Thursday, March 16, 2017

Anchorage Assembly Race, District 6 (South Anchorage) Candidates

Sunday's (March 12, 2017) AFACT Assembly Candidates Forum was well run, well attended and gave me a good introduction to most of the assembly candidates.  As I started a post on this, it quickly became clear I ought to break this up into several different posts - starting with an intro page for each assembly district.  This is the last of the districts.  I'll try to get another post up about the forum next.

So, here's the District 6 (South Anchorage) map with a photo of the candidate who was there. (In this district, one of two.)

click on image to enlarge and focus
 

Albert Fogle (generic image) 
The other candidate, , was not at the forum so I have used this generic candidate photo.


Here are links for the two candidate websites:



Here's my posts for:
District 1 (downtown) candidates.
District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River)
District 3 (West Anchorage)
District 4 (Midtown)
District 5 (East Anchorage)
District 6 (South Anchorage)

[Update 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 6 voters.  Well, actually, some District 6 voters have two voters.  
If you live in Rainbow, Indian, Bird Creek, a section north of Girdwood outside the GVSA, and Portage, you also vote on adding Anchorage police service. Here's that ballot.
If you live in Girdwood, you have another ballot to annex some nearby parcels that are not in the GVSA.]

When I finish the posts for the other districts, then I'll do a post about the Sunday AFACT forum.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Anchorage Assembly Race, District 5 (East Anchorage) Candidates

Sunday's (March 12, 2017) AFACT Assembly Candidates Forum was well run, well attended and gave me a good introduction to most of the assembly candidates.  As I started a post on this, it quickly became clear I ought to break this up into several different posts - starting with an intro page for each assembly district.

So, here's the District 5 (East Anchorage) map with a photo of the candidate who was there. (In this district, one of two.)

click on image to enlarge and focus
    

Don Jones 
The other candidate, Don Jones, was not at the forum so I have used this generic candidate photo.


Here are links for the two candidate websites:


Here's my posts for:
District 1 (downtown) candidates.
District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River)
District 3 (West Anchorage)
District 4 (Midtown)
District 5 (East Anchorage)
District 6 (South Anchorage)

[Update 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 5 voters.]

When I finish the posts for the other districts, then I'll do a post about the Sunday AFACT forum.

Maddow Tax Show Twitter Feed Thoughts

MSNBC wanted me to sign in to listen to the Maddow tax reveal live.

So I found the Twitter feed and watched that.  Someone put a link to a live Youtube feed, but somehow I lost it during a break, so I went back to the Twitter feed.  What was interesting was the high level of troll like comments - especially the same kind of comment over and over.

I haven't figured out how to easily collect all the tweets and then analyze them, but I've taken clumps of them and then looked for patterns.

Question 1: The role of organized trollers on Twitter

We know that there are organized robot tweeters and Politico says that Trump used them heavily in the campaign,  (Also that Clinton did to some extent.)
"The accounts pumping out the tweets created the appearance of authentic outrage but had all the hallmarks of fakes, according to researchers who specialize in “bot” networks — short for robot — that shower social media with phony messages appearing to spring up from the grass roots.
The pro-Trump networks tweet incessantly, but only to praise Trump and bash Clinton and the media, constantly retweeting Trump staff, pro-Trump pundits and other fake accounts, thousands of which recently added “deplorable” to their usernames. . ."
“The bot nets usually turn whatever the issue is back on Hillary,” said Phil Howard, a professor at Oxford University’s Internet Institute and the principal investigator at the Computational Propaganda Project, which has closely tracked the networks. Howard has noted the same pattern in response to stories about Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, with bots alleging that Clinton is keeping even bigger secrets from the public. “They tend to be used to confused or muddy,” he said."
So, I'd raise some questions about how the comments on Twitter actually reflected how the public reacted to the Maddow revelations.

I couldn't keep track - things move fast on Twitter - and there were so many tweets that going through them all was a much bigger task than I have time for.  I'd say during the broadcast, the negative tweets outnumbered the positive, but I wouldn't dare to put any numbers out there.  Some of the negatives were not necessarily just from pro-Trumpers.  I'm sure a number of those complaining about how Maddow was dragging out the reveal were from real, individual tweeters.

But after the broadcast, things went strongly pro-Trump.  At 7:30pm (Alaska Daylight Savings Time, or 11:30pm ET), I went through the latest 100 tweets, and all but about three or four were anti-Maddow tweets.



2.  What were the themes of the tweets?

I saw nothing that challenged the facts of what Maddow said.  Basically they challenged how she said it, the importance of it, and her personally.  There were clear memes that got repeated over and over, sometimes identically, sometimes with slight variations.  Here are some of the memes with tweet examples.


  • Geraldo and Al Capone's safe  - there were lots of these which seem to have come from somewhere other than the show itself
 In reply to 
Biggest TV debacle since Geraldo opened Al Capone's vault. Rachel Maddow looked like a fool.

  • Maddow's going to jail for illegally revealing income tax form     
 1 hour ago1 hour agoMore : "Why is Rachel Maddow not in police custody. She illegally obtained private documents & published the info. This is a CRIME!"

  • No news here
More

Rachel Maddow you have just broken the biggest story in History!!!! Trump paid his taxes!!! Omg!! How illegal!! #rachelmaddow #trump


  • Personal attacks on Maddow - including gender related ones
Neil Messer @NeilMesser 29m
@maddow So Rachel Maddow .... what hurt worse, this #TrumpTaxReturn fail, or getting your dick caught in your zipper?


  • This is Fake News   - Actually, it does appear that the tax reform and the figures were real, not fake news.  Even the White House confirmed it.  
 1 hour ago1 hour agoMoreMarosa Lopez Retweeted The Phoenix
Rachel Maddow is awful Change the CH 👎🏽
👎🏽👎🏽

  • He paid his taxes, joke's on Maddow 
  Retweeted
Rachel Maddow just revealed that show he paid $38,000,000 taxes in 2005. She just got Mr. Trump re-elected in 2020!


  • Maddow credibility ruined

Mikey Mileos @mikeymileos 31m31 minutes agoMore
Watch Rachel Maddow's brilliant take down of.. her own credibility. Only on MSNBC.



  • Thanks for proving Trump paid more than other presidential candidates.

These came later in the game and clearly stemmed from this Truthfeed post (lots of copies of the poster on Twitter) and this Data Debunk chart:

pastedGraphic.png
Data Debunk @data_debunk 2h
More
Tax rates paid:
Trump 2005: 25%
Obama 2014: 19.6%
Romney 2011: 14.1%
Sanders 2014: 13.5%
NY Times 2014: 0%




Truthfeed is a conservative site that gets high bias ratings and the Data Debunk feed only 'debunked' things that made conservatives look bad.

You'll note that they didn't select the same years to compare.  Obama actually paid 33% in 2005.
I couldn't find Romney or Sanders returns for 2005.  I only could find 2014 for Sanders and 2011 for Romney.  The numbers appear accurate.  Romney's is really low.  And he lost the election.  Sanders paid $26,000 on a total of $200,000 gross.
I'd note that there's no comparison with the Clintons. I'd guess that's because  they paid an average of 31% over eight years including 2005.  From  2001-2015 they paid between 25% (2007) and 38.2% (2002).   Only three times were they under 30%.

If you want to peruse the tax returns of old presidential candidates, you can find them here.

3.  Did Maddow accomplish anything?

Having watched this through the lens of Twitter, I'm not sure about what loose ends might have been tied.  But she did two things for sure:
David Cay Johnston
  • gave the public a couple of pages of a Trump tax return, something Trump has refused to do, and no one else has done
  • showed that lots of people are interested in the tax returns by the frenzy her tweet that she had it caused
  • there will be more questions about the returns we haven't seen and pressure to publish them

4.  Was Maddow played by the Trump administration?

Given that the return showed that Trump paid $34 million in taxes that year is the first hint of this.  Then there were all the Tweeters ready to go with a lot of memes basically aimed at discrediting Maddow.  
Another clue was what wasn't tweeted.  Although people clamored for Maddow to be jailed for 'illegally leaking' the information about Trump,  I saw nothing from anyone about getting the person who leaked the information to Maddow.  Even the White House statement only mentioned that 
"it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns."
With all the complaints about the leaks coming out of this administration, attacking the leaker should have been a key issue for Trump.  Except this was a leak, that at first glance (which is all most people will take), makes it look like Trump paid a lot of taxes.  Was this an attempt to 
  • take the pressure of the demands for Trump taxes?
  • take attention off the Russia ties and other issues?
  • make MSNBC and Maddow look ridiculous?
The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, David Cay Johnston, who got the pages anonymously in the mail, says it's very possible they were sent by the Trump administration.  He also pointed out that if it weren't for the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Trump wants to eliminate, Trump would have only owed $7 million.  I didn't see that mentioned in the Twitter feed.  


Another odd Note

The other Trump tax return (1995) that was made public was mailed anonymously to a New York Times reporter, Susanne Craig, and came in an envelope with a Trump organization return address.  That one didn't show Trump in such a (relatively) good light.  That was last September.


Autocorrect replaces Maddow with Maddox if you aren't being careful.  So in any Maddoxes slipped in, blame it on autocorrect.  I've already changed a few, including in the title.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Some Investigations I'd Like Congress To Undertake Without Evidence

Kellyanne Conway:  "I have no evidence, but that's why there is an investigation in Congress."



Who needs evidence to start an investigation?  I'd like some investigations and I have no evidence (actually for some, I'm sure I could come up with a reasonable amount of evidence).  Here's my quick, off the top of my head list of congressional investigations I'd like to see:


  1. Why do so many Republican members of congress claim that climate change isn't human related?
  2. How much income tax has Donald Trump paid over the last 20 years and who has leverage over Trump because he owes them significant amounts of money or favors?
  3. Who do the Supreme Court justices talk to off the bench and how do those conversations affect their decisions?
  4. What is Sen. Dan Sullivan's (R-Koch) obligations to large oil interests and other funders?
  5. How do members of congress who knowingly vote against their constituents' best interests sleep at  night?  Is it true the pharmaceutical companies provide them with all the sleeping drugs they need?  How does this affect their clarity and ability to make good decisions?
  6. How many officially pro-life legislators (federal, state, and local) have wives and/or girlfriends, mistresses who have had abortions?  Who?  
  7. How is it that members of congress do not object to Viagra being covered by health insurance, but they fight to keep birth control and abortions from being covered?

I'm afraid, I'm not too good at this.  I've only asked questions, unlike Trump who made accusations.
Plus, these are all investigations which, I believe, if carried out honestly and effectively, would provide the US population with important information about how our representatives operate.  And I'm sure a day of googling would give me lots of evidence that there is reason to investigate each of them.


The point here, is that investigations cost money.  From what I can tell at that link about the costs of the Benghazi investigation, most of the money goes to pay for staff.   What doesn't get factored are the opportunity costs of so many people spending their time on, say Benghazi or whether Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.  What might they have spent their time on instead?  Like coming to resolutions of issues so that the US is a stronger and safer and more democratic nation.

Try asking your local police department to do an investigation on something without providing them any evidence.  Or your company to investigate something without evidence.  It doesn't happen, because it costs money and takes people away from more pressing issues.  And that seems to be the point of Trump's allegations, to divert attention from more pressing issues.  But that's part of his standard operating procedure - Attack, Counterattack, Never Apologize.  [I try not to be too repetitive, but I don't think I can refer to often to this Attack line of thinking.  It truly appears to be how Trump thinks and everyone should understand it.]

Monday, March 13, 2017

Anchorage Assembly Race, District 4 (Midtown Anchorage) Candidates

Yesterday's (March 12, 2017) AFACT Assembly Candidates Forum was well run, well attended and gave me a good introduction to most of the assembly candidates.  As I started a post on this, it quickly became clear I ought to break this up into several different posts - starting with an intro page for each assembly district.

So, here's District 4 (Midtown Anchorage)  Here's a map of the district with photos of the candidates who were there. (In this district, all of them.)

    

Here are links for the four candidate websites:

Ron Alleva
Felix Rivera
Marcus Sanders
Don Smith

Here's my posts for:
District 1 (downtown) candidates.
District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River)
District 3 (West Anchorage)
District 4 (Midtown)
District 5 (East Anchorage)
District 6 (South Anchorage)

[Update 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 4 voters.]

When I finish the posts for the other districts, then I'll do a post about the Sunday AFACT forum.  

Anchorage Assembly Race, District 3 (West Anchorage) Candidates

Yesterday's (March 13, 2017) AFACT Assembly Candidates Forum was well run, well attended and gave me a good introduction to most of the assembly candidates.  As I started a post on this, it quickly became clear I ought to break this up into several different posts - starting with an intro page for each assembly district.


So, here's District 3 (West Anchorage)  Here's a map of the district with photos of the candidates who were there. 
click image to enlarge and focus

Placeholder for Tim Steele


The other District 3 candidate - incumbent Tim Steele - was not there.   Here's a generic candidate picture, based on pure imagination.


Here are links for the candidate websites:

Dave Nees
Tim Steele

Here are my posts for:
District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River)
District 3 (West Anchorage)
District 4 (Midtown)
District 5 (East Anchorage)
District 6 (South Anchorage)

[Update 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 3 voters.]

When I finish the posts for the other districts, then I'll do a post about the Sunday AFACT forum.  

Anchorage Assembly Race, District 2 (Chugiak-ER) Candidates

Yesterday's (March 13, 2017) AFACT Assembly Candidates Forum was well run, well attended and gave me a good introduction to most of the assembly candidates.  As I started a post on this, it quickly became clear I ought to break this up into several different posts - starting with an intro page for each assembly district.

So, here's District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River.)  Here's a map of the district with photos of the candidates who were there.

*should be Wehmoff 


Placeholder for Fred Dyson ,
John Brassell, Patrick Donnelly
The other District 2 candidates - John Brassell, Fred Dyson, Patrick Donnelly - were not there.   Here's a generic candidate picture, based on pure imagination.

Here's the sample ballot for District 2.

Gretchen Wehmhoff
Fred Dyson
John Brassell

Here's my posts for:
District 1 (downtown) candidates.
District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River)
District 3 (West Anchorage)
District 4 (Midtown)
District 5 (East Anchorage)
District 6 (South Anchorage)

[Update 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 2 voters.]

When I finish the posts for the other districts, then I'll do a post about the Sunday AFACT forum.

Anchorage Assembly Race, District 1 Candidates

Yesterday's (March 13, 2017) AFACT Assembly Candidates Forum was well run, well attended and gave me a good introduction to most of the assembly candidates.  As I started a post on this, it quickly became clear I ought to break this up into several different posts - starting with an intro page for each assembly district.

So, here's District 1.  Here's a map of the district with photos of the candidates who were there.

Click on image to enlarge and focus


Here are filler images for the two candidates who weren't there.  Based on pure imagination.

Albert Langdon Swank
Mark Alan Martinson











[Updated 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 1 voters.]

Here are links the candidate websites:

Christopher Constant
David Dunsmore
Warren West
Chris Cox

Here's my posts for:
District 1 (downtown) candidates.
District 2 (Chugiak-Eagle River)
District 3 (West Anchorage)
District 4 (Midtown)
District 5 (East Anchorage)
District 6 (South Anchorage)

District 6 (South Anchorage)

[Update 3/21/17:  Here's the sample ballot for District 1 voters.]



When I finish the posts for the other districts, then I'll do a post about the Sunday AFACT forum.  

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Extreme Vetting For Immigrants. Apparently None For Trump Appointees

Trump issued an executive order for extreme vetting. But at the same time, it appears that Trump cabinet and staff appointments get minimum vetting - think of Manafort and Flynn as the most obvious examples.

But there is a significant difference between these two types of vetting.

Immigrant and refugee vetting

This link takes you to a detailed State Department chart of the admissions process for refugees.

Immigrants and refugees already go through an extremely vigorous vetting process that takes 12-18 months.  CNN reports that no 'major fatal terrorist attacks' have been carried out by refugees since the Refugee Act was passed in 1980.  It then lists terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US and looks at their status.  The Atlantic, using the same study as CNN, reports:
"But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.
Zero."
The Pew Research Center reports
"About 3 million refugees have been resettled in the U.S. since Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, which created the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program and the current national standard for the screening and admission of refugees into the country."
[Note:  in that same time period 1,526,864 people died in auto crashes in the US.  Numbers are based on a Wikipedia list through 2015 and the National Safety Council Report for 2016.  While these numbers are not rounded off and look very precise, one source suggested the 2016 number was an estimate.  I include this note to put the refugee threat in perspective.  If Trump were really concerned about saving American lives, he might be far more effective by focusing on traffic safety.]

The key points I want to make about delays in accepting refugees are that:
  1. The US already does an excellent job
  2. While trying to identify the one or two possible needles in the pool of refugees, many, many lives have been badly disrupted, to find, what seems to be a mythical bad apple.  I'm not denying that there are terrorists who would try to get into the US.  I'm just saying that the process we already have is working.  If it can be improved, Trump's edicts are unlikely to prevent any terrorists from entering the country.
  3. This is all just political rhetoric, whether Trump knows the actual statistics or not, to pander to his base and raise fear of refugees.  All of which increases the likelihood that immigrant lives will be made harder. 

Vetting Cabinet Appointments and Trump Staff

The number of positions a new administration has to fill may seem like a lot, it's a small number compared to the refugees.  And vetting them affects only people who have agreed to be considered for a position.  Extreme vetting of cabinet appointees and White House staff, doesn't disrupt the lives of tens of thousands of others, the way Trump's actions on immigrants does.

The news we've had about Trump's appointee backgrounds and conflicts is very troubling and when Trump talks about vetting of refugees and immigrants, I cannot help but think about Trump's vetting process for his own team.

It appears that the Trump team did little or no serious vetting of the people he's chosen.  What sort of background check was there for Bannon or Flynn?  And if there were any serious checks, it seems the Trump folks just disregarded any of the red flags.  Flynn, for instance, was an agent for the Turkish government and got paid half a million dollars.

In Flynn's case, Pence and Trump are saying, now, they had no idea Flynn was working for the Turkish government.  The Chicago Tribune writes:
"Among those told of Flynn's lobbying work during the transition was Don McGahn, a campaign lawyer who has gone on to become White House counsel, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations between Flynn's representatives and the transition team.
A White House official said McGahn and others were not aware of the details of Flynn's work. It's not clear why the Trump advisers did not seek additional information once Flynn's lawyers raised the potential filing.
According to the person with knowledge of the discussions, Flynn's representatives had a second conversation with Trump lawyers after the inauguration and made clear the national security adviser would indeed be registering with the Justice Department. The White House official said the counsel's office had no recollection of that second discussion."
It's hard to figure out when they knew what.  Rachel Maddow goes back and forth with clips of Pence and Trump denying knowledge and then shows they had to know, because others say they told them. You can watch Rachel Maddow go through the evidence,


As I write these posts, I'm fully aware that for many logic, numbers, and reason play only a small part of their decision making processes.  But the way I think and my skills, such that they are, fall in this area, so it's where I have to focus.

And there are many who are confused by the conflicting claims, so I hope these are useful to them.  Either so they can make better decisions and/or have better data when discussing these issues with people who decide without any data at all.

It's my experience that when you counter someone's argument well, there's a good chance they will not acknowledge that to your face.  But the accumulation of evidence of time, does matter.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

If We Must Have Daylight Savings, We Should Spring Forward Friday, 4pm

It seems a good time to reiterate my proposal for Daylight Savings time.  Let's move the clocks forward at 4pm on Friday afternoon.  People who for til 5pm don't get all that much done the last hour on Fridays.  Those who must have their employees there that hour, can pay them overtime for the last hour.



Here are two old posts on this topic.  This first one is from the 2010 legislative session:  HB 19:   To End Daylight Savings Time

The second one was seven months later, Daylight Savings Time:  Alaska's Failed Legislation to End it.

But with Anchorage gaining almost 6 minutes of sun a day now, and over a week of bright sun and blue skies, no one here is complaining about the daylight.

As long as I'm on this topic, I'd note my peeve with people who report the weather saying things like, "We'll gain 5 minutes and 44 seconds of daylight today"  when in fact the twilights, particularly on clear days, last well beyond sunrise and sunset.  Unlike, say, Hawaii where it gets dark pretty fast after sunset.  But the link from Time and Date above, shows a lot more ways than just sunrise and sunset to calculate daylight.