Nevada County weblogs are at SuprGlu.
NCFocus may be quiet, but others are not.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Friday, December 22, 2006
Christmas Spirit, NCFocus style
The NCFocus news team wishes to apologize for giving the driver in front of us the finger this afternoon, in the parking lot at SPD.
And we wish to supersize our apology, since as it transpired, the driver's action did not even merit irritation, much less said finger.
that's one of the nice things about blogging, you can get apologies off your chest. Another one goes out to the Nursery Street Open House sellers from ~1989, for actions too shameful to be documented here, but which I fear they might remember as well as I.
And we wish to supersize our apology, since as it transpired, the driver's action did not even merit irritation, much less said finger.
that's one of the nice things about blogging, you can get apologies off your chest. Another one goes out to the Nursery Street Open House sellers from ~1989, for actions too shameful to be documented here, but which I fear they might remember as well as I.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
NCFocus archive as a Table
NC blog aggregation
I'm trying out Suprglu as an aggregator for the active NC blogs that I'm aware of. It's not ideal, still need a way to ensure that no more than the first few lines of a post will appear.
One way would be for the various blogs' owners (Jeff, Doug, Martin...) to change their feed settings....
(FYI, don't bother trying to leave comments on Ski The Far Stars as they seem to go into a black hole)
still need to add: sesf, broadband of brothers; what else?
(and if any of you don't want to be part of the aggregation, let me know.)
but i thought it was supposed to update - yet hours later it's still not showig this post. Maybe it only updates infrequently?
One way would be for the various blogs' owners (Jeff, Doug, Martin...) to change their feed settings....
(FYI, don't bother trying to leave comments on Ski The Far Stars as they seem to go into a black hole)
still need to add: sesf, broadband of brothers; what else?
(and if any of you don't want to be part of the aggregation, let me know.)
but i thought it was supposed to update - yet hours later it's still not showig this post. Maybe it only updates infrequently?
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Thursday tedium-Commercial influence and the news
Sat. update appended.
-----------
For the record, I am not always Barbara Coffman's mouthpiece, and asking questions doesn't always mean I have the answers. I just want the issues discussed in a somewhat more straightforward manner. All the same, this case doesn't merit such a lengthy and detailed and tedious and relatively pointless treatment, so if you are a normal human being whose time has value, you shouldn't have to suffer through it; go read something else.
-----------
The Union has been raising plumes of steam from ears in Java John's recently, and for a change the ears are not mine.
Today's column by The Union Readership Editor Dixie Redfearn recounted an incident I'm somewhat familiar with, having heard the other side. It brings up questions.
From Dixie's column:
Shorter Dixie Redfearn:
1. Reporting even bad news is good.
2. Therefore criticizing the paper for how it covers a conflict is misguided, it's akin to "killing the messenger".
3. Asking that the paper delay printing a negative story is misguided because ...? (it's akin to hobbling the messenger?)
Some questions for Dixie and/or The Union editor Jeff Pelline, who may be responsible for this column.
(tried calling Dixie to ask, but she's working at home today)
First, for transparency of authorship:
Was this column actually written by Dixie?
If so, was it printed substantially as Dixie wrote it?
Was the column Jeff P's idea?
Were the points in it dictated by Jeff P?
Second, the content.
Is the above "shorter Dixie Readfearn" 3-point summary accurate?
(and did I infer #3 correctly?)
If so, could we look at them one by one...
SDR#1. Reporting even bad news is good.
Agreed, generally.
SDR#2. Therefore criticizing the paper for how it covers a conflict is misguided, it's akin to "killing the messenger".
("If merchants weren't fighting with one another, urging boycotts and calling the police, we wouldn't be writing about it. Because it is an unpleasant topic, should we sweep it under the rug and pretend everyone gets along fine?...'...deal with bad news in ways more creative than clobbering the messenger.'")
Can you think of ways of covering conflict that would deserve criticism?
(if you report on an incident, and everything you report is true, can the report still be irresponsible?)
(for example, what if it's reported in a he-said-she-said fashion, giving equal weight to "both sides" without making an effort to determine where the truth lies?)
for extra credit: what's meant by the expression "let's you and he fight"?
related:
("Recently, a public official came into The Union office to ask that we delay printing a story that was in the works. ...")
The "public official" was Nevada City councilmember Barbara Coffman; she asked that the story be delayed for one day, so that visitors on Victorian Christmas wouldn't see it on the front page of the local paper.
The column failed to mention that the requested delay was for just one day.
Does it seem relevant to you that the delay was this short, and that it would not meaningfully impact residents?
(Should a small town paper make small(?) commercial concessions like this, or would that be a slippery slope best avoided? Addressing this question would be more valuable than conflating "delay for a day" with "don't publish".)
Also literally true but somewhat misleading:
> "...came into The Union office to ask..."
A minor quibble, but "called The Union to ask" would really be more accurate. Barbara said she phoned Jeff P to ask for the delay, and got his voicemail. When Jeff returned her call he requested that she come in, which she then did.
In other words, she didn't stomp down to the paper, pound her fist on the table and demand change; she came by in response to Jeff P's request.
And she's a bit steamed because - if I understand correctly - she had been led to believe that Wednesday's paper would be positive in its Nevada City coverage, but she didn't perceive it as having turned out that way.
(take with salt; there've been misunderstandings before.)
-----------
Our Armchair Opinion at NCFocus:
The NCFocus editorial board is quite uncomfortable skating this close to defending an attempt to wield commercial influence on the news side of the paper; on the other hand, we unanimously believe that Dixie's column
a) should have mentioned the extent of the 'transgression' (a one-day delay seems minor);
b) could have stated whether The Union's policy is to avoid such commercial concessions regardless of their magnitude; and
c) should _not_ have presented a false dichotomy between 1) reporting "all sweetness and light" and 2) engaging in the practice of hosting he-said-she-said cockfights. There are other options.
-----------
Update (added Sat. pm):
Emailed a heads-up re the questions in this post to editor Jeff Pelline and readership editor Dixie Redfearn; they both replied to the email, but neither answered the questions.
Also posted a heads-up and URL as an online comment to the column, but my comment did not appear. Comments are pre-moderated, so I infer that mine did not meet The Union's unwritten standards.
Paper did however publish an article today giving more context, about the history of Grass Valley's BID; at the outset it got as mixed a reception as NC's is getting now.
(Background on the news topic, for out of towners - BID=Business Improvement District (a new one in Nevada City, a decades-old one in our sibling city Grass Valley); some turf wars with NC's Chamber of Commerce; some business owners don't want to pony up the additional fees; issues of taxation and representation; free rider issues; property rights issues; loudest opponent making noises about how he's going to get a concealed weapons permit, etc. In other words it's just your basic Nevada County disagreement.)
-----------
For the record, I am not always Barbara Coffman's mouthpiece, and asking questions doesn't always mean I have the answers. I just want the issues discussed in a somewhat more straightforward manner. All the same, this case doesn't merit such a lengthy and detailed and tedious and relatively pointless treatment, so if you are a normal human being whose time has value, you shouldn't have to suffer through it; go read something else.
-----------
The Union has been raising plumes of steam from ears in Java John's recently, and for a change the ears are not mine.
Today's column by The Union Readership Editor Dixie Redfearn recounted an incident I'm somewhat familiar with, having heard the other side. It brings up questions.
From Dixie's column:
The role of a newspaper is to be the official record of what happens in a community. ... Sometimes the news isn't pleasant... remember, don't kill the messenger. We aren't committing the crime. We're telling the community about it.
One recent example is our coverage of the merchants in downtown Nevada City and the BID/Chamber of Commerce issue. If merchants weren't fighting with one another, urging boycotts and calling the police, we wouldn't be writing about it. Because it is an unpleasant topic, should we sweep it under the rug and pretend everyone gets along fine? Where is the truth in that?
Recently, a public official came into The Union office to ask that we delay printing a story that was in the works. There was nothing in the story that wasn't true. The official felt that because it dealt with the BID/Chamber issue, the story running on Wednesday might put a damper on that evening's Victorian Christmas.
...
"[people] should deal with bad news in ways more creative than clobbering the messenger."
One recent example is our coverage of the merchants in downtown Nevada City and the BID/Chamber of Commerce issue. If merchants weren't fighting with one another, urging boycotts and calling the police, we wouldn't be writing about it. Because it is an unpleasant topic, should we sweep it under the rug and pretend everyone gets along fine? Where is the truth in that?
Recently, a public official came into The Union office to ask that we delay printing a story that was in the works. There was nothing in the story that wasn't true. The official felt that because it dealt with the BID/Chamber issue, the story running on Wednesday might put a damper on that evening's Victorian Christmas.
...
"[people] should deal with bad news in ways more creative than clobbering the messenger."
Shorter Dixie Redfearn:
1. Reporting even bad news is good.
2. Therefore criticizing the paper for how it covers a conflict is misguided, it's akin to "killing the messenger".
3. Asking that the paper delay printing a negative story is misguided because ...? (it's akin to hobbling the messenger?)
Some questions for Dixie and/or The Union editor Jeff Pelline, who may be responsible for this column.
(tried calling Dixie to ask, but she's working at home today)
First, for transparency of authorship:
Was this column actually written by Dixie?
If so, was it printed substantially as Dixie wrote it?
Was the column Jeff P's idea?
Were the points in it dictated by Jeff P?
Second, the content.
Is the above "shorter Dixie Readfearn" 3-point summary accurate?
(and did I infer #3 correctly?)
If so, could we look at them one by one...
SDR#1. Reporting even bad news is good.
Agreed, generally.
SDR#2. Therefore criticizing the paper for how it covers a conflict is misguided, it's akin to "killing the messenger".
("If merchants weren't fighting with one another, urging boycotts and calling the police, we wouldn't be writing about it. Because it is an unpleasant topic, should we sweep it under the rug and pretend everyone gets along fine?...'...deal with bad news in ways more creative than clobbering the messenger.'")
Can you think of ways of covering conflict that would deserve criticism?
(if you report on an incident, and everything you report is true, can the report still be irresponsible?)
(for example, what if it's reported in a he-said-she-said fashion, giving equal weight to "both sides" without making an effort to determine where the truth lies?)
for extra credit: what's meant by the expression "let's you and he fight"?
related:
In Anchorage, we used to ask ourselves this question: If a Martian was coming to visit and had read a month's worth of the Daily News in advance, what would she expect to find?
Too often, our honest answer was, "a lot of really violent people who love to attend meetings."(*)
SDR#3. Asking that the paper delay printing a negative story is misguided...Too often, our honest answer was, "a lot of really violent people who love to attend meetings."(*)
("Recently, a public official came into The Union office to ask that we delay printing a story that was in the works. ...")
The "public official" was Nevada City councilmember Barbara Coffman; she asked that the story be delayed for one day, so that visitors on Victorian Christmas wouldn't see it on the front page of the local paper.
The column failed to mention that the requested delay was for just one day.
Does it seem relevant to you that the delay was this short, and that it would not meaningfully impact residents?
(Should a small town paper make small(?) commercial concessions like this, or would that be a slippery slope best avoided? Addressing this question would be more valuable than conflating "delay for a day" with "don't publish".)
Also literally true but somewhat misleading:
> "...came into The Union office to ask..."
A minor quibble, but "called The Union to ask" would really be more accurate. Barbara said she phoned Jeff P to ask for the delay, and got his voicemail. When Jeff returned her call he requested that she come in, which she then did.
In other words, she didn't stomp down to the paper, pound her fist on the table and demand change; she came by in response to Jeff P's request.
And she's a bit steamed because - if I understand correctly - she had been led to believe that Wednesday's paper would be positive in its Nevada City coverage, but she didn't perceive it as having turned out that way.
(take with salt; there've been misunderstandings before.)
-----------
Our Armchair Opinion at NCFocus:
The NCFocus editorial board is quite uncomfortable skating this close to defending an attempt to wield commercial influence on the news side of the paper; on the other hand, we unanimously believe that Dixie's column
a) should have mentioned the extent of the 'transgression' (a one-day delay seems minor);
b) could have stated whether The Union's policy is to avoid such commercial concessions regardless of their magnitude; and
c) should _not_ have presented a false dichotomy between 1) reporting "all sweetness and light" and 2) engaging in the practice of hosting he-said-she-said cockfights. There are other options.
-----------
Update (added Sat. pm):
Emailed a heads-up re the questions in this post to editor Jeff Pelline and readership editor Dixie Redfearn; they both replied to the email, but neither answered the questions.
Also posted a heads-up and URL as an online comment to the column, but my comment did not appear. Comments are pre-moderated, so I infer that mine did not meet The Union's unwritten standards.
Paper did however publish an article today giving more context, about the history of Grass Valley's BID; at the outset it got as mixed a reception as NC's is getting now.
(Background on the news topic, for out of towners - BID=Business Improvement District (a new one in Nevada City, a decades-old one in our sibling city Grass Valley); some turf wars with NC's Chamber of Commerce; some business owners don't want to pony up the additional fees; issues of taxation and representation; free rider issues; property rights issues; loudest opponent making noises about how he's going to get a concealed weapons permit, etc. In other words it's just your basic Nevada County disagreement.)
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Once more, with feeling
Update: Wendy, Wendy, Wendy, what has happened to your mind? Suing the reporter (and a hair stylist) does not make you look good.
-----------------
For those of you who love deja vu -
Santa Barbara Smackdown, a long, thorough AJR article documenting owner Wendy McCaw's abuses of power at the Santa Barbara News-Press. Because it's a standalone paper rather than a chain*, the management and staff had little reason to leave silently, so her actions were widely reported.
and more:
(via Tom Abate)
Doc Searls toured the News-Press in 2003, in a better time:
-----------------
For those of you who love deja vu -
Santa Barbara Smackdown, a long, thorough AJR article documenting owner Wendy McCaw's abuses of power at the Santa Barbara News-Press. Because it's a standalone paper rather than a chain*, the management and staff had little reason to leave silently, so her actions were widely reported.
In her few public pronouncements, McCaw has blamed the turmoil on "disgruntled ex-employees" ...
...after buying the paper from the New York Times Co. in 2000 and promising to have no role in newsgathering, McCaw began whacking away, her lieutenants firing one editor after another, presiding over the dismissal or resignation of five publishers in five years...
Under McCaw, a Libertarian, News-Press editorials evolved from respectful, cautious, reasonably argued pieces to raucous assaults. ...
...after buying the paper from the New York Times Co. in 2000 and promising to have no role in newsgathering, McCaw began whacking away, her lieutenants firing one editor after another, presiding over the dismissal or resignation of five publishers in five years...
Under McCaw, a Libertarian, News-Press editorials evolved from respectful, cautious, reasonably argued pieces to raucous assaults. ...
and more:
...an 11-year veteran who lost her column in August after publicly declaring her support for the newsroom and the union...gave Scott Steepleton her resignation letter, said, "Fuck you" and walked out. Huff issued a press release scolding [her] for her "use of profanity"...
(via Tom Abate)
Doc Searls toured the News-Press in 2003, in a better time:
Our tour guide, the photo editor of the paper, talked about how hard it is to get new subscribers when so many readers were getting their news elsewhere, or just seemed to give too small a shit. Yet he remained no less motivated, for the simple reason that daily papers remain highly civilizing forces for the regions they serve, and he felt privileged to be part of one.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Monday, December 04, 2006
Such a handsome young man...
(Updated below, and edited for clarity and accuracy)
...going door to door on an early weekday afternoon, peddling a homemade cleaner in refillable spray bottles
...knocking on door of a house where the shades were all drawn
...not trying the neighbors next door, nor those I asked from further up the street*.
Polite and friendly too.
Lacking a larcenous background, I have no experience, so must ask: how likely is it that he was legit?
I did call the police dept; got the sheriff's dispatcher, asked if this was something worth reporting - the answer is apparently not, unless he lacks the required peddler's license(?).
Do door-to-door evangelists need a license? If not, that'd seem a more prudent method of doing pre-burglary research.
(and do the legitimate evangelists evangelize alone, or do they always work in pairs?)
-----------------
Morning-after update:
Walked across the street to City Hall after coffee and asked, and heard:
1. Yes, sounds like my handsome visitor was legit; someone of same description had come in yesterday and taken out the papers; is from out of town, I believe Sacto area.
2. Unless you're evangelizing for profit, you don't need a license to go door to door proselytizing your religion (which is obvious, in retrospect)
So the only thing left to wonder about is the one-evangelist-vs.-two question, whether they do always travel in pairs/groups when going door to door.
Confidential to reader wondering at the suspicious consider-the-worst mentality evinced here: au contraire, history ("all the data that we have so far") reveals your correspondent to be a clueless blithering idiot. Trust me on this one.
...going door to door on an early weekday afternoon, peddling a homemade cleaner in refillable spray bottles
...knocking on door of a house where the shades were all drawn
...not trying the neighbors next door, nor those I asked from further up the street*.
Polite and friendly too.
Lacking a larcenous background, I have no experience, so must ask: how likely is it that he was legit?
I did call the police dept; got the sheriff's dispatcher, asked if this was something worth reporting - the answer is apparently not, unless he lacks the required peddler's license(?).
Do door-to-door evangelists need a license? If not, that'd seem a more prudent method of doing pre-burglary research.
(and do the legitimate evangelists evangelize alone, or do they always work in pairs?)
-----------------
Morning-after update:
Walked across the street to City Hall after coffee and asked, and heard:
1. Yes, sounds like my handsome visitor was legit; someone of same description had come in yesterday and taken out the papers; is from out of town, I believe Sacto area.
2. Unless you're evangelizing for profit, you don't need a license to go door to door proselytizing your religion (which is obvious, in retrospect)
So the only thing left to wonder about is the one-evangelist-vs.-two question, whether they do always travel in pairs/groups when going door to door.
Confidential to reader wondering at the suspicious consider-the-worst mentality evinced here: au contraire, history ("all the data that we have so far") reveals your correspondent to be a clueless blithering idiot. Trust me on this one.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
People I would like to meet
A very incomplete list (fallible memory, narrow mind, some names removed to protect the innocent)
* Press bloggers - DeLong, Rosen, Alexander, Cline, Conovers, and others
* Dave Mitchell
* Gary Webb*
* K.C. Meadows
* Margaret Wade
* Lisa Williams
* the one true b!x
* Chris Cobler
* Arne Hoel
* Fred Sacher
* Howard Ahmanson
* Press bloggers - DeLong, Rosen, Alexander, Cline, Conovers, and others
* Dave Mitchell
* Gary Webb*
* K.C. Meadows
* Margaret Wade
* Lisa Williams
* the one true b!x
* Chris Cobler
* Arne Hoel
* Fred Sacher
* Howard Ahmanson
Monday, November 27, 2006
Deep thoughts
re the title- it's relative.
Thought #1: Recently ran across an exceedingly apt Aristotelian aphorism*, which I'm trying to wear out from overuse:
Thought #2: An open question -
I was talking with an old friend yesterday, trying to entice her onto the citizen journalism bandwagon. From a goal-oriented perspective, it did not go well. She said (echoing this MJ article but more pessimistically) -
"Why bother gathering facts? it's abundantly clear that people don't make up their minds based on facts, they just believe whatever they feel like believing, and keep on voting for corrupt candidates - look, even 'cold-cash Jefferson' got re-elected."
I placed the blame for this on the mores of the media (which, were she to join said bandwagon, she'd be helping to reform) -
"The standard he-said-she-said reporting is what's gotten us into this mess - if the press did its job and informed us, and didn't use false balance to maintain the postmodern pretense that all "realities" were equally valid, people would think and act and vote more rationally...and that's a delusion that I'm not ready to give up."
My question for you, dear thoughtful, reflective, not reflexively hostile reader*:
Is there any good, empirical evidence that it's not a delusion? or do we just take on faith, with no awareness of irony, that evidence-based "discipline-of-verification" journalism makes for a (substantially) more rational populace?
Related: Scott Atran's
And if you wanted to collect data bearing on this assertion, where would you look, and how would you tease apart causation from [other reasons for] correlation?
Apologies in advance to Jerry Maguire, but: Show me the data. please.
Thought #1: Recently ran across an exceedingly apt Aristotelian aphorism*, which I'm trying to wear out from overuse:
It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.
Thought #2: An open question -
I was talking with an old friend yesterday, trying to entice her onto the citizen journalism bandwagon. From a goal-oriented perspective, it did not go well. She said (echoing this MJ article but more pessimistically) -
"Why bother gathering facts? it's abundantly clear that people don't make up their minds based on facts, they just believe whatever they feel like believing, and keep on voting for corrupt candidates - look, even 'cold-cash Jefferson' got re-elected."
I placed the blame for this on the mores of the media (which, were she to join said bandwagon, she'd be helping to reform) -
"The standard he-said-she-said reporting is what's gotten us into this mess - if the press did its job and informed us, and didn't use false balance to maintain the postmodern pretense that all "realities" were equally valid, people would think and act and vote more rationally...and that's a delusion that I'm not ready to give up."
My question for you, dear thoughtful, reflective, not reflexively hostile reader*:
Is there any good, empirical evidence that it's not a delusion? or do we just take on faith, with no awareness of irony, that evidence-based "discipline-of-verification" journalism makes for a (substantially) more rational populace?
Related: Scott Atran's
... no convincing evidence presented that [scientists] know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based.
And if you wanted to collect data bearing on this assertion, where would you look, and how would you tease apart causation from [other reasons for] correlation?
Apologies in advance to Jerry Maguire, but: Show me the data. please.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Followup on the early November power outages
Nov. 27 update at end of post (and in italics within).
------------
Russ Steele's comment on my Nov. 13 "power outages" post exposed the inadequacy of my "dust on the transformers*" attempt at explanation.
Rather than remaining true to blogger nature and quietly changing the subject, I emailed* PG&E spokeswoman Lisa Randle asking for more information.
(which she promptly and extensively provided; either she's extremely generous, or I was lucky and caught her on a slow afternoon, or both.)
However, I think we're still left with a mystery:
In early November, during a one-week period during calm weather, Nevada County experienced three power outages with three different reported causes (one unambiguous, 2 ultimately ambiguous), and Red Bluff had [at least] one with yet a fourth cause. In Nevada County at least, these outages were unusual on several fronts: the mere fact of their occurrence (the power has been extremely reliable the last few years; thank you PG&E), their clustering, and their association with relatively calm weather.
The Nevada County outages and their reported causes:
I don't know what if anything to make of this cluster of outages (and the seemingly contrafactual report of causal weather conditions for the first one), but it does seem curious.
Ms. Randle also shared some more general info, which will appear on NCDocuments in the next day or so.
--------------
Nov 27 update, one week later:
As with creation, a "day" is not always best understood literally.
Asked two more people, so two more data points:
1. According to an anonymous source, Petaluma also experienced an uncharacteristic power outage, back in October.
2. An Alta Sierra source informs us that power was not lost there.
FWIW.
Two relevant quotes (or one relevant and one red herring):
------------
Russ Steele's comment on my Nov. 13 "power outages" post exposed the inadequacy of my "dust on the transformers*" attempt at explanation.
Rather than remaining true to blogger nature and quietly changing the subject, I emailed* PG&E spokeswoman Lisa Randle asking for more information.
(which she promptly and extensively provided; either she's extremely generous, or I was lucky and caught her on a slow afternoon, or both.)
However, I think we're still left with a mystery:
In early November, during a one-week period during calm weather, Nevada County experienced three power outages with three different reported causes (one unambiguous, 2 ultimately ambiguous), and Red Bluff had [at least] one with yet a fourth cause. In Nevada County at least, these outages were unusual on several fronts: the mere fact of their occurrence (the power has been extremely reliable the last few years; thank you PG&E), their clustering, and their association with relatively calm weather.
The Nevada County outages and their reported causes:
- Sat Nov. 4, about 6pm, the Cascade Shores area east of Nevada City, on a quiet, rain-free nightL.R.: A sectionalizer had opened causing the outage but the cause was not definitive. The weather at the time was - Strong Winds,Clear;32-90 F. Not having found a specific item like a branch or animal in the line or a vehicle accident, it was most likely weather related due to the wind.
I don't recall windy weather that evening, and apparently nor does the National Weather Service: on this page, for Nov. 4 for Sacto (are there wind records for Nevada County?):CLIMATE REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SACRAMENTO, CA
...
426 PM PST SAT NOV 4 2006
WIND (MPH)
HIGHEST WIND SPEED 12 HIGHEST WIND DIRECTION NW (330)
HIGHEST GUST SPEED 16 HIGHEST GUST DIRECTION NW (310)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED 4.7
...
WEATHER CONDITIONS
THE FOLLOWING WEATHER WAS RECORDED TODAY.
FOG
FOG W/VISIBILITY <= 1/4 MILE
HAZE - Wed Nov. 8, 4:30 and 4:45pm, in town; an article in The Union reports that it may have been caused by lightning.L.R.: This outage was caused by a tree through the line, but at the time I provided information to the reporter this was not known and reports at the time had indicated possibly lightning.
- Later that same evening of 11/8, about 11pm, in-town Nevada City, during 'quiet' weatherL.R.: The Cause was equipment...a fuse had blown. A fuse is a safety device that activate when fault current is detected on the line. It works just like a fuse in your circuit box at your home. It serves to protect other equipment. A line-to-ground fault was noted, but again no specific cause for the equipment action.
I don't know what if anything to make of this cluster of outages (and the seemingly contrafactual report of causal weather conditions for the first one), but it does seem curious.
Ms. Randle also shared some more general info, which will appear on NCDocuments in the next day or so.
--------------
Nov 27 update, one week later:
As with creation, a "day" is not always best understood literally.
Asked two more people, so two more data points:
1. According to an anonymous source, Petaluma also experienced an uncharacteristic power outage, back in October.
2. An Alta Sierra source informs us that power was not lost there.
FWIW.
Two relevant quotes (or one relevant and one red herring):
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny..."
- Isaac Asimov
- Isaac Asimov
Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.
- Robert Park
- Robert Park
Monday, November 13, 2006
Likely cause of our recent power outages
Last Wednesday's power outages were tentatively attributed in The Union (here) to lightning.
(was there lightning?)
The two comments on the article asked if anything was known about the causes of two other recent unexplained outages, which occurred when there was no weather to speak of.
Nobody responded to us.
My guess is that Nevada County's power outages stem from the same problem reported in Red Bluff recently:
(was there lightning?)
The two comments on the article asked if anything was known about the causes of two other recent unexplained outages, which occurred when there was no weather to speak of.
Nobody responded to us.
My guess is that Nevada County's power outages stem from the same problem reported in Red Bluff recently:
North Valley PG&E spokesperson Lisa Randle said dust and other material from the summer collects in the air and rests on insulators.
Usually, quick, heavy rains are able to remove those contaminants without incident.
But this year, the rainy season started with a drizzle, not with a bang, which gave time for the dust to create a pathway for the electricity.
"Most likely, it was weather-related," she said.
Usually, quick, heavy rains are able to remove those contaminants without incident.
But this year, the rainy season started with a drizzle, not with a bang, which gave time for the dust to create a pathway for the electricity.
"Most likely, it was weather-related," she said.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Election 2006 aftermath - Relief, kitchen lessons, and ethics
Updated Mon Nov 13.
Whew.
I wasn't expecting the Dems to take the House and Senate - felt sure the Republican 'false flag' robocall dirty tricks - and the press's late, false-balanced, or absent coverage of them - would let the dirty tricksters walk off with the preponderance of the races in this election too.
Not so. (but it apparently did tip the balance in some races)
Welcome [oops - Ed.], and thank you. There's a lot of work to do.
Another incident of Republican lying and cheating, and some appalling press 'coverage' of the smorgasbord of dirty tricks
Sauce for the gander?
I don't pay enough attention to political maneuverings to do anything more than pass this (from Markos of Daily Kos) along -
Kos is - for the moment at least - relishing the idea of keeping these policies intact and giving the new minority party a taste of its own medicine. The commenters are all over the map* - some agree, some take the "Congressional Dems should do the Right Thing, shouldn't stoop to [existing Repub.] practice" high road.
A couple good points, e.g. this-
and this -
Sounds good, but all the same it makes me nervous. We've seen how one-party rule does corrupt*; so how, once the Dems had experienced the ease of 'getting things done' without effective Republican opposition, would they decide that it was time to give up that power?
it feels too much like Bush et al saying "we'll give you your civil liberties back a few decades from now, when the War on Terrorism is over".
On the other hand, the press could serve here; a press to whom Lewinsky was major news would likely pay much closer attention to anti-minority-party tactics if used by Dems, so would likely serve as a Fourth Estate check on the Dem majority much better than they did on the Republican one.
(yea press - better a good ump half the time than not at all.)
Whew.
I wasn't expecting the Dems to take the House and Senate - felt sure the Republican 'false flag' robocall dirty tricks - and the press's late, false-balanced, or absent coverage of them - would let the dirty tricksters walk off with the preponderance of the races in this election too.
Not so. (but it apparently did tip the balance in some races)
Another incident of Republican lying and cheating, and some appalling press 'coverage' of the smorgasbord of dirty tricks
Sauce for the gander?
I don't pay enough attention to political maneuverings to do anything more than pass this (from Markos of Daily Kos) along -
[during the Bush administration] Republicans in the Senate and House -- secure in their perpetual majorities -- instituted a long list of policies that dramatically discriminate against the minority party in both chambers. In the House, the minority is all but invisible. And in the Senate, the filibuster is all that's left keeping the minority party from utter irrelevance (and they tried to get rid of that).
Kos is - for the moment at least - relishing the idea of keeping these policies intact and giving the new minority party a taste of its own medicine. The commenters are all over the map* - some agree, some take the "Congressional Dems should do the Right Thing, shouldn't stoop to [existing Repub.] practice" high road.
A couple good points, e.g. this-
Political civility in the halls of Congress ... is self-executing. That means there's no judge to complain to. Good behavior is enforced by making sure that what goes around comes around. In this ['game'] the moral position is to make sure that someone who abuses the process gets punished by having done to them what they did to you. Otherwise they have absolutely no incentive ever to be civil to you because they know they'll pay no penalty if they're not.
and this -
what I really want... is for significant change, for positive things to get done, and that means removing a lot of the bad, bad legislation that has been foisted on the land under this Congress, as well as passing all those things that have been so needed and so brutally repressed.
And the fact is, those anti-minority rules the republicans put in place could make it easier to get things done off the bat - as well as teach the right a much needed lesson.
So...Serve them with a dose of their own medicine while getting the top things on the agenda DONE. Then think about magnanimously changing the rules back to the way that worked all those years. And think about it publicly, transparently, with plenty of examination of what went wrong. The American people could use a few civics lessons.
And the fact is, those anti-minority rules the republicans put in place could make it easier to get things done off the bat - as well as teach the right a much needed lesson.
So...Serve them with a dose of their own medicine while getting the top things on the agenda DONE. Then think about magnanimously changing the rules back to the way that worked all those years. And think about it publicly, transparently, with plenty of examination of what went wrong. The American people could use a few civics lessons.
Sounds good, but all the same it makes me nervous. We've seen how one-party rule does corrupt*; so how, once the Dems had experienced the ease of 'getting things done' without effective Republican opposition, would they decide that it was time to give up that power?
it feels too much like Bush et al saying "we'll give you your civil liberties back a few decades from now, when the War on Terrorism is over".
On the other hand, the press could serve here; a press to whom Lewinsky was major news would likely pay much closer attention to anti-minority-party tactics if used by Dems, so would likely serve as a Fourth Estate check on the Dem majority much better than they did on the Republican one.
(yea press - better a good ump half the time than not at all.)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
why I'm not here
Russ Steele asked wtf is up here at NCFocus, besides, well, nothing.
("Tomorrow is 30 day of silence. Lets hear about what is being discussed at Java John's."*)
answer: I'm pretty much in overwhelm mode. The world is going to hell in a handbasket, and there comes a point when even I can see that I'm preaching to exactly two congregations - the converted, and the unreachable.
via Xark (and former Republican Kos), "still think of myself as a Republican" conservative blogger John Cole:
I don't know either. But they're still doing it.
-------
Russ, here's what you missed today at Java John's - one blogger, holding newspaper* up in front of face for privacy while fishing in pocket for kleenex, reading Tom Engelhardt's SF Chron article about Riverbend's blog in Iraq.
-------
The Republican "Hello, I'm calling with information about [Democratic candidate]" dirty-trick robocall scam is being perpetrated nationwide ("The calls are designed to appear to be coming from Democratic candidates and seem to be targeted at Democratic and independent households across the nation...")
Pathetic, desperate sleazebags.
extremely illuminating graph (from this post) showing overwhelming predominance of negative Republican robocall spending
And do not miss this piece from Lex, on what's behind the anger against Bush. (no, it's not personal animosity, nor "politics as usual".)
("Tomorrow is 30 day of silence. Lets hear about what is being discussed at Java John's."*)
answer: I'm pretty much in overwhelm mode. The world is going to hell in a handbasket, and there comes a point when even I can see that I'm preaching to exactly two congregations - the converted, and the unreachable.
via Xark (and former Republican Kos), "still think of myself as a Republican" conservative blogger John Cole:
...I think the whole party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills, and it frustrates me to no end to see my former friends enabling them, and I wonder 'Why can't they see what I see?" I don't think I am crazy, I don't think my beliefs have changed radically...
I hate getting up in the morning, surfing the news, and finding more and more evidence that my party is nothing but a bunch of frauds. ...
Bush has been a terrible President. The past Congresses have been horrible- spending excessively, engaging in widespread corruption, butting in to things they should have no say in ..., refusing to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING, and using wedge issues to keep themselves in power at the expense of gays, etc. And I don't know why my friends on the right still keep fighting for these guys to stay in power.
I hate getting up in the morning, surfing the news, and finding more and more evidence that my party is nothing but a bunch of frauds. ...
Bush has been a terrible President. The past Congresses have been horrible- spending excessively, engaging in widespread corruption, butting in to things they should have no say in ..., refusing to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING, and using wedge issues to keep themselves in power at the expense of gays, etc. And I don't know why my friends on the right still keep fighting for these guys to stay in power.
I don't know either. But they're still doing it.
-------
Russ, here's what you missed today at Java John's - one blogger, holding newspaper* up in front of face for privacy while fishing in pocket for kleenex, reading Tom Engelhardt's SF Chron article about Riverbend's blog in Iraq.
-------
The Republican "Hello, I'm calling with information about [Democratic candidate]" dirty-trick robocall scam is being perpetrated nationwide ("The calls are designed to appear to be coming from Democratic candidates and seem to be targeted at Democratic and independent households across the nation...")
Pathetic, desperate sleazebags.
extremely illuminating graph (from this post) showing overwhelming predominance of negative Republican robocall spending
And do not miss this piece from Lex, on what's behind the anger against Bush. (no, it's not personal animosity, nor "politics as usual".)
Thursday, October 05, 2006
In which we are a Source: profile on The Union's former editor
The cover story in the Humboldt County North Coast Journal's Oct. 5 issue profiles The Union's former editor R.S., who was here from fall 2002 through December 2004.
Last week one of the reporters sent an email asking what, as a reader of The Union, I had observed during this period.
I said
A difference of perspectives can do wonders for understanding... My first impulse was to mutter "why me" and hastily redirect her elsewhere.
(like I said, it does wonders...)
But it was clearly time to put up or shut up, so I answered her.
and also said:
May end up posting it, or some of it, on NC Documents within the next day or two. Not because I'm unhappy with the outcome, really, just that it's so...incomplete.
The story's balanced. Very balanced.
do sources always have this reaction?
Excerpts:
For now, an observation (which doesn't exactly pertain to this article; the NCJ reporter's question was open-ended) from Language Log:
The selection of different parts of my response to quote would have made for a dramatically different end result.
Two observations:
-------------------
Addenda:
Previous post in "In which..." series: In which we are a stabbing suspect.
Last week one of the reporters sent an email asking what, as a reader of The Union, I had observed during this period.
I said
...it is very interesting now, to be in this position in the journo 'manufacturing' process ... usual position is standing outside pointing finger and saying 'why don't you get the real story?'
A difference of perspectives can do wonders for understanding... My first impulse was to mutter "why me" and hastily redirect her elsewhere.
(like I said, it does wonders...)
But it was clearly time to put up or shut up, so I answered her.
and also said:
if I'm not comfortable with how the story comes out, I'll want to post the gist of [my response]* on my blog. ...
May end up posting it, or some of it, on NC Documents within the next day or two. Not because I'm unhappy with the outcome, really, just that it's so...incomplete.
The story's balanced. Very balanced.
do sources always have this reaction?
Excerpts:
[RS on the newspaper building] "...we can put skylights in there and maybe shed some light on things. So that would be great. At least we would get some sunlight in."
Skylights? The anecdote seems telling, but it's hard to say what it tells. There are several potential Somervilles it indicates, each of them with some precedent in the man's career...
Skylights? The anecdote seems telling, but it's hard to say what it tells. There are several potential Somervilles it indicates, each of them with some precedent in the man's career...
"...I was getting the itch to go back in the newsroom again. I was looking for a paper that was looking for an editor that wanted to do some of this stuff. And I preferred a smaller paper. A community paper."
At that time, The Union, a 140-year-old paper in Nevada County, Calif., was undergoing tremendous change. ...
At that time, The Union, a 140-year-old paper in Nevada County, Calif., was undergoing tremendous change. ...
Anna Haynes, a blogger in Nevada County (ncfocus.blogspot.com) said by e-mail last week that she has Somerville to thank for turning her into "a journalism junkie." It was September 2002, and the paper had just gone through a summer with a new publisher and no editor, a period in which, she said, the paper was "a "referee-free" zone ... "with the publisher egging people on ... and so I think there was a collective sigh of relief when [Somerville] came on board. I saw him as a voice for civility in the community, I found his columns on journalism interesting," she said.
Sure, she had her criticisms. But, she said, Somerville "had to work with a fractious publisher and a fractious community," in which a "major power struggle" was going on surrounding development issues. And perhaps, she surmised, the problems she saw were just the nature of small-town newspapers.
Sure, she had her criticisms. But, she said, Somerville "had to work with a fractious publisher and a fractious community," in which a "major power struggle" was going on surrounding development issues. And perhaps, she surmised, the problems she saw were just the nature of small-town newspapers.
For now, an observation (which doesn't exactly pertain to this article; the NCJ reporter's question was open-ended) from Language Log:
The journalists already know what the stories are. Their questions are not designed to discover any new facts or ideas, but rather to get quotes that will fit in to designated places in the frameworks of logic and rhetoric that they have already erected.
The selection of different parts of my response to quote would have made for a dramatically different end result.
Two observations:
- Stories are much cleaner than realities. But maybe the writers have to shape the realities, else the stories would be too pointless and painful and sprawling to read. Our minds want/need a nice spiffed-up interface to reality.
- Deciding what to say in response to an open-ended interview question is like deciding which direction and how sharply to turn the wheel, when you're driving blind - you know (or at least retain the illusion) that what you say will affect the outcome, but you don't know how to orient your contribution, to keep the result on the road.
I thought the story'd be heading into the gully, so was pulling firmly to the left, and when it came to a stop the story was over on the left shoulder.*
no oncoming traffic, fortunately...
-------------------
Addenda:
- Previous, very brief North Coast Journal mention of RS here.
- To my reader who's come flooding in from Eureka: hello, and if you prefer gore and dismemberment to balance, try the "some of my many gripes about the paper" links near the bottom of the sidebar, on your left; this post gives an overview.
- Disclosure, re extent of my connections to RS -
I never met or spoke to him while he was editor of The Union, but we did correspond a fair amount by email (not printed in story: "like I said previously, S was orders of magnitude more communicative than others..."); on 3 occasions since then, we've met for coffee at my request and discussed journalism, readership, the paper etc, though not in great detail.
We had no contact in the run-up to this story. - Further reflection on tone of the NCJ piece:
in a word, masterful. The emergence of blogs gives reporters new freedom... - Speaking of which, the attitudinous Capt. Buhne of the Buhne Tribune weighs in. NCFocus's milquetoast blog monopoly on this story will not be challenged.
- More from Language Log on (oral) quotes; two examples
Previous post in "In which..." series: In which we are a stabbing suspect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
