Inside Man's Final Take On Humanity Is So Wrong

 I don't think there are any serious spoilers here.  Inside Man (on Netflix) is going where it's going, no major surprises.  

At the end,  Stanley Tucci, as Jefferson Grieff, gives a short soliloquy on the theme "We're all murderers given the right situations."

I just want to push back on that belief.  Particularly since it will give lots of already hyped up MAGA folks more justification for violence and murder.  

Is every human being capable of murder under the right conditions?  NO.  What about being capable of killing?  I think more people could kill another under the right conditions, but for many the conditions would have to be extreme indeed.  

From a Chicago Tribune column by Rabbi Marc Gellman:

"In biblical Hebrew, as in English, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words with two very different moral connotations, and the commandment uses the Hebrew word ratzah, which means that the proper translation of the commandment from Hebrew into English is, "Thou shalt not murder." The difference is crucial.

Killing is taking a life. Murder is taking a life with no moral justification. Murder is morally wrong, but there is wide moral agreement (not complete agreement) that some forms of killing are morally just. . ."

This is more or less consistent with a number of other writings I saw on the topic.  

But Grieff's take (the Tucci character) is that every person is capable of murder, and the examples in this short Netflix series are not even extreme.  They're more about stupid decisions getting way out of hand.  We've got a beloved (in his community) vicar who apparently loves his wife (and she him) as well as his son.  And then he makes a series of terrible decisions.  

I'm with 

"Anita Singh of The Daily Telegraph [who] said, "Moffat can throw any amount of good lines or clever little plot twists into this show, but it is built on a flaw so fundamental that it's impossible to get past it."[5]"  (from Wikipedia)

Under normal social conditions, a relatively small percent of our population will ever become murders.  Probably a few more might actually kill someone.  I'm not making this up.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says that in 2017, world wide, 6.1 out of 100,000 people were murdered.  

That's less than one percent.  And we know some murderers kill more than one person, so the percentage of murderers is lower than the percentage of people murdered.  I'd note that in the Americas, the rate of murder was almost three times the world average at 17.1 per 100,000.  

In a Zombie Apocalypse?  Probably the percent will go up, if killing Zombies counts as murder, but it would be most likely in self-defense.  

So NO!  Most people are not capable of murder.  They might be capable of killing another human being if circumstances got really extreme.  The circumstances in Inside Man were not extreme and the people involved made really stupid decisions that I doubt the real human beings those characters were meant to portray would have made.  

(Am I saying religious leaders aren't capable of murder?  Not at all.  Many have taken such positions because of the status attached and are capable of such evil actions as promoting laws that ban abortions in all circumstances.  Those aren't real men or women of God.  These are people who want power over other people, over women.  The vicar in the series was not presented as that kind of man of God.)

"The Only Way" To Make Sense Of Sen. Hughes Questionably Logical Pro Constitutional Convention Commentary

I've been resisting writing a post on whether Alaskans should vote to have a constitutional convention.  I listened to a debate between former Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar and Senator Shower and resisted.  But today's ADN commentary arguing for a convention was the straw that broke my resistance.  

[For non-Alaskans, our state constitution requires us to vote every ten years on whether to have a constitutional convention.  Since the Constitution was ratified, we've never voted yes.  But this year far right Republicans are pushing this as a way to get rid of the privacy provision which the Supreme Court has used to keep abortion legal in Alaska, and to change the very rational way we select judges among other things.]

So let me talk about a few things. (I could do more, but you'll get the idea fairly quickly.)

1.  The title

COMMENTARY

A constitutional convention is the only way to fix Alaska

Shelley Hughes

That's the headline.  I don't know that Rep. Hughes wrote it or the Anchorage Daily News editors wrote it, so take my comments with that in mind.  

Anyone who starts out saying there is only one way to fix something has already exposed themselves as an uncreative and rigid thinker.  There are always different ways to fix something.  Some very focused mechanical problems - like a backed up toilet - may have relatively few options.  But something as complicated as the whole State of Alaska, certainly has lots of different ways to be "fixed.'   And, note, she doesn't actually tell us what parts are broken and need to be fixed.  A constitutional convention is not the first thing that comes to mind as 'the solution', and probably not to most Alaskans minds. (Though we will learn next week whether this is true or not, at least for Alaskan voters.)

2.  Opening confusion.  She begins by imploring us:

"Alaskans, I respectfully implore you to recognize that the flood of paid advertisements you’ve been hearing about a state constitutional convention may not be telling you the whole story — and dare I say is “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” vote."

This is a very confused sentence.   It's doesn't make grammatical sense. And, I'd note, unlimited Outside money is ok when it's oil interest money advertising for a GOP cause, but not when the other side has all that money.  

"the flood of paid advertisements you've been hearing about a state constitutional convention"

Does she mean a "flood of ads we've been hearing about"?   Or is 'about' connected to "a state constitutional convention."  As a blogger who writes a lot, I'm guessing this is the result of editing the original sentence without going back and reading whether it still makes sense.  

She then adds into this convoluted sentence something about spinning the story to protect the power and wealth of people who want you to vote no.  

Well of course, the 'no' side is telling a story to get you to 'vote no' because it's in their interest. 

Just like she's spinning a 'yes' argument to get us to vote yes, because it's in her interest.  

I'd note that Vocabulary.com says 'implore' suggests desperation.

"The word implore is often used to describe an urgent request made out of desperation. A man on death row might implore the governor to grant him a last-minute pardon."

And later in this Commentary she tells us why she's desperate - the No side is outspending the Yes side (her side) 100 to 1.  

3.  36 Questions.  Most of the commentary is made up of 36 questions.  (No I didn't count them, but I used the search function to tell me how many question marks there were.).   These questions, as you might imagine 

• "may not be telling you the whole story"
• " are “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” ["yes"] vote."

They are all phrased with the very condescending school teacher structure of "Are we...?"  This is how some people talk to children.  Are we hungry today children?  Do we know what day it is today?

Question #1:

"Are we going to realize before we vote that more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held in our nation successfully, peacefully, without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters?"

Let's briefly look at those '230 state constitutional conventions.'  A Cambridge University Press article published June 2022 tells us there were actually 250:

"From the 1770s through the 1970s, the 50 states held nearly 250 constitutional conventions, many of which brought about important changes in governance.

"Working from this list, I identify 77 of these conventions that were called to create inaugural state constitutions. Another 50 conventions were called for reasons stemming from the Civil War, including conventions called to secede from the Union and make necessary changes in state constitutions, then rejoin the Union and make state constitutional changes required as part of Reconstruction, and then later reverse changes adopted during Reconstruction. Another 41 conventions were called not at the instigation of legislatures but rather through automatically generated conventions or referendums or councils of censors or federal courts."

So the vast majority were:

• For the state to originally draft their constitutions*
• To secede from the US during the Civil War and then to rejoin the US after the Civil War make changes during Reconstruction and the reverse those changes.  All, according to Hughes, "without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters."  Really? Not even seceding from the US?  Not even setting up Jim Crow constitutions?  Really?

From the National Conference of State Legislators website, we learn:

"Nine states drafted new documents during the turbulent years between 1964 and 1975. Only two states have adopted new constitutions since then: Georgia in 1983, and Rhode Island in 1986.

Alabama is often mentioned when the idea of a constitutional convention comes up. The state’s current document dates to 1901 and at 376,000 words is about 80 times the length of the original U.S. Constitution, making it by far the longest and most amended of state constitutions. Amendments make up about 90 percent of it. Many local government functions are established by the constitution, and it often takes an amendment proposed by the Legislature to make changes to policies affecting a single county, or even a single town." 

So, it isn't a happy story of 230 states willy nilly calling conventions and having kumbaya conventions.  And conventions stopped happening, for the most part, in the 1970s.  And the state that has amended its constitution the most is Alabama.  Now there's a stellar role model for Alaska.  

A related set of questions from Hughes:

"Are we aware that in the more than 230 state conventions that have been held in our nation that Pandora’s box was not opened, that not a single worm escaped a can? That only sane and reasonable amendments were adopted?"

How do 'we' know this?  Just because she says so?  Not a single worm escaped?  How about the Civil War?  Maybe we should look carefully at all the changes to the Alabama constitution.   Actually Former Louisiana state senator Tony Guarisco wrote: 

"The 19th-century racist constitutions of the Bourbons and their 1921"crazy quilt" successor were embarrassments at best. Between 1922 and 1973, a constitutional revision by amendment produced 536 changes to a document that became virtually incomprehensible. Louisiana's law schools expended little or no effort to teach useless or inferior legal authority."

While Guarisco may not be unbiased, he was involved in one the Constitutional rewrites and probably has a better take on this than Sen. Hughes has.

Question 2:  (I'm not going to go through all 36 questions.  Just a few.  So this is the second question from Hughes' list that I'm going to address.)

"Have we processed the fact that the yes side only has donations from individual Alaskans, not the millions from outside ultra-liberal organizations like the opposition? And that the no side is outspending the yes side by 100 to one? That this is a David vs. Goliath battle?"

I haven't checked these facts out, but articles do confirm that the NO campaign is vastly outspending the YES campaign, and that they have a large donation from the same Outside group that supported Ranked Choice elections.  But it ignores the many Alaskan organizations - unions, fisheries groups, Native Groups - that oppose having a convention.

What I want to address here is the David and Goliath comparison.  In the Biblical tale, Goliath was bigger than David.  And Goliath was the bad guy.  David was the good guy.  Well, Senator Hughes here makes the argument that the NO group is bigger (has more money) and then slips in the assumption that the NO group is also the bad guy and that YES group are the good guys.  But she hasn't proved that at all.  Sometimes the stronger guy is also the better guy.  

She reinforces this at the end of the commentary: 

"Much is at stake. Root for David; vote yes."

Question 3:

"Do we realize that the voters elect the delegates by district and therefore the delegates will reflect the values of Alaskans statewide?"

This is actually one of the murkiest parts.  We've just gone through a very contentious redistricting board process.  Exactly how many districts will there be?  Who will set the boundaries for the districts?  The Alaska legislature is elected from districts.  Why would the convention be more harmonious than the legislature (which Hughes implied in previous questions couldn't do the job)?  And why wouldn't the urban centers dominate the rural areas?  [Yes, I just gave you a bunch of questions, but they weren't rhetorical ones like Hughes' questions.  They seek answers.]   I haven't found any documentation on how these delegates would get picked, or even how many there'd be.  The Voter Pamphlet only asks us vote whether to have a convention or not.  It doesn't tell us any more detail than that.  

OK.  That's enough.  You get the picture.  I'll reiterate.  From my perspective the YES folks want to have a convention for two main reasons:

1. They are frustrated because the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the Privacy section of the Alaska Constitution as guaranteeing the right to abortions.  So reason one is to change the Privacy section of the Constitution and they want to add language to prohibit abortions.  
2. They want to change the very rational way the Constitution sets up for picking judges so the conservatives  have more political control of the judges.  

And there are other things they would change if they had the chance, but I think these are the two most critical ones.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to vote No on Proposition 1 that calls for a constitutional convention.  

*I'm not sure either why 50 states would have 77 constitutional conventions to draft their original constitutions.  Perhaps some were rejected the first time round and they had to start again.  And territories, like Puerto Rico, have drafted constitutions but haven't been accepted as states yet.  (Alaska and Hawaii had their conventions prior to becoming states.)

Snow, Sun, Bread, And Saving Lives

Tromped to the dentist for a cleaning this morning through the new snow.  Others had already created a path.  When I got home I shoveled a lot of snow.  

The sun crept into the bedroom this afternoon and hung a new picture on the wall.  I like it.  But it was only a temporary loan.

Yesterday I did the work.  This morning I pulled it out of the refrigerator, let it warm up, and put it in the oven.  This was a good one.  Rosemary olive.  

How professors can save lives:

Organızıng My Books/Free Online Photoshop Like Program/Black Water

I've got lots of books on lots of topics.  They're in bookshelves in different rooms, on tables, and other flat horizontal surfaces.  There are some stashed in the garage.  

I decided several weeks ago that I really need to sort through them.  Some can be traded in to Tidal Wave (a local used book store) but I they don't take all books and I hate to just throw books away.  

Here's the 'guest room'.  It was one of the kids' rooms, but they're long gone.  It's been a storage room on occasion, but we can clear it up if we need it for a guest.  I started taking books off the shelves and trying to put them into a more sensible order.  It's not that there is no order.  There are sections of different public administration related books.  But one of the problems with these book shelves is shelf size.  I can put related books together until we get some books that are too tall for that particular shelf.  

I also started a category I'm calling "books important to how I think."  These will be the books I'll most want to keep in the end.  

The picture above is a mashup of two pictures - it's basically what that corner of the room looks like, but a little distorted.  As you can see, I've been doing my sorting on the bed down there.  Another book sorting hazard is that I start reading the books.  

So as I was working on this, I thought, I should just google "how to sort home libraries."  There's lots of stuff out there.  One was just basic sorting ideas - Keep; Give Away, Throw out.  

But then I came upon LibraryThing.com.  Here's their overview of its uses:

WHAT’S GOOD?

• Catalog your books from Amazon, the Library of Congress and 4,941 other libraries.
• Catalog your movies and music too.
• LibraryThing is entirely free.
• Find new books to read.
• Talk about what you love with other committed bibliophiles.
• Track and lend your books.
• Snag a book from over 2000 early-release books every month.
• Available in many languages:                       (others)

My interest was to catalog my books and hopefully be able to sort lists by category.  There is a tag section, but I'm not sure how well that will sort things.  

It's fairly easy to make a list.  You can write down the title and then it shows you a bunch of covers for that book.  Then you click on the one that matches yours.  It fills out the form for you.  But I have a lot of older books - before, say, 1990.  Some of my covers didn't show up.  

That's when I discovered putting in the ISBN number was a better way to do this.  

So I've catalogued 14 books.  This could be a long project.  

When I looked at my list of 14 books I found one section particularly interesting.  It tells you how many people on Librarything have that book.  For some books it also tells you how many people are looking for a copy and how many are available.  Just in that 14 there were five or six books that people were looking for.  So maybe this will be a way to get rid of books.  

You can also see how many people near you have catalogued their books on Librarything.  Anchorage has a fair number of folks.  

So, I have one more long term task for my to do lists.  

Here are some more ideas for sorting your books from the American Library Association.

Photopea

I'd also note that the other day I came across a site called Photopea  It's essentially a free Photoshop knock off.  My access to Photoshop lapsed a while ago and I've played around with Sketchbook, but Photopea is a much better option.  But for those who haven't used Photoshop I'd warn you that it is daunting.  Lots to learn.  I took two semester long courses where I learned to use it.  On the other hand you can google most any question like "How do I make X in Photoshop?" and get a step by step youtube video telling you how.  

Photopea also says it has versions of other painting/drawing programs.  

I used Photopea to merge the two book photos.  It took about ten minutes, but then I've used Photoshop a lot. 

Black Water 

We had maybe an inch of fresh snow this morning and I had a doctor's appointment.  I took this photo of the creek flowing through the dorm area at UAA as I was walking back home.

I'm Keeping Busy So Here Are Some Recent Pictures

 Monday morning I biked over to the Century theater to see Amsterdam.  An odd hour to see a movie but that was the only time it was playing.  I liked it, but it was a bit odd at times, which is probably why I liked it.  It hasn't done well at the box office - it was a little too quirky I think and while it's message was a timely reminder of past attempts of Nazi's to take over the United States, it took too long to get there and then to spent too much time explaining itself.  

It was chilly - mid 20s - but sunny.  Even early afternoon, still just October, the sun doesn't get too high above the southern horizon these days.  So I did some errands and then went a bit out of my way to catch the Campbell Creek trail back home

It seemed that all the geese still in Anchorage were using the south of Tudor soccer fields in the old Trent homestead as a grass station before heading south.  

I used the pan feature on my phone since that was the only way I could get them all in.  But now they're so small you probably can't see them.  There's a mass in the middle to the left and more in front of the trees to the right.  

Today I was shoveling the new snow from the driveway.  I pulled out my phone to take a picture and noticed there was a voicemail message.  It turned out that what I thought was my 11am meeting was at 9:15.  I jumped in the car and wasn't too late and we had a good meeting.  But ever since my computer upgraded to the next California location named version of IOS, my calendar has not been my friend.  First it wiped out everything I'd had on my calendar. And today I realized it's not giving me the 24 hour notices it's supposed to give, so I don't get blindsided like I did today.  I ended up taking this picture when I got back.  

I left so fast for the meeting that I forgot to take our absentee ballots.  I after I actually got the driveway cleared - not too long, only a couple of inches - I went to the Election office to drop off my ballots.   I parked in front on the street behind this car.  

I saved this at a higher resolution so you could click on it and enlarge it (like I should have done with the geese.)  We were maybe 100 feet from the entrance to the Division of Elections.  I did point out that he was parked there and they said they'd get right on it.  But when I came out he was getting in the car and driving away.  

There is a sign on the front door about not campaigning - including bumper stickers, buttons, T-shirts, etc. within 200 feet of a polling place entrance.  

I do understand that if you have stickers on your car you need to park somewhere.  I'd like to give this car the benefit of the doubt and he just forgot or didn't know the distance rule.  But part of me thinks he enjoyed his little act of defiance.  The stickers almost look like they're holding the vehicle together.  

Thank You Ms. Downing For Calling Attention To My Email To The Anchorage Assembly

Yesterday I sent an email to the  Anchorage Assembly.  I've been concerned about the disruptive behavior of a number of people who give testimony at Assembly meeting.  It's frequently demeaning and racist (calling Assembly members Faggots, using Jew as an epithet) and who otherwise attempt to prevent the Assembly from getting their work done.  There are also reports of people verbally and physically intimidating others who testify, both inside the Assembly chambers and out. 

I'd started a letter to the Assembly back in July.  Yesterday, after reading the ADN article about the man who made a long racist diatribe about Alaska Natives and homelessness,  I went through it, edited it a bit, and emailed it to all the Assembly members.  

This morning I got a comment on my last point that was simply a link to a Must Read Alaska* post.  

Actually, it was a relatively decent post by Must Read Alaska (MRAK) standards.  After discussing the incident and reactions, it then turned to my email (which was sent to all the Assembly members.)  In fact 85% of what I sent the Assembly was in the post.  Over 50% of the the MRAK post was my letter.  (I'm sure there is a check in the mail to pay me for my contribution.)  

The first part is a report of the incident and other people's reactions.  Then she gets to my email.  Mostly it's direct quotes, but she does say in the headline "university professor suggests ‘people’s brains have been polluted.'  She also says I want censorship 

"a letter to the Assembly about how to handle speech that is racist, hateful, or not welcome. He wants the public censored."

I never use the word censorship nor do I talk about unwelcome speech.  But I did use hateful and racist.  I guess she thinks those things are good.  That seems to be her biggest issues and you'd miss her comments if you blinked. 

I'd note 'pollution' was a metaphor here.  But I think it is apt and I explained it in the email.

What's telling is the tiny, but important, part she left out:  The conditions for participation in Democracy:  

• Sincerity - authentic discourse requires trust between participants that they are being honest and truly wish to find a solution. 
• Focus on specific issue - not simply ideological posturing without reference to some specific situation.
• Willing attention - Sincerely interested in the problem, willing to do the work necessary to get through the issues seriously, including listening attentively to what others say.
• Substantive Contribution - having a unique point of view, specific expertise, or something that helps the discussion move along - even just the ability to express the concerns of a class of people.

I quoted Fox and Miller who were examining what was needed for the public forum to work, that is to come to decent solutions to the problems the public faces.  

I have to thank Suzanne Downing for giving my email this much attention - much more than it would get from the Assembly members.  Much more than it would get on my blog.  

And she doesn't actually say anything negative about it.  I'm not sure whether she disagrees with the idea that brains can be polluted or whether she just thought that was an idea that would rile up her readers.  

She does also suggest that I'm proposing to censor people who speak at the Assembly.  I'd point out that I recognize that people have First Amendment rights to free speech.  But the Assembly has an interest in having orderly meetings and speakers who add to solving problems, not speakers whose intent is to spread hate, disrupt, and, yes, pollute the public forum.  Perhaps her intent was to rally the troops against what I see as a reasonable and logical attempt to honor people's free speech rights while also maintaining some semblance of order at Assembly meetings.  Maybe she recognizes it for what I intended and that's precisely why she's flagging it and hoping her loyal readers (some of whom are frequent Assembly disrupters) will  attack the suggestions and make it harder for the Assembly to use it.  We'll see.  

So my suggestions allow them to help people organize their thoughts better and to ban folks who cannot follow the rules.  It's not about what they say, but whether it furthers the Assembly's objectives to come up with ways to deal with the issues that arise or if it makes it harder to do that. 

And since Assembly meetings are online people can still view them.  And since people can send in written comments (or even leave voice mail messages), their freedom of speech is preserved, while allowing the Assembly to have orderly meetings.  

A note I did leave out of my letter, was that judges in court have this power to eject people who disrupt the proceedings.  While the courtroom and the Assembly chamber are not the same, both have an interest in conducting public meetings so they can come to a fair and reasonable resolution.  The point of public testimony is to get input from the public about the issue at hand.  It is not just an open forum to talk about anything, or to insult those you disagree with.  Just as the judge in a courtroom has the right and power to limit how information is introduced, the Assembly members have the right to limit speech that does not lead to resolving the issue at hand.  They don't have the right to simply cut off people who advocate solutions they disagree with.  But if someone's speech is not on topic or is disruptive, they can cut them off from oral testimony.  Written testimony can be submitted without disrupting the meeting and allows for people to get their ideas on the record.  The Assembly is not a Speakers Corner at Hyde Park  where anyone can say most anything.  The Assembly is taking testimony to add to their understanding of how to resolve issues facing the Municipality.  

I'd also like to clarify the Fair Use Doctrine here. From Stanford University:

"What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general guidelines and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody."

She only appears to comment/criticize a very limited part of what I wrote.  If it were parody there would be some transformation of what I wrote.  BUT, emails to the Assembly aren't copyrighted, so she can probably do what she wants with it.  

So, below is the full text of what I wrote to the Assembly.  The parts that appeared in the Must Read Alaska blog are in green.  The parts I sent to the Assembly that she did not lift verbatim are in black.  I'd note that she did give credit and she did use quotation marks.  

"Suggestions for the Anchorage Assembly on ways to get public testimony focused on the issues and to avoid disruptive and hateful testimony.

I offer this as a contribution to the discussions ignited recently in response to David Lazer’s recent racist testimony.  First there's an introduction to the concept of pollution of public discourse.  Then there are specific recommendations.  

Steven Aufrecht

Professor Emeritus, Public Administration

University of Alaska Anchorage

Underlying concepts for good public discourse  

Charles Fox and Hugh Miller, two public administration scholars, many years ago suggested some conditions for participation in a public discourse.  Without these, democracy cannot thrive.

The participants should all possess the following:

• Sincerity - authentic discourse requires trust between participants that they are being honest and truly wish to find a solution. 
• Focus on specific issue - not simply ideological posturing without reference to some specific situation.
• Willing attention - Sincerely interested in the problem, willing to do the work necessary to get through the issues seriously, including listening attentively to what others say.
• Substantive Contribution - having a unique point of view, specific expertise, or something that helps the discussion move along - even just the ability to express the concerns of a class of people.

Pollution of Public Discourse

What's that? If toxic chemicals get into the water system, the whole system has to be cleaned out before people can drink the water again.

When people come to the public forum, but insult their fellow citizens, spout half truths and complete lies, don't learn the complexity of issues, they are really civic outlaws who pollute the public forum. 

Our progress to finding alternatives that we can all reasonably live with is thwarted. Instead, the public forum is cluttered with rhetorical litter - lies, falsehoods, innuendo and clear cut slanders - that have to be cleaned up before we can go on. 

But it's not as simple as picking up trash. People’s brains have been polluted, misinformation has been planted, and people have lost trust in others, healthy debate dissolves into hostile conflict.    

The point of civic debate, theoretically, is to work out our disagreements. We:

1.  share ideas about the problem, the possible solutions 

2. identify facts, 

3. forecast consequences and costs. 

That’s the ideal. Separating the objective from the emotional is never easy. We want to allow for emotion in testimony, but we also must draw a line when emotion becomes polluting of the discourse and derails sincere attempts to deal with issues.

Recommendations

Point of the Assembly having the public speak is:

1. Hear their preferences
2. Hear the reasons for supporting one action/path over another
3. Gain additional facts about the costs (financial or other), impacts, etc. about one option versus another
4. Identify options that meet the needs of the most people, or minimally inconvenience the fewest people 
5. Get a sense of how many people support a position (though good polling would be more accurate than counting people at meetings)

Actions that pollute the public discourse:

1. Repetition of the same information
2. Addressing unrelated issues
3. Intentional misinformation 
4. Personal insults and attacks
5. Trying to get one’s preferred outcome through physical or verbal abuse and intimidation rather than reason and information

Strategies to encourage good public discourse and to discourage pollution of public discourse.  

1. Clarifying what is expected of speakers
1. Written guidelines for oral testimony
2. Video guidelines
3. Written public testimony form to help people focus their presentation
1. State your preference - A, B, C etc.
2. Facts supporting your preference
3. Reasons for your preference 
1. How does it affect you?
2. How does it affect others?
3. Costs/Savings it might entail
4. Additional facts/points that have not been raised

2. Offer the public a summary of the basic options, supporting data, costs, and impacts and ask speakers to address those points - particularly if they have something to add or refute
3. Assembly chair or members ask questions guiding the speaker toward answering the questions on the public testimony form - “Do you have any new facts to add to the discussion?”  
4. Use of technology to get the public’s views

1. Electronic surveys people can take live at meetings to show support for one or another option or point - these can be done via cell phones and can show results on the screen.  People watching from home should also be able to participate.  
2. Online written, possibly audio and video, options that people can use to submit their testimony.  The Alaska Redistricting Board had this option on their website which allowed people to submit written testimony online.  The testimony was then made available for all to see online.  Board members got packets of the testimony.
3. Investigate what other participation technology options are already in use in classrooms, in government public hearings, in  business settings

5. Consequences for people who violate the Assembly ground rules

1. There’s a difference between people who genuinely have trouble organizing their thoughts and those who are intentionally trying to disrupt the meetings.  The former should be encouraged and given help.  The latter should be given alternative ways to submit their input other than oral testimony at Assembly meetings.
2. There can be a hierarchy of offenses.
1. Level 1: Worst
1. Intimidation - name calling, insults, slurs directed at other members of the public or at Assembly members or administration representatives.  This includes physical and verbal threats that occur inside and outside the chamber.
2. Intentional disruptions that unnecessarily delay the proceedings.  This is trickier, however the Assembly needs the power to keep order at meetings and to eject people who regularly disrupt meetings and do not stop when asked to, 
2. Level 2:  Bad
1. Regular harangues that are disruptive rather than sincere attempts at resolving an issue
3. Level 3:  Minor 
1. Repetition of things already said (this can be handled with electronic polls)
2. Difficulty organizing one’s thoughts - this needs understanding, unless it is something that happens repeatedly from the same person, in which case, moving to written testimony or referral to Public Testimony Guidelines
3. Hierarchy of penalties  - should be appropriate to the offense
1. Banning from public meetings (online access is available and ability to make online written testimony means the person can still hear what is happening and can still participate, but without disrupting the public discourse.)
2. Banning from making oral testimony at public meetings. Again, they can still submit written testimony, all of which should be available to the public.

This is a start.  Obviously there are legal issues to be resolved.  But I believe that the ability to watch the Assembly meetings online and to submit written testimony means that people who are banned from giving public oral testimony or even from attending meetings because of disruptive behavior, can still have access to their First Amendment rights. The rules, warning steps, and penalties have to be clearly stated, and even handedly meted out for this to work."

*I should note that Must Read Alaska is written by a former Alaska Republican Party communications director and she has been supportive of the disruptive actions of the group Save Anchorage. It is hard to find objective reviews online. Here is an Anchorage Press piece that gives some background.

Stepping Back In Time

 Flying from Anchorage to Seattle in October is like stepping back in time.  The flowers are still blooming profusely and it's light at 7am.

We're here helping out with child care and food prep and other such chores while my son-in-law is out of town for work, so my daughter can concentrate on her own work.

The last two days, J managed to get out of bed early enough to walk our granddaughter to school.  Today she got to sleep in while I was up at 6:45am.  

Once getting out of bed is accomplished, it is pure pleasure to walk with Z to school.  

Only a few late and hardy bloomers were still smiling in Anchorage when we left, that's not the case down here.  (We hear it snowed after we left.)  While I'm pretty sure the ones above are hydrangea, I'm not sure what the ones below are.  But their dainty beauty helps lift my heart so beset with human failures.  

My granddaughter took the picture below.  Since it's her shot, I didn't crop it, and she's in school now so she's not here to make it look the way she wants.  Perhaps she'll want to make an adjustment later.  

What Words Are (And Aren't) In The US Constitution

[The gist of this post is to point out the many words that are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.  Since the so called 'Originalists' who have gained a majority of the Supreme Court want to base their decisions strictly on the words found in the Constitution, then it would seem they would have to overturn many past decisions - including Citizens United.]

 A few weeks ago I announced a contest about how often different words showed up in the Constitution.  I guess I was asking a lot more of readers than they were willing to do.  I only got one response - which was a comment suggesting I should have checked out the word 'gun.'  (Gun is not mentioned, 'arms' is mentioned once.) I figured enough people had gone over that already and the part that includes 'a well regulated militia.'  

My point here was to support the belief that the so called 'Originalist' faction is a sham created to give radical conservative Supreme Court Justices their own way to spin things.  As you go through the list below, think about how many words NOT mentioned in the constitution seem to have Supreme Court decisions that ignore the fact they aren't mentioned.  

[Originalists basically argue they want to interpret the Constitution by using the words the Founding Fathers wrote.  I've covered it in several earlier posts:

Thursday, February 25, 2016   I Think Scalia's Originalism Is Like Intelligent Design Of Constitutional Theories

Monday, March 20, 2017    As Neil Gorsuch Takes Center Stage, What Exactly Is Originalism About?

Monday, October 12, 2020     Revisiting Originalism ]

I took an online copy of the Constitution and the searched it for each of the terms.  Here's my list of words and how often they show up:

	In Constittuion?		How often?	Contest Notes
	YES	NO
MAN		√	0	Manner = 11
WOMAN		√	0
CORPORATION		√	0
INDUSTRY		√	0
PERSON(S)	√		49
CITIZEN	√		22
LIFE	√		4
LIBERTY	√		3
ECONOMY		√	0
CAPITAL	√		1	“Capital or otherwise infamous crime”
CAPITALISM	√		0
MARKET	√		0
MARRIAGE	√		0
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE		√	1	Along with invasion
BUSINESS		√	1	“Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business”
TAX	√		10	Tax or taxes
VOTE	√		36
COMMERCE	√		2	“Regulation of Commerce”
BANKRUPTCY	√		1
SECURITIES	√		1
SEX	√		1
RELIGION	√		1
CHRISTIAN		√	0
WELFARE	√		2	“General welfare”
THE PEOPLE	√		9
GOD		√	0

Let me mention the context notes first.

1.  Man - I also checked 'men' and 'women'.  'Manner' was the closest thing to 'man' that showed up. Basically the constitution never mentions 'man' or 'woman.'  It talks about 'persons' and 'citizens.' Even the 18th Amendment (women's suffrage) doesn't mention women directly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

No where could I find person to refer to anything other than an individual human being.  Not to corporations (which are never mentioned.) 

2.  Capital - This word is mentioned in the context of 'capital punishment.' Neither capital (in the sense of money) nor capitalism are mentioned in the Constitution. 

3.  Domestic Violence - is mentioned once.  Not to mean violence within a household, but rather more like the January 6 insurrection.  It's mentioned along with 'invasion.'

4.  Business - The only mention is in regards to  needing a quorum for Congress to conduct business.  It is not used to refer to business enterprises, just as the words 'corporation,' 'industry,' 'economy,' or 'market' are used.  

5.  Tax - is mentioned 10 times

6.  Commerce is mentioned twice - both times in the phrase 'regulation of commerce.'

7.  Welfare is mentioned twice.  First in the Preamble that lists 'promote the general Welfare' as one of the goals of establishing the Constitution.  Second, 'general Welfare' is one of the reasons for levying taxes.  

8.  

Considering all of the Supreme Court decisions that give corporations rights that are reserved for persons -most egregiously in Citizens United - it's hard to imagine how this is done by so called 'Originalists.'   I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the evolution of business law, but it seems to me attorneys wanting to overturn Citizens United might take an Originalist approach and point out that corporations are not even mentioned in the US Constitution.  Nor are businesses or enterprises.  

But 'regulation of commerce' is listed.  

Promoting the general Welfare is listed.  That would seem to be a strong bases for including things like universal health care and many other programs that improve people's lives.  

I realize the law is complicated. My suggestion that since corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution and 'person' only refers to actual human beings, Citizens United should be overturned, probably faces many obstacles I've overlooked.   But the lack of these terms in the Constitution seems to me to be one more way to show the silliness of the Originalist approach.