Sometimes a Bug is Really a Bug

Not long ago, I posted this picture of a bug.  I've been excited that I can get pretty good macro shots with my pocket sized Canon.  So, when I discovered the book Insects of south-central Alaska  by Dominique M. Collet, I went to Title Wave and bought it.  

I looked under beetles first, but then found it under 'true bugs.'   A birch shield bug.











Then last week at the botanical garden I caught this shot of a bumble bee (page 169). 

Then Sunday I found this fly. 

Click to enlarge

Using Collet's book, I decided it might be a tachinid fly.  Google got me to cirrusimage which gave me lens envy, because they had such incredible photos.  It also said there were 8200 different species of tachinid flies.  They all lay their eggs either in, on, or near the larvae of other insects.  The young then act as parasites on their hosts.  These are actually beneficial.

"Many tachinids parasitize major agricultural pests of food or timber crops, and have potential for use as biological control agents, but most attempts at using them in such wise have been dismal failures.

Among the methods tachinids use to infect their subjects are the oviparous species that place large, macrotype eggs directly on the body of the host, the micro-oviparous, which place tiny, microtype eggs on foliage or other foodstuffs being consumed by the host, or the larviparous, which retain their eggs until maturity; these eggs hatch immediately upon being laid on or near the target. Some female tachinidae that attack bugs or beetles have piercing ovipositors much like wasps in the Hymenoptera family Ichneumonidae."

I recommend checking out cirrusimage because those photos are incredible!

Aside

There's a semipermeable membrane that keeps my family out of my blog.  Sometimes, though, they slip in as an aside. 











Keeping blog and family separate this last week has been hard.  Some things are just too good and too big to leave out completely.





A small contingent of relatives and friends of my son and his betrothed converged on Anchorage for their wedding.

Clouds crowding low on the mountains and the beauty of emerging vegetation embraced us with mystery, hope and joy. 

No Bikes: Owen Told To Take His Money Elsewhere

A friend was by the other day and told me his tale of woe at Alaska USA Credit Union.  The lobby of the credit union was closed for renovation, so he took his bike around to the drive through lane, put several hundred dollars into the tube to be deposited and waited. 

You can hear Owen tell his own story below.





Even though the money was already to the teller, he was told he couldn't use the bike in the drive through. When he pointed out that the lobby was closed, he was told to go to another branch.

I called to check on their policy. Dustin told me that it varied from branch to branch. In some you can walk through the drive through.  Dustin figured it was the C Street branch because they've had some construction. He called them and they said they do not allow bikes in the drive through.

I called my own credit union - Credit Union 1 - and Kendra said she knew that people were able to walk through the drive through and didn't think there would be a problem with a bike, unless, of course, it was very crowded and the lobby was open.

I would add that Owen has been a member of AlaskaUSA for over 30 years. Since CU1 has no problems with walkers and bikers using the drive through when the lobby is closed, and other AlaskaUSA branches allow it, methinks this is one person who is just inflexible and unreasonable.

Anchorage Behaves for Guests

A squirrel* on the Winter Creek trail

We took some visitors to dinner last night at the Double Musky in Girdwood. The cloudiness was clearing up as we drove to Girdwood, stopped at the restaurant to put our names on the list and checked the wait time.


 *everything I could find through google suggests it's a red squirrel, but I'm not certain. 

Sated exit from Double Musky

We had 45 minutes to wander the area around the Prince Hotel and get back. A dinner that brought approving comments from our guests

and then a drive home into 11pm setting sun.  The picture just doesn't do justice to the water color quality of the water and sky.

And a short stop to watch the terns at Potter Marsh.

Denali was out and clear was we made our way home. (I was driving, no pictures.)

Making Policy Behind Closed Doors - Port and Planning

KSKA had a report on the Mayor's State of the City speech and developments with Title 21 at the Building Operators and Managers Association luncheon last week and today's ADN has a story on the Port Authority.  The common factor - as I see it - is that both represent policy development by the Mayor behind closed doors.

The Port 

Lisa Demer at the Anchorage Daily News writes, 

Mayor Dan Sullivan, trying to find a solution to the troubled Port of Anchorage expansion project, brought shippers, government officials, and other interested parties to a closed-door port summit Tuesday at City Hall.
"This is a project that's too big to fail, too important to fail," Sullivan said.
City officials said ahead of time that the meeting was closed to the public so that parties could speak freely. The mayor said restricting access would also allow proprietary business information to be discussed.   (emphasis added)

Title 21

This one's a little more complicated.  The Municipality of Anchorage went through a long, eight year process to develop a long term plan for city development including changes to Title 21 - the Muni's land use planning code.  A local citizens group - Anchorage Community Council has a timeline of the process (from their point of view, of course):

• The Title 21 Rewrite Project was started in 2002 to implement the city’s adopted comprehensive plans.
• There have been five drafts, each of which has been reviewed by the public. Thousands of staff hours and volunteer hours have gone into reviewing
  and amending the various drafts.  The extensive public process has been open to anyone who desired to participate.
• There have been multiple public hearings at the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Assembly. 
• With each draft, input from the public, including the development community, has led to changes and improvements.
•  By the summer of 2010, all but one of the fourteen chapters had been provisionally adopted by the Assembly. (Not counting the separate Chugiak-Eagle River chapter.)
• “Provisionally Adopted” means that the Assembly Title 21 Committee had thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and frequently amended at least two different drafts of the code, and the final draft was found to be generally acceptable by the Assembly. 
• Dan Coffey was a member of the Assembly’s Title 21 committee and he voted FOR every single provisionally adopted chapter.

But then,

• On July 25, 2010, the Mayor entered into a sole-source contract with Mr. Coffey (who was no longer on the Assembly) to review the provisionally adopted chapters with an assignment to select the top ten most controversial issues in the rewrite and work with interest groups and municipal staff to resolve the identified issues.  In a political letter in late 2010 urging support for certain Assembly candidates, Mr. Coffey wrote that the mayor asked him to “re-work” Title 21.
• In the Fall of 2010, Mr. Coffey held private meetings (planning staff was not allowed to attend and they were closed to the public) with various interest groups.  Instead of identifying and working on the top ten issues, Mr. Coffey submitted to the Planning Department redlined drafts of chapters 1 and 2 of the rewrite. [emphasis added]
• At a meeting with Anchorage Citizens Coalition representatives in November of 2010, Mr. Coffey showed redlined drafts of chapters 1 and 2 of the rewrite.  He made it clear he is rewriting the code following his own personal opinions and biases.  He expressed disdain for planners and discounted studies that did not fit his opinions.
• In November 2010, the Assembly Title 21 Committee stopped meeting after Mr. Coffey convinced the chair to discontinue the meetings until he finished his work.

When are closed door meetings justified?

There is always a tension between transparency and confidentiality/privacy.  The federal Freedom of Information statute identifies specific exemptions.  The basic exemptions listed are there to protect information, which if made public, could compromise

• National Security
• Personal Privacy
• Trade Secrets
• Criminal Investigations and Litigation and 
• Physical Safety

The list has more specific items, but they tend to fall in these categories.  You can see the detailed list here.


A less legitimate reason for closed door meetings is to get things done without tipping off people who might object.  

The mayor listed two reasons for the port discussions being closed: 

1. parties could speak freely.  
2. allow proprietary business information to be discussed.

Yes, it's easier to say what you're really thinking in private where others can't hear you.  But people with opposing views don't get the chance to hear what you're saying and rebut it if necessary. 

There are situations where one might talk about underlying issues and personalities that people wouldn't say in public, but ultimately, I personally feel the danger of too much being hidden is greater than of too much being public.  As much as we've heard, for instance, about the danger of the wikileaks, so far the main fallout we've heard about is embarrassment and attitude realignment based on the new public understandings - such as the Arab support against Iran's nuclear projects. 

Proprietary business information is a legitimate reason for going into a closed session.  Companies do not want their competitors knowing their costs and plans.  But who is in on these discussions? 

Just one of the companies involved?  Then are enough voices at the table?  If more than one, how do they deal with one of them disclosing proprietary information?  It is, after all, the competitors, not the general public they are concerned about here. 

In any case, if there is proprietary information being disclosed, they can do what the Alaska Redistricting Board did when they talked about litigation - go into temporary executive session.  There's no reason to close the whole discussion to public observation. 

Unless they don't want the public to know what's going on.  It's much easier if no one is privy to what you're doing, because they don't ask pesky questions and point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies.  But it doesn't make for good long-term public policy. 


What the Anchorage Citizens' Coalition is saying is that after the whole process was essentially completed, and all parties had a chance to say their piece, and a great deal of negotiating and compromising had been done,  BOMA (Building Operators and Managers Association) gets to  step into the process and work privately with Coffey to make suggested changes that they would like to see. 

Not in open meetings like everyone else during long and exhaustive public process, but in private meetings. out of the spotlight, where people can't hear what is said and challenge inaccuracies. 

Yes, it will still go to the Assembly for final approval, but will the original, provisionally approved document be the starting point and will the Assembly vote on each of the newly proposed changes? 

Or will they be offered Coffey's changed document as the starting point?  And how much time will Assembly members have to scrutinize and discuss the changes?  And how much time will the interested members of the public who participated in the original 8 year process have to identify issues and explain them to the public and the Assembly? 

And now that the Assembly balance has changed, does any of this matter?  Has Sullivan simply waited until he got a majority of the Assembly to summarily throw out an eight year public process and substitute what the industry wants instead? 

It's hard to know whether my fears are justified because we don't know, in either the Port situation or the Title 21 situation what is being done. 

But, I'm adding the State Public Meeting statute so people can consider it themselves.  Why do we have such a policy and is it really being followed?

AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public.

(a) All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law. Attendance and participation at meetings by members of the public or by members of a governmental body may be by teleconferencing. Agency materials that are to be considered at the meeting shall be made available at teleconference locations if practicable. Except when voice votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote. The vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll call. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize a governmental body described in this subsection.

(b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting in executive session, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that are listed in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject in private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations.

(c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:

(1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

(2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

(3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;

(4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.

(d) This section does not apply to

(1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding;

(2) juries;

(3) parole or pardon boards;

(4) meetings of a hospital medical staff;

(5) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline;

(6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; or

(7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings.

(e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this section. The notice must include the date, time, and place of the meeting and if, the meeting is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. Subject to posting notice of a meeting on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175 (a), the notice may be given using print or broadcast media. The notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for all its meetings.

(f) Action taken contrary to this section is voidable. A lawsuit to void an action taken in violation of this section must be filed in superior court within 180 days after the date of the action. A member of a governmental body may not be named in an action to enforce this section in the member's personal capacity. A governmental body that violates or is alleged to have violated this section may cure the violation or alleged violation by holding another meeting in compliance with notice and other requirements of this section and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting. If the court finds that an action is void, the governmental body may discuss and act on the matter at another meeting held in compliance with this section. A court may hold that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of this section is void only if the court finds that, considering all of the circumstances, the public interest in compliance with this section outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to the public entity by voiding the action. In making this determination, the court shall consider at least the following:

(1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;

(2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;

(3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided;

(4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section, has previously considered the subject;

(5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken;

(6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or individuals have come to rely on the action;

(7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section;

(8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious;

(9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS 44.62.312 (a).

(g) Subsection (f) of this section does not apply to a governmental body that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity.

(h) In this section,

(1) "governmental body" means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members;

(2) "meeting" means a gathering of members of a governmental body when

(A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity; or

(B) the gathering is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity;

(3) "public entity" means an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government.

Palin's Internet Provider?

Is it true this clothing store is in the internet business too?

Eure Zukunft ist Nicht Unsere

My German is still good enough to know that means something like, "Your Future is not ours." It's an interesting idea, but what did that mean on the back of a sweatshirt? It could have lots of different meanings depending on the context.

So, I asked the young woman wearing the sweatshirt.

It's the motto of the band of her boyfriend.

And what band was that?

A few letters are missing here. It's "Zivilversager." I didn't know that word. She said it meant "loser." (Zivil means civil and the verb versagen means to fail.)

So here's someone visiting Anchorage from Germany, spreading an aspect of German culture. It made me think about all the travelers in history who as they passed through foreign lands shared music and food and transferred bits of their culture around the world and took bits of other cultures back home. It's easier today to travel the world online and find other customs and arts. Yet I doubt I would have heard of Zivilversager had I not seen this sweatshirt.

Would I have missed anything important? Probably not. This is a punk rock band - obviously US culture already mixed into German culture - but it does add a bit more to my understanding of Germany today. Maybe. As long as I put it as one more bit of data that eventually adds up to impressions (not conclusions.)


You can listen to Zivilversager's music here.  There's even one in English (Broken Glass).

It turns out when I went looking online, I first got this video.  The idea is very similar, but slightly different:   "Unsere Zukunft wird nicht die Eure sein!

My German is good enough to get me into serious trouble. That is, I think I might understand, but could be totally wrong. Is this a neo-Nazi anthem? Or is it a left wing cry against unemployment and poverty, "the State against the country, the employed against the officials, the blue collar workers against the white collar workers, the people of Bavaria against the Prussians, the Catholics against the Protestants"?  I think the latter, but I'm not completely sure.  Anyone out there reading this who can clarify what this video is about and what it represents?

HTML Table Generator - Makes Tables Easy for Bloggers

[From Wikipedia:

HTML, which stands for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language for web pages. HTML is the basic building-blocks of webpages.]

Sometimes if I want to do something more than blogspot lets me do easily, I google for the html code.   I'm working on a post with a long table and so I googled to get reminded how to do that.  I've done it a couple of times and it's not that hard, though it can be time consuming.

This time I found a page at Quackit with an HTML Table Generator. 

All you have to do is type in the number of columns and rows you want and it spits out code to cut and paste into your blog.  Then you can erase the contents of the table (it says 'table cell' in each cell) and fill it in.  Here's a screenshot from their page.

 As you can see, you can change the width of the table, the space between cells and the border width.  Play around to see how it works.  "More colors" takes you to a page that shows all the color codes in html.

Then you just

• copy the html (down on the bottom of the page you generate at Quackit) 
• go to your blogspot post page
• click on the Edit HTML tab at the top right of the post box
• paste the code where you want the box in the text.

Then when you go back into Compose mode (again upper right of post box) you can see your table:

Table Cell	It starts with	Table Cell	In every cell
Table Cell	But you can	delete	and type
Table Cell	what you	want in	the cells
Table Cell
Table Cell

HTML Tables

There are some tricky parts.  You need more skills to make longer or shorter cells, though just typing in will widen a cell.   Play with the space key until you get things to fit right. 

Truthing

Ever since I was a college student and wandered around campus looking at the names of the buildings, I wanted to be able to put up plaques that said how the donors really made their money, how many people they screwed over, and how this building was a way to buy some sort of respectability.  Not everyone who makes such a donation has a nefarious past, and maybe most got their money through hard, honest work and good fortune and genuinely want to give back to society.  But even back then I wanted to peel back the facade and see where the money really came from.

This blog reflects that need to get below the surface.  So this video caught my attention.  What an honest political ad (courtesy of ifc at Youtube) would look like:

Board Signs Proclamation and Other Documents, Then Goes to Executive Session

This morning's meeting didn't get started until 2pm.  I'd called in and learned that board member Brody hadn't made it from Kodiak.  I had been at the computer for much of the day listening for them to begin. By 2 I'd wandered off to do other things.  I called at 3pm to see if they were meeting at all, was told they'd readjourn at 4.  So this is from listening online:


4:09pm 
Torgerson:  Board passing out Proclamation of Redistricting, Metes and Bounds Report, maps, truncation, 2 and 4 year terms, we'll sign today to meet the Constitutional timeline.
Moved and 2nd that we adopt all the things I mentioned.

5-0, the Board has adopted the Proclamation of Redistricting.  Now I'll have Taylor go around and have everybody sign these.  Ladies first. 

Brody:  Long, drawn out process, the Board has excercised as much care and caution as we could and reached out to the citizens of Alaska,  Good plan, not everyone will be happy, but we did the best we could.  I hope it serves the state well for the next five years. 

McConnochie:  It's been a good mix of people and I'm proud . . .

Torgerson:  Gee thanks. . .

It's official. 

Greene:  It's been an honor and privilege to be onboard.  And more so to travel the state and listent to the heartfelt testimony.  I know it's been a difficult challenge.  The one day we had voted and gone back so many times trying to do the boundaries.  Thank the chair for coming into the office to help me.  Proud of the young leadership here running the office.  And Michael. 

Mr. Holm:  It's been a pleasure trying to keep up with you and your singing.  So much occurred in the last three months I never expected.  I thought it would be easier than it was.  Having been a life-long Alaskan, like you Ms. Greene.  I was truly humbled.  When you look at your particular area and think whats important to your area, then you have to look at the others because each of us have a different perception of what's important, thanks for all the comments from everyone, trying to promote their own welfare and we need to consider them all.

Torgerson:  Putting 5 Alaskans from different walks of life, unfamiliar with rules and regulations, but they worked very well, thank you for working together, listening together, conducting yourselves very professionally.  Many turns in the road we had to undertake.  We're glorifying and raising it because we're a 5-0 board.  Not because we jammed it down anyone's throat.  I don't know how PeggyAnn and Marie made all the changes they did.  It's humbling to know someone's comments from a small village were as important as a mayor of big town.  We now have a signed proclamation and accompanying documents.

Brody:  I want to thank the staff, Taylor, Jim, and Mary, the contributions of Ron Miller, Michael, Eric.

Torgerson:  We will go into recess and then executive session.  Tomorrow we'll meet at 10am and go through all these speeches over again.  We'll sign the proclamations and each member will have their own copy.  We'll go into executive session to discuss litigation issues.  Stand in recess for five minutes to let the room clear out.  In teleconference land folks, we'll sign off now.
4:18pm