A homosexual advocacy group called Outright Vermont is running a so-called "gender exploration program" for youth, called "Gendertopia", and it's being partially subsidized by taxpayers. Also reported by Salon.com
The nine-week program, partially funded by the Burlington School District, was held at Vermont's Queer Youth Center and called "Gendertopia." Forty students signed up, 12 participated weekly. Gay, lesbian and straight students discussed a wide range of topics, from the characters in the book and movie "Twilight," to taking photos around the city that show the different ways gender is portrayed in popular culture. The program is among the first of its kind to be funded, in part, with tax dollars, according to Christopher Neff, the executive director of Outright Vermont, the social service organization running Gendertopia.
Neither the program nor the school district's participation triggered any objection, according to Burlington School Superintendent Jeanne Collins. The tempered reaction locally to the program shows how far Outright Vermont and the issues it raises has moved into the main stream of youth social service organizations. [Ed. Note: Wrong; it represents how misled, cowed and intimidated ordinary people have allowed themselves to become.]
The program was designed to help young people identify the subtle signals used to express gender and how not being aware of those signals can lower self esteem and possibly lead to an increase in at-risk activities like substance abuse or dropping out of school. [Ed. Note: Once again, they psychologically disarm prospective opposition by playing the "safety" card.]
Even the pro-family movement in Vermont, if there is such a thing up there, has become partially reconciliated to the program. Steve Cable of Rutland, the founder of Vermont Renewal, an organization promoting traditional family values, said he wasn't familiar with "Gendertopia," but he knew Outright Vermont. He said he was supportive of the group's anti-bullying efforts, but not what he said was its focus on adolescent sexuality. [Ed. Note: Steve, their efforts aren't just to promote "anti-bullying", they're promoting confusion and perversion.]
And listen to some of the propaganda the participants regurgitate at the conclusion of the program:
-- "Most people come into it thinking, 'Oh, there's two genders and two sexualities' ... ," said David Kingsbury, a 16-year-old junior at Burlington High School who signed up for the program. "People assume it's boy and girl, but it's so much more than that. There's a whole world out there full of different genders."
-- "I'm straight, but I don't like using that word because then it feels like if you're gay then you're crooked, you're not meant to grow up in a certain way," Sophia Manzi, 15, a Burlington high school freshman, said during this year's final "Gendertopia" meeting. "I come because it's a really good program. The people, it doesn't matter what sexual orientation you are, they totally come in with open arms."
These are the type of creeps who worm their way into corporations and become human resources directors. That's why every Fortune 500 company panders to gays.
And finally, Neff himself said "Gendertopia" wasn't about sexuality or who people are attracted to. "We're really clear that gender and gender identify is separate from sexual orientation," Neff said. "Hugh Grant and Russell Crowe have the same sex, they're both male and they're both heterosexual. But they have very different gender presentations. One is sort of seen as much more masculine than the other." [Ed. Note: Doesn't matter, asshole; BOTH Hugh Grant AND Russell Crowe are still MALE.]
These are not the type or people you reason with civilly. These are the type of people you have to slap down hard. They are corrupting our vulnerable youth, and are doing it at taxpayer expense. Now we better understand why Dr. Jerry Prevo is taking such a strong stand against Anchorage's proposed gay nondiscrimination ordinance, and why he will organize a voter initiative if the Assembly passes the ordinance. It's not so much the immediate effect with which he's concerned, but he feels it will be gateway legislation which will grease the skids for spectacles like Gendertopia in our schools.
Any questions about your gender? Here's what you do:
(1). Pull down pants.
(2). Check package.
(3). If you got a pole, you're a male.
(4). If you got a hole, you're a female.
Question answered. Case closed.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Anchorage Press Presents A Tutorial On Natural Gas Supply And Demand Problems In South Central Alaska; Why Enstar Keeps Asking For Rate Hikes
On June 1st, 2009, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Enstar Natural Gas Company, the main supplier of natural gas in Southcentral Alaska, is seeking permission to raise its rates by about 4.7 percent for its residential customers. The increase would cover Enstar's cost of delivering the gas. Rates for the gas commodity itself are set separately and have been rising rapidly in recent years as the cost of Cook Inlet area gas Enstar buys has soared.
Enstar's new filing with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska would raise the rate for gas delivery to most residential customers to $28.47 a month, while businesses would pay $67.96 a month. If approved, the increase would become effective sometime in 2010. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) is expected to hold hearings on the rate request.
Since this will be the third increase in Enstar's rates in the past two years, the conspiracy wankers will start crying about "price fixing" and "price gouging" and all that other nonsense. They ignore the fact that delivery costs are completely separate from commodity costs, and when price hikes in either segment increase beyond the profitability point, Enstar, to remain in business, must raise costs to the customer. For all you socialists out there, that's called "capitalism". On the 2008 Fact Sheet posted on their website, Enstar discloses that for every dollar you pay them for natural gas, 83 cents pays for the commodity, 10 cents pays for delivery, 3 cents for taxes, and only 4 cents for Enstar income, out of which they must satisfy both employees and stockholders. And Enstar's income share rarely changes appreciably, since the price of gas is a pass-through cost: You pay Enstar, and Enstar in turn pays the producers, like ConocoPhillips, Marathon or Chevron.
What makes this a significant issue now is a nightmare energy scenario for South Central Alaska described in a lengthy article published on June 4th in the Anchorage Press. Despite its length, it's well worth the read because it provides an excellent tutorial on the problems of natural gas supply and demand in South Central Alaska. Here is the scenario:
Although this scenario is described as improbable, it is not impossible. On January 3rd 2009, during an extended cold snap when temperatures dropped to 15 below across Southcentral, the local system pulled harder on the wells and pipelines than ever before. And a compressor did fail, momentarily. In the end, the system prevailed because some things went right and some other things didn’t go wrong, but industry watchers suggest we came within a few hours of a total failure. But this was more of a deliverability issue rather than a commodity issue, although the compressors are installed to get more out of what's available. Because natural gas fields lose pressure as they age, utilities install compressors at critical junctures to keep the pressure through the lines from dropping below operating specs. And because the four largest Cook Inlet gas field from which Enstar draws the bulk of its supplies have dropped from 14 billion cubic feet in January 2004 to less than 9 billion cubic feet in September 2008, deliverability is falling at a rate of 8 to 14 percent per year.
What about Outside sources? Here's where we run into another problem. In the Lower 48, the gas market is highly liquid, meaning there are many buyers looking for the best deal and many sellers competing against each other to offer the best deal. As a result, prices constantly change as buyers leave one supplier for another, as sellers try to out-price their competitors, as explorers find new reservoirs and as pipeline builders make more efficient connections. The price at any given time is called the spot market. Our problem is that there has never been a spot market for natural gas in Alaska.
Here's why. Because companies were unable to sell Cook Inlet gas on the world market, companies signed long contracts with Anchorage-area utilities, supplying the region with relatively cheap natural gas at a stable price. Over the decades since, though, these original contracts expired and, after negotiations, were replaced with new, usually more expensive contracts, leading to steadily increasing gas and electricity bills throughout the region. These overlapping and leap-frogging contracts means there is no spot market for natural gas in Alaska. Instead, producers and local utilities negotiate supply contracts, which state regulators either approve or reject.
A prosepctive solution to the problem is the construction of storage facilities, to bank up natural gas supplies during the summer to provide a reserve for us to use during peak demands in winter. But storage facilities can be expensive; Enstar estimates that the investments needed to offset declines in gas supplies anticipated in 2011 would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million to $100 million. Where's that money supposed to come from? Part of it has to come from us, in the form of increased rates.
The remainder of the Press article provides more background, and discusses the prospective impact of the Denali Pipeline as well as the Bullet Pipeline. But this Press article shows that we haven't a lot of wiggle room - or time - left to solve this problem. In addition, we must take action to effectively pre-empt the constant threat of "public interest" litigation which is so obstructive. The transformation of Alaska's ethics complaint system into a weapon of political warfare illustrates the need to make public interest litigation more difficult and costly, so that it will screen out the frivolous "snail darter" litigation and restrict it only to areas with the greatest urgency.
Enstar's new filing with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska would raise the rate for gas delivery to most residential customers to $28.47 a month, while businesses would pay $67.96 a month. If approved, the increase would become effective sometime in 2010. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) is expected to hold hearings on the rate request.
Since this will be the third increase in Enstar's rates in the past two years, the conspiracy wankers will start crying about "price fixing" and "price gouging" and all that other nonsense. They ignore the fact that delivery costs are completely separate from commodity costs, and when price hikes in either segment increase beyond the profitability point, Enstar, to remain in business, must raise costs to the customer. For all you socialists out there, that's called "capitalism". On the 2008 Fact Sheet posted on their website, Enstar discloses that for every dollar you pay them for natural gas, 83 cents pays for the commodity, 10 cents pays for delivery, 3 cents for taxes, and only 4 cents for Enstar income, out of which they must satisfy both employees and stockholders. And Enstar's income share rarely changes appreciably, since the price of gas is a pass-through cost: You pay Enstar, and Enstar in turn pays the producers, like ConocoPhillips, Marathon or Chevron.
What makes this a significant issue now is a nightmare energy scenario for South Central Alaska described in a lengthy article published on June 4th in the Anchorage Press. Despite its length, it's well worth the read because it provides an excellent tutorial on the problems of natural gas supply and demand in South Central Alaska. Here is the scenario:
A mid-winter cold snap hits Southcentral Alaska, bringing temperatures of 20 below zero. People from the Matanuska Valley to the Kenai Peninsula turn up their heat in unison, sucking natural gas from the Enstar Natural Gas Co. distribution grid buried beneath the city streets. This network is fed by transmission lines leading back to wells that pump natural gas from underground reservoirs across Cook Inlet. As more people turn up the heat, engineers search for additional molecules of natural gas to manage the increased demand. But the cold doesn’t let up. Then, a compressor trips at one of the major gas fields, and the pressure in the pipeline system drops below the threshold needed for making electricity. So the lights go out. System operators worry the drop in pressure allowed air to get into the grid, and federal regulations require them to stop delivering to customers. So the heat goes off.
The bigger problem comes next, though. To revive the system, hundreds of technicians need to go door to door to bring every customer back online one at a time, on top of a long list of other regulatory and technical requirements. It could take weeks or even months, during which time the region would be without heat or power. In winter. In Alaska. [Ed. Note: Meanwhile, thousands of water pipes would freeze due to lack of heat.] Even worse, the underground reservoirs of natural gas could be damaged from disuse, meaning if once the system is restored, it might never be the same again.
For all the issues Alaskans worry about, none threatens as many people with consequences as extreme as this scenario. If it comes to pass, half the population of Alaska would lose heat, and even more would lose power. Industry would be crippled. It’s been described as the economic equivalent of the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake.
Although this scenario is described as improbable, it is not impossible. On January 3rd 2009, during an extended cold snap when temperatures dropped to 15 below across Southcentral, the local system pulled harder on the wells and pipelines than ever before. And a compressor did fail, momentarily. In the end, the system prevailed because some things went right and some other things didn’t go wrong, but industry watchers suggest we came within a few hours of a total failure. But this was more of a deliverability issue rather than a commodity issue, although the compressors are installed to get more out of what's available. Because natural gas fields lose pressure as they age, utilities install compressors at critical junctures to keep the pressure through the lines from dropping below operating specs. And because the four largest Cook Inlet gas field from which Enstar draws the bulk of its supplies have dropped from 14 billion cubic feet in January 2004 to less than 9 billion cubic feet in September 2008, deliverability is falling at a rate of 8 to 14 percent per year.
What about Outside sources? Here's where we run into another problem. In the Lower 48, the gas market is highly liquid, meaning there are many buyers looking for the best deal and many sellers competing against each other to offer the best deal. As a result, prices constantly change as buyers leave one supplier for another, as sellers try to out-price their competitors, as explorers find new reservoirs and as pipeline builders make more efficient connections. The price at any given time is called the spot market. Our problem is that there has never been a spot market for natural gas in Alaska.
Here's why. Because companies were unable to sell Cook Inlet gas on the world market, companies signed long contracts with Anchorage-area utilities, supplying the region with relatively cheap natural gas at a stable price. Over the decades since, though, these original contracts expired and, after negotiations, were replaced with new, usually more expensive contracts, leading to steadily increasing gas and electricity bills throughout the region. These overlapping and leap-frogging contracts means there is no spot market for natural gas in Alaska. Instead, producers and local utilities negotiate supply contracts, which state regulators either approve or reject.
A prosepctive solution to the problem is the construction of storage facilities, to bank up natural gas supplies during the summer to provide a reserve for us to use during peak demands in winter. But storage facilities can be expensive; Enstar estimates that the investments needed to offset declines in gas supplies anticipated in 2011 would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million to $100 million. Where's that money supposed to come from? Part of it has to come from us, in the form of increased rates.
The remainder of the Press article provides more background, and discusses the prospective impact of the Denali Pipeline as well as the Bullet Pipeline. But this Press article shows that we haven't a lot of wiggle room - or time - left to solve this problem. In addition, we must take action to effectively pre-empt the constant threat of "public interest" litigation which is so obstructive. The transformation of Alaska's ethics complaint system into a weapon of political warfare illustrates the need to make public interest litigation more difficult and costly, so that it will screen out the frivolous "snail darter" litigation and restrict it only to areas with the greatest urgency.
Anchorage Assembly To Introduce Revision To Proposed Gay Nondiscrimination Ordinance On June 9th, But Pastor Jerry Prevo Still Opposed To It
Update June 16th 8:50 P.M. Alaska time: There is now a third version of this ordinance. Assembly chair Debbie Ossiander has introduced her re-write of Ordinance 64. It is designated AO 2009-64(S-1), and can be viewed HERE. Changes are in boldface.
Anchorage's city administration has rewritten a proposed law banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals to make clear that it wouldn't apply to small, home-operated businesses or to owner-occupied four-plexes or duplexes. The new version of the law also drops a second category originally proposed for inclusion in the city's equal rights law -- military veteran's status. City officials said some veterans' organizations had asked for more time to discuss the issue. Stories published by the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU Channel 2 with video. All previous posts on this issue can be viewed HERE, beginning with the most recent post.
The revised ordinance, designated AO 2009-64(S), can be viewed either HERE or HERE. The newest changes are clearly marked on the text.
Although the Anchorage Daily News reports that lame-duck Mayor Matt Claman proposed the ordinance at the behest of EqualityWorks, Downtown Assemblyman Patrick Flynn is the Assembly sponsor of the original proposed ordinance, AO 2009-64. The official agenda for the June 9th Assembly meeting still shows the original proposed ordinance (AO 2009-64) rather than the revised proposed ordinance (AO 2009-64S), so it is unclear whether the revised ordinance will be presented instead of the original or in addition to the original. How Assembly Members are likely to vote on this issue was prognosticated HERE. The June 9th Assembly meeting begins at 5:00 P.M., but the order of presentation listed on the agenda shows that discussion of AO 2009-64, which is listed as item 14C under "New Public Hearings", is unlikely to begin before 6:00 P.M.
The city administration also issued some additional clarification on the expected effects. City attorney James Reeves explained what it would not allow:
-- It would not allow men to come to work dressed as women
-- It would not allow men dressed as women to enter women's restrooms in public facilities or businesses
-- It would not require employers to allow employees to advocate a particular sexual preference in the workplace;
-- Sex-related crimes, including pedophilia, would still be illegal.
In reality, the ordinance could not forbid the first three listed behaviors. Rather, it would simply not grant statutory protection to them.
But these changes and assurances did not satisfy Anchorage Baptist Temple Pastor Jerry Prevo, who updated the SOS Anchorage website with the following message:
In addition, Dr. Prevo revealed in a separate interview with ADN reporter Julia O'Malley that if the proposed "gay" ordinance passes, he is considering organizing a voter initiative to overturn it. Dr. Prevo gently reminded O'Malley that he had won before (the successful statewide 1998 campaign to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman). He also just as gently reminded O'Malley that some Assembly members had lost elections in the more distant past because of opposing positions favored by Dr. Prevo. Ironically, in that same report, O'Malley, who identifies herself as gay, states that she has never experienced discrimination because of it, and that everyone she's personally come out to has been totally respectful, so that should make the reader wonder why this revised ordinance is even necessary in the first place.
The Alaska Family Council is also unimpressed. They held a pastor's briefing on Friday June 5th about what they say the ordinance would mean for churches. They continue to insist that the ordinance pits religion against discrimination. "It's become a bad word because people say well it's all about hatred and bigotry," said Jim Minnery, president of the Alaska Family Council. "No, it's not. It's about us being able to live our lives in a way that doesn't force us to do something that we don't feel comfortable doing. It's called religious liberty." Their previous statement was cross-posted HERE.
And Alaska Voices columnist Kevin Clarkson, who is a lawyer, has also expressed reservations about the ordinance. His primary concern is the religious exemption. He believes granting an exemption to religious organizations is not enough; he wants it to extend to individuals who conscientiously object to it (in the same vein as conscientious objectors to military service during war). And his column triggered a question on my part; who defines "religion"? Can any organization which calls itself "religious" qualify? Are we in danger of moving into a political environment were religions will have to officially register, as they do in authoritarian countries and even in some democracies? This is probably another reason why Dr. Prevo raises the question of increased litigation.
Revising the proposed ordinance seems to have had minimal impact on public opinion. In an "unscientific" poll taken on June 5th, KTUU Channel 2 asked the question, "Does the removal of veteran status from a city anti-discrimination ordinance make you more or less likely to support such an ordinance?" Of the 218 respondents, 10 percent said "More", 34 percent said "Less", and 56 percent said "No Change". So revising the ordinance to eliminate veterans has only a marginal effect.
This proposed ordinance is still a solution looking for a problem. The real bigotry in Anchorage is not directed against gays, but directed against Christians, primarily by the progressive community. Many of the comments posted to the ADN story reek of anti-Christian invective, and some even advocate revoking the tax-exempt status of Anchorage Baptist Temple, although churches are free to express themselves politically on issues and retain tax-exempt status so long as they don't endorse or support specific candidates. Some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Christian bigotry flowed from the pen of professional grump Elise Patkotak on May 19th and again on May 26th.
It should be obvious that accusations of bigotry directed against the Christian community are designed primarily as protective cover for increasing societal anti-Christian bigotry.
Anchorage's city administration has rewritten a proposed law banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals to make clear that it wouldn't apply to small, home-operated businesses or to owner-occupied four-plexes or duplexes. The new version of the law also drops a second category originally proposed for inclusion in the city's equal rights law -- military veteran's status. City officials said some veterans' organizations had asked for more time to discuss the issue. Stories published by the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU Channel 2 with video. All previous posts on this issue can be viewed HERE, beginning with the most recent post.
The revised ordinance, designated AO 2009-64(S), can be viewed either HERE or HERE. The newest changes are clearly marked on the text.
Although the Anchorage Daily News reports that lame-duck Mayor Matt Claman proposed the ordinance at the behest of EqualityWorks, Downtown Assemblyman Patrick Flynn is the Assembly sponsor of the original proposed ordinance, AO 2009-64. The official agenda for the June 9th Assembly meeting still shows the original proposed ordinance (AO 2009-64) rather than the revised proposed ordinance (AO 2009-64S), so it is unclear whether the revised ordinance will be presented instead of the original or in addition to the original. How Assembly Members are likely to vote on this issue was prognosticated HERE. The June 9th Assembly meeting begins at 5:00 P.M., but the order of presentation listed on the agenda shows that discussion of AO 2009-64, which is listed as item 14C under "New Public Hearings", is unlikely to begin before 6:00 P.M.
The city administration also issued some additional clarification on the expected effects. City attorney James Reeves explained what it would not allow:
-- It would not allow men to come to work dressed as women
-- It would not allow men dressed as women to enter women's restrooms in public facilities or businesses
-- It would not require employers to allow employees to advocate a particular sexual preference in the workplace;
-- Sex-related crimes, including pedophilia, would still be illegal.
In reality, the ordinance could not forbid the first three listed behaviors. Rather, it would simply not grant statutory protection to them.
But these changes and assurances did not satisfy Anchorage Baptist Temple Pastor Jerry Prevo, who updated the SOS Anchorage website with the following message:
NEW!!! A revised version of the sexual orientation ordinance has been released by the acting Mayor. Supposedly, it is to prevent some of the problems we have raised. However, the term “sexual orientation” is not acceptable in any discrimination ordinance. The first ordinance [which was AO 2009-64] shows what the homosexual movement really wants. We must say NO to the inclusion of homosexuality in any discrimination ordinance. Please encourage the Assembly to vote NO on this ordinance and do not amend Anchorage’s discrimination ordinance to include homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. This will eventually lead to homosexuals wanting to make homosexual marriages legal in Alaska.
In addition, Dr. Prevo revealed in a separate interview with ADN reporter Julia O'Malley that if the proposed "gay" ordinance passes, he is considering organizing a voter initiative to overturn it. Dr. Prevo gently reminded O'Malley that he had won before (the successful statewide 1998 campaign to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman). He also just as gently reminded O'Malley that some Assembly members had lost elections in the more distant past because of opposing positions favored by Dr. Prevo. Ironically, in that same report, O'Malley, who identifies herself as gay, states that she has never experienced discrimination because of it, and that everyone she's personally come out to has been totally respectful, so that should make the reader wonder why this revised ordinance is even necessary in the first place.
The Alaska Family Council is also unimpressed. They held a pastor's briefing on Friday June 5th about what they say the ordinance would mean for churches. They continue to insist that the ordinance pits religion against discrimination. "It's become a bad word because people say well it's all about hatred and bigotry," said Jim Minnery, president of the Alaska Family Council. "No, it's not. It's about us being able to live our lives in a way that doesn't force us to do something that we don't feel comfortable doing. It's called religious liberty." Their previous statement was cross-posted HERE.
And Alaska Voices columnist Kevin Clarkson, who is a lawyer, has also expressed reservations about the ordinance. His primary concern is the religious exemption. He believes granting an exemption to religious organizations is not enough; he wants it to extend to individuals who conscientiously object to it (in the same vein as conscientious objectors to military service during war). And his column triggered a question on my part; who defines "religion"? Can any organization which calls itself "religious" qualify? Are we in danger of moving into a political environment were religions will have to officially register, as they do in authoritarian countries and even in some democracies? This is probably another reason why Dr. Prevo raises the question of increased litigation.
Revising the proposed ordinance seems to have had minimal impact on public opinion. In an "unscientific" poll taken on June 5th, KTUU Channel 2 asked the question, "Does the removal of veteran status from a city anti-discrimination ordinance make you more or less likely to support such an ordinance?" Of the 218 respondents, 10 percent said "More", 34 percent said "Less", and 56 percent said "No Change". So revising the ordinance to eliminate veterans has only a marginal effect.
This proposed ordinance is still a solution looking for a problem. The real bigotry in Anchorage is not directed against gays, but directed against Christians, primarily by the progressive community. Many of the comments posted to the ADN story reek of anti-Christian invective, and some even advocate revoking the tax-exempt status of Anchorage Baptist Temple, although churches are free to express themselves politically on issues and retain tax-exempt status so long as they don't endorse or support specific candidates. Some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Christian bigotry flowed from the pen of professional grump Elise Patkotak on May 19th and again on May 26th.
It should be obvious that accusations of bigotry directed against the Christian community are designed primarily as protective cover for increasing societal anti-Christian bigotry.
Friday, June 05, 2009
KTUU Channel 2 Poll Shows 75 Percent Of Respondents Don't Want Pete Kott And Vic Kohring Released Pending Judicial Review Of Their Corruption Cases
By now, many readers are undoubtedly aware that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, concerned that the prosecutorial misconduct which undermined the Ted Stevens case may have spread to other similar cases, has recommended that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals send the cases of former State Reps Pete Kott and Vic Kohring back to the original trial judges for review to determine if prosecutors improperly handled evidence in their trials as well. In addition, Holder has recommended that in the interim, Kott and Kohring be released from prison while the review takes place. Note that the Feds are NOT dropping the charges against Kott and Kohring at this time. Also note that this decision will not affect those who pleaded guilty, like John Cowdery and Jim Clark; by taking a plea deal, they locked themselves in. Alaska media stories which include public comments as reaction include the following:
-- "Attorney General asks for Kott, Kohring to be released", KTUU Channel 2 with video, June 4th 2009
-- "AG Holder wants Kott/Kohring released from prison", KTVA Channel 11, June 4th 2009
-- "Reactions to AG Holder's Request to Release Kohring and Kott", KTVA Channel 11, June 4th 2009 (includes reaction by Alaska lawmakers and Gov. Sarah Palin)
-- "Convicted legislators may be released", Anchorage Daily News, first published June 4th 2009. This story also includes some other links:
---- Eric Holder's official statement
---- Government's motion for Pete Kott
---- Government's motion for Vic Kohring
-- "Attorney General wants Kott, Kohring released", Mat-Su Frontiersman, June 4th 2009
KTUU Channel 2 was quick to solicit public opinion about Holder's decision. So on June 4th, 2009, they launched one of their frequent "unscientific" polls to take the public pulse. The informal margin of error of their "unscientific" polls has been previously determined to be as high as 15 percent, and the polling technology does not restrict participation to Alaskans only. Of the 998 people who responded to the question "Should former state Reps. Pete Kott and Vic Kohring be released from prison?", 75 percent said No.
Even if you apply a 15 percent margin of error, a strong majority still wants to see these two remain locked up. There may be two reasons for the negative response. First, the wording of the poll question; it makes it appear as if these two are to be unconditionally released a la Ted Stevens. This is not the case; it is an interim release only pending judicial review. Many respondents probably failed to understand the distinction.
But second, the poll fails to discriminate between Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. I believe more people want to see Kott punished than Kohring. I thought about that distinction myself, but I ended up voting Yes, primarily for the sake of Kohring. And this is reflected in the disparate punishment; while Kott was sentenced to 72 months, Kohring was only sentenced to 42 months. Although both Kott and Kohring equally maintain their innocence, the two couldn't be more different. While Kott came across as a thoroughly corrupt, cynical, and venal individual completely bereft of any moral principle, Kohring seemed like a good-hearted individual who just happened to blunder his way into the situation. This doesn't mean that Kohring is absolutely innocent; the videotape remains damning. It simply means that Kohring is NOT inherently corrupt and venal. Back in May 2008, after his conviction, Vic Kohring courageously faced a battery of reporters, affirmed his innocence, and exposed Judge John Sedwick's bias.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfGEMFlWg20
The USA Vs. Vic Kohring blog brings out more important information. Specifically, the possibility of bias against Kohring by Judge John Sedwick exists. Fred James discloses that Judge Sedwick consistently denied Kohring's motions, refused to recuse himself over an issue discovered on the last day of the trial and did not permit the jury to hear important parts of the defense. Judge John Sedwick is also married to Deborah Sedwick, who walked into the courtroom on the last day of the trial. This is when Vic concluded that his worst enemy in Juneau was none other than the judge’s wife. The principal U.S. Government witness, Bill Allen, lives 40 feet from the judge. The second most prominent government witness, Rick Smith, attended school with Sedwick in his youth.
The timing of Kott and Kohring's releases are now up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers for both Kott and Kohring think that could take anywhere from a few days to weeks. Kohring lawyer John Henry Browne feels an Alaskan hearing will happen in the next couple of months. But both lawyers are playing it close to the vest right now, waiting to see what the new information is, but if it is serious enough they say it could lead to new trials.
The first step would be for the actual trial judge to see if the evidence holder says prosecutors did not turn over could have helped the defense. In addition, Kohring lawyer John Henry Browne says he will try to keep Judge Sedwick from handling this case; removing Sedwick from the case is an absolute must.
Another Alaska blogger, Thomas Lamb, weighs in and is somewhat sympathetic towards Vic Kohring. He reports that Wayne Anthony Ross believes that if Kohring had different representation, he would have been cleared. But Lamb fails to account for the "damning" video to which I previously linked.
Prognosis: I don't foresee the convictions being thrown out at this point in time, but I can foresee Kott's sentenced being reduced, and Kohring being re-sentenced only to time already served. This would seen just; unlike Pete Kott, who still has a support structure, Kohring was dumped by his wife and exhausted his financial resources. It's time to free Vic Kohring.
-- "Attorney General asks for Kott, Kohring to be released", KTUU Channel 2 with video, June 4th 2009
-- "AG Holder wants Kott/Kohring released from prison", KTVA Channel 11, June 4th 2009
-- "Reactions to AG Holder's Request to Release Kohring and Kott", KTVA Channel 11, June 4th 2009 (includes reaction by Alaska lawmakers and Gov. Sarah Palin)
-- "Convicted legislators may be released", Anchorage Daily News, first published June 4th 2009. This story also includes some other links:
---- Eric Holder's official statement
---- Government's motion for Pete Kott
---- Government's motion for Vic Kohring
-- "Attorney General wants Kott, Kohring released", Mat-Su Frontiersman, June 4th 2009
KTUU Channel 2 was quick to solicit public opinion about Holder's decision. So on June 4th, 2009, they launched one of their frequent "unscientific" polls to take the public pulse. The informal margin of error of their "unscientific" polls has been previously determined to be as high as 15 percent, and the polling technology does not restrict participation to Alaskans only. Of the 998 people who responded to the question "Should former state Reps. Pete Kott and Vic Kohring be released from prison?", 75 percent said No.
Even if you apply a 15 percent margin of error, a strong majority still wants to see these two remain locked up. There may be two reasons for the negative response. First, the wording of the poll question; it makes it appear as if these two are to be unconditionally released a la Ted Stevens. This is not the case; it is an interim release only pending judicial review. Many respondents probably failed to understand the distinction.
But second, the poll fails to discriminate between Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. I believe more people want to see Kott punished than Kohring. I thought about that distinction myself, but I ended up voting Yes, primarily for the sake of Kohring. And this is reflected in the disparate punishment; while Kott was sentenced to 72 months, Kohring was only sentenced to 42 months. Although both Kott and Kohring equally maintain their innocence, the two couldn't be more different. While Kott came across as a thoroughly corrupt, cynical, and venal individual completely bereft of any moral principle, Kohring seemed like a good-hearted individual who just happened to blunder his way into the situation. This doesn't mean that Kohring is absolutely innocent; the videotape remains damning. It simply means that Kohring is NOT inherently corrupt and venal. Back in May 2008, after his conviction, Vic Kohring courageously faced a battery of reporters, affirmed his innocence, and exposed Judge John Sedwick's bias.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfGEMFlWg20
The USA Vs. Vic Kohring blog brings out more important information. Specifically, the possibility of bias against Kohring by Judge John Sedwick exists. Fred James discloses that Judge Sedwick consistently denied Kohring's motions, refused to recuse himself over an issue discovered on the last day of the trial and did not permit the jury to hear important parts of the defense. Judge John Sedwick is also married to Deborah Sedwick, who walked into the courtroom on the last day of the trial. This is when Vic concluded that his worst enemy in Juneau was none other than the judge’s wife. The principal U.S. Government witness, Bill Allen, lives 40 feet from the judge. The second most prominent government witness, Rick Smith, attended school with Sedwick in his youth.
The timing of Kott and Kohring's releases are now up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers for both Kott and Kohring think that could take anywhere from a few days to weeks. Kohring lawyer John Henry Browne feels an Alaskan hearing will happen in the next couple of months. But both lawyers are playing it close to the vest right now, waiting to see what the new information is, but if it is serious enough they say it could lead to new trials.
The first step would be for the actual trial judge to see if the evidence holder says prosecutors did not turn over could have helped the defense. In addition, Kohring lawyer John Henry Browne says he will try to keep Judge Sedwick from handling this case; removing Sedwick from the case is an absolute must.
Another Alaska blogger, Thomas Lamb, weighs in and is somewhat sympathetic towards Vic Kohring. He reports that Wayne Anthony Ross believes that if Kohring had different representation, he would have been cleared. But Lamb fails to account for the "damning" video to which I previously linked.
Prognosis: I don't foresee the convictions being thrown out at this point in time, but I can foresee Kott's sentenced being reduced, and Kohring being re-sentenced only to time already served. This would seen just; unlike Pete Kott, who still has a support structure, Kohring was dumped by his wife and exhausted his financial resources. It's time to free Vic Kohring.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Future Denali (Mt. McKinley) Climber Johnny Collinson Of Snowbird, Utah Becomes Second Youngest Person To Summit Mt. Everest
Alaskans need to get to know the name of Utah teenager Johnny Collinson. Because, if all goes according to plan, he'll be making Alaska news before 2009 is done. He's already summitted the highest peaks on two continents, and Denali (Mt. McKinley) is next on his list, according to his website.
But Denali will actually be a slight step backwards from the two previous mountains he summitted. One of them is Mt. Aconcagua (22,841 ft) in South America. And the other - a just concluded summitting of Mt. Everest (29,030 ft). According to KSL Channel 5, he is the youngest person (other than a Sherpa) to successfully climb the mountain, which overall makes him the second youngest ever. KSL news video embedded below:
Collinson, who's 17, lives at Snowbird, where his parents work. For the past 10 years, he's dreamed of climbing the highest mountain on each of the seven continents. And Mt. Everest, being the highest, was at the top of his list. On the day he flew to Asia to begin his Everest adventure, he turned 17.
The Sherpas on Mt. Everest were skeptical of such a youthful climber. "They weren't sure what to expect of me, but they saw that I was really strong so I got the nickname 'The White Sherpa,'" Collinson said.
The most difficult part was pushing himself to get started each morning. On summit day, it was 40 below zero. "It was so cold that my feet were getting really cold, but I knew if I stuck it out until the sun came up, that I could make it," he said. But he quickly warmed up when he looked around, and not only could see that everything was below him, but could actually see the curvature of the earth itself. A rather intoxicating feeling to be standing on top of the world.
Collinson is an old hand at climbing. He was on skis at 2 1/2, and at the age of 4 he summitted Mt. Rainier. He has gone on to climb 200 large western mountains, upon which on many he holds the youngest age record. His goals are listed at the very top line of his website, and you can see that Denali (20,320 ft) is next on his list. This shows advance preparation, because no sane person would want to attempt Denali in winter. So he's doing it during high summer. Even then, it's no tropical paradise; temperatures as low as -22F and windchills as low as -59F have been recorded during the summer. But few climbers are better prepared to tackle this relatively unforgiving mountain. In early May, William Hearne of Fairport, NY, found out how unforgiving it can be; he did not return.
Mount McKinley is commonly referred to by its Athabaskan name Denali, which is the name currently recognized by the State of Alaska. When Denali National Park and Preserve was established by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, December 2nd, 1980, the Alaska Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the mountain back to Denali. However, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names maintains the name McKinley, ostensibly to help visitors avoid confusion between the mountain and the park. Use of the name "McKinley" remains common, particularly in the Lower 48; however, Alaskans and mountaineers generally use the name "Denali" to refer both to the park and to the mountain. A partial list of Denali climbers is available HERE.
But Collinson is not skimping on his conventional education. "I'm taking independent study classes from BYU, so I was doing homework at base camp," Collinson said.
We look forward to his visit to our state and wish him luck.
But Denali will actually be a slight step backwards from the two previous mountains he summitted. One of them is Mt. Aconcagua (22,841 ft) in South America. And the other - a just concluded summitting of Mt. Everest (29,030 ft). According to KSL Channel 5, he is the youngest person (other than a Sherpa) to successfully climb the mountain, which overall makes him the second youngest ever. KSL news video embedded below:
Video Courtesy of KSL.com
Collinson, who's 17, lives at Snowbird, where his parents work. For the past 10 years, he's dreamed of climbing the highest mountain on each of the seven continents. And Mt. Everest, being the highest, was at the top of his list. On the day he flew to Asia to begin his Everest adventure, he turned 17.
The Sherpas on Mt. Everest were skeptical of such a youthful climber. "They weren't sure what to expect of me, but they saw that I was really strong so I got the nickname 'The White Sherpa,'" Collinson said.
The most difficult part was pushing himself to get started each morning. On summit day, it was 40 below zero. "It was so cold that my feet were getting really cold, but I knew if I stuck it out until the sun came up, that I could make it," he said. But he quickly warmed up when he looked around, and not only could see that everything was below him, but could actually see the curvature of the earth itself. A rather intoxicating feeling to be standing on top of the world.
Collinson is an old hand at climbing. He was on skis at 2 1/2, and at the age of 4 he summitted Mt. Rainier. He has gone on to climb 200 large western mountains, upon which on many he holds the youngest age record. His goals are listed at the very top line of his website, and you can see that Denali (20,320 ft) is next on his list. This shows advance preparation, because no sane person would want to attempt Denali in winter. So he's doing it during high summer. Even then, it's no tropical paradise; temperatures as low as -22F and windchills as low as -59F have been recorded during the summer. But few climbers are better prepared to tackle this relatively unforgiving mountain. In early May, William Hearne of Fairport, NY, found out how unforgiving it can be; he did not return.
Mount McKinley is commonly referred to by its Athabaskan name Denali, which is the name currently recognized by the State of Alaska. When Denali National Park and Preserve was established by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, December 2nd, 1980, the Alaska Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the mountain back to Denali. However, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names maintains the name McKinley, ostensibly to help visitors avoid confusion between the mountain and the park. Use of the name "McKinley" remains common, particularly in the Lower 48; however, Alaskans and mountaineers generally use the name "Denali" to refer both to the park and to the mountain. A partial list of Denali climbers is available HERE.
But Collinson is not skimping on his conventional education. "I'm taking independent study classes from BYU, so I was doing homework at base camp," Collinson said.
We look forward to his visit to our state and wish him luck.
Anti-Racist Blogger Nicole Nichols Viciously Slams Independent Baptist Church Of Wasilla, And Takes A Swipe At Sarah Palin As Well
Nicole Nichols (pictured at left), a leading anti-racist blogger who is the co-director of the now-dormant Citizens Against Hate group, has launched a vicious attack against the Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla, thus exposing the endemic anti-Christian bigotry prevalent among much of the political left. She also takes a passing swipe at Governor Sarah Palin as well.
In her post, entitled "The Devil Is Gay?", Nichols cites a column by the church's pastor, Ron Hamman, entitled "Will the Antichrist be a Homosexual" and published in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman on May 25th, 2009, and which triggered 857 comments as of this post. In this column, Pastor Hamman cites the following verse from Daniel 11:37, "Neither shall he [Antichrist] regard... the desire of women...." as evidence that the Antichrist will be gay. Of course, there is disagreement among Christian theologians as to this interpretation; for example, Pat Robertson believes the Antichrist will be asexual, using absolute power as his aphrodisiac. But Nichols showed no interest in researching and presenting this angle, since her primary motivation is to attack Christians; consider her description of the Independent Baptist Church as "a different brand of crazy from the pentecostal church that Palin favors..".
The latter slam also completely disregards the fact that Palin has long since switched her affiliation to the more moderate Wasilla Bible Church. No bigotry here, right? Yeah, right! :rolleyes:
But it's later in her post that Nicole Nichols delivers her money shot. She states, "The God that I know is a loving, caring God and it is up to him to judge others - not some half-baked messenger who warns of hell-fire and damnation. I find it absolutlely incredible that there could be so much hatred inside those who claim to be the men and women of God. I also find it incredible that there are so many who buy into that kind of bigotry".
So because she disagrees with Pastor Hamman's theology, she calls it "bigotry". This is an example of how lefties fight - not with logic, but with emotion. Of course, we Alaskans have local purveyors of anti-Christian bigotry as well; Alaska Voices columnist Kevin Clarkson takes professional sourpuss Elise Patkotak to task over two vicious attacks she launched against Anchorage Baptist Temple Pastor Jerry Prevo on May 19th and again on May 26th over his public opposition to AO 2009-64, which would extend nondiscrimination protection to gays. Prevo explains his objections to the ordinance on the SOS Anchorage website.
Having rhetorically jousted with Nicole Nichols on her blog for two years, I've learned some background on her. She was once in a relationship with a man who was a White nationalist. The relationship turned abusive and broke up. Shortly thereafter, Nicole launched her anti-racist crusade and founded Citizens Against Hate. Because of the circumstances, many believe that Nicole Nichols didn't become anti-racist by honest conviction, but instead opportunistically embraced anti-racism merely as a coping mechanism to lash out at the man who trifled with her affections in order to purge herself of her pent-up hostility. A similar pattern of behavior has been replicated by Andree McLeod. Angry at having been rejected for employment by the Palin Administration, I believe McLeod likewise opportunistically lashed out at Palin by spamming her with four ethics complaints, all of which since have been dismissed.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Celtic Diva Comes Up Emptyhanded: Linda Kellen Biegel's Ethics Complaint Over Governor Sarah Palin's "Arctic Cat" Jacket Dismissed
Another ethics complaint against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been dismissed by the Alaska Personnel Board on June 3rd, 2009. The complaint, filed by Linda Kellen Biegel, who blogs as the Celtic Diva on Diva's Blue Oasis, was over the wearing of Arctic Cat logo on clothing while at a public event considered by the complainant to have been an official state event and believed to have caused a conflict of interest. Her complaint was discussed in more detail in this previous post.
According to the Anchorage Daily News, Biegel claimed that Governor Palin had a conflict of interest because the clothing she wore to the Tesoro Iron Dog snowmobile race this year had an Arctic Cat logo and that Palin's husband, Todd, is sponsored by Arctic Cat in the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race. But the Alaska Personnel Board's independent investigator, Thomas Daniel, said there was no evidence Palin used her position for personal gain by wearing the jacket at the start and finish of the race.
A press release issued by the Governor's Office provides more details. In his report, Thomas Daniel wrote, “My investigation has uncovered no evidence that the governor or her husband received anything of value in exchange for the governor wearing the Team Arctic jacket when she acted as the official starter of the 2009 Iron Dog”. He also wrote, “I also note that most jackets worn by Alaskans have a company name or logo on them. It is common to see jackets with logos of North Face, Patagonia, Eddie Bauer, Marmot, Cabella’s, L.L. Bean and others. Indeed, it is more likely than not that any jacket that an Alaskan wears will have a company logo on it. So the fact that a person wears a jacket with a company logo on it is not evidence that the person is receiving a financial benefit as a result. To the contrary, it is the company that is receiving the benefit in the form of free advertising.”
According to the press release, Governor Palin welcomed news of the dismissal of the complaint. The press release points out that this is the 14th ethics complaint filed against the governor or her staff that has been resolved with no finding of a violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Those complaints contain 22 separate allegations, all of which have been found to be without merit.
As expected, Conservatives4Palin and most of their followers are rejoicing at the news. However, Biegel has yet to post a response on either Diva's Blue Oasis or as a comment to the ADN story; I will post a link when she does respond. However, one of Diva's political allies, Mudflats, has posted her own response HERE.
Update: Celtic Diva has now posted her response HERE. Her contentions; first, that as the complainant, the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act does not require her to provide proof of financial benefit, and second, that by virtue of the fact that Sarah Palin is governor, the Davis/Palin team had an "undeserved" advantage conferred up them. The part of the Ethics Act she cites clearly includes the phrase "regardless of the financial gain".
This is valuable input because now we begin to see the flaws in the Ethics Act. First, a complainant should always be required to show proof of malfeasance, since in our system, it's innocence that's presumed and guilt that must be proven. Second, benefit must require actual financial gain to be logically considered a benefit. It must be an EXPLICIT benefit. So Celtic Diva has actually helped expose some problems with the Ethics Act that need legislative correction.
Most of the ethics complainants are holding Governor Palin to an unrealistically high ethics standard. Most normal people wouldn't think twice about wearing a jacket with a logo in public. Is Governor Palin supposed to get advance permission from the Department of Law every time she wants to so much as break wind? She's supposed to be a holder of her office, not a prisoner of the office.
An undesirable by-product of this obsession with ethics is that these ethics complaints are also likely to generate a public backlash against ethics in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)