The Man From Porlock

 Indulge me as I borrow this poem from the Poetry Foundation website.  Coleridge was born in 1772, which means he was three years old when Paul Revere made his famous ride.  Four years old when the Declaration of Independence was written.  Nine when the Articles of Confederation were written.  How much would a child of that age have been aware of the momentous events that were taking place then?  He was 11 when the Treaty of Paris ended the war in 1783. 

This poem was written in 1797 when Coleridge was 25, when John Adams was succeeding George Washington as the second president of the United States.  And, a note to give poets and other writers hope, it was published in 1816, a year after Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo.  

You can't read it like a tweet.  You have to slow down.  The words flow in a different rhythm.  Let yourself relax and get caught up in that rhythm. 

Kubla Khan

BY SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE 

Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment.

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan

A stately pleasure-dome decree:

Where Alph, the sacred river, ran

Through caverns measureless to man

   Down to a sunless sea.

So twice five miles of fertile ground

With walls and towers were girdled round;

And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,

Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;

And here were forests ancient as the hills,

Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted

Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!

A savage place! as holy and enchanted

As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted

By woman wailing for her demon-lover!

And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,

As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,

A mighty fountain momently was forced:

Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst

Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,

Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail:

And mid these dancing rocks at once and ever

It flung up momently the sacred river.

Five miles meandering with a mazy motion

Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,

Then reached the caverns measureless to man,

And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean;

And ’mid this tumult Kubla heard from far

Ancestral voices prophesying war!

   The shadow of the dome of pleasure

   Floated midway on the waves;

   Where was heard the mingled measure

   From the fountain and the caves.

It was a miracle of rare device,

A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!

   A damsel with a dulcimer

   In a vision once I saw:

   It was an Abyssinian maid

   And on her dulcimer she played,

   Singing of Mount Abora.

   Could I revive within me

   Her symphony and song,

   To such a deep delight ’twould win me,

That with music loud and long,

I would build that dome in air,

That sunny dome! those caves of ice!

And all who heard should see them there,

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread

For he on honey-dew hath fed,

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

So why have I introduced this poem here tonight?  In part because the post I was writing just isn't ready yet and I thought I shouldn't let too many days go by.  But that's not why I offer Coleridge.  Coleridge comes courtesy of Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel Prize winning Turkish novelist.  In his incredible book Snow, poet Ka goes to Kars, a town in the northeast of Turkey, as a journalist.  It snows the entire time he's there.  Ka has lived in Germany and is a famous Turkish poet and while the people of Kars have different suspicions of why he is in Kars, they know he's a famous poet and he's been asked to recite a recent poem.  

Just before his public recital, Necip, a local youth who has aspirations to be a poet as well, corners Ka and tells him about a landscape that appears to him when he tries to imagine a world where God does not exist.  Pamuk writes:

"He thought about Necip's landscape - he could remember his description word for word as if it were already a poem - and if no one came from Porlock he was sure he would soon be writing the poem in his notebook."

The reader of Snow is just as surprised and puzzled by the reference to the man from Porlock as you might be.  But Pamuk continues:

"The man from Porlock!  During our last years in school when Ka and I would stay up half the night talking about literature, this was one of our favorite topics.  Anyone who knows anything about English poetry will remember the note at the start of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan."  It explains how the work is a 'fragment of a poem, from a vision during a dream";  the poet had fallen asleep after taking medicine for an illness (actually, he'd taken opium for fun) and had seen, in his deepest sleep, sentences from the book he'd been reading just before losing consciousness, except that now each sentence and each object had taken on a life of its own in a magnificent dreamscape to become a poem.  Imagine, a magnificent poem that had created itself, without the poet's having exerted any mental energy!  Even more amazing, when Coleridge woke up he could remember this splendid poem word for word.  He got out his pen and ink and some paper and carefully began to write it down, one line after the other, as if he were taking dictation.  He had just written the last line of the poem as we know it when there came a knock at the door.  He rose to answer it, and it was a man from the nearby city of Porlock, come to collect a debt. As soon as he'd dealt with this man, he rushed back to his table, only to discover that he'd forgotten the rest of the poem, except for a few scattered words and the general atmosphere."

What does this have to do with anything?  I suppose someone could use it to interpret what is happening in the US today, but for me it's just an interesting, unexpected pleasure of reading Snow.

Though we all get visits from the man from Porlock at the most inopportune times.  

 

Oh, and it began to snow about the time I was reading tonight.  

You can learn more about Coleridge's contributions here.

Alaska Redistricting Board: The Political Outcomes Of The Maps - A Different View

1. The Board has taken six different maps on the road and is sharing with the public.  
2. Two of the maps (Version3 and V4) are maps the Board members made.
3. The other four maps were made by 3rd parties interested in the process.  
1. AFFER - Alaskans For Fair And Equitable Redistricting
2. AFFR - Alaskans for Fair Redistricting
3. Doyon Coalition
4. Senate Minority Coalition  

You can get more information about the 3rd Parties in an earlier post.  Or you can look at the maps and see if you can guess which ones lean which way by the results.  Then check the link.

The Alaska Landmine published some maps and lists of information on how the maps impacted incumbents.  Here's the post for the Board's v3 and v4 maps.  Here's the post for the 3rd party maps.  The mapping and calculating the impact on incumbents were done by Robert Hockema.  

I've taken Hockema's lists and reorganized them in a way that makes it easier for me to see things clearly.  We all have different ways of taking in and making sense of information.  This works best for me.  But I want to thank Hockema for the work he did that lets us all understand how the different maps impact incumbents.  

Look at the charts.  I have some comments at the bottom, but I want you to raise your own questions and conclusions before you read my thoughts.  

[If I make the charts too big, they stretch over into the side column.  But these are higher than normal resolution and so you should be able to click on them to enlarge them.  If you're sight impaired, let me know and I can send you charts your computer can change to audio.]

1.  Board Map v3

2.  Board Map v4

3.  AFFER Map

4.  AFFR Map

5.  Doyon Coalition map

6.  Senate Minority Coalition Map

Thoughts

Factual Observations

1. All the maps pair some Democratic and some Republican incumbents and have districts with no incumbents
2. Some have more Democrats paired, others have more Republicans paired
3. Four of the six have at least one Democrat paired with a Republican 

Some Background

1. The Board agreed early on to "not protect incumbents."  They never agreed to "not target incumbents."  I pointed this out at public testimony and requested they add 'no targeting' to assure the public that the maps were not intentionally aimed at blocking certain incumbents.  They haven't done that.
2. The Board's executive director has publicly stated on various occasions that the Board's data base does not have political information in it.  Thus, to intentionally gerrymander, a Board member must 
1. already know where incumbents live
2. get that information from someone other than fellow Board members or Board staff, OR
3. have some other means of going after incumbents
3. In Anchorage, the bowl tends to be more Democratic in the north parts and more Republican in the south and hillside parts.  
4. The current districts tend to go north-south.
5. To pair Democrats in Anchorage without knowing exactly where they live, one could switch the north-south orientation of northern districts to east-west and probably catch some incumbents in the same district. 
6. Before mapping began, Board member Marcum mentioned several times that she'd heard from the public that east-west maps made more sense than north-south maps.
7. I also asked, in public testimony, that Board members publicly report if they got mapping advice from people other than Board members or staff, that was NOT given to them in public testimony.  Two Board members did publicly state they did not get information from anyone but Board members and staff.  The other three have not.  

Evaluative Observations

1. It's probably difficult to make maps that don't pair any incumbents while meeting the basic criteria for legitimate maps (compactness, contiguity, socio-economic integration, and low deviation) - but not impossible 
2. One can infer that some maps intentionally paired incumbents, that is they gerrymandered the maps to improve the outcomes in the elections for one party or another.  We can't know for sure, but given the leanings of the map makers, and peculiarities in some maps, it seems likely.
3. It's my sense that while some Board members and 3rd Party map makers have sincerely used the mapping criteria to try to make fair maps, some, when explaining how and why they made the maps appeared to be using the criteria to justify what appear to be gerrymandering attempts.  

Afternoon In Alaska - And Thanks Cameron Lowther

 We took advantage of late October sunny day to go for a hike this afternoon.  

McHugh Creek ought to still be snow free we thought.  And it was.  Well, a little snow up on top, but not like all the hillside snow in Anchorage.

All the leafless cottonwoods look so cool, just waiting for us to join their party.  

And ripe rosehips everywhere just begging to be tasted.

There are a number of little streams crossing the trail and sometimes just random water making the trail muddy.  But there are boardwalks here and there most of the time when needed.  And this particular stretch even told us that Cameron Lowther built it for us.  So thanks Cameron and all the other anonymous boardwalk builders for making our hike a little easier.  

Yes, there was sun when we left and it was still out when we got there 20 minutes later.  But it seemed clouds were coming in from the south.  But the sun was resilient and the clouds not that diligent.  

Here's one of those little rivulets I was talking about.  

Whoever lives in here, wasn't answering the doorbell.  

McHugh Creek was the perfect spot, because just south of the entrance to the parking lot there was road constructions and cars were lined up.  Which also meant, when we left, there were no cars for a while because they were waiting to get let through the construction zone.  

Driving back the tide was out in Turnagain Arm and the Alaska Range was visible in the distance.  

A quick stop at Potter Marsh.  There were three swans off in the distance.  I don't have one of those huge telephoto lens like the lady at the pull out, so I didn't eve try.  But the grasses and the still water were enough for me.  

Recalls Are A Pain [Updated]

[Updated Nov 2, 2021 - For folks not in Anchorage, the recall has failed badly.  There are still by mail votes trickling in, but as of Nov1, No was well ahead.]  

While I'm strongly opposed to the Meg Zaletel recall, this post was supposed to mention that briefly as I talked about problems with recalls in general.  Not that they shouldn't happened when politicians act badly, but that they shouldn't be used to harass hard working politicians over policy disagreements with ridiculous technical violation charges.  

But as I tried to track down the details, I kept discovering odd things about the people behind the recall effort.  

Let me say here, Meg is a great Assembly member.  But that's why she's a target here.  These are an odd set of characters trying to get her recalled a few months before here actual reelection would come up.  (Though in fairness, court challenges delayed actual signature gathering.)

Sometimes blog posts often write themselves and I'm just the fingers that work the keys.  Right now there's a struggle happening with this post between me and the mysterious force that throws strange facts my way in an attempt to hijack a post.  This wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I started.  

So let's use  the Meg Zaletel recall election as an example of an Alaskan recall vote.  

Step 1:  From the Alaska State Statutes:

"(a) An application for a recall petition shall be filed with the municipal clerk and must contain

(1) the signatures and residence addresses of at least 10 municipal voters who will sponsor the petition;"

Steps 2 and 3 and maybe 4, depending on how you count.  The Zaletel petition was rejected by the Municipal Clerk, but later approved - in part - by the Superior Court and then the Supreme Court.  

Step 5:  Getting enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot.

From Alaska Statutes:

 "the petition shall be signed by a number of the voters residing in the district equal to 25 percent of the number of votes cast in the district for that office at the last regular election held before the date the written notice is given to the contact person that the petition is available."

2019 District 4 Assembly Results

So, there were 9769 total votes cast in the district 4 Assembly seat election.  25% of that is 2442.  (Other sources say 2468).  I read a claim somewhere that they ended up with 4900 signatures, but I can't verify that.

You may notice that the person who came in second was Christine Hill.  She was the local Republican Party chair who passed out yellow stars of David at Assembly Meetings on mask mandates recently.  

Here's the district:

Basically, 

South:  Abbott Loop and a bit of Dimond

West:  Minnesota, C St, and Spenard 

North:  Campbell Creek, Lake Otis, 15th

East:  Along APU eastern border, a bit of Tudor, then Campbell Airstrip Road back to Abbot.

The original recall petition signed by, apparently, a group of 14 neighbors in Geneva Woods.  You only need 10 people to sign the original petition for the recall.  Then you have to get the rest of the 25% of people who voted in the election.  

This petition was ultimately accepted.  Another that claimed she limited public participation by limiting number of people who get go into the chambers was rejected because the Municipal Code explicitly allows for call in testimony.  

Basically, when there were over 15 people in the Assembly chamber, Zaletel (and all the other members present) didn't adjourn the meeting and leave.  Clearly a legalistic complaint that could have been made about all the other members of the Assembly.  And I'm sure the petitioners, who opposed the COVID restrictions, enjoyed the irony of using one as the basis of the recall.

The basic issue is that Zaletel is competent, rational, works hard, and but has different views - as does the majority of the Assembly - from the petitioners.  She also supported using the Golden Lion Hotel as a rehabilitation center.  The hotel is near the upscale Geneva Woods neighborhood almost all of the petitioners live in.  

As I was trying to track down details for this, I found several far right wing groups tracking this both in Alaska and nationally.  And we can see by the money being spent on this recall on both sides that this is much more than a typical recall.  This is part of the Trump encouraged attacks on all levels of government.  

OK, so that's what's happened regarding this current recall election which is a vote by mail election that ends on Tuesday.  

The $75,000 contribution to the recall campaign by Marc McKenna, head of McKenna Brothers Paiving, of course, raises questions.  One of the biggest users of paving are governments with streets to pave.  But I also learned that it was at a birthday party for Marc and his brother Matt in 2014, that the infamous Palin family brawl broke out.  I can't completely verify all that was reported in that link, but the BBC also reported on the party and quotes Marc's brother Matt.

So I really didn't get to say the things I was thinking about when I was contemplating this post so let me do it quickly now.

1. 
   It's hard to make a NO recall sign.  Look at the picture up top.  I think the NO RECALL part should have been bigger than Zaletel's name. Driving down the street you don't have much time to look and you can't be sure if the sign is telling you to vote yes or no because the no is too small.  [UPDATE Oct 25, 2021- walking through my neighborhood this morning I saw this]
   new and improved No Recall sign.  Compare to the one at top - the NO RECALL is much larger.]
2. It's important to have a recall option.  But it should be a little harder to get it on the ballot.  The problems with Meg Zaletel are NOT issues of her violating the law or misconduct.  These people don't like her politics and can't wait for the next election. 
3. They also tried to recall Felix Rivera in the last municipal election.  He represents District 4 with Zaletel.  That recall lost in the election.  BUT, that was a regular election.  More people show up at regular elections.  The recall crowd has more momentum in a special election.  
4. So, as good as Zaletel is, her not being recalled is not at all certain.  
5. That said, any day now there will be a recall drive started to oust Anchorage's Mayor Dave Bronson.  He's responsible, in my mind, of killing 50-60  people in Anchorage since taking office in July by not taking action to stem the spread of COVID.  In fact his actions have helped it spread rapidly making Alaska the top state in the country in terms of COVID infections per 100,000.  But the petitioners will have more specific violations.  

The Rich Screw The Poor in Netflix's The Billion Dollar Code And Squid Game -

1.   Billion Dollar Code. 

It tells the story of two young, idealistic, naive German nerds in the early 90s who create a program that allows you to fly via your computer screen to any place on earth.  The story skips back and forth between the story of developing Terra View and the law suit against Google and Google Earth for appropriating their creation and violating their patent. 

I don't know how accurately the series portrays the real events, but even if it's not accurate

1. it's a good story with good characters
2. the general idea of super large corporations buying out, if not stealing, the work of others and thus taking out competition and creating huge Goliath corporations is what is happening in the world.  Just consider that over the years Google has acquired Blogger (the platform for this blog), and YouTube (where I post videos for this blog), 

Code is in German with subtitles, though I suspect you can listen to it all in English, but I didn't check. It's interesting and humbling hearing the attorneys for Terra View's creators switch back and forth between perfect German and perfect English.  

Another nice feature is that there are only four episodes.  And while they are listed in "Season 1" it essentially ended with S1E4.  

For those interested in how our economy favors the wealthy, definitely watch.  

2.  Squid Game

Netflix was pushing Squid Game and I reviewed the brief description and decided I could pass.  It sounded too violent.  But then I read a review about how it was Netflix's biggest hit ever.  So we watched Episode One. 

Way too violent.  

Then I read another review that talked about how it was a critique of capitalism, particularly in South Korea.  How people in debt are offered an opportunity to play a game and potentially win billions of won.  The players get picked up in vans, put to sleep, and driven to a secret island. 

We decided to give it another try.  What I've said above shouldn't spoil any of it for you. All that happened in the beginning of Episode One.  

But it is a very loose commentary on poverty and debt in South Korea which, along with Yuh-Jung Youn's Academy Award winning film Parasite, have revised my sense of how things are actually going for people in South Korea.  In this series - there are nine episodes in season one and enough loose ends that a second season is inevitable - there is lots of violence and a very clear contrast between the very rich and those who keep falling behind economically.  

I don't know that I would recommend Squid Game.  It's interesting, good film making with good visuals and good acting.  But there's also enough blood to fill a Blood Bank.  And some good twists and turns.  

Manchin - Thinking Out Loud

[I live in Alaska.  I've passed through West Virginia long ago.  I have no inside knowledge about Manchin.  Just general thoughts about how people behave in political organizations.]

Manchin and Sinema keep trading places in the headlines as the person who is holding climate change and other critical issues hostage.  

Since I live in an oil state, I have an inkling of the pressure that any US Senator from Alaska feels - Democrat or Republican.  When Mark Begich was the Democratic Senator from Alaska, he supported oil development.  It's part of the job of an Alaskan Senator.  Or at least the perception is that if you aren't an oil supporter, you won't get elected.  Oil money will sink your campaign.  So Alaskan Democrats might lobby a Democratic Senator on climate change, but we know oil interests lobby harder.  Sen. Murkowski understands the importance of climate change and bows to oil and GOP pressure.  

So I understand that Manchin needs to stand strong on coal.  He stands strong with the coal industry and the jobs it brings his state.  Even if the demand for coal is waning.  Even if many coal miners die a premature death from black lung disease.  In Alaska oil doesn't actually employ that many people compared to other sectors.  And almost 40% commute from Outside for one or two week rotations. But for the last 40 years it has paid for state government.  Whenever there is any opposition to what the oil companies want, they spend massive amounts of money to sway public opinion that only oil can keep Alaskans employed and enjoying the lifestyle they've come to expect.  Even if it's not true. 

I saw a Tweet yesterday responding to someone complaining that Biden couldn't deliver major legislation the way LBJ or FDR could.  The responders pointed out that LBJ had a 66-34 Democratic majority going into the 1964 and a 68 -32 majority after the election.  There were lots of Democrats from the South that wouldn't vote for the landmark Civil Rights legislation.  LBJ needed Republican votes to beat the filibuster, which in those days you had to actually carry out by speaking 24 hours straight or longer.  But when you were done, the vote was taken and it wasn't 2/3.  Today you just push a button and kill the legislation.  Biden has 48 Democrats and 2 Independents and 50 Republicans. He has no wiggle room whatsoever. 

One could say that by holding up critical climate change legislation to prolong the coal industry's slow death, Manchin is condemning millions of people around the world to premature deaths.  Not just because of this one bill, but because if the US falters on this, then it will give other countries around the world an excuse to go slower too.  And the slower we go, the more people will be displaced and die because of how climate change will play out.  More violent storms.  More drought causing massive fires and forcing people off the land their families have farmed for generations.  More wars to fight for scarce resources like water, arable land, livable temperatures.  And it wouldn't be wrong to say - and history books might - that Manchin was the person who did this.

But Manchin is only the focal point because of other problems as well:

• Our US Senate is grossly unrepresentative.  Because every state, no matter the population, has two senators, small, rural states have more more senators than their small populations deserve.  Alaska, with 733,391 people has two Senators just like California with almost 40 million people  - 54 times as many people!  Democrats in the Senate represent 43 million more people than the Republican Senators represent.  
• There are 50 Republican Senators who aren't being put in the spotlight like Manchin.  What are they doing?  There isn't one who has the courage to vote yes?
• Minority leader McConnell could work out a deal to get this passed.  But making Democrats look bad is his main objective.  That and voter suppression is the only way Republicans can stay in power at all for now.  

I don't know what other pressures Manchin is under.  It's clear he's not looking at his situation in a long term world survival perspective.  He's up for reelection in 2024.  Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and it's going to end soon,  It's already way down in production and use,

So what must be going on behind the scenes? Some (not mutually exclusive) possibilities.  

1. He needs to publicly (in West Virginia) appear to be the man who stood up to protect West Virginia's coal,
2. He needs to protect the coal interests of his major financial backers.
3. He wants to protect his own financial interests in coal.  

Numbers 2 and 3 are harder to make deals on.  If it were only #1, it would seem like the Democrats could do a number of things that benefit West Virginia in exchange for his vote like:

1. exempt West Virginia from restrictions on coal- though if power plants are giving incentives for clean fuel, that would mean they would move away from West Virginia coal even if it were exempted.
2. offer boosts to care for coal mine related health problems for West Virginia
3. offer job retraining programs for coal miners and incentives for businesses in West Virginia to hire them and/or incentives for companies outside of West Virginia to relocate or open work places in WV
4. make a big public show of all the sacrifices Democrats had to make to satisfy Manchin for WV consumption

He's already getting lots of attention for standing firm for West Virginia's interests (whether that's true or not, it's the perception) so I'm guessing it's pressure from businesses more than voters.  Or, businesses that will spend money in the next election supporting or opposing Manchin.  While he first got elected by a strong majority in 2012, in 2018 he squeaked by with less than 50% of the vote.  

But life oddly thrusts people into the spotlight for different reasons.  Had Georgia not elected two Democratic Senators, Manchin would be much less important.  Maybe invisible.  And people really mad at Manchin have to remember if he weren't a Democrat, McConnell would still be the Senate Majority leader.  

I'd also note that we see many headlines about Manchin as well as those about Biden being in trouble because conflict and drama attract eyeballs, so the media push the conflict and use competitive sports metaphors as a way of getting more advertisers.  

"Neoclassical economics is a hell of a drug."

The kind of economics taught in intro courses - micro and macro - always seemed to me to be missing a lot.  Like how many truly rational decisions do humans make every day?  It always seemed like a ponzi scheme where you have to keep finding more and more people to buy your product/service. Standing steady is falling behind.  And there was the vast destruction of earth to find and exploit and transport the raw materials needed in production.  And the faith in the bizarre scientific formula:  The Invisible Hand.  And the total lack of ethics as a consideration.  

Then, slowly, within economics itself came people challenging the orthodoxy.  Experimental economics set up actual empirical tests of the previously sacred mantras of market economics.  Then behavioral economics started looking at human economic behavior more carefully.   

That, plus watching the price of text books go up and up and up, made this tweet resonate with me.

Neoclassical economics is a hell of a drug. It has no theory of prices, no account of inflation, and its models all presume the existence of a perfectly rational "homo economicus" who is a "utility maximizer" with perfect information.

1/ pic.twitter.com/A5PhehydHM

— Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) October 18, 2021

[Click on the Tweet Image to get to the whole thread]

There's a whole thread there that's worth  reading.  It links to a free online textbook called The Economy.  Here's the beginning of the Table of Contents:

Sorry it's not clearer.  But you can go to the book yourself.

Why Secrecy At The US Supreme Court?

In a CNN article The secret Supreme Court: Late nights, courtesy votes and the unwritten 6-vote rule  Joan Biskupic,  tells us that the justices have a weekly meeting in secret.

"At their weekly private sessions, the nine decide which pending petitions to take up and, separately, cast votes on cases that already have been argued."

Justice Stephen Breyer is quoted:

"Regarding the general need for confidentiality, Breyer said, 'Transparency is usually a word that means something good, but I would say about the conference, it's important not to have transparency. ... It is very important for people to say what they really think about these cases, and that's what happens. So I worry about changing that and somehow bringing the public into the conference.'" (emphasis added)

 This really needed to be followed up.  Here are some questions I would have wanted to ask in that interview. (I recognize that these things might not come immediately to mind in the interview, but Biscupic is  described by CNN as 

"Joan Biskupic, a full-time CNN legal analyst, has covered the Supreme Court for twenty-five years and is the author of several books on the judiciary."

These are Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments.  They can't be fired for what they say unless it rises to the level of impeachable by the US Senate. 

Justice Breyer, can you give some hypothetical examples of the kinds of things justices say that you think they wouldn't say if these meetings were public?

It's not that their language or behavior is objectionable because you say:

"What happens," Breyer told CNN, "is it's highly professional. People go around the table. They discuss the question in the case ... the chief justice and Justice (Clarence) Thomas and me and so forth around. ... People say what they think. And they say it politely, and they say it professionally."

Are there people outside the court who they feel accountable to and they would feel compelled to hide their real thoughts so these people wouldn't hear them?

If, for example, someone appointed to the court based on the strong support of the Federalist Society.  Do they say things that organization might object too?  If they said those things at these meetings, isn't it likely that other justices also appointed through the efforts of the Federalist Society would let that be known to the Federalist Society?

Is it because they are polite and reasonable to justices that their 'side' dislikes and that would be embarrassing?  

Are there things you might self-censor if this were to be public?  Why?

Is there an issue that what they say might reveal a bias for or against potential litigants at the court? 

Do they tell jokes that might be offensive to some groups in the US population? 

Are there concerns that US Senators who voted for a judge would regret that vote?  So what?  I mean simply, what would be the consequence to the judge?

Are you Ms. Biscupic perhaps too close to the court that you are reluctant to push Breyer beyond some line of appropriateness?  Would a different reporter who didn't have a relationship with the judges feel more comfortable asking such questions?  Or would such a journalist simply not have the access you have?  And would pushing further to ask these sorts of questions jeopardize your access to the justices?  I know nothing about Ms. Biscupic.  I could be totally wrong here.  I do know there have been concerns that the White House press falls into a relationship with the President and his press secretaries that can be jeopardized by asking unacceptable questions.  That's probably true about journalists who cover the court as well.  

Again, these justices have lifetime appointments.  What do they have to hide at this point?  And from whom?  I'd surely like to hear Justice Breyer or other justices answer these questions.  

I'd also note that I have, in the past, studied the concept of privacy in government, quite closely.  Nearly all public officials fear public scrutiny and in this day and age of social media, any ill-advised words could easily be copied out of context and tweeted to the world.  But Congress has adapted to C-Span.  And justices who feel the same concerns about becoming viral sensations would have a better understanding of the concerns that everyone else has.  

I would argue that all groups that are used to being able to talk, unaccountably, in private, resist when that protection is challenged.  

I recall working hard to get the Anchorage Municipal Assembly covered live by the local cable company when they arrived in Anchorage in the mid 1980s.  Assembly members on all political sides voiced concerns that such exposure would change how members debated.  But after a couple of months it quickly became obvious that a) citizens were tuning in and b) that assembly members forgot the cameras were running and didn't really change their behavior.  Recent turmoil at the Assembly was available for all to see first hand and not simply depend on how the media reported it.

So I would hope that journalists who have access to Supreme Court justices do dig deeper and push the judges to voice exactly how and why they would not be candid if the meetings were public.  

Statewide Redistricting Info Session Tonight at 7pm

 I haven't been getting emails from the Alaska Redistricting Board lately.  There is something not working.  I don't know if it is just my email or if others are also affected too.  I did talk to the Board's executive director and he sent me a copy of the last one.  It's at the bottom of this post.  Here's the link for tonight:

Meet the Maps:  Friday, October 15: 6:00pm – 7:00pm: ZOOM: https://zoom.us/j/2516336685?pwd=L0paaDNOM25zdjltRm4yTVdNbzZtUT09

There was a previous statewide meeting like this and the videotape of that meeting is here. It gives an overview of the maps and some of the issues that the mappers ran up against.    This is presented by Peter Torkelson, the board's executive director who knows as much as anyone about this decade's process.  

Here's the last email message sent to subscribers from the Board:

"A couple of quick updates for today:

• Public Testimony received though Saturday, October 9 has been posted on: Alaska Redistricting Board - Minutes & Audio (akredistrict.org).  I have not been able to spend a lot of time on emails so if you sent something to the “testimony” email asking a specific question and I haven’t gotten back to you, I will be getting to it soon. You can always send an email to me at this address if you have urgent questions.
• District, Regional, and Statewide map collections – all six maps in one file for each area – will now be posted on the Online Public Notice system for each community public hearing (the links are included in the information below). The statewide and regional collections are already posted on our map gallery, but I’ll also be adding those to the public notice so they’re all in one place.  I have prioritized this week’s meetings (which should be done today) and am working on getting the rest posted – all of them should be posted by the end of the week. I will also be going back and posting for the previous meetings – you can find these in the Online Public Notice system by searching for “Alaska Redistricting Board Public Hearing“ in archived notices.
  
  NOTE: The Anchorage district file is 96 maps – if you’re having trouble finding the appropriate maps for your area, it is probably easiest to use the Anchorage regionals to create a list of districts. Still having trouble? Feel free to email me your address or area of interest and I’ll pull the district files for you.
  
  

"Juli Lucky (she/her)

Staff, Alaska Redistricting Board

(907) 251-9295 cell

 

 

Upcoming Meetings and Important Dates:

Open House/Public Hearings:

October 12: Seward: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: Community Library: http://notice.alaska.gov/204034

October 13: Homer: 5:00pm – 7:00pm: Best Western Bidarka Inn: http://notice.alaska.gov/204035

October 14: Soldotna/Kenai: 5:30pm – 7:30pm: Kenai Peninsula Borough Building: Online Public Notice: http://notice.alaska.gov/204036

October 15: Kodiak: 12:00pm ‐2:00pm: Afognak Building: Online Public Notice: http://notice.alaska.gov/204037

October 18: Delta Junction: 12:00pm – 2:00pm: Community Center: Online Public Notice: http://notice.alaska.gov/204038

October 18: Fairbanks: 5:30pm ‐7:30pm: Carlson Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204039

October 19: Bethel: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204040

October 21: Dillingham: 12:00pm – 2:00pm: City Chambers: http://notice.alaska.gov/204041

October 22: Dutch Harbor: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: The Grand Aleutian: http://notice.alaska.gov/204042

October 25, Palmer: 6:00pm – 8:00pm: Assembly Chambers: http://notice.alaska.gov/204043

October 26, Wasilla: 6:00pm – 8:00pm: Menard Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204044

October 27: Anchorage: 5:00pm – 7:00pm: The Lake Front: http://notice.alaska.gov/204045

October 28: Utqiagvik: 4:30pm ‐ 6:30pm: North Slope Borough Assembly Chambers: http://notice.alaska.gov/204046

November 1: Cordova: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: The Cordova Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204047

 

Statewide Call-ins (will be noticed as soon as detailed schedule is finalized):

Teleconference numbers: from Anchorage 563-9085; from Juneau 586-9085; 
from anywhere else: 844-586-9085

Wednesday, October 20

Saturday, October 30

 

Meet the Maps:  Friday, October 15: 6:00pm – 7:00pm: ZOOM: https://zoom.us/j/2516336685?pwd=L0paaDNOM25zdjltRm4yTVdNbzZtUT09

 

November 10, 2021: Day 90: Adoption of Final Redistricting Plan"

 

...

Tomatoes And Other Odds And Ends

Red tree and clouds.  A bit of urban natural beauty.  

Here are some of the tomato seedlings last April 20.  Tomatoes don't do well in Alaska.  It has to stay above 50˚F (10˚C) at night for them to bear fruit.  But I found a sub-arctic variety that was supposed to bear down to 40˚F.  I left some inside by a south facing window, put some in the greenhouse in the backyard, and left one outside.  The one outside had the strongest plant - it had a sturdy stem, didn't get all leggy, and had lots of flowers and a dozen or more little tomatoes.  The ones inside (the house and the backyard greenhouse) also did well, but were not very strong.  They grew much taller and needed lots of stakes to keep them from falling over, or worse, breaking.  But we have been getting cherry size tomatoes since early September.  But then I decided I needed to bring them in when we had snow warnings.  So here are some I picked the other day.  Some are the smallest tomatoes I've ever seen - pea size.  

I enjoyed my tomato plants this summer, but it also proved my basic sense of tomatoes in Alaska - they aren't worth the effort.  I'd rather spend the time of plants that reward more spectacularly without all the work.  I still have some plants inside by the windows with small green marbles and lots of yellow flowers.  Let's see how many tomatoes we end up with.  I'd say we've had maybe 20, but not a lot in total volume.  

So when I made a couple of breads yesterday - the sour dough starter wants me to use it at least every two weeks - I made one rosemary/olive bread and one tomato/basil.  One gets eaten right away, the other goes in the freezer.  I wanted to try the tomato bread since I've never made one before, but I sliced the wrong one, so I'll have to wait a week to learn how it came out. 

 I really wanted to get the shiny asphalt covered apparatus at the back of this truck, but I was on my bike and he was moving.  But I had to settle for the wet new layer in the street.  

I decided I would like a wall with this wall paper in one room