Showing posts with label knowing.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowing.. Show all posts

Friday, March 20, 2020

Alaska's C0VID-19 Count For Friday March 20, 2020

The State's new post today shows:
  • 3 new positive tests  (two more were reported after the report was posted)
  • New category - 'Community Contact' is now 'Non-Travel'
  • Date was added - wasn't there yesterday



The second part is structured the same as yesterday.  Some observations:
  • The earlier reports distinguished between new positive and new negative tests.  The chart above doesn't show when the positives (confirmed) tests happened, only where.
  • The charts below don't distinguish between the cumulative positive and negative tests or the daily positive or negative tests
  • So, there's no way to figure out how new positive (confirmed) tests are increasing over time, unless you have made screen charts of the previous days' announcements
  • Which is more or less why I started these posts and created my own table to track the daily changes in tests and daily changes in cumulative results
  • The cumulative chart (below) shows a line, but there are only actual numbers on the last day, so you have to estimate for the other numbers
  • The daily tests chart (further below) doesn't even have numbers for the last day, so you have to guess those numbers as well.  You can get reasonably close, but these are numbers they have and we shouldn't have to approximate.  
  • Before yesterday, the reports distinguished between completed confirmed and negative tests.  They don't do that any more.  I'm assuming that the confirmed are now part of the total number of tests given.  
However, today's graphs (below) present a new challenge for me. The numbers don't add up right for me.  I still have a low grade fever and a cough and so maybe I'm just not concentrating hard enough, but this isn't high level math.   
When I use their numbers in the first chart, the cumulative totals 
  • for State Tests (529) plus 
  • the commercial tests (169) 
  • adds up to 698 total tests since they started testing.
Going back to yesterday's post*  we see there were 513 total tests.  So subtracting
  • yesterday's total 513
  • from today's total of 698
  • tells you that there were 185 more tests since yesterday
But when you go down to the next graph and add the numbers it comes out differently
  • the blue line showing number of state tests posted today (for yesterday) we get something close to 75  - we have to guesstimate because the actual number isn't listed
  • and the red line showing the number of commercial tests is just about 55
  • 75+55 = 130
  • which is 55 less than what the top chart (compared to yesterday's posted totals) comes to
  • and even if you add or subtract a few digits because you're guessing off a graph, it's still significant

*(I have to send you to my blog post on this because the state's count page for yesterday has been replaced with today's (Friday) So you can't go back there.  Fortunately I've been posting screenshots.)



I did send an email to the state department of health to see whether I'm missing something, but there's been no response.

But that leaves me with a difficulty in putting the correct numbers in my cumulative chart.  I've done my best.



I understand that the Governor drastically cut state employees last year.  On top of that the people left are struggling with a massive disaster like the state has never seen.  It takes experience and time to figure out the most important numbers to report and how to report them and the state is clearly figuring this out while facing a zillion other tasks.

My intent here originally was to simply document the numbers as they changed day-to-day since that wasn't possible if you just looked at the daily reports (which replaced the previous days' reports.)   I'm doing the best that I can and appreciate any suggestions readers might have to do it better.  Or to let me know if someone else is doing this elsewhere.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/2/d/e/2PACX-1vRwAqp96T9sYYq2-i7Tj0pvTf6XVHjDSMIKBdZHXiCGGdNC0ypEU9NbngS8mxea55JuCFuua1MUeOj5/pubhtml#  has been trying to track each state daily, but it would appear that Alaska's changing formats has, for the moment anyway, messed up their scraping system.  The latest they have for Alaska is a total of 6 positive and 402 negative for a total of 408 tests.

If you go to the State tab, you'll see this comment for Alaska:
"Unclear if their reported number means "persons tested" or "specimens tested." We count them as "persons tested" because the header indicates this is the case. Negatives reported on site have decreased at various times in recent hours, without explanation."



Thursday, March 19, 2020

Alaska Keeps Changing How They Report COVID-19 Tests And Results

I've been tracking the COVID-19 tests and results here because I found the state website that posts "Case Counts" was just giving daily snapshots and the previous day's data were replaced with the new data.  So there was no way to see the progression of positive test results or even of how many tests were given out.

So today's report was totally different.  Here's what they've generally looked like:

Then yesterday - above is yesterday - they also added a table.  You can see that in yesterday's post.  

Today this box which summarizes the numbers is GONE.  Now we get this:


And . . .

Having the graph is an improvement to the extent that it shows the number of tests per day, since the beginning.  And from this we learn that they started testing on March 2, 2020.  The previous charts all said on the bottom "Cumulative since 1/1/2020" which didn't make much sense since clearly Alaska wasn't testing in in early January.  Today we see not in February either.  The two graphs make it hard to track the numbers over time precisely.  At least the top one has numbers for the last date.  We don't have that for the bottom chart.  And if these were really professional charts, you'd be able to run the cursor along the red and blue lines and see the number for each date.  These are just images.  
AND the cumulative State and Commercial lab test numbers now include positive tests whereas before they were only negative tests.  Making it impossible to continue my charts based on these charts. (Maybe not, but someone smarter than I am, needs to tell me how.)

Previously, the separated out the tests each day that were positive and negative.  Now you have to go up to the chart and get that information and add and subtract numbers from the graphs to keep regular numbers.  I'm also not sure what the importance of distinguishing between State tests and Corporate tests is.  But someone in the Department of Health thinks it's significant enough to make that distinction.  

And what we don't get here is the chart which shows the progression of positive tests.  We just get the cumulative positives.  (That's in the first chart from today, above.)

Melissa S. Green commented yesterday that in MY table, I ought to switch the columns and rows so they will be easier to read in this format.  It was a great suggestion and I'd been wondering what was going to happen as I got more dates and we moved further to the right.  But how big a job would that be?  Argh.  Google told me quickly that it was no big deal.  (I'm using Apple's Numbers rather than Excel)  Just open the file, click on the whole table, go up to the table tab, then click "Transpose rows and columns."  Done!  

So here's today's updates.  My cough and fever are still festering and so I hope I've gotten all the numbers right.  (subtracting the positives from the cumulatives for negative tests etc. - not hard math, but helps to have a clear head.)





I would note that there were three more positive test results announced this afternoon (after the website was updated.) Two were not immediately related to travel.  In the Governor's press conference this afternoon, I think they said that if these new cases were connected to previously detected cases that were travel related, then they would also be considered travel related.  I don't understand why, unless they just don't want any "community" cases which can't be blamed on people bringing the virus from elsewhere.  If these cases, for example, are listed as travel related, how will cases related to these new ones be classified?  It seems to me that if people who haven't traveled get the virus, then they got it through contact with someone in the community, whether those folks brought it from Outside or not.


[A personal note here.  As I was going through these charts and commenting on them and figuring out ways to improve them, it reminded me very much of reviewing graduate MPA (Masters of Public Administration) student papers, particularly capstone papers.  Our students had to suffer through these kinds of critiques, but most, ultimately said thank you when they could see how much better their papers were.  And this is the kind of written feedback they'd get from me so that they would understand how I thought they could make their papers better.  I hope none of my old students were responsible for these charts.  And I understand how hard it is to make great presentations of information - especially on tight deadlines.  This is really hard stuff to do right.  My sole intent here is  to help Alaskans get the best information they can.]


And thanks Mel.

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Alaska COVID-19 Update 3 More Positives For A Total Of 6 Since Friday [Updated With COVID-19 Video Showing Progression of V]

NOTE:  Today's update says it was updated yesterday at 7pm instead of today at 12:30pm, so these added numbers don't reflect 24 hours since the last posting.


This chart and the one at the bottom from here.
[UPDATED March 18, 2020 8:20pm:  Since the announcement above is listed as being posted at 7pm on March 17, and there was no new one today when I looked after today's scheduled post - I used it and assume it would cover for today.  But since yesterday's was posted at 7pm, I thought I'd check.  And sure enough there's a new update from 12:30pm today.  I checked and I got mine at 12:43pm so there's might have been posted shortly after that.  It looks pretty much the same.



Maybe that just had the wrong time stamp on it and fixed it.  But it's really helpful to notify readers why you made a change - in this case the date and time have been changed.

Meanwhile, three more cases have been reported in the news today.  Based on the video below and other writers, I'm expecting the number of positives to jump pretty quickly in the next week or two.]

In the last few days we've gone from 0 positives, to 1 positive, to 3, then to 6.  Since only a tiny percent of our population has been tested, I expect that numbers will start to go up quickly once testing is more widespread.  Meanwhile people are out and about without knowing if they are positive or negative.

I saw a distinction yesterday between diagnostic testing (to determine a patient's treatment) and surveillance testing (to keep track of the overall spread of the virus in the community.)  It seems to me that Alaska has focused on diagnostic testing.

Here's my update from the numbers I put up yesterday.  I'm trying to track this on a continuous basis so people can see the daily and weekly increases in people tested and results.  As I do these, only the last column should change each day.  I'd note again, that 'today's' posting says it was posted yesterday at 7pm.  (The notice has said everyday they'll post at 12:30pm daily weekdays).  So, technically, there are two posting from yesterday, so the increase is only up to 7pm yesterday.  And the increase is more for half a day.




This report also had a new chart attached to it that gives overall numbers.

Region*
Travel-Related**
Close Contact
Total
 Anchorage
2
 0
2
 Gulf Coast
0
 0
0
 Interior
3
 0
3
 Mat-Su
0
 0
0
 Northern
0
 0
0
 Southeast
1
 0
1
 Southwest
0
 0
0
 TOTAL
6
0
6
**Exposure/source of the virus was outside of Alaska.


You'll see the state is perhaps trying to console us by pointing out that all the cases are people who traveled and brought the virus back to Alaska.  But we don't know how many people they interacted with before they were tested and isolated.


[UPDATE 5:44pm]

The video below does a good job of showing (based on Wuhan data) how many actual cases there are compared to the identified cases, for various reasons.  One could argue this doesn't apply so well to us here in Alaska because, so far, the cases were brought in from Outside.  (All the more reason to be screening passengers on Alaska bound jets.  Our geographic isolation makes it relatively easier to check on people entering the state.)  But as people bring the virus in and spread it before getting sick, we're going to see similar dynamics.


Saturday, February 15, 2020

Fictional Accuracy Of Elections And The Iowa Caucus

As the Nevada caucuses begin, I'm still pondering how pundits, the media in general, and people in general reacted to the Iowa caucuses.  My sense is that caucuses are a kind of community gathering where people share with others to get a sense of how the collective feels about the candidates.  But we are in a world that demands precision, demand instant results.  People get impatient if it takes a website to open in more than 2 seconds, so election results need to be available 20 minutes after the polls close.  But what do the numbers mean anyway?

Caucus Thoughts

I’ve been to two caucuses in Anchorage - 2008 and 2016.  People come together.  Lots of people.  There’s camaraderie,  laughter, crowds, confusion, donuts, and a chance to see lots of folks you haven’t seen for a while.  

Once into your precinct rooms, talk gets more serious, but there’s still a friendly banter about candidates.  It’s time to hear from proponents of different candidates, to ask questions, and be asked questions.  Some people have done their homework, others are seeking answers.  

People eventually get asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on which candidate they support.  Then those candidates with too few supporters are eliminated and their supporters get to join their second choice.  

If the group is small, it’s easy to get an accurate count.  If there are 100 or more, it starts getting trickier.  People have to stand still.  Did you count him already? What about her?

But if the tally is 111 or 113 it doesn’t really matter that much.  You’ve got a good sense that a lot more people want candidate A over candidate B.  Besides, the people in the room represent only those people who had the time, transportation, or interest to go.  There are plenty more people who couldn’t or just didn’t come.  

There’s lots good about a caucus.  The chance to see and talk and debate with lots of people - some good friends, some acquaintances you haven’t seen a while, and some strangers you want to see again or not.  It’s a way to get more information about candidates, to learn why others support or don’t support different candidates.  And it’s a way to get a sense of how many people prefer this candidate over that one.  It's a lot different from making the decision alone in the voting booth.

Nowadays, science and efficiency and legal (but not scientific) precision are demanded.  The people of the media have made elections into a sport with stats that tell us precisely what the electorate wants down to two or three decimal points.  

All this comes to mind as I watch the coverage of the Iowa caucuses.  Here we have an old fashioned process that allows neighbors and friends to work out who they want to support, even with the benefits of being able to pick a second choice when it’s clear their first choice isn’t going to make it.  In the past, I’m sure, these things never had to be lunar landing precise, just good enough.  And they served a lot of social functions that individually marking a ballot in a curtained off booth doesn’t serve.  People get a better sense of what those voting for other candidates are thinking.  And they even learn that people are voting for their own preference for different reasons.

This process has been coming into conflict with the increasing demands from the politicians and the media for precision.  Iowa’s attempts to ‘bring the caucus into the 21st Century’ by using an app, just didn’t work out.  And the candidates and the media, who need the certainty of precise numbers, were left to run off to New Hampshire without the resolution they needed as quickly as they needed it.  

It makes sense for elections to be precise, and if people choose not to vote, well, that’s their choice.  (Unless it’s manufactured by removing people from the voting rolls, limiting access to the polls by having fewer polling places, or not enough workers or ballots, and other such schemes.)  But this form of caucus has served a lot of other purposes beyond getting a final precise voting count.  

And the numerical precision that the media demand, really isn’t as precise or reflective of what people want any way.  And even when nearly 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump, the technicalities of the electoral college voided all those votes.   

And the purging of voters in states like Florida and Michigan, not to mention irregularities with the unbacked up voting machines, probably were enough to fix the electoral college vote.  (Greg Palast tells us that while Trump won by 13,107 in Michigan, 449,922 voters (mostly black) had been purged from the voting list.)

I’d note that Alaska has a petition gathering signatures now that would allow for ranked-choice voting.  That is, like in a caucus, they would be able to indicate their second and third choices, so two candidates they like wouldn’t split the vote and allow one they don’t like to win.  Which is part of what’s in the caucus process.  

I think we're being way too controlled by technological demands for an artificial accuracy and for instant turnaround in the elections.  The harder to measure social and civic benefits of voting itself are ignored and sacrificed in exchange.  And the bigger issues of voter suppression and hacking voting machines are not getting the attention they should get.  Trump will win this election only with the help of foreign propaganda, voter purging, and tampering with the count of votes, both electronic and otherwise.  

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Thoughts On Morning Mueller Show

[Since these hearings began at 4:30am Alaska time, I missed the beginning, but these are my thoughts on what I did hear, listening to C-Span and monitoring the Twitter feed with the hashtag "MuellerHearings.  This is for the morning House Judiciary Committee hearings.]

The purpose of this hearing, called by the Democrats, as I understand it, was to highlight key findings from the Mueller report since so few people have read it (including both of my US Senators).  They simply wanted the chance to be able to read key parts and findings.

They were able to do that with Mueller generally affirming their statements with "if it's in the report, I stand by it" and even at times "yes."

Some  key points that were reiterated by the Democrats:

1.  No one is above the law, including the president
2.  The Mueller Report did NOT exonerate the president on obstruction of justice
3.  Sitting president can't be indicted, but an ex-president can

Mueller's rules - Mueller set one basic ground rule - he would not comment on anything that was not already stated in the report.  I'm not completely sure why.  Attorney General Barr had said that Mueller couldn't talk about other things because that would violate Executive Privilege, but that seems like a pretty broad characterization and Mueller, no longer a government employee, has more freedom to answer Congress' questions.

Nevertheless, he decided to stick to just the report and I suspect the Democratic leadership of the committee agreed because that was consistent with their intent to get key points from the report out to the public.

However, the rules at times made him look evasive - "I'm not going to answer that" - and Republican committee members emphasized that he was avoiding answering their questions.  Though he also didn't answer Democrats' questions that went beyond the text of the report.  With very few exceptions.

At one point, near the end, answering the questions of a Democratic Member of Congress, it seemed a little silly.  She was trying to get the point across that while the investigation did not indict the president because it had been determined that a sitting president could not be indicted, that the report said there were other constitutional means to address this.

Q:  What are those other processes?
A:  Not going to say.
Then she mentions impeachment as one and asks again.
A:  I think you mentioned one.
Q:  Is that impeachment?
A:  I'm not going to comment.

Was Mueller a good witness?

In terms of style, no.  He looked very tired.  He frequently asked that questions be repeated.  He spoke hesitantly, with pauses, in a less than firm voice.  A couple of tweets on that:

I think its safe to say at this point the #MuellerHearings are not living up to all the hype. As much respect as I have had over many years for Mueller, after watching him today he should not play himself in the "TV movie."
— Mountain Poet (@mtnpoet) July 24, 2019




Mueller's 75th birthday is coming up in two weeks.  I don't think that a 75 year old can't be a good witness, but I'm guessing he didn't get a lot of sleep last night. Or maybe all week.   And if he has hearing aids, he wasn't wearing them.  And being careful not to stray from his own rules kept him very cautious which appeared to make him look unsure at times.

But I'd also say that I'm a better writer than a speaker.  I too would have paused a lot and sounded hesitant in his situation as I would have  tried to come up with the most accurate answer I could.  It didn't sound like he had practiced sound bytes so he could offer quick, authoritative answers. He wasn't even that good at saying "if it's in the report, I stand by it."   I'm guessing though that had he spoken much more strongly, Republicans would have accused him of being prepped for the hearing.  (Which everyone should do anyway.)

In terms of content, depends on who was listening.    There was no new content for anyone who has read the report, or even rigorously read news coverage of the report.  But it is clear from what I saw on Twitter that Democrats heard what they wanted to hear and Republicans heard what they wanted to hear.


Republicans key points?  (Well here are a couple I remember, I know there were others.)

  • Investigation members biased against Trump
  • There was no finding of collusion
  • If there was obstruction of justice, how come you weren't fired?
  • The person who originated all this -  Misfud who told Papadopoulus about Steele dossier was not prosecuted for lying, so this is all based on nothing
  • Over broad interpretation of obstruction of justice

Rep. Louie Gohmert asked about why the members of the investigation were all Democrats who hated Trump.  Mueller responded in a rare comment beyond the report, that he never asks employees their political affiliation because they are all professionals and put their political feelings aside when working on cases.  I would point out that if no Republicans or Democrats could serve on such an investigation then we would have no investigations at all.  One tweeter said:



I'd also point out that it was a Republican Congress in 1993 that relaxed the Hatch Act which prohibited federal employees from participation in partisan politics:
In 1993, a Republican Congress substantially relaxed the Hatch Act to permit most federal employees to take an active part in partisan management and partisan political campaigns in their own free time. 
Republicans will characterize this as 'blowing up in the Democrats' face' and Democrats will say it highlighted the findings that most people haven't read.

Will it change anyone's minds?  Only those who haven't been paying attention and haven't already taken a stand.  And most of them probably weren't watching.

Friday, June 14, 2019

Going From One World To Another


We’re in the international terminal at LAX.  Before too long we walk down a corridor and through the door to the plane.  When we get out we’ll be in Lima International.  Then another door and another plane, and we’ll be in Buenos Aires.  Jets take a lot of the geography out of travel.  If we went through different doors we’d end up in Asia or Europe or Africa.  But the voyage would be similar.

When we get out of the airport we’ll be in a different world.  (Well, of course, it’s the same world, you know what I mean.).  We’ll be in a part of the world we’ve never visited.  We’re on the threshold.    Imagination and reality will soon merge.

And I checked after yesterday’s post.  Others have had the same problems I had trying to use blogger on an iPad.  So expect posts where pictures are not well integrated with the text.

Friday, April 19, 2019

"Someday, and that day may never come. . ." How To Avoid Admissible Evidence

When teaching ethics, I found this clip from The Godfather to be invaluable.





What evidence is there here of a bribe?  I'm forgiving you a debt in honor of my daughter's wedding.  Someday.  Someday in the distant future, or maybe not so distant, or maybe never at all, I may ask you to return the favor.

Imagine the Mueller investigation trying to present this transaction to the grand jury.  Well, unless there was a recording of this, there's nothing to present.  Only the evidence.  Well, this guy had a debt that was never recorded.  And . . . maybe he does this other thing for the Godfather.  Is that quid pro quo?  Or is it just a favor?  Is it a bribe?  Is it illegal?  Is it collusion?  Would a grand jury say it was beyond a reasonable doubt?

Here's a Tweet that picks up on this ambiguity.










Monday, April 15, 2019

Two Reading Tips - EPA Climate Change Report And William Barr's History Misleading Congress With A Summary

This post offers an introduction to two articles that I think are worth reading.  One is about an EPA report on economic impacts of Climate Change and how we can reduce them.  The other gives some background on William Barr and how he mischaracterized to Congress an internal Justice Department memo in 1989.

The Climate Change one isn't news to people immersed in the topic, but adds the weight of Trump's EPA giving the warning. And it's something to pass on to skeptics.   The Barr piece is important context ( that I haven't seen elsewhere)  for his summary of the Mueller Report

Part 1:  Climate Change

Even when the fire is raging and police and firefighters issue mandatory evacuation orders, there are people who refuse to leave their homes.   Climate change happens more gradually than raging wildfires, but the devastation is more extensive and the damage will continue to increase if we don't slow things down.   Here's an LA Times article* about a recent EPA report on the future economic impact of climate change and how a carbon pricing scheme could reduce the future impacts by half.
"By the end of the century, the manifold consequences of unchecked climate change will cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars per year, according to a new study by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Those costs will come in multiple forms, including water shortages, crippled infrastructure and polluted air that shortens lives, according to the study in Monday’s edition of Nature Climate Change. No part of the country will be untouched, the EPA researchers warned.
However, they also found that cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and proactively adapting to a warming world, would prevent a lot of the damage, reducing the annual economic toll in some sectors by more than half."
This is from the Trump administration's EPA!!!!!  (Do I need more than the exclamation points, each of which represent another outrageous decision by the EPA to loosen standards that help individual companies and compromise the future for the rest of us?)


Who could sit around, unconcerned about climate change?  I ask that question daily.  Here's my current version of the answer:

  • people who don't know - they only know what's on the news and the media's 'balanced' coverage which gives the 1% deniers equal time with the 99% of scientists who know that climate change is real, gives them a false sense that it's still up for debate
  • people who have a vested interest in not knowing - they have corporations or jobs or investments in those corporations that are maintaining their current lifestyle  (this includes politicians who get significant funding from those oil and coal interests)
  • people who don't care - they think that they will be gone before the real impacts hit and they don't have kids or grandkids who will be affected; or they, for whatever reasons, can't concern themselves with the fate of others

I'm convinced that Climate Change is the most serious challenge to human existence (both in terms of surviving, and for those who survive, living in a world with a regular life with access to food, housing,  and safety.)   That's why I belong to Citizens Climate Lobby and why our local chapter was pleased that we got the Anchorage Assembly to pass a resolution endorsing the current Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.  It's true, the Assembly's resolution, by itself, does little.  But as part of the CCL's webpage of all the other endorsers, it's like a signature on a petition with many, many others.  It's telling legislators who are concerned about the politics of Climate Change, that there are many people and organizations out there that have their backs.

In any case, I'd recommend reading the LA Times article so when you talk to deniers or avoiders you have data to push them closer to understanding why we can't dawdle on this.

*Note:  There are two LA Times articles.  One was a last week in something called LA Times Science Now and it includes a useful chart.  The other is a shortened version in today's regular LA Times.

As if that weren't enough for one post, here's another piece to help people understand William Barr and his history of writing summaries for Congress.


2.  William Barr's Past Summarizing For Congress

Just Security  has an article on a 1989 situation where then Attorney General William Barr misled Congress with a summary of a Justice Department document that, when finally made public, showed Barr's deception. An excerpt:
"Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” Sound familiar? In March 2019, when Attorney General Barr was handed Robert Mueller’s final report, he wrote that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the special counsel’s report for the public.
When Barr withheld the full OLC opinion in 1989 and said to trust his summary of the principal conclusions, Yale law school professor Harold Koh wrote that Barr’s position was “particularly egregious.” Congress also had no appetite for Barr’s stance, and eventually issued a subpoena to successfully wrench the full OLC opinion out of the Department.
What’s different from that struggle and the current struggle over the Mueller report is that we know how the one in 1989 eventually turned out."

It got Barr off the hook in the short term and he was no longer Attorney General when it was finally made public.  My experience is that people tend to use the same strategies that served them in the past.  If Barr can keep the Mueller Report hidden until after the 2020 election, he'll have done his job.  Compare this good-old-boys-protecting-their-own behavior with the tell-it-like-it-is language of people like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!

We need to see the Mueller Report!  

Remember, you're not helpless.  You have power.  You can let your Congressional Rep and your Senators see these documents and let them know how you feel.  No, your one contact (phone, email, or mail) won't change things, but along with thousands of others, it will.  (The links help you connect with your members of Congress.)



Sunday, September 09, 2018

How Did Chagrin Falls Get Its Name?

A blog visitor from Chagrin Falls, Ohio looked at the post  What Do I Know?: Horsetail: One Person's Weed is Another Person's Scouring Pa.  I couldn't help thinking, "How did it get named Chagrin?" So I looked up Chagrin Falls and a Wikipedia article told me about the Chagrin River - and has beautiful pictures.  But it didn't really tell me about the name.  That I found at a blog -Midwest Guest - (whose last post was November 2017), which had a post that addressed my question.  The blogger stopped at the sign because
"The sign immediately sparked my curiosity. I love waterfalls, but more importantly in this case, I remembered Chagrin Falls as the title of a tune by Canadian rockers, The Tragically Hip. I couldn’t help turning off onto the side road where the arrow pointed me to see the infamous Chagrin Falls."
That's something I would do.  And the first thing that came to mind was going to  see Wichata Falls, because of Pat Metheny's "As Wichata Falls, So Falls Wichtata Falls." (A great, great piece of music.)  But I've never seen a sign for Wichita Falls. Later in the post, she* tells us about the name.
"The historical marker at the falls says the Chagrin River drew its name from a French trader named Francois Seguin, who traded with Native Americans in northeast Ohio during the mid-1700s. The Chagrin Falls Historical Society offers a couple of other possible explanations for the name, but says the most accepted story is that the name represents a corrupted and Americanized version of trader Seguin’s name."
Here's the Pat Metheny piece.  I remember exactly where I was when I first heard it (though not exactly what year).  Just leave it on in the background.  It goes on and on.  Good speakers help with this one.





 You can go to the Midwest Guest blog to hear Chagrin Falls.

I tried to leave a comment  at Midwest Guest to thank the blogger, but comments are closed on that blog.  So I have to do it here.  Thanks!  We share the same sort of curiosity it seems.

*I first wrote 'he', not because I default to he, but because I somehow felt it was a he.  But I decided I should check and it turns out - from what I could tell - that the blogger is a she.  I love to have my assumptions proven wrong.  It makes me more careful about making assumptions.

And speaking of assumptions, Wichita Falls is NOT in Kansas.  It's in Texas.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Do You Really Know What A Peanut Looks Like?

Take out a piece of paper and a pencil.

Yeah, go ahead and do it.

Ready?

Now, draw a peanut (the outside of an intact peanut shell).  Make it three or four times real size.

First draw the outline.

As you do this, draw the two ends.

Next draw the patterns that connect  the two ends.

There are things we see everyday without really seeing them.  When my granddaughter was here we looked at the peanut shells (she likes breaking the shells and eating the insides just as much as I do. But she takes off the skins first and I'm not so picky.)

Someone once said that once you 'know' what something is, you stop paying attention to it.  But there is always more to see, feel, hear, smell.  I once had a teacher who changed my life by saying "Intelligent people are never bored."  I eventually came to understand that meant that there was always something to observe, to think about, to consider.

I've taken some pictures of peanuts.  Tomorrow or the next day I'll put them up.  But meanwhile, draw your own peanuts to see what you already know.  Then go find some peanuts and then make new drawings.

Barbara, put your drawings up on your blog, ok. Your first 'blind' peanuts and then your observed peanuts.  You draw so beautifully.  (There are two artists named Barbara who drop by here now and then.  One's in Canada.  Maybe you can email me your pictures and I can add them.  And anyone else is, of course, welcome to do the same.)

Monday, November 20, 2017

Dear Rep. Chenault: An Open Letter In Response To Your Commentary On Sexual Assault Of Women

Dear Representative Chenault, 

I read your commentary in the ADN  in which you said you'd raised four young women and you'd supported women's issues as a legislator, but you had had no clue how pervasive abuse was.  
"Yet until now nothing, absolutely nothing, has made me understand the prevalence of sexual abuse and the dehumanizing behavior that women routinely face. In the wake of this scandal, I now see and understand the magnitude of this problem and how women have been taken advantage of, exploited and shamed with little if any consequence to the men taking these unwanted liberties. 
Frankly, I am saddened and shocked that a country as enlightened and great as ours would tolerate and show such indifference to this cultural abhorrence.
As a father and a legislator, I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced. I now understand that this issue that women have lived with is of epidemic proportion. Society has too long tolerated this behavior. This is unacceptable and must change.”
First, I want to thank you for writing this.  So thank you.  

But I want to push you a little further.  And I do this hesitantly.  You’ve done a pretty big thing and you deserve lots of praise for it.  What follows is not criticism, though it may feel like it, but rather strong encouragement to take another few steps in the same direction.  

Here's an overview of my basic points.   
  1. What you did by publishing that commentary, was a big deal that doesn’t happen often to adults.   You thought you understood the topic of sexual abuse and harassment and now you realize you were missing a big part of it.  You’ve made an adjustment to your world view. 
  2. When that happens, some people stop there and close down again.  Others continue to grow.  They ask, “If I missed that, what else am I missing?”  I want to encourage you to ask that question.
  3. This whole process could be bigger than just the issue of sexual assault and discrimination.  It could expand to other issues.  It could also expand to how the legislature works, how legislators regard issues and treat each other.
  4. You aren’t just anybody.  You have been Speaker of the Alaska House and are now the Minority Leader.  What you think and do is not just about you personally.  It affects everyone in the state and beyond.  If your world views are accurate, you can do great good.  If they aren't, you can do a lot of harm.  It’s critical that I take advantage of your commentary to reach out to you and encourage you to keep expanding your world view.

So I’m aiming big.  I do so at the risk of offending you by saying you could do more than you have.  I hope you can listen and accept my assurance that my intentions are the best.  


Part 1:  On the issue of sexual assault, rape, and the barriers women face.  

  1. Your commentary is a big deal.  You’ve not only said how important this is, but more significantly, you’ve opened yourself up by revealing that there was an important public policy area where you had missed something critical. Even though Alaska is at or near the top in bad domestic violence and rape stats.  You’ve exposed a weakness publicly.  And I want to strongly applaud you for that.  And I go on in this letter with trepidation, because I don’t want you to think,  “Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.”  I want you to keep growing in your awareness.  So I continue.
  2. In addition to the #metoo hashtag, there is also an #ihave hashtag where men talk about how they contributed to perpetuating the problem.  They go beyond saying, “This is bad” and after self-reflection, talk about how they have contributed to the situation.  Most men haven’t physically assaulted women, but they probably have passively stood by when other men acted badly toward or talked badly about women.  They may not have paid as much attention to women in meetings as they did men.  Or interrupted them more than they interrupted men.  They may not have questioned policies that made it harder for women to advance or that kept pay for women lower than that for men.  
  3. In your commentary, you acknowledged the problem, but you didn’t acknowledge your contribution to the problem through action or inaction.  In your position as Speaker, you had considerable power.  Just by not making this a higher priority, you allowed this to continue.  I have no idea how you treat women in the legislature.  I have no idea of what conversations you took part in.  But I have to assume in the legislature, dominated by men who are attracted to power, there must have been testosterone tinged conversations where women were discussed as objects, where specific women’s body parts were discussed.  Did you think about your daughters in those situations and protest?  Did you chastise the offenders?  You haven’t discussed that.  If you stayed silent, like most men do in those situations, you helped support the abuse.  
  4. There is one thing that you did that is on the record - you were an honorary co-chair of the Alaska Donald Trump campaign.  That announcement was in May 2016.  I can find nothing via google that says you protested his pussy grabbing comments in October 2016.  Perhaps you did and I missed it.  If you didn’t publicly denounce those comments, particularly since you had publicly endorsed him, you were part of the problem.  
  5. I get that your view of the world has been shaped by your party and that loyalty is a key plank of the Republican party rules.  Your party severely punishes people who do not vote for the budget the party endorses.  But if you are going to actually do something about sexual abuse, you need to take a step beyond acknowledging its existence,  and acknowledge your part in the system that allows it.  I’d point out here that the kinds of pressures on you to lie low in these situations, are the same kinds of pressures on women to not report abuse.  Fear of losing job opportunities, income, social status.  It’s easier to say nothing and not rock the boat.  This code of silence is what keeps this sort of thing going. 
  6. I’d also like to encourage you to think bigger when it comes to the legislative committee you propose in your commentary.  You write, 
“I will be sitting down with my colleagues in the Legislature and explaining that we need to provide awareness and sensitivity training and that we should have a zero-tolerance policy for such behavior.”

  • This goes way beyond awareness training.  This is a structural issue.  
  • What are the systemic pressures that keep legislators from criticizing their own party’s rules and procedures?  
  • What are the economic and political pressures on legislators to vote a certain way?  
  • Why do women get paid less than men?  
  • How do organizations allow for women to take time to have and raise babies without career penalties?  

This is more than individual decisions by individual men.

What does zero-tolerance mean here?  I know you had limited space, but I’d point out that the legislature has - both in Alaska and the Congress - often exempted themselves from rules they apply to others.  It’s hard for legislators to police themselves.  The California legislature is setting up an autonomous body to look into sexual harassment and assault complaints.  I’d just like you to think bigger here than personal restraint.  It takes structural change to have an impact.  

Part 2:  "What other gaps are there and how can I work on them?"

You’ve significantly adjusted a part of your world view.  The logical next step is to ask:  “If I missed this, what else am I missing?”  It may be logical, but it’s emotionally difficult.  What you’ve done already is emotionally a big deal.  For some it’s scary and far enough.  Even too far.  But for others, it’s a chance to expand and grow as a human being.  I’m hoping you’re ready for that second option.  To get there, I’d ask you to reflect on these questions:

1.  Why didn’t you see this before?  
2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?

Which I hope leads you to ask

3.  What else am I missing? and
4.   How can I learn from questions 1 and 2 that will help me with questions 3?

So let’s look at these questions in more detail.


1.  Why didn’t I see this before?

Confirmation bias is a theory that says people accept facts and arguments that support their beliefs and dismiss those that conflict with their beliefs and vested interests.   

You had a vested interest in seeing this, namely  your four daughters whose lives and careers are threatened by the sexist acts of individuals and the stacked system that gives men advantages over women.  

On the other hand, you probably have a strong belief in the fairness of the American system and a belief in the work ethic, that if you work hard you will get ahead.  Most successful men do.  It explains that we are successful because we worked hard and blinds us to the fact that there are barriers to success we don't face, but that other hard workers do - like women and people of color who work just as hard, but don’t succeed as much. That belief makes it easier to dismiss claims by women and others that the system isn't fair.

I’m just speculating here since I don’t know the reasons in your particular case.  You have to think these through yourself.  My thoughts are just an example.

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?
You write, “I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced.”  But the only clue in your commentary about why you changed is this line:
“The names I see coming forward on Facebook are people we know — our neighbors, relatives and friends, and not just movie stars and Hollywood celebrities.”
I take from this that by seeing names of people you personally know who have been sexually abused, this became personal.   This issue now was directly connected to you.  I even wonder if one or more of your daughters sat you down and explained things.  That has the biggest impact on fathers.  And you are right not to identify people any more specifically than you did.  It’s their jobs to tell their stories, not ours.  

3.  What else am I missing?
Sexual assault against women is an issue you have a personal stake in because you have four daughters.  Yet you missed it. “I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced.”
So now is a perfect time to ask, what else am I missing?  Particularly in those areas where I have a vested interest in NOT seeing things?  
This is the hard part.  Where do you start?  Point 4 addresses that.

4.  How can I learn from questions 1 and 2 that will help me with question 3?

I’ve speculated about possible answers to questions 1 and 2, but you have to do some serious self reflecting to figure out the specific reasons that actually apply to you. 

1.   What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?  
It’s hard to know what you don’t know.  The first step is to acknowledge that there is a lot you don’t know.  The older we get, the less often we think about this.  The more successful we are, the more we think we know everything.  After all, if we didn’t, how did we succeed?  We just have to walk into any library or bookstore to understand how much we still have to learn.  
Right now, you have stumbled upon a gap in your knowledge, so you recognize that you don’t know everything.  I’ve pointed out that vested interests and entrenched beliefs play a role in preventing us from seeing things that might alter our world views.  
Step one: try to articulate your world view.  What do you believe about how the world works?  Why some people do well and others don’t?  Why men occupy most positions of power in the US?   What do you believe about what’s right and wrong, good and bad?  

Few people ever do this, so they don’t really know what they believe in detail.  Just in generalities.  When you write it down, you start to see gaps.

Step two:  Identify how you know each point in your world view.  How did you learn it?  Did you just accept what authority figures told you or did you come up with it on your own?  How did you test it?  What proof do you have that it’s true?  

This is hard stuff, but again, if you do it seriously, it will lead to more questions than answers.  When we have questions, we are open to new information.

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen before?
You suggest in your commentary that it was when you found out that sexual assault and rape happened to women you knew.  Before that, it was others - celebrities you didn’t know.  
Step one:  Make a list of the people who influence your world view most.  As adults, most of us hang out with people who think like we do.  It’s comfortable.  It reinforces our sense that we are right about things.  But it also causes us to be blind to what’s wrong with our facts and our logic.
Step two: Rank the list by who thinks most like you and who thinks least like you.  Which of these people do you tolerate because they are on your team, but have troublesome behaviors?  Who do you admire most?  Why? Is it because they are powerful, because they’re good, because they  are smart, because they win?  Because they listen?
Step three:  Open up authentic conversations with people you know who do NOT agree with your world view.  Ask them about their world view and why they believe it.  Listen.  Take notes.  Be humble.  Be respectful.  Your Democratic colleagues might be a good place to start.  You spend a lot of time together and there must be some that you get along with on a personal level, even though you disagree on policy issues.  Invite some to one-on-one discussions, over lunch, on a walk, playing golf, or whatever comfortable setting works for you.  

Part 3: The Conclusions

I know this is a long letter. The issues are complex and it's necessary to get detailed.   No one pays me to do things like this.  Do I have an agenda?  Yes, better civic discourse and better public administration and more equal treatment of all people.   I taught public administration at UAA for 30 years and retired as professor emeritus.  It was my job to work with my students - mostly public servants - and get them to think about things like this, to see the world differently on graduation than they did when they started.  

I hope you take this letter seriously and understand my intent is a better place for Alaskans to live. I believe that your awakening on this one issue, could lead to awakenings on other issues.  

In Congress now, as well as in the Alaska legislature, things have become a highly competitive game - the object is to win, to beat the opponent.  Positions are frozen and any softening by anyone is seen, at best, as weakness and, at worst, as treason.  

The pressures on individual legislators to conform to their party line is not different from the pressure on women to stay quiet about sexual assault.  They face lots of negative consequences if they speak up.  That’s the structural reality that women face and that all of us face when we feel a need to challenge the status quo, to take on powerful people. 

But all the legislators are in Juneau because they believe they are doing the right thing as best they can.  I’m hoping that you can build on your insights on sexual assault and be a leader in breaking the logjam, in brokering peace between the parties and the individual members, and finally to help lead to policies and legislation that will take this state where we need to go.    

Your commentary convinces me you are serious about this issue.  You’ve stuck your neck out and my intent here is not to cut it off, but to push you further in the direction that will help you be successful in this and in other issues. 

Sincerely, 


Steven Aufrecht



[I sent a copy of this to Rep. Chenault last Wednesday and asked him to correct any errors of fact or challenge any assumptions I'd made that he disagreed with.  I said I would post this on Monday (today).  I haven't heard anything back from him.]