Sunset, Sunrise, and Reefer Madness In Between

October and November are always the months when my exercise routines fall apart.  This year, coming back from LA in mid-October was even worse.  I got to run in LA most days, and it felt nippy back in Anchorage.  But I did keep biking and walking a lot.  But then we got ice and it was darker and I found lots of excuses.  So Friday, when it was just about 20˚F (-7˚C),  I went for a short run.  Our official sunset was at 4:10 pm.  This shot of the moon was taken at 4:55pm.  (Digital cameras are nice that way, you can see exactly when you took the picture. On the other hand, the moon's shadow is actually a spec of dust on the sensor.  It shows at certain openings but not at others.  On my Powershot, according to the repair shop, getting at the sensor is tricky and probably not worth it. I know, I can photoshop it out or hide it in the background.  But I wanted to make a point of it here.) 

Almost home, I came across our neighbor and his dog in the alley.

[The pictures are all from the curtain calls, not the show.]

We went to the Wild Berry Theater to see Reefer Madness.  From Wikipedia:   


"Reefer Madness (aka Tell Your Children) is a well known 1938 American exploitation film revolving around the tragic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana": a hit and run accident, manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness all ensue. The film was directed by Louis Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors. It was originally financed by a church group and made under the title Tell Your Children.  

The film was intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use." 

Seventy two years later, it's just a big spoof.  This was done pretty low budget and compared to some of the really fine local theater I've seen lately, it was at the next level down.  There was a lot of young, buff, naked (and some older, not so buff), male flesh. (Nothing you wouldn't see at a swim meet and less than the TSA man sees, but there was enough to be remarkable - in the literal sense - especially from the front row.) The singers were all good, some of the dancers did beautiful leaps, and the audience was having a good time.  At $20 a head (online) it's live theater for not a lot more than a movie and the theater is small (not much over 100 though it looks bigger) so everyone has a good seat.  We ended up in the first row and it felt like we were part of the performance at times.  Actually, we were at one point when Jesus Christ handed out saltines.

On the way home we noticed patches of micro-fog around the bigger street lights. 

And this morning, when I drove J to her 8am workshop, a lot of the trees and shrubs were frosted.


But as we moved a little east, it cleared up and even though sunrise wasn't scheduled until 9:15am,  it was starting to lighten over the mountains to the east a little after 8am. 

We do have long twilight periods at 61˚ North, summer AND winter.

Updating Havel's "Power of the Powerless" for Airline Passengers

Vaclav Havel's Power of the Powerless, is a brilliant analysis of how a totalitarian government keeps its population obedient through the use of seemingly minor, but obligatory functions.  There are many, many things that could and have been said about TSA's new scan or grope policy.  I posted about this already last January.  In my mind this crosses way over what normal people should be subjected to in order to get on a plane.  There are other ways than getting naked pictures of everyone to prevent hijackings and suicide bombers.

I think the most basic reason I'm opposed is how it moves us one step closer to totalitarianism.   So I'll just post this aspect of my objections for now.

From Havel's Power of the Powerless from

Image from The Guardian

history.hanover.edu:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

Let's update this.

The airline passenger obediently lines up at the airport, takes off his shoes, puts all his belongings onto a conveyor belt to be x-rayed, and walks through a scanner,  which essentially sees through his clothes and shows quite clearly his body including his genitals. Why does he do it?

 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

Update:  The compliance with the security measures is to protect himself and his fellow passengers from terrorists.  If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for being uncooperative and jeopardizing air safety and someone might even accuse him of disloyalty.  Plus he won't be allowed to board the plane.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Update:  While many passengers may feel safer knowing everyone has gone through a scanner, many others believe there are more efficient and effective ways to prevent terrorist attacks than forcing every flier to submit to body scans or the equivalent to what would be illegal molestation if done by anyone else. Submitting to this huge invasion of privacy, verbally might be expressed this way:  "I, the passenger, know what I must do.  I behave in a manner expected of me.  I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach.  I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace (after I'm scanned or groped.)"

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Update:   Let us take note: if the passenger had been instructed to sign a loyalty oath,  "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The passenger would be embarrassed and ashamed to sign an unequivocal statement of his own degradation, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity.

 But there's no ideology in this case, you say, it's just safety.   In this case it's fear fueled by the ideology that proclaims Islam a terrorist religion that lives to destroy freedom and capitalism. Look, even if ten planes crashed killing 3000 people, it would still be less than  10% of the annual US traffic deaths.  So it isn't concern for lives or we'd allow cameras to catch red light runners.  But that would be an invasion of privacy and freedom.  (More than these body scans??!!)  Or we make sure people with two or three DUI's could not drive again. 

There are better ways to save lives than these scanners.  There are better ways to prevent terrorists on planes than these scanners.  But someone is making a fortune selling scanners to airports.  In the meantime, as Havel suggests, when the government treats us all as they treat terrorist suspects, we are closer to a totalitarian regime.  And when we comply against our will and without protest, we help the government get there.  

I'm hoping to develop a list of alternatives in a coming post.  

See also:
Why Would TSA Delete These Images?
Creating Child Porn to Stop Terrorists

Murkowski Moves the End of Don't Ask Don't Tell Closer

From KTVA's interview with Lisa Murkowski on Thursday, November 18:

On the Don't Ask, Don't Tell vote
[Murkowski] I have said that I would work to make sure that as long as it is supported by the troops, as long as it doesn't hurt the performance or the morale, or the recruitment -- these are all things we have to take into consideration -- I think we will see that play out in this report.
If in fact don't ask don't tell is included in the Defense Authorization Act and we get to the point where we can move that bill through - I would not oppose the defense authorization act because the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal of it is included in it.

Rachel Maddow discussed the implication of this announcement along with word of other Republican senators who are said to be willing to vote to end DADT. This is a long (ten minute) video that starts with the Murkowski story and then looks at the DADT vote overall in context of the Defense Authorization Act.  There are still a number of issues surrounding the Defense Authorization Act and how it is handled that could hold things up.  But there seem to be enough Republican senators willing to go against their party on this so that not just one can be attacked. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If, in fact, Murkowski's conditions are met and she votes to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, this would be one clear example of the difference between a vote for Murkowski and a vote for Miller.

In Treatment

I had a fascinating conversation with an Iranian-American psychiatrist in LA last year.  I asked him if the therapy scenes in The Sopranos seemed authentic to him.  He said yes, but recommended an even better portrayal in the HBO show - In Treatment.

We're now almost finished with Season 1.  In Treatment shows the weekly sessions of four patients with their psychotherapist, then the psychotherapist's session with his own psychotherapist.  Monday is Laura (Melissa George), a beautiful young anesthesiologist who tells the psychiatrist Paul that she's in love with him.  Tuesday is Alex (Blair Underwood) a black Navy pilot whose fighter pilot identity brain compartment is beginning to leak into the human being identity compartment.  Wednesday is Sophie (Mia Wasikowska), a Olympic gymnast hopeful who hates her mom, with whom she lives, and idolizes her father who photographs models in New York.  And Thursday we have Jake (Josh Charles) and Amy (Embeth Davidtz).  He's a marginal musician and she's a very successful MBA and fighting is their main form of communication.  Finally, on Friday, the psychotherapist Paul (Gabriel Byrne) sees his own psychotherapist (Dianne Wiest),  a former teacher of his he's known for a long, long time.

The episodes in the first season showed each day of the week, Monday through Friday.

This is a sensational, very intense show,  dealing with issues that everyone can relate to and usually lie below the surface of normal conversation.   In Treatment also raises serious questions about psychotherapy.  A terrific way to get a sense of psychotherapy and to get a better understanding of people in general. In Treatment is based on a highly successful Israeli show.

The acting is incredible.  All of it. 

The third season began in October, but we'll have to wait until the DVD's are available.

In Treatment website.

In Treatment on Wikipedia.

Clutter Wars - Memories of Meals Past

The Clutter War continues.  There's more room in the closet, less in the new recycle bin we got from Solid Waste Services in October, and empty boxes.  But I won't even show you what the room looks like.  But sorting through things I found these mementos of meals past. 

This is the menu for dinner on Friday, June 23, 1950 at Camp Curry in Yosemite Valley.  I wasn't yet five and I don't remember the meal at all. (You can double click the photo to see the offerings more clearly.)  But I do remember sheer walls rising above the valley, the big trees, the waterfalls, the deer in the meadows, and best of all, the firefall.  In the evening during the campfire program, someone would yell up and someone would yell back down from the top of Glacier Point.  I can still here the long faint, "Fiiiiire Faaaaaaaall" and see the glowing embers sliding down the side of the mountain.  Firefall.info gives more specifics:

At 9:00 each evening in Camp Curry, the crowd which had gathered for the nightly campfire program, would fall silent. A man would call out to the top of Glacier Point "Let the Fire Fall!", and a faint reply could be heard from the top of the mountain. Then a great bonfire of red fir bark would be pushed evenly over the edge of the cliff, appearing to the onlookers below as a glowing waterfall of sparks and fire.[This site has a lot more information including memories of many people who watched the firefall.]

He says the last firefall was in 1968.

Double click to enlarge

Here's a menu from the Los Angeles Brown Derby on Wilshire Blvd.  My 6th grade class had a 'graduation' party there. The building was shaped like a brown derby hat and was considered a fancy restaurant. (I asked fineartsla for permission to use their picture of the building but haven't heard from them, but you can click on the link and see it.)  I do not remember what I ate.  It was being there that was special.  And I recall we had trouble trying to figure out at the end who owed how much.

This is from a journal entry  -  Tuesday, Thessalonikki March 9, 1965.  It was the year I was a student in Göttingen, Germany.  We had two months off March and April and I'd hitchhiked to Vienna. I took the trains in Yugoslavia and after a week was more than ready to leave.  The last day turned out to be the best.  The ballet in Belgrade between trains where I met a Yugoslavian student, and we ate a great dinner, then got on the train that had no seats left and a Greek family pulled me into their compartment and fed me all the way to Thessalonikki.  There I looked up a friend of a Greek student in Germany and he took me to this fantastic fish restaurant.  No pictures, but it's in the journal.  This was truly one of the best meals of my life.  The food, the atmosphere, and the company.  Let me correct the journal.  The seaman didn't eat alone.  He shared his lobster with a cat.

J and I were in Beijing for a month in July 1990.  I was doing research on an article and we were staying at the People's University with wonderful people.  At that time, there weren't very many restaurants in Beijing and finding them wasn't easy.  The Dean knew where they were and took us to several.  Then he learned that I liked spicy food and suggested we go to this Sichuan Restaurant.  They day we settled on turned out to be my birthday and I insisted on paying.  He wouldn't hear that until I insisted it was an American tradition to treat your friends on your birthday.  (You have to resort to subterfuge to pay when with Chinese friends in China.) 

In the end, we had dinner for twelve.  The dean ordered the many course meal, and it was incredible.  It was in a private room in an old Chinese house.  It was a wonderful evening with good friends, good food, amazing atmosphere.  The bill - including everything - was just under $100. (Des, can you translate the menu?)  I might be able to find some pictures of this meal.  If I do, I'll add them later. 


As I wrote this it became clear that for me, a memorable meal includes good friends, good food, and good ambiance.  There have been many other memorable meals, but these are ones that showed up while working on the clutter downstairs. 

Observations on Mary Beth Kepner and the Justice Department's Impending Report

I was starting to get hits from people googling "Mary Beth Kepner" so I checked to see what was up.

AP Reporter Peter Yost wrote yesterday:

A draft Justice Department report has found that two federal prosecutors and an FBI agent engaged in misconduct in the corruption trial of Sen. Ted Stevens, a lawyer familiar with the matter said Tuesday.

The findings emerged from an investigation by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility looking into the failure by prosecutors to turn over evidence favorable to defense lawyers in Stevens' corruption trial. The Alaska Republican died in a plane crash in August.

The lawyer said the draft report makes misconduct findings against prosecutors Joseph Bottini and James Goeke and FBI agent Mary Beth Kepner.

I don't have any special knowledge of the investigation or the findings.  But I did sit in most of the political corruption trial sessions in Anchorage where I watched Bottini, Goeke, and Kepner.  I've had Kepner talk with one of my classes.  I've read about undercover witness Frank Prewitt's book on the investigation - Last Bridge to Nowhere - and I've read and analyzed FBI agent Chad Joy's complaint against his boss (Mary Beth Kepner) carefully and posted about much of this.

All I can say is that when the report is final, there will probably be some press releases, some newspaper articles, and people will cluck their tongues about corrupt government officials, and take another sip of coffee, and skip to the celebrity de jour divorce/drug arrest/car accident story.

I would just say there is more to this story.  It's clear that in trial in DC evidence was not given to the defense that should have been given.  This is not a minor incident to brush under the rug.   It's not clear it would have changed the outcome of the trial, though it may well have.  It's also clear in my mind that prosecutors have a lot of power to 'persuade' cooperation and this power can easily be abused.  It's also clear that white collar crimes offer serious challenges to law enforcement and without informants it's pretty difficult to get needed evidence.  But when the public reads the news, their corrupt official meme seems to win out over their tendency to support the law enforcement guys in The Wire or CSI.

My incentive in this particular case is that I know more about this than most cases and I have unanswered questions.  There may be perfectly valid answers to all my questions, but I think I have an obligation to ask them in the hopes that those valid answers are revealed.  And my focus is on Mary Beth Kepner, because, of the people involved, she is the one I had most contact with. 

Here are some of the unanswered questions in my mind:

1.   What's the story behind the Bush Administration allowing its Justice Department to investigate and prosecute the senior Republican US Senator?  Yes, the Justice Department should impartially go after anyone suspected of a violation, but there are so many possible cases, they have to prioritize.  It would seem to require a very serious offense to go after such an important member of the President's own political party.  Or some serious conflict between the President and the Senator.  It's particularly strange considering that the Bush Justice Department, under Bush friend Alberto Gonzales  was firing Republican Appointed US Attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats on what many have said were politically motivated charges and hiring based on political affiliation.

I've raised these and related questions in a post which notes things that don't make sense to me and some speculation of possible explanations.  Note, these all need further investigation to document.  I called that one Checkered Swan at the Stevens Trial?

2.   Why did Chad Joy go public with his internal complaint, which was more a personal grievance because he felt he was harmed than a whistle-blower complaint (he never talked about how the public or the targets were harmed, only how he personally was harmed.) I've written about this at length.

• What Does the FBI Internal Complaint Tell Us? - detailed analysis, almost line by line, of Chad Joy's complaint.
  
  
• Code of Silence or Mob Silence? - pursued the question of why a new FBI agent would complain about subjective administrative discretion issues of his 17 year veteran superior, when in most criminal justice areas there's a strict code of silence that protects colleagues who steal, torture, and even murder.

3.  What's the real story of Mary Beth Kepner?  Is she an ace investigator who's been framed?  An evil temptress whose charms have seduced normally savvy witnesses and this blogger?  Or a good investigator who worked near the borders of what's appropriate to find ways to get the needed evidence on corrupt officials? 

Kepner doesn't not fit one's image of an FBI agent.  She's a warm, young (everyone is young these days), bright woman with a disarming smile and a sly sense of humor.  She has an undergraduate degree in engineering and set up this investigation which netted three high profile prosecutions plus other plea bargaining agreements in Alaska and convicted the senior Republican US Senator before it all came crashing down because of serious mishandling of evidence in the DC trial. 

She has convinced a couple of men who had highly successful careers, in part, by being able to read people - Veco President Bill Allen and former Commissioner of Corrections and then private prison lobbyist Frank Prewitt.  So, if I was hoodwinked by Kepner, I was in the company of people with far greater experience with deceptive people than I. 

• Let's Get Real About Mary Beth Kepner - This post was in response to charges that she was having an affair with Bill Allen.  I acknowledge that people's sex lives are a constant surprise and that I could be totally wrong, but the notion that Kepner would be having an affair with Allen seems to be stretching credibility to its limits.  In this post I explain why.
  
• Frank Prewitt's Last Bridge to Nowhere - I watched Prewitt testify in court and read his book, which I reviewed at length.  This post reviews his book, in which he trashes most people involved with the exception of Mary Beth Kepner.

4.  What are the current internal politics in the Justice Department as this report comes out with the power to blame and exonerate?

We want to believe that investigations are totally objective and the guilty parties get their due - no more, no less.  But we also know that people have relationships, biases, loyalties and other factors that may erode that objectivity.  Apparently Attorney General Eric Holder and Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor in the case, are good friends.  From an April 2009 Huffington Post report on a Katie Couric interview with Eric Holder:

KATIE COURIC: You're reportedly close to the lead prosecutor, Brenda Morris, who's under investigation for failing, among other things, to disclose crucial information to defense lawyers in this case. Another target of the investigation is, apparently, William Welch, who's head of the office, ironically, of public integrity. Will you fire either one of them? Will they stay on during the course of these investigations?
ERIC HOLDER: Unless there's some basis for me to decide if they have something wrong-- they'll remain in place.

If he weren't close, he would have denied the characterization.

Morris

 recently surfaced in a high-profile public corruption investigation involving Alabama lawmakers and gambling legislation.
The cases are the first public indication that the prosecutors have continued to handle sensitive matters for the department since Stevens’ conviction on false statement charges was thrown out roughly one year ago.

So, the three people who will end up taking the fall are all Alaska based.  Joseph Bottini has a reputation as a hard but fair prosecutor.  The younger James Goeke I don't know much about except seeing him in court and a brief exchange in the federal building cafeteria.  And Mary Beth Kepner.  It's clear that there were conflicts between the Alaska prosecutors who had developed the case and knew all the details and the DC team members who joined late in the case to lead the prosecution when the investigation moved to DC for the Stevens case. 

The only Washington based member of the team who might have been implicated was the young and brainy prosecutor Nicolas Marsh who committed suicide in late September and who reportedly told friends that he was going to be the scapegoat in the report. (I suspect this man had never seriously failed in his life before but that's a guess and needs more research.)

It's easy for someone like me to take the facts that are available and jump to conclusions about what happened.  Clearly the investigators will have had access to a lot more information than I have.  I'm just reporting what I do know in terms of background information that raises questions in my mind.  I'll be looking at the report to see which of my questions are addressed.  I suspect the report will be narrowly focused.  We'll see.  

As I'm about to post this, I see that Cliff Groh's Alaska Political Corruption blog covers the AP report and an NPR report on the investigations this afternoon.

[UPDATE:  March 15, 2012 - The report is now out.  Edward Sullivan one of the DC based prosecutors who worked on the Alaska cases and was not mentioned in the AP Report this post originally began with, is also mentioned and appealed the release of the report.]

Campbell Creek Bike Trail Under Seward Highway Tonight

There's a meeting tonight to talk about 'improvements' to the Seward Highway between Dowling and 36th.  According to Rep. Berta Gardner's November 11, 2010 email to constituents

I spoke yesterday with Jim Amundson of the Department of Transportation and confirmed that sound barrier fencing (36^th Avenue to Dowling) and a bike path at Campbell Creek under the Seward Highway both remain in the project.   DOT plans to begin "turning dirt" in Spring 2011!

Some history.  Lanie Fleischer, who was one of the key people to get the bike trails built in Anchorage over 30 years ago and whose name is on the bike trail sign at Goose Lake, told me that the engineer in charge of building the Seward Highway, way back then, told her they were going to build the highway low enough that they could never have the bike trail go under it.  Non-motorized vehicle riders in those days were considered anti-capitalist, pinkos.   So now, at far greater expense than necessary, we are finally getting that part of the trail completed.  If the trail stays in the project.  So get down there to let them know you want that bike trail finally done.

If you can't go, call them up and email and tell them you support the bike trail.   Contact information below.  It's not a done deal until they have it in the plans, in the works, and finished. 


Here's the info from the Department of Transportation website:

Body of Notice:

Wednesday, November 17, 2010
5:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Sourdough Mining Company
5200 Juneau St.
Anchorage, AK 99518

Seward Highway: Dowling Road to Tudor Road

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) invites you to a public open house regarding the Seward Highway: Dowling Road to Tudor Road project. DOT&PF has completed the environmental phase of this project and is proceeding with design.

Why should you attend this meeting?

The meeting will provide information on the project and solicit public comments for consideration during the design phase.

The meeting will be in an open-house format, so you can stop by at any time during the scheduled hours. Staff from the project and DOT&PF will be available to discuss, answer questions and take your comments regarding the project.

Contacts:
Project Manager, Derek Christianson
CH2M HILL [This is the company that bought VECO from Bill Allen.]
Phone: 762-1358
sewardhwy.comments@ch2m.com

Project Manager, Jim Amundsen
DOT&PF
Phone: 269-0595
jim.amundsen@alaska.gov

Bicycle Commuters of Anchorage already has a post on this.

Borderland

Borderland is an Alaskan blog that has been vaguely in my consciousness and deserves more of my attention.  There's thought provoking stuff on there.   Here's an appetizer from Monday, November 15, 2010.

Derrick Jensen was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! today. I’ve been reading Jensen’s Endgame, and was interested to hear him speak. Just a taste here:
DERRICK JENSEN: You know, the Tolowa lived there for 12,500 years, which is sustainable by any realistic measurement. And they didn’t do it because they were too stupid to invent backhoes. You know, why? Why? How did they look at the world differently that allowed them to live? It wasn’t because they were primitives. It wasn’t because they were savages. What did they have? They had social strictures in place.
AMY GOODMAN: Derrick, you’ve written, “Civilization is not and can never be sustainable.”
DERRICK JENSEN: Yeah. Several years ago, I was riding around in a car with a friend of mine, George Draffan, with whom I’ve written a couple books. And I was just making conversation. I said, “So, George, if you could live at any level of technology that you want to, what would it be?” And he was not in a very good mood that day, and he said, “That’s a really stupid question, Derrick, because we can fantasize whatever we want, but the truth is there’s only one level of technology that’s sustainable. And that’s the Stone Age. And we’ll be there again some day. And the only question really is, what’s left of the world when we get there?”

Solve the Federal Budget Deficit Yourself

The NYTimes has given us an interactive template to at least start thinking about the decisions our elected officials in Washington have to face. Here's a screen shot of the chart where your cuts or tax increases will be tallied.

You have options like:

Cut foreign aid in half
At a time when the United States is facing large deficits, some budget analysts argue that the country should significantly reduce the money it spends helping other countries. Others say that foreign aid already represents a smaller share of the budget here than in other rich countries and that it expands American influence. $17 billion (2115) $17 billion (2030)

Eliminate earmarks
Earmarks are lawmaker-directed spending items, often to finance local projects favored by a member of Congress. $14 billion (2115) $14 billion (2030)

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 Today, the United States military has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 50,000 in Iraq. The Obama Administration plans to reduce these numbers in coming years but has not specified troop levels. Defense and budget experts say this 60,000 option would be faster than what is now planned. The savings is the difference between the administration's projected spending and the spending under this option.   $51 billion (2115) $149 billion (2030)

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
Reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030. $86 billion (2115) $169 billion (2030)

Obviously (it is obvious isn't it) this is a simplification.  This is a generalized approach that doesn't take into account distinctions, say, between federal employees and contractors (if you eliminate federal employees, will it require the hiring of contractors to get the work done, and often at greatly inflated costs including profits for the contracting companies?)  It doesn't distinguish efficient agencies from inefficient agencies.  It doesn't look at the interlocking relationships of agencies and the impacts on one agency of cuts in another agency (to what extent does good education lower long term costs in other areas?)

But, this does give people a start.  It helps people understand how small or big different programs are in the greater scheme of things.  And perhaps it will get people to ask more questions and find more answers.  And address their senators and congress members with more sophisticated questions.  (I realize that is easier for Alaskans - with just 700,000 people - to do than for Californians - with 34 million.)

Here's the link so you can save the economy yourself.

How Do You Pronounce Kalanchoe?

On the way to recycle the dead computers Saturday we were close to Bell's Nursery and I thought it would be a good idea to see if there were some reasonably priced flowering plants for my wife.  My friend thought it might be a good idea to do the same and we both bought some healthy looking kalanchoe plants.  Having grown up in LA and an interest in such things, I knew the name of this plant and told my friend, as we were checking out, "These plants are called 'KA-luhn-KO-e.'  

The other checker, with a bemused smile on her face, said, "It's kuh-LAN-cho."

I'm old enough to sometimes remember to attempt to be gracious.  I also know that the Latin names of plants are not always pronounced just one way.  So I smiled at the woman and said, "I learned something today, thanks." (It wasn't easy, but it felt strangely good.)

And this evening as I was looking at the growing sunshine in our kitchen (most commonly I've seen orange rather than yellow kalanchoe) I remembered that exchange, and no longer quite so graciously, wanted to see if maybe she wasn't wrong.


LandscapingAbout.com says this:

. . .  the pronunciation of the scientific names of plants can be downright confusing! And the confusion is exacerbated by the fact that, in some cases, there is more than one proper pronunciation for the word. Thus you can go your whole life hearing the certain (and proper) pronunciations of the scientific names of plants, only to encounter other (equally proper) pronunciations that leave you scratching your head.  [that was me scratching Saturday]

David Beaulieu, who wrote this article, compiled a list of the top 10 most difficult common plant names.  The last on the list is Kalanchoe.

10.  Kalanchoe: My favorite, with its 4 pronunciations, all of which are correct--

• KA-luhn-KO-e
• kuh-LANG-ko-e
• KAL-uhn-cho
• kuh-LAN-cho

If you're interested, the other nine names on the list are Clematis, Peony, Cotoneaster, Poinsettia, Chamomile, Achillea, Lamium,  Lupine, and Forsythia. But if you want to know how to pronounce them you have to go to the landscaping website.

Again, the idea of 'correct' is limiting.  Correct often just means what we're used to.  And people pronounce words differently in different regions.  Of all the things George W Bush did, pronouncing 'nuclear' as 'nucular' was never an issue for me.  I figure it's a regionalism, like people in Alaska dropping the first  'c' in Arctic.