Ballona Creek, Birds, Curves

Ballona Creek today is a body of water in a concrete embankment in Los Angeles that flows into Santa Monica Bay.  Wikipedia gives us these choice bits of history:

 Ballona Creek and Lagoon are named for the Ballona or Paseo de las Carretas land grant, dated November 27, 1839. The Machado and Talamantes families, co-grantees of the rancho, heralded from Baiona in northern Spain.^[5][6

...At the time of Spanish settlement, the Los Angeles River turned to the west just south of present-day Bunker Hill, joining Ballona Creek just to the west of its current channel. However, during a major flood in 1825, the Los Angeles River's course changed to its present channel, and Ballona Creek became a completely distinct waterway. Much of the above-ground section of the creek was lined with concrete as part of the flood-control project undertaken by the United States Army Corps of Engineers following the Los Angeles Flood of 1938.^[7]

Birds, well you know what birds are.

Curves is a tool in photo software like photoshop that does strange things to light and dark and colors.  I don't understand quite what it does and I tend to experiment.  I figure if I do this enough, I'll start to see patterns for how the images change.  You can see, if you check the link, that what people write is interesting, and I've done some minor adjustments like they talk about, but the color freak in me is much more interested in the extremes, as you'll see in a couple pictures below.

I'd note I've saved the most interesting pictures for the end on the grounds that my readers will be rewarded for at least scrolling through the pictures, even if they don't read any of the text.

Part of this experimenting results from leaving my bigger camera in Anchorage and having to do bird shots with the little one that doesn't do distance well.

This first one was not altered in photoshop or anywhere else.  This snowy egret was standing near the Lincoln Blvd. bridge and the sun on the green and yellow of the bridge just rippled in the water like this.  I did crop the picture, but that's not altering.  How you frame the picture in the camera is cropping.

There was a sun cracked and warped bird sign where I got off the creek (at Centinela) that listed some of the common birds at the creek.  You can see the sort of baked look of the sign and when I enlarged the row of birds I shot, they were getting fuzzy in a similar way.  I didn't do anything to these pictures except resize them and put them together.



Below starts the curves experiments, first with the brown pelican.  (This is my least favorite of the group.)   I cut out the pelican in a circle and then I applied the curves to the whole picture and put the pelican cut out on top.  In this series I've include some of the original picture in with the curved portions of the photo.

Here's what the curves chart looks like.  The grey, as I understand it. . . actually, I don't understand it, and I'll just let you look it up yourself.  You know that's not like me, but I've decided that I'm just going to have to learn this non-verbally, by experimenting.

The curves box starts with a line going diagonally from the lower left corner to the upper right corner. As you move that line around (this one is probably a bad example because most of the ones I've done are curved) you get different effects - changes in light and dark and in color.  It's good to use if part of the picture is too dark or too bright for the rest of the picture.  You can change the one part to work better with the other part.  In this case I made it more horizontal and vertical than curvy.

Next is the great blue heron.  (The bird sign only listed the great blue and when I checked on line, it matched pretty closely.)   In this shot, I first split it diagonally and the applied curves to the top part.

I'm calling this one Ballona Creek Bore Tide.  I don't know if that's what they call it here, but these waves came in all of a sudden and reminded me of the bore tide on Turnagain Arm.  Here, I curved the middle - and in this case it really had a functional purpose:  it emphasized the waves and ripples I was trying to show.  I left a bit of the original as a frame.  

Now we get freaky.   The sun was on the cement legs of a bridge.  I came close to what it really looked like by adjusting the hue and.  So then I went crazy with curves.  

In this one, the center is the slightly hue and saturation enhanced original and the outside is the rest of the original picture, curved hard.

In this one, the center, horizontally, is the original picture, and the top and bottom are curved.  Even the original looks a bit unreal.

I'm not sure what this all means, but I think it fits in with the blog's basic theme - how do you know what you know?  The altered colors forces me to see things in the landscape that I never saw before.  And I'm still trying to absorb the combination of the original and the altered state.

And, it's a reminder that photos no longer represent reality.  Seeing is not believing.  I still think that photographers should distinguish between pictures that are unaltered from the camera and pictures that were tweaked, even slightly.  But I'm afraid that so many photographers are tweaking hard after they take the picture, that it's a lost battle.  I suspect some photographers assume that the viewer must know they picture was tweaked.  But I think many don't realize how much.  

AIFF 2014: The Good And The Bad Of 6 Bullets To Hell

[I didn't start out to do a post on 6 Bullets To Hell.  It just happened.  I don't have the video edited that should go with this - the Q&A after the film - and I'll add it later.  This post just wrote itself.]




The face you see on the screen is not always a face you'll recognize off the screen.  I tried to take a couple of pictures of the opening of 6 Bullets To Hell to be able to give you a sense of the kitchy spaghetti western look in the titles and images.  I was too late, but this image from the screen turned out useful because I had - unknowingly - just taken Crispian Belfrage's picture with Ken Luckey. I'm still not sure who this is.  I thought it was the hero Bill Rogers.  But as I look at the actors, I'd say it looks more like Ken Luckey than Crispian Belfrage, who played Rogers.  Luckey played Joseph 'Two Gun Joe' Ross, a scuzzy guy with yellow teeth.

6 Bullets To Hell is one of those films I'm not sure what to do with.  Is it cool because it's an homage Sergio Leone?  Or is the homage idea just a way to get away with a tacky movie?  Was it an excuse for these guys to go to a grown up summer camp in Spain and make a movie?  It mostly followed the spaghetti plot line (from Wikipedia):

Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars established the Spaghetti Western as a novel kind of Western. In this seminal film the hero enters a town that is ruled by two outlaw gangs and ordinary social relations are non-existent. He betrays and plays the gangs against one another in order to make money. Then he uses his cunning and exceptional weapons skill to assist a family threatened by both gangs. His treachery is exposed and he is severely beaten, but in the end he defeats the remaining gang. The interaction in this story between cunning and irony (the tricks, deceits, unexpected actions and sarcasms of the hero) on the one hand, and pathos (terror and brutality against defenseless people and against the hero after his double play has been revealed) on the other, was aspired to and sometimes attained by the imitations that soon flooded the cinemas.

In this case the hero has given up being a gunfighter for farming. (Thus the first question in the Q&A which I'll get up eventually.)  It's the outlaw gang that comes into town.  I don't recall any deceit by the hero.  He went up to each target and told them he had come to kill him.  We certainly had scenes of terror and brutality - particularly the gang rape and murder of the hero's pregnant wife.  One can argue that this film portrays the rapists as disgusting thugs who all get killed in the end and so it tells a moral tale.  But the good guys are all good and the bad guys are mostly all bad.  One did halfheartedly protest the rape and murder, but he was quickly killed.  He should have pulled out his gun and shot a couple of the gang since he ended up dead anyway.  But then there would have been no need for the hero.  Some of you may be detecting my attempt to be fair with a movie that has such gratuitous violence (we really don't see any actual sex).  I'm thinking I should have asked them about how they felt about adding one more violent gang rape and murder to the endless such images that are already on the screen.  Was it better than The Lookalike because it was an homage?  Or because there were clear distinctions between the good guys and bad guys?  Or because it was outdoors mostly?  Or was The Lookalike better because the characters were more nuanced?  In both most of the women were basically sex objects for men and some got shot.

Better to compare it with the opening night film WildLike which looks at sexual abuse from the abused perspective, where we see the social and emotional impacts on the young girl.  Or I Believe In Unicorns which also has a younger girl seduced by an older (but not that much) guy.  In these films there was little violence.  WildLike portrayed the lead up to sex, but then cutaway.  Unicorns was more overtly sexual, but the kids had some clothes on, and the nature of their sexual relationship was important to understanding the story.

They clearly were having fun being in Alaska, and the audience made me proud with their unexpected questions and (expected) hospitality.  Here the crew are getting some pictures together in front of the film festival sign.

Russel Cunningham, Luckey, Tanner Beard, Belfrage, and friend (r-l)

I probably would have skipped 6 Bullets to Hell since I knew it was not my type of movie.  But it played at 10pm, there was no other films on at that time, and I was already at the Bear Tooth.  The Q&A was more entertaining than the film and I'll add that here when I get the video ready.

Any movie can give one something to chew on.  I'm not sorry I saw this one.  I enjoyed talking to the actors who were there.  They were genuinely decent guys.  I just keep thinking though, that we have relatively little time on earth and we should be thinking how what we do makes the world a better place to be, helps make humans more hopeful and decent to each other.  Maybe they'll take the experience they got from this film to make future films that add a little more understanding and insight into the world.

"They can afford 'em, but they can't drive 'em"

That was the announcement on the ferry loudspeaker system.  There had been a series of loud blasts of the deeeep horn and we'd come to a stop.  Then I looked up to see the cause of the noise and the crew's derision.

The sailboat was no longer in danger of being run over by the ferry.   Is public shaming over the ferry loudspeakers a suitable activity for a public entity like the Bainbridge Ferry?  I suspect not, but I suspect it made the announcer feel a little better.  Will it make the little boat's driver change?  I suspect forcing the ferry to stop was embarrassing enough. 

But we enjoyed the warm sunny crossing into Seattle last Sunday after a family visit on a long layover on the way to LA.  Here's a shot of us approaching the dock in Seattle.

"Money's capacity to turn morality into a matter of impersonal arithmetic . . ."

I'd been reading David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years so I had a newly focused understanding when I read this sentence from the LA Times story on the pending Detroit bankruptcy settlement:

"The creditor was frustrated that a deal had been reached to transfer the works in Detroit Institute of Arts to a public trust and use foundation money to nearly make city pensioners whole, while other creditors were expected to receive pennies on the dollar."

The unusual part of this story is that the pensioners would be paid before the money creditors and their insurance companies. 

Why is this unusual?  Because usually the bankers get paid first - as we know from the housing crash when the bankers, who pushed lenders [borrowers] into loans the bankers knew the lenders [borrowers] couldn't pay, got paid, while homeowners lost their houses.

Graeber argues that our unquestioned moral certainty that "people must pay their debts" makes it easier for bankers and other lenders to enforce collection of debts, even if the conditions were impossible for the borrower from the beginning. 

He discusses how to distinguish between moral obligations and debts.  This is, he says, the basic question of the book.

"What, precisely, does it mean to say that our sense of morality and justice is reduced to the language of a business deal?  What does it mean when we reduce moral obligations to debts?  What changes when the one turns into the other?  And how do we speak about them when our language has been so shaped by the market?  On one level the difference between an obligation and a debt is simple and obvious.  A debt is the obligation to pay a certain sum of money.  As a result, a debt, unlike any other form of obligation, can be precisely quantified.  This allows debts to become simple, cold, and impersonal - which, in turn, allows them to be transferable.  If one owes a favor, or one's life, to another human being - it is owed to that person specifically.  But if one owes forty thousand dollars at 12-percent interest, it doesn't really matter who the creditor is;  neither does either of the two parties have to think much about what the other party needs, wants, is capable of doing - as they certainly would if what was owed was a favor, or respect, or gratitude.  One does not need to calculate the human effects;  one need only calculate principal, balances,  penalties, and rates of interest.  If you end up having to abandon your home and wander in other provinces, if your daughter ends up in a mining camp working as a prostitute [he'd given such an example from Nepal], well, that's unfortunate, but incidental to the creditor.  Money is money, and a deal is a deal."

Thus when the bankers call on the City of Detroit to pay up, the public outside of Detroit is primed to assume the city has been deadbeat and even though it's unfortunate, the banks have a right to take over the art at the Art Institute and get paid before retirees get their pensions.  

The Art Institute raises other issues to be argued about, but not here now.

But the retired employees also had a deal with the city.  They worked for years with the knowledge, based on a written contract, that after they worked a significant part of their lives they would get a pension. For many - particularly those in professional positions - they gave up the immediate higher pay and bonuses they could have gotten in the private sector for the pension.

Graeber's point is that by adding the moral imperative to pay one's debt to the business impersonality of 'a deal is a deal' lenders have gotten away with insisting on being paid, even if the lending conditions and paying consequences are inhumane.  Because humanity has been taken out of the equation.

"From this perspective, the crucial factor, and a topic that will be explored at length in these pages, is money's capacity to turn morality into a matter of impersonal arithmetic - and by doing so, to justify things that would otherwise seem outrageous or obscene. The factor of violence, which I have been emphasizing up until now, may appear secondary. The difference between a "debt" and a mere moral obligation is not the presence or absence of men with weapons who can enforce that obligation by seizing the debtor's possessions or threatening to break his legs. It is simply that a creditor has the means to specify, numerically, exactly how much the debtor owes."

I already knew something about how the language of instrumental rationality has taken over the language substantive rationality.   Very simply that means that the rational thinking processes we use to achieve a goal or solve a physical problem (say build a highway) are different from the rational thinking processes needed to consider moral questions (if the highway through a neighborhood is a good a good thing.)   I studied under Alberto Guerreiro-Ramos while he was writing The New Science of Administration, in which he argues that the distinction between the two different rationalities has been lost as people use instrumental rationality to resolve moral questions.  As when economists are called into court to help determine the value of the deceased's lost life, so the family can be paid off.     Guerreiro-Ramos

"was one of the earliest scholars to point to the risks of a social science that took homo economicus as its referent. A solution that he offered for this dilemma was to recognize the importance of non-market settings in which people could pursue other, non-materialist interests."

But I hadn't thought about - and that is Graeber's point - how the moral weight of paying one's debt assists international lenders in collecting their money even though the both the terms of the original loan and the consequences of collecting payment are unjust, even inhumane.

He does point out that the financial crisis of 2008 did loosen people's firmly held beliefs enough to get a conversation about this started.  But that has faded.  But the terms of the Detroit settlement seem to suggest that maybe there's been at least a little shift.

I do think this is an important book.  The previous post on it gave an example of international lenders unconscionable actions in Madagascar.  Here's another one from the book about Haiti.

But debt is not just victor's justice; it can also be a way of punishing winners who weren't supposed to win. The most spectacular example of this is the history of the Republic of Haiti - the first poor country to be placed in permanent debt peonage. Haiti was a nation founded by former plantation slaves who had the temerity not only to rise up in rebellion, amidst grand declarations of universal rights and freedoms, but to defeat Napoleon's armies sent to return them to bondage. France immediately insisted that the new republic owed it 150 million francs in damages for the expropriated plantations, as well as the expenses of outfitting the failed military expeditions, and all other nations, including the United States, agreed to impose an embargo on the country until it was paid. The sum was intentionally impossible (equivalent to about 18 billion dollars) , and the resultant embargo ensured that the name "Haiti" has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since. 

The whole book is online and I would encourage readers to at least bookmark it, but even better, read the first chapter.  It reads far more interestingly than people would expect from a book on finance. You can find the passages in this post by cutting them here and pasting them into the search at the pdf file of the book.

 

Sign Wars - Who's Messing With Russ Millette's Signs?

Photo Taken Sunday July 13

I passed this sign Sunday, as I went by it, I noticed that the candidate information had been painted out.  So I took this picture. 










A week ago, I posted this picture of Russ Millette's campaign sign. 

Photo taken Sunday July6

I decided I should call Millette and ask what was going on. 

He suggested I call the Alaska Republican Party.  (He was elected to be chair of the party in 2012 by a large influx of Tea Party attendees, but Party regulars had more meetings and recaptured control of the Alaska Republican Party.)
He said he had another sign just like it on Knik - Goose Bay (he said KGB ] Road in the Valley and that sign is wasn't just defaced, it was stolen.  When I asked if he had any ideas about who did that, he told me to call Cathy Tilton, since she had a new sign up about 12 feet from where his sign had been.  Did he know anything about whether she did it, or just the link between her sign going up when his went down?  No he didn't.

I called the Republican Party and talked to Christy who said, after I explained who I was and what I was calling about:

"I don’t know why we would know.  Signs get destroyed and stolen all the time, it’s not uncommon.  We don’t know all the candidates' sign’s locations."

I also called Cathy Tilton (a Republican candidate for state house in Matsu District 12) who sounded much more concerned.  (From my notes, slightly paraphrased)

No one in my camp would even consider anything like that.  I know how much that costs.  A friend of mine owns that land - Mike Foster - and there were three other signs up when I ut up mine - Ron Arvin (her opponent in the Republican primary, Millette's, and Stoltz (candidate for state senate, who's redistricted House seat Arvin and Tilton are running for. 

Millette said that he'd put a banner up on the sign on Lake Otis Monday morning.  When I told him I was in Seattle at the moment, he said he'd email me a picture of the newest sign.  And here it is below.

Photo taken July 14 - supplied by Russ Millette

He also said these signs cost about $250 each.   

Millette is running for governor against the incumbent in the Republican primary.  He and the Tea Party group made a successful bid to take over the Republican Party a couple of years ago, only to have the Party establishment find ways to invalidate his election.  I don't think one can blame him for thinking the sign damage goes back to the Republican Party, but getting proof is another issue. 

1.5 Million Lbs. Of Potatoes And Other Things I Learned At The Gov's Picnic

The Goose Creek correctional facility at Point Mackenzie produces 1.5 million pounds of potatoes a year, according to someone at the Department of Corrections booth at the governor's picnic Saturday.   They also had rhubarb, zucchini, and tomatoes on display.  It's used to feed the prisoners there and at another facility.  It's grown by the inmates under the guidance of a local farmer. 

It was the produce that got me talking to corrections officer Rodney Ramirez, who does recruiting and training at the Academy.   Our talk was wide ranging and I walked away impressed with his attitude toward the prisoners.  And if I had any doubts, they were obliterated when a guy called out 'Ramirez' and talked to him with obvious respect about how he was doing now that he was no longer incarcerated. 

I have to say that after I finished photoshopping five photos together, I thought maybe this guy looked like the rapper, DOC.  But he had the black uniform and sunglasses.  But the photo gives him a lot more attitude than he had.  In fact he had none.  If my son were incarcerated, I'd feel better knowing Ramirez was in charge.  You can see the rhubarb on the right in the background. 

In addition to growing food, inmates also crochet, make quilts, and wooden toys which, I was told, are donated to poor families for Christmas presents.  A poster also had pictures of service dog and pet obedience training.  Ramirez mentioned apprenticeships for carpentry, welding, and other trades. 

I'm sure the governor's office sees absolutely nothing wrong with his picnic having lots of corporate sponsors - like ACS in this picture - but I can't help thinking if the governor can call on them to do favors like this, what kind of favors do they get from the governor?  These are for profit corporations whose goal is maximum shareholder profit, so they aren't doing this unless they think it's going to increase that shareholder profit. 

Of course, we don't need to wonder about what favors the governor has done for Conoco-Phillips or BP.  Some folks are trying to take back his biggest favor to them by having people vote to repeal SB 21 in the August election.  And the oil companies are spending millions to make sure Prop. 1 doesn't pass.  You can see what millions can do when pass all the No on 1 signs around all over Anchorage. 

The highlight of every governor's picnic is the free barbecued hot dogs and hamburgers.  And people were willing to wait a long time for them.  The lines looped around and around. 

There was a separate, shorter line for seniors. 

You could get on this simulator (in the background)  and experience an earthquake.

The Unified Command Center trailer can be used at emergencies or situations where there are large crowds.  The man inside said they'd been to the Arctic Man.  It can only be used on the road system.  He didn't give me any examples of actual emergencies where it was needed and I wondered whether this was really just a fancy toy they bought in the name of emergency planning. 

Here's the inside.  There were two big screens showing the picnic just outside.  I suggested a window would help, but he showed me how he could use the cam to look around and zoom in.  He could even see if the outhouses were vacant or not.  (He told me they didn't have a bathroom in the command - because then everyone would be wanting to come in to use it.)  There was a table people could sit around and a second modular room.

I don't really know whether this was a good investment, I'm just asking questions at this point.  The NACS website FAQs has a little on the costs of vehicles like this:

What is the price range for a mobile communications vehicle? 

NACS builds units that range in size, type, and capabilities. Pricing of the unit is determined by the Chassis type and the installed communications capabilities. The chassis can be a custom-built towable unit, gasoline powered unit or diesel powered unit. Installed communications equipment can range from simple agency radios to full-scale Mobile EOC. Our expertise is maximizing the vehicle based on the budget and communications needs of the agency. Since we install and integrate all of the available technology ourselves, we carefully manage cost and control the quality of the finished product. Price Range is $100,000.00 to $750,000.00.

The FBI booth looked like one of the most fun.  In addition to getting to wear flak jackets they had some footprint identification activities.










 

As I was leaving this poster caught my attention.  Every three hours.  That would be eight per day or 240 a month or 2880 a year. 

I found a site that gave vehicle-train collision information.  I took the last two years and the first two on the list.  The incidence of such collisions has declined significantly.  Their number isn't that high,  but it looks like this doesn't include person-train collisions. 

Year	Vehicle-Train Collisions	Fatalities	Injuries
1981	9.461	728	2,293
1982	7,932	232	944
2012*	1,971	232	944
2013*	2,087	251	929

http://oli.org/about-us/news/collisions-casulties
*The last two years weren't finalized numbers

I have to say that I like the idea of a governor's picnic each year.  There are smaller events in other communities.  It reflects the advantage of living in a state with a small population where anyone, literally, can get in to see the governor if they really want to. 

What Creates A Good Child?

Synchronicity often gets me to do a post. Today two items came my way. I strongly urge you to watch the firt one - a heartwarming short Thai (with English subtitles, though they are barely needed) video about helping others. I can't figure out how to get the embed code for this video, so you have to go to this FB link.
[I've tried to go into the code to find the embed code, but it's not working.  I'm checking other websites that tell how to do this, but the FB code is different from their examples.   Just go to the FB link.  It's worth it, really.  I'll keep trying to figure this out.]






Then later, someone sent me a NYTimes article on Raising a Moral Child.   The video places doing good over doing well.  The article says that most people want that:

"although some parents live vicariously through their children’s accomplishments, success is not the No. 1 priority for most parents. We’re much more concerned about our children becoming kind, compassionate and helpful. Surveys reveal that in the United States, parents from European, Asian, Hispanic and African ethnic groups all place far greater importance on caring than achievement. These patterns hold around the world: When people in 50 countries were asked to report their guiding principles in life, the value that mattered most was not achievement, but caring."

Maybe that's why Romney* didn't win.  For him achieving seemed to be the main point of life.

The article goes on to look at how that gets accomplished and the studies find the right behavior appears to contradict what we are taught to tell children:

"Many parents believe it’s important to compliment the behavior, not the child — that way, the child learns to repeat the behavior. Indeed, I know one couple who are careful to say, “That was such a helpful thing to do,” instead of, “You’re a helpful person.”

But is that the right approach? In a clever experiment, the researchers Joan E. Grusec and Erica Redler set out to investigate what happens when we commend generous behavior versus generous character."

It goes on to describe an experiment where some (7 and 8 year old) kids were praised for their good sharing behavior and others for their good sharing character.  The latter group was more likely to share later on according to the study.

"Praise appears to be particularly influential in the critical periods when children develop a stronger sense of identity. When the researchers Joan E. Grusec and Erica Redler praised the character of 5-year-olds, any benefits that may have emerged didn’t have a lasting impact: They may have been too young to internalize moral character as part of a stable sense of self. And by the time children turned 10, the differences between praising character and praising actions vanished: Both were effective. Tying generosity to character appears to matter most around age 8, when children may be starting to crystallize notions of identity. "

A lot of conflict resolution folks tell us NOT to admonish the character, but to admonish the behavior - in adults as well as children - on the grounds that you can't change your character, but you can change your behavior.  But admonishing undesired behavior is the opposite of praising desired behavior.  And I suspect that a study of the opposite - admonishing undesired behavior - would still show that focusing on behavior was more effective than focusing on character.

*The Romney reference is not intended to be a dig, but simply a descriptive speculation. 

Easternization

At the UAA Ethics Conference, Roger Ames pointed out that while we use the term globalization, that really isn't what's happening. I was struck by the fact that I'd never really thought about this term.  I had thought about the concept of cultural exchange being two way.  Globalization suggests that there is movement all over the globe in different directions.  Basically, what we have though, is Westernization.  What we have very little of is Easternization.

In terms of economics and consumerism, that would seem to be the case.  Every country is impacted by the market system, by the demand for more efficiency, by the demand for cheap labor, which draws people from the rural areas to the cities.  This process then undermines whatever social structure exists. Efficiency interrupts a more leisurely lifestyle.   Commodification gives everything a dollar value.   Work trumps family as people move away from home to the big(ger) cities so they can earn and send money back home.  Money replaces face to face relationships.  These folks live in relatively squalid conditions with strangers away from their families. (The housing for workers we saw at the university I taught at in Beijing who were constructing the super modern law building was makeshift, plywood, minimalist housing on campus at the construction site.) And their families back home compete for their wages with others at the work sites - prostitutes, alcohol and drugs dealers, gamblers, and an assortment of scam artists.  Cultural values tend to lose out to the competition for money to buy consumer goods.

So, even though one could argue the exchange is two-way because goods go from less economically developed countries to the rich countries, those goods are the supply for the Western generated market demand, and even China became capitalist to meet that demand.

There is some Eastern (and Southern) influences on the west.  We can dine on food from Asia, Africa, and South America.  We can go to Yoga and Tai Chi classes and even get acupuncture.  But much of this tends to get infected by market pressures so we get things like Power Yoga!  And to the extent that any of these is acknowledged as having any health benefits, they get bent and twisted to conform to insurance company rules.

In the Saturday session of the ethics conference, a professor from China who teaches in Los Angeles, said that Chinese women do not want to be the consumers of Western feminism, but want to be the producers of a Chinese feminism. The context of Western and Chinese culture, she said, require different strategies for dealing with the unequal treatment of women. 

By the way, I did ask about whether the papers would be posted online.  Yes, but later in the summer when they are all compiled into a book format. 

You Get What You Pay For

I'm paralyzed - there are so many things to write about I don't know where to start. I'll  never catch up.   But the genius of being an unpaid blogger is that if I don't post today, my readers can't cut my pay. 

Here are some things I'm not ready to post about:

Kid's Count Report - headline on the email:

No Child Left Behind—Except 73 Percent of Alaska’s 4^th Graders

Shocking New Numbers Rank Alaska 45^th in Nation for 4^th Grade Reading Proficiency; Show Troubling Racial Disparities in Learning Outcomes

Ervin Kaplan, artist

• Some art exhibit pics still from LA.  Here are the museum custodians playing tic tac toe on the Mondrian at jna gallery in Santa Monica.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Thoughts on the ADN's new sections on Science, Technology, Health; some of their headlines;  and the end of the Ear and what Amanda Coyne has done with its reincarnation, or as Hollis French might say, "pourquoi?"
  
• Book club meeting on Tom Kizzia's Pilgrim's Wilderness. 
  
• The Coast Guard's Kulluk report which seems to support the frustration this blog had with their press releases last year which tended to say how great Shell was doing and withhold everything else. 
• Impact of the Koch "dump Begich" campaign.
  
   
• Easternization and Confucius Meets Feminism -  followup from the Philosophy conference last weekend.

Or how nice a day it is today and why I should go out and enjoy the sun and snow and ice free surfaces (including in front of my house, but not yet everywhere.)

Just War and Christianity and Eastern Thought

Matthew Strebe

The basic premise of Matthew Strebe's paper, "Reformulating Warfare:  Just War Theory and Kantian Ethics," was that the theory of just war was created for a very different kind of war than what exists today.


OK, I'm copping out by not giving more details, but I know I wouldn't do it justice.  I should be taking better notes.  I'll check and see if any or all of these papers are online somewhere.



Strebe argues that Kantian ethics better suited to this than utilitarian ethics used in Just War Theory.

Tara Harrington's paper was "Thoughts from a Christian:  Can the World Afford to Practice Wu-Wei When it comes to Our Environment?"


She challenged Lynn White's assertion that  that biblical language about humans dominion over the earth is anti-environmental.







Right now Jacob Land is presenting "Drawing from the Same-Well:  Eastern Thought in Christian Ethics." He's highlighting quotes from Eastern thinkers and the bible.

When I saw Jacob just before this panel, I realized he was the man who was not allowed to carry his backpack on board the plane from LA yesterday.  I thought at the time - when Jacob showed him the backpack fit into the frame they have to test the size of carryons - that the Alaska Airlines rep was being pretty rigid. 

Changing Ed Philosophy in China and Comparison of Aristotle and Xunzu

The first presentation raised lots of issues I've worked on - particularly the conflicts between the rule of law approach to ethics that we pursue that ignores all the other emotional obligations that humans have.

Vivian-Lee Nyitray

I connected to the second for other reasons.




Vivian-Lee Nyitray is the Dean at two Chinese colleges -

Prospect in Chongqin and Taigu in Shanxi - and spoke about introducing more interactive teaching practices in those colleges and her own conflicting moral obligations to her students, her colleagues, and to her mission.  







Having taught in China, I understood her issues of changing the rows of seats into circles so that students were more involved and better able to interact with each other.   

But I only really had to focus on what happened in my class and not try to get other faculty to adopt more participatory teaching methods. 




Though there were some issues that went beyond the classroom - such as how my teaching methods impacted some of the Chinese faculty.  Fortunately, I had support from high in the college and a Chinese teacher who'd studied in the US also worked with me.

Nyitray looked toward Confucian philosophy as a way to work out some of the dilemmas she faced.

Shi Shan

The next speaker,  Shi Shan, was of interest because she's from the university I taught at in Beijing. 










Her presentation made comparisons of Aristotle and Xunzi's definitions of good. 




Unfortunately, trying to blog and listen at the same time is impacting my ability to concentrate sufficiently on some of the papers.



Here's the room we're in.  I know it as the Pub when it first opened here at UAA.  But there was strong local opposition to serving alcohol on campus and so it never has served as a pub.  Now it's called 'the den.' 

 Shi Shan presenting at UAA

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ethical"

That's part of the title of the first paper. 

Bauer and Kelly

I'm at the UAA Undergraduate Ethics Conference in the Pub.  It goes on today and tomorrow and Saturday morning.

This first presentation by Stephanie Bauer and Terry Kelly looked at the conflicts between Ethics and Morality -  a lawyer who has to win and may violate other values to do that.  I'm not going to try to explain what they said, but I'll give you the last couple of slides that summed things up.

I'll let you ponder this.  You don't have to understand it, just let it provoke your brain into thinking.  

I posted the whole program here the other day.  The conference is open to the public and free.  There's a community presentation tonight (Thursday) at East High on ethics and education.  7-9 pm.

Would Confucius Have Cut The Education Budget?

As Alaska's legislature is busy cutting the state education budget and trying to use what public money is left to give to private schools through vouchers, it might be a good time to get a bigger perspective on this.  The University of Alaska Anchorage Philosophy Department with an assist from the campus Confucius Institute is putting on a conference titled "Living Ethically in the Global World." 

The conference is pretty wide ranging and open to the public.  On the first night, there will be a community panel at East High School.   This was planned before the Governor, in his Orwellian way, declared this the "Year of Education."  I'm not sure the question in the title will be answered, but the recipient of the 2013 Confucian Prize will be on the East High panel.  So you can ask him if he doesn't address the issue in the panel.

“The Priorities and Ethics of Educating” Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm Community Panel at East High School Auditorium Panel: Andy Josephson, UAA Graduate and Alaska State Representative (It appears that Rep. Josephson's legislative duties will keep him in Juneau.) Roger Ames, 2013 Confucian Prize Recipient; Maria Williams, Director of Alaska Native Studies at UAA; Ed McLain, UAA College of Education Respondent: Francisco Miranda, UAA Department of Languages

This is actually both the Ninth Annual UAA Undergraduate Philosophy Conference and the UAA Ethics Center's Inaugural Convocation.

Here are some of the paper titles I pulled out of the program:

“Drawing from the Same Well:  Eastern Thought in Christian Ethics” “Yup’ik Culture is also Confucian” “Role Ethics in the Yijing” “Human Rights and Daoism: An Alternative Chinese Perspective” "Confucian Role Ethics for Women: A Response to Roger T. Ames’ Vocabulary” “The Impossible Junzi and Global Ethics” “Eastern Tones:  What Can Contemporary Acoustics Learn from Yin-Yang?” “Taking Responsibility: Toward a Sixth Confucian Relationship (with Notes from my Life as a Dean in China)” “Confucian Revivalism and Its Role in Chinese Society and Education”

You can find the exact times and locations for each of these in the program embedded below.

And here are the Universities that will be represented (in addition to UAA):

Prospect College and Taigu College (Chongqin and Shanxi Province, PRC) Renmin University (Beijing, PRC) Northeast Normal University Belmont University (Nashville, Tennessee) University of California Santa Cruz Loyola Marymount University University of San Diego (California) Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (Yongin, Korea) University of Wales (Great Britain) University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Central Washington University University of San Diego (California) Adrian College

I'd note that the UAA  Department of Public Administration has had a long going relationship with the public administration program at Renmin (People's) University in Beijing and I taught there in 2004. 

I checked and all the panels are open to the public at no charge. Fortunately, we'll be back in Anchorage.   Here's the full program:

Living Ethically in the Global World

And I'd urge people to get off the internet merry-go-round and take a few moments to think about the title of this conference: Acting Ethically in a Global World. What are some of the topics you would explore under that heading? Talk about it over dinner with your parents.

The Condoms - A Short Story With A Long Commentary

[Note:  This post tries to pull together ideas from different places to make sense of things that seem not to make sense.  I've been tinkering with it for several days now, and while I'm still not satisfied, it's time to move on to other things.  Consider this post as working notes.]

"You can go on the internet, you can order these things by mail, . . . make phone calls, and you can get it delivered by mail, you all know that Alaska Airlines will do Goldstreak and you can get things even quickly that way if you need to.  So I don’t think access is a problem, I don’t think that finance, that economics is, and my own view is that by and large sexual activity is recreation. Now if you're doing the activity for procreation, obviously birth control is counter-indicated."

- Eagle River's Sen. Fred Dyson from the Legislative 360 North via the Anchorage Daily News  has already received plenty of attention for this statement (plus the rest of it which you can view at the ADN link above.)

I'd like to play out a little story I imagined when I heard about it and then also talk a little history and use Jonathan Haidt's ideas about moral traits to try to understand the mental gap here.

The Condom - A Short Story

The wind whistled through the poorly insulated wooden home in a rural village off the Alaska road system.  He'd come knocking a couple of hours ago, knowing her mother was away.  She was excited about having a boyfriend, yet a little fearful of what it all meant.  He'd brought some beer and they'd both had too much.  She had refused the beer at first, but she didn't want to appear just a child.  Her body responded to his hands, yet she could hear her mom warning her about getting pregnant.   "We can't do this," she cried out.  "We don't have any condoms." 

He looked down on her and smiled.  He pulled out his cell phone and called Alaska Airlines.  "Goldstream me a dozen condoms," he said into the phone.  Then he looked back at her, "Problem solved."

Fred Dyson can rightfully claim that wasn't what he meant when he said "you can get things even quickly"  but it's what came to mind.

His Alaska Senate page says that Fred Dyson was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, January 16, 1939.  That means he's just had his 75th birthday.   He went to high school in Seattle and has been married since 1966. He would have been 27.  In 1966 the US was just starting to emerge from an era in which pre-marital sex was roundly condemned in mainstream culture. People didn't "live together," they "shacked up" and it was not accepted at all as it is today.  The summer of love in San Francisco was a year away. 

But nature has a way of overcoming social norms and sex was certainly part of many people's high school lives.  But condoms were not sold over the counter.  You had to ask the pharmacist for prophylactics. Birth control pills were approved only six years earlier and were still illegal in some states.  For girls, pregnancy changed everything. (It still does, of course.)  I remember when straight A student XX suddenly vanished from school, no explanations offered.  You were disgraced, and many a young couple were quickly forced to get married.  And as in XX's case, more often than not, these marriages didn't last.   Roe v. Wade was still seven years off, though a couple of states were beginning to legalize abortions. Illegal abortion was a risky endeavor which hundreds of thousands of women a year undertook.

And the happy American family portrayed on shows like Ozzie and Harriet weren't exactly how things were.  From Digital History:

• It was only in the 1920s that, for the first time, a majority of American families consisted of a breadwinner-husband, a home-maker wife, and children attending school.
• The most rapid increase in unwed pregnancies took place between 1940 and 1958, not in the libertine sixties.
• The defining characteristics of the 1950s family--a rising birth rate, a stable divorce rate, and declining age of marriage--were historical aberrations, out of line with long term historical trends.
• Throughout American history, most families have needed more than one breadwinner to support themselves.

[Note:  I haven't independently verified this, but it appears to be a solid source, put up by the College of Education at the University of Houston.  The quote is just a small part of a long piece titled, "Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities."]

Jonathan Haidt

I've recently become aware of the work of Jonathan Haidt who's written on morality and the human mind.  

Haidt argues, in the Ted Talk video below, that to a certain extent, our minds are pre-programmed.   Our environments will have an impact too, but we aren't blank slates.  He argues humans come pre-programmed with five basic moral traits:

• (Keeping the vulnerable from harm)
• Fairness/reciprocity (Do onto others . . .)
• In-group loyalty 
• Authority/respect (and the need to keep order in groups)
• Purity/sanctity

We all have these values, but, he says, liberals are higher on the first two (Harm/care and Fairness) and conservatives on the last three (Group Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity).  In the Ted Talk he also says there is a constant tension between change and stability.  He looks to Asian religious traditions which look for balance.  The Yin and Yang aren't enemies, he tells us and cites Seng ts'an:

“If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against.  The struggle between ‘for’ and ‘against’ is the mind’s worst disease”

[Looking at the link above the quote, I suspect this is like offering "light is speedy" to represent  Einstein's theories.  Here's a link to the poem that this quote seems to come from.]

Haidt tells us more in an interview on Social Science Space.  He’d been studying morality across countries and was bummed that GWB won in 2000 and 2004.

 “So when I was invited to give a talk to the Charlottesville Democrats in 2004, right after the election, I said ‘Alright, well let me take this cross-cultural theory that I’ve got, and apply it to Left and Right, as though they’re different cultures.’ And boy, it worked well! I expected to get eaten alive: I was basically telling this room full of Democrats that the reason they lost is not because of Karl Rove, and sorcery and trickery, it’s because Democrats, or liberals, have a narrower set of moral foundations: they focus on fairness and care, and they don’t get the more groupish or visceral, patriotic, religious, hierarchical values that most Americans have.

In the split between conservatives and liberals (that the media's reporting of both reinforces and aggravates) both sides move to group loyalty and attack those in their groups who would talk about cooperation with outsiders.  We can see Tea Party candidates doing this with establishment Republicans.  But liberals also play this game.  I'm regularly chastised for not thoroughly condemning 'the enemy' as in this post. 
 
Back to Dyson

I believe that Dyson is wrong in his argument, but I think knowing the world he was raised in and knowing about Haidt's moral traits, we can at least understand how he came to say what he said.  Dyson’s argument has an internal logic if you buy his basic assumptions.  His respect for authority and  for purity and sanctity are reinforced by group loyalty.   The basis of his argument is about personal responsibility and the unfairness of having to pay for other people's birth control.

In the Social Science Space interview, Haidt describes Dyson's comments years before Dyson said them.  Haidt talks about how he watched a lot of Fox news, like an ethnographic study, to understand how conservatives think.  What he found back then, I think helps describe Dyson’s thinking:

"I would watch Fox News shows, and at first it was kind of offensive to me, but once I began to get it, to see ‘Oh I see how this interconnects’ and ‘Oh, you know if you really care about personal responsibility, and if you’re really offended by leeches and mooches and people who do foolish things, then want others to bail them out, yeah, I can see how that’s really offensive, and if you believe that, I can see how the welfare state is one of the most offensive things ever created’. So, I started actually seeing, you know, what both sides are really right about: certain threats and problems. And once you are part of a moral team that binds together, but it blinds you to alternate realities, it blinds you to facts that don’t fit your reality."

So, where Dyson sees people who haven’t taking personal responsibility for their lives and doesn’t see why the tax payer should pay for them to have sex with state funded contraceptives, Senator Berta Gardner (who responded to Dyson in the Senate committee) sees poor women as unfairly treated, in a society that structurally disadvantages them.  It’s not that poor people are lazy and don’t take responsibility, it’s that society’s structure has doomed most of them to low paying jobs where they work long and hard, yet still earn too little to live even the most basic American Dream life. 

My point here is not to debate Dyson. but to point out that he AND his detractors would achieve more success in the legislature for the people of Alaska, if they both acknowledged that they probably don't know everything and probably are not right about everything.  (And if they did, their next election opponents would quote them in attack ads.)  Dyson, I believe, strongly believes what he says and probably is just as perplexed by those attacking him as they are by what he proposed.  Understanding his logic AND the values that underlie it, are the first steps to real communication and potential resolution that doesn't violate anyone's values. (No, I don't think we're as far apart as the extremists say and the media echo. Yes, I know that there will always be some people who won't be satisfied.)   

Without recognizing and acknowledging that the other side probably has valid points, we deny their humanity and they ours.  They aren't the enemy, and certainly not agents of Satan. Rather, each side places greater weight on different values and thus each side sees different ‘facts’ and interprets what they see differently.

Dyson sees lazy people doing frivolous things and thinks they should pay for it themselves, not using taxpayer money.  Gardner sees state funded birth control as an act of compassion to poor people struggling to get by in a society tilted against them.  Furthermore she believes that easy access to, and use of, birth control would lead to fewer unwanted babies and more ability for women to get an education and keep a job.  She sees the immediate costs to taxpayers of supplying the birth control as cheap compared to the long term costs of dealing with kids whose parents didn’t want them and aren’t capable of responsibly raising them.



I should probably mention that my personal interactions with Sen. Dyson occurred at Alaska's political corruption trials.  It turned out he was attending the trials and also reading my blog posts which he said he liked.   He was polite and respectful.  Another time I had to call him to ask him about a mistake he'd made when introducing Joe Miller at a political rally.  He again was cordial and acknowledged he'd made an error and had confused Miller with (current Senate candidate) Dan Sullivan.  These were intersections of our lives where we had some common ground.   Situations where what we saw in each other was positive, despite our strong differences in other areas.  And I think these intersections would allow us to converse civilly on issues where our personal values would lead us to conflicting conclusions.


I'd strongly recommend Jonathan Haidt's Ted Talk on the moral mind.  It supports my approach here which some of my readers find too sympathetic to the 'bad guys.' It does what is essential to break an impasse - it changes the discussion by focusing on the process rather than the content of the impasse.  It asks people to look at their underlying values and to become conscious of their behavior.  [I don't see this video in my preview, so if it doesn't work, you can find it (The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives) here.]


Responsibility of Politicians

I would add another aspect to this.  I believe that Fred Dyson is certain that he's right. And in the United States, everyone is entitled to his opinion.  But once you take the responsibility of political office, you have an obligation to represent fairly the views of as many as possible.  (I know that not everyone can be satisfied.)  You have a responsibility to listen to others and to seek 'the truth' rather than to simply seek a victory over those who disagree with you.

I believe that Dyson's missing a lot of the picture. Our understanding and practice of sex is very different from what it was when he was young. (And our belief of what it was when he was young is also probably flawed as the citations from digital history above suggest.)
Our differences have, perhaps, more to do with the moral standards Jonathan Haidt says we came pre-programmed with.    The challenge is to test our truths, to find common ground with those who give more weight to other moral traits.   Rigid, moralistic stances on either side won't lead to good legislation.

Of course, cooperating with 'the other' requires that the other is willing to also cooperate.  My take on the Tea Party is that they are certain they are right as reflected in their refusal to compromise.    Human history is littered with tragic stories of the suffering caused by those who believed they owned the truth and  who had the political or physical power to enforce their truth.