Campbell Creek Flooding Demonstrates Why Title 21 Is So Important

The white line is approximately where the shoreline is normally.   This is one of the first houses as Campbell Creek moves into populated area, so there are no artificial constrictions above stream that would raise the water higher here. 

I'm on the bike trail, the white line is about normal shoreline.

As developers try to push back the set back distance from creeks proposed in the Title 21 provisionally approved, this recent flooding gives a good example of why other cities have much stricter setbacks than Anchorage.






You can see the white line again over by the posts and the sign at the normal shoreline where the creek is supposed to go under the bridge.

 

And below is Campbell Creek just after crossing under Lake Otis.  It's been constrained by the concrete barriers under the road right here and it has fairly steep banks, so it's kept relatively close within its banks.  But even so you can see the difference between Thursday and Friday. (Note:  We were already at flood levels on Thursday.) The little white lines on each photo show the water line for Friday and the same place on Thursday. The vertical white line in the upper right just shows the distance from the base of the tree to the water.

And most telling of all, the pipe in the lower right is completely covered on Friday. 

And as I continued on the bike trail, I could see that the creek strayed far beyond its normal banks.   At the point in the picture below, there are houses between the trail and the creek. 


I decided to go off the trail and find a relatively dry pathway through the woods on the right.  It had some elevation.  But then I got out of the woods and to the soccer fields at Waldron Park.

In the above picture I'm looking back to where I came out of the woods onto the soccer fields.  There was a long, narrow body of water bordering the fields.  As I went down toward the field from the woods, I knew the ground would be soggy but I was hoping I could jump to the grassy island.  Well, both shoes were soaked by the time I leapt to the little grass patch, which wobbled like a water bed under me.  I think it was floating. 

This is Waldron Lake, on the edge of the soccer fields.  This area was saved this year by a bill in the legislature which bought the property to preserve it as a park.  This year the governor didn't veto the appropriation like he did last year.  As I looked at the lake, it seemed that this big open body of water was better equipped to absorb some of the flooding.   Nah, don't you think they should drain the lake and put in condos?  We need to get tax dollars from this land.  Well, what we get is a natural flooding abatement and water filtration plant that would cost the city hundreds of millions to match if this lake and the creek and the green belt around the creek weren't here.

Then I wandered on down to the Seward Highway and the project begun this summer to raise the four bridges to allow a real bike trail under the highway instead of the dirt and rock obstacle course that's been the way to get past the highway all these years.

This picture shows my bike under the first bridge in August 2008, negotiating the rocks and the dirt.  You can see the second bridge in the background (and then there are two more) and the normal water level.

Here's pretty much that same spot earlier this summer after they closed it off for the construction.  

And here it was Friday morning. (You can click on the picture to get it bigger and clearer. The bottom of the fence is in the water which was about three and a half feet below the bottom of the bridge.  The trail was completely obliterated.  You can compare the water levels to the first of these three pictures. 

If I've understood correctly (it's hard to keep current with the many changes), the builders in town have gotten the Planning and Zoning Commission to shrink the setback from creeks and waterways for new development.  I understand that people want to build on as much land as possible.  But this week's flooding along the creeks shows why those setbacks are necessary.  Are floods like this normal?  Not really. But there has been speculation that the shrinking polar ice cap is having an effect on our weather patterns.  If that's true, this may be the new normal.

This storm and the flooding highlight the problems of having developers be the main lobbyists to roll back the changes on Title 21. (Not counting those who have been to meetings to explain that Title 21 is directly related to UN resolution 21 on global climate change and is an international conspiracy to take over the world.)  They want to make as much money as they can developing land and while I'm sure the vast majority of the developers do not want to have their projects flooded - even after they've collected their money and gone - I am sure that they simply discount the safety, health, and aesthetic goals set into the Title 21 process by citizens panels over the years.  The creek set back is one of the more visible problems with the changes they are proposing.  There are many, many more that will have long term negative effects on Anchorage as a livable city.

The Anchorage Citizens Coalition has a lot more detailed information of what's going on.  They'll need people to contact their Assembly members right away. 

The More Decisions You Have To Make, The Worse You Get At It

Michael Lewis was on NPR's Fresh Air talking about his assignment hanging out with the president over six months to write about what it's like to be the president. It was published in Vanity Fair.

One comment he made caught my attention.  He said that President Obama knew of research that shows the more decisions you have to make the worse you get at making decisions.   So Obama avoids many simple decisions - like what clothes to wear, what to eat - so that he can save his decision making energy for the important decisions a president faces.  (Lewis said Obama had thrown out all but his blue and gray suits so he doesn't have to think about what he's going to wear and that someone else makes the menu.)  

I thought about this today after making decisions on the Alaska Airlines website today, taking advantage of discounted fares to LA to visit my mom.  I used up way too much decision making energy. 

It seemed a good time to check into this decision making fatigue story.  I found two interesting articles on this. First was a 2008 Scientific American article "Tough Choices: How Making Decisions Tires Your Brain" by On Amir. 

He mentions something called executive function which includes focused activity, decision making, and will power (as in resisting temptation.)

It turns out, however, that use of executive function—a talent we all rely on throughout the day—draws upon a single resource of limited capacity in the brain. When this resource is exhausted by one activity, our mental capacity may be severely hindered in another, seemingly unrelated activity. (See here and here.) . . .

For example, in one study the researchers found that participants who made more choices in a mall were less likely to persist and do well in solving simple algebra problems. In another task in the same study, students who had to mark preferences about the courses they would take to satisfy their degree requirements were much more likely to procrastinate on preparing for an important test. Instead of studying, these "tired" minds engaged in distracting leisure activities.These experimental insights suggest that the brain works like a muscle: when depleted, it becomes less effective. Furthermore, we should take this knowledge into account when making decisions. If we've just spent lots of time focusing on a particular task, exercising self-control or even if we've just made lots of seemingly minor choices, then we probably shouldn't try to make a major decision. These deleterious carryover effects from a tired brain may have a strong shaping effect on our lives.

One finding was particularly relevant to how I felt booking the tickets: It's harder to make the decision than to just weigh the tradeoffs.

Why is making a determination so taxing? Evidence implicates two important components: commitment and tradeoff resolution. The first is predicated on the notion that committing to a given course requires switching from a state of deliberation to one of implementation. In other words, you have to make a transition from thinking about options to actually following through on a decision. This switch, according to Vohs, requires executive resources.

It was a pain coordinating the different days and times with commitments we have in Anchorage and getting to see my son on the trip,  and of course the different prices.  But as taxing as that was, I think actually making the decision to push the purchase button and finalizing the dates and times and transferring $900 from my credit card to Alaska Airlines seemed to use up even more energy.  Now I know it's the switch from deliberation to implementation that got to me.

 A 2011 New York Times article, "Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?" by John Tierney goes into the background research even further.  If this topic interests you at all, this is a good article to pursue.  Tierney starts by talking about the decisions of an Israeli parole board.  It turns out they are more likely to parole you if your case is heard early in the morning.  By the late afternoon, the odds go way down.  He explains they're fatigued by then and rather than make a mistake, they just say no.

It also turns out that glucose can help pick you up, and snacks helped the parole board somewhat.

The mere expectation of having to exert self-control makes people hunger for sweets. A similar effect helps explain why many women yearn for chocolate and other sugary treats just before menstruation: their bodies are seeking a quick replacement as glucose levels fluctuate. A sugar-filled snack or drink will provide a quick improvement in self-control (that’s why it’s convenient to use in experiments), but it’s just a temporary solution. The problem is that what we identify as sugar doesn’t help as much over the course of the day as the steadier supply of glucose we would get from eating proteins and other more nutritious foods.

And it adds some information to an important question of mine:  why do some people make short term decisions while others make longer term decisions.  This is just one part of the answer, but it's interesting.

Your brain does not stop working when glucose is low. It stops doing some things and starts doing others. It responds more strongly to immediate rewards and pays less attention to long-term prospects. 

 That's the main reason, I guess, you're supposed to eat before going shopping.  This physiological information about how the body is affected by decision making adds a lot to planning good decisions.

“Good decision making is not a trait of the person, in the sense that it’s always there,” Baumeister says. “It’s a state that fluctuates.” His studies show that people with the best self-control are the ones who structure their lives so as to conserve willpower. They don’t schedule endless back-to-back meetings. They avoid temptations like all-you-can-eat buffets, and they establish habits that eliminate the mental effort of making choices. Instead of deciding every morning whether or not to force themselves to exercise, they set up regular appointments to work out with a friend. Instead of counting on willpower to remain robust all day, they conserve it so that it’s available for emergencies and important decisions. 

 I've always known that signing up for a PE class made it much easier to exercise more faithfully.  And that resting and eating well are important.  Knowing what causes these problems, means for us, like it does for the president, that we can avoid unnecessary taxing of our executive function:

“Even the wisest people won’t make good choices when they’re not rested and their glucose is low,” Baumeister points out. That’s why the truly wise don’t restructure the company at 4 p.m. They don’t make major commitments during the cocktail hour. And if a decision must be made late in the day, they know not to do it on an empty stomach. “The best decision makers,” Baumeister says, “are the ones who know when not to trust themselves.”

 There is A LOT more interesting stuff in the Tierney's whole article. 

The Man Who Changed How We Think About Music

John Cage's life spanned most of the 20th Century.  Born 100 years ago this year, he died in 1992.  [I get enough google searches for "If I were born in 1912 how old would I be?" to think about putting the birth date down, but I'll assume most of my readers can figure it out.]

Cage truly revolutionized how we think about music. Maybe not directly, since most people have never heard of him, but he did change how musicians think about and how they make the music we listen to.

He moved beyond the idea of human created melodies and musical structures and focused on the sounds that exist in our world - Manhattan traffic sounds was one example - that had no meaning beyond themselves.  And silence was part of the sound palette for Cage.  To the extent that one piece, 4:33, was written for a pianist who sits at the piano not playing the notes for four minutes and 33 seconds.

His music focuses on sounds, not organized into the patterns we normally think of as music, so many people do not know how to interpret what they hear.  But it set the foundations for much modern music, including electronic music.  

I was particularly struck, at UAA's bookstore faculty forum last Thursday (September 13),  by a video clip of Cage as the guest on the 1950's tv show "I've Got a Secret." (See the I've Got A Secret YouTube is below.)  The celebrity panel is supposed to guess what the guest's secret is.

Cage's secret was that he composed a piece for three radios, a bathtub, ice cubes, blender, water pitcher, goose call, bottle of wine, whistle, and a bunch more items.  And was going to play it for them.  Watching Cage run from item to item to create the sounds in sequence, I realized that seeing the music performed was far more accessible for an audience than simply listening to what, without the visuals, would be random sounds.





This realization was reinforced when faculty member Dr. Laura Koenig described watching a performance of ball bearings frozen in a block of ice that melted allowing the ball bearings to drop and make different sounds depending on where they landed followed by a violinist responding to the ball bearing sound.  Dr. Koenig describes it on the video excerpts  below from Thursday's forum.  There are also some excerpts of John Cage discussing his music in the video.




There were three music faculty - Chris Sweeney, Phil Munger, and Laura Koenig - and art professor Sean Licka.   The bookstore's Rachel Epstein, who works so hard to create these interesting panels, was hovering around making sure people were speaking into the microphone so it would be caught for the UAA podcast that is now up.

You can hear the podcast of the whole talk here.

This post is totally inadequate for the subject.  I feel I should be writing more.  This was a man, not wealthy, who had an obsession.  Who lived close to poverty for years to pursue that obsession.  People understood that he was talented, but his ideas seemed crazy to most.  (Listen to how Gary Moore talks about his secret in the video.)  Yet he persevered.

A couple of people mentioned that Cage wouldn't be in most people's top 10 American composers of the 20th Century, yet he probably had the most influence on music.  This speaks to the contributions that people, who we tend to think of as odd, can make if they are allowed to.  He heard a different beat and didn't let it go.  He's both an inspiration to me to pursue what I think is important, and a lesson to see through the masks of the people around me to find their inner humanity and worth. 

Last Week Republicans Thought Taxes Were Evil, Now They Think People Who Don't Pay Taxes Are Evil!

Until last week, all I heard from Republicans was that taxes were evil and should be avoided if at all possible.  For years, Grover Norquist has been twisting Republican congressional arms to sign a taxpayer protection pledge.

Some members of congress major in tax loopholes and when they graduate from congress they get high paying jobs helping the wealthy avoid taxes.  And Romney, we've been told, avoids taxes with the best of them including off-shore accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland.  When you fly over to check on your accounts it's probably tax deductible too.

Yesterday my head spun as it followed the Republican tax philosophy tennis ball being slammed in the other direction.   I learned that Romney disdained the 47% of Americans (actually US households, not people) who didn't pay income taxes.  You'd think he'd admire their ability to legally avoid income taxes, just as he thinks we should admire his ability to avoid taxes.  But no, it turns out he doesn't.  They think they're victims, he said.  Hell, all this time I believed that Republicans thought people who PAID taxes were victims.

He also thinks they're all Democrats or at least they plan to vote for Obama.  If that's true, then why doesn't Romney just concede the election now?  After all, there must be other US tax paying Americans like myself who plan to vote for Obama.  If just 3.1% of us income tax payers voted along with the 47% deadbeats - in the right states of course - Obama would win.

Mitt, I hate to tell you this, but what people say they believe and what they actually do are two different things.   I know because I live in the socialist Red state of Alaska where we follow the Republican Wally Hickel's (may he rest in peace) Owner State philosophy.  We collectively own the oil on the North Slope (and elsewhere) and we collectively get paid dividends on it.

Just yesterday our Republican governor's Revenue Commissioner announced that this year's checks would be  $875[8].    And big families like yours Mitt, five kids, get seven checks!  We're all like shareholders in the state of Alaska. We don't pay state income taxes, we don't pay state sales taxes, and we get a check from our collective ownership of the state's natural resources.  Yes, we're all victims, dependent on the state.  And just like corporate victims whose companies get federal contracts and various tax breaks, we use the money to create jobs.

And we're a red state that will, without a doubt,  vote for you in November Mitt.  I hope you can explain all this to me. 

Click here to see a CBS fact checking and explaining post of the 47% figure here.

Office Jerk, Asperger Syndrome, and Mitt Romney

Lynne Curry, a local management consultant who has a weekly advice column in the Anchorage Daily News, had a letter today from an employee who'd been sent by his boss to "charm school" and he though it was a big waste of time:

"I was given hundreds of nonsensical suggestions. These included saying "please" and "thank you" when asking employees to do tasks they're paid to do. I was also told to listen to "all others" without interruption, even when idiots talk and I've got things I need to do.

I told my boss he could choose between me being "nice" and me getting my work done. He told me to call you."

The gist of Curry's answer was:

"Allow me to shorten the list of suggestions to just one: Stop being a jerk."

It's easy to dismiss this as far-fetched and conclude the letter is a hoax.  But I suspect many of you know someone like this.  So I'm going to continue on the assumption it's for real.

For everyday practical responses, "Stop being a jerk" probably works for all of us reading it, but what about the guy who wrote the letter?  Or Mitt Romney?* (Curry does say more, but it is all in the same vein that he's already dismissed as 'nonsensical suggestions.')

Labeling someone - especially a pejorative like 'jerk' - doesn't work well if the person truly doesn't understand what the problem is.  And even if they do understand, this will likely make them defensive, though in some cases it might work. 

My preference is to try to understand the underlying reasons one gets put into the 'jerk' category and whether there might be other ways to phrase it.  Jerk just means 'you aren't a good person.'  But people don't choose to be jerks. They may choose behaviors that cause others to label them jerks, but being a jerk is a side effect of how they act, not their goal. 

They need more help understanding their 'jerkhood.' 

In fact, his behaviors remind me of Asperger Syndrome.  (I confess that I see Asperger symptoms a lot.  I don't know if this is because my understanding of mental health is so limited I apply Asperberger inappropriately or that there really are a lot of people who display a few or more Asperger symptoms.)

 About.com's overview of Asperbergers offers a simplified list of symptoms from the Cambridge Lifespan Asperger Syndrome Service(CLASS) in UK.  Let's look at the list with my comments applying them to Curry's letter writer.

• I find social situations confusing.
• Clearly the case here.
  
• I find it hard to make small talk. 
• Seems to be the case here
  
• I did not enjoy imaginative story-writing at school. 
• No evidence presented.
• I am good at picking up details and facts. 
• Seems to do his job well which may involve these skills.  Not sure.
• I find it hard to work out what other people are thinking and feeling. 
• Definitely
• I can focus on certain things for very long periods. 
• Again, possibly.  He focuses on his work and isn't distracted by the social aspects at work and doesn't like to be distracted by others asking him questions
• People often say I was rude even when this was not intended. 
• Definitely
• I have unusually strong, narrow interests. 
• We don't have enough evidence, but he does his work - possibly one of those strong interests -  and it seems like those interests do not broaden out to things his co-workers are interested in, or even to his co-workers themselves.
• I do certain things in an inflexible, repetitive way.
• May explain why he's so impatient with how others do things or even listening to them making suggestions.  And he certainly doesn't want to change how he interacts with them.  They are the problem, not he.
• I have always had difficulty making friends.
• Definitely true at work and I suspect elsewhere.

This doesn't mean he has Asperger Syndrome, but it does suggest it's a possibility.  Even if he doesn't, it lays out some of his issues in relatively neutral language that he can understand.  People with Asperger Syndrome can be highly functioning and highly intelligent, but have difficulty picking up social cues. 


I looked for the source of the checklist above and found a paper at MD Junction which appears to have as the lead author the head of the Cambridge Lifespan Asperbers Syndrome Services, Simon Baron-Cohen. (For the interminably curious, Wikipedia says he is the cousin of actor Sacha Baron-Cohen.)  Here are some of the most relevant symptoms to Curry's worker's case from in Appendix A of the paper.

• doesn't think it's their problem if they offend someone (EQ27
• can't always see why someone should have felt offended by a remark (EQ29)
• prefers to do things on own rather than with others (AQ1)
• finds friendships and relationships difficult so tends not to bother with them (EQ12) .
• often told has been impolite even though they think they have been polite (AQ7)
• Lack of social or emotional reciprocity (e.g. not knowing how to comfort
  someone; and/or lack of empathy).
• finds it hard to see why some things upset people so much (EQ21)
• does not spot when someone in a group is feeling awkward or uncomfortable (EQ26)
• is not upset by seeing people cry (EQ32) 
• makes decisions without being influenced by people's feelings (EQ39) 
• does not get emotionally involved with friends' problems (EQ59)
• does not enjoy social chit-chat (AQ17)
•  is not good at social chit-chat (AQ38)
• can't tell if someone else wants to enter a conversation (EQ1)
• can't work out what other person might want to talk about (EQ54)
• not a good diplomat (AQ48)
• often finds it difficult to judge if something is rude or polite (EQ14)
• is very blunt without being intentionally rude (EQ34)

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/09/16/2627671/prince-charmless-doesnt-want-to.html#storylink=cpy

As I understand it, people with Asperger Syndrome aren't willfully being jerks, but rather they don't 'see' the signals most people see.  They either don't pick them up or their brains don't know how to interpret them.  It's like interpersonal deafness or colorblindness.

*I think Mitt Romney's more awkward behaviors could be pinned to these lists.  In fact his  comments to wealthy donors reported yesterday sound familiar: 

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care of them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it,”

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said, referring to Obama supporters. “I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The message is the same as Curry's office 'jerk':  

I'm not the problem, the other people are impossible and unreachable so why should I bother?  

OK, I acknowledge that Romney's problem is bigger than Asperger Syndrome, but I suspect Asperger - or something similar - is part of it. 

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/09/16/2627671/prince-charmless-doesnt-want-to.html#storylink=cpy

Shaggy Manes Pop Up And Campbell Creek Rises

The big storm didn't quite materialize, at least in our part of town. There was enough wind to move the leaves around, but not enough that we heard it like last week.

And it's raining sometimes harder, sometimes barely a drizzle. I took advantage of a lull to bike over to someone's house where I found a bunch of shaggy mane mushrooms.  These are very distinctive mushroom that I know is safe and tasty. 

They weren't as excited about the mushrooms as I was and gave me a plastic bag.  I picked a few. 




While I was out I checked on Campbell Creek.  It was up above its banks a bit, but nothing serious.  At the two spots I checked.  Though later I learned that a friend whose house is next to the creek had nine cottonwoods down in his yard.

The winds did stir last night.  The trees are dancing gently to the beat this morning.  Predictions are for rain until Thursday.  

 The mushrooms, by the way, were delicious. 

Zuill Bailey Plays His 300 Year Old Cello At APU

Friends invited us to last night's great Sitka Summer Music Festival* Anchorage Autumn concert and I want to alert folks there's another concert this afternoon and another next Friday.

I don't keep current with what's going on in music nationally that much, so I didn't really know the name Zuill Bailey before last night, but I do now.  In the picture below, he's in the upper left giving an introduction to the concert - and telling us we can use our cell phones at this concert, if the electricity goes out, to light the room.  He's also holding the cello in the upper right.  But you can see (and hear) him better in the NPR video below.  The YouTube intro points out that his cello is very special,

built by the renowned Venetian maker Matteo Goffriller in 1693. That means Johann Sebastian Bach was all of 8 years old when Goffriller slapped on the final layer of shellac. 

In the main part of this photo you can see violist Sandra Robbins (l-r), the pianist Eduard Zilberkant, the page turner, and the oboist Catherine Weinfield, before they played Charles Loeffler's Two Rhapsodies for Oboe, Viola and Piano. (I can read the program.)   As a failed junior high school oboist, I could appreciate how she didn't break her reed just before this piece with many solos, and I noticed how many reeds she had in her case when she took it out.  I also appreciated how beautiful the oboe is when someone can really play it.

I'm afraid that violinist Elmar Oliveira is just a speck holding a violin in the upper right hand picture, but he and violist were wonderful in the opening piece, Handel's Passacaglia for Violin and Viola.

I don't have a lot to say. It was a wonderful trip to another reality for two hours.  It's great to hear world class musicians in the tiny Grant Hall at Alaska Pacific University with its great acoustics and where you can see the musicians as well as hear them from whatever seat you're in.

So if you can, go this afternoon at 4pm.  There should be a couple of tickets available and maybe the rain will mean more than a few people will be giving up their seats if you just show up.  The chance to see and hear Zuill Bailey in this space may not happen again soon.  (Or maybe it will since he's the Artistic Director of the Sitka Music Festival.) 

There's another concert Friday at the Discovery theater featuring pianist Piers Lane -

"No praise could be high enough for Piers Lane whose playing throughout is of a superb musical intelligence, sensitivity, and scintillating brilliance."  Bryce Morrison, Gramophone

- AND Zuill Bailey. It's still a small, but not quite as intimate a venue, and it should be incredible. 

Here's the NPR video with Zuill Bailey:




*The official name for this concert series is Alaska Airlines Autumn Classics, but I have this difficulty with commercializing everything. Yes, it's great that Alaska Airlines supports this festival, but they can do that because they often charge Alaskans more to fly to Seattle or rural Alaska than to LA or other locations. I'd even be ok if this were called the Sitka Autumn Classics, sponsored by Alaska Airlines. So, yes, thank you Alaska Airlines for making this possible, but please be a little more modest and respectful, since it's really all Alaskans who support this through your often exorbitant airfares. (I just looked up flying to Seattle next Saturday and the cheapest flight available is $471 one way!)

Ready For The Next Storm

We got a robocall from Municipal Light and Power about how to prepare for the storm due this evening at 8pm.  At the concert tonight they asked people to be ready to use the flashlight app on their iPhones if the power went out.

There was a little wind this afternoon and it's been raining on and off all day.  (Western Prince William Sound - Whittier and I guess Girdwood maybe - are predicted to have 3-7 inches of rain in 24 hours.)  

Issued by The National Weather Service
Anchorage, AK

Updated Sep 15, 2012, 10:40pm AKDT

... HIGH WIND WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 8 PM THIS EVENING TO 8 PM AKDT SUNDAY...
* LOCATION... THE ANCHORAGE BOWL... HILLSIDE AND ALONG TURNAGAIN ARM.
* WIND... IN THE ANCHORAGE BOWL AND LOWER HILLSIDE... SOUTHEAST WIND 35 TO 50 MPH WITH GUSTS 50 TO 65 MPH. ALONG TURNAGAIN ARM AND THE UPPER HILLSIDE... SOUTHEAST WIND 70 TO 85 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 110 MPH. WINDS DIMINISHING TO 40 TO 60 MPH SUNDAY EVENING.
* TIMING... THE STRONGEST WINDS WILL DEVELOP INITIALLY OVER THE UPPER HILLSIDE AND TURNAGAIN ARM THIS EVENING... AND SPREAD TO THE LOWER HILLSIDE... EAST ANCHORAGE... AND EAGLE RIVER VALLEY DURING THE OVERNIGHT HOURS. STRONG SOUTHERLY WINDS THEN WILL SPREAD TO THE REST OF THE ANCHORAGE BOWL AS A WEATHER FRONT MOVES THROUGH THE REGION SUNDAY MORNING. WARNING LEVEL WINDS WILL DIMINISH EARLY SUNDAY EVENING... THOUGH WINDY CONDITIONS WILL PERSIST INTO MONDAY MORNING.
* IMPACTS... TREES AND POWER LINES MAY BE BLOWN OVER. STRONG WINDS CAN PRODUCE WIND DRIVEN PROJECTILES AND MAY DAMAGE PROPERTY. TRAVEL MAY BE DIFFICULT.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
A HIGH WIND WARNING MEANS A HAZARDOUS HIGH WIND EVENT IS EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. PEOPLE ARE URGED TO SECURE LOOSE OBJECTS THAT COULD BE BLOWN AROUND OR DAMAGED BY THE WIND.

Last Sunday, by 10:30 pm our power was out.  While we got power the next morning, it took some people until Friday to get theirs.  And our internet was out until Tuesday.   So far tonight it's raining, but the high winds haven't made it into the Anchorage Bowl yet.   But everyone is paying attention to the warnings this week and I should put up a post now, just in case we lose power again before tomorrow morning.

Playing With Photos on Blogger - Clouds, Crabapples, and Photoshop

Life is basically about balancing tensions between competing options.  Making tradeoffs.  And I face that every day here on the blog.

It's my space to experiment, but it's also public.  In my own private journal I could experiment and not worry about people looking at my drafts.  Or I could write personal thoughts about my family.  But I want my family to talk to me, so they are pretty much off limits.

For writing, I've come to terms with getting something as good as I can in the time that I have.  Yes, it would be better if I labored over it for another week or two, but the trade off is that I get more stuff up and I can consider these notes jotted down.  On touchy issues I'll usually spend more time trying to avoid ambiguity and unnecessarily ticking someone off.  But there's always someone who will get offended.  Fortunately, not too many of those folks are reading here.

But photos are different.  There's the conflict between putting up a good photo versus putting up something that isn't so good but illustrates the story.  Yes, I know, I should do both, but sometimes a mediocre photo is all I have and it still tells a lot more than I could write.



Like that big cloud hanging over me as I came out of the John Cage talk at UAA Thursday.  I just couldn't get the cloud right.  It was way too big and too close.  But the picture tells you a lot more than I could write.  We don't have that many dramatic cloudscapes in Anchorage.  More often it's a pretty flat gray sky.  Or puffy whites floating near the mountains.

  By the time I got to Lake Otis and 36th, it was even better.  I was waiting for the light to change and shot this on the run as the walk sign turned on. I know, a real photographer would have waited for the next light.  A real photographer would have a real camera too.

 And then Blogger doesn't do me any favors when it interprets the photos.  You could read the Seawolf Shuttle on the bus clearly before I posted this.  If you click on the picture it shows you the slightly better version.


But sometimes I get bored with just uploading up a photo, or I think I can make it look more interesting if I fiddle with it in photoshop.  I'll show you what I mean.   The two cloud pictures I just posted up here from my photo files using blogger's upload photo function.  I don't have a lot of control.  I can play with the size and location -  on the left, right, or middle.

Sometimes I'll take two related pictures and I want to position them together better than blogger lets me. I'll just put them together in photoshop without otherwise doctoring them.   Like these two pictures - one of the crabapples on the ground and the other looking up at the crab apple tree.

 

But this was just too flat - the up and down perspectives don't work when the two are together like this.  So I tried playing with them more in photoshop.

OK, I have the apples looking like they are on the ground, but the tree and the sizes and relationships just don't work.  You can't see really see the apples in the tree which I wanted to catch when I took the picture.  Usually I won't burden you with my failures, but this is a behind the scenes post,  So I tried again.

 

I like this better.  It's got more life than the other two, but it's still too flat.  I should have lain down on the ground to take the picture.  But I wasn't thinking about putting the two together at the time.  Planning!  I probably should get back to Mariano's digital art class.  

Meanwhile, they are predicting more 'strong wind events' in the Anchorage area for tomorrow.  Other places have hurricanes and typhoons, but  we only have wind events,  even though the hillside and Turnagain Arm are supposed to get 100 mile per hour gusts.  We're getting the candles out and batteries for the old radio.  I have to say, it was nice having candles for light and not being able to use the computer.  I may be adding to the downed tree pictures I've posted this week.  Last week most of us weren't paying much attention to the wind warnings.  The storm got our attention. This week we're listening.  Probably nothing big will happen.

Is Terrorism a Hate Crime?

People get upset over anti-American attacks, like the consulate attack and deaths in Libya.  There's something about terrorist attacks against Americans that adds, literally, insult to injury for most Americans.  Terrorist attacks take, collectively, a minor toll on American lives compared to many other causes of death we pay little attention to.  But they get media attention far out of proportion to their actual impact.  From the Cato Institute, for example:

Any violent crime is terrible, but terrorism is extremely rare in the United States. The risk that any given American will be killed by a terrorist is about the same as the chance that a randomly selected high school football player will one day be a starting quarterback in the Super Bowl. One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder. We would not adopt the "if it saves one life'' theory to justify a ban on bathtubs, even though hundreds of lives would be saved each year. Accordingly, America should reject terrorism legislation that will probably not save any lives and that demands that Americans give up things far more important than bathtubs.

But emotionally, we are far more affected by terrorism than other causes of death.  We've been willing to compromise basic freedoms to prevent terrorism and punish terrorists  (ie, assassinations, habeas corpus violations, 'extraordinary rendition').   We've been intimidated by terrorists (or manipulated by politicians using terrorist attacks as an excuse) to spend huge amounts to invade the privacy of every airline passenger.  We've committed violence to our justice system to punish those we call terrorists.  The Obama administration's attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York federal court instead of a military court, for example, caused sharp protests.  From the Carnegie Council:

The response of prominent members of the Bush administration and other leading Republicans to the announcement was swift, as they accused the Obama administration of failing to understand the danger of trying a terrorist on US soil. A secondary concern, expressed at Attorney General Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, was that the trial would give the accused the chance to avoid conviction. The protections of a legal team and the vagaries of juries, it was argued, could result in a suspected terrorist escaping justice. 

There is no presumed innocence until proven guilty for terrorists here.  Somehow these crimes are different, are more heinous, are less deserving of the American justice system.
 
The Patriot Act was passed, in part to increase the penalties for terrorists.
From the Department of Justice website:

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act:

• Prohibits the harboring of terrorists. The Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as: destruction of aircraft; use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; use of weapons of mass destruction; bombing of government property; sabotage of nuclear facilities; and aircraft piracy. 
• Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists: including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and destruction of national-defense materials. 
• Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killings in federal facilities, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crew members. Under previous law, many terrorism statutes did not specifically prohibit engaging in conspiracies to commit the underlying offenses. In such cases, the government could only bring prosecutions under the general federal conspiracy provision, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years in prison.
• Punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems. 
• Punishes bioterrorists.
• Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

There is something different about a lone angry man shooting up a theater and a terrorist who does the same thing.  The latter apparently commits a crime that is even worse than the former.  It's murder plus. One difference seems to be intent.

Here's how the US Congress has defined terrorism 18 USC §2331 from Cornell Law:

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

These are acts as 1(A) tells us, that are already illegal and now are getting the extra label of terrorism added to them.  

The Justice Department defines Hate Crimes on its website :

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations. 

What the two acts - hate crimes and terrorism - seem to have in common are:

• Violence
• Intent to intimidate (and I think coerce plays a role in hate crimes too, though the word isn't used in the definition above.)

If you read white supremacist or white nationalist websites, there is also a clear  goal to change government policies related to race (usually separate the races to save whiteness)  and there is talk of inevitable civil war in the US.  I won't link to those sites, you'll have to find them on your own.

Given the similarity between terrorism and hate crimes, why is there opposition to hate crimes laws by people who support anti-terrorism laws?  

For instance a statement by House Majority leader Boehner (from CBS News):

All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."

To be fair to Boehner, CBS contacted his office to see if he objected to all hate crime legislation or just adding gender and sexual orientation:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

Of course, religion is NOT an immutable  characteristic.  People choose to change religions all the time and while individual sexual acts may be choices, sexual orientation surely isn't.  But that's besides the point here.

Another legislator also saw the idea of hate crimes as creating "thought" crimes:

Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to "thought crimes," and he labeled the bill's passage – tied to a defense bill – an "absolute disgrace."

But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones.

"We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others," said Buck.

Intent, of course, is the basis for finding someone guilty of murder.  No one cries "thought police" there.  And despite the law, despite Boehner's assertion that "all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance,"  the ACLU points out that some murder victims get less vigorous legal attention than others. 

While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.

The emotional attachment of the public and of officials affects how they react to events.

The hatred of a specific group of people makes a normal crime into a hate crime.  It's not  just about the criminal and victim, but about all people who share the targeted characteristic of the victim, whether it's race or religion or gender.

In terrorism, we have the same reaction - it isn't about what the victim did, but who the victim was - an American.  I'm an American, so I too could be randomly victimized if I'm traveling abroad.    The impact is wider and stronger because of the intent of the terrorist to use violence to intimidate anyone who is a member of the group American, just as in hate crimes.

Where's this all going?

I would hope that at least some of the readers can see where this is leading.  For some people - especially those who live in a society in which they are among the dominant population (ie a white male Christian in the US) and are never victimized because of their personal characteristics - it is hard to understand the effect of hate crimes on individuals within that group and on the group collectively.  (Though some people who call themselves Christians claim they are discriminated against.)

It seems to me that when the idea of America is attacked - as when the world trade center was destroyed - Americans react the same as members of traditionally victimized groups (racial and religious minorities, women, gays, etc.).

Even if they can't feel  what an African-American feels when seeing a Confederate flag, perhaps they can understand it's the same way they feel when they see video of planes crashing into the World Trade Center.  It doesn't diminish their feelings to know that the Confederate flag can cause the same feeling to many African-Americans.  It's like translating an emotional context from one culture to another. 

That, of course, assumes logic and consistency, and a real desire for the ideals of democracy and freedom.  There are many who are too fearful to be concerned about anyone else.  There are many whose goals are simply personal benefit and for whom American ideals are merely tools to use to get their own way. (Using American slogans to convince people to vote for them.)

And, there are some who, while emotionally impacted by crimes against the US, would advocate that terrorists deserve no more and no less punishment than those who commit similar crimes without an ideological or political motive.

But deep down, we're all humans who should be able to understand all this.   Even Clarence Thomas spoke up when the Supreme Court considered a cross-burning case and convinced his black robed colleagues that cross burnings were more than free speech, they were acts of intimidation.

Symbolic acts can intimidate and cause other real harm, beyond any direct physical harm to the victim.