Sunday, December 17, 2006
What is good for Metcalfe isn't good for everyone else
"My whole problem with charter schools is because we don't provide transportation, they become these little private public schools," he said. "That isn't right for me because public schools are supposed to be for everybody. ... I think it fractures the district. I don't think it's good for education."
This being said about a German immersion Charter School.
The article is here: http://www.adn.com/news/education/story/8482025p-8375680c.html
And how did his two sons get into the Alternative school at Denali Elementary? By lottery, but with a twist. By race.
So now Jake thinks it a bad idea for parent's to have a choice in their child's education.
It was interesting to read another article on Charter Schools. That article can be found here:
http://www.adn.com/news/education/story/8482026p-8375691c.html
What did Jake have to say then? Nothing.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Jet Lag
So my suggestion is instead of selling the jet on E-bay, paint the logo of the highest bidding company on the jet and make it pay for itself.
Like they do with the cars and SUV's.
Here are some suggestions:
Taco Bell "el mucho e coli"
B.P. "No e coli in our pipes mate"
Pepto-Bismol "Keeping your pipes clean"
etc, etc, etc.
The last one would be the most interesting. An all pink jet with the logo of a company that promises to keep our pipes clean. Now that would be a money maker.......
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Bill Bobrick: Tony Knowles ads (Update)
Look who got stung........by the sting.
Bill Bobrick's commercial ads.... Here is the link to the audio.
http://www.adn.com/links/front/story/5727272p-5661073c.html
The actual story to the ads is here: http://www.adn.com/senate/story/5719930p-5653268c.html
The ad, produced and voiced by lobbyist Bill Bobrick, envisions a world where if people vote for Knowles, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will send bees to sting Alaskans in their "nether regions" and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., will take people's guns and enslave their children to liberals. It goes on to say, "and Ted Stevens will die, he'll die, I tell you, and then we'll be stuck with (Stevens' son) Ben Stevens, and then Frank Murkowski will have to adopt him and appoint him to the U.S. Senate."
It is interesting to note that according to the indictment, Bobrick set up Pacific Publishing in August of 2004. The ADN ran the story on Bobrick's ads in October 2004. In October 2004, "Lobbyist A" was writing checks to Tom Anderson.
The other interesting fact is how the ADN focused on Frank Prewitt when it came to issues on lobbyists. It was known that Prewitt contributed to Murkowski's campaign.
April of 2004 was the timeframe of the articles on Prewitt. However, in July, 2004, the FBI was recording conversations on Tom Anderson.
Lawmakers rumble over prison cost
http://www.adn.com/links/archives/story/5014185p-2815878c.html
Frank Prewitt, a former state Corrections chief who is now a Cornell consultant lobbying for the Whittier private prison, said Thursday that its doors could be open in two years, faster than the Mat-Su prison. And, with the state's inmate population steadily growing, there will be room for both prisons over the long term, he said.
Mat-Su prison gets a boost
http://www.adn.com/links/archives/story/5014185p-2697376c.html
But Frank Prewitt, a former Corrections commissioner working for Cornell Companies, a Houston, Texas-based private prison firm pushing the Whittier project, said Corrections has wrongly figured the costs of the Whittier prison.
"I'm absolutely convinced that the private sector can deliver a comparable level of services at roughly 15 percent less," Prewitt told the Senate panel.
Prewitt has argued that the state wage and benefit packages for corrections officers are too large.
Thursday's Senate hearing was on a bill by Wasilla Republican Sen. Lyda Green that calls for a 1,200-bed mostly medium-security prison to be built next to an existing correctional facility outside Sutton. It would be twice the size of Alaska's largest existing prison, Spring Creek Correctional Facility in Seward.
The competing plan, sponsored by Anchorage Republican Reps. Mike Hawker and Norm Rokeberg, calls for a 1,200-bed private prison to be built in Whittier.
One should be questioning how the ADN let Bobrick play under the radar.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:kZ0nqQbwrI4J:www.muni.org/iceimages/Assembly2/2004_lobbyist_1-24-05.pdf+bill+bobrick+2004&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8
Bobrick was registered with the Municipality as a lobbyist for Cornell.
In the October 16th, 2004 issue of Salon, it was stated:
The first $2,000 check from Veco chairman Bill Allen showed up on May 13, 2003, only days after the Anchorage Daily News reported the governor's shift on his project. Allen, who registered as a lobbyist in Anchorage to push the project, has given regularly and generously -- as have other Veco executives, whose total of $43,750 is Murkowski's largest single donation. Lobbyists from Patton Boggs, which represents Veco in promoting the prison deal, have given her an additional $12,000. The pattern appears plain enough. While the Murkowskis pretend not to know each other, the special interests that know them both have invested heavily in her campaign while awaiting his nod.
So it seems, the media was focusing on Murkowski instead of the big picture. After all, Knowles was their guy.
Bill Bobrick Donations
1
01/06/1998
$60.00
Monetary
ANCHORAGE WOMENS POLITICAL CAUCUS
1998 State General
2
08/25/1998
$100.00
Monetary
CISSNA, SHARON
1998 State General
3
10/07/1998
$100.00
Monetary
CISSNA, SHARON
1998 State General
4
12/30/1998
$100.00
Monetary
CISSNA, SHARON
1998 State General
5
03/29/1999
$100.00
Monetary
DRUMMOND, HARRIET A.
1999 Anchorage Municipal
6
11/05/1999
$449.00
Monetary
BEGICH, MARK
2000 Anchorage Municipal
7
01/27/2000
$200.00
Monetary
BEGICH, MARK
2000 Anchorage Municipal
8
01/27/2000
$100.00
Monetary
BEGICH, MARK
2000 Anchorage Municipal
9
02/03/2000
$25.00
Monetary
BEGICH, MARK
2000 Anchorage Municipal
10
03/02/2000
$100.00
Monetary
BEGICH, MARK
2000 Anchorage Municipal
11
03/05/2000
$70.00
Monetary
BEGICH, MARK
2000 Anchorage Municipal
12
07/06/2000
$150.00
Monetary
GUESS, GRETCHEN G.
2000 State Primary
13
07/08/2000
$150.00
Monetary
GUESS, GRETCHEN G.
2000 State Primary
14
08/03/2000
$250.00
Monetary
DS - GOVERNOR'S FUND
2000 State Primary
15
10/06/2000
$326.50
Monetary
DAVIS, BETTYE
2000 State General
16
03/03/2001
$250.00
Non-Monetary
ANCHORAGE WOMENS POLITICAL CAUCUS
2001 Anchorage Municipal
17
04/19/2001
$200.00
Monetary
SHAMBERG, JANICE
2001 Anchorage Runoff
18
04/25/2001
$100.00
Monetary
SHAMBERG, JANICE
2001 Anchorage Runoff
19
05/05/2001
($50.00)
Returned
SHAMBERG, JANICE
2001 Anchorage Runoff
20
12/14/2001
$120.00
Monetary
ANCHORAGE HOME BUILDERS ASSN BUILD PAC
2001 Anchorage Runoff
21
12/27/2001
$400.00
Monetary
TREMAINE, RICHARD L.
2002 Anchorage Municipal
22
02/20/2002
$150.00
Monetary
ANDERSON, TOM T.
2002 State Primary
23
03/21/2002
$499.00
Monetary
ANCHORAGE HOME BUILDERS ASSN BUILD PAC
2002 Anchorage Municipal
24
03/25/2002
$349.00
Monetary
SULLIVAN, DANIEL A.
2002 Anchorage Municipal
25
04/03/2002
$150.00
Monetary
FRIEDMAN, JEFFREY A.
2002 Anchorage Municipal
26
09/18/2002
$200.00
Monetary
HIGGINS, PATTI
2002 State General
27
06/03/2004
$220.00
Monetary
DSA - AK STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
2004 State Primary
28
07/22/2004
$150.00
Monetary
KAWASAKI, SCOTT J.
2004 State Primary
29
09/30/2004
$200.00
Monetary
ANDERSON, TOM T.
2004 State General
30
12/31/2004
$1,000.00
Monetary
TREMAINE, RICHARD L.
2005 Anchorage Municipal
31
03/30/2005
$1,000.00
TELL IT LIKE IT IS
2005 Anchorage Municipal
32
05/03/2005
$500.00
Monetary
SULLIVAN, DANIEL A.
2005 Anchorage Municipal
33
10/19/2005
$350.00
Monetary
LEDOUX, GABRIELLE
2006 State Primary
34
11/20/2005
$250.00
Monetary
ROBERTS, MACON
2006 Anchorage Municipal
35
12/01/2005
$500.00
Monetary
ELLIS, JOHNNY
2006 State Primary
36
03/04/2006
$750.00
Monetary
ROBERTS, MACON
2006 Anchorage Municipal
Sunday, December 10, 2006
William Bobrick: A mini-me version of Abramoff?
One, "Lobbyist A" is part of the "sting" or two, "Lobbyist A" has struck a deal with the FBI.
Since, "Lobbyist A" is as it is being reported is Bill Bobrick, one would question what is going on. In 2004, he contributed to the Knowles campaign and he attended a fundraiser for Knowles in September of this year. The "sting" operation was done.
From the Knowles website.
Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 5:30 PMThe other issue is, what led the FBI to start the "sting" operation. What was it about Tom Anderson that led them to him ........
The home of Kevin Harun 7893 Highlander Drive - Anchorage
Join:Alice Aguilar, Jenny Allen, Virginia Allen, Tom Amodio, Scott Anaya, Jane Angvik, Deeann Apgar, Alan Baldivieso, Sharon Barr, John Bernitz, Sidney Billingslea, Bill Bobrick, Jeannie Bradner, Peggy Burgin, Mark Butler, Polly Carr, Lupe Chavez, Sharon Cissna, Matt Claman, Currey Cook, Mike Coumbe, Emily Creely, Pat Cue, Diane DiSanto, Art Eash, Lisa Eyler, Vic Fischer, Deb Fitzgerald, Susanne Fleek, Melissa Fouse, Hollis French, Peggy French, George Gee, Christian Gou-Leonhardt, Chuck Gunther, Joelle Hall, Kevin Harun, Julie Hasquet, Patty Higgins, Ruth Ann Jennings, Michael Johnson, Johnny Johnson, David Landry, Dick LeFebvre, Martha Levensaler, Suzanne Little, Pamela Marsch, Whitney Marshall, Erika McConnell, Rod McCoy, Brant McGee, Joe McKinnon, Jake Metcalfe, Mary Jane Michael, Nick Moe, Diane Moxness, Beth Nordlund, Jim Nordlund, Theda Pittman, Mara Rabinowitz, David Ramseur, Deb Seaton, Barb Seibel, Meg Simonian, Schawna Thoma, John Toppenberg, Tony Turrini, Randy Virgin, David Wigglesworth, and Deborah Williams at a fund raising reception for Tony Knowles for Governor!
Friday, December 08, 2006
No get out of jail for free card
http://www.adn.com/front/story/8475245p-8368881c.html
Tom Anderson, what can you say. How much time will he get?
It was long rumored that he was the guy that was telling the FBI important things.
He may have been. I have seen this guy with his wife on the campaign trail and I got the feeling that this guy is too comfortable for all the "heat" that was coming down through the investigation.
More indictments to come?
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The Rumor Mill
In the Alaska Star (the other paper), Senator Dyson responds to the rumor that was published in the Ear. His response can be found here:
http://www.alaskastar.com/stories/120706/new_20061207007.shtml
Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, denies a report from the Nov. 26 Anchorage Daily News (Alaska Ear), that said he was resigning from the Senate to the department of Health and Human Services under then Governor-elect Sarah Palin.
I will never understand the purpose of political gossip ........ unless it is to stir the pot as the ADN likes to do. I guess the staff thinks its their job to keep Pols on their toes or possibly on their heels.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Moving the Capital: AOL
Do you think the governor-elect plans to move the state capital?
Yes 62%
No 38%
Total Votes: 11,232
Note on Poll Results
Do you think the capital should be moved from Juneau?
No 55%
Yes 45%
Total Votes: 12,432
Note on Poll Results
10 minutes later
Do you think the governor-elect plans to move the state capital?
Yes
62%
No
38%
Total Votes: 17,200
Note on Poll Results
Do you think the capital should be moved from Juneau?
No
56%
Yes
44%
Total Votes: 18,475
Note on Poll Results
13 minutes later from the first set of figures
Do you think the governor-elect plans to move the state capital?
Yes
62%
No
38%
Total Votes: 18,091
Note on Poll Results
Do you think the capital should be moved from Juneau?
No
56%
Yes
44%
Total Votes: 19,706
Note on Poll Results
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Alaska Supreme Court: Politics by the Judge
It is safe to say that the Judicial body is a political body and the Alaska Supreme Court has an agenda. During the election, I was silent on a case I had before the Court. It was a federal challenge against the statutory laws that deal with child custody proceedings. The Court's ruling can be found here: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:PFgF1hKruiYJ:www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sm-1263.pdf+thomas+lamb+anchorage&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&ie=UTF-8
The Alaska Supreme Court has agenda against parental rights. In the Court's ruling, they had this to say:
When it came to challenging the stautory laws, the Alaska Supreme Court argued that a facial challenge could not be made and cited to a dissenting opinion on the matter.These arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons. As the United
States Supreme Court made clear in Troxel v. Granville, the constitutionality of a best-interests statute like Alaska’s ordinarily cannot be determined on a facial basis, that is, by determining whether the statute is invalid in all applications, but must instead be considered only as the statute applies in a particular case.
The Court was incorrect on numerous grounds. One is the challenge was based in part on a First Amendment challenge. What the Alaska Supreme Court hinted at was the challenge would not pass the Salerno test. A United States Supreme Court decision that is guiding on facial challenges to statues.
What is hypocritical about the comments by the Alaska Supreme Court is in the case http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-5499.htm Planned Parenthood of Alaska. The Court had this to say about facial challenges:
C. Facial Challenge
The state next asserts that plaintiffs' facial constitutional challenge must fail because they have failed to showthat the parental consent or judicial authorization requirementcould have no constitutional applications. In advancing this assertion, the state relies on Javed v. State, Department of PublicSafety, [Fn. 17] where we quoted the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Salerno [Fn. 18] for the proposition that "[a]statute is facially unconstitutional if 'no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.'" [Fn. 19] But we did not invoke the Salerno rule in Javed as a justification for avoiding constitutional review; instead, we relied on the rule for the distinctly narrower purpose of severing a limited portion of astatute, which we found unconstitutional, from the balance of the statute, which we found valid. [Fn. 20] And in any event, Salerno's "no set of circumstances"language is not a rigid requirement. [Fn. 21] In reviewing challenges to abortion-related statutes, the United States SupremeCourt has shown considerable flexibility in allowing litigants toraise claims alleging facial invalidity. For example, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, [Fn. 22] the Court invalidated a spousal notification statute even though statistics suggested that ninety-five percent of women seeking abortions would notify their husbands regardless of therequirement. [Fn. 23] In eschewing a rigid application of Salerno,the Court explained: "The proper focus of constitutional inquiryis the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group forwhom the law is irrelevant." [Fn. 24] Applying Casey's reasoning here, we conclude that Salerno poses no bar to plaintiffs' facial challenge of Alaska's parental consent or judicial authorization requirement.
When it came to a law diminishing parental rights, the Alaska Supreme Court stated the exact opposite. They allowed a facial challenge, even when the entire statute was being struck down. The Court knows the odds of getting to the United States Supreme Court are small and the Court in that case went against the Salerno test.
In 2001, the State of Alaska responded to a writ I had submitted to the United States.
I will once again submit a writ to the United States Supreme Court. In the writ the following is being argued:
A. Summary of Allegations in the Amended Complaint
The Alaska Supreme Court in Lamb vs. State of Alaska 2001, stated the Petitioner “could challenge the constitutionality of the statute through a direct challenge to the original custody order through a request to modify the order”. See Alaska Supreme Court Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 1030 - June 13, 2001 pg. 14-15 Para 22.
This is precisely what the Petitioner did.
The Petitioner made a First Amendment challenge in conjunction with an Equal Protection/Due Process challenge through motions to modify the order. And the Petitioner brought in new facts to the case that were never previously litigated because they occurred after the original trial.
The Petitioner also argued that the laws as they are written, put the burden on the judiciary to correct the constitutional deficiencies in the laws. Thus allowing the judiciary to in effect, legislate factored language into the law.
The Petitioner argued that federal law must be followed when in conflict with state law. Thus raising the Supremacy Clause issue.
This Court had the opportunity to review the State of Alaska’s compelling interest argument in Lamb vs. State of Alaska 2001. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/01-5810.htm. cert denied. last visited November 8, 2006.
In that case, the State of Alaska argued that it had no interest in the case to warrant a suit be brought against it. The Petitioner revisited that decision in this case to show that the State of Alaska did not have a compelling interest in the case to overcome a constitutional challenge.
The State of Alaska could not argue any different, because the compelling interest argument had been decided in the previous decision. Moreover, the State of Alaska in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment in this case, stated that it could not involve itself in determining the custody issue in this case. App. C.
Thus raising the question if a trial court judge is considered to be an agent of the state, thus limiting its discretion when there is no compelling interest.
B. The Decisions Below
Superior Court Judge John Suddock dismissed the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause to the federal constitution. In his rationale for treating similarly situated parties differently, he stated that the best interest standard gives the court the broad judicial discretion to treat parties differently.
Judge Suddock reasoned that another Judge trying this case under the same circumstances could have come to a different conclusion on legal custody.
Judge Suddock also discounted the state’s motion in this case. In the State of Alaska’s response to the Summary Motion, the state stated that it could not take a position on custody in this case.
This Court has stated in Palmore that a Judge is an agent for the state and as such, is acting on behalf of the state for the purpose of a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. The State of Alaska, it seems, sidestepped this Court’s position that the trial court judge is an agent for the state and through the trial judge, the state is taking a position on custody.
In the amended motion, the Petitioner made it clear to the trial court that he was challenging the statutory law on more than one ground. The trial court ignored this Court’s decision in Troxel when it came to ambiguous language in the law.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court addressed only one factor in the statutory law that allows a judge to “consider any ‘other factors that the court considers pertinent’.”
The Alaska Supreme Court cited to Troxel as a basis for their rationale that the constitutionality of a statue cannot be determined on a facial challenge. The court ignored the fact that the challenge also included the First Amendment challenge as well as the privacy issue.
The Salerno test seems to be the operative reasoning in the court’s argument, but in Planned Parenthood of Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court allowed a facial challenge to the State of Alaska’s parental notification laws. Even when the state argued against the facial challenge by citing to Salerno.
Moreover, the Petitioner was not seeking to invalidate the entire statutory laws. The Petitioner cited to factors in the law that would give the state a compelling interest to intervene in custody matters. Those factors were not being challenged.
Who's that
No search engine to get to the blog?