For something a little different today.
Sunday's Anchorage Daily News classified section included a bunch of long ads for:
1. Salmon Roe Technicians: 5 Temporary, full time positions to work from 6/1/2019 to 9/20/2019. Work will be performed at plant in Valdez, AK. Responsible for processing salmon roe to produce Ikura and Sujiko (Japanese salmon roe products) for export to Japan. [Then there's a long description of all they have to do such as "sorting, salting, preserving, brining, seasoning, mixing, agitating, dewatering" and then inspecting and packing, and providing technical expertise in grading and quality control . . .]
This positions is 40 hours a week plus up to 40 hours overtime for $14.50/hour and $21.75/hour overtime. It includes transportation to the site, housing and meals, and transportation back "if the worker completes half the employment period or is dismissed early by the employers."
Experience needed? two years of this work processing roe for the Japanese market and knowledge of processing and grading standards for the Japanese market.
The employer is Pac-Maru Inc. Seattle (which is a subsidiary of Toyo Suisan Kaisha Ltd..)
2. Salmon Roe Technicians: 5 temporary, full-time positions to work from 5/5/2019 to 9/20/2019. These will be at "3 land plants in Kenai and Kasilof, AK. This one is pretty similar, but it's up to 44 hours overtime and pays $15/hour and $22/hour overtime.
This one is from North Pacific Seafoods, Seattle
3. Also Salmon Roe Technicians - this one for Cordova, Naknek, Togiak, Unalakleet, and/or Kenai, AK. $14.50/hour and $21.50/hour overtime.
The employer Nomura Trading Co., Ltd, Bellevue, WA.
4. Peter Pan Seafoods is looking for 9 Salmon Roe Technicians - for Dillingham and Valdez. This ad has much the same details though the language is a little different. It only pays $14.48/hour and $21.72/hour over time, but it has up to 50 hours of overtime possible. They'll also pay for visa and border crossing expenses. And you apply, not to the company, but to the Alaska Dept. of Labor.
Here are some worker comments about Peter Pan Seafoods.
5. Westwood Seafoods has openings for 7 seafood processing technicians (surimi and roe) in Dutch Harbor. "Must be willing to work up to 12 or more hours per day, 7 days per week, depending on fish availability. Big difference here: Wage is $20-$40/hour DOE plus health insurance and potential for bonus. Overtime at $30-$60 per hour DOE. Free room and board as well, however, return transportation paid only if employee works the whole contract or is dismissed. (Getting back from Dutch Harbor is a lot more than Valdez or Kenai!) And the contract is from 5/24 to 10/24/2019. Again, apply at Alaska Dept. of Labor.
6. Premier Pacific Seafoods, Inc has openings for 3 seafood processing technicians (surimi and roe) on board M/ Excellence or the Phoenix vessel in the Bering Sea and North Pacific. Wages here are $16.65 to $30/hour and $24.98 to $45/hour overtime, depending on experience, or if higher, $235 - $300 per day, plus health insurance, possible bonus, and room and board.
Here are some worker comments about Premier Pacific.
7. Finally Nicherei U.S.A. LLC has 25 openings for Salmon Roe Technicians "at multiple work sites in SW Alaska, incl. plants in Cordova, Kodiak, Naknek, and Valdez. 35 regular hours at $14.48/hour and up to 30 additional at $21.72/hour overtime. This one has slightly different wording about food and lodging. The others said this was free. This one includes it in a sentence about travel to site (reimbursed if complete half the period) and travel back (if complete whole period.) The wording suggests that meals will be covered if half the contract is worked.
I understand that lots of college students go work in fish processing plants and on fishing ships over the summer for the adventure and the pay that comes with all the overtime. But it would seem to me that a Salmon Roe Technician with two years experience are harder to find and should get paid more than minimum wage. The only two companies here paying more than minimum wage are Westwood Seafoods and Premier Pacific Seafoods, though the later is on a ship which adds more adventure but also much more risk.
NOTE: I saw these ads in the print edition and couldn't find them online. They're on pages C-2 and C-3, of the Sunday Anchorage Daily News, March 17, 2019.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Folks Crowd Anchorage Muslim Community Center In Show Of Support
I'd never been to the mosque before - it's only been completed in the last couple of years and it's hidden on a side street in a neighborhood I don't normally go.
The Interfaith Council probably wasn't expecting so many people - the room was pretty full when we got there and people just kept coming in. I only knew about this because I'd sent an email to the Center after I heard about New Zealand, and I got one back telling me about the vigil. Watching the doorway - we were seated near it - I suddenly looked for other ways out because the door wasn't that big. And there were two more exits directly outside. They kept bringing more chairs. Then little kid chairs. I don't even want to guess at a number because it was, I'm sure, way beyond what the Fire Department would allow. And I have to admit that I thought about the exits because my mind imagined what it would be like if someone started shooting in there.
Here's a mashup of three pictures to give a sense of the crowd, even if the perspective is all messed up. (The left side is actually mostly the back of the room. Maybe I should learn to use the panorama feature on my phone camera.) The middle picture was when we got there when there was still some room.
Although there were speakers, it was pretty low key. There were people from different religious groups - Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and of course Muslims. Mara Kimmel, the mayor's wife said a few words too. I noticed three other returned Peace Corps volunteers. More important were all these people most of whom were strangers talking to each other with respect and love. The people from the mosque were so incredibly nice. As we came in we started to take our shoes off, as Muslims coming in were doing, and they insisted that we keep them on, in the nicest possible way.
We do have to keep in mind that most people are good and decent when they aren't afraid and stirred up by bigots. Let's keep tapping in to that basic goodness. Let's get more people talking to each other in safe spaces on safe topics, people who are now mostly living in bubbles with people who reinforce what they believe.
The Interfaith Council probably wasn't expecting so many people - the room was pretty full when we got there and people just kept coming in. I only knew about this because I'd sent an email to the Center after I heard about New Zealand, and I got one back telling me about the vigil. Watching the doorway - we were seated near it - I suddenly looked for other ways out because the door wasn't that big. And there were two more exits directly outside. They kept bringing more chairs. Then little kid chairs. I don't even want to guess at a number because it was, I'm sure, way beyond what the Fire Department would allow. And I have to admit that I thought about the exits because my mind imagined what it would be like if someone started shooting in there.
Here's a mashup of three pictures to give a sense of the crowd, even if the perspective is all messed up. (The left side is actually mostly the back of the room. Maybe I should learn to use the panorama feature on my phone camera.) The middle picture was when we got there when there was still some room.
Although there were speakers, it was pretty low key. There were people from different religious groups - Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and of course Muslims. Mara Kimmel, the mayor's wife said a few words too. I noticed three other returned Peace Corps volunteers. More important were all these people most of whom were strangers talking to each other with respect and love. The people from the mosque were so incredibly nice. As we came in we started to take our shoes off, as Muslims coming in were doing, and they insisted that we keep them on, in the nicest possible way.
We do have to keep in mind that most people are good and decent when they aren't afraid and stirred up by bigots. Let's keep tapping in to that basic goodness. Let's get more people talking to each other in safe spaces on safe topics, people who are now mostly living in bubbles with people who reinforce what they believe.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Vigil in Support Of Alaskan Muslims - Tonight (Saturday) at 7pm
The Interfaith Council is sponsoring a vigil tonight. From the Facebook page:
The Islamic Community Center of Anchorage is at 8005 Spring Street.
This is a good time to support one of our many communities that is particularly under attack in the US and around the world. To show them we care and support them.
"In light of the tragedy in Christchurch, New Zealand there will be a vigil tomorrow at 7pm, at the Islamic Community Center of Anchorage. All are welcome to attend, and stand with our Muslim neighbors at this time of loss."
The Islamic Community Center of Anchorage is at 8005 Spring Street.
This is a good time to support one of our many communities that is particularly under attack in the US and around the world. To show them we care and support them.
Friday, March 15, 2019
How Social Media Allow Fringe Candidate To Get An Audience - Andrew Yang In San Francisco
I don't even know who Andrew Yang is. I'll look him up in a second. But below is a video of him giving a talk on the street with a Twitter transcript/commentary. (Double click on the Tweet to see the whole thread.)
Here's a long interview with Yang which he begins by talking about universal basic income and cites Alaska as an example of it working. I hope our current fight over the PFD doesn't "prove" to people that this idea won't work. Though it sure shows us that some people only think immediate, short term, and 'that's my money, not the state's." But that's another discussion.
What I like about all these young Democratic presidential candidates is that they are bringing to the table important ideas that the older, politically conservative (and by that I don't mean ideologically, but rather people not willing to take risks, people who only back ideas after they look at the polls) have kept off the agenda.
[As I listen to the rest of this two hour video, he talks about the places Trump won are the places that jobs got replaced by robots. Then he said he went to Washington and started talking to politicians about this and they said, "We can't talk about that." about 49 minutes in.]
Elizabeth Warren's pushing breaking up the tech industry. Kamala Harris is talking about reparations for African-Americans in the sense of help dealing with generational trauma. Beto O'Rourke champions immigrants as necessary to the prosperity and vibrance of the US ("El Paso has been the safest city in America, not despite immigrants, but because of immigrants."). Jay Inslee is focused on Climate Change. You get the point. Let's get these issues out there so the American people start seriously talking about other options.
And let's hope the candidates continue to care more about making this a much better country and world, than they care about who is ultimately in the White House. Let's hope they stay positive and see themselves as a team, and may the best candidate be their leader from the White House.
One last note: This is not an endorsement of Yang or any other candidate. I like the ideas they are all raising. As we get to know them better, we'll find out more about their strengths and weaknesses. But I'm pushing them to all work together as a team.
— 🤖 Sonya Mann 🎀 (@sonyaellenmann) March 16, 2019
Here's a long interview with Yang which he begins by talking about universal basic income and cites Alaska as an example of it working. I hope our current fight over the PFD doesn't "prove" to people that this idea won't work. Though it sure shows us that some people only think immediate, short term, and 'that's my money, not the state's." But that's another discussion.
What I like about all these young Democratic presidential candidates is that they are bringing to the table important ideas that the older, politically conservative (and by that I don't mean ideologically, but rather people not willing to take risks, people who only back ideas after they look at the polls) have kept off the agenda.
[As I listen to the rest of this two hour video, he talks about the places Trump won are the places that jobs got replaced by robots. Then he said he went to Washington and started talking to politicians about this and they said, "We can't talk about that." about 49 minutes in.]
Elizabeth Warren's pushing breaking up the tech industry. Kamala Harris is talking about reparations for African-Americans in the sense of help dealing with generational trauma. Beto O'Rourke champions immigrants as necessary to the prosperity and vibrance of the US ("El Paso has been the safest city in America, not despite immigrants, but because of immigrants."). Jay Inslee is focused on Climate Change. You get the point. Let's get these issues out there so the American people start seriously talking about other options.
And let's hope the candidates continue to care more about making this a much better country and world, than they care about who is ultimately in the White House. Let's hope they stay positive and see themselves as a team, and may the best candidate be their leader from the White House.
One last note: This is not an endorsement of Yang or any other candidate. I like the ideas they are all raising. As we get to know them better, we'll find out more about their strengths and weaknesses. But I'm pushing them to all work together as a team.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
US House Votes 420 - 0 For Transparency. Sen. Graham Blocks Bill In Senate
From Intelligencer:
Here's an assignment for the writing class today: Bring to life the backstory to Graham's action.
"Democrats passed a House resolution 420 to zero in support of releasing the [Mueller Report] to the public, serving as a gesture to pressure William Barr into showing as much of the report as possible. In the afternoon, Graham promptly shut down the symbolic gesture, blocking Chuck Schumer’s request to pass the House resolution. Graham, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, went a step further, requesting that AG William Barr should appoint a second special counsel to investigate “misconduct” in the Department of Justice over the handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the government surveillance of Trump campaign staffer Carter Page."Look for Hillary Clinton's emails to be part of the 2020 Republican platform.
Here's an assignment for the writing class today: Bring to life the backstory to Graham's action.
Emails Bloggers Get
Here's a bit of behind the scenes blog stuff.
I get stuff like this now and again. Despite the personal touches and "five prominent blogs" I know these go out to hundreds or thousands of blogs. This one at least takes the step of finding out and using my name.
The fact that I don't have ads - perhaps that is attractive to someone that just wants links. Notice there is no offer of payment, but they do offer to put links to my site.
Rest assured, readers, my only interest in stuff like this is as a reporter. I'm always curious about who does this, what they expect to get, whether they get what they expect, and the mechanics of how they identify blogs to contact.
Should I get an offer for something that I think would be of interest to my readers, I would make it very clear to the readers why it was posted, where it came from, and what, if anything, I was offered in exchange.
Here's another one from this week:
You'll note that this is a completely generic email. She hasn't even taken the time to get my name. Nevertheless, I did google her and found a few posts.
One phrase struck me: "I’d indulge in books." Wow, I never thought of reading as indulging. I guess there are some genres where reading could be seen as indulging. I emailed her on Dec. 14 to ask her to explain what she meant. And she did. Quickly.
And yet another - this one has sent me three messages now:
And then there are helpful emails, like this one:
"Hi Steve,
I came across your site while looking for resources for our next blog and I knew I had to reach out immediately, kudos on a fantastic blog. My name is Vincent, and I'm reaching out on behalf a leading construction industry supplier who operates in the same marketplace as Travis Perkins.
This month, we're looking to secure sponsorship placements with five prominent blogs and your site jumped straight to the top of our list. Would you also be willing to accept link placements on pre-existing content on your site?
Please let me know if this is something you're interested in discussing further.
Kind regards,
Vincent"
I get stuff like this now and again. Despite the personal touches and "five prominent blogs" I know these go out to hundreds or thousands of blogs. This one at least takes the step of finding out and using my name.
The fact that I don't have ads - perhaps that is attractive to someone that just wants links. Notice there is no offer of payment, but they do offer to put links to my site.
Rest assured, readers, my only interest in stuff like this is as a reporter. I'm always curious about who does this, what they expect to get, whether they get what they expect, and the mechanics of how they identify blogs to contact.
Should I get an offer for something that I think would be of interest to my readers, I would make it very clear to the readers why it was posted, where it came from, and what, if anything, I was offered in exchange.
Here's another one from this week:
"Good Morning,
I have been sober for 2 years and I am passionate about sharing my story, as a mom in recovery, through writing and reaching out to other websites looking to do the same. I have become super passionate about spreading awareness on addiction by collaborating with new organizations/blog publications, sharing my experience, strength, and hope. I also have an archive of informative/interactive guides and resources that would educate and interest your audience.
I would love the opportunity to contribute to your site with a personal story or any topic relating to addiction/recovery. If possible I'd like to post your link on my site as well. Feel free to message me with any questions, I look forward to hearing from you!
Have a great day!
Tricia Moceo"
You'll note that this is a completely generic email. She hasn't even taken the time to get my name. Nevertheless, I did google her and found a few posts.
One phrase struck me: "I’d indulge in books." Wow, I never thought of reading as indulging. I guess there are some genres where reading could be seen as indulging. I emailed her on Dec. 14 to ask her to explain what she meant. And she did. Quickly.
"Thanks for taking the time to read over some of my work. I didn't particularly intend to convey a negative connotation with that statement. The context was more of an example of the progression and how my addictive nature was present long before I ever picked up a drink or drug. For as long as I can remember, oblivion was my solution. To escape reality, I would read book after book. I got lost in the plot, completely disassociating from the world I was living in. Furthermore, the same desired effect that I got from reading and escaping... I also got from drugs and alcohol."
And yet another - this one has sent me three messages now:
12/18/2018 11:18PM
Hi Steve,
I reached out last week but haven't heard back so I wanted to try one last time. Is there an opportunity to sponsor a post on your site?
Please see my initial email below.
Best wishes,
Vincent
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Vincent Greene <xxxxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Steve,
I reached out last week but haven't heard back. I wanted to see if there was an opportunity to sponsor a post on your site.
Please see my initial email below.
Best wishes,
Vincent
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Vincent Greene <xxxxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
I came across your site while looking for resources for our next blog and I knew I had to reach out immediately, kudos on a fantastic blog. My name is Vincent, and I'm reaching out on behalf a leading construction industry supplier who operates in the same marketplace as Travis Perkins.
This month, we're looking to secure sponsorship placements with five prominent blogs and your site jumped straight to the top of our list. Would you also be willing to accept link placements on pre-existing content on your site?
Please let me know if this is something you're interested in discussing further.
Kind regards,
Vincent
Don't want emails from us anymore? Reply to this email with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.
Hello,I quickly made the updates.
I was reading your page and found a broken link referring to the 'Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt' Supreme Court's decision.
Your Page: http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2016/06/
Dead link title: 'click here'
Dead link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf
image.png
It looks like the document no longer exists, and after browsing for a while, I was able to find the same document in PDF format here:
Working link: http://templatelab.com/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt/
Maybe you could update the link on your page to help other users.
Have a great day,
Anna
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
While Death Penalty Executions Have Gone Down, Police Still Meting Out Death Penalty On The Streets
California's new governor, Gavin Newsom, has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in California.
However, the death penalty is being meted out by police officers around the country. And while convicted murderers and rapists are spared the death penalty, often innocent citizens are not.
2019
Killed By Police* lists 197 people who have been killed by police in the US this year (and we're only in the middle of March.)
Death Penalty Info lists 3 people killed so far this year as a result of death penalty executions.
2018
The Root tells us 2165 people were killed by police in 2018.
Mapping Police Violence puts the number at 2166 people killed by police in 2018. They also have a lot of related information and graphics - including comparisons between cities, crime rates, and other factors which show huge differences.
The Washington Post lists only 998 people killed by police in 2018. (Including 7 in Alaska.) These are only people shot and killed by police. The others include all deaths caused by police.
Death Penalty Info lists 25 people dying by state sanctioned death penalty executions in 2018. (Of that number, 11 are identified as Black or Latino. 13 (more than half) were in Texas.)
When police shoot and kill 'suspects' - the victim gets no presumption of innocence, no trial, no jury. No appeal. And police shooters almost never get prosecuted, let alone convicted.
OK. Let's acknowledge that police have a difficult job. They meet most of their 'customers' at some of the worst times in their lives. They're asked to intervene in crimes being committed, often, by people with guns and other weapons. They have to make fast decisions. Most of us don't want to do these jobs.
Does It Have To Be This Way?
But when we look at the numbers, only a relatively small percent (less than 1/3) of police officers ever report firing their gun while on duty! From the Pew Research article (and reflected in the chart):
My main point for using the data is to show that the vast majority of police NEVER even fire their guns in the line of duty.
In a 2000 Associated Press article we get this quote:
But we don't know if that's because they aren't ever in situations where they apprehend armed suspects or because they handle those situations differently from officers who do shoot. (Well maybe someone does, but this study didn't make any such claims.)
But the data do suggest that shooting suspects is NOT necessary in most cases.
Are there ways to reduce the number of police caused deaths?
I would also suggest that officers who do kill suspects are also victims of systems that make that option more likely. They see innumerable shootings on television, in movies, and in video games they participate in the shootings. They are nearly all given guns, which makes shooting (rather than other options, like talking, like waiting, like non-lethal weapons) an easy option. (We tend to use the tools we have to solve most problems.**) They don't necessarily get adequate training for dealing with the mentally ill. Internalized racism (again, television and movies play a big part here) will make many if not most officers more likely to assume the worst for suspects of color. (And officers of color are also the victims of internalized racism so when they are the shooters it's not proof that racism wasn't involved.)
Use of Force Project offers specific systemic actions that reduce deaths by police. (In this list the wording is reversed - what departments DON"T do that they should. There's a lot of info on this site, including a long list of police departments (including Anchorage) and which of these these standards they meet.)
I think it's important as fewer Americans die because of death penalty executions, to remember that in essence, police who kill suspects are, de facto, applying the death penalty.
Notes:
*Killed By Police lists a cumulative number for 2019 (197), but they don't for 2018. Each page is a month, and so I looked for other sources rather than try to count each specific death they list. The sources I used for 2018 did not have (at least I couldn't find) 2019 data.
**I learned about The Law of The Instrument long ago in a research methodology book It goes something like this: If you give a a child a hammer, it will find that most things need to be pounded.
However, the death penalty is being meted out by police officers around the country. And while convicted murderers and rapists are spared the death penalty, often innocent citizens are not.
2019
Killed By Police* lists 197 people who have been killed by police in the US this year (and we're only in the middle of March.)
Death Penalty Info lists 3 people killed so far this year as a result of death penalty executions.
2018
The Root tells us 2165 people were killed by police in 2018.
Mapping Police Violence puts the number at 2166 people killed by police in 2018. They also have a lot of related information and graphics - including comparisons between cities, crime rates, and other factors which show huge differences.
The Washington Post lists only 998 people killed by police in 2018. (Including 7 in Alaska.) These are only people shot and killed by police. The others include all deaths caused by police.
Death Penalty Info lists 25 people dying by state sanctioned death penalty executions in 2018. (Of that number, 11 are identified as Black or Latino. 13 (more than half) were in Texas.)
| Killed By Police | Killed By Execution | |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 |
2166
|
25
|
| 2019 |
197
|
3
|
When police shoot and kill 'suspects' - the victim gets no presumption of innocence, no trial, no jury. No appeal. And police shooters almost never get prosecuted, let alone convicted.
OK. Let's acknowledge that police have a difficult job. They meet most of their 'customers' at some of the worst times in their lives. They're asked to intervene in crimes being committed, often, by people with guns and other weapons. They have to make fast decisions. Most of us don't want to do these jobs.
 |
| Chart from PEW Research |
Does It Have To Be This Way?
But when we look at the numbers, only a relatively small percent (less than 1/3) of police officers ever report firing their gun while on duty! From the Pew Research article (and reflected in the chart):
"To start, male officers, white officers, those working in larger cities and those who are military veterans are more likely than female officers, racial and ethnic minorities, those in smaller communities and non-veterans to have ever fired their service weapon while on duty. Each relationship is significant after controlling for other factors that could be associated with firing a service weapon."The article points out that there is no cause and effect relationship proven between these characteristics.
My main point for using the data is to show that the vast majority of police NEVER even fire their guns in the line of duty.
In a 2000 Associated Press article we get this quote:
"Well over 95 percent never shoot their weapons here," said New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir.
But we don't know if that's because they aren't ever in situations where they apprehend armed suspects or because they handle those situations differently from officers who do shoot. (Well maybe someone does, but this study didn't make any such claims.)
But the data do suggest that shooting suspects is NOT necessary in most cases.
Are there ways to reduce the number of police caused deaths?
I would also suggest that officers who do kill suspects are also victims of systems that make that option more likely. They see innumerable shootings on television, in movies, and in video games they participate in the shootings. They are nearly all given guns, which makes shooting (rather than other options, like talking, like waiting, like non-lethal weapons) an easy option. (We tend to use the tools we have to solve most problems.**) They don't necessarily get adequate training for dealing with the mentally ill. Internalized racism (again, television and movies play a big part here) will make many if not most officers more likely to assume the worst for suspects of color. (And officers of color are also the victims of internalized racism so when they are the shooters it's not proof that racism wasn't involved.)
Use of Force Project offers specific systemic actions that reduce deaths by police. (In this list the wording is reversed - what departments DON"T do that they should. There's a lot of info on this site, including a long list of police departments (including Anchorage) and which of these these standards they meet.)
- "Failing to require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force
- Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians, in many cases where less lethal force could be used instead, resulting in the unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians
- Failing to require officers to intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report these incidents immediately to a supervisor
- Failing to restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles, which is regarded as a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic
- Failing to develop a Force Continuum that limits the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance
- Failing to require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force
- Failing to require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting at a civilian
- Failing to require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force against civilians"
I think it's important as fewer Americans die because of death penalty executions, to remember that in essence, police who kill suspects are, de facto, applying the death penalty.
Notes:
*Killed By Police lists a cumulative number for 2019 (197), but they don't for 2018. Each page is a month, and so I looked for other sources rather than try to count each specific death they list. The sources I used for 2018 did not have (at least I couldn't find) 2019 data.
**I learned about The Law of The Instrument long ago in a research methodology book It goes something like this: If you give a a child a hammer, it will find that most things need to be pounded.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
After A Week Home, We Finally Visit Alaska
Yes, Anchorage is in Alaska, but I wanted to get out of town a bit, so we drove down to McHugh Creek. Here here is why I love living here.
It started out a sunny day today, but by late afternoon, it was mostly cloudy.
Monday, March 11, 2019
We Pay More Attention To Stories We Connect With - The Ethiopian Max 8 Plane Crash
The crash of the Ethiopian Airlines plane taking off from Addis Ababa for Nairobi first caught my attention because long ago, I flew from Addis to Nairobi on an Ethiopian Airlines plane. It was part of flight from New Delhi that eventually got me to Kampala, Uganda. (I was taking the long way home from Peace Corps Thailand to visit a friend who was teaching in Uganda.)
And my son-in-law just got back from a trip to Nairobi - though not through Addis.
And I've been thinking about how that long ago adventure caused my brain and body to linger on this story. Human minds steer us in so many strange ways.
But later I started wondering about whether Alaska Airlines flies 737 MAX planes.
Alaska Airlines website has a page listing all their aircraft. They say they have 162 Boeing 737 aircraft, but the pictures they have up of 737s are of 737-900ER, 737-900, 737-800, and 737-700 models only. No 737 MAX planes.
However, according to Airways Magazine in a Feb 19, 2019 article:
So, what's the difference between MAX 8 and MAX 9?
This discussion from Motley Fool - Feb 2018 really focuses on the business aspects - the bigger ones are selling better:
Boeing has specs for all four varieties here.
But we're still early on here. We don't know for certain whether the crash in Addis Ababa was due to the same reason as the earlier crash in Indonesia.
From The Points Guy on a post today about flying on a 737Max :
You should go to the site because he has lots of pictures, but two key things you can see on the Max planes are:
But if all the MAX models use MCAS software, it would seem (but then nothing is what it seems) that it wouldn't matter if it was a 737 MAX -8, -9, of -10.
Note: This is not an area I know much about. I'm relying on what others have written, so look at this as notes to use as a starting point. Verify anything that is important.
And my son-in-law just got back from a trip to Nairobi - though not through Addis.
And I've been thinking about how that long ago adventure caused my brain and body to linger on this story. Human minds steer us in so many strange ways.
But later I started wondering about whether Alaska Airlines flies 737 MAX planes.
Alaska Airlines website has a page listing all their aircraft. They say they have 162 Boeing 737 aircraft, but the pictures they have up of 737s are of 737-900ER, 737-900, 737-800, and 737-700 models only. No 737 MAX planes.
However, according to Airways Magazine in a Feb 19, 2019 article:
As revealed by RoutesOnline, Alaska Airlines has outlined the start of its Boeing 737 MAX 9 network operations, scheduled to begin in July 2019. . .So if I've got this right, they have some 737 MAX models scheduled to come on line in July this year. And they changed all their 737 MAX 8 orders to MAX 9s.
The carrier converted 15 of its 737 MAX 8s it had on order to the larger MAX 9 variant back in May 2018, bringing the total commitment to 32.
Deliveries are to commence this year through to 2023, according to Boeing and Alaska Airlines.
So, what's the difference between MAX 8 and MAX 9?
This discussion from Motley Fool - Feb 2018 really focuses on the business aspects - the bigger ones are selling better:
The 737 MAX 7 attracted little interest from airlines, as its relatively small size means unit costs are higher. Boeing eventually changed the MAX 7's specifications to add 12 more seats, while increasing its commonalities with the 737 MAX 8 to reduce development costs.
Demand for the 737 MAX 9 was a little better, but still underwhelming. Boeing doesn't provide an official breakdown of its 737 MAX orders by variant, but one third-party analysis pegged the number of MAX 9 orders at approximately 410 as of a year ago. For comparison, Airbus currently has 1,920 orders for its competing (but somewhat larger) A321neo.
Stuck in the middle
At last year's Paris Air Show, Boeing launched the 737 MAX 10, a model that can fit 12 more seats than the MAX 9. The MAX 10 has roughly the same capacity as Airbus' A321neo, and will likely have similar unit costs.
Not surprisingly, airlines and aircraft leasing companies responded much more positively to the 737 MAX 10 than to the MAX 9. Boeing garnered 361 orders and commitments for the 737 MAX 10 in the span of a week during the air show.
Boeing has specs for all four varieties here.
But we're still early on here. We don't know for certain whether the crash in Addis Ababa was due to the same reason as the earlier crash in Indonesia.
From The Points Guy on a post today about flying on a 737Max :
"These two incidents have many passengers and crew asking whether the 737 MAX is safe to fly. A Miami-based flight attendant who wished to remain anonymous told TPG that she “no longer feels safe on the 737 MAX” and that she no longer “trusts” the aircraft. The Chinese and Indonesian governments have ordered their airlines to ground 737 MAXs, and Ethiopian Airlines, Royal Air Maroc and Cayman Airways have also suspended 737 MAX operations.
It’s important to note that the 737 MAX represents a small subset of the overall 737 family. Since the first Boeing 737 was delivered to Lufthansa in 1967, Boeing has delivered more than 10,000 737 aircraft and has approximately 5,000 more orders on the books. Of these, only 350 (or 3.5% of all deliveries) are of the 737 MAX variant. Still, if you’re trying to avoid traveling on a 737 MAX until an investigation into the Ethiopian crash is complete, here’s how you can identify on which 737 variant you’re flying."
 |
| Image from The Points Guy |
You should go to the site because he has lots of pictures, but two key things you can see on the Max planes are:
- The engine casing is visibly serrated
- The wing tips split (though Alaska Airlines shows 737-800s and 900s with split wing tips too.)
He also shows how to figure out what kind of plane you'll fly on when you're booking a flight.
Here's a bit more from The Points Guy post about the 737 Max planes, that gets into why some suspect - from the fact that both the Indonesia and Ethiopia flights crashed right after take-off - this is related to the 737 MAX:
While we don’t yet know the cause of the Ethiopian crash, and the Lion Air one is still being investigated as well, there’s an important distinction from a safety perspective. Only the MAX models have the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), software that automatically pitches down the nose of the plane to prevent a stall, which likely played a part in the Lion Air accident. [emphasis added]Again, from today's Gizmodo article:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not ordered anyone to stop using the Boeing 737 Max-8, but customers are understandably concerned. Some people are even taking to social media to tell Southwest and American that they’ll be cancelling their flights because they want to avoid that particular aircraft.From what I can tell Southwest and American are the two airlines that are currently flying the 737-MAX-8.
But if all the MAX models use MCAS software, it would seem (but then nothing is what it seems) that it wouldn't matter if it was a 737 MAX -8, -9, of -10.
Note: This is not an area I know much about. I'm relying on what others have written, so look at this as notes to use as a starting point. Verify anything that is important.
Misleading Headlines - Some Examples, Some Newspaper History
Appeals court tosses murder conviction in 2010 Anchorage mall shooting.Before you read any further, stop and articulate what that headline means.
That headline had me thinking that a person convicted of murder was about to be set free. Or would have to have another trial. Last November an Anchorage judge was voted out of office because of a debate over a no-jail time sentence for someone convicted of sexual assault. So maybe that was my context. Not again??!!
Actually, if you read far enough (10th paragraph of an 11 paragraph story) into the article, you'll find this:
"The court wrote in its opinion that prosecutors can either decide to retry Gray on the original second degree murder charge or have the Superior Court enter an alternativeSo, he's still been convicted of manslaughter. He's not walking. Was this headline just written too quickly? Was it intentionally written this way to get people to read about yet another outrage from the courts? (I guess I should make it clear I'm being ironic in my use of 'outrage'.)connection[conviction] for manslaughter, which is the crime Gray would have been convicted on if the jury had decided in his favor on the 'heat of passion' defense."
Here's another one:
Manafort sentenced to nearly four years in prison
Again, I want you to pause and reflect on what this means. (I'm sort of testing - maybe I'm all wrong here.) OK, now go below the image for my thoughts.
Here my beef is with the word 'nearly'. It means 'almost, but not quite.' I regularly see headlines that talk about 'almost ten years' or 'more than ten years' or 'for the first time in two years.' All these phrases imply that something is a lot, or not very much, or a big deal. When in actuality, who cares if this is the warmest temperature in two years, or the biggest stock market drop in three months? Twenty years might be meaningful, but I usually fail to understand why things are worded this way, except to make it sound more important than it is.
Manafort's sentence was seen by most legal experts to be surprisingly short. Yet 'nearly four years' to someone who doesn't know anything about the Manafort case makes it sound like he got a long sentence. It was, my goodness, nearly four years! Yes, "nearly four years" is factually correct (it was 47 months), but so is 'less than four years." But the one implies the sentence is a long one and the other that it's not that long. The Anchorage Daily News, it would appear, simply copied the headline on a story it got from the Washington Post, and if you google 'nearly four years' today, you'll get a bunch of papers that copied the same headline.
Why not just say 47 months? It uses almost half* the characters, which is always good in a headline. Are they worried that people don't know that 48 months equals four years? (Probably not a bad assumption, I'm afraid.)
*Yes, here my point was to emphasize that it's significantly less to write 47 months.
Listen to broadcasters - including NPR - and watch headlines and think about how the media use words around numbers to make them seem too high or too low. Some of this is accurate and useful, some, I'm sure, is just mindless - they aren't paying attention to the innuendo. Some of it is probably intentional to make something sound better or worse than it is, or to generate clicks.
Sensational and/or misleading headlines have been used to sell papers in the US from the beginning. Or so I thought. But a piece on early newspapers says they didn't have headlines. Lurid headlines came later. This comes from an article that offers some historical context at Gizmo: A History of Clickbait: The First Hundred Years.
Yellow journalism came of age during the period when William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal was competing for circulation numbers with Joseph Pulitzer's New York World. Things got so heated in their war for eyeballs that both papers would take any opportunity to turn the boring daily news into sensational, Earth-shattering events. That's one way that the sinking of the U.S. vessel Maine [1898] in a Cuban harbor went from an accidental explosion to a possible attack by Spain.
From the Colonial Williamsburg site (same one that said there were no headlines in the early papers):
As the century [1700] began, the fledgling colonial press tested its wings. A bolder journalism opened on the eve of the Revolution. And, as the century closed with the birth of the United States, a rancorously partisan and rambunctious press emerged.
The eras can be traced in the history of the family of Benjamin Franklin—the preeminent journalist of his time. But it best begins with another Boston newspaperman, postmaster John Campbell. In 1704, Campbell served up The Boston News-Letter, the nation's second paper. It was a publication the powers-that-be could stomach. The News-Letter lasted seventy-two years, succeeding in an increasingly competitive industry, supported by the growth of communication and of commerce.
Campbell's fellow postmasters often became newspaper publishers, too; they had ready access to information to put on their pages. Through their offices came letters, government documents, and newspapers from Europe. Gazettes were also started by printers, who had paper, ink, and presses at hand. Franklin was a postmaster and a printer. [emphasis added]
The article goes on to say that much of what they printed was extracted from other sources - like newspapers from Europe. Not unlike much of social media and even mainstream media today. And while one motivation may have been to do good, money was a key goal.
"Julie K. Williams, a history instructor at Alabama's Samford University, said publishers had such altruistic motives as improving communication and educating the public, but profit was their primary purpose. Maurine Beasley, a University of Maryland journalism professor, puts it plainly. The purpose of newspapers was 'to make money.'"
Getting a daily paper out everyday is no easy task. Making sure everything is spelled right and headlines reflect what's in each story is a constant challenge. But typos that don't change the meaning are one thing. Headlines that are misleading are another altogether. Lots of readers don't read beyond the headline. So headline writers need to be particularly careful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)