Thursday, August 05, 2010
Separating Private and Blogging Worlds
I tend not to drag family and friends into the blog, but sometimes it would feel almost dishonest to not mention that I'm visiting say, my mom, but I try to do it in passing. Sometimes there are milestones I really want to share with readers who know my family or friends, because it affects, to an extent, what I'm thinking and feeling. However, sometimes the person involved will say something like, "Your private and blogging lives should stay separate." So I won't mention that someone I know got approval of an important document and now moves on to a new stage in life. And I'm delighted and pleased and proud.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION"
That seems to be a major reason why US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today that Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters in November 2008 to outlaw same-sex marriages in California, is unconstitutional. I'm not an attorney and I haven't yet read all of the decision carefully, but that seems to be the underlying theme.
Most people only know about major court rulings from bumper sticker-like headlines and soundbites. The people with the loudest opinions are often people who haven’t read the court decisions. And it’s not always easy to do that. But the internet today makes finding them a cinch. Reading through them is a little harder.
So, I’m going to post some excerpts from the conclusions of law from today's ruling.
[Other sites have posted the conclusion.] Specifically where the judge goes through the Prop 8 proponents’ arguments for why the State of California had a compelling interest to ban same-sex marriage. In each case he says something like “the evidence shows beyond debate” or “These purported interests fail as a matter of law”.
There's little doubt this case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Alaska) and then to the US Supreme Court.
[Note: People daily hear terms they recognize, but have no real grasp of what they mean, like, an acre. I've made links to two terms above - US District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If you can't write down a description of, or orally explain, how they relate to each other and to the State and Federal Constitutions, you probably should stop reading this and go look them up so you understand the whole context of this.]
First, here’s the table of contents of the ruling:
The excerpts (the . . . indicate that the text continues on) are from pages 123 - 131 of the ruling. This comes after the finding of facts and at the end of the conclusions of law, just before the conclusions.
Again, this is the section where the judge analyzes each argument made by the proponents of Prop 8 for why the State of California has a compelling reason to outlaw same-sex marriage:
Finally, before going on to the conclusion, which you can read here at Henkimaa, the judge seems to make the point that you can't use personal opinions as the basis of legislation that discriminates against a class of people.
Here's how it's listed:
KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California;
MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health;
PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk- Recorder of the County of Alameda; and
DEAN C LOGAN, in hi s official capacity as Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK- SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8,
Most people only know about major court rulings from bumper sticker-like headlines and soundbites. The people with the loudest opinions are often people who haven’t read the court decisions. And it’s not always easy to do that. But the internet today makes finding them a cinch. Reading through them is a little harder.
So, I’m going to post some excerpts from the conclusions of law from today's ruling.
[Other sites have posted the conclusion.] Specifically where the judge goes through the Prop 8 proponents’ arguments for why the State of California had a compelling interest to ban same-sex marriage. In each case he says something like “the evidence shows beyond debate” or “These purported interests fail as a matter of law”.
There's little doubt this case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Alaska) and then to the US Supreme Court.
[Note: People daily hear terms they recognize, but have no real grasp of what they mean, like, an acre. I've made links to two terms above - US District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If you can't write down a description of, or orally explain, how they relate to each other and to the State and Federal Constitutions, you probably should stop reading this and go look them up so you understand the whole context of this.]
First, here’s the table of contents of the ruling:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8.............…………………...1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION..........……………. 3
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8........…………. 5
PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8.........………...... 6
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY...…10
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS...............…………………….25
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES...............……………………………....25
PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES...............…………………………....35
FINDINGS OF FACT....................…………………………………..54
THE PARTIES....................……………………………………….....54
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S
REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO
PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX……………………………....60
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS
AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX
AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS…………………………………....71
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8
ENACTEDA PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING
A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST................………….85
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...................………………………….... 109
DUE PROCESS....................………………………………….....109
EQUAL PROTECTION..................... ………………………..…117
CONCLUSION.......................… ………………………………...,. 135
REMEDIES........................... ……………………………………....136
The excerpts (the . . . indicate that the text continues on) are from pages 123 - 131 of the ruling. This comes after the finding of facts and at the end of the conclusions of law, just before the conclusions.
Again, this is the section where the judge analyzes each argument made by the proponents of Prop 8 for why the State of California has a compelling reason to outlaw same-sex marriage:
PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP
Proponents first argue that Proposition 8 is rational because it preserves: (1) “the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman”; (2) “the traditional social and legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage”; and (3) “the traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in the English language.” Doc #605 at 12-13. These interests relate to maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman for its own sake.
Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.
The evidence shows that . . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES
Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 is related to state interests in: (1) “[a]cting incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution”; (2) “[d]ecreasing the probability of weakening the institution of marriage”; (3) “[d]ecreasing the probability of adverse consequences that could result from weakening the institution of marriage”; and (4) “[d]ecreasing the probability of the potential adverse consequences of same-sex marriage.” Doc #605 at 13-14.
Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME-SEX PARENTING
Proponents’ largest group of purported state interests relates to opposite-sex parents. Proponents argue Proposition 8: 1) promotes “stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships”; (2) promotes “enduring and stable family structures for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents”; (3) increases “the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting family structures”; (4) promotes “the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological children”; (5) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents”; (6) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother”; and (7) increases “the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.” Doc #605 at 13-14.
The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF 69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents, FF 43, 46, 51. . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who disagree with allowing marriage for couples of the same sex. Proponents argue that Proposition 8: (1) preserves “the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of their own children”; and (2) accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.” Doc #605 at 14.
These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452. Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages. . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
Proponents argue that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples by: (1) “[u]sing different names for different things”; (2) “[m]aintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of different types of relationships”; (3) “[e]nsuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions”; and (4) “[c]onforming California’s definition of marriage to federal law.” Doc #605 at 14.
Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.
PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST
Finally, proponents assert that Proposition 8 advances “[a]ny other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings.” Doc #605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents, represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8. The resulting evidence shows that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally. . .
Finally, before going on to the conclusion, which you can read here at Henkimaa, the judge seems to make the point that you can't use personal opinions as the basis of legislation that discriminates against a class of people.
A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).
Here's how it's listed:
KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California;
MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health;
PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk- Recorder of the County of Alameda; and
DEAN C LOGAN, in hi s official capacity as Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK- SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8,
Defendant-Intervenors.
For My DC Readers, The Goldenberg Duo - A Musical Treat
The world works in mysterious ways* and the internet makes it seem more so. There's a concert in DC on August 8, 2010 - the 36th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation**:
This comes from The Arts@NIU (Northern Illinois University) website, which probably explains why William Goldenberg, who is a professor there, is highlighted and not his sister, who is not a professor there. So I'll highlight her here.
So, what's the mysterious way here? Well, I never heard of that website until today when someone got to my blog from that NIU post on the concert. At the very end it says:
Anyway, I'd urge my DC readers to consider attending this concert on Sunday. The Duo have a real musical connection and it should be fantastic. From the Museum's site:
*I realized as I was typing it that the opening sentence starts with a cliche, and so I thought I should at least find its origin. Googling only got me uses of it online by other people. Two quotation sites gave me:
Oh yes, one more connection. I spent two summers at NIU in DeKalb. That's where my Peace Corps training was.
William Goldenberg, Distinguished Professor of Piano at NIU, and his sister, Susan Goldenberg, violinist in the Kansas City Symphony, have performed as the Goldenberg Duo for 30 years at various universities and performing arts series. On August 8, the Duo will perform at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. as part of that institution's ongoing performing arts series.
So, what's the mysterious way here? Well, I never heard of that website until today when someone got to my blog from that NIU post on the concert. At the very end it says:
An excellent review of a 2009 concert by the Duo may be found here.Clicking on the 'here' above will get you to an April 2009 post I did of one of their Anchorage concerts. I would distinguish between an 'excellent review' and a 'positive review.' Excellent review refers to the quality of the review in my mind and while it is pretty good - mainly because of a perfect Richard Musil quote I had just read - I don't think NIU would have linked if it hadn't been positive about the music. There's also a video from my little Canon Powershot which will give you a sense of the music.
Anyway, I'd urge my DC readers to consider attending this concert on Sunday. The Duo have a real musical connection and it should be fantastic. From the Museum's site:
Steinway Series (Aug 8, 3pm)And it's free! And air conditioned.
Susan Goldenberg, violinist with the Kansas City Symphony, and William Goldenberg, distinguished professor of piano at Northern Illinois University, present an eclectic program including works by Frank Bridge, Samuel Barber, Claude Debussy, and Ludwig van Beethoven.
*I realized as I was typing it that the opening sentence starts with a cliche, and so I thought I should at least find its origin. Googling only got me uses of it online by other people. Two quotation sites gave me:
| Search Results for “World Works in Mysterious Ways” |
No documents match the query.
Methinks that 'mysterious ways' simply means 'ways we don't understand.' Probability explains a lot of 'mysterious ways' - after all, even though the odds of winning the lottery might be ten million to one, at least one person will buy a winning ticket. And the power of google increases the odds people will make obscure connections they never would have made in the past.
**I'd also note that the reason I know the exact date Nixon resigned is that my son was born two days before. So, if you know him, wish him a happy birthday Friday.
Oh yes, one more connection. I spent two summers at NIU in DeKalb. That's where my Peace Corps training was.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Best Dog Blogs Awards
I got an email forwarded from a friend. His friend's wife's blog (still with me?) was nominated for the Best Dog Blog. I guess I got it because I'm a blogger. They were asking for people to go to the site and vote for the blog.
I have mixed feelings about 'best' anything. On the one hand it gets attention to different fields - Olympics, Nobel Prizes, World Cup, Academy Awards, Spelling Bees, Miss Universe - but it also artificially creates this idea of 'best' which is pretty hard to judge in most cases, is temporary, and creates more 'losers' than winners. It encourages some people to work much harder, some to work maniacally, and yet other to cheat and take shortcuts. I don't think the dog bloggers are in the competitive class of Olympians and they do get more people to their blogs and a pat on the back.
Probably the main purpose of these things is to drum up publicity. The website that is giving out the awards says on the bottom of the page:
I've briefly looked at the Best Pet and Best Dog nominees. I surely don't have enough knowledge to vote seriously. (Of course, you can legitimately ask, after all I said, how can I think that there is such a thing as a serious vote?)
I do think the blogs do offer pet owners some useful information on a wide variety of topics from pet health, training, dealing with issues like "taking your dog to college with you." So, if you are interested, you can check them out and vote. I won't tell you which one to vote for though. The email I got said that you have to leave your email to prevent people from voting more than once, but be careful to uncheck the box that says to sign up for the newsletter if you don't want lots of email from them.
Here's the link to voting page on Dogtime.com.
I have mixed feelings about 'best' anything. On the one hand it gets attention to different fields - Olympics, Nobel Prizes, World Cup, Academy Awards, Spelling Bees, Miss Universe - but it also artificially creates this idea of 'best' which is pretty hard to judge in most cases, is temporary, and creates more 'losers' than winners. It encourages some people to work much harder, some to work maniacally, and yet other to cheat and take shortcuts. I don't think the dog bloggers are in the competitive class of Olympians and they do get more people to their blogs and a pat on the back.
Probably the main purpose of these things is to drum up publicity. The website that is giving out the awards says on the bottom of the page:
Encourage your readers, friends, family to vote for your favorites! The blogs with the most votes will win! Voting will close on August 20, 2010.Which translates into lots more hits on the site where people vote. More hits means more ad revenue. OK, I know I'm a cynic. This is starting to sound like American Idol.
I've briefly looked at the Best Pet and Best Dog nominees. I surely don't have enough knowledge to vote seriously. (Of course, you can legitimately ask, after all I said, how can I think that there is such a thing as a serious vote?)
I do think the blogs do offer pet owners some useful information on a wide variety of topics from pet health, training, dealing with issues like "taking your dog to college with you." So, if you are interested, you can check them out and vote. I won't tell you which one to vote for though. The email I got said that you have to leave your email to prevent people from voting more than once, but be careful to uncheck the box that says to sign up for the newsletter if you don't want lots of email from them.
Here's the link to voting page on Dogtime.com.
Pat Metheny on Kenny G: Follow Up
I posted Pat Metheny's comments on Kenny G here a while back. I get a lot of hits for that post and someone googled "kenny g on pat metheny's remarks.' So in the interest of fair play, I thought I'd see what, if anything, Kenny G had to say. My personal opinion is, he's probably better off not saying anything. Let his record sales do the talking. If there were to be a response, better have some other person do it.
I haven't found any comments from Kenny G. But I did find this follow up comment [it looks reasonably authentic, though I haven't analyzed it word for word to see if the style is just like the original] from Pat Metheny (and it's from way back in June) on his surprise at how his comments on a small music forum with a tiny audience got splashed across the internet. It's a bit long and could use some editing, but I think this paragraph from jazzguitar.com is the most useful:
Here is a forum that was begun by a Kenny G fan after a concert. When I copied this I hid the remarks by the Metheny fan (I've covered that already) but I mention it here so you know what they are reacting to.
SteveG
And apparently someone thinks there are enough Kenny G fans in Anchorage to bring him up to the Dena'ina Center on August 18. But $84-106? For Kenny G? I thought we were in a recession and that half of the US was in credit card debt. You think everyone buying tickets is in the black on their credit cards? No? But they can can fork over $84 to hear Kenny G. live? Scary. [I did find a discount ticket site that has tickets for $82. But really, those of you who are paying 20% interest on your credit card debt, use the money to pay off the principle, and ride your bike during the concert.]
I guess I posted the Pat Metheny piece because I had been trying to figure out why I am so negative about Kenny G. Metheny had a lot more reasons than I could ever have articulated. At least all the Kenny G fans will be off the streets for an hour or two that night. (You know I'm just teasing you. It's good that different people like different things. I'm sure there are even people I know and like who will be at that concert. Just don't tell me ok?)
I haven't found any comments from Kenny G. But I did find this follow up comment [it looks reasonably authentic, though I haven't analyzed it word for word to see if the style is just like the original] from Pat Metheny (and it's from way back in June) on his surprise at how his comments on a small music forum with a tiny audience got splashed across the internet. It's a bit long and could use some editing, but I think this paragraph from jazzguitar.com is the most useful:
One last thing - it is a little alarming to me to see that my little rant on this topic seems to have generated such a relatively huge response. it makes me feel that in this day and age, even within the "jazz community", controversy, especially PUBLIC controversy, has the chance to "win" over musical substance, even in terms of what gets discussed - people seem to absolutely love it. I have seen (and have never dug) at least one of my peers banking on this for a few years now with his public pronouncements and I have to admit that I underestimated the impact/interest that a "negative" public comment even on an obscure corner of the web can manifest. I guess I wish that the actual playing and writing could generate the kind of discussion that what was essentially an off the cuff cultural/political blurb into cyberspace seemed to. again, it seems more practicing and better music needs to be involved - gonna continue to work hard on that (finding the good notes) as a goal.I thought about just making this an update on the other post, but I suspect not too many of you were planning on revisiting that post. I'd also note that the comment above is from the year 2000, so this debate really lives on.
Here is a forum that was begun by a Kenny G fan after a concert. When I copied this I hid the remarks by the Metheny fan (I've covered that already) but I mention it here so you know what they are reacting to.
SteveG
| Newcomer |
RE: Link An amazing performance! Of course 2nd row seats in the pit helped. Great when you take advantage of presale announcements for tickets!  | ||
|
| Regular |
This guy really knows his craft! Beautiful music. | |||
|
| |||
| |||||||
| Newcomer |
Voice You are an idiot. Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but you are still an idiot. Kenny G is the best saxophonist on the planet. Period! Pat WHO? Never heard of him. Thousands of others who were at the concert would agree! MORON! | |||
|
| Hall of Famer |
While I have no "dog in the hunt" so to speak, for Catwoman to say, "Pat WHO? Never heard of him" shows her ignorance of the Jazz genre. She may be a fan of pop music, but she certainly doesn't know jazz and actually makes Matheny's point with her post. | |||
|
And apparently someone thinks there are enough Kenny G fans in Anchorage to bring him up to the Dena'ina Center on August 18. But $84-106? For Kenny G? I thought we were in a recession and that half of the US was in credit card debt. You think everyone buying tickets is in the black on their credit cards? No? But they can can fork over $84 to hear Kenny G. live? Scary. [I did find a discount ticket site that has tickets for $82. But really, those of you who are paying 20% interest on your credit card debt, use the money to pay off the principle, and ride your bike during the concert.]
I guess I posted the Pat Metheny piece because I had been trying to figure out why I am so negative about Kenny G. Metheny had a lot more reasons than I could ever have articulated. At least all the Kenny G fans will be off the streets for an hour or two that night. (You know I'm just teasing you. It's good that different people like different things. I'm sure there are even people I know and like who will be at that concert. Just don't tell me ok?)
Monday, August 02, 2010
Discussing David Copperfield in Hope
The monthly book club meeting this month was at a member's home in Hope. I only joined this group a year ago, so a relaxing weekend in Hope meant lots of time to talk and get to know more about the members I don't really know very well. It also turned out that our host's wife in in the book club that my wife has been in for several years.
They've been watching a merlin family that nested nearby this summer. We also saw a merlin last weekend in Bootlegger's Cover while on the garden tour. These are small falcons eat small rodents and J said the swallow population is gone since the merlin's moved in.
The mosquitoes weren't a problem at the house, but when we walked to the main street in the evening there were lots of mosquitoes flying over this puddle in the road. Discussing David Copperfield in the setting was rather interesting, because we also heard about the closeness of the community in Hope over the years, but also the feuds that are here too. It was very similar to many of the stories in Copperfield.
We had some attorneys so I read aloud a portion from the book, where David is writing with his new boss at the court system where he is apprenticing. David asks his boss
. . . what he considered the best sort of professional business. He replied, that a good case of a disputed will, where there was a neat little estate of thirty or forty thousand pounds, was perhaps, the best of all. In such a case, he said, not only were there very pretty pickings, in the way of arguments at every stage of the proceedings, and mountains upon mountains of evidence on interrogatory and counter-interrogatory (to say nothing of an appeal lying, first to the Delegates, and then to the Lords); but, the costs being pretty sure to come out of the estate at last, both sides went at it in a lively and spirited manner, and expense was no consideration.One of the attorneys said he'd just turned down a will case the previous day and he knew of a case where, when it was all over, the only people with money were the attorneys.
Another thing we all noticed was the indirect way people speak. It takes a while to figure out exactly what someone is saying. It did occur to me that some of the masked speech is made by people of the lower classes, and in part, they speak like this because they are not really allowed to say what they think directly. They have to hide it so that it seems that they are completely agreeing rather than challenging. Here's Uriah Heep, talking to Copperfield about how he has moved up in station because his boss has not been taking care of his accounts. Copperfield believes that Heep himself has been creating these problems himself.
"Oh! Yes, truly," said Uriah. "Ah! great imprudence, Master Copperfield. It's a topic that I wouldn't touch upon to any soul but you. Even to you I can ony touch upon it, and no more. If any one else had been in my place during the last few years, by this time he would have had Mr. Wickfield (oh, what a worthy man he is, Master Copperfield, too!) under his thumb. Un-der-his thumb," said Uriah, very slowly, as he stretched out his cruel-looking hand above my table, and pressed his thumb down under it, until it shook, and shook the room. . .It's really hard to pick out examples like this, because there is sooo much verbiage like this to wade through. So much repetition. Another person who puts her self down constantly as she pushes over the line of what might then have been considered further than she should go is a woman living with David's school friend Steerforth.
"Oh dear, yes, Master Copperfield," he proceeded, in a soft voice, most remarkably contrasting with the action of his thumb, which did not diminish its hard pressure in the least degree; "there's no doubt of it. There would have been loss, disgrace. I don't know what all. Mr Wickfield knows it. I am the umble instrument of umbly serving him: and he puts me on an eminence I hardly could have hoped to reach How thankful I should be!"
"You have been a long time," she said, "without coming here. Is your profession really so engaging and interesting as to absorb your whole attention? I ask, because I always want to be informed when I am ignorant Is it really, though?"
I replied that I like it well enough, but that I certainly could not claim so much for it.
"Oh! I am glad to know that, because I always like to be put right when I am wrong," said Rosa Dartle. "You mean it is a little dry, perhaps?"
This sort of language makes Copperfield a bit of a challenge to plod through. In his day, people were probably more used to it, plus, they read it in the newspaper in serial form. I had never seen Hope so crowded. There were people at the Seaview, music coming out from someone singing on the deck, and the parking lot at the end was totally full of campers. Our host said that the pinks were running and so people were here. We were told that Melissa Mitchell was singing that night. A van did pull up and musicians got out. I'm not sure if this is her or not. I've looked online for pictures, but it's too hard to tell for sure, but after listening to her singing on the computer, I realize we should have stayed. But we had a book to discuss.
All in all, it was a very nice weekend.
Resurrection Trail Flowers, Mushrooms, Bugs Near Hope
My book club met this weekend in Hope. I'll post on that later, but on the way home I checked out the first mile and a half of the Resurrection Trail which I haven't been on for years. Here are some of the things I saw.
As much as I encourage biking, I'm not amused by bikes that leave ruts on trails. Even without bikes here, there are muddy spots. But the bikes make it much worse.
 |
| Monk's Hood |
I'm assuming this is a type of puffball.
Devil's Club
Some sort of fly on the tiny yarrow flowers.
Do I need to say this is a fireweed flower? Well, not everyone knows.
And here's my dirty windshield with Alaska in the background.
Headed north toward Portage. There wasn't a lot of blue, but some.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Biking Perks
But there are perks. As I rode to the courthouse on Friday, a group of people were near the path waving for me to stop. I assumed there must be a moose on the path, but no, the Bicycle Commuters of Anchorage were serving free coffee and muffins to people commuting to work by bike.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Euphemism Alert!! What the hell is "Lack of Situational Awareness"?
An AP story by Becky Bohrer in Thursday's ADN on an internal Alyeska Pipeline report repeatedly featured the term 'situational awareness.' This was not a term I'd heard before.Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines a euphemism as:
the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.So what was the unpleasant or offensive term they were avoiding? Let's see if we can tell from the context.
The operator of the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline system said Wednesday that an internal company review found that power failure and lack of "situational awareness" contributed to a contained oil spill in May. . .
At least Bohrer had the good sense to put quotes around the term if only this first time. So, an oil spill was caused by
- a power outage and
- lack of situational awareness.
[Michelle] Egan [a spokeswoman for Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.] said that lessons learned, including a need for greater situational awareness, are being put into practice during scheduled maintenance shutdowns of the line this summer.But how can you have more of it if you don't know what it is? And shouldn't they be doing this all the time, not just for scheduled maintenance shutdowns?
But she said another big issue was that workers were so focused on restoring power, they "didn't have the situational awareness to anticipate the tank filling and overflowing."So, they should have anticipated - thought ahead, been prepared, paid attention, planned. I'd guess this can be interpreted as, "while everyone was trying to get the power on, no one was paying attention to what else was happening." Or possibly even, "Everyone was running around like chickens with their heads cut off."
I know that in emergency planning you're supposed to anticipate all the things that can go wrong and at the very least, have a plan for what each member of the response team is going to be responsible for. Doesn't sound like any of that happened.
Then there were a couple of uses of the word 'aware' by itself.
The company has taken steps to avoid a repeat in the future, she said, making workers aware of the need to be cognizant of their surroundings -- and possible, or likely, situations that may arise -- and having plans for specific training. The lessons are already being put into practice, she said.Wikipedia defines cognizant as, (are you ready?) 'aware.' So basically this says, "making workers aware of the need to be aware." (To be fair, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines it as "knowledgeable of something especially through personal experience; mindful" BUT they give the synonym as 'aware.')
So, is she saying that Alyeska now has plans for specific training, but didn't in the past? All these years and they didn't have training for things like this? Gives you a lot of confidence in the private sector doesn't it? We really need to shrink government so the private sector can do its thing. (Sorry, couldn't help myself there.)
During the first scheduled maintenance shutdown of the summer season, she said, there was an extra person in the control room whose sole purpose was to monitor the entire system -- staying out of the maintenance work at hand to be aware of what else might be going on.So, are they saying here that when the spill happened no one was in charge? No one was keeping track of the bigger picture?
At What Do I Know? we strive to always be situationally aware, though we've never described it as such. Basically we've talked about paying attention or looking at the bigger picture. When I was a Boy Scout it was being prepared.
And, of course, I wouldn't be doing my job here if I didn't check out whether others have used this term. Wikipedia assures us that they have.
Situation awareness, or SA, is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic areas from aviation, air traffic control, power plant operations, military command and control, and emergency services such as fire fighting and policing; to more ordinary but nevertheless complex tasks such as driving an automobile or motorcycle. [I added the emphasis at the end because most people couldn't possibly make it through the whole quote awake.]One way that consultants make money is by creating new names for old practices. That way they can call themselves, say, "Situational Awareness" experts and charge a lot of money for something that people should already know and be doing.
After all, did you have situational awareness training before you got your driver's license? (Yes, go back and look at the end of the last quote if this doesn't make sense.) Actually, if you had decent drivers training and read the drivers manual, you had the equivalent of what they are calling situational awareness training. (Drivers ed was a required class when I was in high school and there was an additional two week class where we actually drove around on the streets, including on the freeway.)
The Wikipedia definition hasn't been checked for neutrality and some of the comments on the Wikipedia talk site on SA echo my comments about this being old wine in a new bottle:
Situational awareness has been a preoccupation of performance improvement mthodologies [sic] for more than 2000 years (that we know of). It has been viewed as the core and basis of full and effective functioning.
One of the deepest logical critiques of "SA" is that it is unnecessary. The philosopher Daniel Dennett might call it "folk psychology," meaning that it is a repackaging of existing concepts under a new name, one that just happens to resonate with "the folk" within a given domain (e.g., the military). To Dennett, this is fine, as long as "the folk" clearly understand that a given term is being used as a proxy for a preexisting set of understandings. . .
A second, equally weighty critique states that "SA" can never truly be objectively defined. In the terminology of MacCorquodale and Meehl, it is a hypothetical construct" that is being inappropriately elevated to the status of an "intervening variable". An example of an intervening variable is voltage, which can be directly measured by a voltmeter. No such "SA meter" exists, or is likely to ever exist. Yet, SA is widely touted as being objectively measurable, e.g., by paper-and-pencil testing. Of course, the same argument can be made of other concepts (e.g., IQ). The difference would be the extent of research which has gone into the latter, versus the former.PrairieOjibway (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Stratfor.com - what appears to be a consulting firm that specializes in SA for international affairs - discusses SA. Included is this piece which gives us a clue to what lack of SA might be and why Alyeska might want to find a euphemism:
An important element of this mindset is first coming to the realization that a threat exists. Ignorance or denial of a threat — or completely tuning out to one’s surroundings while in a public place — makes a person’s chances of quickly recognizing the threat and avoiding it slim to none. This is why apathy, denial and complacency are so deadly. [emphasis added]
So, essentially, Alyeska's "lack of situational awareness" means that through apathy, denial, complacency, lack of planning, and lack of leadership they totally screwed up. It was important enough that they mentioned it in their not-for-public-consumption review of the spill, but they needed a much more genteel way of saying "we fucked up."
Note for my readers who expect this blog to use only family friendly language. Sometimes there is no other word that conveys the meaning intended. Then, and only then, do I use it. If anyone has a better term, let me know.
Weyhrauch Hearing Vacates September Trial Date
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
8:02 am
Opened.
Judge Sedwick: Has SC mandate been issued? When due? What do you think 9th circuit to rule?
Kendall Day (Prosecutor): [Began explaining the issues and was interrupted by Judge
Sedwick, "I just asked if you knew when, not the issues. And Day said he didn't know.]
Douglas Pope (Weyhrauch's attorney): A couple of months, minimum. Who knows but 2 months minimum and then there could be a petition for rehearing.
Sedwick: I think minimum of 6 weeks, plus. . . I don't know that we can meet in September. Not worth meeting until 9th Circuit rules.
Day: The court will be able to proceed more expeditiously if some of the ancillary issues are resolved before.
Sedwick: I'm sure you can work things out beforehand. My order for this morning is Sept. 13th date is vacated and will set a date as soon as possible.
The courtroom was pretty much empty. There were three other media folks, Rick Smith's attorney (or so I was told but I didn't recognize him), and then a man and a woman who turned out to be FBI agents who sat with the Prosecutor. I was trying to match the names on the court list - I knew Karen Loefler wasn't there - with the people at the Prosecutor's table and couldn't. So after I went up to the man and woman who'd been sitting with the prosecutor and introduced myself as a blogger and asked who they each were. The man responded with mild derision in his voice, "I'm not telling a blogger who I am. Ask the attorney."
I introduced myself to the attorney who identified himself, very politely, as Kendall Day and the other two as FBI agents. I normally wouldn't put this sort of trivia down. On the surface, it wasn't a big deal, but it seems to me that FBI agents should treat people politely, as individuals not as members of a class, until they have justification to act otherwise.
Maybe we should create a new term here: media profiling.
| Court Calendar for | Friday, July 30, 2010 |
| 8:00 AM | 3:07-cr-00056-02-JWS | Judge Sedwick | ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3 |
| USA | vs. BRUCE WEYHRAUCH* |
| (Karen Loeffler) | (Douglas Pope) |
| (Kevin Feldis) | (Ray R. Brown) |
| (James M. Trusty) |
| (Kevin R. Gingras) |
| (M. Kendall Day |
| (Marc Elliot Levin) |
| (Peter M. Koski) |
| STATUS CONFERENCE |
8:02 am
Opened.
Judge Sedwick: Has SC mandate been issued? When due? What do you think 9th circuit to rule?
Kendall Day (Prosecutor): [Began explaining the issues and was interrupted by Judge
Sedwick, "I just asked if you knew when, not the issues. And Day said he didn't know.]
Douglas Pope (Weyhrauch's attorney): A couple of months, minimum. Who knows but 2 months minimum and then there could be a petition for rehearing.
Sedwick: I think minimum of 6 weeks, plus. . . I don't know that we can meet in September. Not worth meeting until 9th Circuit rules.
Day: The court will be able to proceed more expeditiously if some of the ancillary issues are resolved before.
Sedwick: I'm sure you can work things out beforehand. My order for this morning is Sept. 13th date is vacated and will set a date as soon as possible.
The courtroom was pretty much empty. There were three other media folks, Rick Smith's attorney (or so I was told but I didn't recognize him), and then a man and a woman who turned out to be FBI agents who sat with the Prosecutor. I was trying to match the names on the court list - I knew Karen Loefler wasn't there - with the people at the Prosecutor's table and couldn't. So after I went up to the man and woman who'd been sitting with the prosecutor and introduced myself as a blogger and asked who they each were. The man responded with mild derision in his voice, "I'm not telling a blogger who I am. Ask the attorney."
I introduced myself to the attorney who identified himself, very politely, as Kendall Day and the other two as FBI agents. I normally wouldn't put this sort of trivia down. On the surface, it wasn't a big deal, but it seems to me that FBI agents should treat people politely, as individuals not as members of a class, until they have justification to act otherwise.
Maybe we should create a new term here: media profiling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)