Julie & Julia is a Blogging Movie

I almost didn't go. Listening to Julia Child on television was like listening to fingernails on the blackboard for me. Fortunately, Meryl Streep's version of Julia Child didn't quite capture her voice.

I thought it was going to be a movie about cooking, but it was really (you know I almost never say what things are 'really' because I know we each take our own meaning from things, but in this case it really - tongue firmly in cheek -) is about blogging. This is the first mainstream Hollywood movie that I recall that is about a blogger blogging from the beginning to the end. (OK, I know people will suggest three or four others. Sleepless in Seattle [You've Got Mail, thanks SCWG] was about AOL mail. And email has played a role in a lot of movies. But blogging being a central activity?)

I did know about the blog, and I even visited it a couple of times, but I didn't think the movie would spend as much time on her blogging as it did on her cooking. And it resonated here - especially when her husband told her she was way more wrapped up in the blog and than in him. J and I both laughed. That kind of laugh where hers means 'gotcha' and mine means 'guilty.'

Damn, she worked a full time job, took the subway home, shopped for dinner, cooked one, two, or three of Julia Child's recipes, blogged, and started over again the next day. Ahh, to be young again.

Bloggers out there, go see this movie - with your spouse or significant other. Eat before you go though.

Sometime Soon

[UPDATE August 23, 2009: There was a winner who got to the site at 6:04pm tonight. He's identified himself and when I get permissions, I'll announce more. We also have to figure out an appropriate prize. Thanks to all who have moved the numbers up.]

Visitor number 123,456 will visit this site. It could be you. I have a prize for you if you are that visitor. But you have to identify yourself. The sitemeter number is in the right hand column after "About Me" and before "Labels." I can't tell your email address, so you'll have to email me to claim your prize.

If the 123,456th visitor isn't identifiable, the closest (to 123,456) identifiable visitor will win. So even if your close, keep track of your number and
email me.

What's the prize? Depends on who you are and where you are. You'll have to tell me a little about yourself so I can figure out something from here you might like.

Oh yes, the last time, some people said they tried to win by coming back to the site over and over. But as I understand it, sitemeter doesn't record you if you come back from the same isp within a short time period. I'm not trying to boost hits, just to note a milestone of sorts.

See more at the top of the right column.

Phoebe Greenough and Breaking Ground at Out North

We went to Out North last night to see dancers. The blurb said

Breaking Ground sprung up during a dinner conversation between Becky, Therese and I. [It hurts to write that on my blog - it should be "between Becky, Therese and me." Maybe I'll explain why in another post one day. In the meantime you can go to the link to find out why.] Our goal was to find a way to bring together artists and dancers in the community and give them the opportunity to produce and try out new ideas...

We knew that things might be a little crowded because of all the cars parked on the street and we were early even. I'd read that there would be about 10 five minute pieces by different people. So, the cars might just be those of all the performers.

There was also an art exhibit in the gallery, so we looked around.



While I wasn't excited about everything, there were some pieces - and parts of pieces - that felt good on my eyes.


When we went into the theater it was packed and we got seats way in back. Good strategy - lots of local performers means lots of friends and family who come to see them. Enough to fill up a small theater.

"Breaking Ground" means doing new stuff, so I was expecting to see something new. Maybe it meant new for the dancers rather than for Anchorage or for dancing. At least that went through my mind for the first couple of dancers. This caused me to think about how one should evaluate dancing, especially ground breaking dancing. (One could debate whether we should evaluate at all, but that too is a different post. I would note that someone this week mentioned a workshop she attended on non-violent communication which has as a main starting point, getting rid of judgmental language. When I read the book, I'll do more on that.)

Picture taking was specifically banned during the performances so you get after-dance pictures here. In any case, as I watched the dancing, I thought about what would be 'good' in this case. Some of the dancers were pretty young and this is Anchorage, not New York City. I came up with two factors - was the dancing 'good' and was it 'new'? What's good dancing? For me, the dancer is dancing, not performing. The dancer is moving naturally, is not thinking ('ok, now step to the left and ready for the next leap"), but just flows naturally. The body has to be able to move right to the music. I forget where I am and just enjoy.

What's 'new'? Not being a dance expert who keeps up with the latest trends, I guess I can only judge what's new for me. And it seems to me that while there are an infinite number of moves human bodies can probably combine into a piece, coming up with something that no dancer has ever done before (and should do) is probably not easy.

So I was ready to settle for 'good' and not worry about 'new'. I liked 'ChitChat' by Michelle "Shimmy Shoes" Steffens because it broke from what I'd call the ice skating routine type dancing to music of the first pieces. She started out seated, tying her shoes, then tapped while sitting, got up and tapped around. The only music was her shoes until she got the audience involved in a routine of foot tapping, finger snapping, more tapping, and two claps. It was different and it involved the audience actively in the dance. I liked it. J wasn't moved by it though. And she knows a lot more about dancing than I do.



But things changed radically when Krista Katalenich and Felix Bambury Webbe took the stage. Forget all the criteria - you know good dancing when you see it. They were there and I just enjoyed how they moved alone and then came together and then alone. It worked. They were somewhere else with the music, not on stage in front of an audience. We got to talk to them a bit afterward. They live in Fairbanks. Felix, who's from Cuba, has been there for two years and teaches Afro-Cuban (I think that's what he said) dancing. Krista is a student at UAF and at Felix's dance school.

The last piece was eleven dancers swinging to Swingset by Jourrasic 5. It was an ambitious piece with couples dancing, splitting, regrouping, moving here and there across the stage, and with choreographer and dancer Rick Ruiz lip-synching.
You really should go to the video. The cool thing is that what they did on stage was way better than what happens in the video. Rick is in the picture with the other 'director' of the piece - Dorthy Fredenberg. The group will be performing at the State Fair and there's something else coming up in Anchorage, but I forgot what. Maybe Rick will tell us in a comment. Below he's telling us how the idea for the choreography came to him.



The group is called Swingset Hooligans.

Blog Spammers

'Kevin' sends spam comments from Taiwan in Chinese regularly - they are filled with links to commercial sites. As soon as I get them - I get comments by email - I go to the post and delete them. Most of Kevin's comments are on old posts, that most readers won't ever see, and if I weren't getting email copies, I wouldn't notice either.

I guess that people are paid to go to blogs and post comments. I'm assuming they haven't found a way to by-pass the captcha coding, so they have to do it by hand. It's like a bee that regularly flies into your house and you have to shoo it away.

This week I got some new spammers. 'Britney' sent about six comments all with links to payday loan sites. 'Suzi' showed up yesterday with a similar modus operandi. There's a short and vaguely relevant comment that is applicable to most any blog post

Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics...... nice job keep it up !!

and then below her signature there's a link to some commercial site. Just now it was to "buy term papers."

I've checked blogger forums and it appears you can't block individual ip addresses. You either block everyone or take them down after the fact.

If anyone reading this knows how I can block these, let me know.

Hatchery Salmon, Farmed Salmon, and Wild Salmon

I was taken aback today when I read this in a letter from a JC in the Autumn 2009 edition of USC Trojan Family Magazine (As I write this, the link still has the Summer 2009 edition as the latest one):

Thank you for explaining that "wild caught" Alaska salmon are really farmed! I was "tricked" by advertising!

I hadn't read the original article in the Summer edition so I went to see what had been written that elicited this response. In an article called "Consider the Oyster" I found the passage that sparked the comment above:

He also retains mixed feelings about hatcheries, which are far more common than people realize. About half of Alaska’s “wild” salmon come from hatcheries, he says.

Fish from hatcheries do not breed with wild fish. But they do compete with them for food. And hatcheries can produce lots and lots of hungry salmon.

Ironically, the very fish that were supposed to save wild salmon runs may be contributing to their demise.

“They could be constantly facing this competition against these hatchery fish,” Hedgecock says. “Maybe they’d have a better chance of surviving if they didn’t have to compete.”

He would prefer to see more emphasis on the harder approach to conservation: fixing and protecting the salmon’s native habitat.

To use a drinking-water analogy, hatcheries are like an extra shot of chlorine: easy, fast and cheaper for a city than making sure it has great water to start with.

“By the time you get to a hatchery, you’re desperate,” Hedgecock says.

Is it true that half the Alaska salmon are hatchery salmon? The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) website has a link to a PDF file of the Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2008 Annual Report.

In the abstract is says:

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game oversees and regulates all state and private sector salmon enhancement and rehabilitation projects. Protection of Alaska’s natural salmon stocks requires stringent permitting processes. Geneticists, pathologists, and biologists review all projects prior to the issuance of a permit to operate a salmon ranching facility, transfer eggs or fish, or release any fish into Alaska waters. Pathology, genetic, coded wire tag, and otolith processing laboratories are maintained to provide both diagnostic information to Alaska Department of Fish and Game fishery managers, and inseason and technical expertise to the private sector.

Hatchery operators collected over 1.6 billion salmon eggs and released over 1.4 billion juvenile fish. An estimated 60 million adult salmon of hatchery origin returned. The preliminary total statewide commercial salmon harvest was 146 million fish. There were approximately 133 million salmon harvested in the common property commercial fishery, and an estimated 45 million, or 34%, were produced by the Alaska salmon enhancement program. Enhanced salmon provided an estimated $110 million or 29% of the exvessel value of the statewide common property commercial harvest. The ocean ranching program employs hundreds of Alaskans in seasonal and fulltime jobs. It is considered the largest agricultural industry in Alaska. [emphasis added]

34% is not quite "almost half" but it is a big chunk.

I thought I knew the difference between hatchery fish and farmed fish, but I decided to check on that too.

From Long Live the Kings:

Declines in wild populations gave rise to hatcheries in the Northwest beginning more than 100 years ago. Built primarily to produce fish for harvest, hatcheries compensate for freshwater habitat loss by increasing the survival of salmon through the early stages of their life cycle, and by receiving returning adults. Hatcheries now provide 70 percent of the salmon caught in Puget Sound—but they have also been identified as a contributor to the decline of wild populations. Comprehensive hatchery reform, however, aims to revolutionize how hatcheries are managed so they can help recover threatened and endangered wild populations and support sustainable fisheries. [emphasis added]

Farmed salmon are the livestock of the salmon world. Like hatchery fish, they are born and spend the early stages of their life cycle in human hands. While hatchery fish are then released to spend the majority of their life in the wild, farmed salmon are fed and matured into adults in large saltwater enclosures, usually along marine shorelines, before being harvested as food. The rapid growth in the farmed salmon industry in the last two decades has raised new questions about the environmental, social, and economic effects of salmon farms.

So, JC is wrong when she says 'wild caught' salmon are farmed. Alaska salmon are not farm salmon as we all knew.

But 34% of the (presumably 2007) Alaska salmon harvest were hatchery fish. The State website adds the term "ocean ranching." The USC article says that hatchery salmon don't breed with wild salmon - which suggests to me hatchery salmon are not truly wild salmon, even if they have a wild experience for part of their lives. And they compete with wild salmon for food. And the USC article further suggests that the survival odds of wild salmon would be greater if there were not hatchery salmon. But what about the survival rate of Alaska fisherman? And big fishing companies? Is it ok to cause the extinction of wild salmon species so humans can eat? My initial reaction would be - perhaps if that was the only thing that prevented humans from starving. But humans have other options. The salmon don't.

I have a different sense of the meaning of the words 'wild Alaskan Salmon" now. There's a 1/3 chance they are hatchery fish. And those hatchery fish may be endangering wild salmon in the competition for the food.

50th Anniversary of Muddling Through by Lindblom

I've been putting up pictures instead of writing about things like Mayor Sullivan's veto of the ordinance to add gays and lesbians et al to the Anchorage anti-discrimination ordinance or about health care. It's not because I haven't been thinking about both, but I have been waiting to say something that adds to the discussion.

We got up at 5 am today to get DZ to the airport, so my head isn't totally clear (well, that implies that it would be otherwise and I don't want to give any false impressions), so let me offer one short perspective on the health care issue.

Back in 1959 - I guess that makes this the 50th Anniversary - Professor Charles Lindblom of Yale published an article that is still in the reading lists of public administration, public policy, and political science students. It was titled, "The Science of Muddling Through". (The link will only get you the first page at JStor. If you have access to a university library system, you ought to be able to get it all free. If not, check with your local library to see if they can get it for you. Alaskans should be able to get it through SLED.)

In this article, Lindblom argued that the traditional way of thinking about policy - rationally setting up a goal and then a plan to reach that goal - was nice theoretically, but that Congress didn't work that way.

Instead, changes were made incrementally, because Congress was made up of a 100 Senators and 400 and something Congress members who all had a vote, didn't agree on much, and had local constituents to please. Therefore, if you wanted people to agree on the goal, nothing would ever be accomplished.

But, he said, they could and do agree on the means through which each committee member can fulfill their individual goals.

He called the first method - the one in the academic journals - The Rational Comprehensive method, or Root method. Root, because you started all the way from the roots to build something completely new.

He called his model,

"I propose in this paper to clarfiy and formalize the second method, much neglected in the literature. This might be described as the method of successive limited comparisons." (p. 199*)

He also called this the Branch method, because you aren't going all the way back to the roots. You work from the existing system and just do some work with the branches.

[Double click to enlarge]

So, basically, he's saying that (and I'm reducing his points to fewer ones, so the numbers don't match the ones in the chart.)

1. The root method assumes that first you agree on goals, then design the means to meet those goals. But the branch method says that the means (policies to achieve goals) and ends (the goals) are intertwined and can't be easily separated and articulated that way. (1 and 2 in the chart)

2. The test of a good policy isn't whether it meets the objectives (since they were never agreed on) but whether there is agreement on the policy. (3 on his chart) One of his 1959 examples was that the agreement in Congress to extend old age insurance

. . .stems from liberal desires to strengthen the welfare programs of the Federal Government and from conservative desires to reduce union demands for private pension plans. (p. 202)

A different example of agreeing on the means (but not goals) might be a Senate committee agreeing to support a new ship for the Navy. One senator wants to have parts for the ship built in his state. Another will vote for it if it includes the Navy giving wetlands it owns for conservation. Another wants minority businesses to get at least 10% of the contracts. A couple actually think the ship is needed for national defense. And perhaps another will vote for it if the son of a particular constituent gets into the Naval Academy. They all have different goals, but they agree on the means (the ship) to their separate goals.

3. While the Root ideal is for comprehensive examination of the new policy, the Branch reality is acceptance of the basic existing system and just reviewing the additional incremental changes. This is the "successive limited comparisons" notion.
Complete analysis is not humanly possible and so simplification needs to be achieved.

First, it is achieved through limitation of policy comparisons to those policies that differ in relatively small degree from policies presently in effect. . .(p. 203)
The second method of simplification of analysis is the practice of ignoring important possible consequences of possible polices, as well as the values attached to the neglected consequences. (p. 204)

Lindblom recognized that ignoring the consequences may sound shocking but argues that in fact it may lead to better policy than "through futile attempts to achieve a comprehensiveness beyond human capacity." (p 204)

4. The root model relies on theory while the branch method reduces the reliance on theory through successive comparisons. Lindblom argues that our knowledge in the social sciences is, at best, limited. We can make practical comparisons of the consequences of incremental policy changes - we can look at how some past programs worked or didn't, for example - without necessarily having a strong theory.


A lot has happened in 50 years, including increasingly sophisticated policy analysis techniques. Furthermore, there are some assumptions in Lindblom's model here that I have problems with. As a descriptive model - describing what is actually happening - I think he did a good job. Adopting it prescriptively - saying this was a good way to go - was probably under[over]-ambitious. And Lindblom himself got tired of people not getting past this early piece of his and seeing that he'd done more than that in later years.

I'd note that as a doctoral student I took an intensive -week class on the policy making process with Professor Lindblom. He did acknowledge that individual policy makers may use a more rational comprehensive model in their individual strategies to achieve their own goals. But when power is dispersed, the agreement on goals becomes very difficult.

He, at that time, tended to believe that while it wasn't perfect, it was as good as we can get. I agree that having representatives of a cross section of the US population making decisions is definitely better than trusting a single decision maker to make the best decisions for us all. But I also think there are better ways than we have for funding and communicating with our elected officials. One of the problems I had then and have now, is that a major goal of members of Congress is to get re-elected. This means they are always in search of money and thus they are always in debt to large donors and key supporters.


I started this intending to use it to comment on Obama's health care proposals. I'm not sure it tells us a lot beyond the fact that Obama's health care program is hardly a minor incremental change and that makes it much harder to get through. People can legitimately question whether it will work. They won't be making minor moves toward some new program. It will be big time. On the other hand, incremental changes on something that works so poorly for so many and costs so much isn't good policy either.

People who are getting good health care now, fear changes will hurt them. So they don't agree with Obama's goals. People who don't like Obama may oppose anything he proposes to make him look bad. And if Obama moves toward normal incremental changes, he'll lose his base which expects him to go for the gold.

But politics today are not what they were 50 years ago when Lindblom wrote the piece. We'll just have to see if Obama writes a new page in the policy making literature.

[Yeah, I know, this is a lame ending. I got up early and I can't pull it together. So if you've read this far, you'll will have to mull on it yourself - is Lindblom still relevant? If so, what can Obama do at this point? If not, what's different now?]

* I had trouble getting the article through JStor. While it shows the first page on Google, trying to get it through the library didn't work. Probably the librarian can make it work, but I have a copy of Shafritz and Hyde's Classics of Public Administration and the article is in there. So the page numbers come from there, not the original.

Harding Icefield Trail at Exit Glacier

DZ returns to Beijing today. It's hard to believe it's a month already. He's been such a pleasure to have around. He's smart, funny, never complained, always polite, willing to go along to anything and meet anyone. He's also shown me parts of Anchorage I've never tried - like the drive thru window at McDonalds. I have to say it sure is efficient and easy and the people are invariably nice.

So it's been hard keeping up with the blog. [I did add an interesting link at the end of the post on Scalia from the other day.] So here's another one mainly of pictures. This continues Monday's adventures. After the kayaking, we had lunch then went to Exit Glacier where we climbed the trail to the Harding Icefield overlook.


I know this isn't a great picture, but I saved it big and if you double click, you can see the trail, mileage, etc. I wish I'd taken the picture of the map before we started the hike. It did seem to go on and on. It's 3.9 miles up. A gain of nearly 3000 feet. But the view on top on a good day is worth it. And you get great views at 2.3 miles too.


The trail is different even from last year. Stretches that used to be mud have been replaced by what seems to be new routes with new, easier trail. Other parts just have a lot more rock steps on the same basic trail. But the rocky area with lots of marmots - I'm not sure the trail still goes that way. (We did see one marmot). Does this map reflect the improvements? I'm not sure. And there is much less snow and ice than in past years. So that's a bit disorienting too.

Here's another example of trail improvement. A lot of this was in last year. It looks natural enough and it helps prevent muddy erosion which causes hikers to make new trails to avoid the mud. This is a National Park and I believe a lot of this trail work was done by volunteers. In contrast, the Reed Lakes Trail, on State land in Hatcher Pass, is a growing disaster and the steep muddy trails eat up more and more of the vegetation each year.

Here's DZ at the point where we stopped last year. Mile 2.3.

The mountain gentian were blooming exquisitely in one short part of the hike. This one is worth enlarging for flower fans. The color and delicacy of this plant high up in really difficult conditions is amazing.

Almost at the end of the trail.

DZ said, "If there was a rainbow, it would be perfect."
Twenty minutes later it was perfect.

Finally at a point high enough to see over the top of the Harding Icefield. It goes on for 30 miles and you can see the other end from Homer.

On the way back down.

Driving home near Summit Lake. It's going on 10pm here.

After last week's ADN map of all the traffic fatalities on the Seward Highway between Anchorage and Girdwood you'd think people would start to drive better. This truck without a load passed at a reasonably safe place, but it must have been going 80 mph. Another black SUV passed us going what seemed even faster. About twenty miles later it was parked in front of flashing red and blue lights. I admit, I took pleasure in the fact that I was going to get home before he did.

About 10:30 pm. Almost home.

Resurrection Bay Kayaking

Monday we got up early and left Primrose to get to our kayaking spot. As much as I love being in a kayak, it's just so much easier, especially with guests who have never kayaked, to go to one of the kayak tour places and let them do all the prep work. I just have to show up, put on their boots, spray skirt, and life vest, climb into their kayak and paddle.


Here's DZ in his first kayak trip.



The kayak guide said this was a marbled murrelet and SEI says they are endangered:

The marbled murrelet, a small seabird which nests in the coastal, old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In North America, the birds' range stretches along the Pacific coast from the Bering Sea to central California, with the largest populations occurring in southeastern Alaska and northern British Columbia.

Their white heads make bald eagles pretty easy to spot.

We took a short break at the mouth of this creek
where the chum salmon were spawning.

If you look really closely in the lower middle to right you can see the spawning chum salmon. Or you can double click to enlarge the picture and see it better.

Unless you have binoculars, the sea otter is a brown lump
bobbing in the water and suddenly disappearing below the surface.

Scalia Puts Form Over Substance - Innocence isn't a Defense

An apparently innocent man is about to be executed. But even if he can prove his innocence, Scalia says that innocence isn't a defense (from Time):

In his dissent, Scalia wrote, "This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Basically, as I understand this, Scalia is saying that in the Supreme Court processes, innocence is not a defense against being executed.

Yes, the rules of law and the procedure, GENERALLY, need to be the way to go. This is true in all 'rational' organizations, that is, organizations based on the idea of the rule of law. The intent is to make sure that people are all treated fairly. People in the same circumstances should get the same treatment. Officials shouldn't arbitrarily decide who gets benefits and who doesn't.

But systems are just systems. When it is clear that the system has failed - a student's application was turned down because the system wasn't designed to account for her atypical situation - it's time for humans to step in, use their judgment to show that the intent of the rules is being subverted by the rules.

And when it comes to executing an innocent man, it would seem more than obvious, except to people who are so wrapped up in the process that they miss the whole purpose of the process.

Here's one overview of the whole story from Time.

[This is a post I normally would spend a lot more time on to make sure I have my facts right. But my image of Scalia is such that I believe this outrageousness and I've checked several sources (albeit briefly) that I'm just going to post.]

Update, August 20: I put the bracketed note above because I know that Scalia, however much I might disagree with him, is very smart, and that there must be more to the case. My son sent me a link to a commentary on this at Obsidian Wings by an attorney who gives more background. While he seems to support my conclusion, there is some legal precedence involved that does make it a little more complicated. Partly he's saying Scalia's view follows someone named Bator who argues that guilt and innocence are ultimately unknowable and so our proxy for the truth here is the jury's verdict. But this argument was made before DNA offered us another test of truth. There's a lot more. You can read the whole analysis at the link. Here are a few quotes:

The Court’s “original habeas” jurisdiction is one such exotic source of authority. To give you an idea of just how obscure it is, the Supreme Court had not exercised its original habeas jurisdiction since 1925. You have probably heard about Supreme Court “habeas” cases, but those are all cases that were decided by a lower court and that the Supreme Court has adjudicated pursuant to its certiorari jurisdiction.

The explosion of Warren-era habeas litigation provoked several conservative critiques, including a particularly influential article by Professor Paul Bator. Bator’s position remains the modern “conservative” (or “federalist”) paradigm for habeas adjudication. Bator argued that “ultimate truth” is unknowable. What we mean by “guilty,” Bator argued, is that some quantum of reliable procedure has produced a legal determination that someone has committed a crime. Bator’s point really an epistemic one [Ah yes, the post the other day on the need to study philosophy talked about epistemology which studies 'truth' and how we know it] involving the limits of human inquiry – that the criminal justice system ensures correctness by proxy of reliable procedure.

Here’s the rub. Under that paradigm, the question of whether someone is “actually innocent” is incoherent, because it presumes a god’s-eye view of guilt that is not tethered to the judicial processes that produce that verdict. Those subscribing to Bator’s paradigm (including Scalia) argue that the freestanding innocence question is not “whether a state may constitutionally execute an offender known to be innocent,” but “whether an offender, whose guilt has been determined beyond some threshold of certainty, has a constitutional right to a federal forum to retest his conviction when guilt seems less probable.”. . .

Bator's argument has several problems. First, Bator’s critique is persuasive only within a certain band of uncertainty, and we don’t always operate in that band anymore. When the only thing that a freestanding innocence claim demanded was consideration of new (often stale) witness testimony, then one could persuasively argue that federal habeas review created incremental procedure without a corresponding incremental benefit.

That argument is dated in the era of DNA evidence. DNA evidence, while not that panacea many seem to think it is, brings us as close to “ultimate knowability” as we can come. . .

Second, one of the central but implicit conceits of the Scalia/Bator argument is that state and federal process produce equally accurate results. State postconviction review and clemency – so the argument goes – render concerns about executing innocent offenders moot. That position is virtually indefensible, especially in capital cases. We know that innocent people are convicted of crimes, both as a matter of statistical certainty and with respect to specific defendants (Timothy Cole). State judges are elected, often running with “tough on crime” platforms. Allowing a murder to go unpunished is a cardinal sin in many jurisdictions. For a murder conviction to be set aside on state postconviction review, an elected judge would have to let a convicted murderer go free. In many states, the postconviction judge reviewing the conviction is the same judge that presided over the convicting court. State court systems sometimes include separate civil and criminal supreme courts. A state criminal supreme court faces even more intense political pressure to be “tough on crime,” because criminal matters are its docket’s exclusive subject matter.

The whole discussion is at Obsidian Wings.

We just got jolted - Stronger than usual Anchorage earthquake, but no damage here

We just had two jolts. We have lots of earthquakes, but mostly we don't feel them or sort of look at each other and say, "Was that an earthquake?"

But there was not question just now. The house shook for a few seconds, then there was a second jolt.

My favorite Anchorage earthquake experience was years ago. I was in my office, on the phone to someone in Eagle River. Suddenly the caller said, "There's an earthquake." I said, "Not here." Then about 15 seconds later I felt it.

It's hard to judge the magnitude because it depends on how close, how deep, and other factors, but I'll go out on a limb and say this was over 5 on the Richter Scale.

Update 10:39: KSKA just said it was preliminarily reported as 5.15, about 30 miles from Anchorage.

Update 11:30: Here's the map and details from USGS

Details

Magnitude	5.0
Date-Time	Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 18:19:27 UTC Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 10:19:27 AM at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location	61.227°N, 150.827°W
Depth	60.9 km (37.8 miles) set by location program
Region	SOUTHERN ALASKA
Distances	21 km (13 miles) ENE (60°) from Beluga, AK 28 km (18 miles) NE (49°) from Tyonek, AK 39 km (24 miles) SSW (200°) from Susitna, AK 57 km (36 miles) W (274°) from Anchorage, AK
Location Uncertainty	Error estimate not available
Parameters	NST=068, Nph=073, Dmin=26.8 km, Rmss=0 sec, Gp= 40°, M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=2
Source	Alaska Earthquake Information Center Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Event ID	ak10005518