Frozen Cliches

We visited friends yesterday and they had what appeared to be a fascinating book on the human body.  Very scientific yet a bit irreverent.

Then I got to the page that looked at the different climates humans lived in.  There were little domes for 'hot and humid' and other types of climates.  And this one.

Describing the Arctic as a 'frozen wasteland' is a best a hoary cliche created and perpetuated by people who have never been to the Arctic or whose interest in the Arctic is merely to exploit its natural resources.

Even apparently otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people like the authors of Open Me Up fall prey to ignorant stereotypes.

What exactly is a wasteland?  From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

1 : barren or uncultivated land
2 : an ugly often devastated or barely inhabitable place or area
3 : something (as a way of life) that is spiritually and emotionally arid and unsatisfying

Anyone who has been to the Arctic and isn't spiritually and aesthetically deaf and blind knows the Arctic is NOT barren, is NOT ugly or devastated.  It's incredibly rich with life in the summer, but also still full of life and exquisite beauty in the winter.  Even the picture in the 'frozen wasteland' dome belies the description.  But then cliches are those terms we fall back on without thinking.

Linda Buller and your co-authors and all those editors, are you listening?

Gramping at Academy of Sciences Museum San Francisco

Friday morning was at the museum, a big glitzy, pricey place to visit with lots of things to keep the attention of anyone from 6 months to nearly dead.

Many of the exhibits are truly spectacular, like this replicated banyan swamp with big rays floating by.

Animals have been a big attraction since I was a little kid.  I spent a lot of time studying the dioramas at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History as a kid.  And as good as these dioramas were, I've since seen Zebras in the national parks in East Africa and these just aren't the same.  But there were lots of kids on school trips getting the magic.



A pair of oryx.

And we didn't even see this leopard until a museum volunteer waved his hand over a sensor sending a load roar down to us.

So, yeah, these animals were all stuffed.  (Though there were live penguins.)  But the fish were real.

This is looking down into a living coral reef.


I had to wonder how much harder it is for humans to recreate and maintain the conditions for reefs and keep them going, than for nature.

This one was in a large tank full of many kinds of fish and I didn't get its business card.




These anemone like critters were in the tank too.

This jelly fish was about a foot in diameter.

And I thought this was a good sign of the times as machines replace humans.  They used to publish these futuristic articles with titles like "What will people do with all their leisure time?"  They thought that when we went down to 30 hour weeks because of automation, that people would make the same money with fewer hours.  They forgot that in a capitalistic system, the owners take the savings as profits,  layoff workers they don't need, and keep the others at 40 and 50 hour jobs with no retirement and fewer and fewer benefits.

Flying Over Chugach Mountains Never Gets Old

On good days, which really is any day you can see the mountains, the views flying in and out of Anchorage are breathtaking.  Even after almost 40 years.  And even with a scratchy window that caught the morning sun, some of the pictures came out ok.  Just click on the pictures to see them sharper.  Here's downtown Anchorage in the middle with Government Hill on the bottom and Westchester Lagoon on the top right.

Quickly we're up over the mountains.

And then suddenly, we're over Prince William Sound.

And eventually, I'm watching the clouds preparing for an invasion of San Francisco.

And we get to have dinner with family.

Right To Life Starts "40 Days For Life" Demonstration Outside Planned Parenthood

We walked home from dinner by the Planned Parenthood clinic on Lake Otis and ran into a contingent of demonstrators with black signs with white and blue lettering.

I got a flyer from Jared and he explained this was the first of forty days of demonstrations and referred me to 40daysforlife.com where I found this explanation:

TAKE A STAND FOR LIFE
From September 28 to November 6, our community will take part in 40 Days for Life … a groundbreaking, coordinated international mobilization. We pray that, with God’s help, this will mark the beginning of the end of abortion in our city – and beyond.

So they're planning to be there until the Sunday before election day.  Plenty of time for me to revisit and find out what motivates them on this issue.

Hope Springs Eternal - Can Steve Lindbeck Beat Rep. Don Young?

Usually there are more post ideas than I have time or energy for.  And I have a lot of draft posts that are either in queue for when I'm ready to finish them.  And there are a lot more that probably are past their use by date.

Here's one I started the day that Steve Lindbeck officially announced his campaign to unseat Representative Don Young.  I gathered the election numbers back to Young's first race for the house in 1972 when he lost to Nick Begich.  Since then, the closest race was 1990 when he won by less than 8,000 votes.

The factors that matter seem to be:

Does the opponent have name recognition and a good reputation?
Lindbeck has never run for political office before, but he's had a number of jobs where his name got out to Alaskans and he had opportunities to get around the state.  He was a journalist with the Anchorage Daily News.  He was head of the Alaska Humanities Forum, and head of the Alaska Public Broadasting.

Presidential year or not?
Opponents seem to have done better during presidential years when more people voted.

Other factors.
More candidates in the race seems to help Young.  This year the turmoil in the Republican Party may or may not have a spillover effect into this House race.  Lindbeck has raised a relatively large amount for Young opponents.  There were a number of incumbents house legislators who lost in the primaries this year.  Young's tainted by some scandals including a road in Florida and his clout in Congress is much weakened.  Will that be enough?  I haven't seen any poll data, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Here's the post I began last April.


The official announcement was today, that Steve Lindbeck will run as a Democrat against Alaska's Republican Congressman for life (as some call him) Don Young.


2014
Republican Don Young Incumbent    51% 142,572
Democratic Forrest Dunbar                41% 114,602
Libertarian Jim McDermott                 7.6% 21,290
Write-in 0.5%                                                  1,277
Total Votes                                                  279,741


2012
Republican Don Young 63.9% 185,296
Democratic Sharon M. Cissna 28.6% 82,927
Libertarian Jim C. McDermott 5.2% 15,028
NA Ted Gianoutsos 1.9% 5,589
NA Write-in 0.3% 964
Total Votes 289,804


2014 and 2012 from Ballotopedia


2008
Berkowitz, Ethan A. DEM 142560 44.97%
Wright, Don R. AI 14274 4.50%
Young, Don E. REP 158939 50.14%
Write-in Votes 1205 0.38%
State Election results -


2006

BENSON, DIANE E. DEM           93879  40.01%
CRAWFORD, ALEXANDER LIB  4029    1.72%
INCE, EVA L. GRN                         1819    0.78%
RATIGAN, WILLIAM IMP             1615   0.69%
YOUNG, DON E. REP                 132743 56.57%
Write-in Votes                                     560    0.24%
Total Votes 234645
State of Alaska


2004
ANDERS, ALVIN A. LIB 7157 2.39%
HIGGINS, THOMAS M. DEM 67074 22.36%
YOUNG, DON E. REP 213216 71.07%
FELLER, TIMOTHY A. GRN 11434 3.81%
Write-in Votes 1115 0.37%
Total Votes 299996
State of Alaska


2002
YOUNG, DON REP 169685 74.51%
deFOREST, RUSSELL GRN 14435 6.34%
CLIFT, ROB LIB 3797 1.67%
GREENE, CLIFFORD DEM 39357 17.28%
Write-in Votes 451 0.20%
Total Votes 227725

State of Alaska

2000

GREENE, CLIFFORD DEM 45372 16.54%
DORE, JIM AI 10085 3.68%
KARPINSKI, LEONARD LIB 4802 1.75%
YOUNG, ANNA C. GRN 22440 8.18%
YOUNG, DON E. REP 190862 69.56%
Write-in Votes 832 0.30%
Total Votes 274393
State of Alaska


1998
YOUNG, DON REP 139676 62.55%
DUNCAN, JIM DEM 77232 34.59%
GRAMES, JOHN GRN 5923 2.65%
Write-in Votes 469 0.21%

Total Votes 223300

State of Alaska



1996
GRAMES, JOHN J. G. G 4513 1.9|
LINCOLN, GEORGIANNA D 85114 36.4|
NEMEC, WILLIAM J., II AI 5017 2.1|
YOUNG, DON R 138834 59.4|
Writein Votes 222 0.1
State of Alaska

1994
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PERCENTAGE
Tony Smith (D) 68,172 32.7%
Jonni Whitmore (G) 21,277 10.2%
Don Young (R) 118,537 56.9%
Write-Ins -- 254 0.1%
State of Alaska

1992
Devens, John D 102,378 42.8%
Milligan, Mike G 9,529 3.9
States, Michael A 15,049 6.2
Young, Don R 111,849 46.7
Writein votes 311 0.1
State of Alaska

1990
Devens, John S D 91,677 47.8%
Young, Don R 99,003 51.6%
State of Alaska 1990

1988
Gruenstein, Peter D 71,881 37.2%
Young, Don R 120,595 62.4%
State of Alaska 1988


1986

Begich, Pegge D                       74,053    41%
Breck, Betty  (Belle Blue)L        4,182 2.       3%
Young, Don R                         101,799     56.4%
State of Alaska 1986



1984
Begich, Pegge D 86,052
Breck, Betty N 6,508
Young, Don R 113,582
State of Alaska 1984


1982
Dave Carlson D 52,011
Young Don R 128,274
State of Alaska 1982


1980
Parnell, Kevin D 39,922
Young, Don R 114,089
State of Alaska 1980


1978
Rodey, Patrick D 55,176
Young, Don R 61,811
State of Alaska 1978


1976
Hobson, Eben D 34,194
Young, Don R 83,722
State of Alaska 1976


1974
Hensley Willie 44,280 46.2%
Young 51,641 53.8%
State of Alaska

1972
Begich D 53,651
Young R 41,750
State of Alaska

What do Kp numbers mean? Supposed To Be 5 Tonight

First I got this Tweet from AuroraNotify

Kp 5 forecast tonight, looking good!!! https://t.co/ADMTUxALm9 pic.twitter.com/5bKPH8m4rX

— AuroraNotify (@AuroraNotify) September 28, 2016

But I really didn't know what Kp 5 meant.  So I googled and got to Aurora Service:

The Kp number is a system of measuring aurora strength. It goes from 0 to 9 (0 being very weak, 9 being a major geomagnetic storm with strong auroras visible). So when your looking at the aurora forecast page, you want to see high Kp numbers. The higher the better. Anything above (and including) Kp5 is classed as a geomagnetic storm.

I haven't gone outside yet to check the clouds.  The last few times there were aurora notices, it was cloudy.  But it was pretty clear out late this afternoon.  So I'm going out to check.

I did go out and check about an hour ago.  It was dark enough to see a few stars, so it's clear enough.  But no lights.  Then I finished kneading a bread, made some phone calls, went through some old paperwork (AHRGGGGGGG!!), and now I'm back.

Here's a screenshot of the current map on Aurora Services.

From Aurora Services

So it should be a Kp 5 in (now) less than 18 minutes.  I'll go check again.

There are stars out.  I haven't been out looking at stars for a while now.  It's still not dark dark, and I didn't see any northern lights.  I'll post this now and update it later if I see anything.  It didn't feel cold at all without a coat, but when I checked it was 42˚F (5.5˚C), but there's absolutely no wind.

Understanding Trump Voters: Look At Advice On Why Women Choose Bad Boys

For some Trump supporters (as it was with some Obama supporters) this is more like a romance than an election.  So I thought it might be helpful to go to some advice on relationships for help understanding at least a portion of the Trump supporters.  

Financial Samurai had a post on "Why Do Women Go Out With Deadbeat Losers?"

My theory is that in the beginning, most women don’t know the guy is a deadbeat loser. He probably is reasonably attractive and tells a good story about his current situation and his ambitions. Obviously, he will be on his best behavior during the wooing process. It might take one week, or it might take many months, but until a consummation is made, guys can be very charming! By the time a woman hooks up with the guy, only afterward will she see his true colors. 

Quora had a forum that asked: "Why is it that girls often choose the wrong guy as their boyfriend, although the right person always stood by her?"  I'd note that many assumed the question was from the 'right person' and challenged his perception of who was the right guy.  But there were others who assumed girls do often pick the wrong guy. Here are a few excerpts from some of the responses:

From Luis Garcia on Quora:

• When they are teens, girls aren't mature enough to make good choices, so they get impressed by superficial things, like a car or an expensive date. 
•  Teens are much more affected than mature women by hormones. So they go for the wrong guy just because they're more physically attracted to him. 
•  Teens are rebellious, and girls might go out with the wrong guy precisely because they're parents told them that he is the wrong guy.  [I think this may explain a lot of Trump supporters]
•  Teens are subject to peer pressure, so they might go out with the wrong guy just to be seen as "cool" by their peers.

From Anonymous on Quora:

"Humans tend to be attracted to status, which has to do with hierarchy and not morals.  Although we should base our choice of mates on their ability to do right by us,  most people cannot help but be swayed by public opinion or social status.  Maybe it is ego and maybe it is an instinctual search for a stronger gene pool.
Here are the high-status indicators that will trump good morals almost every time:

• Acting like you are good at doing things.
• Acting like you know what you are doing.
• Acting like you are not afraid.
• Acting like you know important stuff.
• Acting like you have or will have money.
• Good social skills.

None of these indicators in any way relate to being a good romantic partner, but these are the standards which many people use.  The real question may be:  Why would a person imagine they could achieve happiness with someone who chooses status over substance?"

Peter Kemau on Quora:   (He even takes the dynamic to the political realm.)

I'm going to assume that the wrong guy here is the infamous  "bad boy" character. If you really think about it, it has to do with instinct. For women with no experience of a bad relationship, the allure and charm of the bad boy is irresistible. There is something about someone who has confidence, arrogance and an outgoing attitude. Most politicians do, that's why they are able to mass-seduce,  spiritual/religious leaders too. They can make most people believe in them even though their intentions are not particularly honest. 

 Aysha Griffen on Quora offers a different insight:

Often, we are attracted to those who can help us heal a deep childhood wound by letting us play out a similar dynamic, in the hope of redeeming it. This is all unconscious, and usually ends in us rewounding ourself because no one can give us the love or make up for the wounding, except our own conscious self-love. 

Wintery Knight takes what he calls a Christian look at why women choose weak men.  Good Christian men, he posits, will require more from their mates.

"Sometimes a really good man places moral and spiritual obligations on a Christian woman that require her to improve and grow, in order to help him with his life plan. Also, men flourish when a woman encourages him, recognizes him, supports him in his male roles. A good man who has definite ideas on what counts as good behavior may expect more from a woman, and those moral obligations can get in the way of her selfish pursuit of happiness."

So the women fear they won't live up to his expectations, according to Wintery Knight, and they'll be abandoned.  Thus weak men are a safer choice because they are easier to blame and control.

"Let me explain some other reasons why a Christian woman might prefer to have a weaker, non-Christian man: 

1. A woman may prefer to blame a man in order to rationalize her selfish actions, and an immoral man is easier to blame. 
2. A woman may prefer to blame a man in order to punish him for some real or imagined crime, and an immoral man is easier to blame. 
3. A woman may want to avoid moral obligations to a man, and a weaker man is easier for her to control. (e.g. – using pre-marital sex in order to avoid having to love a man self-sacrificially) 
4. A woman may need to avoid being judged or led morally by a man, so she prefers a man who is weak at morality and moral reasoning. 
5. A woman may need to avoid being judged or led spiritually by a man, so she prefers a man who is weak at theology and apologetics. 

So, it’s not that the poor, sweet, innocent women are helpless victims of nasty, evil, brutish man-beasts, at all. Far from it. Some of them DELIBERATELY CHOOSE to pass up the best Biblical Christian men, because they fear rejection or moral judgment or loss of control, and/or they want to avoid moral obligations to men that may interfere with their selfishness."

We've all known people who hooked up with the wrong romantic partner despite all the warnings from their best friends.  It sort of feels like that with Trump supporters.  The more you point out his flaws, the stronger they defend him.

Extrovert Advantage For Presidential Candidates, Introvert Advantages For President

Lots of factors that affect who gets elected president in the United States.  One, that seems to have a disproportionate impact, is the introversion/extroversion factor.  It's no surprise to anyone if I say that Hillary Clinton is much more introverted than Donald Trump.

And it's an issue important enough that a Rasmussen Reports survey actually asks people which candidate they'd rather have a beer with.  And it's not surprising that Trump comes out ahead.  (The large lead with men overcomes the small lead Clinton has with women on this question.)

Reading below, keep in mind that all bifurcations can grossly oversimplify and that people fall somewhere on a continuum from very introverted to very extroverted.  And I've just picked a list of characteristics I found online that seemed consistent with other things I've read on this.  The list was aimed at introversion and extroversion advantages at work.

As you go through the list, you'll probably quibble about the description as it applies to either Trump or Clinton.  For instance, in the Extroverts column, "have excellent communication and verbal skills.' I would say that Trump is very fluid and quick on his feet when talking, though I'm not sure that always translates to 'excellent communication.'

Basically, the extrovert sounds more comfortable speaking to strangers and crowds.  And for many, that translates into more honest, more genuine.  They are more comfortable coming up to strangers and talking because they can talk at that superficial level that one uses until you get a better comfort level with someone.  Introverts tend to hate 'small-talk."  They want to talk about serious stuff.  And, at least theoretically, people think more of people who think deeply.  I get lots of hits still on a 2011 post about the Eleanor Roosevelt quote "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."


For the extrovert, talking is about connecting with other people more than about the content.

For the introvert, talking is about the content more than connecting with other people.  

So here's the list I got from My Star Job:

Introverts

Extroverts

Care about their job and their organisation  Concentrate well in quiet atmospheres  May know more than they reveal  Have very good attention to details  Love to handle long and complex problems  May seem aloof and quiet  Dislike interruptions and intrusions  Work well with little supervision  Always think and reflect before taking action  Do not like to attract attention to themselves

Always keep abreast of what is happening at work  Formulate good ideas through discussions and interactions  Socialise and network well  Have excellent communication and verbal skills  Love to be a part of everything  Get bored and impatient when work gets slow and repetitive Are fantastic at marketing themselves and their organisation  Thrive on attention · Are good at multi-tasking  Respond quickly to requests and always aim to find quick solutions

I think the best candidate AND the best president is balanced enough to be able to at least act as an extrovert and as an introvert as the occasion warrants.  But I also think most people are more comfortable with extroverts than with introverts.  And that seems to be the consensus.

Susan Cain's book Quiet:The Power of Introverts, reports her research on the topic.  Cain identifies many ways that our society encourages extroversion over introversion.  One example she gives is being pressured to put away her book and join the group activities at summer camp.  Our society is biased to favor extroverts.  From Ted Talks blog:

"That bias, she claims, is everyone’s loss. While the world certainly need extroverts, it also needs introverts doing what they do best. It’s a bias that has no name. To understand it, we need to understand that introversion isn’t about not being social, it’s not being shy, it’s about how someone responds to stimulation. While extroverts crave social interaction, introverts are much more alive while they’re alone. Cain brings in her thesis with the insight that, 'The key to maximizing talents is to put yourself into the zone of stimulation that’s right for you.'”

When we consider our current presidential campaign and the debates, I'd suggest we include in our discussions of the candidates, this factor of introversion and extroversion.

Clearly Trump is a raging extrovert - so much so that it's something of a problem.  But Clinton is definitely an introvert who, as a candidate, is forced to act in an extrovert role.  That's why she doesn't seem genuine, because she can't be her natural self while campaigning.  And all the time in front of crowds of people surely is taking its toll on her energy level.  As an introvert, she needs quiet alone time to recharge.  So our American bias against introverts hurts people's perception of Clinton.  It's even worse than it was for someone like Romney (also an introvert) because women are expected to be extroverts more than men are.

For those struggling to understand how Trump is still statistically in the presidential race, this is clearly a factor, and one we should be talking about.

(Though the years of right wing media attacks and congressional hearings on Benghazi and on emails have also had their effect in making people feel Clinton is more dishonest than past candidates for president. )

Oil Pro: "The oil industry is in a horrible dilemma."

This blog is, at its core, about how we know what we know.  We all know that different people see the world differently than we do.  We have lots of sayings, like, "Where you stand, depends on where you sit" that express this notion.

The problem is that while people know there are other points of view, too many assume that their own view is THE correct one.  And there are lots of positions one can take that are 'right' from one angle, but wrong from another.  It may be 'right' for you and your cronies, but wrong for the vast majority of people.   It may be right in the short run, but wrong in the long run.  Or it may have been right for a time, but the times have changed.

We are closing in on the time when oil stops being the right decision.  Where big oil can put their pipelines wherever they please, the people whose land they take to do it, be damned.   It's already the wrong decision when it comes to climate change.  Massively wrong.  And before long, all the subsidies and political and military assistance that have favored big oil will be tilting toward other energy sources.

That's the essence of this article from OilPro - a website that appears to be aimed at people working in the oil industry.

"The oil industry is in a horrible dilemma. New developments simply do not have enough time to play out. Oil sector developmental activity will disappear for around two decades. The disruption crash is inevitable - it will stifle new projects. It compromises recovery of initial CAPEX outlay. New projects, if they were to commence today, will barely start production before the disruption black hole opens up and swallows them. Projects simply will not happen. This new situation all but wipes out cost recovery opportunity. 

Supply side capacity constraints are unlikely to occur. Existing players have a brief period to produce while demand persists, accrue cash, and use that cash to diversify out of oil. This is the Saudi strategy. It is now perfectly clear what they are up to. They are out to aggressively realise what they can now, while prices are elevated(!), and use that cash strategically to develop other sectors in their economy for the longer term. Oil's heyday is over. Hydrocarbons are in decline. COP 21 dealt the killer blow. The Saudis know it. Oil companies that want to survive will copy them - the race to diversify out of oil has started. It is now a matter of survival. Recent sector history is littered with half-hearted efforts in this regard. A sense of urgency might finally produce a different result. Dividends are going to have to stop. It is madness to continue to pay them when your very existence is at stake.  

The economics of projects currently underway - such as Statoil's Johan Sverdrup - will undoubtedly undergo intense review in the light of this revelation. Most projects currently on the slate will be shelved indefinitely. The same goes for a number of projects already underway. This will be painful for those involved."

Alaska legislators need to upgrade their mental, energy software.

Thanks to Jeremy for this article.

Termination Dust

It rained yesterday.  It was into the 40s in town.  And when the clouds cleared today we had our first glimpse of snow on the mountains for the season.