aaron Stalnaker is going to be here tomorrow (Wednesday March 18) to talk about what ancient Chinese philosophers said about the same kinds of issues we face today.   I'd like to write about how easy it is for us to think that people living today are so much smarter than those who lived in the distant past.  But that there were people living then who whose abilities to think through complex human issues were as powerful as anyone alive today. 

But I've got lots of other things to do and this talk is tomorrow evening, so I'll just send this on for people who might wish to gain some perspective on our current ethical debates. 

Here's the official announcement: 

Confucius Institute invites you and your family to join our next academic Lecture, to be held in the UAA/APU Consortium Library, Lewis E. Haines Meeting Room, Room 307, on Wednesday, March 18, from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.

 

“Facing Human Vulnerability in a Dangerous World: 

Two Chinese Responses.”

 

This lecture will address Mengzi’s (and perhaps Xunzi’s) defense of ritual as an appropriate response to human desires and aspirations, given our nature and the nature of the world as a whole; and then turn to Zhuangzi’s criticism of received ritual forms, in favor of a more radical acceptance of unstoppable change.  

Our speaker Dr. Aaron Stalnaker is a distinguished scholar and philosopher. He is an associate professor of Religious Studies, Philosophy, and East Asian Languages and Cultures at Indiana University. He is a core faculty member in the Department of Religious Studies, serves as the Dean of Graduate Studies, and has made tremendous contribution to the Department of Religious Studies in building its strong academics. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Stanford, and obtained his PhD from Brown. He is an expert in ethics and philosophy of religion, giving serious attention to both Chinese and Western theories and practices.

He is the author of Overcoming Our Evil: Human Nature and Spiritual Exercises in Xunzi and Augustine (Georgetown University Press, 2006), a comparative study of different models of moral and religious personal formation. He recently co-edited Religious Ethics in a Time of Globalism: Shaping a Third Wave of Comparative Analysis (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). He has lectured at many leading universities, including Harvard Divinity School, Princeton University, University of Michigan, Georgetown University, etc.

And for those who want to do a little homework first, here's an excerpt from a review of Stalnaker's book Overcoming Our Evil:

Having made these points about Stalnaker's interpretation and analysis of Xunzi's theory of self-transformation, let me turn to a lingering concern about the overarching goal of comparative analyses. Stalnaker makes a very strong case for needing forms of spiritual exercises to accomplish self-transformation toward better, moral forms of life. Furthermore, he, like I, wants to be able to retrieve some of these practices for contemporary purposes, to be used to transform lives today. Yet our desire to retrieve these spiritual exercises must confront the problem of whether or not they can be divorced from their conceptual and cultural context and still remain effective practices for self-transformation. Stalnaker believes it may be possible to retrieve some practices once we untangle the complex web of relations between the context and the practices themselves, the kind of work he undertakes in this book. 

 I picked this paragraph because it raises questions about the extent to which the ancient Chinese practices are applicable, as I suggested above.  

Events like this are just one of the many benefits of having a good university in our city. 

Bohemian Waxwings Visit Our Mt. Ash Tree

We hadn't seen the waxwings all winter and our tree and beneath it were full of berries.  They came Sunday.  They're such beautiful birds. 

Tanaina Catch Up - Monday May Tell A Lot

As you may recall from previous posts, or other media coverage, the day care/development center at University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) was notified that it would have to move, soon.

The center has been at the university since about 1979.  It serves children of students, faculty, staff, and community members and there's a waiting list.  The university decided they needed the space to relocate staff from Student Services (about a mile from the main campus) onto campus.  Tanaina was the space they decided to use.  They used various explanations - Tanaina is not a university entity and they've been subsidizing the rent all these years. (Tanaina's current proposals include paying rent for the space, by the way.)  It's a dangerous location with the Zamboni and chlorine for the pool stored nearby.  Space is at a premium on campus.

The reaction to the decision to evict Tanaina was swift and strong - letters to the ADN, a protest march, people addressing the board of regents meeting.  And four regents expressed their concern about closing a day care center.  I suspect this reaction is what motivated the chancellor to set up the task force that is looking into options for Tanaina.

I've got a personal interest in Tanaina as I've posted earlier in a post on the historical context of Tanaina which also raised issues about what closing the day care center does to the campus climate for women.   I won't repeat that here. 

At the February 20 board of regents meeting I learned that the Tanaina task force was meeting that afternoon.  It was an interesting meeting, but I was headed out of town that weekend and didn't get to post about that meeting.  This past Friday (March 13) I went to another meeting. (I missed one in between.)  So let me try to catch up here.

February 20 Meeting - I left somewhat hopeful after this meeting.  The task force includes Tanaina parents (faculty, students, and staff), the university’s associate vice chancellor for Facilities and Campus Services, Chris Turletes,  Vice Chancellor for University Advancement, Megan Olson, and a few others.  Like Foraker head, Dennis McMillian and Debi Baldwin,Director, Division of Child Development, Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RURAL CAP).

My sense at the beginning of that meeting was that the task force was resigned that it had to find some other spot for Tanaina and the eviction was a done deal.  They talked about the short term option, the medium term option, and the long term option.  There were some possible locations off campus for this summer when contracted construction would begin at Tanaina.  But it didn't look like that could be permanent, so there was a need for a mid-term option until Tanaina could possible come up with funding to build a longer term option.  But then one of the task force members asked Turlettes whether Tanaina could come back after the construction and what other options might there be on campus.  His answer surprised me, positively.  Moving back into Tanaina's Sports Center space was possible, though not permanently, and there was some university land where a new center could possibly be built.

I also learned that the current campus location restricted growth and the Tanaina board would like to grow.  Besides being able to serve more families, economies of scale increased because the child/staff ratio could get a little bigger.

There was talk of working with the Anchorage School District, with Rural Cap, and other organizations in the community.  Things were pretty positive after this meeting.  The task force was going to flesh out the costs and feasibility of the different options.  The short term summer options were off campus, but not too far.  Then, with Turletes words in mind, they might be able to come back to their old space a few years until a bigger, permanent space was built.

March 13 Meeting 

Since it was spring break, the meeting was held off campus and several of the members called in.  The task force had secured space at St. Mary's for the summer.  It wasn't ideal - St. Mary's already has its own day care which, if I remember properly, doesn't meet in the summer. It was economically feasible and pretty close to campus.

But then, after summer, it gets dicier.  They had a table that broke out the costs of each of three different options.  One was to continue at St. Mary's, but that still had a lot of unknowns, including the possible need for a portable building because St. Mary's day care would be opening again.  It wasn't clear they could make the finances break even, but the gap was small.
The second option was to return to the UAA campus sports center space they've been in for all these years.
There was another building that they were looking at that was further off campus and would require a lot of modifications, and the cost was significantly higher than the other two options.

The task force was preparing to report to the chancellor's cabinet Monday (March 16) and felt that they really weren't quite prepared.  They'd done all this work, including other leads that weren't on the option sheet, but timing was tight.

About that point, the vice provost said that her sense of the chancellor's cabinet had already decided to continue with moving student services into Tanaina's space as originally planned, so the second option wasn't likely.  My rough notes say: 

 Megan:  Going back to Wells Fargo [the sports center] is not a possibility.

 After that, discussion moved to adding 'closing down' as an option on the list.  During that discussion someone asked Turletes whether there was a possibility of going back to the sports center location and he seemed to think that possibility was still open, but they shouldn't ask for more than three years, before they moved to a permanent location.

There was a lot of consternation among the committee members as they left to finish their documentation for the Monday meeting with the chancellor's cabinet.

I left with lots of questions.  I'm still perplexed at how out of touch the administration  was when they thought they could just close down the day care center that had been so important to people's lives over the years without any sort of pushback.  They know that sports programs mean a lot to people, but had no sense of the importance of day care in people's lives.   While, apparently, there had been general comments over the years about Tanaina needing to move eventually, the people I talked to on the task force were taken totally by surprise.  They pointed out that the Board of Regents  had recently approved money to renovate Tanaina to bring it up to code. 

On the one hand, the university claims there's a space crunch, and I know in certain departments finding rooms for adjunct faculty to meet with students is getting hard.  On the other hand in the last couple of years a large science building and a health sciences building have opened, an engineering building is nearing completion and another parking garage is going up.  It seems to me that with all that building, finding space for a new child development center could have been found in one of those construction projects if people understood the importance of having such a center on campus.  But while the university itself takes years to get a new building on line, they don't seem to have considered how difficult it would be for a child care center, with an all volunteer board, to find new space and raise funds to build a new center.   They were simply given an eviction notice with a pretty short time line.  It wasn't until they started hearing from the community and the board of regents, that they seem to have started listening. 

I'm aware here that I don't have all the facts.  But I do have the perceptions.  I understand that the university reps think that they gave lots of advance warning over the years.  But Tanaina board members said such comments were vague and they hadn't felt any immediate pressure.  Remodeling, as I mentioned, had just been approved.   They were thinking about the future, but not immediately.  And it's difficult for a volunteer parent board that regularly turns over as their kids move from day care to kindergarten to have the kind of institutional memory needed.  Or the time and energy to do the kind of long term lobbying and support building necessary to keep the administration aware of how important Tanaina is.  It's work the Tanaina parents needed to do.   But as a faculty member, I have to admit my surprise at seeing representatives of different programs speaking to the board of regents last month simply to say, "Here who we are, here's what we do, and why we're important."  I hadn't gone to a board meeting and wasn't aware that this kind of program lobbying was going on. 

In any case, the chancellor's cabinet will have to clarify whether going back on campus to their old space while they develop plans for a bigger, permanent space is still an option.  If it's not, closing Tanaina will become a more likely option.  That said, there are lots of things in play, and no one should throw in the towel until all possibilities are explored.  After all, Out North is rising from its death bed this week. 

Nature's Reminder That Our Winter Isn't Over Yet

Our mild temperatures and all the bare pavement we've been enjoying have lulled a lot of folks into thinking spring was almost here.  I've even been thinking about planting some sweetpeas in the flower box on the deck at the beginning of April.   

But this week the temps have dropped, and this morning it was 2˚F (-16˚C) on our indoor/outdoor thermometer.  And after almost two weeks of sunshine, it's grey, and there was the thinnest possible dusting of snow on the deck.

Blue skies still reigned last night.  Here's the O'Malley trailhead about 6pm with an anemic snow covering. 

And a view of Flat Top from the trail. 











But it is The Ides of March, so while today we take a hit, my computer weather forecast suggests this is just a blip on the way to spring and summer.  (In Anchorage spring tends to happen pretty quick though there are subtle signs to indicate different stages of summer.) 

On closer look, it says our range for today should be 19˚F to 23˚F,  yet it still says we're at 1˚F.  So keep those coats handy just in case. 

"Hold on, Millie Martindale (Raven Bonniwell)! You got some ‘splainin’ to do."

"You’ve just tried to break a date with your husband’s boss’ awful wife Kitty Sunderson (Karen Lange) by pretending you had an appointment with a butcher on U Street – and now Kitty wants to go to the butcher with you! How are you going to get out of that?!!
And not so fast, Bob Martindale (Andrew Keller)! You got some ‘splainin’ to do too. You’re in charge of the State Department program to root out communists on the payroll, and your boss Ted Sunderson (Zach Brewster-Geisz) has just put you in charge of a new program to get rid of all the sexual deviants in the State Department – and you’re one of them yourself!
Although you have a sham marriage to Millie, you actually live in unholy bliss with your neighbor Jim Baxter (Kiernan McGowan), who is legally married to your secretary Norma (Natalie Cutcher) – who is in reality Millie’s lover! How are you going to get out of that?!!"

So begins a 2013 review of Topher Payne's play Perfect Arrangement in the DC Theater Scene.

I knew nothing about the review, but I did know the play was coming to Anchorage, when I stopped by Out North to see about tickets for next Thursday's  (March 19) opening of the play.    The box office wasn't open, but two of the producers (and actors) were inside, the set was ready, and Krista Schwarting and Jay Burns told me about the play. 




In the video they briefly discuss the play - a West Coast premiere.  Maybe you can hear some hints of playwright Topher Payne's Mississippi childhood in this post's title.  The story takes place in the 1950s as homosexuals, following the purge of communists, were being rooted out of the State Department.  We're getting the play here in Anchorage because Krista knows a friend of the Topher Payne.  And  Topher Payne will be here for the opening.

This was happened in the early 1950's - about the same time that Alan Turing (see Imitation Game)  was arrested in England for being a homosexual.   A commenter on the review that opens this post wrote:

"The man sitting next to me said “Young people have no idea … Everyone should see this play.” I totally agree, and only wish these people could also be there: the woman I know who was an Army nurse in Korea and had to stand by, with her lover, and watch her friends being routed out and dishonorably discharged, and the woman who was the best record promoter in Chicago in the 60s who got caught trying to escape from a police raid of a second floor lesbian bar and lost her career. This is a fabulous comedy that touches on their tragedies."

People growing up today have trouble grasping what 'in the closet' meant back then.  And perhaps they can better understand the negative reactions many in the older generations against gays because of what they were taught when they were young.   This trailer for a movie about the time gives a little sense.  (I was way too young at the time to be aware of any of this.)





The Reemergence of Out North

I'm delighted this enchanted piece of real estate at Primrose and Debarr is coming back to life. The building started as some sort of electrical station. When we got to Anchorage in 1977 it was Grandview Garden library, a wonderful funky old library. When Loussac library opened in 1984, Grandview was scheduled to close. The community kept it open a bit longer, but eventually it was shut. But the building was reincarnated as Out North by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan.  And Jay and Gene (and their successors) always brought thought provoking performances - whether from Outside or from Anchorage or around Alaska - to their stage.  Stuff that made you rethink things you thought you knew.  You can read some more of the history here in the description of the Out North now housed at the University's Archives and Special Collections.

Demboski Would Support Tribes, Veto Gay Rights, Darden Wired To God

A fairly new community group - We Are Anchorage - organized, as I understand it, by Ma'o Tosi, held a mayoral forum at UAA's Wendy Williamson Auditorium Thursday night.  It was one of the more interesting political forums I've gone to.  Except for some technical glitches at the beginning with the sound, it went very smoothly.

[We Are Anchorage said they'd have the transcripts up Friday (today) on their website.  As someone who has done transcripts for this blog, I think that Friday is probably optimistic.  But when they're up, I'll check to make sure I'm accurate in what I say below.]

The focus was on violence in Anchorage and how the candidates would address it.

The basic answer from everyone was:  More Police.  Dan Coffey always mentioned that, of course, it's dependent on funding.  Lance Ahern said there was lots of money that could be found in the Muni budget.  Someone else (I think it was Halcro) said that since there was no snow plowing this year, there's plenty of money in that budget.  Demboski bet everyone a piece of pizza that the Muni will have a surplus this year. (If I thought I would lose a bet, I might bet the whole audience a piece of pizza, but I don't know what I'd do with all that pizza if I won.)

There was a set of questions that had been given to all the candidates in advance - Dan Coffey had typed up answers that he left for people in the lobby.  But he only made 40 copies and I guestimate there were about 140 in the audience.  The questions were fairly detailed about strategies to fight violence in general, about violence against Alaska Native women, about the green dot program, the link between staffing levels and crime, etc. Questions were drawn randomly.  Most of the questions were drawn and asked of three or four different candidates.  A few questions were gathered from the audience as they entered the auditorium.  At the end, audience members asked questions.   Some of the candidates were well prepared with specifics and others spoke more in generalities.  Given they had the questions in advance, the latter group just didn't do their homework.

There was a lot of basic agreement on things like the need for more police.  Much of the difference was in style and emphasis.  So I'd like to focus on what stood out for me. 

Notable remarks

Amy Demboski.  Of the candidates that the media seems to peg as the contenders, Demboski was the one who stood out as the most different from the pack.  (It would have been nice to have seen more women on the stage.)

Tribes. The talk about tribes, especially coming from the candidate who bills herself as "the conservative choice" (March 9 video) was a surprise.  Conservatives have been vigorously fighting the concept of tribes in Alaska.   In answer to a question about domestic violence, Alaska Native women, and involving Alaska Natives in solutions, Demboski said she loved this questions, that she was already talking to Tribal Elders, that we should engage tribes because they have access to federal funding and medical care. We can't talk just about individuals, why not talk about tribes?   It wasn't clear.  Is she recognizing the importance of tribes to Alaskan Natives?  Or is it a way to tap into federal funds?  I'm not sure.  It was unexpected.

Liz Medicine Crow, Moderator

Personal Responsibility.  While she talked about dealing with tribes over individuals, she also seemed divided between "people have to take responsibility for themselves" when discussing homeless people and also acknowledging we have a responsibility to help.  I suspect 'individual responsibility' is one of her core values.  It's one that psychologist Jonathan Haidt says is important to conservatives.  (It's in the link - go down to where it says,  "In the Social Science Space interview.")  They don't want to coddle leeches and mooches.  I suspect that Demboski is trying to make a distinction between those who are just being irresponsible and those who are truly needy through no fault of their own.  What she doesn't seem to see is how the system works for some people and doesn't work for others.  There's a combination of genetic predispositions and family and social nurturing that prepare people to cope or to fail.  While I would agree that some people seem to repeatedly make stupid decisions, I tend to believe that if we were omniscient, we would understand that these were not so much irresponsible decisions (which they are on one level) but also decisions programmed by social, political, and economic systems.  It would be interesting to hear Demboski's explanation of how to determine who are just irresponsible and who are deserving of help.

Diversity.   The question was about how to make the Anchorage Police Department look like the diverse population of Anchorage.  Other candidates talked about recruiting candidates from the different ethnic groups of Anchorage.  Demboski said, that diversity, to her, doesn't mean race or religion or economic status.  The police department is already diverse, they're her neighbors (she lives in Chugiak.)  That sounds like someone who says I don't see race, I'm colorblind.  The mixed audience wasn't buying it.  (I'd note, of course, that we're really talking about skin color.  Race used to refer to Italians, Irish, Jews, etc.)

Discrimination Against Gays.  When asked by an audience member about reports that she would veto a gay rights ordinance if mayor, Demboski first pointed out that her campaign didn't put out that ad.  But she did, then, say she would veto such an ordinance.  She wasn't discriminating against gays, she suggested, but rather preventing religious discrimination.  People only had a minute (and later only 30 seconds to answer.)  My interpretation of that is that she's identifying with people whose religions say that homosexuality is sinful and who would not want, as a merchant, to have to do things that advanced the idea that homosexuality was okay.  I understand a person who embraces the bible literally including those sections fundamentalists point to as proof that homosexuality is a sin, feeling conflicted when they are asked to photograph or cater a gay wedding.  I understand their claims that they feel it would endorse something they disagree with.  And I certainly wouldn't want someone who thought I was an abomination to take the pictures or make the food for my wedding.  But if you live in a small community where there is only one photography store or one good caterer or bakery, being denied service because of how you were born (and I know others will say it's a choice) is against the basic principles of equal rights that we celebrate with "All men are created equal."  (And, of course, there is irony in that time has made the word 'men' there anachronistic.)  And when it comes to landlords or employers having the right to discriminate against gays - even when their presence is not about advancing homosexuality - is even worse.
Dustin Darden added the concern about pastors having their freedom of speech abridged if they spoke out against gays.  I don't know of any gay rights ordinance that says people in non-public settings can't offer the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. 
I can understand that reasoning, but I can't agree with it.  Religion has been used to justify drowning so called witches, and slavery as well.  I had a number of issues with Demboski as a potential mayor, and this issue is reason enough for me to consider Demboski unacceptable as a mayor.
What wasn't addressed in this discussion was the relationship between religious condemnation of gays and the disproportionate amount of violence gays are subjected to and how violence against

Don Megga and Timer

gays would be dealt with. 

Phil Stoddard.  Phil's solution to everything was the mantra: "Education is the key and jobs are the answer."  He promised to dramatically increase manufacturing in Anchorage by making this lowest priced electrical grid in the US.  Every time he had a question, he got his mantra into the answer. 


Dustin Darden paused before each answer, eyes looking up as though he were waiting to channel God, and he did say several times that God was the answer.  His most passionate moment was when he vowed to shut down Planned Parenthood.  He didn't actually name them, but he did talk about ending abortion and identified their corner on Lake Otis Parkway.

At the end of the randomly selected question, each candidate was asked what their most important tool for ending violence was.

• Darden:  Pray
• Stoddard:  Jobs
• Berkowitz:  Fundamentals and basics - prevention, policing, prosecution - alone won't eliminate violence.  We all have to do it together - We Are Anchorage.
• Huit:   Spiritual solutions - "though not to where Dustin [Darden] is" - we have leadership problems
• Ahern:  Use new technologies - smart phones - 911 doesn't take advantage of people's ability to text and send photos of the person bothering them.
• Coffey:  Agrees with Ethan on fundamentals, but then need someone who can do it effectively and then he suggested he could.
• Bauer:  Incorporate what everyone else said plus the inability of people to deal with others in a civil manner - thus education
• Halcro:  Become Anchorage again, come together as a community
• Demboski:  Wish I had a simple answer.  Communication - start with people talking to each other.

I walked away thinking there were four candidates who spoke knowledgeably about the issues and with recognition that there were other valid points of view besides their own - Dan Coffey, Ethan Berkowitz, Andrew Halcro, and Lance Ahern.  Ahern is the least well known of the four and his knowledge of Anchorage comes from a shorter span of experience.  He's head of IT at the Municipality now and has law enforcement experience.  In his area he seems well informed and is well spoken.  (I'm sure there are people at the Muni who dispute this and I don't know for sure.  He seemed genuinely open and I'm inclined to believe him, but always "trust, but verify."

One unexpected issue raised by the audience was the future of Uber in Anchorage.  Halcro was quick to say that he would be pushing for innovative firms like Uber much more than the man - Dan Coffey - who had been the attorney for the taxi industry.  Coffey responded that he was open to Uber, but was concerned with guaranteeing public safety.  Halcro also countered Demboski's promise to veto a gay rights ordinance by touting his own bringing the head of the national gay Chamber of Commerce to speak to the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, the first 'regular' chamber to invite the head of the gay Chamber of Commerce to speak to them.  Berkowitz gave several spirited responses - in one case, after Paul Bauer talked about reawakening a moribund task force to study homelessness, Berkowitz held up a study on policing in Anchorage and said, there have been enough studies, it's time to implement them.  If I were to go by audience applause, Berkowitz probably was the winner, though Halcro got his share of applause too.  (There actually wasn't that much applause, though Darden's brother applauded loudly each time Dustin spoke.)

There was a positive vibe in the room.  Candidates treated each other, for the most part, with respect and the audience listened carefully.  The whole event was well organized and I got a good sense of the candidates. The APOC lists several other mayoral candidates who weren't there:

• Samuel Joseph Speziale III
• Yeilyadi Olson
• Jacob Kern
• Christopher Steven Jamison
• Jonathan Harrison  (is listed for both mayor and school board)

The Imitation Game Versus American Sniper

We just saw The Imitation Game.   And I haven't seen American Sniper, so I'm taking a bit of a leap, but play along a bit. 

The Movie

The Imitation Game  is about a mathematical genius, Alan Turing, whose mind brilliantly unravels codes, but misses human non-verbal, even verbal, cues.  He's also sexually attracted to men.

The movie, while telling the story of the secret British team led by Turing that cracked the German Enigma machine, also shows us, in the background, bits of Turing's life.  Being bullied as a school kid, because of his differences from the other students, his total lack of empathy for the other decoders working with him during the war, and to how the British courts treated him (prison or take hormonal treatments to stop his homosexuality.)


Thought One:  Abstract Ideas vs. Concrete Action

The movie portrays Turing's superiors as constantly trying to shut down his program.  He had lots of qualities that made him  unpleasant to others.  Mostly a total lack of any empathy for other people - he didn't listen to them, he didn't hear them, he had no regard for their feelings.  My sense was he just was physiologically deaf to all that.

Was he just some crank who was spending lots of money and time on some impossible dream or was he a genius who had to be nurtured and tolerated for what he could do?  It's easy to see in hindsight, but I'm sure at the time it was not.

The point I'm coming to is this:  His weapon, if you will, to win the war, was an idea, a concept.  Something that could not be proven until it was completed, and even then it was difficult to explain, though eventually, the results - the ability to decode the German messages - would be very tangible.  But even then, the fact that they could decode the messages, had to be kept secret so the Germans wouldn't simply find a new way to encode their messages.

Turing's contribution, as depicted in the movie, was to end the war two years faster and to save million lives.  But he had an even more profound contribution to our lives:  the computer.

Jack Copeland, the author Turing:  Pioneer of the Information Age in a videotaped lecture  at Stanford , tells us:

In 1936, in his very early twenties, he completely unexpectedly invented the fundamental principle of the modern computer.  Turing was working on an abstract problem in the foundation of mathematics - the Hilbert decision problem.  No one could have guessed   such abstruse arcane work could have led to anything of of any practical value whatsoever, let alone to a machine that would change all our lives, but it did.  [link added.]

Which leads to

Thought Two: The Importance and Productivity of Pure Science

We don't know how knowledge will accumulate and result in great contributions to human kind.  Politicians like to cite titles of obscure research projects funded by government money, to ridicule scientists and government spending.  Much research by scientists will not lead directly to world altering discoveries.  Yet the published articles of scientists are available to all, and we never really understand all the ways that one idea sets off another idea.  But I'm convinced that the many so called unproductive ideas are more than repaid for by the fewer highly productive ideas.  And many of the unproductive ideas actually close off dead ends so that the others need not wander down them.

Of course this film is also an example of how people work to fulfill their own internal inspiration.  No one could get an idea out of a person like Turing simply by paying him lots of money or threatening to punish.  Rather, you have to find the right people and just give them an environment where they can just do their thing.


Thought Three:  Our Cultural Divide Encapsulated In Two Films

I haven't seen American Sniper, but it's clear that it's about someone who shoots individual enemy targets.  Something really tangible and easy to understand.  We hear all this rhetoric about the sniper being a great hero.  (And my understanding is that the film does raise issues that make him a more complex human being.)

I think these two films represent much of the cultural conflict in the US today - the intellectual, possibly a peculiar and awkward person who works with ideas that have powerful effects versus the simplistic good guy/bad guy hero who uses violence to win.

Thought Four:  How Humans Attack Those Who Are Different

The film also raises the issue of how human groups treat people who are different, in odd ways, from others.  We tend not to be very accepting of them.   Turing was persecuted for his oddness as a kid by his peers, disliked and disdained as an employee by his colleagues and bosses, and persecuted agains, as a citizen, by his government.  I would add that it isn't a trait of all human beings, but enough to make it a serious human problem.

Thought Five:  Our Strange Combinations of Gifts And Gaps

Finally, it raises the issue, not unrelated to Thought Four above,  of how humans who have great gifts in one area may also be lacking in talents that average people have.  And how they get judged on what they don't have rather than on their amazing gift.

NOW, ON THE POSITIVE SIDE

Of the eight academy award nominated films for best picture, TWO were about intellectual geniuses - people whose ideas are way beyond what most people are capable of.  The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything.   A third nominated film - Selma - was about yet another genius whose power was built on an abstract idea - overcoming oppression through non-violence.

This illustrates, in my mind, progress of a sort.  Yet even the movies that focus on intellectual heroes use emotion and distort the facts to tell the story.  And this too may be an important lesson about how humans learn lessons through good stories.

Here's a  review of the movie   by a self-proclaimed Turing expert on what's accurate (not much apparently) and what's inaccurate in the movie. His conclusion is that while the facts might not be accurate, it is, nevertheless, a good movie.  And while many of the specific incidents in the movie may have been fabricated to make the film more dramatic, the lessons are no less valid.