Morning Routine This Week - Lots of Water Birds

Being a nomad screws up any sort of regular routine.  Since mid-November we've been in Anchorage   a little over three weeks.  But the trade off is time with family, particularly grandkids, mostly the one in Seattle.

This week my routine was to drive her to her school by 8:30 and then spend about 30 minutes walking the loop in the park across the street.  And so I've been noticing the most obvious birds:

• mallards
• widgeons
• geese
• robins
• gulls

I can't tell if there is one flock each of the water birds that are spread over the park, or more smaller ones.  The geese and widgeons spend time in the water and on the lawns.  

As we left Anchorage last week I was looking at the cases with the stuffed ducks and geese and noticed that the greater and lesser Canada geese looked very similar, but one was larger.  Another man pointed out which ones he'd hunted and said he'd gotten a greater Outside, that the ones in Anchorage were lesser. I'd always thought they were pretty big, but now I'm not sure.  

This pair announced itself from a distance as they flew to this pond.  There was already a flock in the pond and one goose started honking in response.  After they landed one of the new geese and the responder goose swam towards each other necks out low along the water.  They seemed to have a little challenge match and then everyone seemed to get along.  

The American widgeons move from pond to pond and also wander out on the lawn.  They also seem to mix with the mallards.  Just eyeballing it, I'd say there are more geese and widgeons than mallards.  

The mallards seem to stay mostly in the water.  I find myself dismissing mallards because they are so common.  But when I look through the camera, I'm always reminded how beautiful they are.  If every human were really beautiful, would we stop noticing?  

The robins run in crowds (are they a flock?) on the lawns, poking through the leaves for worms and other tasty bugs.  

There are other birds.  Most notably the other day there were buffleheads and ring-necked ducks.  If you look above at the mallard, they are true ring-necked ducks while the ring-necked ducks have rings on their beaks, not necks.  

The buffleheads are in the back and the ring-necked duck is up front.  I thought it was a scaup until I looked more carefully on line.  I'm not that familiar with the ring-necked ducks which have a similar color scheme to the scaup.  

Here's a better picture of the ring-necked duck.  

There are also lots of smaller song birds that flit around or sing from the bushes or trees.  But they are much harder to get on camera.  This one isn't a bad picture, but it's not much good for me to identify.  It was singing away up there.  

I also got a couple of bike rides in to a small beach on a tiny road where you can sit and listen to tiny waves and find nice shells and rocks.  Yet another similar duck - black with a white belly, was swimming out in the salt water - a golden eyes.  

And from that beach I could see downtown Seattle about 9 miles across the water.  With an Evergreen  container ship in-between.  

Enough for now.  Tomorrow the three boys each have soccer games in different locations.  I'm driving the youngest to Olympia for his game and luckily, some old friends from Anchorage live nearby and will come out to join us.


And I had to check up on this rule about stopping for school buses.  I did stop, but I wasn't sure if I had to when I was on the other side of the street.  This is for Washington State.

 "If you're on a two-lane road, both directions need to stop. If you're on a road with three or more lanes, you need to stop if you're traveling in the same direction as the bus. If you're traveling in the opposite direction, you can keep going."

There were a couple of days we came upon the school bus with flashing lights on the other side of the street.  On a two lane road.  

Did God Tell ' Michele Bachmann Not To Run For Senate. Really!?

I read a blog post that said God told Michele Bachman not to run for the US Senate.  I started thinking - how often does God talk to individuals?  So I googled to see how often he spoke to people in the Bible.

Someone at BibleStudyForum made a rough count and listed them.  Maybe about 30 folks between the old and the new testaments.  He wasn't sure if he got them all.

At the Titus Institute, there's a post (by Ron Jones?) titled, "How has God spoken to his people throughout the OT and NT?"  He concludes that it changed over time.  He spoke to Adam and Eve directly, before the Fall.  Thereafter he spoke through intermediaries.

"Even when God spoke to these intermediaries, we see infrequent communication rather than frequent regular communication.
He spoke to Noah 5 times over 950 yrs, Abraham 8 times over 175 yrs, Isaac 2 times and 1 time to Rebekah over 180 yrs, Jacob 7 times and 1 time to Laban over Jacob's lifetime. These are just some examples.
We also see that God does not address personal issues, only issues that involve his redemptive plan.
In the OT, God did not speak to his intermediaries regarding personal matters unless it involved his redemptive plan."

He goes on to say that today God communicates with humans through the Scripture.  (Yes, this is just one guy's interpretation.  He does give citations.)

Given the infrequency of God's communications with humans in the old and new testaments, it's hard to take seriously the many claims people make about talking to God today.

So then I went looking for Bachman's actual words so I could quote them.  From Salon:

"I took it to the Lord in a very quiet way, I took it before the Lord, I prayed, I tried to have my ears open and hear what God was saying to me," Bachmann explained.

The former Republican U.S. representative went on to detail that she "considered" running for Franken's old seat "quite a long time" but ultimately, it was God who persuaded her otherwise. 

"From the very first day when Al Franken had announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate, I went before the Lord and it became very clear to me that I wasn't hearing any call from God to do this," she explained. "I've always prayed and tried to seek out what God’s will for me would be, and each time before, I've had this inner sense that I'm supposed to do this, I'm supposed to run."  [emphasis added] 

Well, she's not exactly saying God told her not to run.  She says, she didn't hear from him.  And those times that she did run, she didn't say he actually spoke to her.  Rather "I had this inner sense. . . "

When people have difficult decisions to make - should I get married?  quit my job?  run for office?  buy this house? - they often go somewhere quiet to reflect.  I know that running or walking alone has always been a time when my brain could work things out until I 'saw' the answer.

I'm not much of a praying man, but I can imagine that what people call praying works pretty much the same way.  You block off everything else and mentally get into the question you're trying to answer.  And then it comes to you.  Which is what I hear when Bachman says, "I've had this inner sense that I'm supposed to run."

By this time I'm starting to understand the frustration of religious people who pray to get answers to hard questions.  It's their form of running or walking, just clearing their heads and sorting through the conflicting forces for or against an action.  I can understand their resentment when people mock them for it.  It's not different from when people make fun of people who exercise or who don't eat meat.  Maybe 'talk to God' isn't something they mean literally.  Maybe it's something their friends understand to mean this sort of self-reflection.

But the rest of us take it literally and it sounds hokey.  It sounds like a way to justify whatever someone wants to justify.  "God told me to . . . "  And I'm sure there are those who do say this, intending it to add weight to their conclusion on something.

The Titus Institute post does say that God doesn't deal with personal issues except as they are related to the redemptive plan.  So football teams that ask God to help them win. . . No, that would trivialize God's time and purpose.

I know that some readers will think I'm being way too lenient here.  But if we're going to take this country back from Russian bots and Fox News and all the others who are stoking hatred and destroying the communal trust  necessary for a democracy, we can't let others' nastiness excuse our own.  We have to stop being self-righteous, and treat others with respect.  Just as we say hurtful racial slurs should be avoided, I think hateful religious slurs should as well.   It's possible to disagree respectfully.

And for me, finding out that Bachman didn't literally say that God told her not to run was a reminder of how both sides reword things to fit their prejudices.  Let's stop being baited by tweets.  Let's turn the other cheek and show love for people hurting enough to cheer Trump's fear mongering.  Or, if you prefer, imagine Gandhi as your conscience.

Despite this picture, God did not talk to Michele Bachman, and she didn't exactly say that he did.

Graham v MOA #8: The Exams 1: How The Process Works

[The Graham v MOA tab above lists all the posts in this series and gives some overview of the case and why I think it's important.]

The Exams - How The Process Worked In 2012

The exams firefighter Jeff Graham sued the Municipality of Anchorage over were to determine who would be promoted from the entry level Anchorage Fire Department (AFD) position - firefighter - to the next level - engineer.  A firefighter has to promote to engineer to move up in the AFD.  If you passed the exams, you would go on a list based on your score.  Then, as there were openings for engineers, names would be taken from the top of the list.  If the list was used up before the next scheduled exam - in two years - an interim exam could be held.  If you were on the list, but not called in two years, then you had to take the exams all over again.  

In 2012, the exams had three parts:  1) a written exam, 2)  a practical exam, and 3)  an oral exam.  It was the first year an oral exam was part of the engineer promotion exams.   It was the oral exam that Graham objected to.  You had to pass ALL THREE parts to get on the engineer list.  The first two exams were relatively objective.  The oral exam was problematic in many ways, giving graders lots of leeway to pass or fail candidates without much accountability.   Let’s look at them all before going into the details of the oral exam in the next posts.  

The Written Exam 

This was based on a standard set of questions from a national bank of engineer test questions about technical knowledge.  It’s multiple choice.  Test makers can choose from many questions. This allows them to modify the test to be appropriate to local conditions.  Overall, the bank of questions has been validated nationally- the questions are related to what a fire engineer should know and this national association determines the  correct answers.  

Graham passed this exam with a score of 85.  He needed 70 to pass.  

The Practical Exam

The practical exam is made up of a series of 'evolutions,' as they call them, that test the candidates' abilities to handle the trucks and equipment as needed on duty.   The evolutions (think of them as scenarios) involve actually driving vehicles, hooking up hoses, responding to different types fires, etc.  This exam was designed by local test makers.  Casey Johnson was in charge of this in 2012 and he followed the basic model that had been used in previous exams, but creating his own specific scenarios. 

The different evolutions on the exam are supposed to be unknown to the test takers until they take the test.   But the exams are given outside on consecutive days and people taking it on the second or third day can learn from others what events they will be asked to respond to.

A related issue that came up has to do with training outside the Academy.  Senior AFD officers often assist firefighters in their stations when there are no emergency calls.  So different candidates will get different coaching on different possible evolutions at their stations.  In one case, it was argued that one of the people who helped prepare the practical exam gave his subordinates, at the station, training on a new process that hadn’t been used at AFD yet, but was on the exam.  Questions were raised whether they had gotten advance information to prepare for that event.  The suggestions were denied.  

This exam was not validated professionally.  Jeff Graham has not challenged the events on this exam - they are related to what people have to do as engineers, but whether successfully completing the events on this test is the best, or even a good, predictor of success as engineer is not known.  

Graham did have some questions about the reliability of the exam.  Scores on the first day of the exam were low and the fail rate was very high.  By the third day, the fail rate dropped significantly.  Why might this be?

The exams are done out in the open where they can be seen by anyone.  The first people to take the exam do not know what they will be asked to do.  By the third day, people have been able to see what events were used, plus people who took the test can talk to friends who haven’t taken the test, so the later test takers can be better prepared.  

There was also some unconfirmed discussion at trial about whether the grading standards were loosened by the third day because the success rate was so low.  Which would raise questions about how the grading criteria were established.  

A reliable test is one where a test taker’s score should not vary regardless of the conditions of the test - which includes what day they took the test.  All test takers must face the same test conditions for the test to be reliable.

Jeff Graham passed the practical test comfortably.

The Oral Exam

The oral exam was created especially for the 2012 exam, by Casey Johnson.  Oral interviews had been held for higher level positions, like captain, but not for the technical job of engineer.  The exam consisted of two parts:  1)  a technical part and 2)  a “peer review.”  This is the part that Jeff Graham failed, by one point.  This was the part that Graham complained about before the exams even began, after he was told he failed the exam, and later to the Alaska Human Rights Commission, and finally in court.  

The technical part consists of ten questions, supposedly about technical issues, though the 2012 exam had two questions about how to prepare for the test and some that were more AFD policy and administration questions.  

The ‘peer review’ consists of five questions that seem to be designed to determine whether someone’s character is good enough to become an engineer.  

There are five testers for the oral exam.  Engineers are asked to volunteer to assist with various parts of the Academy (the training program designed to prepare people for the exam).  The Academy administrators, in this case Chad Richardson and his assistant Casey Johnson, decide who will perform what duties at the Academy and in the exams.  They can also encourage people to apply, which at least a couple of the testers said happened to them.  

Before the exam takes place, the testers pre-grade the peer review part of the exam.  That means, they give each test taker a score based on their knowledge of that person.  There was mention of reviewing the application for promotion, but graders had different responses about whether these were considered.  If they have no knowledge of that person, they can leave that part blank. So, even though they, theoretically, had access to someone’s application, they could skip the pre-score, which suggests that either the application wasn’t important, they didn’t look at the applications, or prior personal knowledge of the candidate was the key factor.  There was conflicting testimony about when this pre-grading was done. Graders were asked to come in early and do things like score candidates on the pretest.  But testimony showed  that didn’t necessarily happen.  Pre-grade scoring could be done in the morning before the testers came in, before anyone was tested, or before each individual came in to be tested.  

The Peer Review test process

The candidate walks into the room.  He’s given his pre-scores on the peer review.  He then has an hour to answer 15 questions - the ten technical questions and the five character questions.  That gives someone about four minutes per question.  The questions are projected on a screen and the candidate begins answering them.  

If the candidate got a passing score on the peer review pre-score, he can elect to skip any or all of the peer review questions and spend more time on the technical questions.  This, obviously, gives an advantage to people who were pre-scored well.  

Jeff Graham’s pre-score grades were below the needed 70. He got 69.  He was surprised by this.  

Overall Test Scoring

To pass the engineer exam, candidates have to pass all three parts of the exam.  That means that if they fail any of the three parts of the exam (get less than 70%), they fail the whole exam - even if their overall average on all the exams was 71% or 80% or 89%.  

Since you have to get 70% or better on ALL three exams, if someone gets a 69 on the first exam (the written exam), they do not go on to take the practical exam.  Those who pass the written and then  pass the practical exam can go on to take the oral exam.  

I don’t have the exact numbers available, but a large number took the written exams and fewer took each succeeding exam.  At trial, Deputy Chief Hetrick said people who made it to the orals had good scores - around 85 or more - on the written exams.   

From Exam To Promotion

Passing the exam doesn’t mean a firefighter will be promoted to engineer.  Those who pass go on a list based on their scores.  The higher the score, the higher they are on the list.  When there is an opening for an engineer, the top person on the list is promoted.  The list is good for two years.  If all the people on the list are promoted before the two years are up and they have new openings, they can have an interim Academy and test.  

Anyone left on the list after two years is no longer eligible and has to take the whole exam again. 

The cost of Academies is quite high in money and in time. It is the full time job for at least two people (in 2012 Chad Richardson and Casey Johnson) for a period of time, plus the time of all the volunteers and all the candidates.  Then there is the equipment and other things used.  The practicing on various rigs and gas that takes.  One figure I heard was about $60,000 but I don’t have confirmation of that.  

The Meaning of the High Fail Rate

A lot of people go to the Academy and a relatively small number make it onto the promotion list each time.  We can’t be sure why so many fail, but there are several possible explanations that come to mind.  

1. People take the Academy to learn more about the promotion process and they might take the written test just to see how they do.  Sort of a  trial to gauge how difficult it is and how much they’ll have to study when they take it seriously.  People mentioned this was the case for some.
2. The quality of the firefighters is low.  Only a high school degree or a GED is required.  They may not be particularly good at studying and/or test taking.
3. The training at the academy is inadequate to prepare most people to pass the exams.  
4. The tests are necessarily rigorous to make sure only the most technically competent are promoted from firefighter to engineer.
5. The tests are unnecessarily difficult or harshly graded. 
6. Fewer engineers means more overtime for those who are engineers 

I suspect there is an aspect of all six reasons (and perhaps some I haven’t thought of.)  

Let me explain number six a little more.  Because of the 24 hour shifts several days a week, AFD line employees have a lot of time away from work.  Many use this time to run other businesses.  But for many others this is an opportunity to work overtime.  Not only does the overtime give them time-and-a-half pay, it also raises the annual pay that their retirement benefits will be based on.  Some have argued that by making the testing for engineer difficult, the pool of engineers is kept small, and those who become engineers can work more overtime.  At trial, the MOA’s expert witness hired to calculate possible compensation for Graham in the chance he won, testified that Graham had very little overtime compared to many who had 1000-2000 hours of overtime.  Firefighters work three days of 24 hour shifts per week.  1500 hours of overtime would be the equivalent of 6 weeks.  That’s a lot of overtime and a lot of pay at time and a half.  One has to ask whether hiring more employees would make overtime less necessary and save the MOA money.    

I realize this bit on overtime goes beyond just an overview of the exams, but I’m not sure where else it will fit in, and it gives context to questions that come up about the exams overall.  I’m raising this issue because it came up. I don't know how significant it is.  I haven’t studied it, but it seems like something that should be followed up on.  

The Devil is in the Details

The next posts on Graham v MOA will focus on the details of the oral exams.  

Crimes of violence tend to be very tangible, very graphic.  We can imagine someone with a gun threatening a mugging victim or a bank teller.  We can imagine a stabbing.  We can see it vividly.  These are crimes that involve people on people violations.  

But administrative crimes are much harder to imagine.  They are structural crimes that are less visible and easier to hide.  They are tied up in details, rows of numbers, pages of text. Easier to conceal.  

How a scoring sheet for a test is designed, can make the difference between whether someone passes the exam or not.  This is why we hear stories of people who have embezzled money for years and years before they were caught.  A petty thief can face much stiffer legal obstacles than a white collar criminal who has bilked people of millions.  The latter crime seems less problematic because it's so abstract and harder to visualize.  

The details can be tedious.  One reason I’m slow in getting these posts out is that I’m trying to make them as easy to read and understand as possible.  'Interesting' is a goal, but that's more elusive.  I keep revising and revising and eventually I say, ok, enough, just post it already.  Even though I’m sure it’s still hard for the average person with a busy schedule to read, let alone digest.   

Enjoying Rare Seattle Sun

To my great surprise, the rain ended Sunday morning and the sun came out.












So we walked to the playground.

And then to the museum.

From the Bainbridge Island Art Museum site:

"Serve is a 14-foot hand-fabricated stainless steel fork. This sculpture takes the ideas surrounding the spoons and brings them to the forefront of my consciousness. Serve represents the silent, but giant, role of women in households over generations - lovingly nurturing their families. Serve is about power, but the protective kind.

This large-scale fork also becomes other things – the nude figure, or a flamenco dancer. Gradually it leaves me, the artist – it becomes alive and starts to move on its own."

Move on its own it has.  The person at the desk told us the fork was to remind folks of the people around the world who are hungry.


Note:  The sun was washed out in the original of the tree picture, so I figured I could play around with photoshop's curves and filters to make it more interesting.  And I don't post pictures of my family, so I had to mess with the playground shot too.  And the image of the fork I'd gotten was just too busy, so back again to photoshop.  I like how manipulating the photos shows me things I didn't see with just my eyes, or even the camera.  There were other interesting exhibits but they need to be unaltered, so I may do another post.  Or not.

Justice Alito Denies GOP Appeal of Pennsylvania Gerrymandering Case -This Is A Big Deal [Updated]

The Pennsylvania congressional districts were so badly gerrymandered that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the whole map and required new, fairer districts BEFORE the November 2018 election.

Here's a picture (adapted from an analysis at 538) of what the districts look like:

The basic requirements for districts in Alaska as well as elsewhere are that they be compact and contiguous.  (I've got some charts on what compact and contiguous look like, in this post about questionable Fairbanks districts.) The green one and the trianglish one two below it are the most compact looking ones I see.  Most of the others are stretched and twisted so that they squeeze Democratic voters into as few districts as possible and thus give the rest strong Republican majorities.  Even though the state was pretty evenly divided in votes for Trump and Clinton in 2016, they have 13 Republican Congress members out of 18, due to gerrymandering the districts.

When I talked to the Alaska redistricting board's attorney about political gerrymandering back in 2011-12, he flat out said, there's never been a redistricting map thrown out because of political gerrymandering.  Well, the Pennsylvania court did just that two weeks ago, ordering the legislature to come up with better maps by February 9!  The GOP asked for a stay of that order and this morning Alito (yes, Alito) denied the stay.  The legislature is Republican majority (gerrymandering will do that), but their map has to meet state Supreme Court approval.

About the Feb 9 deadline:  It took the Alaska Redistricting Board almost three years to do its job after the 2010 Census data were received, so three weeks is pretty quick.

From Election Law Blog:

". . . now the Justice [Alito] has denied the request without referring it to the full court.
Failure to refer usually means the Justice has calculated that the other Justices would not be likely to grant a stay. It is very unusual for these measures not to be referred, but I’m guessing Justice Alito knows that if he was not convinced, the chances of getting to five were very small.
. . .
Justice Alito’s denial of the stay in the Pa Congressional redistricting case is a reminder that it is NOT all partisan politics at the Court. If it were, surely J. Alito would have ruled to help Republicans in their Pa House races in 2018."

There's still an appeal over the North Carolina racial gerrymandering decision out there.  And then there's Wisconsin which was argued before the US Supreme Court last October 3.  And there's Maryland where there is a challenge over one Democratic seat.

I'd note that a Washington Post headline on says about the Pennsylvania case:

"Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court just gave Democrats a big win on redistricting"

But that has to be put into context.  The Republicans have had, let's say four gerrymandered seats since the redistricting based on the 2010 census.  There have been three congressional elections since then.  Even if the Democrats pick up four more seats - not guaranteed at all - the Republicans have had those seats all this time.  And no one is going to be punished for this.  So there is no incentive for anyone to not cheat as much as possible after the 2020 census.  And that's true in Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.  And it's affect American politics tremendously in favor of Republicans.

[UPDATE Feb 8, 4:30pm:  The Pennsylvania state legislator who represents the ground hog who saw his shadow three days go, Chris Dush, has introduced legislation to impeach the five Supreme Court justices who ruled that the state was unconstitutionally gerrymandered.  Did he think this up himself or did others help him?]

Alaska Airlines Passenger Computers Down - Waiting Two Hours Now To Board [UPDATED]

Our flight was supposed to leave at 1pm (Alaska time).  They were just starting boarding at 12:20pm when they abruptly stopped and said there was an IT problem and we should sit down.

After a bit I tweeted asking why they couldn't use our boarding passes since planes seemed to be flying and landing.

Just wait a tad, they tweeted back.

At 2pm I asked again why we can't board and wait for the computers to come up again while we fly instead of at the airport.

Got another tweet saying the system was up briefly but went down again.  They're considering using paper to board.  I should hold tight.

Not a lot of choices.  I understand computers go down.  But if it's just the passengers info, why can't we use paper?  They should have a backup.  Now, if the computer controls more than that and it would jeopardize flying, that's another story.  But since planes have landed and people got off their flights ok, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Well, here's the latest tweet - and the system wanted to know if I was satisfied with the answer.

"Thanks Steven. I'm sorry, since you know some of our systems have gone down. We want to make sure we can fly you safely first. -Tara"

There's an announcement saying they will look at our boarding passes in about 5 minutes.  A Kodiak flight - the announcement says - will board too.

Is the computer up or are they resorting to paper.  I guess you'll have to wait til I land.

[UPDATE 10:50pm (Pacific Standard Time):  We finally left about 3:30pm (Alaska Time) and had an uneventful flight.  Had a text message from Alaska Airlines when I turned my phone back on in Seattle:  They added a $75 discount on my next account to my discount codes.  I guess you have to be in their frequent flyer program to get it.  Person sitting near us also got one.  Here are a couple of pictures from the flight.

Now we're back in the rain in Seattle, but after 0˚F this morning in Anchorage, 40˚F feels balmy.]

Nunes Pulls Memo Out of His Hole, And It Casts A Long Shadow - 6 More Weeks Of Trump Presidency At Least

The Republicans are now deeply into Newspeak.  Their words mean the opposite of normal usage.  On this groundhog day, I'm reluctantly allowing myself to be dragged into the Memo's shadow,  to offer some translation and other contextual matters.  (Here's a link to the Memo* itself.  No, I don't know enough to judge it, but if I have to choose between Comey's assessment and Nunes' (or Trump's), it's an easy decision.

Today the conservative spin machine is supporting the release of 'the memo' on the grounds of transparency and the public interest.   (I can't find a good quote that includes both those terms together, but here's Tucker Carlson on Fox lambasting Democrats for opposing transparency, and here's NDTV focused on 'significant public interest.")

Translations

1.  The public interest = Trump's interest, and by extension the interest of individual Republicans who will do anything to maintain their power in Congress - individually and collectively.

2.  Transparency = is good when it is harmful to Trump's enemies.  So the leaks of Clinton's emails were good.  The release of 'the memo,' is good.  Why?  Because it is in 'the public (Trump's) interest by using carefully selected tidbits to attack the Mueller's investigation.  If transparency were really the principle in question here, then the Intelligence Committee's minority response would also be released.

Transparency isn't something that Trump has supported much up to now.  I sort of agree with Craig Griggs who tweeted:

OK..Now the talking point is "we are all for transparency" I will take the Memo release & raise you the release of @realDonaldTrump taxes, business records, Trump University documentation and the lifting of the GAG Order on the Porn Star!! @cnn @ananavarro please propose that.

— Craig Griggs (@craiggriggs18) February 1, 2018

I said 'sort of agree.'   Trump is good at doing something outrageous that then becomes part of the negotiation, something that should never have been on the bargaining table at all.  I won't 'take the Memo release" in exchange.  But if Griggs cedes the memo, then Trump has already won.  One more instance of making the previously unthinkable, a done deal.

Let's follow through on transparency here.  After all, the Democrats have been more likely to call for transparency in recent years.  What are the legitimate conditions for not being transparent?

For one, if transparency doesn't really mean transparency, but rather, as the Democrats claim in this case, a mangled combinations of fact shadows and outright manipulation and deception.  But there are also legitimate reasons for things to be redacted.  The Freedom of Information Act (which, by the way, was passed during the Republican Nixon administration) offers a list of nine exemptions, info that isn't available to the public.  (Some probably reflect heavy industry lobbying more than the public interest.)

 The FBI and DOJ claim that releasing the memo will compromise various democratic processes that will destroy relationships based on trust.  Here's James Comey's assessment of the damage:

That’s it? Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.

— James Comey (@Comey) February 2, 2018

One could liken this to a case of infidelity - Nunes has broken his vows as the head of the House Intelligence committee to maintain the secrecy of confidential information, vows to keep this committee bi-partisan.  But marriages do get back on track after one partner strays.  And Nunes is NOT the committee, he's a temporary custodian of the committee.

I've gone back to look for documentation of the agreement for bipartisanship in this committee and haven't found it yet.  The Intelligence Committee's website is vague in its History tab, but it does have a link to the original legislation from 1977.

Section 7(b)(1) says:

"(b) (1) In any case in which the select committee votes to disclose publicly any information which has been classified under established security procedures, which has been submitted to it by the executive branch, and which the executive branch requests be kept secret, such committee shall notify the
President of such vote.  [emphasis added]

So they seem to have followed that requirement.  Then the next step is as follows:

"(2) The select committee may disclose publicly such information after the expiration of a 'five-day period 'following the day on which notice of such vote is transmitted to the President, unless, prior to the expiration of such five-day period, the President, personally in writing', notifies the committee that he objects to the disclosure of such information, provides his reasons therefor, and certifies that the threat to the national interest of the United States posed by such disclosure is of such gravity that it outweighs any public interest in the disclosure.

Have five days passed?  It says they have to wait five days for the president to object.  If a president tells them it's ok, I guess they don't have to keep waiting.

WARNING:  The law is incredibly convoluted and what one section says can be conditioned in other sections or by court decisions.  I'm simply providing a starting point here, but do not claim that I in any way know anything more than what this particular piece of legislation says.  Or even that much.

In the best of democratic situations, everything should be transparent, the good and the bad - if not immediately (as exceptions in the Freedom of Information Act spell out).  Like in science, the debate should be able to reveal problems or give added support.  If, however, as the agencies claim, the debate is hampered because national security would be jeopardized by revealing confidential information, such debate can't really take place.

Hopefully, the collateral damage Comey lists will eventually get resolved.  Ideally the damage will fall more heavily on Nunes, Trump, and the Republicans who aren't standing up to the bully president.

Nunes' "Release the Memo" will, I expect, go down in history on the same page as Joseph McCarthy's "I have a list."

There is more than an imagined connection here.  Trump is said to have gotten his basic strategy for everything - Attack, Counter-Attack, Never Apologize - from Roy Cohn who was Joseph McCarthy's aide.  Everything is connected.

Since I've mentioned Cohn, I should point out that I also have a revealing post on Roy Cohn:

"Roy Cohn was one of the most loathsome characters in American history, so why did he have so many influential friends?"

Which has as a follow up question:  "Or,  how and why do 'good' people allow 'evil' to flourish?"

It's a post I'd recommend if you haven't read it already.  It includes video from the award winning play "Angels in America" - the part where Roy Cohn is arguing with his doctor about his AIDS diagnosis.

*Update Feb 2, 2018, 5:45pm - One set of Cliff Notes for reading the Memo is Marci Wheeler's piece at Huffington Post.

"Institutionalized Conflict of Interest" - If You Know The Name Manafort, But Not A Whole Lot More

Then you need to read this Atlantic article, The Plot Against America.  The sleaziness of Paul Manafort is breathtaking, and the story fills in gaps in lots of other stories you probably know.

Early dirty work with Roger Stone and Lee Atwater.

Changing the DC lobby culture.

Profiting off of arms dealers and lobbying Congress for the most repressive regimes in the world.

The only way Trump couldn't know about Manafort was if he willfully ignored what everyone around him knew.

Some brief excerpts:

"Manafort had profited from the sort of excesses that make a country ripe for revolution. And in the early months of 2014, protesters gathered on the Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, and swept his patron from power. Fearing for his life, Yanukovych sought protective shelter in Russia. Manafort avoided any harm by keeping a careful distance from the enflamed city. But in his Kiev office, he’d left behind a safe filled with papers that he would not have wanted to fall into public view or the wrong hands."

There's a lot of personal info on Manafort because his daughter's phone was hacked.

"Nine months after the Ukrainian revolution, Manafort’s family life also went into crisis. The nature of his home life can be observed in detail because Andrea’s text messages were obtained last year by a “hacktivist collective”—most likely Ukrainians furious with Manafort’s meddling in their country—which posted the purloined material on the dark web. The texts extend over four years (2012–16) and 6 million words. Manafort has previously confirmed that his daughter’s phone was hacked and acknowledged the authenticity of some texts quoted by Politico and The New York Times."

"When Manafort had arrived in Washington in the 1970s, the place reveled in its shabby glories, most notably a self-satisfied sense of high duty. Wealth came in the form of Georgetown mansions, with their antique imperfections and worn rugs projecting power so certain of itself, it needn’t shout. But that old boarding-school establishment wasn’t Manafort’s style. As he made a name for himself, he began to dress differently than the Brooks Brothers crowd on K Street, more European, with funky, colorful blazers and collarless shirts. If he entertained the notion, say, of moving his backyard swimming pool a few feet, nothing stopped him from the expense. Colleagues, amused by his sartorial quirks and his cosmopolitan lifestyle, referred to him as 'the Count of Monte Cristo.'”

"His acts of rebellion were not merely aesthetic. Manafort rewrote the rules of his adopted city. In the early ’80s, he created a consulting firm that ignored the conventions that had previously governed lobbying. When it came to taking on new clients, he was uninhibited by moral limits. In 2016, his friends might not have known the specifics of his Cyprus accounts, all the alleged off-the-books payments to him captured in Cyrillic ledgers in Kiev. But they knew enough to believe that he could never sustain the exposure that comes with running a presidential campaign in the age of opposition research and aggressive media. “The risks couldn’t have been more obvious,” one friend who attempted to dissuade him from the job told me. But in his frayed state, these warnings failed to register."

"Whereas other firms had operated in specialized niches—lobbying, consulting, public relations—Black, Manafort and Stone bundled all those services under one roof, a deceptively simple move that would eventually help transform Washington. Time magazine deemed the operation “the ultimate supermarket of influence peddling.” Fred Wertheimer, a good-government advocate, described this expansive approach as 'institutionalized conflict of interest.'” 

"All of the money Congress began spending on anti-communist proxies represented a vast opportunity. Iron-fisted dictators and scruffy commandants around the world hoped for a share of the largesse. To get it, they needed help refining their image, so that Congress wouldn’t look too hard at their less-than-liberal tendencies. Other lobbyists sought out authoritarian clients, but none did so with the focused intensity of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly. The firm would arrange for image-buffing interviews on American news programs; it would enlist allies in Congress to unleash money. Back home, it would help regimes acquire the whiff of democratic legitimacy that would bolster their standing in Washington."

There's a lot more in the article itself. 

For Those Suffering From Presidential Abuse - There's Help

This guidance for women in abusive relationships seems appropriate for Republican members of Congress and others suffering from presidential abuse.   The quotes are from HelpGuide.org

"Getting out of an abusive or violent relationship isn’t easy. Maybe you’re still hoping that things will change or you’re afraid of what your partner will do if he discovers you’re trying to leave. Whatever your reasons, you probably feel trapped and helpless. But help is available. There are many resources available for abused and battered women [Republicans], including crisis hotlines, shelters—even job training, legal services, and childcare. You deserve to live free of fear. Start by reaching out."

Comment:  obviously it's time to set up those hotlines and job training programs for Republican members of Congress.   I'd also propose a fund to build a statue to honor the first ten Republican Senators and the first 25 Republican House members who defect.  That's all it would take to switch the Senate and House to deal with Trump.  But just the first brave ones.  Once the tipping point is reached, it's no longer a brave act.

"Making the decision to leave
As you face the decision to either end the abusive relationship or try to save it, keep the following things in mind:
If you’re hoping your abusive partner will change... The abuse will probably happen again. Abusers have deep emotional and psychological problems. While change is not impossible, it isn’t quick or easy. And change can only happen once your abuser takes full responsibility for his behavior, seeks professional treatment, and stops blaming you, his unhappy childhood, stress, work, his drinking, or his temper.
If you believe you can help your abuser... It’s only natural that you want to help your partner. You may think you’re the only one who understands him or that it’s your responsibility to fix his problems. But the truth is that by staying and accepting repeated abuse, you’re reinforcing and enabling the abusive behavior. Instead of helping your abuser, you’re perpetuating the problem.
If your partner has promised to stop the abuse... When facing consequences, abusers often plead for another chance, beg for forgiveness, and promise to change. They may even mean what they say in the moment, but their true goal is to stay in control and keep you from leaving. But most of the time, they quickly return to their abusive behavior once they’ve been forgiven and they’re no longer worried that you’ll leave.
If your partner is in counseling or a program for batterers... Even if your partner is in counseling, there is no guarantee that he’ll change. Many abusers who go through counseling continue to be violent, abusive, and controlling. If your partner has stopped minimizing the problem or making excuses, that’s a good sign. But you still need to make your decision based on who he is now, not the man you hope he will become.
If you’re worried about what will happen if you leave... You may be afraid of what your abusive partner will do, where you’ll go, or how you’ll support yourself or your children. But don’t let fear of the unknown keep you in a dangerous, unhealthy situation.

Comment:  There's so much for Republicans to absorb in this.
Republicans:  read this carefully:  He's not going to change.  You can't help him change.  You can't believe his promises.  He fires the advisors when they cross him.  He won't go to counseling.

"Signs that your abuser is NOT changing:
He minimizes the abuse or denies how serious it really was. [√]
He continues to blame others for his behavior. [√√√√]
He claims that you’re the one who is abusive. [√]
He pressures you to go to couple’s counseling. [Ha!]
He tells you that you owe him another chance. [Hasn't admitted doing anything wrong]
You have to push him to stay in treatment. [not applicable]
He says that he can’t change unless you stay with him and support him. [sorta]
He tries to get sympathy from you, your children, or your family and friends. [√]
He expects something from you in exchange for getting help.[He expects something from you in exchange for nothing.]
He pressures you to make decisions about the relationship."[√]

We're all involved and victimized by this drama in the White House.  But Republicans in the House and Senate seem to be the ones most in denial.  As I said above,  if just ten red Senators (fewer really)  and 25 red Representatives stand up to their abuser, we can all be rid of him.

For those who are Democrats or otherwise watching this with alarm, I recommended a way last year how to get enough Republicans to defect in the House and Senate.  I suggested setting up a statue fund that would honor the first  ten Republican senators and first 25 Republican house members for defecting from their party's support of Trump.  This can include safe houses and counseling and all the other things the HelpGuide site recommends for victims of domestic violence.  [Unfortunately, I can't remember enough about what I wrote to be able to find the post, but you get the drift.]

Trump's State of the Union Lies And Skutniks And Calls To End The Rule Of Law

Politifact has this chart out on Trump's record of truth telling over his presidency.

Here's their take on the State of the Union. It doesn't look like the checked every statement to me.



Skutniks

What is a Skutnik?  From a January 2016 TIME article:

In his 1982 State of the Union speech, Reagan did something new. Almost 200 years after George Washington gave the first annual message from the President to Congress, Reagan’s first State of the Union started a tradition by inviting Lenny Skutnik to attend.

The article tells us that Skutnik was a 28 year old Congressional Budget Office employee, and as TIME tells the story,

"On Jan. 13, an Air Florida plane crashed into Washington D.C.’s 14th Street bridge. Skutnik jumped into the Potomac to pull a victim ashore, gaining national notoriety along the way."

Sputnik was invited to the State of the Union two weeks later. Skutnik

“was a bit unnerved when Nancy Reagan sat down next to him in the House gallery” and he wasn’t expecting to be called out by name. As the crowd clapped, “Skutnik, looking slightly stricken, stood up with the help of a shove from behind. ‘My mind went blank, I didn’t move a muscle. I was stunned. Not many people get standing ovations, and for somebody like me…’”

The article says that since then every president has used a Skutnik at one or more of their States of the Union.   I don't know what the record is, but it sure seemed like a lot at Trump's first State of the Union.  But, I guess, it's a good way to associate oneself with heroes and people who somehow illustrate issues.  It's also a good way to take up time without really talking about policy except in the most general way.

VOX identifies (and gives more detail of) 15 people who were spotlighted during Trump's speech.

• Corey Adams: A welder from Dayton, Ohio. He and his wife became first-time homeowners in 2017. 
• Steve Staub and Sandy Keplinger: Owners of a metal fabrication company 
• Elizabeth Alvarado and Robert Mickens; Evelyn Rodriguez and Freddy Cuevas: Parents of Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas, respectively, two teenagers murdered on Long Island in 2016. Federal authorities have indicted members of MS-13, a gang founded in Los Angeles by Salvadoran refugees, for their murders. 
• Agent Celestino “CJ” Martinez: An ICE agent whose investigations have led to more than 100 arrests of MS-13 gang members, 
• Retired Cpl. Matthew Bradford: A member of the Marine Corps who deployed to Iraq and was badly injured by an IED in 2007, losing his eyes and both his legs. He is now the first blind double amputee to reenlist in the Marine Corps, according to the White House.
• Ashlee Leppert: A US Coast Guard member who participated in rescue missions during hurricane season.
• Staff Sgt. Justin Peck: A staff sergeant in the US Army who participated in operations in Raqqa, 
• Preston Sharp: The 12-year-old Sharp is leading an initiative to put American flags and carnations on soldiers’ graves through the Flag and Flower Challenge (#FandFChallenge).
• Jon Bridgers: A founder of the Cajun Navy, whose volunteers helped rescue stranded victims of Hurricane Harvey. 
• David Dahlberg: A fire prevention technician with the US Forest Service who saved 62 children 
• Ryan Holets: A police officer in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He and his wife adopted a baby from a homeless mother with an opioid addiction. 

One more little thing that was tucked into the speech.  I thought I heard him say something about accountability and keeping government accountable by firing federal employees.  But it went by pretty fast.  It was alarming, but then there were a couple more Skutniks and I forgot it.

Fortunately, Slate didn't forget it. 

"Under the cover of his soothing rhetoric about unity and bipartisanship, Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

By design, it is easy to overlook the true significance of the second half of that phrase. But dwell on it for a moment, and imagine what this would actually look like in practice. Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot. In other words, Trump is calling for an end to any semblance of independence for the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any other federal agency.
To be sure, such legislation is unlikely to pass.  While the constant standing ovations for Trump from the Republican benches demonstrate the degree to which the GOP has now embraced the president, they are not yet at the point of dismantling the rule of law quite so brazenly; even if they did, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike such a law down as unconstitutional.
But the fact that Trump’s authoritarian demand is unlikely to be realized anytime soon does not make it unimportant. In his first State of the Union, the 45th president of the United States asked Congress for the authority to end the rule of law. And that—not Trump’s supposedly unifying policy proposals, much less his supposedly presidential ability to read a speech off a teleprompter—should be the headline of every newspaper tomorrow.

There are rules and laws in place to insure that career government employees cannot be arbitrarily fired.  They must have first gone through an investigation and hearing to proves they violated a significant enough rule or law to justify firing.  Allowing a cabinet secretary to arbitrarily fire an employee on the spot does not comport with the rule of law.

It really shouldn't come as a surprise that Trump would like to fire any employee who displeases him, after all his fame is in part associated with the phrase "You're fired!"  And it's not inconsistent with his apparent attempts to block the investigation into his ties with Russia.  But it's chilling.