YELP Lives In Old ATT Building And Other San Francisco Short Stories

View of San Francisco from the bus on a rainy morning.

The waterfall is in Yerba Buena Gardens, on the way to the children's museum.  Yerba Buena, it turns out, was the name of the Mexican town in Alta California where San Francisco sits now.


The building in the center, with the flag on top, is the old Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building, and now houses YELP.


From Marketwatch:

Unlike the sanitized office parks that Silicon Valley is famous for, Yelp’s new offices are in one of San Francisco’s earliest skyscrapers, a relic of the building boom of the Roaring ’20s. The 26-story Art Deco building was once owned by Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., or PT&T, one of the Baby Bell subsidiaries of AT&T Inc. The building, now named for its address, 140 New Montgomery, was designed by the well-regarded local architect Timothy Pflueger. Like an early version of Google Inc.’s /quotes/zigman/59527964/composite GOOG -0.21% Googleplex, Pacific Telephone developed ways to keep its employees inside the building, with a cafeteria for employees — most of whom were women — and an auditorium for special events, lectures, parties, bridal showers and exercise classes.
The Bell system logo remains above the front entrance to 140 New Montgomery, a reminder that Yelp’s headquarters was once home to Pacific Telephone & Telegraph. “We are kind of the new Pac Bell or AT&T,” said John Lieu, director of real estate and facilities for Yelp.
Today, the business-review site, which has been growing steadily but losing money since it was founded in 2004, occupies nine floors in the recently reopened building. The high-rise had been unoccupied since AT&T /quotes/zigman/398198/composite T -0.16% , which ended up merging with SBC and the vestiges of Pacific Bell/Telesis), moved out in 2007. The current owners, developers Wilson Meany and Stockbridge Capital Partners, bought the iconic building in 2008 for $118 million, with that price including a nearby parking garage. Initially, the developers planned to convert the building to a residential condominium, but the recession and financial crisis put those plans on ice.

The contrast between the very wealthy and the very poor is particularly visible in San Francisco.  Right near high end stores, you see homeless folks.

And not far from this Prada window was this wedding dress window.

I ran into Brian when he was yelling into a doorway that he had a 2004 BA as we walked passed.  He saw me and explained something about a a college sweatshirt and a woman.  He offered me his pipe and posed for this picture.

The Women's Athletic Club:

Despite the overwhelming role of women in the organization of the club (only outside consultants, lawyers and its architects were men) the members were almost always referred to in the press and in other records by their husband's names, i.e., Elizabeth Pillsbury was Mrs. Horace D. Pillsbury. Mrs. Pillsbury became the first president of the Women's Athletic Club. The core of the membership of the club was expected to come from the Social Register, but efforts were made to reach artistically trained women and working-class women. The aim of the club, as stated in 1914 in a letter sent to prospective members, was "educational first and recreation and pleasure afterwards." Elizabeth Pillsbury reached out to working women and girls by creating another athletic club, the Recreation Club for Girls Who Work, located at 507 Harrison Street, which was located in the heart of the industrial section of the city.

The site also gives some history of women and athletics in the US.

"Socially, physical education for women in America began as early as the 1820s in girls' schools, but it wasn't until the mid-19th century that widespread concerns began that the health of American women was in decline, perhaps because of the effects of urbanization and industrialization. In the 1860s and 1870s, several women's colleges including Mills College in Oakland were established incorporating programs for physical training in their curriculums, including calisthenics, dancing and gymnastics. The first gymnasium for women outside of women's colleges was Miss Allen's Gymnasium for Ladies, established in Boston in 1879. In the 1890s, it became fashionable for wealthy women to engage in certain sports--golf, tennis, yachting and horseback riding. It was not until 1900 that public attitudes about athletics for women began to change, but there were still voices of opposition present. In 1905, The Women Citizen reported that former President Grover Cleveland "gravely pointed out the menace of the women's clubs" but by 1925, the social venue had changed and such statements by high politicians were rare or non-existent. While California women obtained the right to vote in 1911 in State elections, it wasn't until 1919 that women could vote in national elections."

Don't park under a mock orange tree when the flowers are about to drop off.  But the flowers smell so sweet.

It appears these steps aren't used often.

Three Salad Plate And Lentil Soup at Aicha Morrocan Cuisine

From Seattle, a quick weekend trip to San Francisco to see our grandson and his parents.  Keeping us busy, but while he was headed home for a nap, we had a chance to walk home and stopped at Aicha Moroccan Cuisine for a small lunch.

What an unexpected treat.

Here's J's salad, so much more spectacular than I expected.

That's peppers and onions and I'm not sure what else on the left.  Eggplant on the right.  I feel sorry for folks who, for whatever reason, won't try eggplant.  It's such a treat when cooked right.

My lentil soup was superb.  Such a mix of flavors and textures, and the lemon was perfect in it.





And J had tea which was poured from a foot above the cup.  That picture didn't turn out that well, so here's the teapot and the empty tea cup.

And the warm bread right out of the oven.

Just a small family restaurant that looked promising.  If only other promises were so well fulfilled.

The server was wonderful, they had great music, and the other folks were also enjoying their food.


If you're in San Francisco, it's at Bush and Polk.  Like stepping into another world for lunch.

Does Tom Anderson Deserve A New Trial?

Tom Anderson was the first legislator to be convicted in the trials that eventually led to the conviction of US senator Ted Stevens (which was later voided over how the prosecutors handled evidence.)

His attorney was Paul Stockler.  Today's Alaska Dispatch News says Stockler faces possible jail time for not paying over $800,000 in back taxes.  His problems began in earnest in 2006.  He defended Tom Anderson in 2007.  It appears that he was severely distracted when he was defending Anderson.  From the ADN:

"Stockler said that in 2006, the first tax year at issue, he had a lot on his mind. He had been divorced the year before. He was sharing custody of his daughter. He was the lead lawyer in the federal weapons case and other big and complex cases. He was getting notices regarding his 2005 taxes and used that uncertainty as an excuse to delay filing in 2006, then missed one deadline after another, he said in a statement filed in court. 

“I was overwhelmed and felt helpless in dealing with my personal financial obligations beyond immediate living concerns,” he said in a statement filed in court for his sentencing. 

Late in 2006, things got worse when he had to pay back the $1 million through the bankruptcies of Avery and Avery’s Security Aviation company, he said. He didn’t have the money for that and his taxes, he said. “I was embarrassed to admit to anyone that, even though I was a successful attorney, I failed to manage my own life and timely file my tax returns,” Stockler wrote. Mostly, he said, he was disappointed in himself over the kind of example he set for his daughter."

Would Tom Anderson have knowingly hired an attorney who was so overwhelmed with his personal finaciancal problems, his divorce, and taking care of his kid?  Did he give Anderson the best legal defense possible under those circumstances?  (Should attorney's be required to disclose such distractions?  You know that isn't going to happen, and it would be hard to oversee, but when we go to restaurants, we get to see their health department ratings.}

I attended the Anderson trial in summer 2007.  It was my fist real blogging of a public news story.  Here's a post from near the end of the trial that gives some sense of things. Tom had been one of my students and I wanted to see for myself.  Tom made mistakes, but ultimately he was convicted of violating a law that neither he nor most other people even knew existed.  A law that the FBI knew well.  They constructed a sting operation that had all the elements required by the law - a public official, $10,000, and a few other details.   They had Frank Prewitt offer to take out $10,000 in ads in a public policy website Anderson and Bill Bobrick were planning to create.  It would have insider public policy info and people would subscribe to it.   The website never got set up and the prosecutors said it was just a ruse.  But defense convinced me that it was a serious idea, but that Bobrick and Anderson just never got to it, as they never got to other business ideas they had.  But the prosecutors argued the website was just a cover to get Tom $10,000,   The $10.000 is important because its the minimum the law requires for a conviction,  Tom also spoke at a public meeting without disclosing an interest he had in Prewitt's private prison company, though he spoke positively about its competitor as well.  Prewitt went after Anderson, a sitting legislator, trying to get him to do something they could get him on.  Then they wanted him to wear a wire to entrap his fellow legislators.  While Anderson at first agreed, when it came time to go down to Juneau, he didn't feel he could secretly spy on his fellow legislators.  And because he had the moral strength to not spend the session lying to his colleagues, he got the stiffest sentence of all.  That's pretty much what Tom Anderson was sentence to prison for five years over.  (He got off after three years.)

Now his attorney at the time, who, the ADN story tells us, used questionable money from a shady client (whose new trial on misusing $51 million of a trust he was overseeing, is happening right now) and squandered $3 million of it making online stock bets.  And then didn't pay his taxes.

Now, it's possible that Stockler did give Anderson a good defense.  It's what he does well and may have been his escape from all his other problems.  But surely, he would have done a better job if he wasn't distracted by all his person problems.  And he lost the case.

And now Stockler is facing up to two years in prison over $800,000 in back taxes, while Tom was convicted to five years for a $10,000 contribution, he never asked for, to a business that never got off the ground.  Really a technicality.  Many lawyers have told me since, that Tom's penalty was severe as a warning to the other indicted lawmakers so they would cooperate with the FBI and help them catch the bigger fish, Ted Stevens and his son Ben, who never went to trial.

And fellow lawyers are coming to Stockler's defense.  More from the ADN:

"Cabot Christianson, an Anchorage attorney, was on the other side in the Avery bankruptcy case. The settlement of $1.1 million “was an extraordinary sum for a solo practitioner,” Christianson wrote. “While Paul may be a victim of hubris, he is far, far away from being evil, greedy, malicious, or otherwise deserving of severe punishment,” Christianson wrote. Attorney Tim Petumenos said Stockler has been his adversary in court too, yet “his word is gold.” Stockler is hard on himself over his tax troubles and isn’t trying to evade the consequences, Petumenos wrote. Stockler often represents physicians facing medical malpractice complaints or licensing issues. One supporter called him a 'champion of doctors.'”

Lots of generally decent people commit stupid crimes.  They make mistakes, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, they help friends they shouldn't even be friends with.  They are convicted for that crime, even though it's an aberration.  The Fairbanks Four were convicted that way for a crime they didn't even commit - they were nearby.  But even then, they were pressured into an agreement that would ignore all the misconduct by the court system that got them into prison. But they weren't rich and they weren't white.  Last year we heard story after story of young black men who were tried and convicted on the streets by white (and some non-white) police officers.  They weren't give a chance to have character witnesses speak out for them.  

This is not to say that anyone is better off by Stockler going to prison.  It might be much wiser to come up with sentences where he can use is legal talents to help indigent suspects.  Or to work on justice reforms so 'good' people who make mistakes are treated in ways that help them and society.  Or work for a social system that doesn't condemn some kids to awful childhoods where the odds of them running afoul of the law are very high.

And I doubt Anderson would want to go back to court and drag up all this again in a new trial.  He's served his time and moved on with his life.   But he sure would like his name cleared.

But I thought this was a good opportunity to remind people once again about the unfairness of our justice system.  We've been hearing about innocent people of color running tragically afoul of the law a lot.  This is a reminder of well off white men whose 'good character' an be seen by judges and it helps lessen their sentences.   We should be working for a better system overall which a) prevents kids from getting into crime in the first place and b) offers restorative justice options  c) find resolutions that are less costly to society and the families of victims and perpetrators, d) work to rehabilitate rather than punish criminals, and finally, doesn't throw the convicted into prisons where they are subject to more abuse by other prisoners and guards.  

I'd also note that Frank Prewitt, who made the $10,000 offer to Anderson and Boric, using FBI money, was  cooperating with the FBI because of his ties to the head of a private prison who himself was later convicted and sent to prison.  Stockler raised questions in court about a $30,000 loan to Prewitt, when he was the commissioner of corrections, by the private prison company, Allvest.  Money Prewitt never paid taxes on.  Now I understand why Stockler thought of that angle since he was figuring out how to pay taxes on money that appears not that much different from what Prewitt got.

Prewitt, despite denials at Anderson's trial, was paid $200,000 for his work as the prosecutor's witness.   Without Prewitt, Anderson never would have committed the crime he was convicted of, nor would have have been convicted.

Just thought it was a good idea to think about our justice system this morning.

Graffiti On Steroids

This takes graffiti to a whole new level from blublu.



Great idea and lots of work.  Here's BluBlu's blogblog.

I Propose Annexing Matsu To Texas

I wrote a few days ago about Wasilla Rep. Gattis (is Gattis the plural of Gatto?) suggesting that seniors hurt by budget cuts should just move out of state.

I wrote about Sen. Dunleavy last summer when he tried to gut the proposed Erin's Law by filling it with his far-right wing national parents' rights nonsense.   I say 'nonsense' because it's only about parents' rights in a very twisted way.  One whole section, for example, is really about crippling Planned Parenthood.  He had language then, and it's back now in SB 191, to ban school districts from contracting with any abortion provider or anyone who has any contract with an abortion provider.  I wrote about all of this in detail last summer. This was all understood to be aimed at Planned Parenthood. 

My senator, Berta Gardner, asked the legislative legal folks to check into this and they've found various constitutional problems.  Here's a link to LegLegal's letter to Sen. Gardner and here's a few highlights of the problems they listed:

"Free speech and association rights: SB 191 implicates free speech rights in at least two ways. First, it prevents teachers from associating with abortion services providers, which could be construed as an unconstitutional condition. Second, it directly restricts the speech of employees or representatives of abortion services providers. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, sections 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska protect the rights of free speech and association. The United States Supreme Court "has cautioned time and again that public employers may not condition employment on the relinquishment of constitutional rights."1 Likewise, public benefits may not be conditioned on the relinquishment of constitutional rights. 2"

 and

"Bill of attainder: In at least one case, Planned Parenthood has successfully challenged legislation prohibiting abortion services providers from receiving any state funding as a bill of attainder. Article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution and article 1 section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibit the enactment of bills of attainder. "To constitute a bill of attainder, the statute must (1) specify affected persons, (2) impose punishment, and (3) fail to provide for a judicial trial. "7 The primary question in this case would likely be whether the bill "imposes punishment." "To rise to the level of 'punishment' under the Bill of Attainder Clause, harm must fall within the traditional meaning of legislative punishment, fail to further a nonpunitive purpose, or be based on a "[legislative] intent to punish."8 Exclusion from funding can be deemed punishment in some cases, but "the denial of a noncontractual government benefit will not be deemed punishment if the statute leaves open perpetually the possibility of qualifying for aid. "9 Where a statute targets a particular group and makes it impossible for the group to qualify for government funding, it may be viewed as a bill of attainder."

and

"Equal protection: SB 191 also implicates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the Constitution the State Alaska because it singles out employees and representatives abortion services providers for differential treatment."

So, probably Dunleavy and Gattis would really be much more comfortable as part of the Texas legislature and so would many of their constituents.   And the rest of us would be happy to get this kind of destructive craziness out of Alaska.  But, in the meantime, those 51% of voters (at least for Gattis' district) who didn't vote in 2014, please go vote in the primaries and the general election to put saner people into the legislature until we can arrange for your district to become part of Texas. 

Could Trump Win The Presidency?

I recall a time when people couldn't imagine that Ronald Reagan could be nominated for President, let alone elected, so it seems reasonable to seriously look at the possibility of a Trump presidency.

There seems to be a series of questions here - a sort of decision tree.

1.  Is there a way to stop a Trump nomination?
2.  If he's nominated could he possibly win?
3.  If he won, what would things look like?
4.  If he lost, what would be the impact on the Republican Party and the US? (Not to mention the rest of the world.)

In this post I'm just going to play with the first two questions.  (Basically, I plan to just write this off the top of my head.  Then I'll probably google around to see what others have said and decide if I need to revise.)

1.  Is there a way to deny Trump the nomination?

I see several possible ways Trump might not be the Republican nominee.

A.  Anti-Trump candidates pool their delegates for one of their own.  Trump's only getting 30-40 percent of the Republican primary votes.  That means that 60-70 percent of Republicans are voting against him.  I'm not sure what the rules are these days, but in the past, delegates of candidates who drop out can switch to other candidates.  I'm not sure how many delegates each candidate has at this point and we don't know how many they'll have by the convention.  It's hard to imagine Cruz giving his votes to Rubio and vice versa.  But this whole primary has been hard to imagine.  This is a numbers problem and check with those blogs that tally delegate counts.  

B.  Trump's past or something he says or does will cost him his base or outrage enough people that he is forced to pull out.   One could say that he's tried everything possible already, so this is unlikely.  Sometimes i think that he's deliberately trying to destroy the Republican party by insulting everyone he can think of.  His followers seem to be excited by his style of saying fuck you to everyone who crosses him, not by his content.  I don't see how he can lose the faithful if he keeps up this style until he gets nominated.  Can he say or do something that would cause the Republican Party to ban him from the party?  I'm not sure.

C. He gets seriously ill or dies.

D.  The Republican establishment changes or manipulates the delegate procedures to thwart his nomination.  Probably the most likely way to stop him.  But Trump would probably run as an independent candidate.


2.  If he's nominated, can he win?

This presidential election calls to mind two elections that I've lived through:  Goldwater and Reagan. Of the two, this one seems much more like Goldwater.

Goldwater and Reagan

Goldwater was a US Senator, so he was more of an insider than Trump.  But he was seen as extreme in his own party.  And he was supported by the John Birch Society, somewhat similar to the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party.  A big difference is that Goldwater was a senator when senators referred to each other as "the honorable Senator from  . . ." and debated civilly and didn't publicly call each other names.

Reagan was an outsider, but he had been governor of California.  (His signature is on my UCLA diploma.)  He was supported by party establishment and followed their script closely, literally reading the teleprompter in his actor role as 'the candidate.'

Of the two, I'd say this year is more like 1964 when Goldwater ran against Lyndon B. Johnson and lost badly.

That said, many would argue that the old rules no longer apply.  I'd say that's true of the rules of thumb of political pundits, but not the underlying rules of how people behave and politics work.


Can Trump Get Elected?

Trump is getting 30-40% of Republicans.  As I've said repeatedly, that means 60-70% of Republicans oppose him.  Is there any way he could win the election if nominated?

1.  He could totally turn his back on the people who have been supporting him and present himself as a much more moderate candidate.  I'm not sure he could pull off such a change and whether it would be credible to most people.

2.  He could totally attack his opponent - Clinton, Sanders, or whatever surprise is ahead - as he's done with his Republican competitors in the primaries.  I suspect Clinton or Sanders will be ready and that for the majority of American voters, it will be reason to vote against Trump.

This all leads me to wonder whether he's just running to destroy the Republican party.  He keeps being more and more outrageous, maybe wondering if there is anything he can say or do to alienate his supporters.  It seems not.  Maybe if he pushes gun control.  Maybe this is all a show on his part to expose the hypocrisy of our political system.

Reagan won in part because the persona he presented was this firm, but loving father/grandfather figure who knew right from wrong and would take care of his family.  It's also reported that he won because his team secretly negotiated with the Iranians who had taken hostages in the US embassy and agreed to buy arms from them to sell to the Nicaraguans if they kept the hostages until after Reagan became president.  If that's true, and I'm inclined to believe it's more likely than not, it would amount to treason.  But the Reagan hero machine ignores such details.


My guess is that:

1.  Hillary Clinton will be able to credibly respond to Trump's attacks without lowering herself to his level.
2.  Trump's crude attacks will not go over well beyond his current supporters.
3.  Many Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump because they simply cannot vote for a Democrat, especially a  woman.
4.  Others will not vote for Trump, but may vote for other candidates.  Basically though, a Trump candidacy will depress Republican voters and will probably be a big turnout generator for Democrats.
5.  Clinton will win big, like Lyndon Johnson did in 1964.

I believe that Trump is the kind of guy who believes in the success of any project he takes on.  He's not doing this to destroy the Republicans, but to become president.  He feels himself qualified and he only sees the positive outcome of himself as the future president.  Just as his campaign so far has surprised everyone, he believes that will continue.

Clinton will lose votes because she's a woman.  But she'll also get votes because she's a woman.  A close relative argues, persuasively, that Clinton is the most qualified candidate in history.  She's got private sector experience as an attorney.  She's had a birds' eye view of the presidency for eight years.  She's been a US Senator.  She's run for president before.  She's been secretary of state.  She knows many of the world's leaders.  She's dealt with critics in the media and in Congress.  And she's head and shoulders more qualified than any of the Republicans.  But then a woman has to be twice as good to get to this point.

The difference in qualifications and style between the two candidates will be so overwhelming that sane Americans (and I think that's still a majority of the voters) will not have choice but to vote for Clinton or not vote at all.  The question will be whether those normally conservative leaning voters will just skip voting for president or whether they abandon the whole ballot.  I think a sizable number simply won't vote.  What they do will impact the Senate and possibly cut deeply into the Republican majority in the House.  And the governors elected this election will be the ones with influence in the 2020 redistricting.

Trump will do his best to pull Clinton down to his level as he's done with his opponents in the primaries.  Clinton's strategy will be to hit him hard with facts, but leave the name calling to Trump.  Surrogates will defend her.

Now, who has thoughts on the vice presidential candidates?

Snow, Sun, Rain, Warm, Wind, Snow, Ice, Cold, Sun

We had snow the day after we arrived in Chicago.  Since then we've had rain, clouds, sun, wind, and yesterday more snow.  It even got up to about 60˚F on Sunday.  But that was short lived.

Monday night, after dinner with relatives we hadn't seen in years - well, we'd seen the parents, but now it's just our generation left - it was snowing in the northern Chicago suburbs.

When we got back to where we're staying, there was no snow.  But the next morning, the windshield was solid ice.

And as we were headed to breakfast it started snowing again.  Today we'll fly back to Seattle, so yesterday was a low key day to just hang out with our friends and get ready to end this trip.




We had a great breakfast out.   Here's the remains of chocolate chip waffles.












Then over to the conservatory which is always nice, but on a snowy day would be great.

  It's hard to see the snow flying, but you can get a sense of the wind from the flag.   But inside was another world.

My granddaughter had a wonderful time looking at the giant lemons, smelling the different flowers, watching the huge koi and the turtles in the pond.

Then back into the snowy world of March 1, 2016.


These last few days, I have begun to understand why Outsiders are so leery of Alaska winter weather.  In Chicago, when it's 30˚F, it's cold!!

The sweatshirt over a couple of shirts I'd wear in Anchorage in that weather was totally inadequate in the sharp damp wind.




And today, as we get ready for our afternoon flight to Seattle, the sun is out again, but it's still chilly.

Rep. Gattis Wants Poor Seniors To Leave Alaska

Following the mythical ancient tradition of putting elders on ice floes when they can no longer contribute to the survival of the village,  KTVA reports Rep. Gattis (R -Wasilla) said

". . . people with families here should be able to stay in Alaska, only if they can afford it on their own." 

 Actually,  The Full Wiki tells us that,

"Senicide among the Inuit people was rare, except during famines."

Famine is when there is no food and people are starving to death.  Short of famine and imminent death of the whole community, Inuit share with all their community members.

Alaska is not facing starvation.  We have almost ten years worth of budget money in the Permanent Fund and other reserve funds.  We aren't at the point where sending people off on ice floes makes sense, morally or practically.  Besides, because of global warming, we have fewer ice floes.

And since we have plenty of wealth, if we use Inuit logic, we'd take care of all the people in our community.

But that's besides the point.  Let's look at a little more of the quote from KTVA:

"She said in tight budget times, the state has to pick and choose where to put its money, and shouldn’t “subsidize” people to stay. “Here’s our challenge — when you lose two-thirds of your budget, where do you put the money?” Gattis asked. “Do you put it in road plowing? Do you put it in safe roads? Do you put it in police? Do you put it in fire departments? Do you put it in corrections? Do you put it in subsidizing people to stay here because that’s what they thought they wanted to do?” Gattis said before asking her constituents to pay taxes, she wants to make sure programs in the budget are ones they’re willing to pay for."

[Let's not even mention that Republicans have been responsible for the Alaska budget for the past ten years or so and they've been repeatedly warned that it wasn't sustainable.]

If people can't afford to live in Alaska, how could they afford to pick up and leave Alaska and get to and survive anywhere else?  Those who have some support from family and friends, would lose that help if they left,  making survival even harder.

I'm guessing this is Rep. Gattis' logic:

The state is spending more than it is getting in revenue.
Therefore we must cut the state budget.
Therefore we must cut things that are not essential.
Among those things that are not essential is aid for poor seniors - like the Pioneers Home I guess.

Her logic for the state is also applied to people.
If people are spending more than they are taking in, then they should leave the state.

Lookout Lower 48, Alaska is sending you its old and poor.  

Now, if all states took that approach, where would they go?  Do we make some holes in Mr. Trump's wall and send them off to Mexico?  Maybe Alaskans can take them to the Canadian border.   And what about Alaska Natives whose families have been in Alaska for millennia?  Where should we send them?

But there are two parts of balancing the budget and she's only addressing spending, but why not just raise the state revenue?   Why not have those who are benefiting from living in Alaska help support those who are old and not doing so well?  Maybe the company they worked for has reneged on its promises to pay a pension.  Maybe there was an illness and the health care used up their retirement savings.  None of that matters to Gattis, cause she's a tough fiscal conservative.

Let's get rid of the riffraff who don't contribute.

But these seniors probably do contribute in ways that Gattis isn't considering.  Maybe they are providing care for their grandchildren - teaching them family history, preparing their meals, getting them ready for school by reading books to them.  Maybe their care of those kids allows the mother to work and contribute to Alaska's economy.

Splitting up families seems inconsistent with the party that claims to be for family values.

There's a point where Gattis' logic makes sense.  But Gattis takes this concept and applies it in such a mean and narrow-minded way that she violates many other important values, particularly the value of family.    But like many literal, concrete thinkers, she fails to see all the intangible benefits of having seniors among us.

Gattis' Reelection website says:

Lynn believes our government’s role is to provide 

• Reasonable and stable tax policy 

• Reasonable regulation 

• Educated, trained and energetic work force 

• Low cost energy 

• Supportive infrastructure 

• Strong public safety 

• Strong support of quality community livability 

So, does 'strong support of quality community livability' mean, sending your grandparents out of state?  And does 'Reasonable and stable tax policy" mean no taxes?


Voters of Wasilla - thanks again for putting people like Gattis into the state legislature.  The news media appreciate you giving them things to write about.

What?  You live in Wasilla and didn't vote for her?  Actually, most of you didn't vote at all.  Only 49% of District 9 voters voted in the November 2014 election.  Only 33% of registered voters voted for Gattis. You don't think voting matters?   Wait till your grandmother gets deported. 

[Sorry, more feedburner problems]

Yesterday Would Have Been Jackie Gleason's 100th BD, Today, Dinah Shore's

When I posted my list of people born in 1916, I was in a rush.  I put some details up about some of the people I found most interesting, but decided I didn't need to put up info on everyone until their birthdays came up.  And few had been born at the beginning of the year.  Well, I missed Jackie Gleason yesterday (fixed it now) and added some stuff for Dinah Shore.  I find it interesting to see who all were contemporaries born the same year.  So, if you missed the post, here's the link.

Several were still alive when I put it up.

Meanwhile here's a little an episode of the Honeymooners. It gives us a hint at why women have worked hard for more rights. Despite the fact that Alice is obviously smarter and more capable than Ralph, the 'traditional values" back then gave Ralph the idea that he was justified being the jerk he is.


The show does tend to unmask the oppressive position of husbands over wives.

Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI

The Apple v. FBI debate seems to be one of the most important, long-lasting, and potentially game-changing threats to the liberty of US citizens, and people around the world.

The US has always struggled with how to balance government power and personal liberty.  Past breaches of human rights were to justified because of perceived risks to national physical or economic security.   The US constitution embraced slavery.  And in 1798, soon after it was ratified, the US passed the Alien and Sedition Act, because

"[a]s one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to 'invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity.'"

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

In the Dred Scott decision

"the [Supreme] Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States."

There's a long history of abuses against Native Americans.

The Roosevelt Administration interned US citizens of Japanese descent during WW II.

There's Guantanamo and torture following the 9/11 attacks.

There are the thousands of civilian deaths and injuries due to our current drone attacks.

So I tend to be skeptical of the FBI's claims of national security when they pressure Apple to create a way to hack their own encryption.  I'm not all that trusting of Apple either in the long run, but in this case I'm more likely to support Apple's stand than, say, I would Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions stands against government regulation.

But like probably most Americans, I don't really understand the details of this.  It's not as obvious as waterboarding.

So I offer this link to The Intercepts' post Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI.