30 minutes ago Warren Buffet (@WarrenBuffet) posted his first Tweet. He already has 30,000 followers - 1000 per minute.
How do I know this? Because I follow Neal Mann (@fieldproducer) and he just posted about it.
Let's see, I (@whisper2world) sent my first tweet 2 weeks ago and I have 14 followers.
Does this make me a better person? In any way? I'm still trying to figure it out. It does mean that I'm aware of a lot more that I don't know about and so I have a lot more opportunity costs.
A potential upside relates to the conference I'm going to at the end of May. I proposed a discussion on a particular topic and the conference committee has suggested that we do a lot of this via twitter. I'll see how that goes.
But I'm concerned that a lot of Twitter is about saying things faster. But I'm not sure we need to know them faster, and in many cases, know them at all. Was Warren Buffet merely experimenting by saying his physical location or was this a metaphoric way of saying he was on Twitter? I don't think it matters either way. And, to the extent that people spend time looking at Twitriva, they will spend less time gaining in-depth understanding of important issues.
This juror is still out.
[UPDATE May 3, 2013 12:48am - Warren Buffet's second tweet links to a CNN piece he wrote on why he's bullish on women. He also now has 1/4 of a million followers. His new members per minute rate is slowing down.]
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Why People Don't Learn - What You Don't Know You Know Can Hurt You
It became quickly clear in class as I began teaching graduate students that many had no sense of the tools people use to learn about their subject matter and the world. Theory, for many of them, was simply the opposite of practice: what academics do, but impractical in the 'real world.'
My first job was to get them to realize that everything they did was guided by some sort of model or low level theory. They had to understand that we really can't do anything purposeful in the world if we don't have, at the least, simple models of cause and effect relationships. The models didn't have to be conscious, but somewhere in their brains are explanations of how the world works which guide our actions. Things like:
I learned that I had to teach my students to pay attention to their own conceptions of what we were studying - power, bureaucracy, human behavior, decision making, ethics, etc. - before they could seriously consider alternatives offered them in the 'literature.'
The students' own theories, however unformed or unarticulated, blocked their ability to engage the theories they were reading in their graduate studies.
One day, I went to a presentation at UAA by a Dr. Tom Angelo who was doing research on assessing learning. His research team had been interviewing Ivy League science students about basic concepts in science. They found the students came to college with misconceptions. The example that stuck with me was asking students why the earth has seasons. A significant number replied that the earth was further from the sun in the winter. [Think about that a second.] They’d come into college with this misconception and, despite being science students at top schools, left college with their misconceptions intact. (Here's a video - A Private Universe - on that study.)
You needed to get the students to engage their preconceptions and make them conscious so they can examine them, Angelo said. Otherwise they won't learn.
This was very reassuring to me because I had found the same problem with my students. They may not be aware of their preconceptions, but if they were in conflict with what we were studying, they couldn't engage the material.
Fast forward. I'm currently writing a paper arguing, in part, that the graduate schools for students studying administration should start by explicitly focusing on what's inside the students' heads before looking at what's out in the world. After all, we need to examine the models we are using already (often unconsciously) to make decisions before we tackle what others are writing about the same topics. And my students - studying public administration - all had preconceptions of most of the subjects we studied.
I wanted to find the research Prof. Angelo had been referring to. So I googled him and couldn't find an email, but he's on linkedin. I sent a request to link with him and told him, in the request, what I was looking for. The next day I got an email back linking me to a video on the Ivy League science study and a suggestion to look for "research on misconceptions in science."
That got me to the library and I found exactly what I need in the National Research Council's 2000 report How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. They had this Key Finding:
As I think about this now, new things become clear. I've been aware for many years that there were students who showed up in our program who'd been in government or non-profit organizations for a long time and had, on their own, developed conceptions that were pretty much on the mark. As they read the course materials all sorts of bells and whistles went off as they recognized their, often unarticulated, concepts with lots of extra details filled in that they hadn't gotten on their own. These students were enjoying class and doing well. What they already had figured out to a degree by themselves was being confirmed. Parts that were still confusing were being explained.
But there were students who really hadn't reflected very much on what was happening around them at work. Or they had reflected, but inaccurately, and these students with misconceptions were having a much harder time. What they read didn't make sense to them. For many it was because their faulty preconceptions blocked their ability to understand the material. For others, they just didn't have an aptitude for this subject. And others simply didn't work hard enough.
I'd added a section to my intro graduate public administration class called "Ways of Knowing" where we explored terms like 'theory' and learned some vocabulary and concepts that would help us discuss students' preconceptions as we went through different topics. My syllabus said explicitly that I wanted them to examine their own models and compare them to what we were studying.
Some students would simply complain about the reading. It was wrong. They knew better than the authors. I recognize that in some classes students are exposed to incorrect models and their challenges are valid. Some, but not most. But, with this in mind, I got to the point where I'd tell complaining students,
They would begin to understand how much more work the other person had put into this concept than they had.
This is nothing really new or fringe. Peter Senge, whose Fifth Discipline was one of the best selling and most influential management books of all times wrote:
'Ways of Knowing' is an underlying theme of this blog and why it's called "What Do I Know?" What do you know?
I need to point out that I had the luxury of small graduate classes where I could assign a lot of short papers over the semester and grade them in detail. I got feedback on how well the students were doing (and thus how I was doing) and they got lots of feedback from me. By reading their papers I could begin to discover their unspoken models and help the students start to see them and articulate them. Then critique them. Faculty with larger classes simply can't give their students the kind of detailed feedback I could. So they didn't assign as many written papers. And students didn't get the kind of education we all need.
My first job was to get them to realize that everything they did was guided by some sort of model or low level theory. They had to understand that we really can't do anything purposeful in the world if we don't have, at the least, simple models of cause and effect relationships. The models didn't have to be conscious, but somewhere in their brains are explanations of how the world works which guide our actions. Things like:
- Saying please and thank you will make it easier to get things.
- If you turn on your turn indicator, the car next to you will give you space to change lanes.
- A spanking will teach your child not to do something you disapprove of.
- Drinking water will quench your thirst.
- Yelling will cause people to do what you want.
- If you work hard, you will succeed
I learned that I had to teach my students to pay attention to their own conceptions of what we were studying - power, bureaucracy, human behavior, decision making, ethics, etc. - before they could seriously consider alternatives offered them in the 'literature.'
The students' own theories, however unformed or unarticulated, blocked their ability to engage the theories they were reading in their graduate studies.
One day, I went to a presentation at UAA by a Dr. Tom Angelo who was doing research on assessing learning. His research team had been interviewing Ivy League science students about basic concepts in science. They found the students came to college with misconceptions. The example that stuck with me was asking students why the earth has seasons. A significant number replied that the earth was further from the sun in the winter. [Think about that a second.] They’d come into college with this misconception and, despite being science students at top schools, left college with their misconceptions intact. (Here's a video - A Private Universe - on that study.)
You needed to get the students to engage their preconceptions and make them conscious so they can examine them, Angelo said. Otherwise they won't learn.
This was very reassuring to me because I had found the same problem with my students. They may not be aware of their preconceptions, but if they were in conflict with what we were studying, they couldn't engage the material.
Fast forward. I'm currently writing a paper arguing, in part, that the graduate schools for students studying administration should start by explicitly focusing on what's inside the students' heads before looking at what's out in the world. After all, we need to examine the models we are using already (often unconsciously) to make decisions before we tackle what others are writing about the same topics. And my students - studying public administration - all had preconceptions of most of the subjects we studied.
I wanted to find the research Prof. Angelo had been referring to. So I googled him and couldn't find an email, but he's on linkedin. I sent a request to link with him and told him, in the request, what I was looking for. The next day I got an email back linking me to a video on the Ivy League science study and a suggestion to look for "research on misconceptions in science."
That got me to the library and I found exactly what I need in the National Research Council's 2000 report How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. They had this Key Finding:
"1: Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom."Bingo!
As I think about this now, new things become clear. I've been aware for many years that there were students who showed up in our program who'd been in government or non-profit organizations for a long time and had, on their own, developed conceptions that were pretty much on the mark. As they read the course materials all sorts of bells and whistles went off as they recognized their, often unarticulated, concepts with lots of extra details filled in that they hadn't gotten on their own. These students were enjoying class and doing well. What they already had figured out to a degree by themselves was being confirmed. Parts that were still confusing were being explained.
But there were students who really hadn't reflected very much on what was happening around them at work. Or they had reflected, but inaccurately, and these students with misconceptions were having a much harder time. What they read didn't make sense to them. For many it was because their faulty preconceptions blocked their ability to understand the material. For others, they just didn't have an aptitude for this subject. And others simply didn't work hard enough.
I'd added a section to my intro graduate public administration class called "Ways of Knowing" where we explored terms like 'theory' and learned some vocabulary and concepts that would help us discuss students' preconceptions as we went through different topics. My syllabus said explicitly that I wanted them to examine their own models and compare them to what we were studying.
Some students would simply complain about the reading. It was wrong. They knew better than the authors. I recognize that in some classes students are exposed to incorrect models and their challenges are valid. Some, but not most. But, with this in mind, I got to the point where I'd tell complaining students,
"If you know better, write down your model of this and then show why it is a better one than what you read in the literature. Then we'll send it in to some journals and you'll be famous. But first you need to articulate your model, verify any claims you make, and then you need to know exactly what this writer is saying so you can critique it."
They would begin to understand how much more work the other person had put into this concept than they had.
This is nothing really new or fringe. Peter Senge, whose Fifth Discipline was one of the best selling and most influential management books of all times wrote:
"Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behavior. . . Mental models of what can or cannot be done in different management settings are no less deeply entrenched. Many insights into new markets or outmoded organizational practices fail to get put into practice because they conflict with powerful, tacit mental models.
“The discipline of working with mental models starts with turning the mirror inwards: learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on “learningful” conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others.” (Senge, p. 8)People understand this conceptually. Develop "critical thinking skills" and "ability to do analysis and synthesis" are listed as key competencies for graduate administration degrees, but a lot of faculty don't know exactly how to do this. It isn't the focus of a particular class. It's supposed to happen as a side-effect of studying the actual subject. Or students are supposed to already know this when they arrive. But they don't. And most students won't get this unless you make them look inward and find their internal, unconscious models of the world.
'Ways of Knowing' is an underlying theme of this blog and why it's called "What Do I Know?" What do you know?
I need to point out that I had the luxury of small graduate classes where I could assign a lot of short papers over the semester and grade them in detail. I got feedback on how well the students were doing (and thus how I was doing) and they got lots of feedback from me. By reading their papers I could begin to discover their unspoken models and help the students start to see them and articulate them. Then critique them. Faculty with larger classes simply can't give their students the kind of detailed feedback I could. So they didn't assign as many written papers. And students didn't get the kind of education we all need.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
chinaSmack - What Do You Call A Phony TV Expert?
One of the best ways to learn about other cultures is, of course, to be there and have friends who can explain things that don't show up in the books about the culture. The internet offers glimpses like these. Yesterday I stumbled onto one that gives lots of insight into what's happening online in China.
It's a glossary of Chinese online slang, but by using characters and English they seem to have developed a particularly rich code. For instance, this is the Chinese character for convex - 凸. You'll see below how it's been given new meaning. Some are terms we can all relate to even if we don't have an equivalent in English.
As I poked around the website, I realized there's a lot more to it than a glossary. It's a good way to get a sense of what's happening in China's cyberspace.
I'll just offer some tidbits from the glossary. Here's one we could start using:
I can think of a couple of situations where some people would have used this in the US:
We've all been in this situation.
Remember convex (above)?
Calling out online shills:
And again:
chinaSMACK looks like an interesting site overall to see what is happening on Chinese internet.
It's a glossary of Chinese online slang, but by using characters and English they seem to have developed a particularly rich code. For instance, this is the Chinese character for convex - 凸. You'll see below how it's been given new meaning. Some are terms we can all relate to even if we don't have an equivalent in English.
As I poked around the website, I realized there's a lot more to it than a glossary. It's a good way to get a sense of what's happening in China's cyberspace.
"chinaSMACK provides non-Chinese language readers a glimpse into modern China and Chinese society by translating into English popular and trending Chinese internet content and netizen discussions from China’s largest and most influential websites, discussion forums, and social networks."It says it started this way:
"Started in July 2008, chinaSMACK began as a personal project for Fauna (coyly pictured above), a young Shanghainese girl committed to improving her English language skills by translating the Chinese internet stories, pictures, and videos that were popular online. Despite English being taught to nearly every schoolchild in China, she knew her English would never be functional without daily practice.
She hopes you’ll never go back and judge her earliest translations."Of course, this is just one little window and doesn't represent everything but it's part of a much bigger picture. I did check with a Chinese friend who said what he saw rang true.
I'll just offer some tidbits from the glossary. Here's one we could start using:
I can think of a couple of situations where some people would have used this in the US:
We've all been in this situation.
Remember convex (above)?
Calling out online shills:
And again:
chinaSMACK looks like an interesting site overall to see what is happening on Chinese internet.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Again, The Alaska Supreme Court Tells Redistricting Board They Meant What They Said
I haven't written about the latest Supreme Court decision on the Alaska Redistricting Board because I didn't have a copy of the order. I couldn't find it on the Supreme Court website and requested a copy over the weekend. I got one today. It says pretty much what I expected from the ADN articles (one and two.) Basically that they meant what they said in the previous orders.
There was a time when the Board was doing an outstanding job of putting all the paperwork filed before the Alaska Supreme Court on their website. But they no longer have an Executive Director and the site is on life support.
Basically the Court has said several times now, "You have to start from scratch to create a map of Alaska House districts (the Senate districts are combinations of two House districts) by following only the Alaska Constitution's requirements." (Following an earlier Supreme Court Decision that calls this the Hickel process.) Then, and only then, can they make the most minimal changes necessary to those districts to accommodate the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act.
I'm not sure what the Board's strategy is right now. It's tempting to assume they're just having a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted from the Court. But they've been clear that they want to see what the US Supreme Court will do in the Shelby County v. Holder case which challenged the section of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that requires them to get clearance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) before the plan can become law. That decision should come in June.
One would think that this would mean they would get started making a map based on the Alaska Constitution. That's what the Court keeps telling them they have to do. Then when the Shelby County decision comes down they would be way ahead. If they don't have to get clearance from the DOJ, then they should be done, maybe. (Even though they don't need to get clearance before hand, Alaska Native interests will be making sure that the Board hasn't diluted there representation in the legislature. The rest of the VRA would still be intact and it requires that Alaska Natives (in Alaska's case) be treated fairly.)
If they are required to still get DOJ clearance, they will have done the first step of the Hickel process - made a map based on the Alaska Constitution. Their next step would be to make the most minimal adjustments to that map that are necessary to comply with the VRA.
But the ADN reports the Board isn't going to do anything until the Shelby decision is announced. I can't think of any logical, legitimate reason for the delay that is based on any of the information that I've seen.
One has to consider their abrupt decision to NOT hire an Executive Director after they interviewed three candidates in March. They were forced into releasing the resumes of the candidates by the Anchorage Daily News and they held the interviews publicly. As I reported at the time, I can't see any explanation for their action other than the open session meant they couldn't hire a political ally - Fairbanks aide to former Senator Seekins - and apparent friend of Board Member Holm, Brian Hove. Of the three candidates who stayed in for the interviews, Hove was by far the least qualified and least prepared. The obvious choice for the position was a retired army Lt. Col. who had a PhD in Human Geography (important because she possessed the technical GIS skills critical for the job and the social science skills of how to balance the competing requirements) whose doctoral dissertation was on the impact of the military on Alaska Natives. This is important because it means she's traveled to rural parts of the state and knows a number of the Native leaders - a huge asset in complying with the VRA. It was after the interviews and apparently in the executive session (which would violate the public meetings act) that they decided to not hire anyone. The only explanation my usually imaginative mind can come up with is that they wanted to hire Brian Hove, and would have if the names and interviews had been secret. But given that everyone could see that he was the least qualified of the three, they had no choice but to choose an executive director with perfect qualifications for the job or decided to not hire anyone. This suggests to me that they didn't want someone with excellent GIS skills that they didn't control.
There's another dynamic in play here as well. The board members were appointed by the Governor (2), the Senate President (1), the Speaker of the House (1), and the Supreme Court Chief Justice (1). The first three, despite the fact that the appointments are to be made without regard to political affiliation, all appointed the four Republicans. The Supreme Court Chief Justice - the Board's current nemesis - appointed the lone Democrat, Alaska Native Marie Green.
The Board, in public, has been extremely polite and accommodating to Green on all things Native. And she seems to have decided that as long as the Native issues are resolved to her satisfaction, she'll go along with what the Board wants to do.
But what happens now? The man who appointed her has retired from the Court, but retired judges can be called into serving in a case from retirement. Given he was an integral part of this current round of redistricting, and was in on this latest opinion, there is reason to believe he will probably stay on this case until it is resolved. As some members of the Board become openly hostile toward the Court and Carpeneti in particular, how will this affect their relationship with Green?
More important, if the Shelby case releases the Board from its need for pre-clearance from the DOJ, how will that affect how they treat the Alaska Native districts? Will they continue to be as solicitous of Green? Will she continue to be, in public, as cooperative as she's been in the past - always voting with the rest of the members?
Will the Board give up Native seats if they aren't required to get pre-clearance? What kind of law suits will that cause?
If the Board stalls long enough will it be too late to make a new map for the 2014 election? Clearly, the majority is pleased that their redistricting plan has shifted the power in the state legislature strongly to the Republicans. (If Democrats would have been running the show, they would have tried to shift things in their favor.) But are they now trying to make the Supreme Court look partisan to help drum up support for those trying to dismantle the Alaska's Judicial Council and its influence on the appointment of judges? (I have to say in my opinion the Judicial Council has an incredibly open and fair process that gathers assessments of judges from attorneys, jurors, court employees, social workers who deal with the court, and others to rate judges and judicial candidates.)
How much of this recalcitrance is the Court going to take from the Board before they decide to simply appoint a panel to do the redistricting as has happened in prior redistricting?
(This is starting to sound like a promo for a daytime soap opera isn't it? Who said redistricting was boring?)
I'm sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes that I've missed. I do need to talk to some of the players involved again. This is just my reaction based on what I've seen at the Board over the last two years.
Below is the Court's opinion. They did clarify one point - that the Board didn't need to change all the existing districts as long as they were developed anew as part of the Hickel process.
[I put very few links in this post. Just about every sentence could be linked to an older post that goes into more detail or explanation. If you want more, go to the Alaska Redistricting Board tab at the top of the page or click here. It has an annotated index of all the posts on the Redistricting Board.]
There was a time when the Board was doing an outstanding job of putting all the paperwork filed before the Alaska Supreme Court on their website. But they no longer have an Executive Director and the site is on life support.
Basically the Court has said several times now, "You have to start from scratch to create a map of Alaska House districts (the Senate districts are combinations of two House districts) by following only the Alaska Constitution's requirements." (Following an earlier Supreme Court Decision that calls this the Hickel process.) Then, and only then, can they make the most minimal changes necessary to those districts to accommodate the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act.
I'm not sure what the Board's strategy is right now. It's tempting to assume they're just having a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted from the Court. But they've been clear that they want to see what the US Supreme Court will do in the Shelby County v. Holder case which challenged the section of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that requires them to get clearance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) before the plan can become law. That decision should come in June.
One would think that this would mean they would get started making a map based on the Alaska Constitution. That's what the Court keeps telling them they have to do. Then when the Shelby County decision comes down they would be way ahead. If they don't have to get clearance from the DOJ, then they should be done, maybe. (Even though they don't need to get clearance before hand, Alaska Native interests will be making sure that the Board hasn't diluted there representation in the legislature. The rest of the VRA would still be intact and it requires that Alaska Natives (in Alaska's case) be treated fairly.)
If they are required to still get DOJ clearance, they will have done the first step of the Hickel process - made a map based on the Alaska Constitution. Their next step would be to make the most minimal adjustments to that map that are necessary to comply with the VRA.
But the ADN reports the Board isn't going to do anything until the Shelby decision is announced. I can't think of any logical, legitimate reason for the delay that is based on any of the information that I've seen.
One has to consider their abrupt decision to NOT hire an Executive Director after they interviewed three candidates in March. They were forced into releasing the resumes of the candidates by the Anchorage Daily News and they held the interviews publicly. As I reported at the time, I can't see any explanation for their action other than the open session meant they couldn't hire a political ally - Fairbanks aide to former Senator Seekins - and apparent friend of Board Member Holm, Brian Hove. Of the three candidates who stayed in for the interviews, Hove was by far the least qualified and least prepared. The obvious choice for the position was a retired army Lt. Col. who had a PhD in Human Geography (important because she possessed the technical GIS skills critical for the job and the social science skills of how to balance the competing requirements) whose doctoral dissertation was on the impact of the military on Alaska Natives. This is important because it means she's traveled to rural parts of the state and knows a number of the Native leaders - a huge asset in complying with the VRA. It was after the interviews and apparently in the executive session (which would violate the public meetings act) that they decided to not hire anyone. The only explanation my usually imaginative mind can come up with is that they wanted to hire Brian Hove, and would have if the names and interviews had been secret. But given that everyone could see that he was the least qualified of the three, they had no choice but to choose an executive director with perfect qualifications for the job or decided to not hire anyone. This suggests to me that they didn't want someone with excellent GIS skills that they didn't control.
There's another dynamic in play here as well. The board members were appointed by the Governor (2), the Senate President (1), the Speaker of the House (1), and the Supreme Court Chief Justice (1). The first three, despite the fact that the appointments are to be made without regard to political affiliation, all appointed the four Republicans. The Supreme Court Chief Justice - the Board's current nemesis - appointed the lone Democrat, Alaska Native Marie Green.
The Board, in public, has been extremely polite and accommodating to Green on all things Native. And she seems to have decided that as long as the Native issues are resolved to her satisfaction, she'll go along with what the Board wants to do.
But what happens now? The man who appointed her has retired from the Court, but retired judges can be called into serving in a case from retirement. Given he was an integral part of this current round of redistricting, and was in on this latest opinion, there is reason to believe he will probably stay on this case until it is resolved. As some members of the Board become openly hostile toward the Court and Carpeneti in particular, how will this affect their relationship with Green?
More important, if the Shelby case releases the Board from its need for pre-clearance from the DOJ, how will that affect how they treat the Alaska Native districts? Will they continue to be as solicitous of Green? Will she continue to be, in public, as cooperative as she's been in the past - always voting with the rest of the members?
Will the Board give up Native seats if they aren't required to get pre-clearance? What kind of law suits will that cause?
If the Board stalls long enough will it be too late to make a new map for the 2014 election? Clearly, the majority is pleased that their redistricting plan has shifted the power in the state legislature strongly to the Republicans. (If Democrats would have been running the show, they would have tried to shift things in their favor.) But are they now trying to make the Supreme Court look partisan to help drum up support for those trying to dismantle the Alaska's Judicial Council and its influence on the appointment of judges? (I have to say in my opinion the Judicial Council has an incredibly open and fair process that gathers assessments of judges from attorneys, jurors, court employees, social workers who deal with the court, and others to rate judges and judicial candidates.)
How much of this recalcitrance is the Court going to take from the Board before they decide to simply appoint a panel to do the redistricting as has happened in prior redistricting?
(This is starting to sound like a promo for a daytime soap opera isn't it? Who said redistricting was boring?)
I'm sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes that I've missed. I do need to talk to some of the players involved again. This is just my reaction based on what I've seen at the Board over the last two years.
Below is the Court's opinion. They did clarify one point - that the Board didn't need to change all the existing districts as long as they were developed anew as part of the Hickel process.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska In Re 2011 Redistricting Cases,
Supreme Court No. S-14721 Order
Date of Order: April 24, 2013
Trial Court Case # 4FA-11-02209CI
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree and Stowers, Justices, and
Matthews and Carpeneti, Senior Justices*
The Alaska Redistricting Board has requested clarification of our order of December 28, 2012, as amended on petition for rehearing on February 12, 2013, in two respects. The Riley respondents oppose the Board’s request for clarification and raise additional matters. Having reviewed the request for clarification, we respond to the Board’s request as follows:
1. A new Hickel plan is required because the legal error found by both the superior court and this court was the Board’s failure to begin by constructing districts to comply with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution.
2. The first step in the redistricting process is to construct districts that comply with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution. As long as the Board begins by constructing districts that meet the requirements of the Alaska Constitution — that is, as long as the Board follows the Hickel process — the fact that a resulting district is the same as or similar to a previous district will not in and of itself preclude the new district from being approved.
3. Whether Article VI, section 10 of the Alaska Constitution requires public
hearings following the adoption of the Board’s plan or plans and whether the Board’s proposed timeline is sufficient to allow judicial review of the Board’s work are not properly before this court. Any party may seek to have these matters heard in the superior court.
* Sitting by assignment made under article IV, section 11 of the Alaska
cc:
Supreme Court Justices
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
/s/ _______________________________ Jolene Hotho, Deputy Clerk
WINFREE, Justice, would deny the motion, and therefore dissents.
Distribution:
Michael J Walleri
Jason Gazewood Gazewood & Weiner PC
1008 16th Avenue, Suite 200 Fairbanks AK 99701
Thomas F Klinkner
Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot
1127 W 7th Ave Anchorage AK 99501
Michael D White/Nicole Corr
Patton Boggs LLP
601 W 5th Ave Ste 700 Anchorage AK 99501
Natalie A Landreth
Native American Rights Fund
801 B St Ste 401 Anchorage AK 99501
Joseph N. Levesque
Levesque Law Group,LLC
3380 C Street Suite 202 Anchorage AK 99503
Carol Brown
Association of Village Council Presidents
PO Box 219 101A Main Street Bethel AK 99550
Marcia R. Davis
Calista Corporation 3
01 Calista Court Anchorage AK 99518
A. Rene Broker Jill Dolan
Fairbanks North Star Borough
PO Box 71267 Fairbanks AK 99707
Scott A Brandt-Erichsen
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
1900 1st Ave Ste 215 Ketchikan AK 99901
Thomas E. Schulz
715 Miller Ride Road Ketchikan AK 99901
Joseph H McKinnon
1434 Kinnikinnick St Anchorage AK 99508
Christopher Lundberg
Haglund Kelley Jones & Wilder, LLP
200 SW Market Street, Suite 1777 Portland OR 97201-5771
Brooks W Chandler
Boyd Chandler & Falconer LLP
911 W 8th Ave Ste 302 Anchorage AK 99501
Jonathan K. Tillinghast
James Sheehan
E. Budd Simpson, III
Simpson, Tillinghast, Sorensen & Lorensen
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 300
Juneau AK 99801
[I put very few links in this post. Just about every sentence could be linked to an older post that goes into more detail or explanation. If you want more, go to the Alaska Redistricting Board tab at the top of the page or click here. It has an annotated index of all the posts on the Redistricting Board.]
Sunday, April 28, 2013
When Nietzsche Wept I Made A Linzer Torte
This is a post about serendipity and how I came to bake a Linzer Torte.
It's also about changing - changing all these ingredients into a torte. I could include the changes that reading a particular book causes in one's understanding of the world, but that's too much.
So how did I get to the spot where I had all these ingredients measured and waiting to be combined?
About a year ago I was headed to Juneau and my friend Paul with whom I was going to stay while there, asked if I could bring him the book The Spinoza Problem from Anchorage. I started reading it while I was there, but Paul suggested I read an older book by the same other author, Irvin Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept. [I thought I'd posted about the book in the past, but I can't find such a post, only one that mentions The Spinoza Problem in passing. There's a lot in both these books to chew on and so I'm guessing I kept putting off actually writing a post.]
Anyway, I recommended Nietzsche to my book club and eventually we got to it - last Monday and I was the host. We try to have some snacks that are mentioned in the book. But I had borrowed Paul's copy and returned it long ago. So I emailed Paul, who is also an incredible cook, and suggested that since he'd originally recommended the book and since he's interested in food, maybe he could scan the book and come up with a recommendation for something I could make for the group. He enthusiastically accepted the challenge and the next day I had two recipes for Linzer Torte and one for Apple Strudel. (The book takes place in Vienna in the late 1800s.)
The strudel recipe looked like more things could go wrong. I chose the Joy of Baking Linzer Torte recipe. Above you can see all the ingredients gathered. I had no idea how much butter these tortes have in them. I haven't had that much butter in the last ten years - except maybe what's hidden inside things like, well, Linzer Torte and or food I eat in a restaurant.
The first thing to do is put the raspberries and sugar into saucepan and boil off the liquid.
Then I mixed the rest of the ingredients.
The major adjustment I made to the recipe was that I didn't have hazelnuts and we did have some almond meal, so I didn't crush my own almonds. I just used the almond meal. The dough was very different from bread dough. Not as sticky, but all that butter made it very oily.
The recipe said to divide the dough into two balls. This one had to be flattened between wax paper and put into the refrigerator. This part of the would later be cut into strips that I would (very badly) braid across the top.
The other half of the dough on the bottom of the pan and poured the raspberry sauce into the pan.
The chilled dough broke very easily and as you can see, the braiding was pretty sloppy. Then whatever was leftover was put around the edge of the pan.
And here it is out of the oven.
The powdered sugar was sort of like make up, covering some of the flaws I'd had in the braiding.
The book club members were all very polite and complimentary. Paul said people always say nice things when they find out you made it yourself. But I've tasted his masterpieces and they're incredible. (You can see what I mean at a post about what he made for an Easter brunch a couple of years ago.) This was good, but anyone who really knew about Linzer Torte would know it was my first try. (And yes, we had whipped cream for each piece.)
Go back and compare the finished torte to all the ingredients in the first picture. I think it's pretty amazing how human beings have figured out how to take a bunch of items - whether it's to make food, a machine, a book, a painting - and transform them into something else.
It's also about changing - changing all these ingredients into a torte. I could include the changes that reading a particular book causes in one's understanding of the world, but that's too much.
So how did I get to the spot where I had all these ingredients measured and waiting to be combined?
About a year ago I was headed to Juneau and my friend Paul with whom I was going to stay while there, asked if I could bring him the book The Spinoza Problem from Anchorage. I started reading it while I was there, but Paul suggested I read an older book by the same other author, Irvin Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept. [I thought I'd posted about the book in the past, but I can't find such a post, only one that mentions The Spinoza Problem in passing. There's a lot in both these books to chew on and so I'm guessing I kept putting off actually writing a post.]
Anyway, I recommended Nietzsche to my book club and eventually we got to it - last Monday and I was the host. We try to have some snacks that are mentioned in the book. But I had borrowed Paul's copy and returned it long ago. So I emailed Paul, who is also an incredible cook, and suggested that since he'd originally recommended the book and since he's interested in food, maybe he could scan the book and come up with a recommendation for something I could make for the group. He enthusiastically accepted the challenge and the next day I had two recipes for Linzer Torte and one for Apple Strudel. (The book takes place in Vienna in the late 1800s.)
The strudel recipe looked like more things could go wrong. I chose the Joy of Baking Linzer Torte recipe. Above you can see all the ingredients gathered. I had no idea how much butter these tortes have in them. I haven't had that much butter in the last ten years - except maybe what's hidden inside things like, well, Linzer Torte and or food I eat in a restaurant.
The first thing to do is put the raspberries and sugar into saucepan and boil off the liquid.
Then I mixed the rest of the ingredients.
The major adjustment I made to the recipe was that I didn't have hazelnuts and we did have some almond meal, so I didn't crush my own almonds. I just used the almond meal. The dough was very different from bread dough. Not as sticky, but all that butter made it very oily.
The recipe said to divide the dough into two balls. This one had to be flattened between wax paper and put into the refrigerator. This part of the would later be cut into strips that I would (very badly) braid across the top.
The other half of the dough on the bottom of the pan and poured the raspberry sauce into the pan.
The chilled dough broke very easily and as you can see, the braiding was pretty sloppy. Then whatever was leftover was put around the edge of the pan.
And here it is out of the oven.
The powdered sugar was sort of like make up, covering some of the flaws I'd had in the braiding.
The book club members were all very polite and complimentary. Paul said people always say nice things when they find out you made it yourself. But I've tasted his masterpieces and they're incredible. (You can see what I mean at a post about what he made for an Easter brunch a couple of years ago.) This was good, but anyone who really knew about Linzer Torte would know it was my first try. (And yes, we had whipped cream for each piece.)
Go back and compare the finished torte to all the ingredients in the first picture. I think it's pretty amazing how human beings have figured out how to take a bunch of items - whether it's to make food, a machine, a book, a painting - and transform them into something else.
USS Anchorage To Be Commissioned In Anchorage May 4 After May 1 Block Party
 |
| USS Anchorage - screenshot from video below. |
"Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has approved the date of May 4, 2013 as the day of commissioning for the Anchorage (LPD 23). Early this year it was announced that the commissioning would be held in Anchorage, a first for the city and the state of Alaska.
The commissioning is a formal ceremony in which the ship officially becomes a unit of the operating forces of the United States Navy. It is the final, most significant event, and the occasion when the ship "comes alive" and becomes a United States Navy Vessel."
The USS Anchorage is a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship. Don't know what that means? Or why it's LPD 23? These terms and lots of other interesting tidbits are in the Navy's FAQs I've posted at the bottom of this post.
Actually, this is the second USS Anchorage. The first one is sitting on the bottom of the sea off of Kauai. She was used as target practice in 2010 after being decommissioned in 2003. She was commissioned in 1969. You can read more about her here and here.
Before the commissioning on Saturday (May 4), the Port of Anchorage is throwing a block party at Town Square on Wednesday (May 1) from 5-9pm.
And there are Public Tours:
Thursday, May 2 starting at 1:00 p.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m.
Friday, May 3 starting at 2:00 p.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m
Or you can go on this cool video tour from the ship's website.
Tickets for the commissioning itself are sold out, but you can watch the ceremony online.
It's at 10am - 11am.
Here's some technical data from the ship's website:
Length: 684 feet (208.5 meters).From what I can tell, the ship cost $134 million plus another $18 million modification of the contract.
Beam: 105 feet (31.9 meters).
Displacement: Approximately 25,586 long tons (full load).
Speed: In excess of 22 knots
Crew: Ship’s Company: 360 Sailors (28 officers, 332 enlisted) and 3 Marines.
Embarked Landing Force: 699 (66 officers, 633 enlisted); surge capacity to 800.
Armament: Two MK 46 Mod 2 guns, fore and aft; two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers, fore and aft: nine .50 calibre machine guns.
Aircraft: Launch or land two CH53E Super Stallion helicopters or two MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft or up to four CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, AH-1 or UH-1 helicopters.
Landing/Attack Craft: Landing/Attack Craft: Two LCACs or one LCU; and 14 Amphibious Assault Vehicles.
Here's a video of the christening. On the video you'll hear from a number of folks including the ship sponsor. If you want to know what a sponsor of a ship is and more about Mrs. Conway, the sponsor of this ship, there's a bio on the ship's website. She's scheduled to be in Anchorage for the commissioning.
The document below comes from a Navy website. It was put up before the date and location of the commissioning was launched.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Why Is It Hard To Talk About Racism?
I co-facilitated a workshop today on Why It's Difficult to Talk About Racism. The participants were divided into groups of five or six and they came up with a lot of reasons. Probably the main reasons are:
- Fear/Discomfort
- of getting hurt
- of offending someone
- of saying something stupid
- Ignorance
- not much experience/training in how to talk about it
- not much knowledge about facts and underlying causes
- It's a VERY Sensitive Topic
- IT IS FREAKIN' UNCOMFORTABLE.
- WE ALL FEEL THREATENED.
- WE GET DEFENSIVE.
- Afraid of using the wrong terms or otherwise saying something offensive.
- Afraid of being called a racist or otherwise ‘attacked’
- Don’t want to have to change how I talk etc.
- Afraid that changing things means losing something (while denying white privilege)
- Conversations feel disrespectful. People of Color hear the same stories and excuses over and over again from whites when race comes up. Things like “I don’t see race” or “Prove it to me” or “It takes time.” These things assert the validity of the white person’s world view and deny the person of color’s experience.
From: People of Color Organize "10 Conversations On Racism I'm Sick of Having With White People" - Example: Talking about race is difficult and I generally don’t get into discussions of race unless I am around other people of color. I don’t like talking about race with most white people because many are blissfully unaware of their privilege. When around other people of color, I usually get into good, deep discussions. When I have gotten into discussions with some white people, I have often gotten, “Oh, it’s not really like that. Maybe you’re exaggerating” or “You’re just too sensitive. I’m sure they didn’t mean it like that.” These things all negate my experience and more often than not, I am told by white people that I’m making it up. I can’t get in discussions about race for my sanity’s sake.
From: Resist Racism - 16 thoughtful observations on race by commenters
- It’s exhausting and for some traumatic to talk about race.
- Forced to be spokesperson for my race.
- Feel like I have to teach (for free) the people who make my life difficult.
“So one answer to the question What can I do? is simple: Listen. Believe."It seems pretty obvious to me that most people of color would have a more heightened awareness of racism than most whites. It doesn't mean they can articulate it well or that they don't, on occasion, see racism when it isn't there. And it doesn't mean that some whites aren't pretty savvy on this topic. In general though, this advice, "Listen. Believe" is pretty good. Don't interrupt. Don't deny other people's experiences. Ask for more explanation and context if you must, but pay attention to the emotion when they tell you.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Treadwell Certifies Referendum
From the Lt. Gov's webpage:
Treadwell Certifies Referendum
Lt. Gov. Treadwell Certifies ReferendumApril 25, 2013, Anchorage, AK – Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell today certified 13SB21, the referendum application to reject Senate Bill 21 on Alaska’s oil taxes passed during the legislative session that adjourned April 14, 2013.
The lieutenant governor signed the certificate after consultation with the Division of Elections, which determined the application included a sufficient number of sponsor signatures, and the Department of Law, which concluded that the proposed bill is in the proper form under Article XI of the Alaska Constitution and AS 15.45.
The lieutenant governor notified the primary sponsors of the petition, Victor Fischer, Bella Hammond, and N. Jim Whitaker, Jr.
The Division of Elections will prepare petition booklets for the sponsors to gather signatures from around the state. The petition must be signed by qualified voters at least equal in number to 10 percent of those who voted in the last General Election, who are resident in at least three-fourths of the House districts of the State, and who are equal in number to at least seven percent of those who voted in the preceding General Election in that House district. Based on the 2012 General Election, sponsors will need to gather at least 30,169 signatures from qualified voters.
The referendum petition must be filed on or before July 13, 2013.
Chasing My Tail
This is sort of how I feel this week. I'm supposed to send in my paper (for the PATNET conference in San Francisco at the end of May) by next week. I've got several blog posts - including one on Begich's press memo on his vote against universal background checks - that need more work. I've got some work to do with the Citizens Climate Lobby local group today and tomorrow, and tomorrow I'm doing a workshop with Warren Jones at the YWCA on "Why is it so difficult to talk about racism?" (It's from noon to 1:30 with a suggested $5 donation to cover costs if you want to come.)
Also, I finally broke down and bought a new camera that I'm hoping will let me take better distance shots. Like this dog next door. He was barking a lot yesterday, but they were so sweet about it when I asked them to take him in.
I've been looking at cameras for a couple of years now as I pass the cameras at Costco and this seemed like the right combination of features and price. (Though it cost more than my first car.) I did notice right away that the manual focus is a lot less smooth than my old film Pentax. And the instruction book is over 300 pages. I wanted a Canon on the grounds that there might be some overlap between how my Powershot works and this one does.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Help Kenyan Kids With Their Homework With Solar Lanterns - Through Tayasola
[UPDATE Dec. 23, 2013: Here's a new post about where this project is today.]
E.F. Schumacher, in Small is Beautiful argued that foreign aid projects should be scaled to the needs of the receivers. Giant projects are often inappropriate and costly while small projects fit the needs and capacity of the receivers. But a lot of foreign aid is just a way for American companies to get the US government to buy their (sometimes surplus) stuff and send it overseas. Think of all the unfinished and/or unused projects in Iraq that have transferred billions from the US treasury into corporate accounts. Big companies aren't interested in appropriate technology. But in many cases it's what will make a difference. Like the this project I'm going to tell you about.
While we were on Bainbridge I met Alma Lorraine Bone Constable who's trying to set up a small business that will distribute small solar light kits to school children to use at night to do their homework. (She gave me a kit to put together and it was easy.) The solar lanterns would replace the kerosine lanterns now used, which in addition to needing costly carbon based fuel, aren't particularly healthy indoors, and they're a fire danger.
But they don't just get the kits, they learn about solar energy. They are encouraged to find other ways to apply the technology. If you want to help with this go to Indiegogo and make a contribution.
I challenge you to watch the video chat I had with Alma. Why do I have to say that? Because people are in a hurry and it's easier to skip on to the next link. But Alma's a person well worth meeting. You'll find out how she got into this project. And when you finish the movie, I challenge you (again) to think about what surprised you, and what that means about how your first impressions can fool you - especially when there isn't enough time to get the information needed to correct them.
I should disclose that Alma's in a class that my son-in-law is teaching. That's why I know about this, but it isn't why I'm posting this. It's just good stuff. She's now raising money at Indiegogo - a fundraising site like Kickstarter.
People are always saying that they'd like to help others in need, but they don't know how. Finishing everything on your plate doesn't really help starving kids elsewhere. But putting your movie popcorn money into solar lanterns does.
It won't disturb your lifestyle at all. It will just take a few minutes. You can help the kids with a small donation, a fraction of what you spend a month on your cell phone bill. And the kids in Kenya will be able to do their homework with sustainable solar lights that you'll have helped them get. Here's the link again to Indiegogo.
And you can even get a kit yourself if you donate at the right level.
The organization Alma mentioned that first got her to Africa is Cultural Reconnections. Norma, are you listening?
E.F. Schumacher, in Small is Beautiful argued that foreign aid projects should be scaled to the needs of the receivers. Giant projects are often inappropriate and costly while small projects fit the needs and capacity of the receivers. But a lot of foreign aid is just a way for American companies to get the US government to buy their (sometimes surplus) stuff and send it overseas. Think of all the unfinished and/or unused projects in Iraq that have transferred billions from the US treasury into corporate accounts. Big companies aren't interested in appropriate technology. But in many cases it's what will make a difference. Like the this project I'm going to tell you about.
But they don't just get the kits, they learn about solar energy. They are encouraged to find other ways to apply the technology. If you want to help with this go to Indiegogo and make a contribution.
I challenge you to watch the video chat I had with Alma. Why do I have to say that? Because people are in a hurry and it's easier to skip on to the next link. But Alma's a person well worth meeting. You'll find out how she got into this project. And when you finish the movie, I challenge you (again) to think about what surprised you, and what that means about how your first impressions can fool you - especially when there isn't enough time to get the information needed to correct them.
I should disclose that Alma's in a class that my son-in-law is teaching. That's why I know about this, but it isn't why I'm posting this. It's just good stuff. She's now raising money at Indiegogo - a fundraising site like Kickstarter.
People are always saying that they'd like to help others in need, but they don't know how. Finishing everything on your plate doesn't really help starving kids elsewhere. But putting your movie popcorn money into solar lanterns does.
It won't disturb your lifestyle at all. It will just take a few minutes. You can help the kids with a small donation, a fraction of what you spend a month on your cell phone bill. And the kids in Kenya will be able to do their homework with sustainable solar lights that you'll have helped them get. Here's the link again to Indiegogo.
And you can even get a kit yourself if you donate at the right level.
The organization Alma mentioned that first got her to Africa is Cultural Reconnections. Norma, are you listening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)