Frozen Grin's Miller Time

The genius of a good cartoonist is to encapsulate what's happening with a simple picture and a few words. 

Peter Dunlap-Shohl at Frozen Grin manages to portray

Joe Miller's week 

in far fewer words than I could.  Check it out at the link.  (For a cartoonist, the cartoon is the whole post, so it doesn't seem fair for me to post it here.  Besides, I didn't ask permission.  So, you should go there to see it.)

You have 90 Minutes to Be a Write In Candidate for US Senate

After the Superior Court decision NOT allowing the State to hand out a list of names of certified write in candidates to voters who ask for them was blocked by the Supreme Court, it sounds like the list will be available to voters until the Supreme Court gets a further appeal and decides differently.


Sound confusing?  Well, here's the instruction in my voting booth when I voted early yesterday.

Should the election officials tell people the names of the write-in candidates?  Should it be as easy to vote for a write-in candidate as it is for one that has been vetted by the candidate's party?  Why can't voters just bring in a piece of paper with the name of the candidate they want? 

On the other hand, why shouldn't it be made as easy as possible for someone to vote for the candidate they want? 

And what about absentee voters?  Should they be given a list of official write-in candidates?  The names on the ballot are randomized and listed in different order on different ballots so that the first on the list bias is neutralized.  Will that happen on the write in list?  You can see this can get really absurd.  

What I did notice when I voted, was that every office had a list of names and then a space for a write-in.  That made me realize that voters not only have to remember the name of the person they want to write in, but also which office they're running for.  If someone puts in Lisa Murkowski's name for governor, that will be a vote for governor, but won't affect the US Senate race. 

I suspect we're going to have a long wait for all the votes to be counted in the Senate race.  Long.  And then all the write-ins will be challenged. 

An acquaintance checked with the Division of Elections today and found out there is still time to become a certified write-in candidate for US Senate or House of Representatives.  Til 5pm today. 

From: Wilson, Lauri L (GOV) [/src/compose.php?send_to=lauri.wilson@alaska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:59 AM
To: XXXXXXXX@alaska.com
Subject: Letter of Intent for US Senate

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

Here is the Letter of Intent you need to complete and return to our office by 5:00pm Alaska Time today, October 28^th.  You may return the completed form via fax, email or in person to any of our office locations. I have listed additional links below for contact information for each election office location, write-in information from our web site and to the Federal Election Commission. 

Director’s Office

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/csm_contact_do.php

Regional Offices:

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/csm_contact_reo.php

Additional information on write-in candidate’s office:

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ci_pg_fof_win.php

Web site for Federal Election Commission:

http://www.fec.gov/

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Lauri

Lauri Wilson

Election Coordinator

State of Alaska

Division of Elections

(907) 465-3049

(907) 465-3203 fax

 Here's what that form looks like (My screen isn't large enough to copy the whole thing in a legible way, but you can get your own copy here.  You can get one for the other offices too at the link above for additional information on write-in candidate's office.)

Unlike in other elections, this time your name will be on a list that voters can see.

You have until 5 pm to get it in today.  And don't forget, you'll have some filing requirements like all other candidates. 

Dana Fabe - Vote Yes!

Seeing many sides of any issue makes it hard to take a really strong stand.  You know that there are also good arguments against your position or that the situation isn't black and white.  A person may have some flaw, but there are other parts to him that are worthy.   A policy may solve a number of problems, but it also raises new ones.

Once in a while there comes an issue where there is no other legitimate side.  Where there is only one right and the other is simply wrong.  Voting yes to retain Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court is one of them. 

I first met Dana Fabe when a student in a class on administrative law, who worked for the court system, was curious about how judges got evaluated.  This was a very smart student who had been raised in a fundamentalist family.  He'd made some accommodations with the world - while he personally felt homosexuality was a sin, as a government employee, he felt he did not have the right to treat gays differently from anyone else. 

So as a class project he dove deep into this issue.  What he discovered, and presented to class, was the complex and thorough system by which judges are evaluated. 

The Judicial Council is directed by law to evaluate the performance of judges due to appear on the ballot. The Council collects evaluations from attorneys, peace and probation officers, jurors, social workers, public hearings, and information from many other sources. The Council then recommends to the public whether each judge should be retained. The recommendations, as well as information about the evaluation of each judge, are sent to each voter in the Official Election Pamphlet.  [from Alaska Judicial Council]

The other students got into this project and Dana Fabe, who then I think was a court administrator or perhaps a superior court judge, was invited to class.  For a couple of hours she talked and answered students' questions.  There are times when you just know - this person is both highly competent and public spirited.  This was a long time ago and I don't remember the details of what she said.  Only that I was left with complete confidence in her abilities. 

What I learned is that Alaska has one of the best systems for selecting judges - a system that favors merit while keeping the political aspects of evaluation judges to a minimum.  And we have a comparatively outstanding set of judges in the state.

Later, when I got a small grant to set up a group of five outstanding women administrators to create a process to pass on their wisdom to public administration students, Dana Fabe was one of the five.   Everyone I asked brought up her name.

Then they set up a class for students where we had panel discussions each week made up of different women administrators talking on different subjects.  There were even a few men that were on some of the panels.  So this was a second chance to work with Dana Fabe and see how remarkable she was. 


To get on the Supreme Court, you submit your name and the paperwork.  Then all the surveys go out to the various groups listed above.  And those that get back scores above a set level are then sent on to the Governor who then selects one who then must be confirmed by the legislature.  That was how Dana Fabe got selected. 

Then every election that includes retention of judges, all the surveying goes on again and the Judicial Council makes a recommendation.  It's in your voter pamphlet for each candidate. 

So, why am I writing all this?  If Judge Fabe is so good, what's the big deal?

Well, this year, a last minute campaign has been made to get people to vote no for Judge Fabe's retention.  Alex Brynner, a retired Supreme Court judge began an Anchorage Daily News editorial on the campaign this way:

Barely two weeks before next Tuesday's election, a special interest group with a nationwide agenda and big pots of Outside funding launched an attack against Alaska Supreme Court Justice Dana Fabe, who is on the ballot for retention. The last-minute attack is timed to prevent any response: As the challengers know, rules of ethics prevent judges from campaigning for retention absent "active opposition." Even then, they can't answer directly but must organize a committee to respond.  [Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/10/26/1520303/underhanded-attack-pushes-single.html#ixzz13dkBfZn7]

Jim Minnery, the head of the Alaska Family Council wrote an editorial supporting NONretention.  The Alaska Family Council's values and mission are to promote through public policy their fundamentalist Christian views on

• Abstinence
• Christians and Politics
• Defense of Marriage
• Education & School Choice
• Gambling
• Judicial Activism
• Pornography & Obscenity
• Religious Liberty
• Sanctity of Life

The Alaskapride blog, which also favors NON-retention has a set of links to white supremacist websites under the title  "Alternative Media."


OK, I've suggested there aren't two sides to this issue.  Well, yes, there are.  The right side and the wrong side.  But, you might argue, it's just a matter of differing values.  Yes and no. 

Judges are supposed to support one value:  The Rule of Law.  You aren't supposed to have pro-abortion or anti-abortion judges (much of the opposition rests on this issue).  They aren't supposed to go onto the bench with a list of policies they want to forward.  There is only one policy judges should be promoting - the rule of law.  You are just supposed to have pro-law judges, judges who look at the law and determine how a particular case should be decided based on how the facts of the case square with the law, whether it's a statue or the Constitution. 

Yes, there are times when an individual judge's personal life experiences affect a decision. For good judges, that should only happen when the law is unclear and/or there may be contradictory laws.  Only then, should a judge's personal values legitimately have some influence on the decision. 

Justice Fabe introduced in State House

As Wickersham's Conscience points out - Justice Fabe didn't make the kind of decisions that she is being accused of.  The non-retention campaign is twisting the facts.  Essentially, they want to oust a superb jurist who interprets the law as neutrally as it is possible to do.  Then this would give Gov. Parnell the chance to appoint a judge steeped in the same religious view of the world that Minnery and his ilk favor.  Their website says they are against activist judges, yet they favor the judges who have made the Roberts US Supreme Court  activist.  In the direction Minnery wants it to be activist. 

Which Alaska Senate Candidate Feeds Volunteers Best?

While there has a been a lot of attention on this race, most of it has been about the candidates and not about the issues. This post brings that discussion to a new level of triviality. Which candidate has the best volunteer food? I visited all three offices this afternoon and this was what I found.

I started near the Anchorage Campaign Headquarters center - Fairbanks Street near Northern Lights.  Fairbanks houses the McAdams campaign, the Democratic headquarters, Democratic State Legislators headquarters, and the Parnell headquarters.






Down Fairbanks St. is the McAdams office.  Doesn't look like they are wasting any money on rent.  This is decidedly down-scale.


But, what about the food? 

McAdams volunteer food looks pretty good.  

 

Then back to Northern Lights to the Miller headquarters.  But when I got there, I found out there were two different Miller headquarters on Northern Lights.  One for staff and another one - further down - for volunteers. 

So, back on the bike and further down down Northern Lights to this office.  

Hmmmm, there they are right between the Great Alaska Pizza Company and Quiznos.  Plus there is an Indian restaurant and a Korean restaurant just behind me and to the right.  So they should have terrific food.

Not too much here.

Now up Arctic to 36th to the Murkowski headquarters, right next to the European watch repair.

So, I walked into the door straight ahead there, but didn't see much food.  Plus there was a sign for volunteers to go next door.


Next door I found two people at a table that had a jar of hard candies.  That couldn't be all there was.  I told someone what I was doing and she took me back to where I started and found Kristin (I didn't ask her how she spelled her name, sorry if I got it wrong.)  Kristin, when she realized I was really asking about volunteer food for a blog post, was very friendly and showed me what food they had - spread out in different spots. [UPDATE:  Kristin commented to correct the spelling.  I did it two different ways, both wrong, but now I've got it fixed.  Thanks!]

So it looks like I got there at a low point and they have room for more food.  But there wasn't much out. 

She also said sure when I asked to use their restroom, where I found a bit of campaign humor.


Finally, she showed me a Murkowski trend setter - campaign bracelets.  She showed me hers and explained they were to help people remember what to write in.

I asked if they would be allowed into a polling place and she assured me that they had been approved "as long as they are kept under a sleeve" until they get into the voting booth.

That's going to be easy to monitor I'm sure. 




So, if how you feed your volunteers correlates with winning elections, and if what I saw was representative of how the three campaigns feed their volunteers, then McAdams will win hands down.

Rachel Maddow Broadcasts from Spenard* Bar in Anchorage

I don't know how many national nightly news shows are broadcast live from a bar (in Spenard no less), but Rachel Maddow packed the Taproot Tuesday night.  Shannyn Moore had announced first-come-first-served tickets on her KUDO radio show Monday and on her blog, and by 4pm when the doors opened the crowd stretched way back into the parking lot.  (Yes, the clouds had rolled in and the beautiful morning was now grey.)

The setup was much different from last week's Moore Up North show last week.  MSNBC had tons of equipment in and the focus was the middle of the dance floor.

This was about 4:40pm.  The teleprompter is on the left there.  When it got started she really talked fast.  I don't know that I could read something out loud that fast without stumbling

She walked in right past us and I barely had a chance to snap a quick blurry picture.

Vic Fischer, one of two or three surviving writers of the Alaska Constitution was a guest on the show along with Anchorage's version of Maddow, Shannyn Moore.  He's certainly the most active and visible of the survivors.  He's in the middle of the picture in the blue jacket.  Maddow's comment when she introduced him was something like, "In Alaska when they want to know about original intent, they call one of the drafters of the Constitution."  I did that with Vic last March in Juneau when I had a question about a constitutional intent concerning the Boundary Commission which had come up in a session. I got his answer on video then.

 

There was some extra time before 5 pm, so Maddow took questions from the audience.

Maddow had been in Anchorage a couple days getting interviews with US Senate Candidates Lisa Murkowski, Scott McAdams, and finally, Joe Miller.  The session cut back and forth from Maddow talking about the Senate race and Alaska and the video she'd already done which we could see on monitors.  In one of the live segments she talked to Shannyn Moore and Vic Fischer. 

And then the hour was up and the MSNBC crew had to tear everything down and get to the airport for a 13 hour stop tomorrow in Las Vegas.

 

But on the way out, Maddow had time to sign autographs. 

You can find clips of Maddow's visit to Anchorage at her blog.

*Spenard is a street that winds its way from the airport (almost) to downtown (almost.)  When we got to Alaska 33 years ago, it was the seedy part of town full of strip clubs, massage parlors, and hookers on the streets at night.  A Spenard divorce involved a gun.  It's been cleaned up a lot since then and the show was in the Taproot, a fairly new bar in what used to be Mr. Whitekeys' Fly-by-Night Club. 

Beautiful Fall Day - New Snow on Mountains

I had an appointment at 1pm for teeth cleaning at Providence, but an errand downtown.  It was almost noon, but the day was so beautiful I biked downtown.  There were lots of great pictures, but I knew that my hygienist would poke extra deep if I was late.  But I couldn't help but stop for this shot. 


My hygienist is really very cool and we give each other a bad time.  She likes to talk to me when I can't talk back.  I suggested she do a blog.  We agreed on the title, "Which tooth can you do without?"

There was a decent view of the new snow on the mountains, but I couldn't get it without including the reflections of the office. 

Then home and off to catch Rachel Maddow's show live from Anchorage at the Taproot.  More on that later.

By dark, it was raining and I suspect the snow will be a lot further down the mountain tomorrow morning. 

Rosy Fingered Dawn

Looking out the window about 9:30 this morning my thoughts went back to a college classroom where Professor Pasinetti* lectured us in Humanities at UCLA. He recited in whatever language was appropriate - Latin, Italian, Greek, English - and he recited it so beautifully, that I was transported, even when I couldn't understand a word.  (Most of the time he lectured in English)  It was in that class that I read some of the greatest books ever written, including the Odyssey.

And as I looked out at the fleecy pink clouds, the words "Rosy fingered dawn" immediately came to mind. So here's a bit of Homer - from Chapter IX - where he's plotting how to deal with Cyclops.

"When the child of morning, rosy-fingered Dawn, appeared, he again lit his fire, milked his goats and ewes, all quite rightly, and then let each have her own young one; as soon as he had got through with all his work, he clutched up two more of my men, and began eating them for his morning's meal. Presently, with the utmost ease, he rolled the stone away from the door and drove out his sheep, but he at once put it back again- as easily as though he were merely clapping the lid on to a quiver full of arrows. As soon as he had done so he shouted, and cried 'Shoo, shoo,' after his sheep to drive them on to the mountain; so I was left to scheme some way of taking my revenge and covering myself with glory.

"In the end I deemed it would be the best plan to do as follows. The Cyclops had a great club which was lying near one of the sheep pens; it was of green olive wood, and he had cut it intending to use it for a staff as soon as it should be dry. It was so huge that we could only compare it to the mast of a twenty-oared merchant vessel of large burden, and able to venture out into open sea. I went up to this club and cut off about six feet of it; I then gave this piece to the men and told them to fine it evenly off at one end, which they proceeded to do, and lastly I brought it to a point myself, charring the end in the fire to make it harder. When I had done this I hid it under dung, which was lying about all over the cave, and told the men to cast lots which of them should venture along with myself to lift it and bore it into the monster's eye while he was asleep. The lot fell upon the very four whom I should have chosen, and I myself made five. In the evening the wretch came back from shepherding, and drove his flocks into the cave- this time driving them all inside, and not leaving any in the yards; I suppose some fancy must have taken him, or a god must have prompted him to do so. As soon as he had put the stone back to its place against the door, he sat down, milked his ewes and his goats all quite rightly, and then let each have her own young one; when he had got through with all this work, he gripped up two more of my men, and made his supper off them. So I went up to him with an ivy-wood bowl of black wine in my hands:

"'Look here, Cyclops,' said I, you have been eating a great deal of man's flesh, so take this and drink some wine, that you may see what kind of liquor we had on board my ship. I was bringing it to you as a drink-offering, in the hope that you would take compassion upon me and further me on my way home, whereas all you do is to go on ramping and raving most intolerably. You ought to be ashamed yourself; how can you expect people to come see you any more if you treat them in this way?'

You can read it all at classics.mit.  I don't have any cyclops to battle today, but I do have some things to do. 

*This is for college students.  I googled Prof. Pasinetti to make sure I spelled his name right and found a whole Wikipedia page on him.  I really had no idea (until now) who he was when I was his student - I was a freshman.  I knew he was a fantastic lecturer, but I had no idea about who he was beyond that lecture hall.  So, check out your professors.  Know who they are.  And go talk to them about their lives and yours.  Get the most out of your education.

"Akbar was obsessed with exploring the issues of religious truth"

[I think I may have tried to put too much into one post.  This material is related, but may be pushing the patience of surfers looking for a quick hit.  So, if that fits you, read the material from Aslan this time and from Dalrymple in a second visit later.]

I'm getting a lot of education on Islam these days.  My book club discussed Reza Aslan's No god but God tonight.  And last week I heard Nihad Awad at APU.

Additionally, I have a Pakistani friend who regularly sends me interesting things to read.  I got a three year old article from The Times by William Dalyrimple yesterday.  An American friend of Indian descent has recommended Dalrymple as one of the best writers about India.  So he comes recommended from both a Pakistani and an Indian. 

What's become clear to me in all this recent dipping into Islam, is that like Christianity (and all other religions), Islam, the ideal, and Islam, as practiced, is not always the same.  Reza writes how problems began after Muhammad's death. When he was alive, questions not addressed in the Quran could be brought to him for clarification and after his death the followers of Islam relied on people who had known Muhammad. 

As the first generation of Muslims - the people who had walked and talked with the Prophet - the Companions had the authority to make legal and spiritual decisions by virtue of their direct knowledge of Muhammad's life and teachings.  They were the living repositories of the hadith:  oral anecdotes recalling the words and deeds of Muhammad. . .

. . . [I]n less than two centuries after Muhammad's death, there were already some seven hundred thousand hadith being circulated throughout the Muslim lands, the great majority of which were unquestionably fabricated by individuals who sought to legitimize their own particular beliefs and practices by connecting them with the Prophet. . .

Thus, when the Quran warned believers not to "pass on your wealth and property to the feeble-minded (sufaha)," the early Quran commentators - all of them male - declared, despite the Quran's warnings on the subject, that "the sufaha are women and children . . and both of them must be excluded from inheritance" (emphasis added) [emphasis added in the original].

When a wealthy and notable merchant from Basra named Abu Bakra . . . claimed, twenty five years after Muhammad's death, that he once heard the Prophet say "Those who entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity," his authority as a Companion was unquestioned. (from pp. 67-69)

The last one is particularly ironic because Muhammad's life was changed by his marrying a wealthy independent woman 15 years his senior, and he consulted her and his later wives about his business affairs constantly. 

I offer this because the original Quran, as it is portrayed in the book and in last week's talk, has ideals in it that many US citizens could readily identify with.  Yet, it is clear that people over the centuries have interpreted the Quran to suit their needs as Aslan writes.  (Of course, I always have to question whether Aslan isn't doing the same himself.) 

I also can't help but think of the many religious leaders in the US who interpret the Bible in ways that benefit their financial and political power.  Nothing new here. 

But I also mention it to put this piece (below) about Akbar into some context.  It's not hard to find examples of people who misuse Islam.   In fact that's mostly what we are exposed to because the US narrative on Islam seems to be that it is a barbaric, if not evil religion and the media write stories that project the image they expect to find and their audience will believe. 

So it is useful to have examples of enlightened Muslims as well who can just as easily be contrasted to bad examples from the West.  So here are a few excerpts from the Dalrymple piece this post begins with. 

About 100 miles south of Delhi, where I live, lie the ruins of the Mughal capital, Fateh-pur Sikri. This was built by the Emperor Akbar at the end of the 16th century. Here Akbar would listen carefully as philosophers, mystics and holy men of different faiths debated the merits of their different beliefs in what is the earliest known experiment in formal inter-religious dialogue.

Representatives of Muslims (Sunni and Shi’ite as well as Sufi), Hindus (followers of Shiva and Vishnu as well as Hindu atheists), Christians, Jains, Jews, Buddhists and Zoroastrians came together to discuss where they differed and how they could live together.

Muslim rulers are not usually thought of in the West as standard-bearers of freedom of thought; but Akbar was obsessed with exploring the issues of religious truth, and with as open a mind as possible, declaring: “No man should be interfered with on account of religion, and anyone is to be allowed to go over to any religion that pleases him.” He also argued for what he called “the pursuit of reason” rather than “reliance on the marshy land of tradition”.

All this took place when in London, Jesuits were being hung, drawn and quartered outside Tyburn, in Spain and Portugal the Inquisition was torturing anyone who defied the dogmas of the Catholic church, and in Rome Giordano Bruno was being burnt at the stake in Campo de’Fiori.

 Dalrymple wrote his piece in response to

. . . Douglas Murray, a young neocon pup, who wrote in The Spectator last week that he “was not afraid to say the West’s values are better”, and in which he accused anyone who said to the contrary of moral confusion: “Decades of intense cultural relativism and designer tribalism have made us terrified of passing judgment,” he wrote.

Dalrymple's piece is intended to demonstrate that actually, most of the ideals of the West had precedents in the East.

Murray named western values as follows: the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, equality, and freedom of expression and conscience. He also argued that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the ethical source of these values.

Yet where do these ideas actually come from? Both Judaism and Christianity were not born in Washington or London, however much the Victorians liked to think of God as an Englishman. Instead they were born in Palestine, while Christianity received its intellectual superstructure in cities such as Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria. At the Council of Nicea, where the words of the Creed were thrashed out in 325, there were more bishops from Persia and India than from western Europe.

Judaism and Christianity are every bit as much eastern religions as Islam or Buddhism. So much that we today value – universities, paper, the book, printing – were transmitted from East to West via the Islamic world, in most cases entering western Europe in the Middle Ages via Islamic Spain.

And where was the first law code drawn up? In Athens or London? Actually, no – it was the invention of Hammurabi, in ancient Iraq. Who was the first ruler to emphasise the importance of the equality of his subjects? The Buddhist Indian Emperor Ashoka in the third century BC, set down in stone basic freedoms for all his people, and did not exclude women and slaves, as Aristotle had done.

I recommend both Aslan's book and Dalrymple's short article.  If you are already a defender of different religions, but don't really know all that much about Islam, (I'd put myself in that category and thus can't guarantee the accuracy of these authors) reading up on this important world religion - and boogey man of US politics - will help make you a better spokesperson when you do encounter ignorance.

If you think Islam is a backward evil religion, then I merely ask you to consider whether your knowledge of Islam comes from people who love or hate Islam.  Then consider whether you would recommend Muslims around the world read books about Christianity and the West written by lovers or haters of Christianity and the West. 

I don't see it as about us or them, about winning or losing.  The religions are even besides the point.  History shows us (as in the examples quoted above about early Islam) that people who want to dominate others, use what they can to get that power - whether it is physical might, economic might, or ideological might, such as using a religion to get people to comply. 

The challenge for humankind is to keep those among us who lean towards competition and physical battle from dragging the rest of us into their wars. 

Bill Clinton to Liberal Politicians: It Gets Better

Former President Bill Clinton announced yesterday the establishment of a new website for liberal politicians.

Pointing to the rallies of angry people that are attacking liberal politicians for being educated, for being deliberate, for using data; to blatantly false ads by anonymous third party groups; and to television and radio talk-thugs who smear liberals with ridiculous lies in an attempt to destroy their careers, Clinton said he felt it was necessary to make this video to let liberal politicians know,

"It gets better.  The bullying begins with those first signs of liberalism.  Maybe you decide to become a vegetarian or you start a recycling program or bike to work.  It starts in earnest if you run for office.  Even if you call yourself a moderate instead of a progressive instead of a liberal, they can detect your liberalism.  For example,  if you oppose abortion but not for rape victims. It ratchets up if you get elected. If you run for reelection, it can become debilitating.  But you shouldn't give up.  I want you to know, that after you've been out of office a couple of years, things change.  You will be seen as a sage who had it right all along.  Trust me, I know, it gets better."

Dan Savage, when asked to comment on this, speculated that as bullies grow up the gays they picked on in high school move away and get a whole life.  So as adults, those bullies look for new victims. In the post-rational world, liberal politicians have proven easy targets.

Watch for additional videos from Jimmy Carter and Al Gore soon.

:)

Understanding, communicating, and managing risks across stakeholders and cultures

That was the title of a lecture in the email I got last week.  How could I resist?  It has all sorts of issues I'm interested in all tied together.  The 'trailer' was this:

Dr. Weber works at the intersection of psychology and economics. She is an expert on behavioral models of judgment and decision making u . [It was like that in the email] Recently she has been investigating psychologically appropriate ways to measure and model individual and cultural differences in risk taking, specifically in risky financial situations and environmental decision making and policy. Weber is past president of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, coeditor of Risk Decision & Policy and associate editor of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. She serves on the editorial boards of two other journals, on the executive councils of INFORMS's Decision Analysis Society and the Society for Mathematical Psychology and on an advisory committee of the National Academy of Sciences on Human Dimensions in Global Change.

So I went over to UAA this past Friday to hear Dr. Elke Weber of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University.

How do I even write a post about this?  I have to say, though, that I found it all very exciting.  These are all topics I've studied and taught and had, informally, pulled together into my own sort of model which turned out to be very consistent to what Dr. Weber has come up with using more formal research.  So it was gratifying to have these loose understandings confirmed.  But I certainly don't have enough notes - I did start taking photos of the slides though - to be sure I understood it as she intended, though it did all make sense, except for some of the statistical calculations.  She did talk very fast and following the slides and listening to her at the same time was tricky.  But she had a lot to cover. 

Anyway, the talk was totally related to the main theme of this blog - What Do I Know and How Do I Know It?



I'll try to pull together a few of the points. 

1. how to understand how different people faced with/dealing with the same situation 'know' the situation - that is, 
1. what narratives do they have to explain the situation 
2. how do they perceive where the situation is should be placed on a continuum from
   Terrible Danger____________________________________Great Opportunity;
   
    
2. Then, how can local knowledge and scientific knowledge be combined to communicate back and forth to find mutually satisfactory strategies for policies?   

A lot of the talk was about measuring people's risk taking comfort.  She and colleagues have developed a tool to measure something called  Domain Specific Risk Taking (DoSpeRT).  They've decided that there are five key domains in a person's life (and they believe this works cross-culturally) and people's comfort with risk is not necessarily consistent from domain to domain:

1. Social
2. Ethical
3. Recreational
4. Health/safety
5. Financial

The slide to the right shows, I think, some of the questions people answer, which helps determine where they fit on the scale. 


Interesting findings were that people were not very consistent in the risk aversion from domain to domain. 

Then she went into explanations of the differences of risk taking between people.  For instance: 

Greater familiarity leads to reduced perceptions of riskiness. (So the first day you work at a nuclear power plant, your sense of risk is relatively high.  But after working there for 20 years - without experiencing an accident or other hazard - your sense of risk is much lower.)


Emotional and psychological reactions play an important role.  And Weber had on one slide:  "Technical experts and public differ in degree they rely on cognitive vs. emotional assessment of risk."

Citing Douglas and Wildavsky, Weber listed other culturally related factors that influence people's perception of risk:

• structures of social organization as source of perceptions that reinforce those structures in competition against alternative ones
• technologies or events that threaten desired social order and ways of life are seen as risky
• Egalitarian/collectivists perceive different risks than do hierarchical/individualists

And she cited Leiserowitz et al. (2009) on Segmentation analysis of Global Warming's Six Americas.  You can go to the link and find out which segment you are in. 

Another interesting part of the discussion was about human limits.  She started with Human Cognition and Motivation.  People have a limited attention and processing capability - so if they are focused on one task, they may miss completely other things that are going on.  You can test yourself on this watching this YouTube experiment.  I think I even linked to this on here once before, but maybe I just saw it but didn't link to it.  Go ahead, try it.


Then there was limited emotional capacity, and automatic versus analytic ways of knowing about probabilities.  

I won't go on and on.  Must readers will have disappeared long ago.  Those of you who are still here might understand my interest in all this. 

Really, this is the kind of thing this blog is about as I try to understand why some people are going to vote for Miller, others for Murkowski, and others for McAdams.  And why some Democrats are going to vote for McAdams and why some who profer McAdams are going to vote for Murkowski.  It goes back to the level or risk taking they are comfortable with.  Whether they will vote for their values or against their fears. 

Eventually, this talk may be up as a podcast.  They are only up to the end of September so far.  But you can go look at what else is available, including Chancellor Fran Ulmer on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.