Mail Trucks, Parked Cars, Sidewalks

In the last several weeks we've had some mail delivery issues.  One day there was no mail.  The next a notice that the mailbox had been blocked.  Then yesterday this notice was in our mailbox:

We're on a street where it's almost impossible to park without blocking one mailbox or another based on these guidelines. We've lived here 40 years. Once in the past we had a similar problem.  During that time we learned that postal trucks are NOT supposed to drive over the sidewalk to deliver the mail.  We have a sidewalk in front of our house.  Once that was established there haven't been any issues until now.

I looked on line and found this from a 2011 article in The Postal Record by the International Association of Mail Carriers' director of education, Jamie Lumm:

"It seems a little silly to have to say this, but driving on public sidewalks is unsafe. Furthermore, in most juris- dictions, it’s against the law. Sidewalks are made for pedestrians, not for motor vehicles. This applies where there is no curb, a gradual rolling type curb, or the more traditional squared-off curb. . .
Dismounted or park-and-loop deliv- eries take longer, as carriers have to properly park and secure their vehicle with each dismount. Nevertheless, driving on the sidewalk is inherently unsafe and it should be stopped.
The local union should insist that carriers be instructed not to drive on sidewalks. Instead, they should be directed to dismount to make such deliveries. Where there are many such deliveries in a row, consideration should be given to converting the section to park-and-loop delivery if the boxes cannot be moved to a location where they can safely be serviced from the vehicle.  . .
It is likely that some carriers will object to dismounting, claiming that they have done it that way for years and had no safety problems. Others may complain that this will add a lot of unnecessary time to their routes. Stewards should remind them that they are paid by the hour to do their job safely, which means obeying traffic laws. If the added time for dismounting puts them into overtime, they can submit a Form 3996 requesting auxiliary assistance. If they have a lot of dismounted deliveries, they may qualify for a special inspection and a route cut."

I had been trying to call the post office, but the line kept being busy.  When I finally got through, I explained the situation to the supervisor who checked our route and said there was a new mail carrier and she'll let him know that cars blocking a mailbox is not an issue where there is a sidewalk.  Problem solved.  I think.  If so, that was pretty easy.

No one here complains when the mail truck does have room to drive up over the sidewalk to deliver the mail.  But if there isn't enough room to pull the truck up to the mailbox, we expect the carrier to get out and put it into the mailbox.  Not far from here, the mail is delivered to people's doorsteps.  And then there are other places where mail is delivered to a set of many mailboxes all in one place.

AK Press Club 2: Lakshmi Singh Gives Keynote

Lakshmi Singh before her talk

Lakshmi Singh was the keynote speaker Saturday afternoon at the Alaska Press Club annual conference.  As a very well known and recognized voice on NPR and I was looking forward to the talk.

First I'll highlight some of what she said.

Below that are my rough notes of the talk.  Treat them with caution.  Videos of all these session are supposed to be available at the AK Press Club site.  But they aren't up now.   If I find out more I'll put it up.

Basically Singh talked about restoring trust of media among the public.  She talked about NPR's rules of verification.
1.  The two source rule - get the story from at least independent, reliable sources, get a third if possible or unsure.  Make sure they all aren't relying on the same original source.
2.  Take no detail for granted - always check
3.  Go to the original source of the news - say a family member or spokesperson for a death
(There was one more I didn't get down fast enough)

She mentioned that a Bartlett High School student had emailed her a couple of weeks ago in an attempt to get extra credit for class.  She didn't know Singh would be in Anchorage shortly, and she said she visited the class Friday.

She also talked about the ethical question of informing sources of risks.  Say, doing a story on drug addiction, should they alert an interviewee that the story would be online and 20 years down the road, a prospective employer might find it.  She said some didn't think that was their responsibility, but she felt it was, saying, "Would it make it harder to get the interview?  Yes.  But our job isn't  to do it the easy way."

There was a question about the amount of analysis on NPR and the questioner felt that it added to the sense of media bias, because it's basically opinion and prediction.  She said she could only talk for the news programs and what they do, but the questioner said that the listener who listens to many NPR programs a day, hears lots of 'experts' analyzing rather than reporting facts.  Earlier Singh had related how she'd suggested to the Bartlett students, who had trouble trusting any news,

 If you can't trust [the network], then start with one reporter who always seems to be on his or her game.  Maybe that's where we can start to build trust.

Her response to the question didn't seem to satisfy the questioner, nor me, nor another person I talked to afterward.  It's been my perception that NPR has leaned over backwards to appear fair.  And this attempt at neutrality, especially when dealing with a president who ignores the truth and the constitution for self-aggrandizement.  Acting 'fair' in response means you've already lost ground, just by treating the outrageous as something debatable.  And, of course, one can ask, "What's the alternative?  To also be uncivil? No, but being more relenting (and this does happen sometimes on NPR) in questions is probably one option.  But this is a bigger issue than what the questioner was proposing.

In response to another question about how she chooses items to air, Singh gave a set of priorities:

• Which affects most people?  
• Which will change fastest in next hour?  (Not sure where this was going.)
• Which grabbing national attention, even if not personal impact, but historically important?  Notre Dame fire.  Why did you lead with that:
• Immediacy and impact. 
• She said she was also focused on health, particularly women's health, stories that have been  underrepresented over the years.  Underrepresented voices and get those stories told.

Below are my rough notes of the talk:


 To Serve the Governed - LAKSHMI SINGH

Talk about personal attacks we get, something we all deal with.  Was originally titled to serve the governed.

Press was protected in the Constitution to serve the public, and only a free press can expose the government.  Supreme court ruling, Nixon attempt to suppress details of the Vietnam war.   Personal privacy vs. protection of the nation.

Begins with separating fact from fiction - requires stepping out of info silos.  Basics:
1.  two source rule
2.  take no detail for granted
3.  go to original source   ??? one more
4.  they also rely a lot of local NPR stations who have better local contacts to verify stories - but this too depends on NPR's experience with the local sources.
5.  clarify for the listener where and how they got the information rather than just report it as a fact (the next day I heard that in a report on the Poway Synagogue shooting - the reporter said they got the info from a synagogue member and friend of the woman killed.)



This is all being tested.  Channel surfing, headlines,  but now my day begins with sorting through Trump's tweeting.  So many decisions, changing policies, hires, dismissals - not confirmed yet but get an idea of where going - revealed on Twitter.

Next step for me - talking with colleagues  Which P's remarks news value for our audience.
Need to fact check president.
Recall hosting ??   - asked if considering child separation.  Pres. said it was Obama who had actually separated kids.  He, Trump, stopped.   Factcheck.org  - trying to get to the audio.  Immigration experts, during GWB and Barrack  - family separations not on same scale as Trump.  We know 2700 families affected, true figure unknown.
True he signed an order that ended family separations, but had gotten lots of pushback.  Required far more detailed explanation from journalists.
April 9 or 10, NPR covered immigrations.  He met with reporters - CNN, Fox, MSNBC in our office - see where reporters are heading, if we don't have anyone there, I have to look at where to focus in next 30 min if my news cast is coming.   Trump, talking to Rep Donors in Texas.  I was at odds with our news people on how to cover remarks about violent criminals....  He'd make charactiastions about undocumented immigrants.  This is a false characterization - fear mongering - thinking.  I'll cover this.  Fears people had shared with Trump which he repeated.  Colleague felt rhetoric so irresponsible, it would be irresponsible for NPR to cover it.  That news conference specifically.  I felt for that very reason we had to fact-check the president.  Figuring will take, some we won't.  In that conference were so out-there, that I felt we had to at least report on it and correct.  If he said this, this is actually the fact.  It took about 20 seconds coming out of him.

Same as with his comment that Obama had family separations and he stopped it.  People agreed but only aired it once  All the editorial pitfalls we have to miss minute by minute, it will get harder and harder as technology advances.  How better guide audience to distinguish fact from fiction?  What should I do to get your confidence?

Teenagers keep it real.  A few weeks ago a student at Bartlett high emailed me.  Needed to get extra credit.  She had no idea I would be in Anchorage.  I showed up in class yesterday morning - 7:30am.  I'm happy to report.  She got a solid A.

Had good discussion about whether they had trouble sorting fact from fiction.  Generation with lots of options for getting their news.  Implication of lack of trust on their personal lives.  I wanted to do more listening - genuine reasonses

Racially mixed group, socially there.  Had access to NPR teacher puts on 3x a week.  Help put what they were learning in perspective.
Some influenced by families, some not.
Overall, it was hard [for them] to figure out if things presented as fact, really are.
Say, climate change.  Crisis in trust in media overall.
Left them with - NPR exhaustive work on getting right, not perfect, and if wrong, we immediately own it and correct it.  If you can't trust that, then start with one reporter who always seems to be on his or her game.  Maybe that's where we can start to build trust.
Seemed to resonate with students who talked to me after class.

Another way journalists tested - two source rule.    How many of you 70% of time rely on two sources - say wires.  Have you adjusted that to include other sources before you include a story.
We do heavy attribution.  7:30 something has happened.  Start vetting.  Call other stations and how other news is reporting it.  And then, if we still haven't independently verified - we might say "multiple news stories are reporting" or "according to LA Times" .  Feels clunky - get story out there so audience knows you aren't oblivious, but you haven't personally verified.

Two sources ok for some stories ok
Death on prominent figure, but we don't unless verified from family member or publicist.  We can have three sources, but could get their info from the same source.
Trying to compete with other news outlets - we learned that doesn't really matter.  If we want to keep our audience we have to keep integrity.

Rely on local journalists on the ground with own sources - we recognize it varies from local journalists - weight that and if have good handle on story, reliability - they may be asked specifics about their sources.  Not unusual to get a report from a local station - we ask who the sources are - PD, which person?  Is that the spokesperson for the PD?

Covington video - at NPR realized better to wait.  We did a writeup about the process of having to wait.  Disagreements over that resulted in lawsuits.

Say, interviewing about opiod epidemic and they share their story about addiction.  20 years later, it could be discovered by future employer.  Are we required to let interviewee know.  Some yes, others no.  Make it harder to get interview?  Yes.  But our job isn't to do it easy way.

Big fan of 'reportables'.  Feeding info to editors, more vetting, ready for air.  Emailed throughout the network.  When I see 'reportable" on my email - I might be in middle of broadcast - I'll know I can just read it.  There have been errors, but more often than not, worked really well.  Can do fast turnaround on breaking stories.  Often our own reporters verifying with our own sources.

Our listeners have made NPR primary sources - still offers contextual news on multiple platforms.  Our audience growing, younger listeners, so we're doing something right.

Like to turn this over to you for questions.  1:40

Q:  ???
A;  Clear that this is a developing story and will change.  Depending on story.  When I need to know about wild fires, know I can rely on AP more than Reuters.  Going to websites, getting info directly.  Updated more frequently and faster than wire services can do.  They've decided to focus on specific pieces, regions.  NPR relying heavily on member stations.  Hard to know there's a story and we can't call a member station.    You know your local sources.

Q:   ????
A:  2 or 3 different sources - I think this is what happened.  I wasn't in newsroom.  Systematic breakdown.  Multiple people, NPR reporter, correspondent and local NPR from another source - turned out all getting from the same place.  Same law enforcement official?  not sure.  So producer at the time, no longer there . . . went with that, thinking we had multiple sources saying the same thing.  Began immediate discussion at highest level.  How could we have allowed this to happen.  Took responsibility as a network.  We won't talk about the death of anyone until we can independently verify.
Q:  What was the Q?  A:  [I didn't catch this fully, but it was about a report that someone who died, but hadn't really. I've looked up such stories at NPR and they did report Rep. Gabby Gifford had died.]  Daily News called us to stop broadcasting, she's not dead.
A:  Don't know details.
Q:  Everyone working in newsroom knows agony of being right.  Comment on perception of media bias based on - opinion itself feeds the perception of partisanship.  Too much speculation of facts.
A:  We have journalists report what we know and don't know.  Then analysts who explain what they think might happen.  We're careful to qualify what we say - expect, not sure, etc.  Using our experience to tell you what you should look out for.  But at the end of that path, it could be the exact opposite.

More on analysis vs news, how we pick the analysts.
Q:  suggesting that contributes to sense of not reporting facts?
A:  Particular example.  Last year fatigue of Trump coverage syndrome - here's the liberal voice, here's the conservative voice, let's  fight it out.
A:  I have a different perspective - we're always talking about balance.  As newscaster, there's no room for speculation.  What you're talking about is - it's the whole flavor of that media outlet.  NPR itself helps feed this perception of bias.
A:  I might agree on certain stories, or timing of an interview,  I hear you.  Overall, we've gone to great lengths.  Some think we're part of the liberal media.  Other times think we're not.  Or are we always on the fence.

A: Which affects most people?  Which will change fastest in next hour?  Which grabbing national attention, even if not personal impact, but historically important?  Notre Dame fire.  Why did you lead with that.  Immediacy and impact.  I'm also focusing on health, particularly women's health, stories that underrepresented over the years.  Underrepsented voices and get those stories told.

Q"  ??[This was a question about why they covered a story in the Iditarod]
A:  Iditarod story  followed by teachers strike.  I wanted to do story about dogs.  could switch from people are striking, dogs are striking too.

Too Nice To Stay In - Short McHugh Creek Hike And Potter Marsh Swan

The Jacob's Ladder was already blooming on the south facing slopes.  

Looking across the inlet, there was something fuzzy in that avalanche chute - blowing snow?  Or water falling already?  

Several posts in draft but needing more attention.  Lakshmi Sign was the keynote speaker at the Alaska Press Club conference yesterday and Brett Wilkison's  presentation on lessons learned from the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat's Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the Santa Rosa fire and its aftermath had a lot of interesting bits.  Stay tuned.  

AK Press Club Conference: Threatening Situations, Getting Noticed, Student Projects

People registering before the first set of panels. I

 got into a lot of discussions until late, so this post is mostly pictures of Friday at the Alaska Press Club conference.



The first panel is heavily redacted - we had two folks from the FBI who were there on the condition that there would be no recording or photos of the session.  The speakers wanted everyone, including themselves, to be able to talk openly about their experiences.   I asked after it was over if I could at least generally describe it here and was told, "Sure."

The theme was basically:  the world has gotten more dangerous and journalists and newsrooms need to know how to avoid dangerous situations and get out of the ones they didn't manage to avoid.  There were examples of actual situations, role playing, and discussion.

I thought it was a very well done presentation - the Special Agent and the Press Person were both great speakers - articulate, funny, and knowledgeable.  But when I talked to someone at lunch, he  wasn't that impressed.  He agreed that the style was great, but asked me what I had actually learned.

When I thought about it, the advice was pretty thin.

• Be aware of your situation - know where all the exits are.
• Trust your instincts if you feel uncomfortable
• Does your newsroom have lockable doors?
• When confronted by someone:
• call 911
• Put space between yourself and the person
• Get away

These are all good reminders, and the role playing made people of situations they could get into.  But if things got really dicey, these might not be sufficient.  But then, there might not be good options in some situations other than not getting into that position in the first place.




Getting Noticed - Ed Jahn 

Over the years I've heard a lot of panels on how to connect online so you get more readers or listeners or viewers, and so this wasn't that new for me.


Student Forum



I only got to see Irena (sorry if I didn't spell that right, I was going to ask, but you left when I wasn't looking) and Suzanne talk about their student project to go to Juneau and attend committee hearings and talk with some of the legislators.






Alaska In Focus - Courts

Judge William Morse opened up saying he didn't want to talk much so people can ask questions

Judge Jennifer Henderson

The first part was mostly about how the Alaska Court system is set up.  It's hard to listen to someone talk about those kinds of details without some visual backup to help with the connections and relationships.  Toward the end we stuff more directly useful for journalists after John McKay asked a questions about brand new rules for brining cameras and electronic devices into the courtroom.

I think it was the Clerk of Court who pointed out the link to Courtview.

She also handed out some useful information:

• Alaska Court Rules - Rule 50 - Use of Cameras and Electronic Devices in Court Facilities
• Definitions of Criminal Hearing Types and Associated Terms
• Original Charging Documents

Alberto Arce:  Caravan Narratives in Journalism:  Immigrants, AsylumSeekers & Refugees

This talk reminded me of the term 'normalization' - where people get used to outrageous things so they are no longer outraged  After Trump was elected it was often talked about in list on the steps to losing a democracy.

This came to mind because Alberto was so passionate about his topic - including the fact that as an immigrant, he was outraged by being called 'the enemy' by the president.  And more so by friends, in Fairbanks where he's  been a visiting professor for a year, Tell him not to worry.

He also talked about the 'caravans' of Central Americans, which he covered as an AP reporter, walking long stretches with the immigrants.  Alberto is originally from Spain.

I ended up talking him over to the reception at the Writer's Block and got a chance to chat about a lot of things with him.

Another full day tomorrow, including the keynote address from NPR's Lakshmi Singh.

Trump, Dementia, Mexican Border, Woodrow Wilson

From Daily Caring:

"Seniors with dementia falsely accuse family of terrible things“You stole my wallet and all my money!”
“You’re keeping me prisoner in my house!”
“You’re trying to poison me!”
Seniors with Alzheimer’s or dementia commonly accuse the people closest to them of theft, mistreatment, or other terrible things. While cases of true abuse do exist, oftentimes these accusations are completely untrue and are caused by delusions – strong beliefs in things that aren’t real.
It’s important to remember that your older adult isn’t creating these delusions to hurt you. Their brains are failing and the delusions and paranoia are symptoms of the disease.
We explain why this happens and share 8 ways to calm the situation and kindly deal with these dementia accusations."

From the LA Times:

"On April 13, a Mexican military patrol spotted an unmarked vehicle on the south side of the border fence outside El Paso, and confronted the two people inside.
They turned out to be U.S. Army soldiers, and the spot where they were parked was U.S. territory.
The two sides talked, the Mexican military contingent left, and the U.S. soldiers went on their way.
That’s the story according to official statements from Mexico and the United States.
Then there is President Trump’s version.
“Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border,” he tweeted early Wednesday.
He went on: “Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border.”
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, eager to avoid any confrontation with the country’s northern neighbor, vowed Mexico would investigate."

This is one of a two year barrage of such accusations.  I used to think this was a mafia boss bullying, bluffing activity that he used because it effectively scared off most people - like contractors he refused to pay, or opponents in the Republican primary.  But I'm thinking now that it also includes some dementia.

It was 100 years ago this year (in September) that Woodrow Wilson's stroke led to his wife becoming the defacto president of the US.  She concealed the level of his inability as much as possible.

Today, White House officials are reported to have blocked a number of our president's actions to block the Mueller investigation and aides complain that the president is unfit for office.

By the way, here are the eight recommendations from Daily Caring.

1. "Don’t take it personally
2. Don’t argue or use logic to convince
3. Use a calm, soothing tone and positive body language
4. Create a calm environment
5. Stick to simple answers
6. Distract with a pleasant activity
7. Keep duplicates of frequently misplaced items
8. Seek support and advice from people who understand"

But these don't work when the patient has control of the US government and is encouraged by lots of other demented individuals in the right wing media.  

Meanwhile the Republicans in Congress are like the dementia patient's relatives in denial who are afraid to acknowledge what's happening in front of them and let Father empty the bank account, drive the car, and tear apart the family.  

Chimp On Smart Phone

I've been amazed at how quickly young - under 5 for example - kids learn how to use an iPod or iPhone.

But this chimp's use is eerie.  I don't know what it means, but it's worth thinking about.    Just because primates can use a technology doesn't mean they understand what they're doing.  They could probably be taught to use a voting machine too.

I don't often put up other people's videos, but this one is challenging what I think I know.

this monkey is like. properly browsing insta and it's messing with me pic.twitter.com/9hFIQWEJsN

— danny (@dsemumi) April 25, 2019

Pinks and Purples

I was going to just let a day slide with no post.  Lots of things to do.  But then I looked out the window  (it's 9:50pm now and that was ten minutes ago).  The camera just couldn't capture the color on the freshly snowed mountains, but this gives you an idea.  I ran out and got the picture with a telephoto lens.

I did try the panorama setting on my iPhone first, but the mountains looked much further away than they did in person.  That was from the window.  But now that I look at it, the tree patterns are kind of nice.

They're a muted grey now as I look outside.  But these other two pictures were on my camera and there seemed to be a theme.  Well, the second two probably go together better.  And no, those trees shouldn't be right in the middle, but I was after maximum pink.

The geranium petals were from a plant that bloomed inside, and then settled on the counter like this.

[UPDATE April 25, 2019 - Based on Barbara's comment, I'm adding this video of suminagashi]

"If we want more stability in state services, there’s a simple answer"

That was the title of an ADN editorial board editorial Sunday.  

First and most obvious, if there were a simple answer it would have been found long ago.  There are no simple answers in politics or government (which are not the same things, though they overlap.)

So what is that simple answer according to the editorial board?

After listing numerous shortfall's in this year's budget, they tell us:

"There’s also a simple solution that would go far toward helping restore that stability: Honesty in the budgeting process."

I agree that honesty in the budget process is helpful for the public to understand what's going on.  But is it simple?  Hell no.

First, the budget has to account for billions of dollars, so it's going to be long and complicated no matter what.  But sure, there are ways to make it easier to follow or harder to follow.
Second, the politicians - the governor and the legislators - who are trying to please constituents and funders with rewards that might not be appreciated by most, try to hide those items.   Questionable special favor allocations or cuts are well hidden in rows and columns of numbers that are hard to comprehend.
Third,  in these times of ideological warfare, many items will come under attack no matter how good they are for the general public.  Either they're ideologically unacceptable for one side or the other, or they might appear as a 'win' for one side and loss for the other.
These are just a few reasons why achieving a transparent budget is NOT simple.

Let's move on to the third paragraph of the editorial:

 "Sometimes, as with the senior benefits program, speedier processing of benefit applications results in more people than expected joining a program, draining funds more quickly. But failing to foresee scenarios like that - or deal with them swiftly when they arise - is a failure of leadership. Like not considering prices below $60 per barrel of oil as a realistic possibility for tax purposes, as happened before the 2014 price slump, failing to recognize or plan for the possibility of an uptick in benefit recipients is an indictment of our elected and appointed representatives."

OK, usually people are complaining that government doesn't act fast enough.  But when they do, they get criticized too.  Are they saying that by getting eligible people into the program quickly, the cost is too high?  If so, it's one of the few times I've seen government criticized for doing too good a job.

Let's look at the failure of leadership comment.

"But failing to foresee scenarios like that - or deal with them swiftly"   

Government is not a business where the CEO has the final say.  In a democratic government, decision making power is divided in different ways.  Broad policy making is supposed to be reserved for elected officials and their helpers, the high level appointed officials.  Career public servants are then asked to fill in the mechanical details of,  and then carry out, the policies.

But it's more complicated than that.  Power is split between the governor's office and the legislature (and, if needed, the courts.)  But the legislature is further split between the Senate and the House.  And each of those bodies is split between Republicans and Democrats and a few independents.

Leadership in such a situation isn't easy.  What's needed is peacemakers, maybe even therapists, as much as leaders.  But how do you make peace with people who see you as the enemy and whose supporters (voters and funders) tell them not to compromise?

In contrast, a marriage is simple.  There are only two policy makers and possibly some subjects of the policy (children.)  Often in a marriage, one of the two policy makers dominates the other.  Occasionally, the two work together in harmony.  But frequently they fight and disagree on everything.

Ask any divorce attorney how 'simple' it is to get angry spouses to work out the settlement of their property, and custody of the kids, even of the dog.


Then the editorial talks about oil tax credits.

 "they’re a classic example of the state’s destabilizing tendency to make a promise and then leave those who make plans based on that promise holding the bag, making residents wary and businesses disinclined to make investments in Alaska."

And to not look partisan, the editorial suggests the administration oughtn't renege on the two year school funding or senior benefits.

But this is the nature of a two year legislature that cannot commit funds beyond their two year session. (And since the new session just began, last year's commitments aren't law.)  It's also the nature of the power of large corporations to extract benefits from a legislature it paid for (in campaign contributions, in propaganda campaigns, and strong arm lobbying.)

When a commitment is made against the strong objections of the minority, then when that minority gets more power, that commitment will be challenged.  The oil companies have been telling Alaskans for years how they're going to pick up and leave if they don't get their way.  Well, either they've been bluffing or they've been getting their way.   [Figuring out comparative tax regimes is even more opaque than the Alaska budget.  Here's a long essay on whether Alaska oil taxes are fair by King Economics Group.  Unfortunately it doesn't compare our taxes to those of other oil producing states and countries.   And, it turns out, Ed King, according to his LinkedIn page,  has been Alaska's Chief Economist since Dunleavy took control in December 2018.    This ISER report also is focused only on in-state.   This OPEC comparison of oil taxes isn't about the industry taxes, but taxes at the pump. Finally, this ADN article says ConocoPhillips' Alaska region is its most profitable by far.  But that's not the point of this post, but I didn't want to make a statement without some backup.]

In the last paragraph, the ADN comes to its conclusion.

"So what’s the better answer? Make the hard choices — fund services fully or be up-front about the fact that they’ve been cut — instead of kicking the can down the road."

So, now they seem to be acknowledging that the 'simple' answer is really a 'hard choice.'  They don't talk about who has been kicking that can.  About the Republicans being in power for most of the last ten years when the budget kept going up, or how the Democrats have been trying to raise revenues with income or sales taxes, but the Republicans continue to block that.

Their simple isn't simple.  It's pap.

Here's a headline that caught my eye several years ago.

"For GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina, solving the nation’s biggest challenges is pretty simple — “it’s not rocket science,” as she likes to say."

Here was my response:  Note To Carly Fiorina: Solving Nation's Problems Harder Than Rocket Science  It delves into other aspects of the difficulty of good government.

Snowy Branches

The trees are playing peekaboo with the snow.  It was clear for several weeks.  Then snow.  Then gone.  Then snow, then gone.  This morning there was a light dusting, but now it looks like winter again.  But it's mid-April and we know it will be gone again soon.  Maybe even tonight.  But it's so beautiful.

To Keep Warm, You Can't Regenerate Your Heart, But Salamanders And Zebrafish Can

I spent today mostly reading Waiting For Snow In Havana."  My book club meets tomorrow and I had a lot of pages left.  I finished it and there is much that is good in the book, but I think a good editor could have helped Carlos Eire cut lots of pages.

So I don't have the creative energy to do much here.  I did jot this done recently and so I'll leet you off easy.  A brief contemplation about your heart.

From Science:

"The price of staying warm
Among vertebrates, zebrafish and salamanders can regenerate their hearts, whereas adult mice and humans cannot. Hirose et al. analyzed diploid cardiomyocyte frequency as a proxy for cardiac regenerative potential across 41 vertebrate species (see the Perspective by Marchianò and Murry). They observed an inverse correlation of these cells with thyroid hormone concentrations during the ectotherm-to-endotherm transition. Mice with defects in thyroid hormone signaling retained significant heart regenerative capacity, whereas zebrafish exposed to excessive thyroid hormones exhibit impaired cardiac repair. Loss of heart regenerative ability in mammals may represent a trade-off for increases in metabolism necessary for the development of endothermy."