Parnell Still Doesn't Get It - Response To Sandy Parnell's Commentary

9/5/14 Governor Finally Sack Katkus After National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) Report On Sexual And Other Abuse 10/4/14 "Governor Says He Responded To Every allegation but was misled by leaders." 10/9/14 What Did He Know And When Did He Know It? Still The Relevant Questions

I've already written too many posts on Sean Parnell's reaction to the National Guard scandal. 






But when I read Sandy Parnell's commentary in today's ADN, I couldn't help but do one more.

Here are some things she says that beg a response.

"I was with my husband, Sean, when he got the call in February with concrete information that called the Alaska guard command into question."

"concrete information"  -  Anyone with concrete information knows you have to act.  But sexual abuse victims and their advocates rarely walk in with concrete information.  It's the nature of the crime that it's done in secret and without witnesses and without much evidence.

The governor is supposed to be a savvy person who can judge people and situations and then can act appropriately.  The governor, in this case for sure, misjudged people and didn't know what to do.

It's like going to the doctor. A good doctor will diagnose the symptoms, do the necessary tests, and get you cured before you go to stage three.  But when the patient came in to see Sean Parnell, he said, "there's no concrete evidence."  He let the cancer in the Guard fester and grow causing far more pain and anguish than had he treated it right away.  He simply didn't know what tests to perform to get the evidence needed, so he said there was none.

Doctors go through hellishly intense schooling.  Politicians just need enough money and backing to get elected.  Fortunately for politicians, there's usually not much concrete evidence of their bad judgments either.  Nor can they be sued for malpractice.  Unfortunately for Parnell, the evidence of his incompetence has been spelled out pretty clearly.  And an upcoming election is the political version of a malpractice suit.

The point here is that when the Guard came to see Dr. Parnell, the Guard was sent home, and presumably didn't even get an aspirin.

"I am thankful that the bureau’s OCI responded so quickly and so professionally when my husband called for this independent, outside investigation."

Yes, too bad Sean Parnell didn't act that quickly and professionally back in 2010.
 

"The insinuation by some that Sean would not take action is wrong. That is not who my husband is, and that’s not what I have seen him do. He took action, immediately, every time. When he got the facts, he acted. With every specific allegation of assault, he followed up personally.

I believe that Sean and Sandy Parnell believe this.  Unfortunately, the action he took was inadequate and ineffective.  That's why people are upset.  The governor wasn't up to the task and people at the Guard suffered another four years, before real action was taken.  

My husband is committed to protecting the integrity of their mission, and ensuring they can carry out their work for all Alaskans in an atmosphere that is safe, with accountable leadership.

 Again, I believe Sandy believes this.  Again, that's nice, but we need a governor who is as competent as he is committed.  We don't have that.


I realize that it's hard for anyone to admit incompetence.  It's particularly hard for a politician several weeks before an election.  Good intentions aren't enough.  You also need the ability to take timely, decisive, and effective action.

The governor can't blame this on a divided legislature, because it's not divided.  It's full of his fellow Republicans.  And because this was something the governor could have and should have handled all on his own. 

One more comment on that first quote:

"I was with my husband, Sean, when he got the call in February with concrete information that called the Alaska guard command into question."

Allegations of sexual abuse require a high degree of confidentiality.  These aren't things you should share with people not directly responsible for acting, including the First Lady.  Governor Palin was criticized for including Todd in policy issues.   I say this, recognizing that the relationship between a husband and wife is special.  Spouses need counsel from each other.  But if that happens, the spouse's role is to never disclose what he or she knows.  Like in a commentary in the newspaper where she acts as a witness to what her husband learned and when.   

Fresh Keta Salmon

We saw this in the market yesterday here in LA.  I asked the man what Keta Salmon was and where it was from.  All he could say was "USA."   "Is it Alaskan?"  He didn't know.  And it didn't say.

I know a bunch of names for different kinds of salmon, but Keta isn't one of them.

It turns out it's chum or dog salmon.

From Wild Pacific Salmon: (a seafood marketing site)

Wild Alaskan Keta Salmon

Keta (Chum) Salmon

Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus Keta

Market Names: Chum, Keta, Silverbrite

Vernacular Names: Dog Salmon, Calico Salmon, Chub, Keta Salmon

Description: Keta Salmon have greenish-blue backs with silver splashes in the tail. It looks very similar to a Sockeye salmon when ocean fresh. Keta salmon range from 6-17 pounds and are mature at 3-6 years old. The Keta salmon has very light colored flesh and is very mild in flavor.

It's no wonder they don't sell it as dog or chum salmon.  Chum is, as I recall, the least desirable salmon, and that's confirmed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

General Description
Chum salmon, also known as dog salmon, are the most widely distributed of all the Pacific salmon and generally occur throughout Alaska. Like most other Pacific salmon species, chum salmon spend most of their life feeding in saltwater, then return to freshwater when mature to spawn once in the fall then die. Most chum salmon populations do not travel far upstream to spawn; however, some travel up to 2,000 miles upstream to the headwaters of the Yukon River. Although generally regarded as one of the less desirable species of salmon, in Arctic, Northwestern, and Interior Alaska, chum salmon are highly prized as a traditional source of dried winter food. Since the 1980s, commercial chum salmon harvests in Alaska have more than doubled as a result of the Alaska hatchery program and increased foreign sales.

Is this an Alaskan product?  They aren't advertising it as such. 

Exploring The World With Fresh Eyes

We're back in unexpectedly in LA because my mom was having a downspell and we decided we should come back.  Ninety two offers challenges.  Things aren't going to get dramatically better and there is a steady stream of health adventures.  She's doing better though she's weaker than she was a month ago. 

I was able to schedule our trip down to include a long layover in Seattle to see our daughter and granddaughter.  And we got a beautiful warmish fall day.  I got to go to the park with the little one.  She's pushing two now. There are lots of words.  Quizical looks.  Big smiles.  We walked over to the playground,  looked at lots of stuff, rode on the swings, went down the slide, and just explored the world.  Here are some things we saw. 

Here's the mystery fruit.  It was about the size of a ping pong ball, with little spines all over it.  There's a smaller one in the background.  My google search, even a reverse photo search, didn't come up with a name.  Or whether it was edible.  I'm hoping someone out there will know it. 

She can say pine cone now and so she chose this one to examine.  My pocket camera is, it turns out, also a sort of microscope so we could look a little closer. 

(I have to admit, this is not my childhood image of pine cones.  My pine cone is rounder, harder, with sharp tips.)



Then we had to lay all our treasures out on the picnic table in the park.

But it wasn't just biology that interested her.  As we went back home she pointed out some features she wanted me to take pictures of. 

The pipe coming out of the wall.











And then the sewer cover. 

And the drain.

And then we looked a little closer to see the reflection in the water down below.

Getting to spend time with this magical child (I'm not claiming any special magic in my granddaughter, they're all magical, in fact we are all magical, but it's so much easier to see when they're little like this and not hiding it) is a great energy boost on my way to seeing my mom.  And my mom enjoys the pictures I bring her of her great granddaughter. 

Monetizing Ebola

Some people see everything in terms of whether they can turn it into money.  An empty lot, a disaster, older folks who aren't as sharp as they once were, and now Ebola. 

I got this in my emailbox this morning:

	From	Date		Subject	Size
	Ebola Bulletin	Oct 19, 2014		Shocking Revelations from Ebola Expert	27 k

I'd seen an article or post on people exploiting Ebola, but the email above was the first direct contact I'd had.

My first reaction was - how low can you go?   How despicable must you be to use Ebola to victimize others for personal gain?

But I don't think it's quite that simple.  I can think of at least two factors at play here. 

First, there are people who, for whatever reason - no conscience, no empathy for other people, or personal desperation, or whatever else - think nothing of scamming people for their own personal gain.

Second, a society that values money above most everything else.  It doesn't matter how unscrupulously people make money in our society (and much of the world), if it's not illegal or if you don't get caught, the money gives you a veneer of respectability.  Certainly money can buy you all the facades of respectability and it can even buy you a 'get out of jail free card.' But I can envision a society where such bad behavior would so taint the money one gained that far fewer people would be tempted.

Until we find a cure for conscience numbing conditions like  psychopathy  we're going to have people among us without a conscience, thus unconstrained from the kinds of social and moral constraints that keep most people from exploiting others. 

But we can make people accountable for how they made their money.  We can give other factors - decency, less monetizable skills and talents, helpfulness, etc. - more respect and power in our society than we currently do. 

Every time we do something that gives respect to people simply for having money, regardless of how they get it, we support the culture of wealth worship.  Every time we click the teaser links on every monetized website that take us to trivial information, we reward this kind of mentality. 

Unless, of course,  people start using that method to exploit the exploiters.  How about teasers like "The Ten Slimiest Ways the Koch Brothers Make Money" or "Frank Murkowski's Wealth Analyzed, Dollar By Dollar"?  Teasers that lead us to solidly researched information that helps us better understand why some people have more power than it seems they should. 

I'm still thinking about possible legitimate ways to profit from Ebola - drug companies that make legitimate cures, comedians who profit from Ebola jokes (if their joke make people think, it's probably ok), media coverage of Ebola.  But that's tricky, as can be see from this MediaMatters piece entitled  Right-Wing Media Exploit Ebola Outbreak In West Africa To Spread Immigration Fears.

Basically, I think the kinds of people who send out emails like I got - I didn't even open it by the way - are despicable.  I'm just trying to point out though that people aren't despicable in a vacuum.  The more we understand the factors that make them do despicable things, the greater our likelihood of figuring out ways to reduce the number of people doing them.   

"Lost Causes Are The Only Ones Worth Fighting For" - Should Parnell Keep Fighting Same-Sex Marriage?

A lot of people are criticizing Governor Parnell's decision to continue to appeal the rulings allowing same-sex partners to get married in Alaska.  Mainly, they argue, given the Ninth Circuit and US Supreme Courts' recent actions, appealing is a lost cause.  But are no lost causes  worth fighting for?  Which ones would you fight for?  Which wouldn't you?  And what factors make the difference?   I'm going to start that discussion in this post.


"Lost Causes Are The Only Ones Worth Fighting For"

After the death of a US senator in the movie Mr. Smith Goes To Washington Mr. Smith (Jimmy Stewart)  is  appointed to take his place. His hero is the senior Senator from his state, Mr. Paine.  But Smith learns that Mr. Paine is supporting corrupt legislation and Smith filibusters to stop the legislation.  Near the end of the filibuster, tired and near collapse, Mr. Smith says:

"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for,  and he fought for them once, for the only reason that any man ever fights for them."

Here's the clip of that scene:





What Exactly Does It Mean?

"Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for."  If might be good rhetoric, but it really doesn't make any sense.  It implies that good causes that  have a chance of winning aren't worth fighting for.  That's clearly not the case.  It's a phrase, spoken passionately though, that might sway an unthinking audience

And it wasn't the last word on lost causes in the movie either  If you watched the video clip to the end, you heard that Jimmy Stewart didn't stop there.  He gives a rule for why you fight lost causes.

". . .   for the only reason that any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain,  simple rule, "Love thy neighbor,"     

That makes a lot more sense, but again, this is rhetoric.  It sounds good.  "Love thy neighbor" is a sentiment many will agree with (until they think about the neighbor who leaves his barking dog outside in the cold all day) but is it really the only reason to fight lost causes?

I'm going to end this post here and in a near (I hope) future post, try to come up with a model of lost cause situations.  I've already come up with a list of different situations that onlookers might label a lost cause.  I'll try to tease out of these examples, a way to evaluate how noble any specific lost cause situation is. 

Here are a couple I've thought of so far:

1. Searching for a missing child, all leads are cold, and the odds of finding her now are low to nil.
2. Fighting an armed battle, grossly outnumbered and outgunned, against an enemy who tortures and kills their captives.
3. Refusing to divulge information about your fellow rebels to your torturer. 
4. Refusing to accept a plea bargain because you know you are innocent, even though there are witnesses who swear they saw you and you’ll get life, when you could bargain for a lighter sentence. 

Then when the model is complete, we can apply it to the Governor's insistence that he must spend state resources to fight the overturning of the same sex marriage ban in court.

One friend I chatted with about this said I was making this too complicated.  It's just about power and the election.  That may well be the case.  But I hate to jump to conclusions about other people's intentions.  And such a model surely will have usefulness in other situations. 

AIFF 2014: Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Hungary, Poland - Some Countries Getting Features Into Anchorage International Film Festival 2014

The Anchorage International Film Festival is just around the corner - Dec. 5 - 14.  The films selected for the festival recently were announced, and if I weren't ping-ponging between Anchorage and LA to look in on my mom, I would have had this up earlier.  But here's a quick look at the features selected.  Those checked as being "In Competition" were selected by the judges to be in the running for a Golden Oosik Award.

You can check out the AAIF website to get more details of these films and information about the films in the other categories.


Feature, at AIFF, means 'fiction films over 55 minutes.'

Features
Title	Director(s)	Country	Runtime	In Competition
6 Bullets To Hell	Tanner Beard	Spain, USA	80m	✓
The Ambassador to Bern	Attila Szász	Hungary	77m	✓
Appropriate Behavior	Desiree Akhavan	USA	90m	✓
Come to My Voice [Were Denge Min]	Huseyin Karabey	France, Germany, Turkey	90m	✓
I Believe In Unicorns	Leah Meyerhoff	USA	80m	✓
Kurmanjan Datka [Queen of the Mountains]	Sadyk Sher-Niyaz	Kyrgyzstan	136m	✓
Listening	Khalil Sullins	USA	98m
The Lookalike	Richard Gray	USA	100m
Mr. Intangibles	Ben Bolea	USA	82m
Porch Stories	Sarah Goodman	Canada	73m
Rocks In My Pockets	Signe Baumane	USA, Latvia	88m	✓
Sacrifice	Michael Cohn	USA	105m
The Secret Sharer	Peter Fudakowski	United Kingdom, Poland	103m
Teacher of the Year	Jason Strouse	USA	82m
These Hopeless Savages	Sean Lewis	USA	87m

It's That Time

Birch and Amur Maple Leaves

Cottoneaster

Amur Maple

Cottoneaster

Dantzing With Pollsters - Follow Up

Yesterday I did a  post about ways to respond to political pollsters that raises questions like what do you owe telephone survey folks?  The only things I said you owe them are some respect and friendliness, because it's not an easy job.  I just got a call from a local Anchorage number - 268 2121.  It's a bit late for calls, but I answered it.

Caller:  May I speak to Steve?
Me:  Whose calling?
Caller:  Tanya.  I'm from MRS.
Me:  [She sounded tired, and remembering my advice, I answered in a very friendly]     Hi Tanya, how are you doing tonight?  What is MRS and where are you?
Tanya:  McQuire Research Service, in Nevada.

Well she was clearly pleased to get a friendly response and, in her words, "not to be yelled at."  But I did tell her about yesterday's blog post and she asked if I wanted to do the survey.  Since she'd identified her company, which I'd said yesterday legit pollsters should do,  I said, 'Sure."

Tanya:  How likely are you to vote next month?
Steve:   Barring getting hit by a bus . . . you know Tanya, actually, I plan to vote next Monday when early voting starts.  So I'm definitely voting in October, not next month.
Tanya:   . . . .
Steve:  If I say I'm not voting next month, that ends the survey, doesn't it?
Tanya:  Yes . . .
Steve:  I guess they didn't write the question very well, because I'm sure they don't care when I vote, do they?  But since I'm not going to vote next month, and I answered honestly 'no,' you have to end this right?
Tanya:  Yes,

I thought I heard an unspoken, "but . ."

I hope she still gets paid, even though we only did the first question.  But she shouldn't be penalized if people don't plan to vote.  That's information too.  I should have asked her. 

[OK, this post is sort of a stall.  I'm working on several longer posts that aren't quite right yet, and this seemed like an easy filler.  But if you didn't see the original post Dantzing With Pollsters, that has a little more meat.

I don't generally watch television or listen to much AM radio, so I'm relatively spared a lot of the political advertising.  The mailed advertising doesn't make noises and is easy to put into the recycle bin.

But I noticed tonight, getting a Youtube clip for a post I'm working on, that I got a Dan Sullivan ad linking Mark Begich to Obama before the video.  But I had to play the video several times and then I got Begich ads with a women talking about how Sullivan would interfere between her and her doctor at her clinic. 

Complexity Talk Human-Environment Interactions - And Free Maps

I'm on the mailing list for the UAA complexity series.

I realize this is a specialized topic, but I've always found the complexity presentations particularly interesting.  The talks are designed for an interdisciplinary audience.  It's free and Fridays offer free parking on campus. 

Title: Spatially Explicit Modeling of Human-Environment Interactions.
Presented by: Dr. Frank Witmer. UAA. Computer Science and Engineering
When: Friday,  October 17th 2014 11:30-12:45
Where: CPISB 105A 

Abstract: Modeling complex human-environment interactions can take many forms.  Most of the data we use to inform our models has a spatial dimension to it, even if it is not recorded as an attribute in the dataset. This presentation discusses the importance of explicitly incorporating the spatial dimension when modeling human-environment relationships.  Some common modeling approaches using simulation and regression will be discussed before looking at an example from my research modeling climate variability and violence in sub-Saharan Africa.

Note:  The names of buildings at the university are difficult enough, but then when they become acronyms they are almost impossible.   This talk is in CPISB.  I figured the B was for building.   What mnemonic device can I use to remember this? I didn't have to think.  It jumped right out.   See Piss Building.  So I immediately thought of this famous Belgian statue. Mannekin Pis, which should be on top of the building.

Image (and there are many more) from Minube

I looked it up.  Probably this should be on top of the building:  Conoco-Philips Integrated Science Building.   It's back behind the library. 



And  Free Maps

I also got a link to the USGS site which announces:

Nearly Every USGS Topo Map Ever Made. For Free.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been producing detailed topographic maps for more than 125 years. Today they are nearly all digitized and free to download through the USGS Map Store, an incredible treasure trove for both map junkies and casual hikers alike.

Dantzing With Pollsters

I didn't answer, waiting for them to leave a message.  They called twice yesterday.  Once he must have been paying attention to something else and missed the message because he said, "Steve?"  six or seven times on voice mail.

But they left no messages.  I googled "Dantz 925 948 9469" and got 2012 stuff at 800Notes:

"R Squared

30 Sep 2012

Just got a call today from that number. This is research center conducting statistics for the upcoming elections. The agent asks: "are you going to vote during the upcoming elections?" And you answer yes or no. That was it.

Caller: Research Center

Call Type: Survey"

"Maria

1 Oct 2012

This number has called me several times in the past few days. I don't pick up and they don't leave a message. I tried calling back, but it said the number wasn't in service."

Why are they calling?

Well, basically, they are calling you to get information from you that they get paid to gather.

OK, pollsters call for different reasons.

1. On the top of the pecking order (for me)  are academic researchers who are trying gain understanding of some issue or human behavior and the results of their research will be available to all and might give us more insight into how the world works.
    
2.  Political pollsters whose data are available to anyone.  They are trying to get a handle on a coming election or some other issue.  And to improve their reputations so clients will pay them to do private polls. 
    
3.  Pollsters who get paid by a political candidate so that candidate can see how close the election is and to figure out the best way to reach voters with his message or get voters to actually vote.


4. Pollsters who get paid by PACs or other political operators who want to figure out how to get a particular candidate elected or a particular initiative to pass or be defeated.

It's not unreasonable during an election, to try to get a sense of how likely it is for one candidate or another to win, especially if you are one of the candidates.  Nor is it unreasonable for candidates to try to get a sense of which issues are most important to the voters.  But some candidates do this more honorably than others.

And nowadays, when outside PACS have tens of millions of dollars to spend to manipulate an election, things get less honorable and reasonable.


What Do You Owe The Pollsters?

They're making money off of your information.  You didn't invite them to call.  In fact you may even be on the "do not call registry."  While I think there can be a public benefit for answering the calls of academic pollsters, and there are honest politicians who are legitimately gathering information to better get their message out (rather than to pander to whatever the voters seem to want to hear),  it's hard to tell which pollster is which.

A good, legitimate pollster will tell you which organization they work for, but not necessarily who their client is, particularly if it's a political poll.  Knowing the client might bias the respondent's answers.

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that I don't owe them answers.  I don't owe them picking up the phone, answering their questions, or if I do answer, I don't have an obligation to tell the truth. 

I do owe them a modicum of respect and friendliness.  After all, these are people who are trying to earn a living in difficult economic times.  Of course, this goes with all transactions.  And if they are not respectful or friendly back, you don't even owe them this.  Though, staying polite, if uncooperative, shows them you are a nobler person.

Can You Have Fun With Pollsters?

Happiness is all about finding the positive in what you encounter in life.  Look toward these calls as an opportunity to be playful.  Some options.

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  No problem, I charge $120 per hour, with a 15 minute minimum.  Send me a $30 check and when you call back I'll be happy to answer for up to 15 minutes.

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  And I'd like to ask you some questions too.   Let me ask you some questions and depending on your answers, I'll then let you ask me.
1.  Who do you work for and where are you calling from?  [This one they should answer - at least the polling company, not the client]
2   And what client is paying you to do this poll?
3.  How much are you getting paid per hour?
4.  If your company is getting paid and you're getting paid for my information, don't you think it is reasonable that I get paid too?

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  Sure, no problem, but I don't promise to answer honestly.  [This has sometimes ended the call and other times not.]

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  Hey, I'm sorry that the economy is so bad that you've had to stoop to making these kinds of calls.  What did you do before?  or What is your degree in?

If you get a particularly nasty push poll (where they give you leading questions and the poll isn't to get information, but to influence your vote by slandering a candidate) you can
1.  record the call (in Alaska it's legal to record a call if one party knows it's being recorded - for an overview of this one-party consent nationally see here) and then send the recording to the slandered candidate so they know what's going on.  If both parties must consent in your state, you can simply tell them "I hope you don't mind but I record all my calls" or you can just ask if they mind and if they do, say, "Sorry then. Goodbye."
2.  move to your computer and type up their scripts as they read them.  You can ask them to slow down and repeat questions because you can't hear them or because you need to think about it.  You can make a 30 second call take five minutes.  It will drive them crazy.  And you can send your transcript of the questions to the candidate they are trashing.

Another activity is to try to get the pollster off their script.  If it's a legitimate poll, they should be asking each person the exact same question and not give any extra information, except to repeat the question.  But these folks have been doing a lot of calling and they can get bored and might be susceptible to a little subterfuge of their polls.

Again, try to ascertain what kind of poll it is.  The most reputable will tell you who they are and possibly what the poll is about (if that doesn't bias the information.)  For instance:

Pollster:  Hi, I'm calling from the University of X and I'd like to ask you some questions about health care.  The information will be confidential, your name will not be on the response sheet I keep, though we will have a coded identifier. 

But remember, a lot of university polling is done, not really for academic research, but because the university is being paid by a client to gather the information.  Sometimes this might be for a state agency, other times it could be for a private company.  You can ask and if they won't tell, you can politely decline.

Make this into a little dance of wits.  A game you play with the pollsters.  With a little imagination you can change how you view pollsters, change them from a nuisance into   pollsterade.  Think of each new call as a challenging game.  Some of the callers will enjoy it too if you're polite and clever about it. 


One more catch - robot calls.  You can't play with them usually because they aren't programed to hear you.  The best I can think to do is just not respond and make them use up as much time as possible before they automatically hang up.  If they do respond to voice, tell them you only respond to real people. Or try "Operator" to get a real person.  But don't hold your breath.