Hammond On Income Tax Repeal: "Once repealed, we'll never get it back until we've raided all other revenue sources, and/or traumatically cut even crucial state programs."

Charles Wohlforth's column in the Alaska Dispatch News today is headlined,

"Permanent Fund hard-liners play chicken with Alaska's finances"

I realize that he probably didn't write the headline, but it does seem to reflect his point of view.  The third paragraph

"Our question is whether it is wise to pay out a dividend of more than $2,000 per person when our state government is going down the tubes. And a deeper question: Is paying dividends the only purpose of the Permanent Fund?"

But I'm also doing some marathon reading of Jay Hammond's Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor
for Monday night's book club meeting.  (Yesterday's post looked at his take on how the all-Alaska pipeline instead of a Canadian line has cost the state billions.)

And I've just read the chapter (28) that focuses directly on the reasoning behind the Permanent Fund, the dividend, and the great mistake of repealing the income tax.

Really, if people want to get a sense of who has it right and whose policy stances are clouded by ideology or personal gain, it helps to look at what people said in the past and what they are saying now.  Of course, some folks today didn't say much in the past, but we can look at the people they hang with.

And we can reassess whether Wohlforth's article should be naming the Permanent Fund supporters as playing chicken OR the people who have consistently stopped the reinstatement of an income tax.  I'd also note that one of the three who filed suit, Clem Tillion, was a close ally of Jay Hammond during the Permanent Fund dividend battles.  He knows the history and I'm sure he knows Hammond's predictions.

The book was published in 1994 - so that's 22 years ago.  But in the context, it appears that these were his positions at the time - in the early 1980s, probably with some editing as the future got clearer.

The Permanent Fund dividend had been enacted.  But at the same time there was a push to eliminate the state income tax.  Hammond strongly opposed this.  He at least wanted it to stay on the books, even if it was greatly reduced, even to zero.

"I thought repeal was stupid.  Worse, I imprudently said so.  'Reduce it if you will;  suspend it if you must.  But for heaven's sake, don't repeal it or you'll cut the one string connecting the citizen's pocketbook to the government purse, and see state spending soar.  If people no longer feel it's their tax dollars 'those idiots in Juneau are spending,' a major restraint on government growth and spending will be lost.  Once repealed, we'll never get it back until we've raided all other revenue sources, and/or traumatically cut even crucial state programs.'" (pp. 264-65)

His income tax stance was opposed by many, including business leaders.

"I tried to convince these opponents how money paid out in dividends would glean far more collective benefits for Alaska businesses than would the same amount of money they'd save through tax repeal.
To make my case, I pointed out that, in the late 1970s, the income tax brought in about $200 million annually.  With repeal that $200 million benefit would not only go mostly to those who least needed it, but to nearly one quarter of Alaska's work force who were non-residents.  By contrast, $200 million in dividend payments would enrich each of our 500,000 residents - and only Alaskans - by $400 each.
One would think that Alaska business, as the prime beneficiaries of dividend spending would be the first to register preference for the dividend program over tax repeal.  Instead, they scoffed at the former while salivating over the latter.  Of course, the degree of enthusiasm for tax repeal was directly proportionate to one's income level." (p. 265)

And he has a lot to say about why the Permanent Fund wasn't welfare.

Why it isn't welfare?

"'First,' I responded [to an NPR reporter who asked if Alaskans weren't embarrassed by free money from this 'oddball' program while gas prices were so high for others] 'you should know under Alaska's Constitution, that money and the resources it comes from, belong to all Alaskans, not to government nor to a few 'J.R.Ewings' who, in states like Texas, own almost all the oil.  Alaska's founding fathers wanted every citizen to have a piece of the action." (p. 256)

His second point, not related to the welfare question, was that the way gas at the pump is priced meant that even if Alaska gave away its oil, the people of the rest of the US would still pay the same prices, thus the PFD had no effect on the price of oil Outside of Alaska.

"'Third, Alaskans should be no more ashamed to accept a direct payment from their one-time oil wealth in the form of a check, than folks elsewhere should be ashamed of accepting lower tax rates or greater services than other states can provide." (p. 256)

Wouldn't the money be better spent on crucial government programs?  {And this is the question I would ask, because some things can only be done collectively, like public transportation (including roads).

"I went on to explain how dividend dollars are not 'lost' for funding crucial government programs.  Rather, they increase the tax base of every community and have created a very healthy condition." (p. 256)

He tells the reporter he'd like to use the Fund to further cut public spending by listing on the ballot programs not based on need or constitutional mandate and letting the public decide.  For programs they cut, half the savings would increase the dividend check.  At first the reporter thinks this is a good idea.  But then asks, "You wouldn't put public radio on that list would you?"  "Of course I would," responds Hammond.  Then the reporter voices an attitude that seriously disturbs Hammond:

"There are some programs the government knows are best for the people, even if the people themselves don't realize it."  (p. 256)

Isn't this socialism?  

"We could have underwritten coverage for all Alaskans who had no health insurance; wiped out our local taxes, funded scholarships or granted folks no interest loans, and we would have been lauded.  While the above would have been far more socialistic, inequitable and reeking with 'Big Brotherism,' all of which the dividend program is not." (p. 255)

I think fear of the label socialism is overblown.  His point, for those who see socialism as an evil, is that with the dividend, people themselves, not the government, make decisions on how to use the money.

"Moreover, the dividend is capitalism that works for Alaska.  In a state where locals traditionally watch in frustration as most resource wealth goes Outside, the dividend's grassroots 'trickle up' distribution now accounts for the largest new capital infusion into Alaska's local economies each year." (p. 254)

There's a lot more detail in the book, but Hammond gives solid reasons for keeping the income tax AND the full dividend.  Some we hear today from those opposing the cuts to the dividend - that cutting the dividend hurts the poor much more than the rich while the income tax is fairer to all because it is progressive.  Except from those among the wealthy who believe that their wealth is solely due to their personal ability, hard work, and initiative and has nothing to do with conditions in their lives (whether family or other important people who influenced them, innate interests and abilities or physical characteristics, laws or other structural conditions that favored some over others, etc.)

I'm not saying that what was right in 1980 is necessarily right in 2016, but a lot of people in the current debates were on the wrong side of history in 1980 or they weren't even in Alaska and know none of this background.  Hammond's prediction of where we would be if the income tax was repealed, exactly describes our situation today.  His narrative of the world seems a lot more accurate than those who opposed the income tax then and still do today.

And as I'm writing this, I began to think about the current play about Jay Hammond and Wally Hickel that's having its world premier run at Cyrano's right now and how if many people went, it might cause them to reflect more on this issue.  It's similar to the release of the movie Snowden which will, I'm sure, add a lot of nuance to people's thinking about whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero or something in between.  The main difference is that movies get a much wider audience than plays.

I do hope people get copies of Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor, whether from the library, which has many copies, including digital, from Title Wave or other bookstores.  The first half is Alaska adventure stories, the second half fills in a lot of political history around the pipeline and the Permanent Fund, plus a lot of issues I'd forgotten about - like D2 and Alpetco.  There's also  interesting brief mentions of people who are key players today - like Kent Dawson, one of the best paid lobbyists in Alaska today.  (See bottom of page 219)

Jay Hammond "If there has ever been a greater waste of energy and economic potential than what Alaska and the nation paid for the All-Alaska pipeline route, I don't know what it might be."

A little history is always helpful and this view of the Alaska pipeline from Jay Hammond's Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor (1994) seems useful in its succinct and clear description of how Alaska built an all-Alaska pipeline (instead of a Canadian pipeline) which had some short-term benefits, but had, in Hammond's view, much, much bigger long term costs.

He frames this argument as a clash between people who have diametrically opposed narratives about the human mission on earth.

"One type are folks who, fed up with environmental degradation and people pressures found elsewhere, flee to Alaska believing it the last redoubt of pristine wilderness and broad horizons.  Here they can indulge in lifestyles which, if not long since lost elsewhere, are at least suppressed in their native states.  Those people have read Robert Service and Thoreau.  They arrive with romantic notions of life in a remote homestead cabin away from the urban rat race.
Along with those would be rustics, however, comes another type of 'pioneer' no less determined to find a different kind of 'good life.'  Jobless or discourage by conditions 'back,' and hearing tales of common, unmanned folk striking it rich in Alaska, they flood north intent upon exploitation.  It's inevitable that the shovels and picks of those treasure seekers often bruise environmentalists' toes." (p. 167)

[I'd note these two views are highlighted in the play The Ticket which is an imagined conversation between governors Wally Hickel and Jay Hammond. It's having its world premiere run in Anchorage through October 9.  But it's so good, I'm guessing it will be extended.  But don't count on it.]

While Hammond says he sees both sides, he acknowledges that he leans with the environmentalists.

Hammond is adamant about how wrong it was to build an all-Alaska pipeline instead of sending the oil through Canada to the midwest by pipeline.  And you could hear the words on the page getting louder as he explained why.

"Almost no one in Alaska, save of course, 'preservationist extremists' dared suggest we even look at a Canadian route for fear of being branded a 'crackpot conservations like Hammond' by the state's most powerful newspaper and labor union.
Clearly, Alaska would experience far less environmental trauma with only six hundred overland miles of pipeline construction across its wilderness than nine hundred miles to Valdez - not to mention the pollution hazards of tankering via Prince William Sound and down the Pacific coast.  The fact that the planned pipeline terminal at Valdez would be erected on a major earthquake fault was also not mentioned, as I recall.
In any event, transporting our oil through a single, 2,100 mile trans-Canada line to the Midwest would clearly be less costly than tankering past  West Coast ports - which is precisely what happened when the southern pipeline fell through and inadequate West Coast refining capacity required North Slope crude to be shipped to the Panama Canal.  There, supertankers had to be unloaded onto smaller vessels able to navigate the isthmus.  These took the oil another 1,500 miles north to the gulf of Mexico, to refineries in Houston.  From there, of course, the product was piped north and east to the marketplace.  Some Alaska oil didn't ship north to Houston, but went all the way to the East coast for refining and sale.
If there has ever been a greater waste of energy and economic potential than what Alaska and the nation paid for the All-Alaska pipeline route, I don't know what it might be.  It has already cost uncounted billions of dollars and has been a major contributor to the nations's enormous trade deficit.
Most economists in 1970 agreed;  only if Alaskan oil was shipped to neighboring Pacific Rim nations, did the longterm economic impacts on the state become a wash with piping it via a trans-Canada route.  There's no doubt this was intended.  Japanese interests admitted such negotiations were under way.
This revelation only further infuriated Midwestern congressmen who wanted Alaskan oil to flow to their refineries.  When Congress threatened to halt pipeline construction until assured no Alaska oil would be sold to the Japanese, pipeline owners and proponents of the trans-Alaska route, scuttled negotiations and gave their word not to ship Alaska oil abroad.  Instead, they'd just ship it twice that distance around the coasts of North and Central American - each additional mile of transportation costs deducted from the wellhead price of the oil.  Since severance taxes on oil extraction are based on the price of oil at the wellhead, less transportation costs, obviously the lower the transport, the higher the tax revenues.  Don't even mention the additional energy wasted in this most inefficient boondoggle." (pp. 176-7)

He does acknowledge that building the All-Alaska route provided jobs for Alaskans and for Valdez, but with caveats.

"Certainly the one-third greater pipeline construction costs expended in Alaska might have provided more jobs and contracts for locals, as proponents promised.  However, since most pipeline workers were imported, and many of the bigger contracts went to Outside firms, it's hard to quantify how much more Alaskans benefited in the short term - if at all - than had much of the pipeline gone through Canada.
True, the greater length of pipe in Alaska, and the number of capital projects located in the Port of Valdez, are values added.  Yet countering these are the costs of state services required to offset population explosions in communities like Fairbanks and Valdez.  Both played for the trans-Alaska route, but were the first to come begging the state for multi-millions in 'impact money' to offset spiraling demands for government services that came with the 'boom.'  .  .  .
"Economic studies financed by Alaska Legislators John Sackett, Al Adams and Jan Faiks, indicated by 1987 Alaska had lost an estimated $15 billion as part of the price paid for the all-Alaska Pipeline.  Since Alaska crude sells at a lower price than imported oil, the higher price would bring on the world market has cost the national treasury many billions as well. " (p. 178)

Hmmm  With a $4 billion deficit this year, that $15 billion would have come in handy.

And he's not done.  He talks about the delays - he says he predicted - caused by court injunctions because of failure onto comply with EPA standards.  A delay he says that added to the national problems caused by the OPEC oil embargo.  BUT . .

" . .  rather than blame 'environmental preservationists,' far greater blame should be laid at the feet of those 'developmental preservationists' who would preserve every exploitive, 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' environmentally insensitive despoiling technique of the 19th Century.  By ignoring laws of the land and the forewarnings of those who promised to force legal compliance, they, not the environmentalists, caused the costly delay.
Forgotten by many who still curse environmentalists for those woes is the fact that during the delay, construction techniques were upgraded and engineering problems resolved.  Now, even some of the pipeline's most ardent promoters admit that, without those improvements, the line might well have proved a disaster.  today they point with pride to what the environmental activists compelled them to do." (pp. 178-9)

Hammond was the Senate President for some of this period and writes about how he tried to get the legislature to require reviews of all the alternatives - basically the Canadian route.  But he was clobbered by Bob Atwood's Anchorage Times.  He does acknowledge that some of the decisions made sense when you understood the financial interests of those pushing for the all-Alaska pipeline.
He concludes talking about the ban on exporting the oil to Japan.

". . .Alaska oil, on its way eastward through the Panama Canal to Gulf states and beyond, passes Mexican oil, on its way westward to Japan.  This is ridiculous.  What we should have done, of course, is simply swap, from for drum, Alaskan oil for Mexican - and enrich the treasures of both nations.  This issue, I regret, once more demonstrates the ability of politicians to subordinate our nation's well-being to demands of local constituencies." (p. 180)

As we deal with our budget deficits now, challenges to the Permanent Fund Dividend, oil credits, and a gas pipeline, it's useful to look back and see what happened 50 years ago and consider what parts of that history might be repeating themselves today.

Snowden - The Movie

I've avoided posts about Edward Snowden.  Yes, I've mentioned him now and then, but I've held off from writing about him in much detail.  My dissertation was on privacy.  I've studied whistle-blowing.  Daniel Ellsberg is one of my heroes.  I knew I was primed to be supportive of Snowden and wanted to hold off.  (And whether I say something about him or not isn't going to matter in the bigger scheme of things anyway.)

I wanted to know more.  Well, I really wanted to drop by and talk to him for a couple of days and see if he was the guy I wanted him to be or not.

I've watched some of his tapes and I've pretty much settled, for the time being, on the Snowden the whistleblower side.  He's the good guy who believed in the ideals of his country and was willing to risk his freedom, even his life, to keep his country honest.  That's the narrative that fits most comfortably with what I've seen and heard about Snowden.


So we went to the 12:50 pm showing of Oliver Stone's Snowden today.  I did read a New York Times review when I was checking last night about when the movie played here.  After seeing the movie I'd concur with the reviewer.

This may be the movie that Oliver Stone has been practicing for.  It's restrained and straightforward.  It goes back and forth between the 'right now' and flashbacks.  The 'right now' starts with his arrival in Hong Kong.  The film is totally consistent with my sense of who Snowden is and why he did what he did.

The surprises for me were:

• how conservative he was politically and personally
• how he voiced concerns to others he worked with and for while he was an employee or contractor with the various security agencies
• that he suffered from epileptic seizures

So, until others can present a more convincing narrative - along with supportive evidence - I'm more than willing to call on Obama and others to find a way to let Snowden come back to the US honorably.  Don't make this like the Cuba sanctions that go on forever or our marijuana phobia because we can't admit we're wrong.

There are more thoughts, but I need to do other things and this movie is worth seeing.  It's well made and is entertaining.  At the very least, it should further open the discussion how we keep spy agencies accountable.  And how we treat those who call them on it.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is great in the starring role. And I liked how the real Snowden's image replaces the actor's at the very end.

Small Changes - New Library Entrance And Park Parking

Some big, small changes in town.

First, the Consortium Library at UAA now has a north entrance.  From the day they opened the remodeled library it was obvious that they needed another door.  Anyone parking north of the library has to walk about 1/3 of a mile to get to the entrance.  No matter where you park, it's a schlep to the entrance.  I think walking is healthy and al that, but for someone with difficulty walking, particularly in the winter, that's a big deal.

They finally have a new north entrance.  I saw a north entrance sign in the library and looked in amazement.  I followed the arrow and low and behold there was a new entrance and a new spot to check out books for people using that entrance.  How long has this been here I asked.  Just a few days.

[Yes, I know the arrow doesn't point toward the entrance the way I meshed three pictures together.  I could have put it on the right and played with the perspective, but I wanted the check out desk to be clearly visible.  The rotated image in the middle was from further back.  The background picture is near the new door.]

When they first opened the remodeled library I was told a second door would have been too expensive to maintain.  That was when the price of oil was double or more what it is now.  I wonder how long they'll fund someone to check out books at this door.  People better use it a lot.  I'm guessing it was planned before the state budget tanked.

Second, there's a new parking lot at Campbell Creek park just south of Tudor and Lake Otis.  I first saw it from the bike trail not quite two weeks ago.  I was aghast.  Does this park really need more parking?  I guess there are a few times when it gets full, but I'd bet 90% or more of the time there are empty spaces.  And to take trees out for this?

But in the back of my head there was an image of a clearing at this spot, maybe some old maintenance building or something, but it had trees along the bike trail (the old one that cuts from Lake Otis to the easterly bridge.  I never understood why they build a second pedestrian bridge so close to the old one.)  I guess you'll have to go from the parking lot to the old bike trail and across the old bridge to the playground.  Or perhaps you can walk along Lake Otis Parkway to the new bridge.

I checked on google maps to see what was there before.  It looks like a late March or early April image with the creek and the bike trail still iced, but the rest of the snow gone.

And yes, there was a clearing with some sort of building(s) on it - in the green circle.  The playground is where the marker is and you can see the existing parking lot below it.

Who's On A Shoestring?

There's an excellent opinion piece by Elise Patkotak in today's Alaska Dispatch News.  It's a response to Rep. Tammie Wilson's call for an investigation into why social workers are (allegedly) removing kids unnecessarily from their homes.  Everyone should read it.  (That sounds a bit pretentious of me telling people what they should read.  Let me rephrase that.  People interested in the welfare of kids, or in Wilson's claims, who want to better understand the issue can get a good, quick overview of what social workers face in Alaska.  Patkotak's response, based on her own experience as a social worker, isn't to punish social workers, but to have enough of them and enough backup services so they can do their jobs.)





But I do have an issue with the title (which usually is something an editor adds, not the writer.)  Here
it is:

Social workers can't protect Alaska 

kids on shoestring budget

What's wrong you ask.  Is it poor kids that can't be protected?  Or is it poor social workers who can't do the protecting?

This is a simple style issue that Strunk and White pointed out long ago in Elements of Style. (The link takes you to the book online.)  The specific item I'm quoting is from Section III, Elementary Rules of Composition, number 16 which begins on page 15.

16. Keep related words together. The position of the words in a sentence is the principal means of showing their relationship. The writer must therefore, so far as possible, bring together the words, and groups of words, that are related in thought, and keep apart those which are not so related.

Here's the specific rule of thumb for this case and some examples.

Modifiers should come, if possible next to the word they modify. If several expressions modify the same word, they should be so arranged that no wrong relation is suggested.

• All the members were not present.
• Not all the members were present.
• He only found two mistakes.
• He found only two mistakes.
• Major R. E. Joyce will give a lecture on Tuesday evening in Bailey Hall, to which the public is invited, on "My Experiences in Mesopotamia" at eight P. M.
• On Tuesday evening at eight P. M., Major R. E. Joyce will give in Bailey Hall a lecture on "My Experiences in Mesopotamia." The public is invited.

Let's add one more example here:

• Social workers can't protect Alaska kids on shoestring budget
• Social workers on shoestring budget can't protect Alaska kids

To me, the improvements are pretty clear, but if anyone has a question about why the bolded examples are better, leave a comment or email me (email's in right column above blog archive.)

Why does this matter?  Because humans have a lot of trouble communicating ideas from one person to another.  Even when they get everything right, there's miscommunication.  People who write - particularly editors at newspapers - should follow Strunk and White's rules (including their admonition about knowing when to break them) as automatically as they use the turn indicator in their car.  It doesn't solve miscommunication problems, but it doesn't add to the problems either.


Note:  Feedburner's been working reasonably well for the last two weeks, putting links to my posts up on other blogs.  Until yesterday's post.  So if you got here from another blog, here's a link to yesterday's post - The World's Disappearing Wilderness - The Importance of Long Term Thinking.

The World's Disappearing Wilderness - The Importance Of Long Term Thinking

A news item about the disappearance of wilderness in the world caught my attention the other day.  Since I live in state that still has some wilderness left, I thought it worthy of discussion.

From PRI:

"The result showed that about 20 percent of the world's land area is currently wilderness or about 11.6 million square miles.
Most of that wilderness is in Australia, North America, North Asia and North Africa.
Comparing the old map to the new one showed that an estimated 1.3 million square miles — almost 10 percent of the wilderness area — have been lost in the past two decades.
The amount lost is equal to twice the land mass of Alaska, or about half the entire Amazon.
The study did not delve into reasons why, but Watson said it comes down to increased development by the planet's growing human population."

Given that airplanes fly over just about every part of the world and that pollution travels by air and sea to every part of the world, I'd guess there isn't really any wilderness left, but here's the study's definition:

"For the study, researchers defined 'wilderness' as 'biologically and ecologically intact landscapes free of any significant human disturbance.'"

Let's put this in context.

WILDERNESS LEFT	TOTAL SQUARE MILES/km2/acres	% OF TOTAL LAND
in the world	11.6 million sq mi / 7.4 billion acres	20%
in the USA	170.5K sq mi / 109,129,657 acres	5%
in Lower 48	82.1 K sq mi / 52,553,809 acres	2.7%
in Alaska	88.4K sq mi/ 56,575,848 acres	13.3%
Alaska total size	663,268 sq mi / 424,491,520 acres	100%
Wilderness size from NWPS ;   Alaska total size from Wikipedia

Wilderness disappears as people make short term decisions; about survival for some, about profit for many.  Long term collective decisions, like the creation of the National Park Service by Teddy Roosevelt and the idea of setting aside natural areas for conservation, are what keep the small amount of wilderness we have left in the world.

As Alaskans debate where they can drill for oil,  log for timber, mine for coal and gold and other minerals, I'd suggest some longer term thinking.  Thinking that recognizes that what is rare is valuable.  Wilderness is becoming rarer and rarer.  Alaska's wilderness will become more and more valuable in the future.  Rather than destroy it for meager short term profit, let's save it for longer term, more valuable benefit.

I haven't addressed why we need wilderness.   I've written about before is described by Edward O. Wilson who talks about how the trillions of dollars worth of ecosystem services provided by nature -  recycling and purifying water, cleaning the air, enriching the soil, etc.

For those who doubt the need, here are a few more resources.


National Geographic: What is Wilderness, Why Preserve It?

Nash Roderick:  The Value of Wilderness (1978)

Why did US citizens feel the need to legally protect wilderness?

List of largest wilderness areas in the US

Getting Out On Blustery Day

I needed to bike.  I needed to just be outside with no distractions.  My regular ride with wasn't going to work.  My body said Bird Point.

We drove through the wind and occasional rain drops.  Pulled into the parking lot at Bird Point and got out the bike and took off.  Through the tunnel onto the old road turned bike trail.  Up the hill against the wind.

After a couple of miles of up, I stopped for a picture.

Then turned around and shot the rock wall behind me.

Back on the bike to the little rest stop back down on the bottom just before the Girdwood turnoff.

I walked around a bit, took some pictures until I got the colors right, then back.  This time with the wind at my back.  Much easier.

That was just what I needed.

Wally Hickel and Jay Hammond Go Two Great Rounds: Why You Should Buy A Ticket For The Ticket -

I admit, when I heard that Dick Reichman had written a play about a fictitious conversation between two of Alaska's most illustrious former governors, I had trouble imagining how that would play out.

But forces were moving me toward Cyrano's.   Cliff Groh at Nerd Nite on Wednesday, had highlighted the different visions of the Permanent Fund between Hickel and Hammond,  and I'm reading Hammond's Bush Rat Governor for my book club this month.  Seeing this play seemed inevitable.  The world premiere was Friday night and so we saw the second performance.

And it turned out to be a wonderful evening.  The dialogue is a quick and witty serving of non-stop delicious  bonbons* about Alaska politics, about public service, about ego, about growing old, and about friendship, to name a few.   The enjoyment of the play comes from the conversation between the two characters, played by Outside William S. Murphy and Matt K. Miller.

The 'plot' is just a device for getting them together.  But if you want to see this play with no hints at all, skip the next  paragraph.  And the actors were superb, though it seemed to me a couple of times they almost lost control of a couple of the words, but they did it so seamlessly I can't be sure.

The play begins with Hammond arriving at Hickel Captain Cook Hotel office.  He's been summoned by Hickel, who's not at all sure Hammond will show. Republican  Hickel tells him he's going to run as an Alaska Independent, against the Republican nominee Arliss Sturgulewski,  for another term as governor and that Jack Coghill is going to be his running mate.  Unless . . .


You can start reading again here

This is a terrific Alaskan play. I added Alaskan there because it was written by an Alaskan about Alaskan figures, but it's really a universal play that happens to have Alaska as its setting.  Even if you know nothing about Alaska politics or about Hickel and Hammond, it's an interesting political flirtation between two men who have feuded in the past, approach the world very differently, yet ultimately have an unexpected affection for each other.   One of the characters is self aware and comfortable with himself, while the other needs a late run for governor to 'keep in the game.'  There's a lot of bluster and affection as they learn about each other and themselves.   It's serious, good theater.

But for Alaskans, there's the added factor that these are two former governors and most of the issues they discuss are still current today, 26 years after this imagined conversation.

Adding to the juiciness was the after theater discussion with someone who knew them both.  Last night's discussant was Sen. Johnny Ellis.  Ellis was the valedictorian  at his Bartlett High graduation when he first met Hammond who was the other speaker, which led to Ellis working on Hammond's reelection a year or two later.

If I understood it correctly, there will be guests after each performance, including Arliss Sturgulewski, whom Hickel stole the gubernatorial election from in that 1990 election.

There were also some luminaries in the audience including former Anchorage Mayor Jack Roderick and former Alaska attorney general John Havelock.

So, yes, this is a strong endorsement for everyone in or around Anchorage this month to get tickets for a lively and entertaining evening.

*Bonbons might imply light and insubstantial and perhaps appetizers might be a better word to use there because it would imply warming you up for something more filling.  It's an entertaining play, not deep history.  But Reichman (and Paul Brown who helped with this and was there last night) offer us the broader themes that usually get missed in the contemporary reporting of events.  So, feel free to substitute appetizer, and after you see the play, you can read more about these two fascinating men.  You can even watch Brown's movie on Hickel which is available

Articles of Interest - ISIS Recruits, Genes, Bias, Map Artist

There's way too much information for anyone to keep up with.  Here are some ideas worth considering.


Danes choose love over punishment to fight terrorists with some apparent success.

". . . France shut down mosques it suspected of harboring radicals. The U.K. declared citizens who had gone to help ISIS enemies of the state. . . But the Danish police officers took a different approach: They made it clear to citizens of Denmark who had traveled to Syria that they were welcome to come home, and when they did, they would receive help with going back to school, finding an apartment, meeting with a psychiatrist or a mentor, or whatever they needed to fully integrate back into society."

When a Person Is Neither XX nor XY: A Q&A with Geneticist Eric Vilain

People argue that the use of computers, human bias can be eliminated, but this piece shows that human bias can still be reflected in the programs they write.

"That has important applications. Any bias contained in word embeddings like those from Word2vec is automatically passed on in any application that exploits it. One example is the work using embeddings to improve Web search results. If the phrase “computer programmer” is more closely associated with men than women, then a search for the term “computer programmer CVs” might rank men more highly than women. “Word embeddings not only reflect stereotypes but can also amplify them,” say Bolukbasi and co."

Secrets are not a secret anymore if more than one person knows...

“A real secret is something which only one person knows.” ― Idries Shah, Reflections

There are no secrets that time does not reveal. Jean Racine If you reveal your secrets to the wind, you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees. Khalil Gibran

An argument against having backdoor keys to break into phones.



Rubric Memo  -  A spoof on academic memos and the use of rubrics.

"We refer to this rubric as Project 3.5.1, which you will recognize as a series of numbers. By entering data about your courses into this rubric, you help us to improve education for all our students, to whom we have also assigned numbers. We have also assigned you a number based on an Enigma-encrypted combination of the street address of your childhood home and your ATM PIN code, which we hacked (please see attachment 7)."

Map Maker Artist Perfectionist 

"These days, almost all the data cartographers use is provided by the government and is freely available in the public domain. Anybody can download databases of highways, airports, and cities, and then slap a crude map together with the aid of a plotter. What separates a great map from a terrible one is choosing which data to use and how best to present it."

It's All About Being At The Right Place At The Right Time

Was biking home last night to a huge rainbow that arced the sky, with a dazzling display just over Flat Top.   I only had my little Spotmatic to snap with, but you can get a sense of how vivid it was.

This morning, about 12 hours later I was back at the same spot I had gotten this picture.  But things were different.