Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Yamato Ya Becomes Sushi Yako


We told friends to meet us at Yamato Ya, a Japanese restaurant we'd been going to since - it seems forever.  If I recall right they were in what's now the New Sagaya mall on Old Seward before it was the New Sagaya.  A long time Anchorage Japanese family ran it, with three sisters waiting tables.  When it passed down to a younger relative from Hawaii, the sisters - in their seventies  - gradually eased out.

When their lease was up in 2011, New Sagaya raised the rent and they decided to move down the street closer to Moose's Tooth.  The move changed the atmosphere quite a bit.

The Alaska Wine Guy moved into their old space.

It was no longer the cozy little restaurant with sushi bar.  There was just too much room, but we kept going, even as the menu, including the prices, morphed a bit.  But the much younger Thai waitresses were always very friendly and the food was good.  I'd recommended it recently to a group I know, but they told me that it was closed.  We'd just eaten there and as I passed it recently the sign was still there.

So we arrived, just as our friends were calling us to say it wasn't Yamato Ya.  I was parked looking at this big sign - same as before - seeing Sushi Yako over the old image and not registering this was, in fact, a new name.   

We decided to go in and try it out.

It's a totally new place, even though the sign is almost identical. 

While they are waiting for their liquor license, the waitress told us, the sushi plates (except for the specials) are $9.99.  









They've changed the interior look dramatically with this blue wine rack in the middle.



The wait staff was very friendly and helpful, but it appears that one of the last Japanese owned Japanese restaurants in Anchorage has become Korean. 



Monday, March 30, 2015

Rules Have Consequences - Thoughts on Chenault and Reinbold And Republican Caucus Rules


ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:
“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

This was to explain why Rep. Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican caucus of the Alaska state house of representatives.  She had voted against the caucus budget which is against 'the rules.'

So I tried to find those rules.

I googled Alaska House of Representatives rules and got a pdf of the Uniform Rules. 


FOREWORD
The Constitution of the State of Alaska (sec. 12, art. II) provides: “The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure." It is noteworthy that the drafters of the constitution did not say "each house” shall adopt, but rather emphasized that the "houses" should adopt uniform rules. It was the intention of the writers that Alaska should avoid the circumstances of many state legislatures where one finds house rules, senate rules, and joint rules. The uniform system is intended to permit the members and the public to follow or conduct the legislative process without a confusion of rules. The rules are adopted by both houses sitting in joint session as one body.  .  .

There are 55 rules covering things like Expenditures (#6),  Use of Chambers and Offices (12), Daily Calendar (#18), and other procedural rules. 


I called several legislative offices, including Rep. Reinbold's, (her voice mail message said she's short on staff and getting lots of calls) to see if they could steer me to the rules that she violated.  I got a person at my own representatives office, Democrat Andy Josephson.  He said that it wasn't in the uniform code, it was rules that Republican caucus had.  He didn't know where I could find them.  Did the Democrats have caucus rules too that I could get?  No, there were no such rules on the Democratic side.   (A call to Aurora Hauke, caucus staff for party head Chris Tuck confirmed that.  There are no rules - they aren't a binding caucus.)  He suggested I check with speaker Chenault's office.

A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.  

They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said.

I asked how he spelled his name and he said he didn't want to be quoted.  I asked to confirm I was talking to staff in the Speaker's office.  He said, on the administrative side, not the political side. 

Maybe there are other unwritten rules about speaking to the media and that 'things can happen.' 

So, originally, I was going to write about the idea that rules have consequences.   But it seems more fruitful to talk about different kinds of rules. 


Natural Rules versus Human Made Rules

The "laws" of nature are statements of what humans have observed and documented.   Some are fairly straightforward and understandable - like the law of gravity, at least on earth.  If you jump out of a tree, off a building, from an airplane the consequence will be that you will descend at a predictable rate of speed.  But beyond that, the consequences are less certain.  If you land in a swimming pool, or hit a soft awning, or are wearing a parachute, you may well survive and live happily ever after. 

Man made rules are different.  They are simply what those in power decide how others are to behave.  They could be decreed, they could be democratically voted on.  There's nothing inherently universal or moral about them.  They could be moral, but possibly they are not. 

Natural Rules -  These are neither moral nor immoral, they simply exist, and we all are subject to the consequences of not paying attention.  We could freeze to death or get burned.  We could drown or get pregnant.  We could get fat or fit.   We may think the consequences are good or bad, but not in a moral sense. 


Human Made Rules

Human rules have a moral component because they are human made and those who make the rules are morally, if not legally, responsible for the consequences.  And we also attach a moral component on whether people follow the rules, at least some rules. 

Just off the top of my head, here are some examples of the reasons for having rules.  

1.  For the benefit of the whole.  These are rules that are helpful when people live among other people and don't have to interact with other people.  Traffic rules are intended to make it safer and more efficient to drive.  Having people drive on the right side of the road has obvious benefits.  Stop lights and signs to regulate cars going through intersections does too.  Roberts Rules of Order are intended to make meetings run more smoothly.  They set procedures for how to engage in potentially heated debate.  Fair weights and measures rules also have intrinsic sense.  Sometimes they seem silly, like when you wait for a red light at 3 am and there is no other traffic, but most of us understand that benefit is worth the occasional inconveniences.

2.  To maintain order among those who can't order themselves.  Parents establish rules for their kids.  Schools have rules for students.  Prisons have rules for prisoners.  I suspect that kids in school could learn a great deal about life and would be far more willing to follow school rules if they had some say in setting the rules.  I suspect that for a lot of things that go on in prison, prisoners could participate in the official prison rules. The assumption here is that the population is not yet capable of making good decisions on their own and so some or many rules must be imposed. 

3.  Rules to make life easier.  People can set up arbitrary rules that just simplify things.  In a household you might establish a weekly menu that repeats every week.  You might have a rule to walk the dog at certain times every day.  It just reduces the amount of decision-making.  Restaurants and stores set up times they will be open and closed.

4.  Rules for fun and to challenge ourselves.   We set up rules for games.  We set up rules for certain art forms, such as sonnets and haiku.  These are rules people generally can choose to follow or not.  I would say that rules of professional sports go well beyond this. 

5.  Rules to exert power over others.  These are rules those in power are able to impose on everyone else.  The British rules over the American colonies.  Rules that governed slavery in the US South and later segregation.  Rules a kidnapper might impose on his captives.  Rules a corporation imposes on its employees. 

I suspect that rarely do any of these kinds of rules exist in their pure form.  Instead they blend with other kinds on this list.  Numbers 1 and 3, ideally would overlap.  All the rules can be tainted when some people have more power to make the rules and then each will also overlap with Number 5.  Parents (Number 2) could have good reasonable rules for their kids, but they can also add in rules to make their own lives easier (Number 3) because they can (Number 5). 

As people understand more about nature (including human nature) and as power shifts, rules get adjusted.  As we gained knowledge of health hazards, we've put restrictions on smoking and required seat belts in cars.  In these cases, knowledge also resulted in a power shift, albeit very slowly. 

 Unwritten Rules  

Every Knows them
Lots of rules are unwritten simply because everyone knows them.  They get passed along orally.   People are expected to learn many social rules at home or at school or through spiritual communities,  and because they are reinforced from interacting with other people.  They may actually be written - in needlepoint, in song lyrics, in self-help books - somewhere, just not in official law books. These are rules that may have real consequences and while they are unwritten, they aren't hidden.  In fact, they are so universally known and followed, that writing them may seem unnecessary.  The more homogeneous a community, the less necessary it is to spell out these rules. 

Secrecy and Power
But other rules are unwritten because the creators and enforcers know there's something wrong with the rules and written evidence of their existence is inadvisable.  Say, the rules of initiation rituals at some college fraternities, or unwritten rules for illegal discrimination in hiring. 


How Does This All Reflect On The Republican Caucus' Unwritten Rules?

I'm guessing that the Republican leadership would tell us that their unwritten rules are an example of Number 1 - they are for the general good.  Privately, they would acknowledge that they are about Number 5 - to help strengthen the party leadership's ability to get caucus members to obey. 

The fact that these are unwritten rules suggests to me that the leadership knows there's something not quite right about them.  They're a bit like a parent saying, "If you argue with me, you'll be sorry."  They are treating Reinbold (and the rest of their caucus members) like unruly children.  Something some Democrats would probably say is appropriate.   And something the Republicans would say they have to do to achieve party goals. 

But there is something inherently wrong about this.  To say that 'rules have consequences' suggests that everyone knows the rules.  But if you don't write them down . . . There was a time when federal regulations were not easily accessible.  It took the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946 to require federal agencies to establish procedures for writing regulations and making them available for all to see.  Unwritten rules can be changed without evidence that the old one existed.  It's the kind of thing tyrants do.  It rubs the wrong way in a democracy.  Especially when these are rules that govern how our democratic legislature works.  There's no way that a member of the general public or even a member of the Republican party can 'see' the rules.  You have to, it seems, be an insider.  Or the rule has to be publicly enforced, as in this case, for its existence to become evident to the general public. 

 But there are other anti-democratic aspects of this.  We know that by cutting Rep. Reinbold out of the caucus and dropping her from her committee assignments (all except one), the party is weakening the representation of Reinbold's constituency.  Their elected representative has less formal power to shape legislation than even Democrats in the minority caucus.   It also weakens the representation of all members of the caucus to the extent that they are afraid to vote against the budget even if they believe that is the wish of their constituents. 

As a parent, I believed in rules having consequences.  A perceptive parent learns quickly that if they don't, the rules have no power.  Perceptive parents don't impose rules they can't enforce.  And since good parental rules are intended to help their kids survive to adulthood and thrive when they do, parents create rules that parallel, as much as possible, the natural and human made rules the kids  will face in life.  But even if all one's rules are good and sensible, kids continue to grow and learn.  And they will test the parents' will on all the rules.  That's part of learning about their own power and how to use it.  We found, though, that when our kids were given some control over the rules and the consequences, they could experiment with their own power needs in a more constructive way. 

I understand that the Republican leadership would like to keep its caucus orderly.  But rules that require them to vote along party lines or suffer severe consequences, are inconsistent with democracy.  The power to 'deliver the votes,' as I see it, is only important if one has promised some outside interest you'd get something passed or if it is needed to gratify one's own control needs. 

And as with dealing with children, especially rules perceived to be unfair cause resentment and rebellion.  Actions have consequences. 

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Another Mayoral Cannadate? Charlo Green's Victim Youtube


Nat Herz tweeted a link to a video of Charlo Greene proclaiming that the War on Drugs is really a War on You and Me.
"As I stared down the barrel of a police officer's gun, they made it very clear that the war they're waging is one for power over us. .  .   Anonymous reports were all the Anchorage police department needed to knock down my front door, put a gun in my face and rob me and the eight medical marijuana cardholders on-site of our cannabis, computers, and cards, a month after we legalized recreational marijuana."
Screenshot from Youtube video
Here's how the ADN portrayed the March 20 event:
Anchorage police served a search warrant on the Alaska Cannabis Club's downtown clubhouse on Friday afternoon, taking boxes of evidence from the residence as club owner Charlo Greene watched.
Anchorage Police Department spokesperson Jennifer Castro told reporters on scene later Friday afternoon that police had received reports of illegal marijuana sales occurring at the clubhouse. No charges had been filed Friday, Castro said.
Police arrived about 1 p.m., Greene said. Greene, whose legal name is Charlene Egbe, is a former television news reporter who achieved national notoriety in September when she quit on-air after announcing she was the owner of the club. . .


. . . Two marked police cars were outside the residence on Friday afternoon, with a few more arriving as the search wore on. Greene said about seven officers were boxing up marijuana plants, computers, papers and other materials in the clubhouse. Greene said she was free to go but chose to wait while police took evidence from the home.
An officer on scene confirmed no arrests were being made Friday afternoon.
At 3:10 p.m., police began to load evidence in paper bags and cardboard boxes into a white van from the back door of the clubhouse. At about 3:15 p.m., a red pickup and black Jeep were towed away from the house.


Nothing about a broken down door or a gun in the face.  You'd think she would have told them when she described the other things that happened.  (I've emailed the reporter Laurel Andrews to see if she just left it out. I'll update when I hear back.)

All I know about Charlo Greene is what I've read in the newspapers - as a news anchor  she pushed for legalizing marijuana while she was (unknown to the public) also the owner of the Alaska Cannabis Club.  She got fired for that.  And she's, apparently, not waiting for the legislature to enact the legislation regulating marijuana as the initiative called for it to do.

I'm not unsympathetic to victims of overzealous or biased police, though it helps someone's cause if the police were actually abusive and the person arrested was innocent.  I can't help but be a little skeptical of her victimhood here.  Sounds like she's taking advantage of the 'police treat blacks differently' meme.  Not that she mentions race and not that I don't believe that blacks do get stopped by police more often and treated worse by police than do whites.  Rather than saying it's race related, it could be (and that's all she's claiming) marijuana related.  Is it possible it's law related too? 
"The officer had his hand on the trigger as I, a law-abiding citizen, stared down the receiving end of an assault rife that my tax dollars paid for.  And in that moment I thought, I've done everything right."
Pretty dramatic.  Why wasn't this in the March 20 story?  And the thing about paying taxes.    Clearly, criminals don't get a pass because they paid their property taxes.  I think the point she's making is that she's not a criminal.  

Perhaps this is a cross-cultural issue:
"In spite of growing up in poverty, I became the first of my six brothers and sisters to earn a college degree.  I chose positive friends, I haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last three years.  I've dedicated my life to healing our community, with cannabis."
People growing up in poverty grow up in a different culture from people growing up in the middle class.  At the political corruption trials, I mused in a post about how Bill Allen related his life story in a family of itinerant farm workers, moving from place to place, missing lots of school and dropping out at age 15 to become a welder.  It was clear to me that he got little or no help from government and probably had no education about the rule of law.  He seemed to me to be a man who truly worked his way up from poverty through smarts and hard work.  For him, it seemed,  the law was yet one more obstacle, that a businessman had to overcome.  I don't agree or condone that stand, but I can understand it.

Is Charlo the same?  She did what she was supposed to do - went to school, got positive friends, stopped breaking the law.  The American Dream the Republicans so cherish.  Though another story about her dispute with the other tenant in the Cannabis Club building, suggests she's sugar coating a bit.  And if she graduated from college, she had a lot more opportunity to benefit from and learn about government and the rule of law than Bill Allen.  And since she seems to treat truth lightly, I can't help but want more evidence before I completely buy her portrayal of her childhood. 

But surely we shouldn't hold her to higher standards than we do other mayoral candidates, such as Dan Coffey who even confesses his and asks for absolution on his website.  This was even too much today for the last surviving dinosaur from the Anchorage Times, Paul Jenkins

Now we have two women candidates in the race.  But we have so much better potential women candidates.

Hairy Woodpecker and Friends At Still Icy Potter Marsh



One more post from last Sunday's outing.  [The other two were Always Looks Different:  Turnagain Arm and McHugh Creek]  We stopped at Potter Marsh on the way home [as we did two weeks before.] 






The only birds we saw this time - and this is not a complaint - were a pair of hairy woodpeckers and a flock of bohemian waxwings. 

The woodpeckers were fun.  Maybe it's my early introduction to Woody as a kid.  Surely the red patch helps, and the tapping noise.  And one of my favorite posts, which still gets hits from weird folks like me, is Why Don't Woodpeckers Get Brain Damage? 









The waxwings too, but they're more common, and we'd recently had a very close view as they came to feast on the Mt. Ash berries in the tree in front of our house.  Here their spectacular colors aren't visible.

This time without such an obvious single food outlet as the Mt. Ash, they were scattered in pairs and small groups around the marsh. 









Here's a typical view of the marsh, though the summer tourists don't get to see it with the ice.









The boardwalk has signs prohibiting, among other things, dogs.  And as we got back to our car, we saw this one waiting patiently in the car for it's servants. 



Saturday, March 28, 2015

Blogger Ethics: Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?


One of  my 2013 Anchorage Film Festival posts included a short overview of the film "Tales from the Organ Trade."  A documentary about selling and buying kidneys and the people involved - on various sides, sellers, buyers, and doctors.  
Today someone left a comment - basically, it's an ad for a hospital that buys and sells kidneys in India. 
So, what should I do with it?  Delete it?  Leave it as a comment on the movie?  When I went to get the link for that old post, I saw that there was already another similar type of comment.  I can't remember if I saw it and decided to leave it, or I never saw it.  It was posted a few months after the original post.  
The film itself was not a clear cut condemnation.  While it showed how poor folks risked their lives for pitifully small amounts of money and rich folks spent huge amounts to get a kidney, it did show some strong arguments for letting people who need a kidney pay for one.  
Thoughts? 


Hi friends greeting from Apollo Hospital India (Dr. Leo Gomez).
Specialist hospital that buy human kidney.
If you are Interested in Selling or buying Kidney
Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Phone number : +9191678XXXX
Email : apollohospitalkidneydep@gmail.com
Dr. Leo Gomez


SteveSaturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM AKDT
I don't know. Normally I'd delete that message, but it's an eerie reminder of what the movie was about. Readers, what should I do with it? Leave it? Delete it?

Blogger Ethics: Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?

One of  my 2013 Anchorage Film Festival posts included a short overview of the film "Tales from the Organ Trade."  A documentary about selling and buying kidneys and the people involved - on various sides, sellers, buyers, and doctors. 

[UPDATE March 30, 2015:  Inspired by the most recent Anon (3/30/15) comment, I'm adding a link to HBO where you can download the movie "Tales From The Organ Trade."  You can also go to the movie's website where you can watch the trailer.]

Today someone left a comment - basically, it's an ad for a hospital that buys and sells kidneys in India. 

So, what should I do with it?  Delete it?  Leave it as a comment on the movie?  When I went to get the link for that old post, I saw that there was already another similar type of comment.  I can't remember if I saw it and decided to leave it, or I never saw it.  It was posted a few months after the original post.  

The film itself was not a clear cut condemnation.  While it showed how poor folks risked their lives for pitifully small amounts of money and rich folks spent huge amounts to get a kidney, it did show some strong arguments for letting people who need a kidney pay for one.  

Thoughts? 


Hi friends greeting from Apollo Hospital India (Dr. Leo Gomez).
Specialist hospital that buy human kidney.
If you are Interested in Selling or buying Kidney
Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Phone number : +919167859153
Email : apollohospitalkidneydep@gmail.com
Dr. Leo Gomez
ReplyDelete

SteveSaturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM AKDT
I don't know. Normally I'd delete that message, but it's an eerie reminder of what the movie was about. Readers, what should I do with it? Leave it? Delete it?
ReplyDelete

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Suppose Your New Job Was To Betray Your Brothers

Two couples have tried to create the Perfect Arrangement.  It's the 1950s.  Bob Martindale works for the State Department.  Neighbor Norma Baxter is his secretary.  They live in adjoining apartments, appropriately connected by a closet.

March 19 - April 4 Thu/Fri/Sat 7pm
Out North - Primrose and Debarr (kitty corner from Costco)

So this doesn't get lost:   this is a funny play, and you'll laugh, but it packs a punch.  

Bob's assignment of late, has been to root Communists out of the State Department, but they're mostly gone and now his boss has assigned him the task of getting rid of the deviants.  He undertakes this job knowing that he and his lover and Norma and hers are safe in their Perfect Arrangement.

Opening Night Reception After The Performance at Out North
This is a neatly done play by Topher Payne - who was here last Thursday for the West Coast premiere of his work.  There's lots going on in the play.  There are the two different worlds - a social facade of voice and intonation and topic for straight visitors where the ladies chatter about recipes and shopping, the men disparage the women,  and then there's the more open expression of ideas in uncensored vocabulary when the two couples are alone.

But the play is not simply a play about being in the closet or homosexuals for that matter.  Rather it's about marginalized people who have learned to act one way in the outside world and another at home, and who are always worried that their real being will be discovered and always tortured because it can't be.  This play could be about black slaves in the south, or women in a male dominated work place, or undocumented workers. . .

And as the tension rose when Bob was required to make lists of deviants to be fired, I couldn't help think about the Jewish capos in concentration camps who got slightly better treatment for cooperating with the Nazis and keeping tabs on the others.  The dialogue was explicit about the conflict between trying to save oneself and one's duty to the others.  About the small benefits of blending in versus the great losses of denying one's true identity.  We could see the characters' slow debilitating stress of staying hidden, the fear of being discovered and the change it will mean, and the enticing but dangerous thought of standing up and declaring one's identity.  Echoes of the struggle in Selma.  

This is a powerful play with strong acting -  well worth seeing.  Below is a video of the playwright, Topher Payne, talking at the reception after the performance.  You can also see a video with directors/actors Krista Schwarting and Jay Burns here.




McHugh Creek


Here are a few pictures from Sunday's hike on the Johnson Pass trail from McHugh Creek.  The cottonwoods - and everything else - are still naked.  Below you can see them in different states.



Devil's club was budding. 




A couple of weeks ago, we came by and only the lower parking lot (right)  was open, but Sunday, the gate to the upper parking areas was open. 








And the creek was still flowing mostly under the ice. 




Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Missouri Senator Blunt Offers Budget Amendment To Preclude Future Carbon Fee

 From Sen. Blunt's website:
 Blunt image from SemoTimes
WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) introduced an amendment to the FY2016 budget today to protect families in Missouri and across America from a carbon tax, which would lead to skyrocketing energy costs for families nationwide. Blunt’s amendment, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Senator John Thune (S.D.), would create a Point of Order against any bill that contains a tax or fee on carbon emissions from sources that are direct or indirect sources of emissions. To read the text of the amendment, click here.
This amendment's intent is to preempt legislation that would create a carbon fee or tax and require 60 votes to override this amendment.  The press release also falsely predicts rising energy costs and lost jobs.  (Actually, it probably depends on the assumptions they made about what such a fee would look like, assumptions that are radically different from the carbon fee proposal of Citizens Climate Lobby that I'll discuss below.)

SEMO Times  [Southeast Missouri], seems to just print the press release as is:
 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) introduced an amendment to the FY2016 budget today to protect families in Missouri and across America from a carbon tax, which would lead to skyrocketing energy costs for families nationwide. Blunt’s amendment, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Senator John Thune (S.D.), would create a Point of Order against any bill that contains a tax or fee on carbon emissions from sources that are direct or indirect sources of emissions. To read the text of the amendment, click here.

Actually, a carbon fee, such as the one proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, would distribute the money raised by the fee back to the American public - much like the Alaska Permanent Fund. 
"A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things:
  • internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, 
  • rapidly achieve large emission reductions, 
  • stimulate the economy & 
  • recruit global participation.[1]"
I know about this because I'm a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby and I've been going to their monthly international phone meetings and have done the homework to see that the carbon fee proposal is the most politically feasible option to reduce carbon emissions.  A carbon fee is supported by a number of conservatives because it uses market forces rather than regulation.  


A REMI study showed that the 'dividend' paid back to the public would off-set any additional costs of carbon products.

"The results of the study demonstrate that there are probable benefits to taxing carbon dioxide emissions and returning the money to consumers through F&D [Fee and Dividend]. The following are highlights of the national level results of the study in 2025.
    • 2.1 million more jobs under the F&D carbon tax than in the baseline
    • 33% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from baseline conditions
    • 13,000 premature deaths saved from improvements in air quality 

  • These principal results are not to say the outcome is universally positive, and there are certain industries and regions in the United States that may do better or worse under a carbon pricing system. For example, the industries tied directly to households, such as healthcare, retail, and housing construction, tend to do well because F&D increases the overall level of consumer spending. There are other important results in 2025. The F&D rebates return nearly $400 billion to householdsor almost $300 per month for a family of four, and the carbon tax aids in retirements of coal plants and accelerates investments in wind, solar, and nuclear power. The impact to the total cost of living is less than 3% from the baseline, and gross domestic product (GDP) increases between $80 billion and $90 billion."
The REMI study assumes a carbon fee that is refunded to the public. 

"Such a carbon tax would begin at $10 per metric ton in 2016 and escalate in a linear fashion at $10 per year upward, although this study’s timeline ends with the models’ horizon in 2035."
REMI (Regional Economic Models Inc.) is an economic modeliing research company that specializes in projecting the economic impacts of various proposals on the economies of states and the US as a whole.  It used the same basic model it uses for the many studies commissioned by US states and its assumptions about the carbon fee were those in the CCL carbon fee proposed legislation.  CCL commissioned the study. 

In contrast, a study by NERA, presumably the same study or a similar one used for the dire predictions of Sen. Blunt's press release used different assumptions:
"A carbon tax that begins at $20/metric ton of co2  in 2013 and increases at 4 percent per year."
The revenue is not used to pay US consumers as in the CCL proposal that REMI tested.

So, while the NERA study is probably just as accurate as the REMI study, it starts with different and questionable assumptions and numbers.  I didn't find the proposed legislation  they used to make those assumptions.  The way to produce the kind of results your clients want is to use the right assumptions as you start your modeling.

The REMI study also showed that the fee would create jobs, not reduce them.

So, which study should you believe?  One commissioned and paid for by corporate interests whose basic product is the source of climate change or one commissioned by a citizens group that is concerned with the sustainability of the planet and whose motivation stems from concern for their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren?  Actually, CCL was hoping that such a study would show that the economic impacts were much less damaging than opponents (like Blunt) claimed.  They were pleasantly surprised to find out the impacts would actually add jobs and stimulate the economy.  There certainly can be biases in both studies, but we seen how the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail to hide the health effects of tobacco and a new movie - Merchants of Doubt - is supposed to show how a similar campaign is being waged to attack legitimate climate change science.

Sourcewatch (Center for Media and Democracy)  has this entry about NERA and a study for the coal industry: 
In June 2011, a coal industry front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) released a report stating that clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.[2][3]
ACCCE paid for National Economic Research Associates Inc. to conduct the report, which a Bloomberg report described "as part of a campaign to delay compliance deadlines in the pending rules." The report estimated that regulations cutting emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would lead to the “premature” retirements of coal-fired power plants that can generate 47.8 gigawatts of electricity, about 15 percent of coal’s U.S. production capacity.
Representative Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the energy subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he plans to introduce a bill to give utilities more time to comply with the rules. New maximum levels for nitrogen oxides, a component of smog, and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, are scheduled to take effect in 2012. The US Environmental Protection Agency is under a court order to produce a final mercury rule in November 2011. Utilities would have as long as four years to meet the mercury standard.[4]
Unfortunately, this doesn't analyze the data or compare it to other studies on the topic.  Its key point is that the study was for a coal company front group that Bloomberg says was a campaign to delay regulations.  A red flag, but not quite damning proof.

I found this portrait of Blunt on what appears to be a Boston College  Model United Nations website
The United States Chamber of Commerce has awarded Blunt a 97% pro-business rating, he has consistently voted in favor of deregulation, and he maintains close ties with the Koch Brothers in Kansas City. [Koch's are headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, just 63 miles from Kansas City, Missouri.]  With a son that was a former governor and considerable real estate holdings in Missouri, Blunt is among the most powerful Senators in terms of constituent influence. Among the largest businesses located in Missouri is Monstanto. Blunt's Farmers Assurance Provision was dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act" by liberal lawmakers. It is more than likely that Blunt maintains close ties with Hugh Grant, Pierre Courduroux, and Brett Begemann, Chief Executives at Monsanto. Blunt is consistently accused of promoting corporations and providing slack to companies that benefit his son, Andrew, and power brokers in Missouri.
Republican Allies
Blunt allies with Senator Ted Cruz, as well as much of the Tea Party core with his radical stance on healthcare. Conversely, his conservative stances on business, social issues, and public insurance enrage Democratic leadership.

 I think there are probably a lot of loose ends here, but you get the point.  It probably wouldn't hurt to call your Senator - whatever state you're in - and let him or her know that you oppose this amendment and they should vote against it.  

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Lazy Blogger; Low Budget Candidates; Who We Be

I've been having trouble getting posts finished.  It's not for lack of subjects, it's just they weren't coming out right.  So this is going to be a quicky just to get something up.

Low Budget Mayoral Candidates

First there was this sign:

I think I heard Dustin has spent less than $100 on his campaign. 

And then yesterday I saw this sign:



This is a fence that's seen a number of signs posted and then get removed.  This was the only one up.

There's an advantage to not having much money - it forces you to think differently about how you're going to do things.  These signs have a refreshing simplicity and homemade quality that clearly distinguishes them from all the very similar professional signs. 

Then I went to the Bartlett Lecture at UAA tonight.  The audience size was a bit disappointing.  Jeff Chang talked about his new book Who We Be and the evolution of race as an issue in the US from the 60's to today.  From a time when the majority was be
hind fairness and equality, through the backlash period, to today when things are particularly polarized.  Jeff has a passion for hip-hop and he talked about how it was the non-establishment multi-cultural movement.  (Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth.)  There was also a good audience Q&A that got into questions about young activism in Anchorage - whether it was happening or not. 


  Here are a couple of the people I talked to afterward.  



Troy Buckner is the Executive Director of New Life Development in Anchorage, a non-profit that works with prisoners as they come out of prison and transition back into life without bars.  He also worked with Jeff years ago on documenting hip-hop.    He's with one of his board members, Carey Brown. 






Jeff Chen works at the Student Conservation Association (SCA) which involves students in various conservation projects.  No, that's not his conscience sitting on his shoulder, it's one of the book sellers in the background. 







Here's Jeff Chang after the talk listening to one of the audience members talk about Soviet multi-culturalism in the 1920s. 

Jeff, if you see this, here's a link to the movie Shield and Spear I mentioned to you. 


There's just so much going on in Anchorage and the weather's so good.  It's nice having easy walking and biking so early in the year.