58% of Precincts Reporting - Numbers Look More Like Expected

Here's the 21:39 report with 58% of precincts reporting.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 2 - SEAT A	Votes	Percent
Demboski	1252
Begich	811	39.34%
Write In Votes	12	0.58%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT D
Perman	950	15.52%
Darden	287	4.69%
Croft	2943	48.07%
Trombley	1920	31.36%
Write In Votes	22	0.36%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 - SEAT F
Alleva	1179
Traini	2041	62.55%
Write In Votes	43	1.32%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT H
Dunbar	2478	59.06%
Gales	1704	40.61%
Write In Votes	14	0.33%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 6 - SEAT J
Schimscheimer	497	14.25%
Weddleton	1468	42.10%
Taylor	1498	42.96%
Write In Votes	23	0.69%
SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A
Davis	11,394	57.79%
Hughes	8126	41.22%
Write In Votes	196	0.99%
SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT B
Schuster	6486	34.91%
Nees	5472	29.45%
Marsett	6406	34.48%

Very First Anchorage Election Returns Show Conservative Surge

It's not clear what these votes represent.   It says 0.0% of 124 precincts reporting.

So, are these early votes?  There really aren't enough of them and in the past these have been counted after all the other votes were counted.

Did someone hack the machines and get things primed with a starting bias?  (Just asking questions that pop into my mind.)  I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation.  But let's get the starting numbers documented.

This is for 20:03 pm - so no votes have even had time to get downtown to the election headquarters yet.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 2 - SEAT A
DEMBOSKI, Amy 253 72.49%
BEGICH, Nicholas 94 26.93%
Write-in Votes 2 0.57%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT D
PERMAN, Ira 40 11.66%
DARDEN, Dustin 11 3.21%
CROFT, Eric 114 33.24%
TROMBLEY, Adam1 78 51.90%
Write-in Votes 0 0.00%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 - SEAT F
ALLEVA, Ron 111 39.78%
TRAINI, Dick 164 58.78%
Write-in Votes 4 1.43%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT H
DUNBAR, Forrest 188 45.97%
GALES, Terre 219 53.55%
Write-in Votes 2 0.49%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 6 - SEAT J
SCHIMSCHEIMER, Mark 76 13.82%
WEDDLETON, John 170 30.91%
TAYLOR, Treg 301 54.73%
Write-in Votes 3 0.55%

SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A
DAVIS, Bettye 840 44.03%
HUGHES, Brent 1050 55.03% Write-in Votes 18 0.94%

SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT B
SCHUSTER, Kay 693 37.77%
NEES, David 604 32.92%
MARSETT, Starr 519 28.28%




[UPDATE: Here is the first report for the propositions.]

PROP 1 ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
YES 746 35.93%
NO 1330 64.07%
PROP 2 MARIJUANA SALES TAX
YES 1703 81.37%
NO 390 18.63%
PROP 3 AREA SAFETY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
YES 1243 59.13%
NO 859 40.87%
PROP 4 PARKS & REC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
YES 907 43.33%
NO 1186 56.67%
Prop 4 Parks and Rec Capital Improvements
YES 766 44.07%
NO 972 55.93%
PROP 5 ARDSA STORM & DRAINAGE
YES 1059 50.36%
NO 1044 49.64%
Prop 5 Ardsa & Strom and Drainage Bonds
YES 805 52.72%
NO 722 47.28%
PROP 6 ANCHORAGE FIRE SERVICE AREA FIRE PROTECTION BONDS
YES 1276 60.56%
NO 831 39.44%
Prop 6 Anchorage Fire Service Area Protection Bonds
YES 1203 60.67%
NO 780 39.33%
PROP 7 ANCHORAGE METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE AREA FACILITIES BONDS
YES 1101 52.35%
NO 1002 47.65%
Prop 7 Anchorage Metropoliain Police Service Area Facities
YES 1093 52.40%
NO 993 47.60%
PROP 8 TAX INCREASE LIMITATION
YES 1444 69.56%
NO 632 30.44%

Clutter Wars: Mom Liked Pussy Willows, Files, Neighborhood Clutter

My mom's house and garage are a great stimulus to clean out our own stuff and we're working on it daily.  But the inflow of paper courtesy of the US mail makes it a never ending process.

But then there's stuff that has meaning.  For instance, my mom loved pussy willows and had bunches of dried pussy willows in vases around the house when she died.  My heartless friends saved me lots of agonizing decision making by glaring at me and pointing to the garden recycling bin in LA.  (Thank you, really.)

But as I wandered our snow free yard recently, I couldn't help but break off some fresh pussy willows.  There's a reason my mom like them.





So I put them in a vase in the bathroom.



Then I saw the little glass bowl where I've put the even littler blue velvet bag with some of my mom's ashes.  Since my mom like the pussy willows, I thought I'd put her next to them.

I understand this could seem rather bizarre, but having a bit of my mom nearby gives me some sense of normalcy, that she's still around.  I can share things with her that she would like.  Fortunately, I have no sense of her being there when I wouldn't want her watching me.   She always gave me lots of space and freedom and never guilted me over things.  That was a great gift.

As I said, I've been tackling old paperwork, sorting through files upon files.  One pile is for direct transit to the recycling bin.  (I've been removing this pile before getting more files, so there was a lot more than just this.)  Another pile has to be shredded first - anything with identifiers, particularly social security numbers.

As you can see in the picture, there are a lot of empty folders too.  Some go to recycling, some I might reuse.

And there are things to sort through more carefully.  For instance, I found a small envelope from my father with a handwritten label, "Some poetry Steve might enjoy reading."   There's insight to parts of my father's life we never discussed when he was alive.  And then there's a poem called "Heimweh."  Only the title is in German (it means homesick).  It's about suddenly thinking about his childhood home and how it made him cry..  (His aunt in Chicago helped him secure a visa so he could flee Nazi Germany, but he was never able to secure visas to get his parents out.)   The last stanza gives some justification for keeping some of this stuff.

"I shed my tears in agony
for I was mourning,
      but in vain,
since all the world that
      used to be
will never be again"

My father lives here still with me, through his poems, his old letters, some of his things and documents.  This document was in the same folder with the poems.

It fills in bits and pieces of his life I knew very little about.  This was in files I'd glanced through after he died and knew enough to keep for sorting later.  Later is here, I guess.  It's back into another keep and look through later pile.  But I'm getting rid of a lot of the stuff that is just taking up room.  And while the historian/archeologist in me would keep all the old income tax folders and checkbooks, because they do document the times I lived and how we spent money and how much things cost, my mom's garage screams out at me to just shred it.  

Here's the nearly empty file cabinet where all this came from.  There are some folders I still need to go through and sort more carefully, but this does feel like I've accomplished something.







And then I walked around the block to get some fresh air and was reminded that my clutter level wasn't all that bad.







Here's the house that burned last month.

And here's another neighbor's backyard.  

And front yard.





Stuff!!  Glad I don't have to clean out their yard and house.

This Seemed Obvious Last November

An LA Times article Saturday said:

"For months, as Donald Trump lurched from controversy to controversy, commentators marveled that his voters remained loyal: Trump is impervious to political attack, some said.
Not so. Trump wasn't immune; analysts were just failing to look at the whole board."

I don't usually write, "I told you so" posts, but when I read that, I couldn't help but think about this post I put up in November:

Trump's Poll Numbers: 70-80% Of Republicans Support Someone Else

That post said that when the media focus his poll numbers and on the percent of votes Trump was getting in the multi-candidate Republican primaries, they were missing the bigger picture - that most Republicans were voting against Trump.  The post stepped back even further and said if you counted all voters - Republicans, Democrats, and all the various independent voters - he was only pulling about 7% of all voters.  He was the biggest fish in the relatively small Republican party pond.  But in the bigger pond, he was pretty small.

At that point I was only saying how many people were voting for others, I didn't have a basis to say that the rest had a strong unfavorable impression of him.  But the LA Times article says that evidence is now available.

"While Trump’s polarizing campaign did not dent his standing with core supporters in the Republican primaries, it took a punishing toll on how the rest of the electorate views him. Trump’s image, which was poor even before he ran for president, has plunged to an unequaled low. Among scores of major political figures measured in polls over the last 30 years, Trump’s numbers are the worst.
If Trump were to win the GOP presidential nomination with his current public image, he would be the most unpopular nominee in the history of U.S. opinion surveys, veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart said in an email."

The article goes on to explain why people think Trump has no chance to win the presidency if he gets the Republican nomination.  While I think that's the case - and said so in the November post - I'd haggle a little with this point made in the LA Times article:

"Many examples certainly exist of public figures who have succeeded in improving damaged reputations.  .  .
Usually, however, political candidates' images get worse, not better, during a campaign. Democratic strategists are counting on that."

I would argue that

• historically, candidates haven't gotten the primary exposure of the 2012 and 2016 Republican primaries (all the multi-candidate Republican debates and all the social media exposure), so I'd expect the candidates today are better known and much of the damage is already done
• candidates who have gotten past nominations had much better approval ratings going into the election, so it would be more likely for their ratings to dip
• if Trump does get the nomination, I expect he'd change his presentation to reflect his new audience, though it's hard to be sure what is bluster for the far right (that could be changed) and what is true Trump (that would be harder to change)

• 
  

[Sorry for reposting, Feebburner issues again.]

Instead Of Taxes, How About An Alaska Membership Fee?

Back in 2008, at his corruption trial, Vic Kohring said that he had signed a 'no taxes' pledge.  He could not vote for any tax.  However, if the tax were called a fee, he might be able to vote for it.

Eight years later we still have legislators who are allergic to the word 'tax' and break out in hives and start hyperventilating when anyone utters the word.  Some key legislators in Juneau are willing to inflict enormous damage to the state of Alaska rather than even consider something like an income tax.

I have a proposal.

The Alaska Membership Fee

Everyone who lives in Alaska is eligible to buy a membership.  Memberships would be sold on a sliding scale based on factors such as net worth, income, location, age, etc.

The biggest attraction of the membership would be:

• eligibility to apply for an Alaska Permanent Fund Check  - it wouldn't guarantee eligibility for the check, but without  an Alaska Membership Card (AMC) one couldn't apply.  

There could be a number of other perks one gets with an AMC such as:

• free public education
• discounts (or even free pass for higher levels) at state parks, state ferry, state run airports
• access to Pioneer Homes
• discounts and scholarships at University of Alaska campuses
• discounts for driver's license, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, etc.
• use of the Anchorage LIO when legislators aren't there

People who live in rural areas will have different needs from people who live in urban areas.  Age may also lead to different kinds and levels of service.  These will all be figured out.  Or, the legislature might decide that simplicity may be preferable to complicated pricing and eligibility requirements and choose to use one or two factors, such as income or net worth.  

Alaska Membership would help people realize the different benefits they get from the state that they normally enough without even thinking about it.  After all, good government is invisible.  Most people only notice government when it stops working well:

• when diseases break out 
• when potholes aren't repaired
• when traffic lights don't work
• when police abuse citizens
• when foster kids are abused
• when their own kids don't learn at school 
• when garbage piles up and air is polluted 
• when the water is no longer safe to drink
• when state parks are all closed and local park equipment is broken
• when voting machines are hacked
• when gasoline pumps show more gallons than you actually got

When such government services break down, we end up paying more to deal with the consequences:

• higher insurance and repair bills because of poorly engineered and maintained roads, contaminated water and air
• lost work days and health costs because of lack of sanitation or access to basic health care
• shortsighted legislators because of poor schooling
• lost work time because of long waits in line because there aren't enough employees
• higher need for police, courts, and social services because foster kids aren't well supported
• weaker economy because business can't get good employees when government services make Alaska an undesirable place to live

You get the point.  Some of our influential legislators don't.  Their mantra is 'government is bad,'  'taxes are worse." 

But we wouldn't have to have an income tax or a sales tax.  Instead we'd all become members of the State of Alaska and our membership fees would go towards all those services that our legislators say are wasteful luxuries, like health care for the poor, like school teachers.  

Mostly, the creation of Alaska Membership would remove the key obstacle for those legislators who,  like Kohring,  can't accept the word tax, but could get behind a fee.  And it would be voluntary.  No one would have to join, but they couldn't apply for the Alaska Permanent Fund  check if they didn't.  And they could buy Alaska T-shirts and hats at a discount.  

I'd note that plenty of organizations, public and private, already use sliding scale fees for their services.  Here are just a couple of examples: 

Airlines
Health Care
Independent Adoption Center
Golf Clubs and Health Clubs
Private Schools
Universities
Movies
Museums
Hotels

Trump Firing Slovenian Born Wife For American Born Spouse

There has been some low level sniping about the most anti-immigration presidential candidate in anyone's memory having had two immigrant wives and only one American born wife.  Apparently the ratio is going to be evened up.

Trump was almost 29 when he married his first wife, Czech born Ivana, in 1977.  Although she was three years younger, Trump was her second husband.  By the time she was 43, he lost interest in her and she divorced him in 1992 because he was carrying on with American born model Marla Maples.  They married in December 1993, about two months after their son was born.  Maples was 30 years old when they married, 17 years younger than Trump.

This marriage to an American born woman lasted only six years, until Maples was 36 in 1999.

Trump didn't remarry until 2005, to another foreign born woman,  also from the former Soviet bloc - this time to another model,  Melania Knauss, from Slovenia.  She was 23 years younger than Trump.   Eleven years later and they are still married.

But Trump's supporters, contrasting his love for immigrant woman to his anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric, have begun to question whether Trump really walks his talk.

Pressure increased with the December release of Michael Moore's latest film Where To Invade Next?, which included a section on Slovenia's free college education for all students, including Americans.  Moore interviewed students at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, where education is free*.  

Given that one of Bernie Sanders' key proposals is free public university education for all, it's particularly galling to Trump's supporters that Trump's wife actually attended the University of Ljubljana  (and knows how to pronounce it), the very university Moore featured in what Trump fans see as an American hating film.

Knauss is also pushing 36 now, and pundits are speculating it is time to switch to a younger, American-born wife, with whom Trump's supporters would be much more comfortable in the White House.  I wasn't able to track down any information on the mystery lady.

More on this story can be found here.

*I met a Slovenian in Anchorage this week and I mentioned the free college education featured in the movie.  He made a face and said, "You get what you pay for."

Last Day To Apply For Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Check

We were headed to a meeting downtown around 2pm and noticed the line outside the PFD office.   A lot shorter than the lines at the Democratic caucus Saturday.

March 31 is the deadline to file.

Lots of question marks over the future of the fund, as corporations want to tap into the fund now that oil prices are low and the state's short of money, rather than to impose income taxes.  That makes sense since in Alaska, corporations aren't yet 'people' when it comes to applying for a Permanent Fund Dividend.  Since the amount of the checks is based on a five year average, the drop in oil prices this past year shouldn't have too big an effect this year.

From the Permanent Fund website:

"How the PFD amount is calculated

• Add Fund Statutory Net Income from the current plus the previous four fiscal years.
• Multiply by 21%
• Divide by 2
• Subtract prior year obligations, expenses and PFD program operations
• Divide by the number of eligible applicants"

Will Alaska Buy Virgin? Will Jet Blue? Will All Three Combine? [Updated]

I'm not sure why I got this message through LinkedIn or how to link to it. It's from George Hobica at Airlineswatchdog.  You have to register to get the new alerts there, so I'm just handing off below the key points.  He doesn't like the name Alaska for an airline.

"Bloomberg is reporting that Virgin America is entertaining sale offers to jetBlue and Alaska Air. 

Which combination makes more sense? From a route perspective, jetBlue and Virgin America have a lot of overlap (lots of trans-con routes such as Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Washington, JFK to the West Coast), so Alaska Air would be a better match, although jetBlue also has a large presence in the Caribbean and Latin America, which neither Alaska nor Virgin has. On the other hand, Alaska flies mostly Boeing 737s, while jetBlue and Virgin share the same Airbus aircraft, which would make maintenance, crew training, obtaining a joint operating certificate, and purchasing less expensive. 

Perhaps we'll eventually see a three-way tie-up? Alaska/jetBlue/Virgin into a carrier more capable of competing with United, Delta, American, and Southwest? I vote for the combined carrier to operate under the jetBlue banner. It's just a better airline name than Alaska, which as a brand is too tied geographically to a particular state (even though it flies everywhere these days). And I've never liked the sexual connotation of "Virgin." Sorry, Richard Branson, you cheeky thing."

JetBlue has been keeping Alaska prices low from Anchorage to places like Seattle and LA.  Combining them doesn't sound like a good move for Alaska passengers.

[UPDATE April 5:  The New York Times documented the official announcement that Alaska Airlines bought Virgin.  Of the possible combinations, this one seems the most promising for people living in Alaska.  The two weren't really competing the way Alaska and Jet Blue were, so the immediate effect shouldn't be to raise rates.  And Virgin has a loyal customer base that, I'm told by a friend who flies Virgin a lot, expects better service than Alaska gives.  The New York Times puts it this way: "

"a brand beloved by its cadre of customers who adore its cheeky image, onboard Wi-Fi and soothi"ng onboard purple lighting."

Well, the planes to and from Alaska (the state) tend to be mostly the new style with plug-ins at every seat.  Wifi is pretty common on most Alaska flights already (Go-Go, not free, but the same is true for Virgin).  But if the New York Times reporter flew on the planes we flew between Seattle and Chicago and Seattle and San Francisco, I can understand his ho-hum expectations.  They were the old planes without the plug-ins and cleaner look.

Virgin has spots in San Francisco so there's hope for some non-stops from Anchorage to San Francisco (where I have a cute little reason to travel.)  The biggest challenge it seems, based on comments from L below, will be meshing the Airbus fleet with the Boeing fleet, as well as the two cultures.  Alaska is a well run airline and I'm betting that in three years this will be a success, but there are no guarantees.]

A Flock Of Raindrops Landed In Our Trees

Media Focus On 31 [38] Deaths In Belgium - Not 21,000 Who Died Worldwide Of Starvation That Day

Despite what any of us think about our own media sophistication, the media's coverage of 'the news' definitely impacts what we think is important.  Those with the best critical thinking skills can comb through a report and find the inconsistencies, the inaccuracies, the lack of historical or social context.  But what about the stories that simply aren't told at all?  Like the 21,000 people who die each day of hunger?

The amount of coverage given particular events affects how people think and their understanding of how the world works, and ultimately how they vote.  I thought about this as I read  a Sunday New York Times column in which Nicholas Kristoff, discusses the media's role in helping Trump win Republican primaries.  In part:

“Trump is not just an instant ratings/circulation/clicks gold mine; he’s the motherlode,” Ann Curry, the former “Today” anchor, told me. “He stepped on to the presidential campaign stage precisely at a moment when the media is struggling against deep insecurities about its financial future. The truth is, the media has needed Trump like a crack addict needs a hit. . .”

". . .An analysis by The Times found that we in the news media gave Trump $1.9 billion in free publicity in this presidential cycle. That’s 190 times as much as he paid for in advertising, and it’s far more than any other candidate received. As my colleague Jim Rutenberg put it, some complain that “CNN has handed its schedule over to Mr. Trump,” and CNN had lots of company.

The piece looks at how some of the most media savvy folks (reporters and editors) got caught up in the Trump coverage.  Some were taken in by Trump.  Most seem to have been taken in by how a Trump story boosts ratings.  And I'm sure there were plenty in the media who knew exactly what they were doing when they put Trump on prime time or the headlines.

So let's look again at our fear of terrorists and how the news stokes it.

We've had saturation coverage of the bombings in Brussels this week.  31 people died.  That's one less than the number of American citizens killed by terrorists worldwide in 2015 as reported by START (Study of Terrorism And Response to Terrorism)

Yet, 21,000 people worldwide die of hunger daily!  Yes, daily, as in every day of the year.  Can you picture a few kids, bones showing through their skin, breathing their last breaths?

Have you ever seen a headline that said, "21,000 people dead of hunger yesterday (and the day before and today and tomorrow, and  . . .)"  Of course you haven't  In fact, terrorism kills a very small number of Americans and a larger, but still relatively small, number of others per year.  Statista says that 37,000 people died, worldwide in terrorist attacks in 2015, or about about 100 per day.  Not a small number unless you compare it to the people who die of hunger each day.

For a little more perspective, here's a table showing the the top causes of death (for Americans) annually and daily.  How many of these do you see in the media?  Most frequently the ones that happen in public.  The more blood and violence, the more likely it will be covered.  The others are only mentioned if a famous person dies of them.  (I added in terrorism and subtracted 32 from the 'all other causes' stats.)

Cause of Death (US) Mostly From: Statistic Brain	Total/year	Total/Day
Heart Disease	616,067	1,688
Cancer	562,875	1,542
Strple	135,952	372
Chronic lower respitory disease	127,924	350
Accidents (Unintentional Injuries)	123,708	339
Altzheimer's Disease	74,632	204
Diabetes	71,382	196
Influenza and Pneumonia	52,717	144
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syncrome, Nephrosis	49,448	127
Septicemia	34,828	95
Suicide	34,598	95
Chronic Liver Disease	29,165/td>	80
Hypertension	23,965	66
Parkinson's Disease	20,058	55
Assault (homicide)	18,361	95
Terrorist Attack	32	0
All Other Causes	451,032	1,236
Total Annual U.S. Deaths	2,432,712	1,236

[NOTE:  Gun deaths are hidden in accidental, suicide, and assault figures.]

Think about how many headlines you see about these different causes of death each week.  How does the coverage affect our perceptions of the danger of each and how much money is spent to prevent each?

The World Food Program (WFP  )calculates that US$3.2 billion is needed per year  to reach all 66 million hungry school-age children around the world.   Surely the  7.4 billion people alive now can scrounge up that much.  Bill Gates could handle that for 22 years just with what he has today before he ran out of money.  And he is attempting, through his foundation, to make effective expenditures around the world.

 The White House's 2017 anti-terrorism budge   for just two Departments is $11 billion:

"provides over $11 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State to support U.S. efforts to continue to hunt down terrorists; provide training and equipment to forces fighting ISIL on the ground; help stabilize communities liberated from ISIL in Syria and Iraq; disrupt ISIL’s financing and recruitment; strengthen our regional partners, provide humanitarian assistance to those impacted by the conflict; and support a political solution to the Syrian civil war."
Global Terrorism Index 

Note:  This is only Departments of State and Defense.   This does not include the Departments of Homeland Security or Justice. (Finding a simple map of agencies with counter terrorism missions is not easy.)


But we don't need Bill Gates or the US Government.  A list at Mental Floss tells us that Americans spent in 2011:

• $34.6 billion on gambling
• $4.2 billion on perfume
• $11 billion on engagement and wedding rights
• $1.7 billion on Valentine's Day flowers (that's just one day!)
• $25. 4 billion on professional sports
• $18 billion on credit card late fees

And world wide people spent

• $5 billion for ringtones

That comes to $100 billion a year!  I'm not saying people should give up all this, but  I suspect that some clever social media entrepreneurs should be able to figure out a way to painlessly intercept 3% of that to feed the 66 millio school age kids the World Food Program estimates are hungry around the world.

We just need to know the numbers.  And the media has a responsibility to track those numbers as they write their stories and give us information that helps us better understand the big picture - not just the easiest sensational event that happened yesterday.  The media have a responsibility to put things in context and make the most significant issues we face as compelling as the stuff they focus on now.


Note:  The exact numbers of people dying of hunger and terrorism vary from source to source because of how numbers are tracked, what years are reported, etc. The numbers I've used are clearly in the ballpark.   Here are a couple of other sources I looked at.

 17,000 kids under five died daily 2013

Global Terrorism Numbers Chart