The Mudflats » You can’t make this stuff up.

Oyster Roundup – “Freedom,” “Shame,” and Crimes of the Sea

AKMuckraker — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:50:52 +0000

~Thick and fast they came at last, and more, and more, and more!

Here are five on the half shell. Links in the titles. Slurp!

Arne Fuglvog, the corrupt fisheries aide of Lisa Murkowski will be serving jail time for fish crimes. He called his transgressions a “grand misjudgment.” Yes. Quite grand indeed. Back when he was charged, and confessed, his boss Lisa Murkowski reminded us that despite his confession, he was still innocent until proven guilty. He confessed to overfishing, falsifying reports, and selling his ill-gotten aquatic gains for almost a million dollars over a span of several years. (See previous coverage HERE) Apparently, the court actually believed his so called “guilt”, because he will be serving five months in the clink and pay a $50,000 fine. He could have served up to a year, paid $100,000 in fines, and a year’s supervised release. But Arne will go the way of other corrupt bastards. He will continue the long and storied tradition of ratting out others for a reduced sentence. He doesn’t see himself as a snitch, though. According to his attorney, it was a very difficult decision for the convicted felon to assist the courts by telling them about other crimes of which he was aware. It’s tough sharing information about people you like who are breaking the law. (We dab our eyes with a hanky.) Stay tuned, because there is likely much more to come as Fuglvog flips like a salmon in the bottom of the boat.

Murkowski and “Religious Freedom”

And the state with the biggest increase in teenage pregnancies is….

Surprise! It’s Alaska, home of that stalwart supporter of abstinence only education, Sarah Palin, and her daughter Bristol, a teen who became pregnant outside of marriage. That startling bit of information is was included in CDC statistics that formed the basis for a new review calling attention to a worrisome development. After years of dropping steadily, the teen pregnancy rate has plateaued and begun to rise.

It’s only worrisome to some, apparently. Senator Lisa Murkowski (who, just to be clear, is a woman) has signed on as a co-sponsor to this:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced a bill on Monday that would override the Obama administration’s new rule on birth control coverage and allow religious hospitals, universities, and other organizations that morally oppose contraception to refuse to cover it for their employees.

Why is Murkowski taking this stand against women’s reproductive choice, and health? Because she’s Catholic, she says – just like a whopping 7% of the population of her state, making Alaska tied for last place in the nation for concentration of Catholics. It should also be said that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control, not approved by the church in their lifetime, and 58% of Catholics (higher than protestants) believe employers should be required to cover birth control for their employees.

She’s also signed on despite the fact that:

In 2006, there were 8,000 unintended pregnancies in Alaska (53% of all pregnancies), and
Of all unintended pregnancies in Alaska in 2006, 61% resulted in live births and 26% resulted in induced abortions.

So, let’s get this straight. Only 42% of 7% of Catholics in the state think employers shouldn’t be required to cover contraception – that’s about 2.94% of Alaskans. And 26% of unwanted pregnancies result in abortion (which, I believe, is also frowned upon by the Catholic church). So, according to her Catholic argument, to appease less than 3% of her constituency (and most of her party in DC), she’s willing to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, more than one in four of which will result in abortion, and the rest of which will result in… unwanted pregnancy.

Alaska’s other Catholic senator, Mark Begich isn’t objecting to the administration’s decisionr “since it recognizes the rights of churches and strictly-religious charities to opt out. A Begich spokesperson told the Catholic Anchor that the rule struck a balance between religious freedom and making health care accessible and affordable for more women.”

New Pebble Mine Study Confirms What We Know

It’s not really a shocker to any who’ve been following the story, but it’s always worth a mention when scientific evidence comes out that reconfirms what anyone with common sense already knows. Pebble Mine would be a huge and dangerous mistake that would not only jeopardize, but almost assuredly wreak havoc with the fisheries in Bristol Bay. This study discusses at length the watershed, its value on multiple fronts, and the expected consequences of a large scale open pit mine at Bristol Bay’s headwaters.

Keep tons of toxic waste at the headwaters of the world’s largest salmon fishery completely intact behind nine miles of earthen dams more than 700 feet tall for the rest of time in an earthquake zone? What could go wrong?

Even for those who are not fish or mining wonks, the .pdf of the report is worth downloading for the photos alone. You can see it HERE. The final summary notes what we already know:

There is simply too much at stake to conduct an experiment of this scale with a resource of such extraordinary economic, ecological, and cultural value.

Shame on you!

In a rare showing of bipartisanship, the House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday, that gives the President the power of line item veto.

The bill was co-authored by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen. The bill would enable the president to suggest specific rescissions to legislation passed by Congress. Those cuts would then have to be approved by Congress, but if lawmakers agree to the cuts, the bill becomes law.

“This will make every member of Congress think twice … that they might have to justify this spending bill on the merits,” Ryan said. “We think this act of sunshine and transparency will help improve the integrity of the spending in Congress.” He went on to say, “This new tool to control spending is the result of Democrats and Republicans coming together in good faith to take a step forward in tackling our deficit challenge.”

Critics of the bill say it takes too much power away from the Congress. Not one to be squeamish about hyperbole, Alaska Congressman Don Young declared, “You are transferring it to a monarchy! Shame on you, shame on you!”

Say What?

So, a grad student from New Zealand named Sally-Ann Lambert came up with a great plan. She really has a thing for languages, and she decided to put together a Tlingit encyclopedia, and then she decided to share it with … Tlingits. The herculean effort took years of work and is incredibly detailed. Problem is, the actual Tligit speakers in Sitka who were shown the book, and who listened to the accompanying audio had no idea what the hell she was saying.

It seems that the encyclopedia and the contents thereof had little resemblance to anything the actual Tlingits use as language. And there’s probably a very good reason for that. The only source used was a book written by a western ethnographer of the late 19th/early 20th century who couldn’t hear some of the Tlingit sounds, and didn’t use tone marks. As a consequence, Lambert didn’t pronounce anything properly.

“I think often I’m led spiritually, and I don’t make my decisions with the full knowledge of the situation. Basically the book was given to me with Tlingit Myths & Texts by John Swanton, and Tlingit language is fortunate to have that resource.”

Follow the link above to the audio of the story about the “Hlingit Word Encyclopedia” from KCAW in Sitka.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Open Thread – Town Square Park
Powered by Where did they go from here?

A Fool’s Errand – Brought to You by Rep. Kyle Johansen

admin — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:22:07 +0000

By Carl Johnson

While preparing to head off alone into the bowels of the Death Star to disable the tractor beam holding theMillenium Falcon captive, Obi Wan Kenobi rhetorically asked of Han Solo, “Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?” I think of such questions sometimes when my legislators act foolishly.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a state legislator. You also shouldn’t have to know all the relevant facts in relation to a proposed law in order to sponsor it. But somewhere along the way, someone who knows the law and the facts should step in before a law is proposed. Alaska State Representative Kyle Johansen shows his ignorance of the law and the facts with his sponsorship of HJR31, which calls upon Congress to designate Central Park in Manhattan a wilderness area, and thus prohibit any development absent approval from Congress.

“WTF?” you may rightly ask. Rep. Johansen claims that the goal of the resolution is to bring to light the ridiculousness of Alaskans being prevented from developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Apparently Rep. Johansen is not afraid of looking like a total and complete idiot, and also disparaging the intelligence of Alaskans on a national stage, by making this proposal.

The resolution is legally and factually flawed in several ways.

First, only existing federal lands can be set aside as wilderness. The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Under the Act, only existing federal lands are eligible for selection as wilderness, and five specific factors must be satisfied: (1) the land is under federal ownership and management, (2) the area consists of at least five thousand acres of land, (3) human influence is “substantially unnoticeable,” (4) there are opportunities for solitude and recreation, and (5) the area possesses “ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” Not surprisingly, Rep. Johansen’s proposed resolution does not address these requirements. Central Park would not satisfy at a minimum the first three factors: it’s not federal land, it consists of only 843 acres, and the influence of humans is substantially noticeable.

Second, under the Alaska Statehood Act – similar to all states that joined the Union following the original 13 Colonies – the State of Alaska was entitled to select 103,350,000 acres of land not already set aside by the Federal government for other uses. Alaska has been granted an additional 1.5 million acres of land for university and mental health trust uses. The lands encompassing what is now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were never eligible for State selection and have, since the purchase of Alaska from the Russians in 1867, always been Federal lands. Thus, creating the Arctic Refuge never took away from Alaska any land that was ever granted to Alaska.

Third, under the Alaska Constitution, the people of Alaska agreed to be bound by the terms of the Alaska Statehood Act that exclude certain lands from use by Alaska. Specifically, Article 12, Section 12 states: “The State of Alaska and its people forever disclaim all right and title in or to any property belonging to the United States or subject to its disposition, and not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions, by or under the act admitting Alaska to the Union … The State and its people agree that, unless otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the United States.” Thus, by insisting that the Federal government allow Alaskans to do what they want with lands retained by the Federal government, Rep. Johansen (and virtually every other elected State official on this issue) has violated his oath of office, which includes a promise to “support and defend … the Constitution of the State of Alaska.”

Fourth, as noted above, Central Park is not federal land – it has always belonged to the people of New York. But, if Rep. Johansen is concerned about protecting it from abuse, it was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1963. Plus, simply looking at the park not only in photographs and maps but in person (Rep. Johansen, have you ever been to Central Park? I have …), you can tell it is not under threat of development. There is only one building in the park, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and if the park hasn’t been developed by now, it won’t. One could also say that it is a model for management, as most of the expenses for maintenance of the park are raised by a private non-profit, the Central Park Conservancy, thus alleviating much of that burden from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

Finally, the claimed motivation behind Rep. Johansen’s resolution strongly suggests that the portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where oil companies and State legislators want to develop, what is known as the 1002 Area of the coastal plain, is designated wilderness under the Wilderness Act. It is not.

One could say that Central Park is already like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. An oasis of habitat, surrounded by development (the North Slope region to the immediate west of the Refuge is a vast network of oil and gas infrastructure), it should be left alone to continue providing the valuable habitat it does to the many species that thrive within. In fact, Rep. Johansen’s stunt is a compelling argument in favor of wilderness designation for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s 1002 Area on the coastal plain. The biodiversity and importance of the Arctic Refufe far outweighs that provided in the mere 843 acres seen in Central Park.

Oh, and Rep. Johansen, I would fire your research staff.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

APOC Ruling Assigns Large Penalty to Bob Griffin for Multiple Campaign Violations

Linda Kellen Biegel — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:59:05 +0000

by Linda Kellen Biegel

Last week, I listened-in on an Alaska Public Offices Commission hearing regarding an old friend of ours here at Mudflats, Mr. Bob Griffin.

You remember Bob:

– In April 2011, he ran on his status as a veteran and a pilot in order to win a seat the Anchorage School Board (he lost), in a campaign best-known for the accusations of illegal yard signs. He was also one of Mayor Sullivan’s chosen-ones in that campaign, receiving donations from the both the Mayor and his wife.

– In May 2011, Mr. Griffin showed some questionable judgement through the methods he used to conduct an unscientific study for a local conservative organization.

– In July 2011, he was appointed by Mayor Sullivan to the Budget Advisory Committee advising the Municipality and the School District on how they should budget their money.

On Griffin’s campaign website from last year, he went out of his way to make us feel good about donating to his School Board effort. He stated: “I haven’t accepted any special-interest donations for my campaign, only small individual contributions…”

However, it’s what Mr. Griffin did (or didn’t do) with the donations he received that got him in trouble.

On October 14, 2011, the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) Staff filed a complaint against Bob Griffin. In the complaint, they alleged that he “filed inaccurate and incomplete campaign disclosure reports for the 2011 Anchorage Election” and “failed to disburse surplus campaign funds within 90 days of the election.”

During the investigation, it got even more interesting.

The APOC Staff discovered that Mr. Griffin also:

–accepted a cash contribution “in excess of the statutory limits”;

–accepted anonymous contributions;

–converted campaign funds to personal income, and…

–did not forfeit the anonymous funds to the State of Alaska.

After hearing and reading the Staff report, we can see that the money amounts involved are small. However, that’s a point that cuts both ways. It should have been easy for Mr. Airline Pilot to rectify the problem. APOC Staff gave Mr. Griffin from July 26, 2011 to October 14, 2011 to fix the errors in the reports and rectify the financial issues…three 1/2 months. Griffin was warned in September that if he didn’t fix the problems, APOC Staff would be forced to file a complaint. However, the thing that makes me shake my head in utter disbelief is the blatantly disrespectful, disgraceful and uncaring behavior exhibited by Bob Griffin during the entire process. The fact that this is a Mayoral appointee is beyond-the-pale.

Directly from the Staff Report:

Staff acquired the full scope of Respondent‟s violations through the investigation process. After the Complaint was filed, APOC Staff repeatedly requested Mr. Griffin‟s bank records, both orally and in writing. The bank records were not provided voluntarily and Staff subpoenaed the records from Mr. Griffin. The records were not provided until the original due date of the staff report, November 14, 2011.

Respondent’s records showed a number of irregularities. While the records did show the majority of the campaign money was disbursed in a timely fashion, deposits did not match the reported contributions. Moreover, cash withdrawals were made from ATMs in various states. Mr. Griffin told Staff he transferred money from his personal checking account into the campaign account to access cash on work layovers in Hawaii and California because his personal bank cards were not working. However, due to bank fees for the withdrawals, Mr. Griffin withdrew $11.75 more than he transferred.

Staff asked for detailed bank records for the campaign account. On November 21, 2011, Mr. Griffin provided specific records to help explain the discrepancies. At that time, Respondent self-reported an undisclosed contribution of $250 during the 24 Hour reporting period and $64 dollars in undisclosed, anonymous cash contributions (one from March 3 and one from March 25). As of the date of this Staff Report, no 105 Day Report has ever been received and the public still does not have information regarding that reporting period.

That brings me to the day of the hearing, January 12, 2012. I called-in to the teleconference number at APOC, expecting a hearing like the ones I’ve attended before. However, all we heard was the Staff report because Mr. Griffin was too craven to show up and testify.

As a result, the Commission was left with only the Staff Report on which to base their ruling:

After consideration of the Staff report and evidence, the Commission adopts the Staff report in full including the recommendations that Respondent forfeit $79.61 to the State of Alaska; return $100 to Rob Timmons within 60 days; pay a civil penalty of $4000 and pay $1700 for Staff costs; and, that Respondent attend an APOC candidate training program prior to running for office again.

$4,000 is one of the highest civil penalties I’ve ever seen lodged against a candidate.

Meanwhile, we have this deplorable, corrupt individual serving as an appointee to Mayor Sullivan. (Sound like Bill Sheffield, anyone?) Currently, Griffin is shadowing School Board and Assembly Meetings and giving budget advice. Bob Griffin did not turn in one accurate finance report from his own campaign! What business does he have giving anyone advice?

After all, in Griffin’s own words…from the blog on his campaign site titled “Privilege to Serve”:

During my 20 years as an Air Force fighter pilot and Army attack helicopter pilot, I made a pretty universal observation about my coworkers: the best public servants are not very motivated by money; many of the worst ones are.

Yes, Bob, we couldn’t agree more.

Mr. Mayor, get rid of this guy.

—————————————————————–

If you want to contact Mayor Sullivan about Bob Griffin:

Use this EMAIL FORM.

Call the Mayor’s Office at (907) 343-7100

If you wish to contact the Anchorage Assembly about Bob Griffin:

Here is the email for all Assemblymembers: wwmas@muni.org

If you would rather call your individual Assembly member, here is the PHONE LIST.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Unvetted Palin Says Republicans Should “Vet One Another.”

AKMuckraker — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:42:29 +0000

Sarah Palin, perhaps politics’ most high-profile vetting escapee seems to have a strong opinion on the matter of vetting when it comes to people who are not Sarah Palin. Despite documentation that proves Palin was never vetted (as John McCain and others claim), she is waving the red flag, encouraging Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and others to continue their public “vetting” of Mitt Romney and the cast of Republican presidential hopefuls.

Palin says that criticism of Romney’s record as the head of Bain Capital is fair and that he should provide the public with proof of his claims that he helped to create 100,000 jobs during his time with the firm.

“Sometimes it gets rough and tumble as you try to hold these candidates accountable for what they are claiming,” the woman who claimed to have said “thanks, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere” said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel Wednesday.

The woman who told Alaskans to hold her accountable before she didn’t want them to, went on to defend candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry, saying he was simply holding Romney accountable when he called him a “vulture capitalist.”

“This isn’t about a politician making huge profits in the private sector,” best-selling author, Fox News analyst, and new lecture circuit multimillionaire Palin said. “I think what Governor Perry is getting at is that Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and people are wanting to know is there proof of that claim?”

Back when Palin was a Republican governor herself, she was far less concerned with the goings on of Republicans on the national scene. When she was elected governor in 2006, current Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney who is now on the receiving end of Palin’s waggling finger, was the head of the Republican Governors’ Association. Then Republican Governor Sarah Palin wasn’t even sure who he was. Internal emails from Palin during that time show her referring to him as “Milt Romney” until she was finally corrected, and confessed:

I argued with [aide] Frank [Bailey] and others, as I insisted his name was MILT, not Mitt.

That’s keeping your finger on the pulse of the national party.

Palin said in the Hannity interview that it is better for the Republicans to do the vetting now, since the Obama campaign is only going to do it later if Romney is the nominee.

“They need to vet one another,” Palin said of the Republicans hoping to get the nomination. “We’re not going to get the lamestream media to help vetting on the other side of the ticket, so we’ll vet within our own party and we’ll allow that uh… most prepared candidate to rise to the top.”

Palin (who is on record as a tax cheat) went on to criticize Romney for not releasing his tax returns. She who authorized the creation of secret email accounts and withheld tens of thousands of state emails from public record, and who refused to release her own medical records during the 2008 campaign, also took Romney to task for not making his records transparent to the public.

The new convert to vetting within her own party received virtually no vetting herself in advance of the 2008 presidential race, as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. She was first formally notified that she was under serious consideration for the position, and received her first request for basic information about herself, on Sunday, August 24, 2008 – four days before she was announced.

Three days later, Palin was flown from Alaska to Flagstaff Arizona, arriving around 10:00pm, after which she was interviewed over the phone by Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr. who ran McCain’s “vetting team.” Apparently, by that point in the campaign he was all “vetted out,” because Palin was offered the job the following morning. (My emphasis added below for purposes of irony)

More startling, as of 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 26, nobody in the McCain camp had seen Sarah’s financial disclosures, tax records, or the formal lengthy questionnaire delving into her background. At that time, Sarah had not yet finished preparing them.

Culvahouse, only a day or two from having Sarah offered the job as running mate, seemed nonplussed and asked for the tax returns only “if possible.” As late as 9:30 p.m. Arizona time that same Tuesday, at least some of the financial documents were still being assembled by Todd with the assistance of Kris Perry. Not that Culvahouse seemed particularly concerned. He indicated to Sarah he did not intend to begin sifting through these materials until the next day anyway, which happened to be the same Wednesday Sarah arrived for her face-to-face with McCain. The process was: 1) review Sarah’s file for the first time on Wednesday 2) interview her late that night, and 3) based on that, it’s welcome-aboard the Maverick Express on Thursday, August 28, at around 11:00 a.m. [from Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin - A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years]

In 2009, Culvahouse proudly declared that “me and two of my most cynical partners interviewed (Palin) and came away impressed.” On Monday, September 1, two days after the announcement, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said that Palin “was completely vetted by the campaign” before she was chosen. Apparently, Republicans are not only easily impressed, but also not that hung up with the actual qualifications of candidates – but one look at any of the GOP debates thus far will tell you that.

So, by all means everyone, grab some popcorn, grab a seat next to Sarah, and enjoy the elephant on elephant pile-on. It’s their duty, after all, to give each other a good pounding so they can send their best and brightest limping bloodied elephant into the real fight in November.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Santorum Denies Saying “Black People.” Insists He Said “Blah People.”

AKMuckraker — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:38:56 +0000

The other day, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was quoted singling out black people for entitlement reform by saying to an Iowa audience, “I dont want to make black people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money.”

His point was about putting people to work, rather than welfare, but the racial characterization of the problem was telling, and caused some blowback for the former Senator from Pennsylvania. It was sort of refreshing. We thought all he ever thought about was sex. He’s broadened his scope to minorities causing the financial decay and lack of work ethic in the nation. Nice change of pace.

It turns out that the Santorum campaign felt the wrath of the non-minorityphobes out there, to the point where the candidate has had to do a little pr work. A humble apology perhaps? No. An “everyone makes mistakes” confession? No. A teachable moment about unintentional racial bias? No, no, no.

He preferred that old classic – denial.

He never said it. Nope. Don’t believe you’re lyin’ ears. It was all a figment of your imagination.

Santorum appeared with Bill O’Reilly to explain the terrible mistake that everyone else made. O’Reilly asked Santorum, due to the fact that most welfare recipients are white, did he feel that the remarks would hurt him.

Santorum – I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I… what I started to say is a word and then sorta changed, and then sort of “bllluuuuhhhh” came out, and people said I said “black.” I didn’t. No one in that audience, and I talked to a lot of people and I’ve talked to reporters and this was…”

O’Reilly – We looked at it. It was a little blurry

Santorum – I looked at it very closely. It is. I’m gonna tell you, I don’t use… I don’t… I … First off, I don’t use the term black very often. I use the term African-American more than I use black…”

Santorum then went on to talk about how proud he was of his record, and support of historically bllluuuuhhh colleges.

It’s a good thing that Santorum forensically examined the video, so he could determine from that what he may or may not have said. And he was also able to back up his findings by asking members of the audience what THEY thought he might not have said.

Fortunately, with the miracles of modern technology, you can decide for yourself.

HERE is a link to a better version of the video clip of Santorum singling out bllluuuhhh people for entitlement reform. Pay close attention to the “blurriness.” You’ll need to focus. A nice cup of bllluuuhhh coffee might be in order.

It kind of sounded more like blaaaahh, or maybe blaaaigh, or…

After you figure out that one, you can enjoy today’s Santorum news where he compares gay marriage to polygamy.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

The Iowa Caucuses – Culling the Herd, One Mad Cow at a Time.

AKMuckraker — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:16:07 +0000

[Former candidate Michele Bachmann, with her husband Marcus (in pink shirt and tie) says farewell to the race. Photo by Chris Carlson/AP]

Let’s do a quick Countdown of Crazy, and touch base with the best of the best of the Republican party and what they have to offer us in country leading potential.

6) Michele Bachmann

Rumors began last night that Michele Bachmann was going to drop out of the race for the GOP’s presidential nomination. Then she told a close group of friends she’d be staying in, and that she was the one true conservative who could take on Baraaack Obaaama. But now, in the cold clear light of the Iowa morning sun, she has rethought her position again, and has decided to bow out of the race, after what was ostensibly a last-place finish.

But even “the best campaigner in the family” was slacking on the job yesterday. Marcus Bachmann was apparently off buying doggie sunglasses for the family dog Boomer, which the candidate revealed in a speech for no particular reason. Note Marcus Bachmann’s classic reaction to his wife’s revelation below.

She then went on to thank her children, consulting a list so she could remember them all.

This morning, our favorite crazy-eyed Sarah substitute threw in the towel.

“Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice and so I have decided to stand aside,” she said at a press conference this morning in Des Moines. “I believe if we are going to repeal Obamacare, turn our country around and take back our country we must do so united and I believe we must rally around the person our country, our party and our people chooses to be that standard bearer.”

Although she had her brief time on top, placing first in an Iowa GOP poll last summer, the more she spoke, the lower her numbers went. With little support or money left, her time was up and the crazy train made its last stop, in Des Moines.

5) Rick Perry

“Governor Good Hair” Perry was also widely rumored to be dropping out of the race. The following was even tweeted by one of his staffers:

@Ssmith06: 25 degrees in Aiken, South Carolina. My boss just quit his Presidential campaign and bars close in 30 minutes. Shit.

Can’t take that back, red-faced staffer.

It turns out that rumors of the candidate’s demise were exaggerated, and Perry will stay in the race – at least until South Carolina. He himself tweeted his intent, along with a picture of himself running by a lake, Palin-style, and giving a thumbs up.

@GovernorPerry: And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State…Here we come South Carolina!!!

With three exclamation points, who knows what could happen!?! Next step, The White House!!! But first, he’ll be taking a few days to go home “back to the ranch” in Texas, as it were, to spend some time in prayer and contemplation!!!

4) Newt Gingrich

What happens when you put a Newt in the corner and poke it with a little stick? It gets angry, that’s what. And you wouldn’t like it when it’s angry… Heck, you don’t even like it when it’s not angry. Then, it’s just being a condescending, mean-spirited, blowhard, that’s completely out of touch with human beings.

That’s our #4 boy, and he doesn’t much care for Mitt Romney (spoiler alert!) the winner last night. He spent a good deal of time after the caucus praising people who weren’t mean to him, and shooting poison arrows at a certain someone who had something to do with a certain organization who ran certain negative ads.

Romney’s super PAC — like those informally affiliated with Rick Perry, Barack Obama and others — is staffed by friends and former staffers. Election rules permit these super PACs to raise unlimited amounts from the superrich and — thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United – corporations. The candidates may help raise money for these super PACs. Super PACs must reveal their donors on a monthly or quarterly basis, though they accept donations from nonprofit organizations that are not required to reveal their donors (and argue the practice is legal). The main limit on super PAC activity is that they may not coordinate their activities with the candidates or their campaigns. But this is a more formal than consequential restriction, since the super PACs are staffed by those who know well what the campaigns want.

He had called Mitt Romney a “liar” saying he knew more about the spending of the SuperPAC Restore Our Future and their negative ads than he let on.

Who’d a thunk that one of the first to feel the nasty teeth of the Citizens United ruling would be the likes of Newt Gingrich. And this is nothing compared to what we can expect in the general election. Have the Tums handy for the next ten months, and get ready for some down and dirty playground ass-kicking behind the monkey bars at 3:30.

3) Ron Paul

Scoring more than half of the vote in the 18-24 age group, and 43% of independent voters, there’s no doubt that our goofy, delusional uncle had a good night. He emerged, for Iowans as the non-religious wingnut alternative to Mitt Romney. His supporters and staff are mighty proud.

Paul’s campaign manager crowed:

“There were three tickets out of Iowa, and Ron Paul earned one of them. One of the three tickets, the one belonging to Rick Santorum, is a dead-end due to Santorum’s weak fundraising and lack of national campaign organization.

“This is now a two way race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and the candidate for real change, Ron Paul.”

But Paul still comes in behind Newt Gingrich in national polls. Perhaps Paul’s rapid supporters, and financial assistance to those same SuperPAC ads that Romney helped to fund will take care of that. Shhhhh… Don’t anger the newt!

2) Rick Santorum

Sex-obsessed loathsome guy came in second, only eight votes behind. How about that. It’s as though everyone who hates Mitt Romney just let someone pick the name of one of the other candidates out of a hat and everyone flocked to support them, until they learned about them, or until they said something about Libya (the continent where Republican candidates go to die). Then a new name was chosen, and the process was repeated. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich… and now Santorum. His moment in the sun happened to come at the right time.

Either that or the country really is ready for a man who would annul all same-sex marriages, outlaw abortion, ban contraception, let insurance companies reject you for pre-existing conditions, and get rid of food stamps. What. People are obese – they don’t need food stamps! And while we’re at it, we need to do something about all those disruptive gay soldiers who shouldn’t be allowed to protect our freedom in close quarters.

And the winner is…

1) Mitt Romney

Nobody likes him. He won anyway.

Miscellaneous

And how could we forget ol’ what’s their names?

Jon Huntsman
Being sane and all, he was all but completely ignored in Iowa. Understanding his devastating liability, he ignored them too – mutual snubbing. Next stop, New Hampshire.

Herman Cain
The Herminator got an impressive 58 votes. Yes, that’s right. Fifty-eight Iowans, knowing their guy was out of the race and why, were so committed to the world’s most infamous gropey pizza man, and so enamored by his “likability” that they left their homes in the cold to write in his name. Kind of makes you feel all warm and gooey, in a horrified, “are you kidding me” sort of way.

Other
There’s our girl! We knew she’d pop up eventually. She got lumped in with Johnson and Roemer whom nobody has ever actually seen. But, even if every single one of the 117 other votes went for you-know-who, there’s the maximum ground-shattering force of the “Palin Earthquake.” Sorry, Iowans. That was no earthquake – just a big truck full of crazy rumbling by on the street on its way to nowhere.

And what does all this mean? How important are the Iowa caucuses, really?

Just ask last year’s winner – President Huckabee.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Palin and the Dog Days of Christmas

AKMuckraker — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:01:09 +0000

Why does Sarah Palin hate puppies?

Apparently they have little to do with “faith, family and freedom.” Forget the whole “man’s best friend” thing, and that Fido actually means faithful, and Americans tend to like their family dogs. As the black cat is to the wicked witches of legend, so the dog has become the symbol of secret Muslim Kenyan poseurs who are coming to take your guns.

Just ask Sarah Palin, who is outraged…. OUTraged I tell you, over the White House Christmas card, which doesn’t show the baby Jesus, or a giant magical star, or wise men, or a manger. It shows Bo Obama, the White House dog sleeping by the hearth where a Hellfire burneth, in a room with no visible tree… just some presents under an atheistic table, with some pagan poinsettias on it. For all we know, there’s a gay wedding ceremony happening on the other side of the room.

~The Obama’s Christmas card. Note the lack of Christmas symbology and the cold anti-family sentiment, represented by Bo…. the “dog.” (shudder)

The fact that it’s actually far more festive than either the George W. Bush Christmas cards, or the Ronald Reagan Christmas cards is, of course, completely irrelevant. THEY are not secret Muslim Kenyan anti-American freedom haters, who stay up late nights designing “Christmas” cards that are mere symbolic collages meant to be used as (forgive the analogy) dog whistles to the rest of the secret Muslim anti-American freedom-hating community.

~For contrast, look at one of the George W. Bush Christmas cards. Note the flag, which practically screams “Hallelujah, Christ is born!” Also featured are the symbols of faithfulness and family, the Bush family dogs, Mrs. Beasley and Barney.

~And look at this one from the Ronald Reagan – Palin in pants. The hint that there may be a warm glow in the fireplace, the stirring portrait of a generic founding father, and the manifestation of the virgin birth itself – greenery in the window. Clearly, the Reagans wanted to portray the true reason for the season.

Now that we’ve established that there is the right sort of dog (Bush dogs) and the wrong sort of dog (~~Osama~~ Obama dog) I’m sure the Palins would be proud to have their family Christmas picture with their dog, who is undoubtedly a Christan as well. Remember? They were gifted an adorable little puppy whom they named Agia (after the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act… awwww). But, wait a minute! What ever happened to little Agia? Well, nobody seems to know. It wasn’t long after Alaska’s first family welcomed the little fuzzy bundle of unconditional love into their home, when Agia got… disappeared. Gone, without a trace, never to be mentioned again. The missing Palin. I’m not saying that she really does hate puppies… I’m just sayin’.

But, back to the matter at hand. The above clip from Rachel Maddow says it all.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Oyster Roundup – Jail Break, Flaming Pants, and Commie Frog

AKMuckraker — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:40:22 +0000

~Thick and fast they came at last, and more, and more, and more!

This is Alaska…

A 30-year old man escaped from jail during a bathroom break in the remote Western Alaska village of Alakanuk. It’s been nine years since Kevin Patrick has escaped from the Alakanuk jail during a bathroom break. This time his arrest was for drunk driving. The last time it was for assaulting a police officer with a shovel. After the first jail break, he was caught and arrested by trooper Eric Spitzer in a now infamous case where Patrick sued the state for the trooper’s excessive use of force during the re-arrest. The half million dollar settlement from the state wasn’t enough to keep Patrick out of trouble, apparently. He was last seen heading out of town on a green Arctic Cat snowmachine…

Kommie the Frog

A decade ago we learned the shocking news that beloved teletubby Tinky Winky was a secret gay icon (why else would he have a triangle shaped antenna and carry a magic bag?). And now, Fox Business shares with us the horrifying revelation that the Muppets are communists. That’s right – those seemingly charming and loveable characters who have free access to the innocent psyches of children are really freedom-hating capitalism-destroying commies. Pinko pigs and red frogs are on the march. It’s totally easy to see. The antagonists in their latest propaganda film are Big Oil, and it’s spokesman Tex Richman. It’s only a matter of time before one of these Muppet movies shows Gonzo shopping in the state store, and Big Bird winning all the speed skating events at the Olympics. Don’t fall for the Muppet Manifesto, America. Keep Comrade the Frog at arm’s length.

The Attorney of the Flaming Pants

Remember when Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler lied to the Assembly and told them that the ordinance they were about to vote on, restricting the right to sit on city sidewalks, had been “run by the ACLU” and that they had no problems with it? Well he didn’t and they do. The Anchorage Daily News finally picked up on it (see link above), and at tonight’s Assembly meeting in the Loussac Library, Dick Traini will seek to have the law rescinded or repealed, ADN reports, because Wheeler “wrongly indicated” that he had talked to the ACLU.

Hold the Onion

No, this is not a satirical piece from The Onion. This is an actual Ron Paul ad. It is airing on TV in the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Wow.

Trump Pulls a Palin

Why do conservatives like to make up words? I guess I do too, but I don’t actually pretend or think they’re real ones. Palin was the champ of that. Remember “refudiate?” And who could forget “mandation?” Well, Donald Trump has just announced that he’s going to help out some lazy inner-city youth learn work ethic by making them “apprenti.” Yes… “apprenti.”

[Newt] Gingrich, who found himself in hot water last month for saying America’s child labor laws are “truly stupid,” called on Trump to create an “Apprentice”-style program for 10 inner-city New York children to teach them “work ethic.”

“We’re going to be picking 10, young, wonderful children, and we’re going to make them ‘apprenti,’” Trump said after a high-profile meeting with Gingrich on Monday. “We’re going to have a little fun with it, and I think it’s going to be something that is really going to prove results. But it was Newt’s idea, and I think it’s a great idea.”

Nope, Newt won’t give up on child labor for the poor. Maybe all it needs is a TV show!

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Back to the Sidewalk — Assemblyman Traini will introduce Repeal on Tuesday

Linda Kellen Biegel — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:30:43 +0000

(photo courtesy of Alaska Commons)By Linda Kellen Biegel

A few days ago, Jeanne recounted the tale of Anchorage City Attorney, Dennis Wheeler and his role in the Mayor’s no-lying down/no-sitting sidewalk Ordinance. If you remember, Municipal Attorney Wheeler ~~lied~~ used “a poor choice of words” when he claimed the ordinance had been “run by” the Alaska ACLU to determine whether it was vulnerable to lawsuit. (As it turns out, “run by” is only a poor choice of words when it actually means “never spoke to the ACLU about it once.” It would only be an outright lie if…ummm when…uhhh…errr…well…back to our story…)

Assemblyman Dick Traini was the one who had the discussion with Mr. Wheeler about potential lawsuits and ACLU involvement:

Assembly Member TRAINI: Dennis, since this will end up probably in the court system if it is approved, the ACLU takes this to court, is this defensible in your
point of view?

Municipal Attorney WHEELER: Mr. Traini, this ordinance was run by the ACLU.

Assembly Member TRAINI: Did they have any problems with it?

Municipal Attorney WHEELER: They did not have any problems with it. And, that’s primarily because we drafted it after a law that was already challenged in
court.

Assembly Member TRAINI: Because I’m wondering why ACLU is not here. Normally when something like this comes forward, if they have a problem, they
are here to testify. So, I appreciate that. Thank you.

He then voted for the Ordinance, based on Mr. Wheeler’s response.

Ooops…

While not always in agreement with those of us here at Mudflats, we know Assemblyman Traini to be a good guy. His response to Attorney Wheeler’s behavior (with the support and co-sponsorship of Elvi Gray-Jackson and Paul Honeman) didn’t let us down. It is “An Ordinance to Procedurally Repeal for Good Cause Retroactively to November 22, 2011…” AO 2011-112. In simple terms, if passed, this would throw out the no-lying down/no-sitting sidewalk ordinance.

The Ordinance itself is two pages — the legal document to be signed by the Assembly and the attached letter/explanation from Mr. Traini. The letter shows me why I could never be a member of the Assembly. The emphasis is mine and my comments are in a very festive red & green:

The vote taken on the Mayor’s Sidewalk Ordinance, AO 2011-112 was taken in reliance on specific information requested from the Municipal Attorney, as set out in the excerpt transcribed and attached for ease of reference.

(Note: The first place I saw the Traini/Wheeler discussion transcribed was on Mudflats…just sayin’… )

The intent of this ordinance is to reverse action taken by the Assembly on November 22, 2011 to pass and approve AO 2011-112, in light of corrections in that information from the Municipal Attorney, received by the Municipal Clerk on November 29, 2011, after the vote was taken and the time for notice of reconsideration by the Assembly had expired.

(Coincidentally, this also happened AFTER ACLU attorney Thomas Stenson handed Wheeler’s butt to him in an email exchange, and threatened to go public with his ~~lie~~ “poor choice of words” unless he said something to the Mayor & Assembly first.)

As noted in e-mail communication from the Municipal Attorney dated Tuesday, November 29, 2011, included as Attachment 1, the information provided by the Municipal Attorney at the
Assembly Meeting on November 22, 2011, immediately prior to the vote on the ordinance, was not accurate and the choice of words was misleading.

(Misleading, as in a fabrication, an untruth, a distortion, a deception, a fable, a falsity, a myth, a BIG, FAT, FRIGGIN’ LIE!!! Yeah, I’m repeating myself…)

As Assembly Members, we often place legal counsel “on the spot” and it speaks to good character when the misstatements and/or misinformation are corrected. This repeal will not
foreclose future consideration by the Assembly. Repeal will simply allow for a “reset” of the matter, and ensure that the integrity of Assembly action on an important ordinance is not
clouded by misinformation from the Municipal Attorney’s Office, corrected later in good faith.

(Yeah, good faith…as in, I have “faith” that Dennis Wheeler wanted to save himself from the embarrassment of being publicly (and eloquently) called-out by an ACLU attorney. Did he think no one would find out? Silly, silly lawyer…)

This Ordinance is only being introduced tomorrow (Tuesday). I am unsure at this time if there will be public testimony. I also do not know if the vote will occur during the last Assembly Meeting of 2011, December 13th or sometime in January. We will find out more tomorrow night. If it isn’t repealed before the Ordinance takes effect on December 22nd, I know where I’ll be…occupying a lunch break on the City Hall sidewalk!

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

City Attorney Lies to Assembly Regarding Sidewalk Ordinance (Update – Repeal)

AKMuckraker — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:02:49 +0000

Mayor Dan Sullivan is no stranger to controversy. Whether it’s creating a paid position for his personal “party planner,” cashing an illegitimate $193,000 check for a non-existent life insurance policy, pink slipping employees Christmas week, collecting $12,000 for being “mayor elect” before he actually started doing his job, vetoing an ordinance that would allow the LGBT community equal rights in housing and employment, disbanding vital firefighting services and axing public safety positions… I could go on.

One controversy that’s been brewing since last summer has involved an ordinance that Mayor Sullivan has ushered through the Assembly. This particular ordinance is aimed at a man named Johnathan Martin who has decided to protest the Mayor’s egregious attitude toward the homeless by camping out in front of City Hall. Sullivan was not pleased by the fact that sitting on the sidewalk was, in fact, legal. Later Sullivan said he might consider meeting with Martin if he cleaned up and made himself presentable for an audience with His Excellency – The Mayor.

The new law would make it illegal to sit or recline on sidewalks in downtown Anchorage from 6 a.m. to midnight on weekdays, and until 2:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday nights, with exceptions for medical emergencies, and events like parades that have a permit. Violators could be fined up to $100.

When the sidewalk ordinance came before the Anchorage Assembly, there was more than one Assembly member on the fence. Was it right to create an ordinance which was basically the Mayor’s way of dealing with one man whom he considered a nuisance? Did it infringe on first amendment rights? How would this affect the Occupy Anchorage protesters who were in Town Square Park right down the street from City Hall? Law enforcement didn’t seem to think the ordinance was necessary at all. What about the cost of enforcement of the ordinance, and what did that say about the Mayor’s supposed desire to shrink city government? And then, of course, there was always the possibility that the ordinance would not stand up to a legal challenge. That would mean bad PR, embarrassment, and big legal fees. Nobody wants that.

These were all valid points to consider, and the Assembly had been thinking about them since the first draft of the ordinance came their way during the summer.

As last Tuesday’s Assembly meeting, there was public testimony (all of it negative) regarding the ordinance and a discussion before the vote. During this debate, Assemblyman Dick Traini and the City Attorney Dennis Wheeler had the following exchange (3:59:30):

[Emphasis added]

Traini: Dennis, since this will end up probably in the court system if it’s approved, if the ACLU takes it to court, is it defensible from your point of view?

Wheeler: This ordinance was run by the ACLU.

Traini: They haven’t had any problems with it?

Wheeler: They do not have any problems with it and, uh, that’s primarily because we crafted it after a law that was already challenged in court and upheld.

Traini: Because I’m wondering why ACLU’s not here. Normally when something like this comes forward if they have a problem they’re here testifying so I appreciate that information. Thank you.

Well. If the ACLU, legal champions of the Constitution and civil liberties, had looked over the ordinance and found it to be sound, and had no objections to it, then surely it stood on firm legal ground. There really is no greater litmus test than that. The seal of approval from the ACLU means a lot, and the Assembly took it to heart. There were still four Assembly members who objected to the ordinance, but it passed in a 7-4 vote, including the two members who were most unsure – Dick Traini, and Jennifer Johnston.

So, there it was. Locked up, air-tight, buttoned down, and done. Nothing more to discuss. The ordinance would go into effect on December 22 with little objection, and the Mayor would count it as a victory.

Only one problem.

Mr. Wheeler never “ran the ordinance by the ACLU” at all. The ACLU never gave an opinion on it. And the Assembly voted on the ordinance using false information because they actually assumed that the City Attorney had been telling the truth. Surprise!

(photo of Dennis Wheeler by henkimaa)

What followed the Assembly meeting, days later, was a surreal and entertaining confession of sorts. Behold the inept glory of Dennis Wheeler trying to weasel out of this one in a mea culpa email sent on Tuesday to the members of the Assembly, and others.

Assembly members – at the last Assembly meeting, in an exchange with Assembly member Traini, I said the safe sidewalk ordinance had been “run by” the ACLU and the ACLU had no objections. This was a poor choice of words. I knew the ACLU had been reviewing the original ordinance since its introduction in July. I believed the ACLU was also aware of the revised version. I also thought at least one assembly member had told me they had shared the ordinance with the ACLU.

In any event, my office did not directly send a copy of the ordinance to the ACLU. My poor choice of words would certainly give the impression that my office had sent the ordinance directly to the ACLU.

It is true the ACLU did not send us any comments, as they have in the past on other ordinances. It is also appears the ACLU did not speak to either version of the ordinance during the public hearings.

I understand from recent news stories that the ACLU is concerned about the ordinance. It has been suggested the concern has to do with the hours specified in the ordinance, but I do not know the specifics.

That’s right folks. Dennis Wheeler said something that was patently untrue, which (in Mayor Sullivan’s kingdom) becomes “a poor choice of words.” He just could have sworn that somebody on the Assembly told him he/she had shared the ordinance with the ACLU at some point… Who was that again? Oh… the name escapes him. That poor choice of words surely might have led some people to think that he meant the exact opposite of the actual truth. And that was really his bad. But keep in mind that the ACLU didn’t actually technically have an objection to the ordinance that he thought they might have seen, but actually didn’t. And… um… he guesses now they may have some kind of problem with it after all, but hasn’t really availed himself of the specifics of what their specific objections are.

Perhaps Mr. Wheeler is waiting for some unnamed Assembly Member(s) to mention to him in passing (he thinks) something about what the ACLU might dislike. But, hey. We don’t really know for sure.

Fortunately for us, the attorneys at the ACLU seem to be a little bit more on the ball than Mr. Wheeler. They apparently got wind of their supposed tacit endorsement of the ordinance, and had a couple questions via email.

Mr. Wheeler

I was reviewing the commentary from the most recent Assembly session. Among
your testimony was a statement that the ACLU had said they had no problems
with the sidewalk sitting and panhandling ordinance. Can you clarify the
basis for that comment? I do not recall making such a statement and do not
find any record in my correspondence of Mr. Mittman or myself making such a
comment, nor do I believe that such a statement would be accurate.

Thank you,
Thomas Stenson
Attorney
ACLU of Alaska Foundation

Wow. Look who’s all fancy and keeps “records of correspondence” and stuff, instead of relying on vague and distant memories that they just could have sworn had actually happened. (We give a low whistle indicating we are impressed with the ACLU’s clerical acumen).

After another email, gently prodding Mr. Wheeler, this was the response from the hapless, sweaty Municipal Attorney. Ready? The bold passages were highlighted by me, just because I like them and they make me laugh.

Tom I’ve reviewed what I can here. It appears my words were poorly chosen.
While I understood the ACLU had said to the media that it was reviewing the
original ordinance, I should not have said the ordinance was “run by” the ACLU
as this office had not specifically sent the AO to the ACLU. In the past, we
have received comments from the ACLU and the ACLU has attended the public
hearings, without prompting from us. In at least one instance, it was my
understanding the ACLU did not have a “facial” objection, but might have an
“as applied” objection, depending on how the Municipality enforced the
ordinance. Somehow, I came to think that was in reference to this issue,
but I cannot confirm such is the case or what the source of that information
might have been; it may have arisen from the previous version from July or
with the taxicab ordinance. With respect to this ordinance, I don’t think the
ACLU offered written or verbal comments to the Municipality; at least not with
this office. In total, it would have been more accurate to say that I
understood the ACLU is aware of the ordinance and that, to the best of my
knowledge, the ACLU has not commented to the Municipality. I’ve clarified
this with the Mayor and the Assembly.

Here’s where I like to imagine Tom Stenson sitting at his computer, reading and rereading this email. His mouth hangs open slightly. Perhaps he blinks a few times before reading it again. He takes his glasses off and rubs his eyes with the heels of his hands. He’s not sure whether to laugh, and then decides that yes, he will. Maybe he even calls over another attorney, or someone working in the office and says something like, “Hey… Get a load of this.”

He manages, though, to keep it together and asks the straight question:

Could you please forward to me any communications you had with the Mayor and the Assembly? Thank you.

Wheeler responds breathlessly:

You want me to forward to you any attorney-client privileged communications?

Stenson, after a monumental coffee-spit, pens the best response ever. (Parenthetical comment is mine)

You said you’ve clarified it with the Mayor and the Assembly. I would like to
see how the matter has been clarified and make my own determination.
Respectfully, when a government agent takes it upon himself to declare in
testimony at a public meeting what this organization does and does not
support, I take a serious interest in making sure that the record is perfectly
clear.

I don’t understand how your communication would be privileged. I can’t imagine
how a statement indicating your own error to the Assembly would constitute
“legal advice.” The simple fact that you are an attorney does not make your
every statement privileged. (<—— The Money Line)

If you choose not to relay the correspondence, I will be compelled to correct
the record myself.

Tom

And the final response from Wheeler. Let the backpedaling begin!

Tom- typically records requests are scoped so we know how to respond. Your
request is generally over-broad (“any communication”). That was the point of
my question – to get you to scope your request. It doesn’t appear that you
understood the question. In any event, I can forward to you the email I sent
to the Clerk’s Office. My understanding from the Municipal Clerk is that she
did forward it to Assembly members. If your request is for more than the
single email, you’ll need to let me know. The email should appear on your
screen shortly.

I hope you have appreciated this exchange as much as I did. At its best, it is bumbling ineptitude. At its worst, it is blatant manipulation of the public process for political gain, followed by skullduggery and coverup. But whichever it is, there still remains this fact: Members of the Anchorage Assembly placed their votes on this controversial and highly publicized issue, and gave an ostensible victory to the Mayor based upon blatantly false information that was revealed to be false after the fact. So, now what? Let’s hope that one of the distinguished members of the Assembly who is not in the pocket of the Mayor will step forward and demand that this vote be rescinded.

In the meantime, a demonstration is planned on December 22, the day the new law goes into effect. “Our idea is to sit on the sidewalk during the solstice,” says Bryan DeHusson of Occupy Anchorage. “So that at midnight, when the law goes into effect, we have as many people as we can sitting outside of City Hall, in single file, so we’re not actually blocking pedestrian traffic.”

UPDATE: Linda Kellen Biegel spoke with Assemblyman Dick Traini this afternoon. When asked what his response was to Wheeler’s emails he responded that he had already drafted a repeal of the ordinance, which should be introduced at the Assembly meeting this coming Tuesday at 5pm at the Loussac Library. Co-sponsors of the repeal are Assembly members Elvi Gray-Jackson, and Paul Honeman who will be opposing Mayor Sullivan when he is up for re-election this spring.