"This inability to think created the possibilities for many ordinary men to commit evil deeds on a gigantic scale" Chenault and Dunleavy - Meet Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt was a refugee from Nazi Germany who had studied philosophy (and also had a long affair) with Martin Heidiger, getting out of Europe in 1941 to the US where she taught at various top ranked universities.  I had read her book The Human Condition as a grad student and was inspired by her discussion of the public and private realms to explore the concept of privacy in my doctoral dissertation.

So, when I saw a movie entitled Hannah Arendt listed on Netflix, I wondered how her life could fit into a two hour movie.

The movie focuses on her coverage of the Eichmann trial in 1961 and the publication of her reports in The New Yorker along with the backlash to some things she said in the articles.  Let me say early on here, that I'm no Arendt expert and a lot of my response is based on the woman portrayed in the movie, plus some follow up online at  here  and  here.  Having grown up with German-Jewish refugees in the US, I have a familiarity with that world as well, though the California settlers do seem to be quite different from those who stayed on the East Coast. 

There are a number of things that struck me as a I watched the film.  And of course the film touched on these topics very lightly and so do I.  But they are interesting starting points to pursue more. 

1.  Her ability to separate herself from the situation when she views people and interactions among people and to probe while suspending judgment.  As she says in the film,

"Trying to understand is not the same as forgiveness."  

This is significant in the film because people become outraged at their perception that she excuses Eichmann (on the grounds that he's just an ordinary, not particularly bright man and not a sociopath) and because she says that without some Jewish leaders' cooperation, there would have been fewer Jews who died.  To Arendt, this is merely unjudgmental fact of significant interest for anyone trying to understand the Holocaust.

2.  Her notion of 'the banality of evil' hinted at in 1. above.  Her observations of Eichmann in the trial came as a revelation to her, because he was so ordinary.  He had absorbed the Nazi propaganda and had let go of his own individuality and decision making powers and became an instrument of the Nazis.

"I hold no defense of Eichmann, but I did try to reconcile the shocking mediocrity of the man with his staggering deeds. . . Eichmann utterly surrendered that single most defining human quality, that of being able to think, consequently he was no longer capable of making normal judgments.  This inability to think created the possibilities for many ordinary men to commit evil deeds on a gigantic scale, the like of which one has never seen before." [emphasis added.]

"The trouble with criminalizing a Nazi like Eichmann was that he insisted in renouncing all personal qualities and it was as if there was nobody left to be either punished or forgiven.  He protested time and again, contrary to the prosecution's assertion, that he had never done anything out of his own initiative.  That he had no intention whatsoever, good or bad, that he had only obeyed orders.  The typical Nazi plea makes it clear that the greatest evil in the world is the evil committed by nobody."

3.  Her point seems to be that this goes far beyond Eichmann and beyond Germany.  People give themselves up to world views, values, and beliefs of the dominant culture and just go along without any moral assessment of their actions.

"And not only in Germany, but in almost all countries.  Not only among the persecutor, but also among the victims." 

This last part is what upset so many people.  Her character says that if the Jews hadn't been organized and their leaders hadn't cooperated, fewer Jews would have died.  They too had been indoctrinated into following orders.  This idea also reminds me of the concept of internalized racism that infects the victims as well as the beneficiaries of racism in a society.  

4.  Points 2 and 3 (which overlap a lot) shout at me to explore how this might help us understand how that might be in play in today's world.  I raise that possibility gingerly, because, as in the case of Arendt and her article, people will likely misread it.  In Arendt's case, it was to see her as excusing Eichmann and blaming the Jews for their own demise.  In this case, some people will surely miss the finer points and see me comparing people today to Nazis.  That's not what I'm doing.  Rather I'm taking the notion of 'the banality of evil' that Arendt coined by studying Eichmann at his trial, and wondering how that might apply to the US today, and particularly to Alaska.

So, how might it apply?

Dunleavy, HB 44 - Erin's Law

Having just last week attended the Senate Education Committee's hearing on HB 44, I immediately thought of the total disconnect between what I saw and what the chair, Sen. Dunleavy said.  How might Arendt's thoughts fit here?

Dunleavy, for one thing, never acknowledged the possibility that what he was doing to Erin's Law (the original HB 44) might mean that there would be kids who would not be exposed to sexual abuse awareness, and thus when they were exposed to an abuser, would not know what was happening, how to respond, and how to report so it could end (if it did start) quickly.  He acknowledged no link between his actions and the fact that more kids would be abused because of his actions.   He even derided people who suggested he was even complicit in kids being sexually abused.

This sounds similar to me to the way Eichmann said he was merely doing his job, making sure people got on the trains.  He separated that task from the idea of where the trains were going and what would happen to the people at their destination.  It seemed to me that Dunleavy was doing something similar.  In his mind, he wasn't 'gutting' HB 44 as people charged.  Rather he was adding language about parental rights (and other things) that in themselves were good, without a sense of the effect these changes would have on watering down Erin's Law, on jeopardizing the passing of the bill altogether, and on the outcome of fewer kids getting abuse awareness training and thus ending up abused.  (Of course, only a relatively small number of kids who would get the training would be exposed to abuse. [updated:  actually the numbers people cite are one in four girls and one in six boys, so that would be not so small a number.]  But the numbers reported were still disturbingly high, so it wouldn't be insignificant.)

Of course, there's the possibility that he knows exactly what he's doing and he's lying, but I suspect not.  It's easy for people to call others liars because they can't believe they don't think exactly the way they think.  The more nuanced approach that Arendt takes requires more concentration and mental agility to comprehend.

Is there a different option than 'not too bright' and 'liar' that I'm missing?  Dunleavy has not offered an explanation that covers all the holes that I see as listed in this post.  He does have a lengthy FB defense, but it really doesn't address the details I raise.  Instead it just says things like other states don't make the training mandatory so what are you complaining about.  It doesn't address the issue of kids falling between the cracks because it's not mandatory and because it cuts out k-6.  Interestingly, he also seems to have dropped all the parental-rights rhetoric, but maybe I just missed it.


Chenault And The Budget

In this case, we could take Arendt's concepts to portray Chenault's world view as so pro-oil, his majority in the House so big, and his leadership power so strong, that he simply never has to think about the consequences of what he is doing.  Like Eichmann, his education is weak (though he did graduate from high school.)  I don't suspect he had many probing high school classes that forced him to deeply consider opposing points of view or how to think critically.  Instead, he mouths the slogans fed to him by the oil company lobbyists (all of whom are much better educated than Chenault) and groups like the Koch brothers supported Americans for Prosperity who tell him how smart he is, and what a good job he's doing, and how what he is doing is in the best interests of the people of Alaska.  He doesn't have to think.  (Think in the philosophical sense of pondering big questions that put his actions into a longer term and larger context, questioning what he takes for granted, considering the moral implications of what he's doing.)  To those who challenge him, he can respond, "If you're so smart, why am I Speaker of the House and you're out there whining?" A good question.  I'd respond:  "Because he thinks he's in the legislature and he's speaker all on his own merits, and not because his oil and construction industry supporters haven't greased the wheels for him.  He thinks they are supporting him because he's got the right values, not because he's absorbed the values they want him to have."

I'm not saying this is 'truth.'  I'm saying this is what Arendt's model suggests could be true. 

Can We Trust Arendt's Models?

I don't think we need to trust them or not.  Rather they are tools for measuring the world we see.  We use models to take measure of the world. It suggests things we should consider in our assessment. Does it accurately reflect what is happening?  If we gather the facts, do they line up as the model predicts?  Or is the model making us sort the facts to see what we expect to see?

Arendt's concept of the banality of evil has similarities to other concepts such as mob behavior or herd mentality;  such as group think and other situations where people give up their moral responsibility to the people around them.  We see echoes in The Lord of the Flies  and in 1984 and in Madmen  and The Sopranos.  The Milgram Experiments are another example that stem from Eichmann's trial, though, as this article states, Arendt said they showed something different than she was getting at.

There are lots of nuances here and getting inside people's heads to read their intentions isn't something I've figured out how to do well.  And there are problems with what people tell us they intended.

• They can be deceptive.  
• They can be wrong.  
• They might not know themselves.

So What Do We Do?

• The Believers
• We can listen to people respectfully and let them explain themselves as much as they are willing or able to do.  This gives us some insights.  Asking probing questions might yield more.  We aren't likely to cause believers to change any more they are likely to cause us to change.  Though when we interact respectfully it does change our relationship and allows people to consider each other more authentically.   (A study that seemed to confirm this approach when used to change the minds of people who voted against gay marriage in California, appears  to have been faked.  But the problems with that study don't mean this technique doesn't work.  But that study that seemed to validate the idea apparently can't be used now to do so.)
  
• Those Who Think Everyone Is Equally Corrupted
• There are lots of folks who have simply given up on everyone.  They've dropped out of serious participation and rejected their responsibilities, as citizens, to be informed and to vote.  These folks can be reached.  Mostly they would like to believe that democracy works and just need some examples of how they can have a positive impact.  Again, listening is the best tool.  Ask them to explain how they got to their conclusions.  Is there anything that could happen to change their minds?  What are the consequences of doing nothing?  And so on.   Grab a set of examples of people who have accomplished things against the odds.  For a quickly googled example.  I'm sure you can find ones more relevant to your cause.  And these folks have much to teach the political process believers as well.
  
• Those Who Unthinkingly Are On Your Side
• I find automatic believers of any group problematic.  They often have only the sketchiest idea of why they are supporting or opposing something.  It might be part of the dogma or something they read (without checking) that supports their world view.  It's important to shake up people who automatically support your position, but do so without thinking. 

There Will Be Blood

It's summer, and this was the consequence of my lapse into un-Buddhist like impulses.  But it turned out I'd already made my first blood donation of the day. 

At least these guys are the big mosquitoes.  That means they are slow and easy to feel on hairy arms. 

Cleansing Of The Pole, Then Changing Of Command To Adjuntant General Hummel

This is the 'honor pole' in front of the Alaska National Guard Headquarters.  Today, prior to the Changing of the Command ceremony from Acting Adjutant General Mike Bridges to Adjutant General Laurel Hummel, was a ceremony to cleanse the pole that had been dedicated a few years ago.  Tlingets and local Athabaskans from Eklutna joined together to cleanse the pole after the scandal the National Guard has gone through.

A member of the St. Elias Dance Group.

Lt. Governor Mallot at the cleansing ceremony.  I'm not using the word totem because there are some questions about combining the old and new traditions and the recognition that this pole doesn't necessarily meet the standards of a traditional totem pole.  So the decided to call it an honor pole instead. 

New Adjutant General Hummel dancing after the cleansing ceremony.

The crowd then moved inside and the Hearts of Oceana Club - West High students mentored by the Polynesian Community Center - danced before the Change of Command.

Gov. Walker was there as well.

Adjutant General Hummel in her speech which ranged from personal to inspirational.. She talked about how her army dad answered her six year old self about her desire to follow him into the army, that  while West Point didn't take women at the time, they would when she was ready to apply.

She talked about how when the governor-elect asked her to be the Adjutant General, she was taken aback.  She said she hadn't applied because her husband worked at the guard, so she would have a conflict of interest.  But the governor and her husband insisted.  And in a few days, her husband heads for a year in Kosovo where he'll be head of intelligence for NATO there.  She then turned to the members of the Alaska National Guard - how honored she is to work with them, how much she values and trusts them, and how together they will make the Guard a better organization.

This is an interesting confluence of two stories I've followed here.  One began when I covered Laurel Hummel's interview to be director of the Alaska Redistricting Board.   The other is the story of the Alaska National Guard scandal.  The links each go to one post.  There were a number of posts on each and you can get to the others by clicking on the appropriate labels.  This was a positive event, I'm sure the governor would like to spend more of his time doing this sort of thing.

Backyard is starting to Bloom

 Things are blooming already in the yard, like these two narcissus,


Wikipedia gives us some background on the name Narcissus:

In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a Hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope.^[1] He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus drowned.

New hosta leaft. 

Phlox.

The dandelions are here already too.

The Will Of The Irish

The size of the majority of the vote on same-sex marriage in Ireland yesterday says this was not about luck, but about will.  

A regular reader here who lives much closer to Ireland sent me links to two different articles on the election, one from the Irish Times,  "Ireland has left ‘tolerance’ far behind" and the other from The Guardian, "Ireland is a kinder, fairer place after voting for same-sex marriage."

The Irish Times article says near the beginning:

"It looks like a victory for tolerance. But it’s actually an end to mere toleration.

Tolerance is what “we” extend, in our gracious goodness, to 'them'. It’s about saying 'You do your own thing over there and we won’t bother you so long as you don’t bother us'."

The word 'tolerance' as a goal has always bothered me.  Tolerance is the lowest level of acceptance.  Tolerating is  putting up with something that you don't agree with.  Tolerance is not a word I imagine that Jesus Christ would have used or approved of.  He said to 'love' one's neighbors, even one's enemies.  Not 'tolerate' them. 

I did actually google  Jesus and the word tolerance, and I got an article entitled "Bible Verses About Tolerance: 21 Scripture Quotes."  None of the 21 quotes actually has the word tolerance in them.  Someone merely found passages that seemed to cover the idea they had of tolerance.   Quotes like:

"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

How people 'know' things and by extension, how the come to change what they 'know' is an underlying theme of this blog.  I'm convinced that 'knowing' is something we do non-rationally.  It's somehow linked in our brains to our fight or flight response - is this a danger to me?   And the less we know about something, the more likely we are to put it into the danger category.  It's why some people fear flying, but think nothing of driving, even though statistically one's odds are much better flying.  But it's easy to viscerally understand that if cars crash, they are, at least, already on the ground, and relatively few of us truly understand what keeps a plane up in the air.  We may have read an explanation, even be able to recite the explanation.  But unless we 'get it' in the sense that we 'feel' its correctness, we don't really 'know' it.  

We can 'know' a lot of things that are incorrect.  Things that 'make sense', that feel natural.  But are wrong.  And the more being 'right' threatens our way of life, the longer we believe what's wrong.  Find me a climate change denier today, and I'll find you some strong connection they have to the fossil fuel industry. 

So how do we people change what they know?  How can we help that process along?

When I taught about values in my graduate classes, I had one section where everyone had to bring some food that would help us understand who they were.  They also had to talk about a value they believed in strongly and explain what happened in their lives to cause that to be an important value.  For instance, for me, siding with immigrants fleeing from a dangerous homeland has always been important.  My parents were immigrants who fled Nazi Germany, so I come to this value in a very personal way.  Sure, there are people who take advantage of the system, but it's better, in my mind,  to let in a few fakers, than turn away genuine refugees fleeing from terrible deprivation and death.  

I recall one night in class where one student showed us photos of her cats, dogs, and a bunny, I believe.  She was a member of PETA and a strong animal rights advocate.  She talked about how important pets had always been in her life.   About 30 minutes later, another student showed us a photograph of himself and his dad with the first time caribou he'd ever shot.  This was an important father and son bonding activity.  

These class sessions profoundly changed how students interacted in the rest of the class.  The PETA member didn't necessarily agree with the hunter (or vice versa) but at least they understood how the other got to that value.  It made a visceral sense. 

Watching the rapid (for significant social change) acceptance of gay marriage over the last 30 years (and if you were gay and of marrying age 30 years ago, I'm sure it didn't seem rapid),  I think a lot of it came about because people came to know lgbt people as the same as themselves, with this one minor difference.  I say minor, because when J and I were first married, our closest neighbors were a lesbian couple.  The better we got to know them over the years, the more their daily lives seemed to be wrapped around the same kinds of issues as ours: working, paying the bills, preparing food, keeping the garden nice, washing dishes, going to the movies,  getting the car fixed, and on and on.  They had good days as a couple and bad days.  The fact that they were both women really was a very minor difference.  Sure, it meant they weren't going to have children, but we had hetero friends who weren't going to have children either. 

When I was a kid growing up, I can think of one gay person that I knew of.  He was the brother of a friend of our parents.  He played the piano professionally and when we were at Seders at their house, I remember him always smoking a lot.  But so did his sister.  I don't even know when I came to know that he was, in those days, homosexual.  Probably when I was about 15 or 16 it slipped out from one of my parents' lips.  It was like saying he had cancer.   He was sort of a shadowy person and I don't recall ever even having any sort of conversation with him beyond hello and please pass the peas.    

In those days few people were open about their homosexuality.  There were men or women who never got married, and I guess adults may have wondered, but people didn't publicly openly identify themselves as gay.  There was no publicly visible gay community that I knew about.  Kids might call someone a faggot or queer at school, but it wasn't until my 10th or 15th high school reunion that I learned about classmates who were gay - because, by then, they had died of AIDS.  No, that's not quite true.  One came out in college and my step-father saved me a newspaper article about him being head of a gay student group at Berkeley. Randy had been a close friend in high school, but I never had a clue.   Later, he became the first openly gay judge in Los Angeles.  

I give all this history, because I think that once LGBT folks began to come out and thus force the rest of the world to acknowledge their existence, things began to change.  Until then, parents could pretend their daughter was living with her good friend because it made economic sense to share an apartment or house.  They could ignore the fact that not only was their 40 year old son unmarried, but he never seemed to talk about dating any women.  He was just too busy at work or something.   They might suspect, but they never talked about it.  Everyone could just pretend everything was 'normal.'

But once people started to come out to their parents, the parents had to come to terms with what they 'knew' about homosexuals and what they knew about their gay or lesbian (often adult) children.  Some disowned their children.  Others disowned what they knew about homosexuals.  

And once parents began accepting their children, aunts and uncles and grandparents were forced to make the same sorts of choices between throwing out the kids or throwing out their false knowledge.  And then it spread to friends of the parents, to people at work, and on and on.  The more people came to know they actually did know gay folks, people they had thought were good, normal people until they had come out, the more people had to reassess what they 'knew' about gays.  

Television and movies mirrored this by adding gay characters as 'real' people.  

Just as in my class exercise on values, people had to match what they knew about real individuals against their stereotypes.  

I suspect this evolution might have happened faster than for other outsider groups in society because gays were embedded, so to speak, in every racial and ethnic group, in every religious group, and in every economic and social group.   Protestant Irish probably have been more likely to have a gay dinner guest as part of a family holiday, than to have a Catholic.  (OK, that's a gross speculation on my part, but the point is, they've been less likely to have a family member of the 'other' religion than a gay family member.  You have to have someone convert or marry into the other religion, but a son or daughter or nephew or niece, is someone you've known all their lives.  

So I'm probably asking here whether we can learn to be first tolerant and then embracing of other 'others' the way Ireland has.  (And I'm assuming that everyone has heard that Ireland is the first country to actually vote for same-sex marriage, not have it imposed by a court or law, and that they did so with a very strong yes vote.)  Or whether there is something about the distribution of lgbt folks in society that gives them access to every part of society, that other outside groups don't have.  

In any case, the world is a better place today than it was a week ago, because of this vote.  While some will disagree with that assessment, mine is based on the assumption that the more people accept each other as fellow, equal human beings, the better off the world is. 

As one person is quoted in the Irish Times article, before the election, wrote: 

“I have two adult children. One is allowed to marry, the other is not. How can this be right?”

Something For Alaska And US Majority Leaders To Think About

 This comes from the movie Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu).

Confucius consents to an audience with the royal consort of Wei against the wishes of his disciples.  She has a reputation as a beautiful woman with a sketchy past and she clearly is intent on seducing the great scholar.

She starts off by asking about the Book of Odes, and the love poetry in it.

Screen shot from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

He politely rejects her request to become his student and to meet again.  She then asks about his theories of government. 

Screen shots from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

Screen shots from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

Screen shots from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

While there is much about Confucian teaching that is problematic today - particularly his rigid hierarchical power structure and his low regard for women - there is also much of use to our political leaders today.

I'd note that Thomas Jefferson, one of the inspirations of the Tea Party,  was something of a China scholar.  From a scholarly paper "Thomas Jefferson's Incorporating Positive Elements From Chinese Civilization" by Dave Wan.
(Note that the poem Jefferson clips out in the passage below, is the one referred to by the Royal Consort of Wei in the film - "The Book of Odes."  The poem is a tribute to the Prince of Wei - several hundred years prior to Confucius.)

"Founding Inspiration from the Confucius’ Classics

       In the nineteenth century intellectuals in the United States often enjoyed creating personal scrapbooks, in which they would cut out their “favorite newspaper articles and poems” and past “them onto the backs of old letters to create a sort of personal literary anthology.”  None of us will feel surprised to know that Thomas Jefferson, “an Enlightenment intellectual,” created a scrapbook in his own way. Some time from 1801-1809 Jefferson included in the section of his scrapbook titled Poems of the Nations an ancient Chinese poem from The Book of Odes. His love of the poem provides us with a window through which we can look into his efforts to learn from Chinese culture. What he wanted to learn from the poem?

       Below is Jefferson’s clipping of the poem:

                                           A Very Ancient Chinese Ode
Translated by John Collegins seq
Quoted in the To Hio of Confuciues
(….from a manuscript presented in the Bodlein Library )

SEE! how the silvery river glides,
And leaves' the fields bespangled sides !
Hear how the whispering breeze proceeds!
Harmonious through the verdant reeds!
Observe our prince thus lovely shine!
In him the meek-ey'd virtues join!
Just as a patient carver will, Hard ivory model by his skill,
So his example has impress'd Benevolence in every b[re]ast;
Nice hands to the rich gems, behold,
Impart the gloss of burnish'd gold:
Thus he, in manners, goodly great,
Refines the people of his state. True lenity,
how heavenly fair !
We see it while it threatens,—spare!
What beauties in its open face!
In its deportment—what a grace!
Observe our prince thus lovely shine!
In him the meek-ey'd virtues join!
His mern'ry of eternal prime,
Like truth, defies the power of time!

       The poem pays tribute to Prince Wei from the State of Wei, who was loved, respected and remembered by the people of his state. Confucius (551-479 BC) highly praised Prince Wei, described in the poem, when he quoted this poem in his famous book, The Great Learning, to provide a standard to inspire other princes and leaders of various states to follow. Confucius said,

In the Book of Ode, ‘Ah! The former kings are not forgotten’ Future princes deem worthy what they deemed worthy, and love what they loved. The common people delighted in what they delighted them, and are benefited by their beneficial arrangements. It is on this account that the former kings, after they have quitted the world, are not forgotten."

Important themes that we should remember from Confucius is his emphasis on ethics, on education, on harmony and treating people with respect and taking care of the poor and less fortunate. 

Just something to think about on a cloudy Saturday.


____________________________
I don't particularly recommend this film as a film.  But as an easy (and visually beautiful) overview of the life of Confucius it will do.   It tends to give us a series of vignettes of his life,  with very little character development.   The two actors in these screenshots are (from Wikipedia):

• Chow Yun-fat as Confucius or Kong Qui, also known by the honorary title Zhong Ni.
• Zhou Xun as Nanzi, the royal consort of Wei.

Zhou Xun was in Dai Sijie's Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (2002) a film very much worth seeing.  She was also in Cloud Atlas. 

"TO DUNLEAVY" (v) "When a situation unexpectedly comes along giving you the power to help another in need, you instead try to extract some gain for yourself while harming the other."

 EXAMPLE:  "He dunleavied HB 44." As in when you find yourself as the chair of a committee in a special session with just one bill with strong bi-partisan support, and instead of quickly passing the bill, you water down its key provisions, and then add a lot of unrelated amendments that you had tried to pass in the regular session, but couldn't.

This is not how I intended to begin this post, but it seems to encapsulate a lot of analysis in a few words.  Below is the whole post which will show how I got to this point.  


I’ve learned while blogging over the years that it’s easy to form opinions about people I’ve never met and that when I meet them, I'm forced to deal with their complexities, not the cartoon image I originally formed.  I put up a post the other day entitled Sen. Dunleavy Plays Politics With Bill To Protect Kids From Sexual Predators.  I even suggested that if he didn't understand how significant his changes to HB 44 were, he was ignorant and if he did understand, he was venal.  Those are pretty harsh charges.  Not the kind of thing I usually write.

So I went to Wednesday’s hearing to see Dunleavy in person.  I wanted to  get a better sense of Dunleavy and reassess my judgment.

The title and poster are the result of realizing that 'venal' was not the right word, but I had trouble finding the perfect word.  I couldn't; so I coined one.  I would add that I found Dunleavy to be strongly committed to a set of values and I think he's sincere about them and is willing to fight to promote them.  He appears to be one of those folks who is so certain that he's right, that it's easy for them to disregard those who disagree with him.  However, his manner was respectful and, for the most part, restrained.  He did get passionate at the end about the importance of protecting parental rights in a time when government is so invasive in people's lives.  Making decisions is much easier for such people, because they don't appear to doubt their correctness.  While he listened to opposing arguments, he easily dismissed them all, and there were no changes to the bill before it was passed. I'd note that this characteristic crosses party lines, but it comes easier with those used to having the power.  I know that a lot of other legislators probably fit the Dunleavy definition I've written.  Dunleavy just happens to be the person  I was trying to understand that led to this definition.  

So, to start from some arbitrary beginning . . .

What I'd like to do here is evaluate my own charge (and others') that Dunleavy was "playing politics" as well as to evaluate whether my either/or characterization was fair.  (Spoiler:  it wasn't.) 



What Does "Playing Politics" Mean?  

Cambridge Dictionary:  to use a situation or the relationships between people for your own advantage

The Free Dictionary: 

1. Lit. to negotiate politically.

2. to allow politics to dominate in matters where principle should prevail.

Next, I'll go through the arguments against the committee substitute for HB 44 and Dunleavy's responses.  Then I'll give an overview of the changes to HB 44.

I'll try to come to conclusions on the pro and con arguments and, finally, whether this is an example of  'playing politics.'  [I tried to cleanly separate out the analysis in its own sections, but as you'll see, some has slipped in earlier as well.]  So hang in there, or skip down to the sections that most interest you.  Going through this closely has raised a lot of issues for me that weren't originally apparent.


The Reasons People Argued Against The Changes To HB 44 (Erin's Law)

1. The Changes Gut The Bill -  Making parents sign permission forms before a child can be in the program  ('opting in'), instead of requiring parents to object if they don't want the child in ('opting out') means fewer kids will be exposed to this critical information. Likewise, not requiring school districts to adopt this material will reduce the number of kids who get this information.
   
   Further, the original bill called for age appropriate material for all kids from kindergarten through 12th grade.  The amended version limits it to 7th-12th grade.   50% or more of the target audience is cut out.   People argued that by 7th grade it is too late. Kids are molested much earlier than that and need the training early.
    
2. Adding amendments to a clean HB44, that the governor specifically mentioned for passage in the special session, raises a number of problems:
1. Jeopardizes passage of the bill.   HB 44 was a very focused and clear three page bill which passed the house this year 34-6 and the senate last year unanimously (without the teen dating violence part).  The new version is  a mashed together nine page bill with several controversial sections that have not had careful discussion or had public testimony and could get HB 44 stalled or killed, especially under the bizarre circumstances the legislature is now in. 
2. Raises constitutional problems:  It's questionable whether adding the new language will be constitutional.
3. Tacks on Dunleavy's pet issues.  The amendments came from bills that Dunleavy introduced or supported  but couldn't get through during the regular session.

Dunleavy's Responses:  [I was hoping the audio of Wednesday's hearing would be up  so I could pull out exact words. It wasn't up yesterday when I wrote most of this and I still don't see it today.]

1. Changing the program to "opt in" for parents and giving school districts the choice to not use it is important because parental rights are being eroded by schools and the government.  Parents need the power to control what their kids learn at school.  Sen. Giessel added at one point, that parental rights don't come from government, but from God.
2. (Addressing Senator McGuire directly) There is nothing wrong with amending bills, it's how the legislative process works.  You amended the original Erin's Law to add in training on teen dating violence awareness.  I didn't do anything different.  And this bill was delayed in the regular session while you were out of town because of a family emergency.  
1. All the added sections were important and related to education.  They strengthen parental rights and clear up other issues.  The last part, getting rid of the requirement for schools to offer ACT, SAT, or KeyWorks tests, saves money.  
2. Here's the legal opinion.  Dunleavy had staffer Sheila Peterson relate a message from Leg Legal on this.   She basically said, if a judge were to rule narrowly, there would be problems.  If broadly interpreted, it would be ok.   I got a copy of the memo on Wednesday, (but I can't find it online for you with the other documents).  I would say Peterson's interpretation was not inaccurate, but rosier than what was written. 
   
   The memo says in part:
   

   "In the Governor's proclamation declaring a special session, the subject is limited to consideration of:[T]he passage of bills on the following subjects:
   1.  House Bill 44 - Sexual Abuse/Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, previously under consideration in the Senate and the House . . . ."
   
   "If the subject is construed narrowly, many of the provisions of the committee substitute you requested would fall outside of the subject, as they are not related to sexual abuse or sexual assault awareness programs. . .

   
   "If, on the other hand, the scope of the subject is interpreted in accordance with legislative rules regarding germaneness and the constitutional single subject rule, it is likely permissible to include at least some of the provisions you have asked to add to CSHB 44(FIN) through the committee substitute."

   
   It goes on to say that if it were all passed and challenged in court, it's not clear if the court would use the broader regular session test of germaneness or a narrower one relating to the Governor's proclamation for the special session.  But note, the opinion says that even with a broad interpretation  "at least some of the provisions" would stand, implying that others wouldn't.  The charge against the substituted bill was that it raised constitutional questions.  This opinion verifies that. At best for Dunleavy, it says "you might have a chance that some provisions would survive."
   
   3.  Dunleavy agreed the other material came from bills he and others had proposed.  He saw nothing wrong with this.  Legally, he's right.  But there was very little or no discussion about the various aspects of the bill except for the idea of strengthening parental rights and eliminating the college and work prep testing,  which only have been in existence for one year.  This would, he said, save money in the bad budget year. (I know a road through the university he could cut which would save way more money if that's his goal.)  He added that such amendments were just part of the legislative process. 
   
   His conclusion was that his amendments made this an excellent bill.  His defense was more opinion and rhetoric than logic and fact. 
   
   While people have graphically presented the harm caused by sexual abuse, Alaska statistics, and how cutting provisions of the bill will expose kids to abuse and even death, there was no evidence presented that showed what harm would be caused to parents and kids if the bill had been left as it was.  Dunleavy only invoked general concerns about the erosion of parental rights.  

What Was Added?

The new sections includes a slew of topics.  I've tried to group them for simplicity here.  S1 refers to Section 1, etc.  I've put the whole list of sections provided by Leg Legal in a box on the bottom so you can see for yourself. 

Brief overview of issues added to the bill.  (S16 is the amended version of the original HB 44)

Parental Permission : S2- gives parents permission to withdraw their kids from any school activities involving human reproduction and sexual matters or divulging of personal or family family affairs S6, S7 requires parental permission for all school surveys, info on access to survey info Challenging Courses For Credit: S3, S4 limits grades and assessment procedures for challenging courses for credit Prohibits Contracting With Abortion Providers S5, S17 (The prohibition covers 'organizations that contract with schools' as well as school districts) Rules For Training Of School Employees S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13, S19, S20 Physical Exams for Students and Teachers S14, S15 Allows Districts To Adopt Sexual Abuse And Teen Dating Violence Awareness Training (This is the original HB 44, but amended as explained above) S16 Allows For Existing Department Records To Be Used For Background Checks S21 Repeals Requirements For College And Career Preparedness Testing S23

The original bill, you can see, is now only one of 23 different sections!


ANALYSIS

Complaints about the changes and Dunleavy's responses

1.  Was the bill 'gutted'?

Clearly, fewer children will be exposed to this training than before because:

1.  Parents must give permission before a student can take the program.  Getting prior permission is more difficult than requiring parents to take steps to opt their children out.
2.  Schools are no longer required to implement this program.  Again,  requiring all schools to use the program is likely to cover more kids.
3.  Exempting K-6 grade kids cuts out half the target audience and means kids who are most vulnerable and least prepared to deal with sexual abuse will not get the training.

I learned long ago, as a teacher, that if I asked, "Does anyone have a question?" I got the same number of raised hands as I did when I asked, "Who understands this?"  Taking action is more work than not taking action, and fewer kids will get into these classes if parents have to sign a permission slip than if they have to sign a 'no permission' slip.

I would note that one of the documents available online includes a list of school districts that already have training.  It includes the biggest school districts - Anchorage, Mat-Su, Fairbanks, Juneau - and a number of smaller districts.  So lots of students are already getting this training in some form.  However, the list only says whether there is sexual abuse awareness training and teen dating violence training.  It doesn't say what grade levels get the training or any other details.

I do understand how Dunleavy can convince himself that the changes are minor, and because so many districts already offer some training, he's not totally wrong.  But half the kids (K-6) were cut out of the bill!  We simply disagree on the significance of the threat to parental rights compared to the threat to children's safety.  We have dire statistics that show Alaska is the worst state in the nation when it comes to child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and general violence against women. We don't have evidence that Alaskan parents' rights are less than in other states and that this causes them irreparable harm as we know that abuse causes.  Suppose the changes mean that 30 kids per year or per month, will get abused because of the changes in the bill.  Because their schools don't offer the program or their parents don't sign the permission slip, or they're in K-6, they won't get training  and thus won't be able to recognize an abuser and won't be empowered to protect themselves or to report it right away.   Given our numbers, that's a real possibility, and to me, it's a big deal.  I don't see the compensating benefits in the changes that make up for the harm to those kids who will be abused because they didn't get the  this education.  No one identified any specific harm that would be caused to parents or their kids if the bill would have been passed as it was, without changes. 

To me the amendments clearly weaken this bill.  The changes are not minor. 

2.  Were the bill's chances of success weakened?

2-1.  Controversial and unvetted issues.  Two new sections (S5 and S17) appear to be aimed at one organization - Planned Parenthood.   Dunleavy is strongly anti-abortion and believes his religiously based views trump my views and others' views.  Dunleavey's views are the minority opinion in Alaska and the United States, but he believes he knows better than the rest of us.  Anchorage's recent mayoral election when a strongly pro-choice candidate soundly beat a strongly anti-choice candidate, emphasizes this.  Inserting the anti-abortion language in this bill poisons it and Planned Parenthood is not shy about going to court. These are not uncontroversial amendments.

S2 gives parents permission to withdraw their kids from any school activities involving human reproduction and sexual matters or divulging of personal or family family affairs.  I think there ought to be a lot of public discussion to clarify exactly what that means.  Would it prevent a teacher or school nurse from asking a child about bruises and how they got them?  Would it prevent a teacher from asking a student why he was falling asleep in class every day or is suddenly very quiet and non-responsive?  While I can think of a lot of things that teachers should probably not be asking about one's family, I also think the language is so broad there could be conflicts here with mandatory responders' ability to determine whether a child is being abused or neglected at home.  But there was no discussion on this at the hearing whatsoever.

I understand the concern for parental rights.  When my kids were in school, my wife and I were very active in monitoring our kids' education.  We spoke up when we disagreed and advocated for improvements.  I also understand that a lot of parents do not have the knowledge and experience or professional training to be able to effectively advocate for their kids.  I think having parent advocates  available would be very helpful for many parents.  But when we speak of parents' rights, we have to recognize that there are parents who are dysfunctional and fail to support and protect their kids.

S21 allows people applying for work to use the background check that is already on record with the department.  I can see the benefit of not having to go through a whole new background check.  But what happens when there are recent violations that didn't exist when the first background check was made?  I don't know if this is a serious issue, but there was no discussion on it at all.  It's one more thing in this bill that could give a little more opportunity for abusers, and prevent passage of the bill. 

The real irony of all this is that it's parents and other close relatives who do most of the sexual abuse of kids.  Protecting the ability of abusive parents to prevent those kids from getting sexual abuse awareness education so they can protect themselves from their parents and other relatives is inherently, though not intentionally, imbedded in the  parents' rights that Dunleavy is pushing.  Dunleavy took umbrage that people insinuated  that he was complicit in hurting kids by his amendments.  Good people can take principled actions that cause harm.  And I'm sure George W. Bush takes umbrage in the charge that invading Iraq resulted in greater instability and death for Iraqis and destabilized the region.  Those sections added to this bill that strengthen parents' rights, also take power away from abused kids.   It's the abusive parents who will be most interested in keeping their kids out of these classes. 

The need for lengthy discussion to clarify the legality and implications of these and other sections that were added into the bill, do raise legitimate concern about the bill's passage.

Sen. Dunleavy's responses were aimed at equating these amendments to Sen. McGuire's amendment that added teen dating violence to the bill during the regular session.  He changed the debate from whether the amendments were controversial and germane, to whether it was ok, in general, to make amendments.  He didn't really defend his position other than to say the amendments made the bill stronger, which, in my analysis, is definitely not the case. 

2-3.  Constitutionality -  The legal opinion said it would depend on a judge's interpretation  and the outcome could not be predicted.  And even the broadest interpretation would only protect some of the new sections.  In other words, the attorney couldn't say that the bill would survive a court challenge.  The opinion said that some of the sections might survive.  I don't see how anyone can logically argue that opinion doesn't support the critics' charge that the changes raise constitutional issues.   

2-4  Just taking an opportunity to get his own pet issues passed - Some of the amendments come from SB 89, a bill on Parental Rights that Dunleavy sponsored and two of the three other education committee members who voted for this bill -  Giessel and Huggins -  co-sponsored.  Adding these measures onto HB 44 clearly gives Dunleavy (and the other committee members) an unexpected shot at something they already had lost, but the amendments in no way help the original HB 44 get passed.  One could argue that they, along with the changes to HB 44 itself, make it harder. The point isn't that it's bad to add amendments in general, but that these amendments don't strengthen the bill and hurt its chances of passage.


I'm not making judgments on the merit of the changes to HB 44, but rather evaluating them against the challenges of the critics of the changes and the defense of the changes.   The intent of my comments is not to challenge the new provisions, but merely evaluate whether they strengthen or weaken the goal of Erin's Law.  There's no question, that a 'sure pass' by the senate has been made questionable.  That a pass of the revised bill would result in a much less effective Erin's Law, and one that has a questionable chance of surviving a legal challenge on constitutional grounds.


"Playing politics" or not?

So, this gets us to whether Dunleavy was playing politics or not.   Let's retrieve the definitions:

Cambridge Dictionary:  to use a situation or the relationships between people for your own advantage

The Free Dictionary: 

1. Lit. to negotiate politically.

2. to allow politics to dominate in matters where principle should prevail.

Using the Cambridge definition, there's no doubt.  He had the choice to leave HB 44 as it was and send it for speedy passage.  Instead, he made changes that weakened the bill (we can debate how much it weakened the bill, but there's no question that it did)  and added in language from a bill he had sponsored but hadn't gotten passed, which weakens the chances of the bill's passage.  (I haven't talked about the details of what happens next, but even if the bill passes the Senate, which it likely will, it has to be reconciled with the original House version.  Since the House sponsor is also the Speaker of the House, there's a good chance that won't happen.  But if it does, there's the question of whether the Governor will sign it or veto it. Erin Merryn, the woman who is the namesake of this sort of legislation and has gotten it passed in 23 states has said she does not support the amended bill. )

Dunleavy took an opportunity to negotiate something he wanted onto a stand alone bill that had a strong chance to pass and the changes now put the bill in jeopardy.    I'd say that fits the first two definitions quite neatly.

I would allow that Dunleavy might reasonably argue whether the facts fit with the second Free Dictionary definition.  He probably would argue that he was very much working on principle.  He strongly articulated his belief in strengthening parental rights.  But I would counter argue that those who have fought to pass Erin's Law are also doing it on principle, and that if most people had to choose between sacrificing protection from abuse for kids,  or protecting parents' rights, the kids would win.  It has been, after all, patriarchal rights and the idea of children (and wives) as chattel, that have allowed for all kinds of child abuse for centuries.  It's not an either/or proposition, it's not easy to balance.  But when kids get abused, it gets much easier to decide, but then it's too late.  And in a democracy, the principle of fair process has got to be one of the most important for a legislator.  Otherwise, legislators can simply take advantage of their positions of power to forward their own interests.  Which is not to suggest he did anything that isn't perfectly legal, but he has watered down a pretty sure winner and further burdened it with marginally related amendments.

And when I originally put up the post about Dunleavy playing politics, and even when I started this post, I wasn't aware that Dunleavy was considering running for the US Senate seat against Lisa Murkowski and didn't even consider how this debate and attention might help him with the most conservative side of the Republican party.   I suspect that he would have made these amendments anyway, but it adds ammunition to those who claim he's playing politics here. 

Is Ignorant or Venal a valid claim?

Venal means, according to the Oxford dictionary:

"Showing or motivated by susceptibility to bribery"

I see no evidence of anything like bribery here and I was totally wrong to use this word (and I have corrected it in the original post and apologized to Dunleavy.)  It was a bad choice of words. 

But I do think that Dunleavy's defense of his position was not entirely straightforward.  He had to know that his amendments to HB 44 watered it down and that his amendments were of a very different type than McGuire's.  Yet he never acknowledged this.  McGuire's amendments were directly relevant to the original bill and strengthened it.  Dunleavy's are marginally relevant, weaken the bill, and advance his agenda to the detriment of Erin's law.  He's right that this is part of the legislative process, and I'm sure that's part of  the reason that politicians are held in such low esteem.    

But if venal is the wrong word, what's the right one?  I've been unsuccessful finding the perfect word.  For example,  'crafty' which the Oxford dictionary defines as:

"Clever at achieving one’s aims by indirect or deceitful methods"

has some of the elements, but isn't quite right.

I don't know if  Dunleavy was merely indirect or actually deceitful.  I'm not sure he's even being clever or that he will achieve his ends. I don't know for sure what his ends are.  What I really need is a new word.

So I'm coining a definition for "TO  DUNLEAVY"   which I'll define as:

"When a situation unexpectedly comes along giving you the power to help  another in need, you  instead try to extract some gain for yourself while harming the other."  

EXAMPLE:  "He dunleavied HB 44."   As in when you unexpectedly find yourself as the chair of a committee in a special session with just one bill with strong bi-partisan support, and instead of quickly passing the bill, you water down its key provisions, and then add a lot of unrelated other amendments that you had tried to pass in the regular session, but couldn't.

From Legislative Affairs Legal Services - Sectional Summary of SCS CSHB 44

Section 2.  Requires local school boards to adopt policies allowing parents to withdraw their children from any activity, class, program, or standards-based assessment required by the state to which the parent objects. Section 3.  Limits AS 14.03.073, which allows students to challenge courses for credit, to apply only to students in grades nine through 12. Section 4.  Clarifies that school districts do not have to establish assessment tools for all courses offered in grades nine through 12 for purposes of challenging a course. Section 5.  Prohibits school districts and educational services organizations that contract with school districts from contracting with abortion services providers. Section 6.  Prohibits school districts, principals, other persons in charge of schools, or teachers from administering a questionnaire or survey unless written permission is obtained from a student's parent or guardian. Section 7.  Amends AS 14.03.110(d) to require schools to inform parents or guardians of who will have access to results of questionnaires or surveys. Section 8.  Requires regional school boards to establish procedures to provide required training for school employees. Section 9.  Requires borough and city school boards to establish procedures to provide required training for school employees. Section 10.  Requires the State Board of Education and Early Development (the board) to establish procedures for training employees of state boarding schools. Section 11.  Allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide training related to selection of nondiscriminatory textbooks and educational materials. Section 12.  Allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide employee evaluation training for certificated school employees. Section 13.  Allows a school district to determine how frequently to provide alcohol and drug related disabilities training for school teachers, administrators, counselors, and specialists. Section 14.  Removes "additional" from AS14.30.070(b), which pertains to physical examinations for students required by the Department of Health and Social Services. Section 15.  Prohibits school districts from paying the costs of physical examinations for teachers. Section 16.  Provides that the governing bodies of school districts may adopt policies establishing training programs for employees and students related to sexual abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention and, in grades 7 - 12, dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention. Section 17.  Prohibits school districts from permitting abortion services providers to offer, sponsor, or furnish course materials or instruction related to human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases. Section 18.  Makes conforming amendments to AS 14.30.370. Section 19.  Allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide school crisis response training. Section 20.  Requires continuing education related to domestic violence and sexual assault to be provided once every five years for state or local public employees. Section 21.  Allows a person who possesses a valid teacher certificate and applies to work at a facility licensed or certified by the department or who applies to work at a child care facility or residential child care facility to request that the person's criminal justice information and national criminal history record check on file with the department be used to satisfy criminal history check requirements for the Department of Health and Social Services. Section 22.  Modifies state agency training intervals for recognition and reporting of child abuse for mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect and allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide the training. Section 23.  Repeals AS 14.03.075(a), (b), (c),and (e)(1), and AS 14.07.165(a)(5) and (b) which relate to college and career readiness assessments; and AS 14.30.070(a) and 14.30.120, relating to physical examinations required for students.

It's Not A Cristo - It's Lanie Fleisher Chester Creek Bike Trail Construction Closure

I noticed - how could I not - the orange material on the edge of the bike trail as I rode home yesterday from the LIO.  It looked like pretty nice material, but it didn't really look like a Christo art installation.

Yesterday on the way home there were some construction folks so I asked.

They are, if I understood this right, going to take out the old bike trail and completely redo it with jogging paths along the sides.  The trail certainly could use some repairs, but I couldn't help but think that they would close down the major streets completely for repairs all summer, and the Chester Creek bike trail is the Seward Highway of bike trails in Anchorage.  He said there'd be detour signs and routes.  We'll see.

I asked how long it would take.  He's got 70 days he said.  That's most of the summer here in Anchorage.  They'll do it in sections, he told me, so it won't all be closed at once.  It would be nice if they did this continuously - one short section per summer - and when they were done after, say ten years, they'd start over to keep the trail in good shape.  But I guess securing money over time like that isn't likely.

Anyway, I understood that the portion that's got the curtains - Maplewood west to near the Juneau Street spur - will be shut down on Tuesday for work to begin.  Actually, probably from Lake Otis west. 

I didn't know anything about this, but I found the plans online.  It seems they sent out notices to people who live along the trail.  But lots of folks use the trail who don't live along them.  Signs along the trail might be a good way to let cyclists, runners, and other trail users know about the planning phases.

Here's a link to the written documentation.  It's not at all clear which parts they will do when.

Here's a link to the maps documentation.  Again, not terribly clear about timing.

This is a huge file, so you can click on it and see it much bigger

Phase 1 was completed last summer.  It's beyond my regular routes, so I didn't notice.  

The whole project this summer goes from Arctic to the Arc (near Debarr).  The section near the Arc really, really needs to be repaired.  The roots damage there is horrendous.  And where I was, there are regular big bumps where the asphalt has contoured around pipes underneath. 

How Many Of Bin Laden's English Language Books Have You Read?

The Office of the Directory of National Intelligence has a page called Bin Laden's Bookshelf.

"On May 20, 2015, the ODNI released a sizeable tranche of documents recovered during the raid on the compound used to hide Usama bin Ladin. The release, which followed a rigorous interagency review, aligns with the President’s call for increased transparency–consistent with national security prerogatives–and the 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act, which required the ODNI to conduct a review of the documents for release.

The release contains two sections. The first is a list of non-classified, English-language material found in and around the compound. The second is a selection of now-declassified documents.

The Intelligence Community will be reviewing hundreds more documents in the near future for possible declassification and release. An interagency taskforce under the auspices of the White House and with the agreement of the DNI is reviewing all documents which supported disseminated intelligence cables, as well as other relevant material found around the compound. All documents whose publication will not hurt ongoing operations against al-Qa‘ida or their affiliates will be released."

I've highlighted the list of "English Language Books"  but each category has a list on the ODNI website.   I've only read one of the books on the list  and posted about it early on when few people read this blog. 

Here's the list: 

Now Declassified Material (103 items)
Publicly Available U.S. Government Documents (75 items)
English Language Books (39 items)

• The 2030 Spike by Colin Mason
• A Brief Guide to Understanding Islam by I. A. Ibrahim 
• America’s Strategic Blunders by Willard Matthias
• America’s “War on Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky
• Al-Qaeda’s Online Media Strategies: From Abu Reuter to Irhabi 007 by Hanna Rogan
• The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast
• The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Anthony Sutton
• Black Box Voting, Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century by Bev Harris
• Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier
• Bounding the Global War on Terror by Jeffrey Record
• Checking Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions by Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson
• Christianity and Islam in Spain 756-1031 A.D. by C. R. Haines
• Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies by Cheryl Benard
• Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
• Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Committee of 300 by John Coleman
• Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert
• Fortifying Pakistan: The Role of U.S. Internal Security Assistance (only the book’s introduction) by C. Christine Fair and Peter Chalk
• Guerilla Air Defense: Antiaircraft Weapons and Techniques for Guerilla Forces by James Crabtree
• Handbook of International Law by Anthony Aust
• Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky
• Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer
• In Pursuit of Allah’s Pleasure by Asim Abdul Maajid, Esaam-ud-Deen and Dr. Naahah Ibrahim
• International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific by John Ikenberry and Michael Mastandano
• Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II by William Blum
• Military Intelligence Blunders by John Hughes-Wilson
• Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification. Joint hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session, August 3, 1977. United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Intelligence.
• Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies by Noam Chomsky
• New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin
• New Political Religions, or Analysis of Modern Terrorism by Barry Cooper
• Obama’s Wars by Bob Woodward
• Oxford History of Modern War by Charles Townsend
• The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum
• The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly Hall (1928)
• Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
• The Taking of America 1-2-3 by Richard Sprague
• Unfinished Business, U.S. Overseas Military Presence in the 21st Century by Michael O’Hanlon
• The U.S. and Vietnam 1787-1941 by Robert Hopkins Miller
• “Website Claims Steve Jackson Games Foretold 9/11,” article posted on ICV2.com (this file contained only a single saved web page)

Material Published by Violent Extremists & Terror Groups (35 items)
Materials Regarding France (19 items)
Media Articles (33 items)
Other Religious Documents (11 items)
Think Tank & Other Studies (40 items)
Software and Technical Manuals (30 items)
Other Miscellaneous Documents (14 items)
Documents Probably Used by Other Compound Residents (10 items)
 

I have to wonder what Bin Laden thought about his access to all this material - that the US was crazy to have this all available, or was there some admiration that a society would allow all this to be read by anyone?