Nobodyhere: Digital Genius - The Most Brilliant Website I've Ever Experienced

I stumbled upon a website like none I've ever seen.  I can't find the name of the creator, so I'll just call him/her The Genius.   It does all sorts of things I wish I could do.  It uses code to put images and words on the screen just where The Genius wants.  TG combines ideas and images and movements.  It's the best use of the medium of websites I've seen.

I just discovered this website this morning so I'm still poking around through it.  TG is a poet, an artist, and techie enough to make things do what he wants on the screen.  (I'm sure TG will say there is much he/she can't do, but I'm still more than impressed.)

Let's look at a few pages.  I've made them so they link to directly to the original Nobodyhere (that's the name of the website) page.  So you can interact.  Click on the image, you'll not regret it.

Above is the main page, if there is such a thing on Nobodyhere.  And you probably won't get TG standing on the chair.  When you get there, move your mouse all over.  As you can see when you get there, you can see this page in Dutch and Japanese too.  I'm guessing, based on the bug charts, TG is Dutch. 

Shame is typical of a page with an illustration and some text/poetry.

But Nobodyhere is also very interactive.  This is from a page where you can fill in your accusation and apparently TG takes these and makes apologies for them.  Here are some examples.  Again, you can click on the image and go directly to the page on TG's website.

I would note that the figures are not static.  Their movements display suitable supplication.

And, of course, there are the bugs.

Along with the bugs are these more hierarchical pages.  I haven't figured out yet how these pages relate to the others - is this a filing system for the more whimsically displayed content?  I don't know.  But this is true internet genius.  This website is a brilliant digital poem I'm looking forward to exploring more.  And unlike when I studied 17th Century English poets, there's a chat page where I can possibly interact with TG.  I haven't tried it yet.

You don't agree with my assessment?  Then leave your pick for a better website - by that I mean a website that uses the full creative potential of a website.  I'd love to see others this good or better.  But don't pick sites simply because you agree with its message. 

Taking Back The Word Liberal

Gryphen has this poster and video up at Immoral Morality and they're important enough for people to see that I'm reposting them..  It's Lawrence O'Donnell answering the question about whether the words on this poster appearing across the internet about the meaning of 'liberal' are really his.


The ad is short, turn off the sound if it bothers you, but listen to the video.

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

There's an important point in the video which doesn't show up in the poster. Some of the items - like the Clean Air Act - were passed under Republicans, and the response by Jimmy Smits is, "Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them?" It's a point I keep making - the whole country has moved so far to the right in the last 30 years that Republicans like Richard Nixon would be considered far left today.

Redistricting Court Challenge: If I Were The Judge

No, I'm not going to predict the decision, but if I were the judge I would release the decision next Monday, February 6.  Here's why.

[UPDATE Sat. February 4:  But I'm not the judge and he released his decision yesterday (Friday).  Despite the Friday release, the Board won't meet until Tuesday at 10 according to their website. See Feb. 3.]

At the end of the trial he said he'd have it out by the first Monday in February.  That's Monday, February 6.  The Board's attorney requested a Friday release because the board needs to give 48 hours notice for a public meeting.

Since that day the Board has posted tentative daily meetings  starting last Monday and going through Feb. 10.  (And each meeting has been cancelled the day before.)

So it seems they have found a way around the 48 hour notice and the need for a Friday decision, even if the Judge were inclined to make one, is gone.  (They've cancelled each of the tentative meetings including tomorrow's.)

So, if I were the judge, I'd take advantage of the weekend to review my decision and the mountain of evidence it's based on.  

As a blogger, I generally check my posts multiple times before posting.  If there are only pictures and just a few words I can do it faster.  If it's a longer, more disputed topic, I'll take much longer.  I do this for several basic reasons:

1.  Just being typographically and grammatically correct is a way of letting my readers know that I'm careful and they might have more confidence in the content as well.  Despite this goal, when I look back at old posts, I tend to be dismayed at how many errors slip through.

2.  The more clearly I write, the more readers are likely to take from my words the meaning I intended.  But people's mental filters are so varied that this is never 100% foolproof.  (As I typed that word I wondered about the etymology.  I don't mean to imply that if people can't understand what I write they're fools.  I know that's not the case.)

3.  If it's a particularly contentious topic, I want to be as objective and accurate as possible so as to keep the discussion on track and avoid unnecessary noise.


Judge McConahy, I assume, has staff to check on typos and even do research and possibly drafts of sections of his decision.

He knows that this is a decision that will be read carefully by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and most probably the Supreme Court.

The Board will definitely appeal if the ruling doesn't favor their position.
And since the Plaintiffs know that, they must be prepared to go to the Supreme Court as well.   I would assume then that if they lose in Fairbanks, they too are prepared to appeal.

So, if I were Judge McConahy, I would hold this as long as I could.  Whatever he writes will be carefully scrutinized.  Even if I were done on Friday, I'd want the weekend to reread it, go back through the voluminous pre-trial submissions  as well as the testimony in court.  I'd be checking to see if I missed an important point that supported one argument or another.  If there were inconsistencies in the testimony that I'd missed.  If there were clues that would help me decide if witnesses were forthcoming or not.  And if they were, whether their judgment could be trusted.

And since the Judge committed to getting his decision out by the first Monday of February, I'm guessing he will, unless he finds something so important at the last minute that requires he rethink the case.

So I'm guessing the decision will be released on Monday and that Monday afternoon Board will not cancel its Tuesday meeting.

There is some urgency here.  There are less than five months between now and the  June 1 filing deadline for candidates in the Alaska 2012 state primary election.  If the judge's decision requires changes in the district maps and the Supreme Court agrees - those changes have to be made and approved before June 1, 2012.  The clock is ticking.  

A quick trial trivia note:  The judge and both attorneys share the first name - Michael.  

Birds Sing, Another Nice Day in LA

Maybe one of my birder friends can tell me what this small chirping bird is in the agave like tree.  Here's another view

There were several chirping from this Evergreen Pear tree (Pyrus kawakamii) below - my mom knew the name of the tree in her yard.  She'd planted it. But they hide well in the tree.

And finally this one on the neighbors' old television antenna.

Alaska Redistricting for the Masses Part 3: The Trial - The Disputed Districts

Gnashing of teeth, Tearing of hair.  This post is hard.  So many details.  How to do an overview yet reflect the complications?  And I'm only talking about the parts that I think I understand somewhat.  I'm still leaving stuff out.  And how to do this before the decision comes out, which the judge said he'd get done by the first Monday of February?  The Board has announced meetings, tentatively, starting Monday, January 30, so they could have adequate public notice in order to meet as soon as the decision is in.  And they cancelled Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday's meetings because the decision isn't out yet. 

So, I've decided to break Post 3 down into more than one post.  This one focuses on the districts that have been challenged as unconstitutional.  There are six.  Five directly connected to Fairbanks and one indirectly.  [This post ended up only being about districts 1 and 2  and 37.]

The basic question to be decided by the judge is this:

Could the Board have created a redistricting plan that met BOTH the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Alaska constitutional requirements?  

The burden of proof rests with the Board.  

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has approved the plan as meeting the VRA requirements.  Four of the districts challenged, were determined to NOT meet Alaska constitutional requirements - House Districts (HD) 1, 2, 37, and 38.

Districts 1 and 2

HD 1 and HD 2 - Double click to enlarge

[The numbers on the map refer to the house district and the letters refer to the senate district.  Two house districts are combined to make a senate district.]

The key problem the Judge found in HD 1 was the "appendage" that goes into HB 4.  (It's the brown finger that points left between the blue of 4 and the green (of 3).  The judge's order that found districts 1, 2, and 37 NOT compact is here.     This actually got settled before the trial began.  The order reads, in part:

. . . the Plaintiffs argue that House District 1 contains a classical appendage on its western side, which protrudes west from the Steese Highway along the Slough.  The far western tip of the appendage contains a small portion of Aurora area south of College Road and north of Noyes Slough.

It goes on to say that the Plaintiffs argue that it would be easy to switch a different portion of the map so that there is no appendage.  In the trial, Leonard Lawson, who was a technical witness for the plaintiffs, and had drawn the maps for the Rights Coalition, demonstrated how this could be done, showing he could adjust the lines to get rid of the appendage without affecting the number of population in each district which is important in keeping all the districts close to the same size and ensuring one person - one vote.

The importance of this appendage is further spelled out as an example of alleged political gerrymandering.  Again from the Judge's order:

The Fairbanks Districts were drawn by Board member Jim Holm.  Jim Holm is the former Republican State Representative from West Fairbanks City.  In 2004 and 2006, Mr. Holm ran for re-election against Democrat Scott Kawasaki, with Mr. Holm winning in 2004 and Mr. Kawasaki winning in 2006.  Mr. Kawasaki is the current representative of West Fairbanks.  The Plaintiffs argue that the 2006 race was close and hotly contested.

The Plantiffs allege that Mr. Holm drew the appendage in House District 1 in an effort to move Mr. Kawasaki from his current West Fairbanks District to East Fairbanks, where he would be forced to run for re-election in a district that was substantially different from his current district, and against a popular former City Mayor and Republican House Incumbent. who would be running in a district that would be substantially similar to his current district.  The Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Holm believed that Mr. Kawaski lived in what is in actuality his sister's home.  The Plaintiffs base this argument on the following:  Ms. Kawasaki (Mr. Kawasaki's sister) indicated her address as 224 Spruce when she signed in to attend a Board Hearing;  Ms. Kawasaki is often mistaken as Mr. Kawasaki's wife.  Ms. Kawaski's home was located in the West Fairbanks City District under the Board Option Plans;  and Ms. Kawasaki's home is now in the East Fairbanks City District under the Proclamation Plan when the district's western appendage was created.  

The Plaintiffs also argue that after the Board's Proclamation Plan, Mr. Pruhs, the Republican Party District 10 Chair, filed a letter of intent to run for the legislature.  Under the Board Option Plans Mr. Pruhs' home was in East Fairbanks City and under the Proclamation Plan, Mr. Pruhs' home is located in West Fairbanks.  Under the Board Option Plans, Mr. Pruhs would have had to face the current incumbent for East Fairbanks City, Mr. Thompson, who is also Republican.  Under the Proclamation Plan Mr. Pruhs will be running against Mr. Kawasaki.  Also if Mr. Kawasaki lived where his sister's home is, Mr. Pruhs would be running in a district without an incumbent. 

The Defense rebuttal to this was that their need to comply with the VRA forced them to make changes in the Fairbanks area - in the trial they talked about a ripple effect that made this appendage unavoidable.  They also said that Mr. Holm was following natural boundaries and that this was simply a complete census block and that population was needed in HD 1.  They also denied 'the conspiracy theory' saying that Mr. Holm knew where Mr. Kawasaki lived.  You can read the details in the order.

My own observation is that when the Fairbanks draft plan was introduced to the Board, it happened too quickly and too vaguely for anyone to know how it affected incumbents before the board approved it.  Board member Brodie asked how it affected incumbents and member Holm replied:  "I haven't made an incumbent analysis yet."  But in the defense reply they said that Mr. Holm knew where Mr. Kawaski lived.  In the trial, Mr. Holm was able to answer most questions posed by the Board's attorney, but when the Plaintiff's attorney asked him questions he, as I wrote in a previous post wrote, either didn't know, couldn't remember, or resented the implication. 

Moving along to District 2, from the Judge's order again:

The Plaintiffs argue House District 2 is not compact under the Reock Test.  The Plaintiffs also argue that House District 2 is one large corridor that connects three major population areas:  Badger, North Pole, and Eilson/Salcha and at the same time divides these population areas among four districts (1, 2, 3, and 6).  The Plaintiffs argue that this is an odd shape, which the Hickel Court held to be indicative of gerrymandering.  The Plaintiffs additionally argue that narrow highway corridor districts are indicative of gerrymandering and that the Richardson Highway Corridor District runs for 40 miles and is about 1/35th the population.  The Plaintiffs content there is no justification for this non-compactness.

Then the Judge cites the Board's response:

The Board contends that House District 2 was designed to accomplish the legitimate goals of redistricting - that of equal population distribution and socio-economic integration.  The Board argues that the type of corridor districts Alaska courts are concerned with are corridors of land that extend to include a populated area but not the less populated area around it.  The Board also argues that there is not a single shred of evidence that the configuration of House District 2 is partisan in nature.

The Board argues that House District 2 largely consists of North Pole and Eilson Air Force Base because "many of the people that live in North Pole are retired military" and "there's a real close tie between Eilson Air Force Base and North Pole, that's where the people that don't live on Base live."  Mr. Holm did not include land that is farmland because he believed the farmers had more in common with the extensive population in House District 6 and it was not possible to stretch the boundary of House District 2 towards House District 4 because he needed the population for House District 4.

There are several issues here that came up again in the trial.  Although Eilson and North Pole were put together because all the military have a common bond, Ft. Wainwright was left in District 1 and Ft. Wainwright's bombing range which has no population at all, was put into District 5.  Without the bombing range, District 5 would not be contiguous to District 6 and they couldn't have been paired for a Senate District and then the two Democratic Senators in Fairbanks couldn't have been paired into a single district.

Second, Mr. Holm testified several times about his interest in keeping the farmers in the area together because they had common interests.  But when the Plaintiff's attorney asked him how many farmers there were, he said he didn't know the actual numbers.  Mr. Walleri (the attorney) suggested there might be as many as 6 farmers and Mr. Holm said nothing.  So it appeared that the farmer issue was a total red herring.


A quick look at district 37.

Double Click to Enlarge - HD 37 is Green

District 37 is half the Aleutians.   A Supreme Court decision on a previous redistricting plan (Hickel v. Southeast Conference) found:

Although the parties did not raise this issue, the separation of the Aleutian Islands is so plainly erroneous that we address the issue sua sponte. Thus, in exercise of our authority under article IV, section two of the Alaska Constitution, we hold that the separation of the Aleutian Islands into two districts violates article VI, section six of the Alaska Constitution.

The Judge found these three districts (plus 38 for other reasons) unconstitutional and left the burden of proof on the defense (the redistricting board) to prove they had to violate the constitution to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 

And remember - some of the key concepts about the Voting Rights Act and the Constitutional requirements were covered in Post 1. 

OK, these posts were supposed to be overviews, but I've fallen deep into the details.  But the principles without the details mean nothing.  I've got notes that outline the principles, but as I write, that seems less important in understanding what went on and on how the judge will determine whose arguments on principles were most persuasive.  For now, I'll stop here because this is complicated and long enough.  I'll add at least one and probably two more overview posts on the trial. 

End of the Road? No One Wants To Pay For Maintenance of California Highway

An LA Times article tells us that Highway 39 was built in the 1920's and goes from Azusa almost to the Angeles Crest Highway.  Right now it ends about 27 miles up.

A landslide swept away the highest part of the road in 1978, cutting it off from Angeles Crest Highway. Since then, that last stretch of asphalt has been roamed by Nelson's bighorn sheep, creatures fully protected under state law. Caltrans concluded that it would be cost-prohibitive to re-engineer that 4.4-mile gap and legally risky to try because it cannot guarantee that the sheep would not be killed in the process.

 About 500 people use the road to get to their homes and the story says about 3,000,000 people use the road each year and it costs Caltrans $1.5 million a year to maintain  the road that is regularly damaged by landslides, falling rocks, flooding, and forest fires.  (Presumably that doesn't include the last 4.4 miles.)


Caltrans is the State of California Transportation Department and as it is looking for ways to cut costs, it wants to give the maintenance to Los Angeles County or the US Forest Service.   

L.A. County needs the highway to access three dams critical to flood control. . .

The Forest Service's interest is access to Angeles National Forest by the public and, at times, by firefighters. The agency spent $6 million improving a spacious campground at Crystal Lake, where the highway now ends after winding along the San Gabriel River past the Morris and San Gabriel reservoirs.

But neither is interested in taking over the job.

So Caltrans is talking about abandoning the road. 

"According to the agreement, the only way we can extricate ourselves from it is to abandon the highway," he [Caltrans rep] said.

The Forest Service says it has a different interpretation, one that would cost Caltrans dearly. "The permit does say that if Caltrans abandons the highway, they have to remove their improvements — meaning the road — and return the area to the natural landscape," Bergeahl said.

 All this seems to be some sort of brinksmanship, reporter  Louis Sahagun.   3 million people a year is $.50 each to pay the repairs.  But why should people on that road be required to pay when other roads get covered by the state? 

I like thinking about roads going back to nature.  I'm not advocating it, but the whole notion of roads and other human encroachments on the earth being reclaimed by nature gives hope and perspective. 

A little context for Anchorage folks.  A 2010 Dowl engineering report says that 50,000 vehicles a day travel one of Anchorage's busiest roads -Tudor Road between Bragaw Street and Lake Otis.  That comes to 10,000,000 vehicles per year.  California's 'remote' Highway 39 carries almost 1/3 that number. 

The LA Times article says 'people' per year and the Alaska report says 'vehicles' per year so these numbers may not be comparable.  Nevertheless, it should put our Alaskan traffic into a bigger context and the California traffic too. 

My guess all this posturing will lead to some sort of splitting up of the costs among those jurisdictions that have a vested interest in the road. 

Catching the Sunset at the Santa Monica Pier

The Santa Monica Pier had a very different feel from out last visit in October 2009. 





We shared the pier with a lot of people yesterday afternoon following  J's mini reuntion with old friends.   Lots of people here, lots of music.  It was a warm January Sunday afternoon and close to sunset time.

Artists draw visitor portraits all over the world.  Tomás, did you ever do portraits like this?   It might be fun for a Sunday fair once.

There's a big display that touts the pier as the end of the famous Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica.  Wikipedia says it ended where Santa Monica Blvd. hits the ocean is short ways north of the pier.

You can listen to Nat King Cole play and sing Route 66 here.

Here's the pier when it opened in 1909.  Can you believe LA only had 102,000 people one hundred years ago?
The video has clips of some of the music and sounds of the pier.  I tried to check names from artists' vendor permits, but I could only find Kent Axell online.






vvvv

 Listening to live music as the sun sets over the Pacific.

While others are still enjoying the chilly water.

The sun was down as we set out to find the car parked way off near Pico and Lincoln.   I didn't notice any yachts, by the way.  I did see some folks fishing.

This (Monday) afternoon, there's been a definite weather shift and the dry desert wind is gone and the crisp damper ocean breeze has replaced it at my mom's place.  Smells good. 

Driving and Parking LA/Santa Monica

We went to a 90th birthday party this morning in the Valley.  That required a trip over the San Diego Freeway (the freeways were called by their names, not numbers, when we moved north 34 years ago.)

 

I took the above two pictures 5 minutes apart.  There's a slight difference between the two shots only because I zoomed the camera slightly differently from one photo to the other.  But we just sat there without moving.  Once it started moving, we got to a point where one of the five lanes was blocked for 50 feet and there was a construction vehicle and a police car.  After that point, traffic flowed easily.  

On the way back we could see a police car blocking all five lanes North at the same spot.

While there is a lot on line about this project (the one that closed the freeway totally last July), I couldn't find anything explaining what happened today.  There were closures the night of January 25, 2012, but I can't find anything about today.

 

Then J went to Santa Monica Place to meet four friends she'd gone to kindergarten through high school with.  Only one lives in LA and the others were in from as far away as Italy.  I dropped her off and then looked for a parking place.  All the parking lots were full and there was nothing available on the streets nearby.  Half hour later I find a spot about 3/4 of a mile away, parked, and hiked back to the Santa Monica Place. 


On the way out, we did get a couple of reminders that of Alaska where traffic is a little easier. 

Will New California Emission Standards Help Butterflies Survive?

The Tropical Butterfly House at the Pacific Science Center on the site of the 1962 Seattle World's Fair was a great place to completely change our environment last Monday. From the low 40˚F outside into the mid 80˚F inside. More significant was the change into a tropical garden full of butterflies.

Most of these I can't name, so I'll just show more pictures I took.  The butterflies were pretty obliging.

Owl butterfly

Everyday Green reports  on the decline of the butterfly.

Many butterfly species are on the verge of becoming or have already become extinct. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 23 species in the country as endangered or threatened.
The declining butterfly population is a more serious problem than many people realize. Butterflies are an important part of the ecosystem. They play the critical role of pollinator in plant reproduction. Plus, their extinction upsets the natural order of the food chain. The decrease in the global number of butterflies is also an indication of some much greater problems going on in the world today. Some of the factors contributing to the declining butterfly population include the destruction of their natural habitat due to real estate development (about 6,000 acres a day), deforestation, global warming, and the widespread use of pesticides (especially those used for genetically modified crops).

It's not all bad news.  The Environmental News Network reports

Tropical Butterfly House from outside

"Some of Britain's most threatened butterflies are showing promising signs of recovery after decades of decline, according to a new study. The new data comes from the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, which has been monitoring changes in butterfly populations across the United Kingdom since 1976. The biggest winner of 2010 was the wood white, which has suffered a 96% decline since the 1970s, but whose population increased six-fold last year. . .

. . . Although Britain's butterflies remain in long-term decline, the populations of three-quarters of threatened species increased in 2010. This change in fortunes has been put down to targeted conservation action, combined with better weather last year after a series of disastrously wet summers. Butterfly experts hope that if Britain experiences a similar summer this year, some of the country's most threatened species could continue to make a significant recovery. "

You can see the overall grim pattern with figures for different butterflies from a less optimistic British report released in December 2011 at Datablog.





Iowa appears to be losing one of their butterflies:

"The Poweshiek skipper is a small moth-like butterfly that was discovered in Iowa’s Poweshiek County in 1870. Now due to its plummeting population the Poweshiek skipper is a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Experts are unsure why the butterfly’s population is declining. Theories include climate change, pesticides and prairie burns."

The Florida Museum of Natural History has a long Q&A about butterflies.  They tell us that butterflies belong to the familiy Lepidoptera which includes moths and means scaled wings.  They also answer the question:

"Q: Are butterflies important?

A: Yes! They are important as plant pollinators, second only to the bees. They also are very sensitive to the environment and thus are good indicators in assessing how healthy or unhealthy conditions are. They also have their own important place in the ecosystem like all animals do."

And the Florida website tells you how many of the 265,000 species of Lepidoptera are butterflies and how many moths. 

Given that global warming is listed as a contributor to the decline in butterfly populations, today's news in the LA Times, that California is imposing more stringent standards for auto emissions  is probably good news for butterflies - at least those still in existence by the time the regs take effect:

"California, long a national leader in cutting auto pollution, pushed the envelope further Friday as state regulators approved rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and put significantly more pollution-free vehicles on the road in coming years.

The package of Air Resources Board regulations would require auto manufacturers to offer more zero- or very low-emission cars such as battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid vehicles in California starting with model year 2018.

By 2025, one in seven new autos sold in California, or roughly 1.4 million, must be ultra-clean, moving what is now a driving novelty into the mainstream.

The board also strengthened future emission standards for all new cars, making them the toughest in the nation. The rules are intended by 2025 to slash smog-forming pollutants from new vehicles by 75 percent and reduce by a third their emissions that contribute to global warming." [The rest of the article is here.]

Artist Hype

We saw The Artist tonight in Santa Monica.  I'd been hearing it was good and intentionally avoided any details.  I knew it was a silent movie and black and white. 

From a Santa Monica parking garage

Last year Black Swan was a big disappointment.  This year it's The Artist.  There were a number of neat things about the movie, but the movie as a whole left me unengaged.  I'm sure there was a lot of homage that went over my head, but the movie itself has to work.  The lead actor did nothing for me.  The lead actress I liked.  The dog did tricks.  There were neat old cars.  But for me it didn't all come together as a good movie.  I think the novelty of a silent, black and white movie in 2011 and good marketing have given this film more buzz than it warrants.