Ron Johnson Turns Out Not to Be Worth 1,795 Salespersons

One of the striking changes in the United States over the last 50 years is the astonishing change in the ratio between employee pay and management pay in America’s big corporations.

The ratio is derived by dividing the CEO’s pay by the average employee’s pay. For example, in the case of J.C. Penney,  CEO Ron Johnson made $53.3 million a year; the average worker made something like $29,688. The CEO made 1,795 times the average worker. So the ratio for the fired CEO of J.C. Penneys was 1,795 to 1. The Board of Directors thought the CEO was worth eighteen hundred times as the average guy who actually generates revenue out there on the sales floor. Of course, in the case of J. C. Penney, the CEO, Ron Johnson, nearly killed the company. But that’s a separate issue.

How did we get ourselves in this position? Why are the ratios of CEO to staff salaries at an all-time, record high?

Derek Thompson, writing in The Atlantic, has some theories. He points to the decline in workers’ wages over the last twenty years as one factor. The numerator in the calculation of the fraction isn’t increasing and, in some cases, is actually shrinking, as benefits like health care and defined benefits pensions have vanished. In the meantime stock options, a very substantial part of executive compensation, have ballooned through a series of bull markets, increasing the divisor in the ratio.

The second factor Thompson identifies is the unwillingness of stakeholders in big corporations to rock the boat. If the CEO is making you rich with big stock price increases or chunky dividends, the amount paid to the CEO doesn’t matter very much. It’s only when the CEO seriously screws the pooch, like Ron Johnson at Penney’s, that the issue is even on shareholders’ radar.

But WC thinks there are two other factors, not discussed by Thompson, that bear on the issue. First, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Bill in 2010. It directed the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to develop guidelines for reporting executive compensation to employee ratios as part of publicly traded corporations’ annual filings. Some three years along, the SEC still hasn’t issued final rules. That silence, that inaction, sends its own signal: full speed ahead on executive compensation.

Finally, executive compensation is hugely influenced by a small group of executive compensation consultants. And those consultants have very serious conflicts of interest. To use WC’s grandfather’s phrase, there’s stuff going on that mink breeders wouldn’t tolerate. As an example, suppose the executive compensation consultant is a Big Four accounting firm. And suppose the corporate audit contract is ready be awarded. The CEO determines who gets the audit contract. Do you think the compensation consulting division is going to short sheet the CEO? It’s a big problem: a 2006 Congressional study found that conflicts of interest existed in 113 of the Fortune 250 CEO compensation consultants. The SEC has issued final rules on this issue, but they don’t take effect until June 27, 2013. In the meantime, there’s a risk that the folks who are supposed to be providing executive compensation advice are instead pre-purchasing the support of the executives whose pay they are supposed to be setting.

All of the salaries set for CEOs using the current sloppy standards – the technical term here is “boogered data” – will be the basis will be used for determining future CEO compensation, even if the data is tainted by conflicts of interest and generated by consultants who are rewarded for increasing, not decreasing pay.

In the meantime, even before the SEC can issue final rules, U.S. House Rep. Bill Huizenga (R, MI) has introduced a bill to repeal the pay-ratio disclosure requirement. It  ”doesn’t do anything other than play politics,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t lend any useful, helpful, analytical type of information.”

Or at least the lobbyists who contribute to Rep. Huizenga’s reelection campaign don’t think so. In America today, apparently that’s the more important consideration.

Rep. Lamar Smith: The Stupid Is Strong, Folks

If you needed any further proof that the Republican Party is in fact the anti-science party, or that among neocons the stupid is very strong indeed, Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX) has stepped up with conclusive evidence.

Representative Smith, God help the United States, is the Chair of the House Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the U.S. House. He has proposed a bill under which his Committee would evaluate the quality of scientific and technological research sponsored by the United States. If that doesn’t make you break out in a cold sweat, you don’t know Rep. Smith.

In response to the hoots of derision from scientists and some his fellow politicians, Rep. Smith demonstrated his profound ignorance of the scientific method and the peer review process by issuing a statement:

The draft bill maintains the current peer review process and improves on it by adding a layer of accountability. The intent of the draft legislation is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on the highest-quality research possible.

The “layer of accountability,” of course, is Representative Smith and his Republican peers, who have the same knowledge of science that they do of, say, economics. Or negotiation. Or history. The idea that they would have a formal gatekeeper function, that they are in a position to understand, let alone evaluate on its merits, modern research is far beyond arrogance. It demonstrates a kind of culpable idiocy that would be disastrous for the United States.

Of course, we’ve already been down this course, although it wasn’t under the color of law. The George W. Bush administration attempted to suppress and stifle climate research. If you’ve forgotten then review this 2007 exchange between Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) and NASA climatologist Drew Shindell:

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Another edit deleted the phrase, “Changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly the result of human activities.” And that phrase was replaced with a phrase that said, “A causal link between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” Is this an appropriate change? Does the rephrasing accurately represent the science, or does it mislead the public?

DR. DREW SHINDELL: I would say that that is also a misleading statement. While technically true, the first statement, that human activities play the dominant role, is a much more accurate picture of the science.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Some of the edits we reviewed were made by CEQ chief of staff Philip Cooney. Mr. Cooney is not a scientist by training. Instead, he’s a lawyer who was working as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before he was appointed to his position at the Council on Environmental Quality. And I’d like to ask you some questions about his edits. In one document, Mr. Cooney deleted a reference to the National Research Council’s finding that human activities are causing temperatures to rise. Obviously, the National Research Council is this country’s premier scientific body. Can you tell us if there is a scientific basis for deleting a reference to this finding?

DR. DREW SHINDELL: No. That is again a well-supported statement.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In the same document, Mr. Cooney deleted the phrase, “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.” Is there anything scientifically questionable about this phrase?

DR. DREW SHINDELL: Again, no.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In yet another edit, Mr. Cooney wrote that satellite data disputes global warming. Is this scientifically valid?

DR. DREW SHINDELL: No. There was for many years a controversy, where satellite data showed warming but to a different degree than was seen at the surface or that was predicted by models higher up in the atmosphere. It never disputed global warming, and that controversy has since been resolved.

This is what happens when laymen, hacks with special agendas and political thugs put their dirty fingers in scientific research. Do we really need to go there again?

Rep. Smith thinks so. His constituents are unhappy that federally sponsored research might establish still further proof that the Bible’s “science” is nonsense. The oil industry that makes huge contributions to his political campaigns don’t want scientific evidence that fracking is dangerous. His list of special agendas is endless, and WC would no more trust him to be neutral than he’d trust Joe Miller in a computer poll. It’s not just Rep. Smith’s utter lack of training to judge science; there is no significant chance he would be politically or practically neutral.

How We Betrayed What We Stand For – Part Four & Conclusion

WC has argued for a long time that the United States betrayed its values and principles in its treatment of illegal detainees after 9/11. The conclusions are so clear that WC has been baffled by those who claim otherwise, or those who claim not to care. WC was appalled when both the Obama Administration and Congress failed to at least examine how and why it happened.

The Constitution Project assembled a Task Force on Detainee Treatment. It’s bipartisan, its members’ credentials are impeccable and its Report is out. And that Report is a devastating indictment of our country’s conduct. Without the power to compel testimony or the production of records, working solely from publicly available information, the Task Force has meticulously documented a pattern of behavior that constitutes war crimes.

While the Report contained specific Recommendations, it’s doubtful that our pusillanimous, ineffective Congress will act on them. Or even read them. But you, WC’s readers, should. Over the next few weeks, WC will review portions of the Report and offer his comments. 

Key Links:  Part One / Part Two  / Part Three / The Constitution Project / On-Line Report on Detainee Treatment

The last six Findings are a bit of a mixed bag. While important, they lack the punch of the earlier ones. Still, they are worth a look.

What has made President Bush’s creation of Guantanamo an intractable problem is the unwillingness of other countries and the United States to deal with the individuals detained there. Some are very likely violent radicals; others may have started as innocent and law-abiding, but years of mistreatment, unlawful detention and exposure to bona fide radicals have radicalized them as well. What troubled the Task Force and troubles WC is that there is no plan for resolving the mess we have created. Those who could be released on an ad hoc basis have been; the rest will require more thought, effort and planning. That doesn’t seem to be happening. So Guantanamo continue to exist, a dubious, embarrassing and failed experiment in ignoring our own laws. And probably a useful recruiting tool for the bad guys.

One of the obstacles to releasing the remaining prisoners is the claim that among those already released there is a high rate of terrorist activity. “Recidivism” isn’t the right word, since few if any have ever been convicted of committing a crime. But those “recidivism” figures are dubious. It’s contradicted by independent evidence suggesting the reported recidivism rate is seriously inflated. It includes, for example, wholly unsubstantiated “suspicion” of terrorist activity. Since the claim of “recidivism” is one of the primary justifications for keeping the Guantanamo prison running, the claim needs to be examined carefully.

There is a tendency in American government to stamp as “Secret” any facts that are merely embarrassing to those in power. That’s happened in the case of our country’s torture and outsourced torture of the kidnapped and illegally detained victims of our national paranoia. It’s not an issue of national security; it’s an issue of personal security for the torturers and their enablers. The federal courts are emasculated on issues of purported national security. Only Congress, through reform legislation, or the Executive, through declassification, can bring light where there is shameful darkness. The Task Force concluded the continuing secrecy was indefensible.

Findings 20 and 21 point to the failure by Congress to implement the Convention Against Torture. The United States signed the Convention in 1988. The Senate ratified it in 1994. Almost two decades later, implementation is almost entirely incomplete. Neither the required criminalization nor the required restitution have been enacted into law. This from a country that styles itself a champion of liberty. The current Congress is seemingly incapable of tying its own shoelaces, let alone addressing critical issues of human rights. But the Convention must be implemented.

President Obama takes credit for stopping U.S. torture of detainees. But the Task Force found that in some instances the President accomplished that by redefining what the U.S. regards as torture. Portions of the Army Field Manual that prohibited sleep deprivation and stress positions were deleted. Appendix M, authorizing up to 40 hours of continuous interrogation, were authorized. That conduct violates the Convention Against Torture. And it is an embarrassment for any country that thinks of itself as a nation of laws. The Army Field Manual should be restored to its pre-2001 form.

There is strong evidence that U.S. detainees transferred to Afghanistan, including persons released from Guantanamo, are subsequently tortured by the Afghan security forces. It’s another violation of the Convention Against Torture. The Convention bars a country from releasing persons to a country where they are likely to be tortured, whether the release is by the Armed Forces or by the CIA. Those releases also violate the Leahy Law:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.

The U.S. financial support to Afghanistan, or at least to the National Directorate of Security, violates U.S. law. We’re giving vast amounts of money and military equipment to known human rights violators. There is a loophole, but the Task Force found no evidence that the requirements for the loophole had been satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Some of WC’s readers may remember the Watergate scandal, and Presidential Counsel John Dean’s most famous single line: “Mr. President, there is a cancer on the Presidency.” Treating the cancer that was Watergate was painful and protracted but necessary.

WC believes that the pattern of kidnapping and torture committed by the United States is another cancer on our country. The failure to properly address it has the potential to permanently injure our democratic government.

It’s never a good idea to ignore a cancer. The Task Force’s Report is a good start. WC offers his sincerest thanks and admiration to the Task Force members and staff. But until the events the Task Force describes are addressed at the national level, the cancer will remain. And, eventually, it may very well kill our way of government.

How We Betrayed What We Stand For – Part Three

WC has argued for a long time that the United States betrayed its values and principles in its treatment of illegal detainees after 9/11. The conclusions are so clear that WC has been baffled by those who claim otherwise, or those who claim not to care. WC was appalled when both the Obama Administration and Congress failed to at least examine how and why it happened.

The Constitution Project assembled a Task Force on Detainee Treatment. It’s bipartisan, its members’ credentials are impeccable and its Report is out. And that Report is a devastating indictment of our country’s conduct. Without the power to compel testimony or the production of records, working solely from publicly available information, the Task Force has meticulously documented a pattern of behavior that constitutes war crimes.

While the Report contained specific Recommendations, it’s doubtful that our pusillanimous, ineffective Congress will act on them. Or even read them. But you, WC’s readers, should. Over the next few weeks, WC will review portions of the Report and offer his comments. 

Key Links:  Part One Part Two  The Constitution Project / On-Line Report on Detainee Treatment

As bad as Guantanamo is and was, as bad as the photos from Abu Ghraib showed prisoner treatment there to be, probably the most shameful United States conduct was the euphemistically titled “extraordinary rendition.” We out-sourced our torture to other countries. The United States engaged in the wholesale practice of kidnapping individuals, “disappearing” them to other countries for interrogation and torture, not necessarily in that order.

The Task Force weighed in on “extraordinary rendition” as a part of its Report.

Finding 9

The United States has harshly criticized countries that have practiced extra-judicial (i.e., illegal) seizure of persons. In several South American countries, the practice has toppled regimes. It is the hallmark of dictators, of despots. When WC first read Jane Mayer’s article in The New Yorker in February 2005, it turned WC’s stomach. Our country, the land of freedom and liberty, had sunk to the level of a tin pot dictatorship. The second reaction was fury that the Bush Administration had so badly betrayed everything that the U.S. aspired to represent.

Finding 10

The “diplomatic assurances” were despicable, flimsy excuses. They were the moral equivalent of excusing a lie because your fingers were crossed. We shipped kidnapped persons to places like Egypt precisely because they had proven track records of doing whatever they thought necessary to extract information from their own citizens. The whole point was that those countries could and would do things to prisoners that the U.S. couldn’t or wouldn’t. We out-sourced our torture, just as we out-source manufacturing. The U.S. found someone who was willing to do it and didn’t care about the political ramification. Although Hosni Mubarak may be having second thoughts now.

Finding 11

But it wasn’t enough that the U.S. shipped illegally kidnapped persons to compliant countries for torture. The U.S. sent CIA officials there to watch the process and, apparently, offer “helpful suggestions.” Which deepens the U.S.’s complicity in these war crimes.

And they are war crimes. The documented conduct in numerous “extraordinary renditions” is a blatant, inarguable violation of the Convention Against Torture. And, as the Task Force notes, the U.S. has denounced the conduct when practiced by other states. The Task Force recommends that the U.S. “fully comply with its legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture in cooperating with pending investigations and lawsuits in the United States and abroad.”

The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws. WC is waiting for the criminal activity of extraordinary rendition to be prosecuted for the war crimes that it was. Or at least openly investigated and disclosed. But he isn’t holding his breath.

Findings 12 through 16 deal with the misconduct of medical professionals, including physicians and psychologists, and their violations of their ethical and legal standards. While important, WC judges them to be less important than some of the other Findings. WC will pass them by, with this link for interested readers.

In the next post on this topic, WC will review the Findings that involve moving forward from where we are. . In the meantime, WC strongly urges every thinking American to read the Report.

 

How We Betrayed What We Stand For – Part One

WC has argued for a long time that the United States betrayed its values and principles in its treatment of illegal detainees after 9/11. The conclusions are so clear that WC has been baffled by those who claim otherwise, or those who claim not to care. WC was appalled when both the Obama Administration and Congress failed to at least examine how and why it happened.

The Constitution Project assembled a Task Force on Detainee Treatment. It’s bipartisan, its members’ credentials are impeccable and its Report is out. And that Report is a devastating indictment of our country’s conduct. Without the power to compel testimony or the production of records, working solely from publicly available information, the Task Force has meticulously documented a pattern of behavior that constitutes war crimes.

While the Report contained specific Recommendations, it’s doubtful that our pusillanimous, ineffective Congress will act on them. Or even read them. But you, WC’s readers, should. Over the next few weeks, WC will review portions of the Report and offer his comments. 

Key Links: The Constitution Project / On-Line Report on Detainee Treatment

Finding 1

We engaged in torture in violation of international law and in violation of treaties to which the United States is bound. The flimsy excuses and justifications generated by John Yoo and David Addington were examined with care by the Task Force and unanimously rejected. 

The Task Force’s Appendix 1 supports in devastating detail the basis for this Finding.

Finding 2

Let’s be clear about this. The Task Force concluded that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are legally culpable for the torture and treatment of detainees. The details in Appendix 2 to the Report are detailed, gruesome and damning. An appallingly long list of other government officials went along with the pretexts and rationalizations; some even pressed for more “enhanced” techniques. The FBI, to its credit, refused to participate.

Worse, in a transparent implied admission of guilt, the White House tried to game our system of government, arguing that if the Geneva Convention applied to the military, it didn’t apply to the CIA, authorizing the CIA to engage in the euphemistically named “enhanced interrogation.” The Geneva Conventions bind the United States, not “all of the United States except the CIA.”

The Task Force’s Appendix 2 establishes the elements of this finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finding 3

The second worst problem with torture as an information gathering technique is that it doesn’t work. The victims will say almost anything to make it stop. Many of the techniques were intended, over time, to make the victims pliable and suggestible. At that point, the detainees will adopt any suggestion.

And if the illegal detentions and street sweeps do pick up someone who is genuinely a terrorist, torture makes it impossible to  prosecute them for their crimes. The torture will come out at trial. Even the sorry excuses for trials before so-called military tribunals.

The Task Force acknowledges that it was not permitted to review classified information, and that the government claims it possesses valuable information obtained by torture that must remain classified. The excuse is thin. It’s unlikely there’s still a reason to hold whatever the torturers got secret and, in the circumstances, the burden is on the government to show anything was “extracted” that’s valuable enough to justify leaving criminals unpunished. Some of the claimed valuable information is more than ten years old now; it stretches credibility to claim declassification would jeopardize national security.

The Task Force turns next to the ongoing embarrassment that is the Guantanamo detention center. WC will take those Findings up in a later post. In the meantime, WC strongly recommends every thinking American read the Report. 

Patent Trolls 101: MPHJ Technologies

Patent Troll (Not to Scale)

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a patent lawsuit Monday. As the SCOTUS considers whether to grant patent protection to isolated genes, perhaps it can also consider the consequences of granting patents.

You’ve probably never heard of MPHJ Technologies. But if you own a scanner, MPHJ Technologies thinks you owe it $1,000 for the privilege of using the scanner. Ars Technica has an excellent article on the latest legal leech on information technology.

Joe Mullin, the author of the piece, traces the history of the underlying patent claims and the over-the-top marketing scheme used by the anonymous owners of the patent claims to extort money from small businesses. A sample:

Mac Rust is one of a few lawyers who gets certain “territories” of the MPHJ patent scheme. A person who had a conversation with Rust in January about alleged violations of the MPHJ patents—I’ll call the source Mr. Smith—gave Ars a recording of his phone call. The recording was made with Rust’s knowledge.

In the call, the confused Mr. Smith starts out by telling Rust he can scarcely believe what is happening. “Just to reiterate, my home printer—if I scan to e-mail, it’s an option on my Hewlett-Packard printer—I do that, I owe you money?” asks Smith.

“If you said you hooked it up to the Internet, and in one button, you can scan and e-mail directly out—yes, you have violated the patent that we own,” says Rust.

That means millions of Americans owe Rust’s anonymous client money. But Smith seemed overly focused on his personal behavior, with his home printer. Individuals aren’t the intended target, Rust explains.

“We’ve been trying to do what we can to focus on businesses that have 10 or more employees,” says Rust. “But look, it’s not perfect. All our information is not exactly perfect. That’s why we send a letter to ask you certain questions.”

What Mullins described is the nation’s first patent troll franchise. He makes it sound like in various regions of the country shell businesses are set up and hire hungry – maybe desperate – intellectual property lawyers, who then receive a partial license of the claimed patent and attempt enforcement in that region. Doubtlessly for a suitable franchise fee. MPHJ still hasn’t filed any lawsuits, at least not that WC can find, but if this sick variation on MacDonalds is to work, that has to happen. Target companies have reported getting copies of “draft complaints” in the last several weeks.

WC has vanishingly low expectations of the current Congress. But patent reform is becoming increasingly urgent. As MPHJ Technologies is making clear.

 

Department of Bad Ideas: Oil Tax “Reform”

Can we be completely clear about this? The revenue lost by the State of Alaska as a consequence of the repeal of ACES will never be recovered. Even in the highly unlikely event of an increase in throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the increased revenue will never recover the $5 or $6 billion that the Legislature and Captain Zero have given away. It’s gone. Pissed away in the most bone-headed giveaway since the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. At least AGIA will “only” cost us half a billion. Not at much as $6 billion.

Everything about Captain Zero’s idiot scheme is flawed.

The threat that the minimum flow the Pipeline will support is imminent? Contradicted by expert testimony and Big Oil’s own filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There was no crisis, no need for a rush to action. Captain Zero did his best Chicken Little impersonation and the Legislature went along.

An unconditional repeal, not linked to increased throughput? Asinine. It’s the only word that fits. This is Big Oil. It’s all about money. Big Oil. struggling not laugh at the pathetic questions in legislative hearings, made absolutely no promises. Seriously, the Legislature and the Captain would have done better to send the money to Fairbanks, where we could at least burn it for heat. If this were a poker game, the State of Alaska just folded on a $6 billion pot while holding a royal flush, and then burnt the cards.

An honest decision? That’s laughable. A Governor who was and acts like he still is an oil industry flak. Two critical votes from legislators who work for Big Oil in middle management, but don’t think they have a conflict of interest. Two more whose spouses work for Big Oil. And don’t even get WC started on lobbyist dollars and campaign contributions. There’s stuff going on that mink breeders wouldn’t tolerate.

An informed decision? Even more laughable. The Legislature didn’t follow the advice of their own experts. (To the extent we can follow what the experts said; remember we didn’t get to see all of them, even though we paid for them.) The Legislature was told our production model was closer to Norway’s than to North Dakota’s, with high development and production costs, as opposed to lower development and production costs but smaller unit production. They blew all that expertise off.

Will it work? We’ll never know. WC personally thinks that at the unlikely best, the rate of decline in the rate of production will slow. As WC has explained before, this is really about the the decline of the Prudhoe field. Other small fields may be found that are economic to produce, but they’d have been found and developed without  Alaska setting its financial house on fire. But in a complex, multi-factor area like oil field development and production, isolating a single cause is impossible.

But it is certain that the State of Alaska, in the immediate and middle future, will be a lot poorer. Infrastructure will suffer. Education will suffer. Programs to try and improve the lot of Alaska’s underclass will suffer.

It didn’t have to be this way. Sure, as years go by and pipeline throughput continues to decline there will be recriminations. Scapegoats will be found. But the money is gone. Pissed away on a really stupid idea.

Department of Bad Ideas: Making Gun Violence Worse

According to the interactive graphic at Center for American Progress, measured by rates per 100,000 population, Alaska was #1 in firearm violence in 2010. Alaska was #2 in firearm violence for the period 2001-2010. It was #1 in suicides using firearms. It was #1 in firearm deaths among children.

The Alaska Legislature is all over this issue. Its solution? Adopt a “stand your ground” statute which actually increases the risk of firearm deaths by removing the risk of a criminal conviction. WC’s gut-toting, trigger-happy acquaintances’ cowboy instincts will be further affirmed. That’s right, you can now use deadly force in Alaska, even if you have the ability to leave the scene safely, if you believe you have the right to be there.

Here’s the full text of HB 24:

04 (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows

05   that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being                                   
06   defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area                            
07   of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is                                      
08       (1)  on premises                                                                                        
09          (A)  that the person owns or leases;                                                               
10          (B)  where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or                                      
11          (C)  as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor,                                  
12            or resident;                                                                                                 
13        (2)  a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's                             
14       employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380;                                              
15        (3)  in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the                                 
01       person's employment; [OR]                                                                                         
02        (4)  protecting a child or a member of the person's household; or                                   
03        (5)  in any other place where the person has a right to be.

.

Other than creating more corpses and making criminal cases more difficult to prosecute, what purpose does this catastrophe of a law serve? Is there anyone who truly believes it makes anyone any safer? Remember, by the letter of existing law, you can use deadly force self-defense if you cannot retreat with complete personal safety.

No, this is a license from the gun crazies to open fire when they’ve got their panties in a wad. WC doesn’t trust civilians who feel compelled to carry heat in the first place, and trusts their judgment to use a weapon appropriately even less. This is a license for carnage.

It’s not just a solution in search of a problem. It’s gasoline on the open fire of violent gun deaths that is already out of control.

If Captain Zero had the spine God gave a banana, he’d veto this piece of crap when it reaches his desk. But he hasn’t, of course, and he won’t, of course. Somehow, this hasn’t gotten wrapped around the axle of the Second Amendment, even though it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with legalized violence. And Captain Zero is mindlessly, unthinkingly accepting of anything involving citizens’ rights to be prepared to blaze away at the slightest provocation.

Welcome to the New Alaska. Even more dangerous than before. To no purpose.

Following Up and Following Down: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Latin phrase, attributed to the Roman poet Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–8), which is translated as “Who will guard the guards themselves?”

Who watches the watchmen? In a government built on checks and balances, it’s a critical question. And a handful of recent developments suggest we aren’t paying enough attention to the question.

Readers may recall that the lead prosecutors in the badly botched case against the late Senator Ted Stevens has their wrists slapped for their misconduct. Those prosecutors appealed even that very mild discipline and, last Friday, the discipline was reversed. And administrative law judge in the swamp that is federal merit system decided procedural mistakes required reversal. Joseph Bottini, who had been suspended for 40 days, and James Goeke, who got just 15 days, got off on a procedural technicality and will apparently have no further formal action taken against them. These two prosecutors, by their misconduct, damaged a man’s career. Yes, their supervisors screwed up too, but that does not excuse their conduct. If they emerge from this process undisciplined, the repercussions for the federal criminal prosecutions system will be profoundly bad.

In Tucson, Arizona, Louis C. Taylor was convicted of multiple felony murders in a hotel fire that claimed 29 lives. His convictions were based on junk science, on unsupported claims of arson science that “everybody knew” and were simply false. The New York Times attributed his release to ”advances in the science of fire investigations.” That’s a serious misstatement of what has happened. What has happened is that science has finally started to displace junk science in arson investigations. Shamefully, he had to cop to a no-contest plea. That set aside his original conviction and gave him credit for the time served on the lesser charge to which he plead no-contest. The no-contest plea means he did not admit guilt, but because he did not contest the charges, he is effectively barred from suing anyone who had a role in his conviction. Taylor was a black man convicted by an all-white jury at a time of racial strife in Tucson. Junk science, concealed evidence and racism stole 42 years of this man’s life. And no one, including the bigoted fire investigator, Cyrillis W. Holmes Jr., will be held to account.

And in Juneau, the State Senate has been fiddling with the patently unconstitutional HB 69 in an effort to make it slightly less outrageous. Instead of arresting the federal officials enforcing federal firearms law, the new, improved violation of the Supremacy Clause would forbid state law enforcement from helping the Feds and require the State Attorney General to sue the Feds for violating the Second Amendment. The Senate Judiciary Committee thinks that makes it all right? So if this piece of unconstitutional garbage is enacted into law, and Captain Zero signs it into law, and then Congress were to pass mandatory background checking on all firearm sales, we’d sue the Feds? Really? And this would benefit the State of Alaska exactly how?

So that’s two of the three branches of the government, isn’t it? Which leaves the courts. Which means the most responsible least irresponsible only hope is John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If you aren’t worried, you should be.

Justice Winfree Tilting at Windmills

Non-lawyers make assumptions about lawyers. WC blames television for the public’s perception that being a lawyer is all about going to court and trying cases. At least in the context of non-criminal cases, being a lawyer is all about staying out of court. Court is hideously expensive. In most cases, a trial is a result of a failure by one or more lawyers to do their job.

A lawyer’s job includes properly evaluating a case, educating his or her client on the valuation of the case, and persuading the client to accept the valuation. A failure by both lawyers to do that job properly means a civil (non-criminal) case will go to trial.

Certainly there are unreasonable clients who do not follow their lawyer’s advice. But most of the time, it’s the lawyer lacking the skills or inclination to persuade the client to reasonableness. And, in the worst case, a client can always be fired.

The already hideously expensive business of litigation is made still more spendy when lawyers fail to follow the rules. And the whole business augers in – “craters,” to use a commercial lawyer’s phrase – when one or both of the parties to a lawsuit are representing themselves. It’s really true: a person representing himself or herself has a fool for a client.

The only situation that’s worse is when both parties to a lawsuit represent themselves.

Which takes us to Justice Winfree’s recent dissent, just six paragraphs into the blog post. In a recent Alaska Supreme Court case, a husband and wife were litigating a divorce. Well, the wife was; the husband was exploring the limits of passive aggressive behavior before Superior Court Judge Michael McConahay. When the husband failed to show up for the long-scheduled trial, explaining he was called out to fight a wildfire, Judge McConahay lost his patience and entered judgment for the (ex)wife. The (ex)husband appealed.

Four justices decided the (ex)husband should get another shot at a trial, despite having skipped two hearings and a trial already, having actual notice of the trial date and deciding to blow it off to fight forest fires. Justice Winfree dissented:

Given (1) the finding that Richard voluntarily chose not to appear for trial, and (2) Richard’s failure to make a legitimate argument that he was prejudiced by the trial in his absence, I conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Richard’s implicit continuance request. Richard had known since March that trial had been rescheduled for the week of May 30. Richard does not dispute that he was informed of the specific trial date, and he clearly had time to arrange his work schedule. The court already had rescheduled two prior trial dates, giving the court reason to deny a third continuance in the interest of orderly, prompt, and effective disposition of this case. And Felicia, who had diligently shown up for every court appareance in the proccedings, had an important interest in finalizing the divorce and property division. Finally, Richard has articulated no legitimate dispute about the court’s actual equal division of vehicles and student loan debt. Because Richard failed to identify a sufficiently “weighty reason to the contrary,” the refusal to continue the trial was not an abuse of discretion.

Rules lose their meaning if they are not enforced. (Ex)husband’s passive-aggressive tactics worked out well for him. He was well-rewarded for ignoring the rules. Which is Justice Winfree’s point.

Yes, a lawyer might have helped here. Two competent lawyers might have persuaded the parties that the law on property division in a divorce was very clear, and that there was nothing to fight about. Or perhaps not, given (ex)husband’s apparent tactics.

WC is grateful for Justice Winfree for reminding everyone that there are rules and reasons for the rules. WC just wishes more Alaska Supreme Court justices agreed.

Alaska’s Oil Tax: Conflating, Confusing and Wrong

Governor Sean “Captain Zero” Parnell’s changes in the state oil tax are so nonsensical, so wrong that it confuses everyone involved in the debate. Maybe taking two steps back and taking an overview will reduce the confusion and illustrate, for anyone still paying attention, what is really going on.

The current tax structure, ACES, is a progressive tax. That is, the rates aren’t level. If the oil companies make more money per barrel in one of crude oil’s cyclical price swings, the tax rate goes up. The idea of ACES was that Alaska should share in the windfall. It’s a good idea. It’s a nonrenewable resource, after all. And it isn’t as if the major oil companies aren’t making billions of dollars in profits in Alaska. Throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is indisputably down. Is it the result of ACES or is it the economic consequence of fracking technology and attendant booms in oil shale regions? Alaska oil is notoriously expensive to develop: the North Slope is harsh and difficult.

ACES recognizes those higher costs. It grants credits against the oil taxes for monies expended on development. Monies spent on development – and it is a very generously defined term – subtract directly from the tax bill. Spend enough on development, and you can significantly reduce your tax bill. Which suggests that the problem isn’t the ACES tax, but rather the lower opportunity costs elsewhere than in Alaska. If you can get the same amount of oil someplace else in the U.S. for a lower direct cost, taxes may not even enter into the equation.

So let’s look at Captain Zero’s twin proposals in light of those facts and realities.

Captain Zero wants to repeal the progressive elements in ACES. It will give a considerable windfall to Big Oil, on the order of $2 billion a year. What’s in it for Alaska? Captain Zero thinks it will encourage more development on the North Slope. Notably, Big Oil has flatly refused to commit to plow the avoided taxes into North Slope development. But the simple laws of economics tell us that if the avoided taxes aren’t simply distributed to shareholders as dividends, they’ll be re-invested where the most oil can be produced at the lowest price. That may very well not be on the North Slope. It might be North Dakota, or Pennsylvania or Texas. The absence of any conditions from the State of Alaska means that Alaska will have no control, none at all, over where the lost tax revenue goes.

But remember there’s also a tax credit for North Slope development. Captain Zero wants to repeal the tax credit. His fellow Republicans point to items that have been granted a tax credit – paving an airstrip at Kuparuk, for example – which they think don’t have an obvious tie to increased production. At least not obvious the Republicans. And conclude from those examples that the tax credit should be thrown out because Alaska is losing tax revenues.

This is important: Captain Zero not only want to make an unconditional tax repeal with no promise of increased production; he also wants to repeal the one piece of tax law that ties tax breaks to North Slope development.

A sensible administration, a government that was working to increase North Slope production and put more oil in the pipeline, might modify ACES to condition tax reductions on increased throughput over the long term. The avowed goal is increased oil; dangle the carrot near the goal. Don’t just hand out free carrots. And if you think the definition of “development” for tax credits is too loosey-goosey to be useful, revise it; tighten it up to focus on the goal. Don’t throw it out.

The repeal of the tax credit is an especially cynical way to sweeten the loss of tax revenue from Captain Zero’s repeal of ACES. But it has the exact opposite effect of the claimed purpose for repealing ACES. The credit links to development. Removing it increases the cost of development, however you define “development.” Increasing the cost of development sends development effort elsewhere.

Unconditional repeal of ACES is a stupid idea. Repeal of the tax credit is a cynical, counterproductive piece of politics. Choose your explanation: the Captain is still working for Big Oil, not for Alaskans. Or Big Oil has bought and paid for the Republican majority. Or the Corrupt Old Bastards are back in charge. Because the official explanations make no sense. The proposed solution doesn’t address the declining throughput. It’s free carrots for the Big Oil.

Don’t expect gratitude.

Long Past Due, Texas

Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson

The Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court has called for the appointment of a special commission to investigate wrongful convictions in Texas. Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a speech to the Texas Legislature,  told lawmakers that “if innocent people are rotting in prison for crimes they did not commit, we certainly have not achieved justice for all.” Wait, the Chief Justice actually had to explain that to the Texas Legislature?

Of course, that call came a little too late for Carlos DeLuna, an innocent man murdered by the Texas criminal justice system. Carlos was never exonerated. He was killed by the State of Texas, although he was almost certainly innocent. So he wouldn’t count among the 117 Texans who have been exonerated, according to the Chief Justice. Or Todd Willingham, another innocent man murdered by Texas, on utterly bogus arson evidence. He wouldn’t count as exonerated, either.

Better late than never, WC supposes. Unless, of course, the Texas criminal “justice” system has already killed you.

Texas, of course, is the American champion at exonerations. It has the most in the nation. And, most likely, it’s the American champion at wrongful convictions, although there aren’t statistics for those cases. What’s been notable about exonerations in Texas is that the prosecutors fight like demented tigers to keep the innocent in jail. In cases like Michael Morton‘s the prosecutors cheated – hiding numerous items of exculpatory evidence – to convict an innocent man and then keep him in jail for 25 years.

So maybe the problem is a little bigger than investigating wrongful convictions. Maybe the Texas criminal justice system has cultivated an environment in which the conviction rate, not justice, is the most important thing. Maybe that special commission could look into that, too. And maybe part of the problem is that the Texas public defender system ranks 48th nationwide in funding. Texas has some terrific criminal defense attorneys but, like everything else in Texas, the fees for those folks are outsized. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you’re not likely to have the highest quality defense attorney. Maybe the Chief Justice’s special commission can look into the extent to which poorly funded, chronically under-staffed, badly paid indigent lawyers contribute to the wrongful convictions.

WC reminds readers that Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat, ) as his character Admiral General Aladeen, flogging his movie, The Dictator, said, ”What people call genocide in my country is just the judicial system in Texas.” Of course, Sacha is just being outrageous. Right?

But none of it likely matters, because the Texas Legislature isn’t going to do as the Chief Justice asks. Criminal justice isn’t the first order of business in the Texas Legislature. And if they did pass something, we can be sure Governor Rick “Mad Dog” Perry would veto the bill.

But props to the Chief Justice for speaking out. WC just wonders if anyone else is listening.

Meaningful Fines in the Era of Multi-National Corporations

WC notes that the European Union fined Microsoft Corporation about $732 million earlier this week. It seems the bad boys at Microsoft failed again to provide easy access to other web browsers. The $732 million comes on top of at least $2.6 billion in fines levied since 2004 for the same kinds of conduct.

Ho-hum.

Microsoft has about $51 billion in off-shore profits that it can’t bring back to the U.S. without paying 35% as U.S. taxes. The current EU fine amounts of 1.4% of those off-shore profits.

The fines? A cost of doing business. It’s an inconvenience, like having $51 billion off-shore. Leaving the monies off-shore is cheaper than paying the taxes to patriate the profits. Paying the EU fine is cheaper than the cost of letting some other browser get popular.

The criminal justice system, in the U.S. and the E.U., haven’t yet gotten their collective minds around the size criminal fines would have to be to actually punish a multi-national corporation.

Way back in the Typewriter Age, when WC was just a pup, the jury in Day v. Sturm, Ruger heard evidence that the board of directors of Sturm, Ruger was told it would cost $1.93 to fix each of the 1,500,000 defective pistols like the one that injured Michael Day. The Board of Directors decided not to spend the money to do a recall. The jury decided that made a nice number for punitive damages, $1.93 X 1,500,000 = $2,895,000, under the circumstances. That’s the kind of punitive damages award or criminal fine that is calculated – literally calculated, by the way – to get the attention of a scofflaw corporation. Of course, the Alaska Supreme Court, over the furious dissent of  the late Justice Ed Burke, thought in terms of a personal fine and reduced it to $250,000.

The problem hasn’t gone away. As recently as the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in the Exxon Valdez case, the highest court in the land has treated fines and punitive damage awards for multi-national corporations as somehow equivalent to fines imposed upon an individual. The $5 billion punitives award was reduced to just over $500 million.

You think these are aberrations? HSBC – Britain’s biggest bank – pled guilty to laundering money for rogue states, drug cartels, and terrorists. The Fed fined HSBC $1.9 billion, one of the largest fines on record. It sounds like a lot of money, until you realize it was only 9% of pre-tax profits at HSBC in 2012. Flagrant violations of the law, money laundering for the scum of the earth, resulted in a fine that was less than a third of the U.S. corporate tax rates. The really shocking fact is that no one at HSBC went to jail, but that’s a topic for another blog post.

Despite The Mitt’s claims and the SCOTUS illusions, corporations are not persons. They are vastly wealthier, for one thing. The richest person in the United States is Bill Gates, estimated to be worth $67 billion. The company he used to head, by contrast, is worth $230 billion. The Alaska Superior Court recently imposed a $50,000 fine on a man WC knows to have a net worth of about $500,000. To be proportionate, a similar fine on Bill Gates would have to be for $6.7 billion. A similarly proportioned fine on Microsoft would be $23 billion.

The EU’s fine of $732 million, while not chump change, isn’t going to change the corporation’s conduct. It’s three tenths of a percent of MS’s net worth. That’s 0.3%. Reversing the proportions, that would be like a fine of $160 – that’s one hundred sixty dollars – on WC’s scofflaw acquaintance. For Microsoft, it’s a parking ticket.

0.3% of net worth doesn’t deter anyone. Especially not if they can make $51 billion as a consequence of the misconduct. It’s just a cost of doing business.

Rep. Doug Issacson: Certifiable

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reporter Matt Buxton writes that Rep. Doug Isaacson, R-North Pole, in the “debate” leading up to the vote on Alaska’s idiot nullification law, said:

The Second Amendment is not intended to protect “hunting clubs” but well-maintained militias, adding that the public should have access to anything the military has, even if that’s a F-22 fighter jet.

“If the state can afford an F-22, and I as a citizen can afford an F-22, this article gives me the right to own exactly the same type of armament that the federal government has. That may sound like it’s way on the edge,” he said. “This well-regulated militia is not a hunting club, it’s not a recreational force. As a matter of fact it is to keep and bear arms, is a right to have free, non-tyrannical government.”

Ignore the sadly muddled history. Let’s think this through. WC knows it’s unfair to bring logic to a discussion involving gun nuts, but let’s just follow Rep. Issacson’s “reasoning” and see where it leads.

It’s okay for the public to have F-22s. That must mean it’s okay for them to have hand grenades, right? Rocket-propelled grenades? Sure.

And nuclear weapons, too, right?  It’s an “arm,” right? The Second Amendment can’t have limits, right? So If Rep. Issacson wants, he can go out and get a 20 kiloton U-238 silobuster, just to keep himself safe.

Nerve gas? It’s an “arm,” right? So sarin is okay in every home.

Biological weapons like anthrax? Why not?

What about Predator drones? Cheaper than an F-22. “Armed” with Hellfire missiles? The question answers itself.

WC wonders if Rep. Issacson would have a problem with Adam Lanza possessing a nuclear weapon? Or T.J. Lane having access to nerve gas? Or Seung-Hui Cho possessing weaponized anthrax? Or Jared Lee Loughner owning half a dozen Hellfire missiles? Closer to home? How about Evan Ramsey with an M1 Abrams Tank?

Perhaps Rep. Issacson hasn’t thought it through? Or is WC being harsh and unfair bringing logic to the discussion?

Perhaps, just perhaps, any sane society has to agree to limits on the weapons its citizens can possess. Perhaps the Second Amendment, like every other amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has to have limits and qualifications.

You famously can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater, even if it is a limit on 1st Amendment free speech. More prosaically, some things are classified as “secret” and you can’t talk about them, even if that constrains your 1st Amendment rights.

We all agree “stop and frisk” laws are okay, even if the police don’t have a search warrant, and even though the 4th Amendment flatly prohibits searches without a warrant.

The police can pull your car over without an arrest warrant, even though the 6th Amendment says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t any different. Americans have to find the balance point for the 2nd Amendment, just as they have with the others. The evidence we haven’t found it is overwhelming. The hysterical overreaction by the gun nuts to the mere idea of limits speaks to obsession, irrationality and ignorance.

If Rep. Issacson actually meant what he said on the floor of the House, he’s insane. Certifiably insane. How else can you describe someone who thinks the entire Department of Defense arsenal should be in the hands of every citizen? Sadly, such insanity is all too common right now. All a sensible citizen can do is call it out.

Violating Their Oaths: It’s Not Even Close

The Alaska Constitution, Article XII, Section 5, in full:

All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as . . . . . . . . . . . . to the best of my ability.” The legislature may prescribe further oaths or affirmations.

“Support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Not the parts they like; for example, a twisted understanding of the Second Amendment. The whole Constitution. That would include the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In the United States’ checkered history, states have from time to time, advanced the theory of “nullification,” that the states are entitled to decide which laws are within the Federal purview, and ignore federal laws – or arrest federal officials – who in their view go beyond federal authority. In fact, “nullification” has been used by some southern states to preserve slavery, preserve Jim Crow laws and enforce segregation. In every case, really without exception, those state laws have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law is very, very clear: if you think the Feds have overstepped their authority, you can challenge the Feds’ exercise of that authority in federal court. All the way to the SCOTUS, if you want. But you cannot have your state legislature declare something it doesn’t like illegal. Such a law violates the U.S. Constitution. Voting for such a law is the exact opposite of supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution. Voting for such a law is a violation of a legislator’s oath.

Which takes us to HB 69, passed by the Alaska State House by a vote of 31-5. HB 69 purports to nullify federal firearms laws in Alaska. Here’s the heart of it:

(f) A federal statute, regulation, rule, or order adopted, enacted, or otherwise effective on or after the effective date of this Act is unenforceable in this state by an official, agent, or employee of this state, a municipality, or the federal government if the federal statute, regulation, rule, or order attempts to

(1) ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or a magazine of a firearm; or
(2) require a firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered.

(g) An official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order unenforceable under (f) of this section is guilty of a class C felony and may be punished as provided in AS 12.55.

Instead of upholding the U.S. Constitution and taking its silly beef over federal firearms regulation to federal court, the Alaska Legislature has chosen egregious pandering and the embarrassing, long-rejected dead end of nullification.

So much for “upholding the Constitution.” So much for a solemn oath. So much for a man or a woman’s word. Fools, cowards, panderers and oath-breakers. Thirty-one of them.

Hard to Imagine

The News-Miner reports that Guy Christopher Mannino, who allegedly caused the explosion of 300 pounds of explosive in a residential neighborhood, has had the charges against him dismissed. “The grand jury, after careful deliberation, decided that Mr. Mannino’s conduct was not criminal in nature,” Fairbanks District attorney Michael Gray told the reporter by e-mail.

WC has two questions:

1. How incompetent does a District Attorney have to be to be unable to get an indictment when someone damages surrounding property, shatters windows and endangers civilians setting off 300 pounds of explosives in a residential neighborhood?
2. How can the conduct not be criminal?

Grand jury proceedings are secret; it’s unlikely we’ll ever have answers. But a criminal justice system that can’t protect citizens against this kind of conduct is badly broken.

WC to State House: Listen to Vic

Vic Fischer

Vic Fischer told the State House Education Committee not to do it.

For those not aware of Alaska history, Vic Fischer is one of the two surviving members of the Alaska Constitutional Convention, the group that wrote the Alaska Constitution. He’s one of the very few surviving members of the group that created the State of Alaska. In a real and important sense, he is a Founding Father of Alaska, except that he is still around to speak for himself, instead of suffering the distortions and fabrications of the country’s Founding Fathers. He is also a pre-eminent scholar of government and politics. He should command the respectful attention of the Legislature.

What Vic said is that a constitutional amendment to enable educational voucher programs is a bad idea. Actually, the word he used is “lousy.”

No one would ‘fess up at the hearing, but the joint resolution’s sponsor, Wes Keller (R, Wasilla) has a specific goal in mind: passing public funds to private – read, “church” – schools. It’s been a big goal of the Christianist wing of the Alaska Republican Party for a long time. With a majority in both the House and the Senate, and Captain Zero to sign anything, not matter how awful, the mob may enact, why the Christianists think victory may be at hand.

The voters, of course, think the Alaska Constitution is just fine as is. As recently as November 2012, the voters rejected a call for a state constitutional convention by a two to one margin. Two to one. But that’s not enough for the axe-grinders. Just like the Legislature could not accept the voter-mandated cruise industry regulation, the Legislature has the effrontery to think they are smarter than the folks who elected them. If you reflect on it for a moment, it’s fundamentally undemocratic.

But the Christianists, blinded by the disco ball light of their goals, don’t care about democracy, or what folks older and more sensible than them may say. Those older and more sensible folks would include John Heywood, who wrote in the 15th Century,

Who is so deafe or so blinde as is hee
That wilfully will neither heare nor see?

Rep. Keeler was disingenuous at the hearing. Rep. Lynn Gattis (R., Wasilla) was equally deceptive.

Should this get passed and the voters of Alaska make the choice, then we’re definitely going to have to sit down and really have those hard conversations on what this may mean to our state. I think we’re way ahead of ourselves asking these questions.

No, Ms. Keller. You see the constitutional amendment as a means to the goal of private school vouchers. Let’s talk about your goal, not your means to the goal.

For Vic Fischer and, as you may guess, WC, the Alaska Constitution is a little more somber, a little more serious, than a mere obstacle, a speed bump on the road to your Christianist goals.

Following Up and Following Down: Catching Up with the New Year

It’s always perilous and depressing to go back over earlier posts and track subsequent events. Among other risks, it can be discouraging. But WC is a liberal; it’s his natural state of mind to sometimes be discouraged. WC will share his pain.

The Cruise Industry Gift Law, HB 80, flushed through the Senate. Captain Zero has already promised to sign it into law. As WC writes, mammoth cruise ships are preparing to dump their bilges in Alaska waters.

Cruise Dump, © Peter Dunlop-Shohl

(WC thanks Peter for permission to use his excellent cartoon.) The comments from our state senators as they debated whether to repeal the citizen initiative were about as offensive to a thoughtful voter as possible. Calling the voters dumb doesn’t score points with, you know, voters.

It’s looking pretty grim for wilderness adventurer Thomas Seibold. It’s one thing to have good survival skills. It’s another to survive an entire winter north of the arctic circle without food or shelter. The fifty-fifty chance has become miniscule. WC understands folks will resume searching now that there is a bit of daylight, but the odds are really, really bad.

The Accurséd Kulluk, the spindle-shaped drilling rig that was formerly the pride of Royal Dutch Shell, has been approved by the U.S. Coast Guard for tow from Kiliuda Bay to Dutch Harbor, with the 150,000 gallons of diesel still on board and a virtual albatross draped prominently around its drilling tower. WC generally dislikes superstition, but if there is such a thing as bad karma, the Kulluk is painted with it. It’s interesting the Shell is clam-mouthed about its plans for the 2013 season.

The Alaska Legislature, rather than deal with real issues, continues to find “solutions” to non-existent problems. Among the long list of really bad ideas would be the idea for anti-voter fraud legislation. WC can count on one hand, with plenty of digits left over, the number of documented cases of voter fraud. It’s not at all clear that there is a problem. Cases that have occurred have been successfully prosecuted. There’s no evidence that the existing laws are somehow inadequate to the task. So you have to ask what the motivation for drastic change would be. Any additional requirements will tend to disenfranchise voters, particularly in the villages. The problem of fraud would have to be very serious indeed to risk such a result. Except that it’s all a thinly veiled attempt to keep those evil Democrat-leaning villagers from voting. It won’t withstand legal scrutiny. But none of those realities will stop the Republican-dominated Legislature from passing the law.

And Mike Chenault (R, Dark Side of the Moon) remains the Speaker of the House, with his ALEC-inspired agenda and thuggish tactics. So, no, we haven’t reached bottom yet. As we sink down through the sewage of a Republican-dominated legislative session, the best a sensible person can do is try not to inhale the fumes.

Alaska Supreme Court Bitch Slaps Redistricting Board

The Alaska Supreme Court administered a bitch slap to the whiny Redistricting Board today.

The Supreme Court on January 3 ordered the Redistricting Board to follow the directions they had been given still earlier and develop a redistricting plan that followed the court’s guidelines in Hickel, the court’s seminal redistricting decision. It’s not complicated. Redistrict applying the standards in Hickel, then tweak to the minimum extent necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal Voting Rights Act.

Instead of obeying the court’s order, the Redistricting Board filed a Petition for Rehearing, complaining that the court’s decision was burdensome and wouldn’t change anything. The Alaska Supreme Court fixed a meaningless fact error in its earlier decision to prove they read the Board’s paperwork, and denied the rest of the Petition.

In legal circles, that’s a bitch slap. It tells the Board  the Court intends to force the Board to follow their earlier orders. It doesn’t really hurt, but it’s humiliating.

In a real sense, the Petition for Rehearing was a stalling tactic. It’s hard to believe the Board is trying to stall to keep until the 2014 election the same gerrymandered house and senate districts the supreme court let be used in 2012. Or perhaps they thought the change in supreme court membership recently might change the outcome in a divided court. In either case, the court made it clear it isn’t going to work.

It’s WC’s fond hope that after an adequate interval, the supreme court will step up and write a lawful redistricting plan. After all, that’s what has happened in each of the prior redistricting efforts. It’s increasingly clear that the current Board has no interest in following the law.

Concordia, Triumph, Splendor and HB80

The Concordia, Triumph and Splendor, of course, are all ships owned by Carnival Cruise Lines or its subsidiaries. And all three have turned their passengers’ dream trips into nightmares. HB80 is the Alaska Legislature’s capitulation to the threats of the cruise industry. Is WC the only one who sees a disconnect here?

The hulk of the Concordia still lies beached on her side, in sight of the west coast of Italy. On January 13, 2012, she ran aground with 3,229 passengers and 1,023 crew on board. 30 were killed in the accident; two are missing and presumed dead. The shipwreck is visible from space. The ship was a total loss.

The Splendor, on a cruise from San Diego en route to Ensenada, Mexico, became disabled after a fire erupted in an aft engine room on November 8, 2010. None of the nearly 4,500 vacationers and crew members aboard was injured, though several people reportedly suffered panic attacks. The Splendor was towed back to San Diego over the course of four days.

And now the Triumph, after yet another engine room fire, was completely disabled for five days while the ship and its 4,200 passengers and crews lived in Porta-Potty conditions as the ship was towed back to Mobile, Alabama.

As the former passengers on the Triumph take hot showers and try to wash the stink out, the Alaska Legislature is considering HB80, a bill which would lower the level of supervision and regulation of cruise lines like Carnival in Alaska waters. The bill has already passed the House.

Why?

With this kind of safety record does the Legislature think the cruise industry can be trusted to self-regulate? If they are this careless with ships that cost half a billion dollars each, you think they can be trusted to treat Alaska right? If the industry is this careless with its reputation, does the Legislature really think these companies will voluntarily comply with standards? Why would anyone think they will comply with standards in the absence of on-ship observers? The industry is a collection of scofflaws with a shocking record of fines for pollution violations. The Onion has it exactly right.

This is the reality: three ships dead in the water in less than four years. Three worst case scenarios. And the Legislature wants to let this industry self-regulate and self-inspect?

Why? Just, why?