This Is Chance!: The Shaking of an All-American City, A Voice That Held It Together

Here are some highlights from this 2020 book about the 1964 Anchorage earthquake, which measured 9.2 on the Richter scale:

* Twenty-three hundred miles south of Anchorage, in an elegant, modernist ranch home in Pasadena, California, a sixty-three-year-old man and his wife were settling down in their living room with cocktails. The man was an odd duck—a rumpled intellectual and avid nudist who wrote many abjectly bad love poems about women who were not his wife. But he was also an accomplished seismologist—he’d developed the scale on which the magnitude of earthquakes is measured—and was passionate and single-minded enough about his work to have installed a seismograph in his living room. The machine was cumbersome and ugly, mounted on its own cabinet and topped by a large metallic tumbler. He’d wedged the device between a grandfather clock and a stylishly upholstered club chair.
The man’s wife hated the seismograph—she initially regarded it as “a rather brutally coarse intrusion among her neat furnishings,” he wrote. He insisted that she had come to appreciate having this apparatus in her living room—but, room—but, really, who knows: the man was not necessarily someone whose sensitivity to the emotions of others should be trusted.
Now, at 7:42 p.m.—5:42 p.m. Anchorage time—as they sat together, listening to a concert on the radio, the man looked over and saw the seismograph’s needle jerking.
“There’s a great earthquake recording,” Charles Richter remarked to his wife.
“Yes?” Lillian Richter replied sleepily. He was talking over the concert.

* Suddenly, the Stage Manager starts talking to those people a thousand years in the future. His logic here is convoluted, but sound: knowing that he is a character in Wilder’s play himself, he knows that what he says to us, in the theater, will be preserved in the script for those future humans to read. “So—people a thousand years from now,” he says. “This is the way we were in the provinces north of New York at the beginning of the twentieth century. This is the way we were: in our growing up and in our marrying and in our living and in our dying.”
It’s among the most famous passages in Our Town —a kind of existential credo whose mix of determination and desperation echoes the feeling in Anchorage in 1964. The Stage Manager is saying: Remember us. Recognize us. It’s one community’s simple insistence that it mattered, made urgent by a suspicion that, ultimately, it might not matter. In other words, the overwhelming disaster everyone in Our Town is confronting is irrelevance: a creeping awareness that no matter how secure and central each of us feels within the stories of our own lives, we are, in reality, just specks of things, at the mercy of larger forces that can blot us out indifferently or by chance.

* …time itself started to seem like a slow-moving natural disaster, imperceptibly shaking everything apart. Maybe nothing in our world is durable or stable. Maybe everything runs on pure chance.
He wondered how we are supposed to live on the surface of such unbearable randomness. What can we hold on to that’s fixed?

* The Cold War was escalating. It had been less than a year since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Civil Defense was increasingly desperate to fulfill its mandate of preparing Americans for nuclear war with the Soviet Union. One of the agency’s animating insights was that a bomb dropped on the United States wouldn’t just cause physical destruction, destruction, but pandemonium. Civil Defense experts predicted “a mass outbreak of hysterical neurosis among the civilian population,” as one historian would put it. “Under this strain, many people would regress to an earlier level of needs and desires. They would behave like frightened and unsatisfied children.” Survivors would be panicked and powerless, but also aggressive and cruel—liberated into violence, left to compete for limited resources and food. It was up to Civil Defense to preemptively suppress that disorder, to guard against this self-inflicted second wave of any Soviet attack.
Armageddon proved to be a hard thing to practice for, however—or even to envision in detail. The government saw natural disasters as realistic proxies. Each community hit by an earthquake, hurricane, or flood was like a laboratory—a full-scale simulation—in which to scrutinize the turmoil of nuclear war in advance. A team of sociologists, parachuting into those disaster areas, might glean truths about human behavior that could help Civil Defense maintain control when the world’s most fearsome unnatural disaster struck. In Washington, the three sociologists were taken aback by the military’s interest in their work. (It was a bizarre meeting, Quarantelli would remember—“mostly them talking, rather than us.”) But they accepted the government’s offer without hesitation and immediately got to work.

* Official records, Quarantelli realized, were “social constructions”: authoritative fictions that didn’t always match the reality they claimed to preserve.
By the time Quarantelli finished his doctorate in 1959, he had learned to distrust documents and official narratives of any kind. They possessed a kind of problematic gravity, pulling at people’s memories of an experience and distorting them. After a dramatic event, it didn’t take long for people to begin revising their stories of it, if only subconsciously, to conform to their expectations of how it was supposed to have gone: in retrospect, decisions were always said to have been made methodically and by the appropriate people; smart decisions made by women during an emergency were frequently attributed to men. To piece together the real story, Quarantelli was learning, you had to talk to as many different people as you could, or be there to scrutinize the situation for yourself. At the time of the quake, five years into his career as a sociologist, Quarantelli’s compulsion to notice everything and passively accept nothing already appeared to define him—not just as a social scientist, but as a human being. Years later, near the end of his life, he would begin an oral history interview for the Disaster Research Center by saying, “I was born on November 10, 1924”—and when he added, “For some reason, I remember nothing about the first five years of my life,” he was clearly joking, but also sounded genuinely aggrieved by this lapse in his observational record.

* Virtually none of the panic, violence, or other antisocial behavior the sociologists had arrived ready to document seemed to be materializing, either. Yutzy soon learned that some of the volunteers Dick Taylor recruited to guard the vulnerable storefronts downtown after the quake, and whom he’d outfitted with armbands and offered firearms, were transients who’d scampered into the Public Safety Building from the bars on Fourth Avenue: “denizens of the Skid Row section,” as one of the sociologists’ reports would label them. Some even had criminal records. Still, the report concluded, there had been “very little looting and pilfering in a situation where many stores and offices were wide open so that anyone passing by could enter.” One of the few credible cases of looting the sociologists were told about in their interviews appeared to have been perpetrated by a police officer.
Instead, the stories people recounted illustrated a staggering amount of collaboration and compassion. Yutzy pieced together the impromptu evacuation of Anchorage’s Presbyterian Hospital, for example. Twenty-two of the hospital’s fifty beds had been occupied by immobilized patients when the building started filling with gas after the quake, and more people, injured in a landslide nearby on L Street, were already arriving. Right away, the hospital’s chaplain rushed outside and started flagging down vehicles, amassing an armada of taxis, police cars, and ordinary citizens driving by. Soon, everyone was loading stretchers into the backs of station wagons. Boy Scouts who’d been distributing phone books in the neighborhood walked patients down three or four flights of stairs. Bob Fleming, the KENI announcer who had been picking up his wife, Dolly, from her nursing shift at Presbyterian, wound up with three patients in his back seat, including one woman in labor, plus a nurse to help hold their IV bags high. In the end, all of Presbyterian’s patients were transplanted safely to Providence Hospital, on the opposite side of Anchorage, in under two hours.
“It’s there in front of you, so you do it,” Dolly Fleming would later explain; she could find no more substantive theory to account for all the cooperation she’d witnessed. She herself had been leaving the hospital when the quake struck, and spotted the young son of one of her coworkers outside—all alone on the thrashing front staircase. She tucked the child under her arm and strained to hold them both steady against the railing as it shook. “It was as if I was an observer,” Fleming said. “You lose all sense of time. You lose all sense of reality. What’s happening is almost beyond what you can absorb.” Decades later, at age ninety-two, the one cogent thought she could remember having through the four and a half minutes of the earthquake was this: “I’m thankful I’m here. I’m thankful I’m here so I can hold on to this little guy.”

SO MUCH OF WHAT the researchers learned in their interviews that week was only an elaboration of what Yutzy’s driver had told him shortly after he touched down: everybody in Anchorage had done a little bit of everything for everybody. It was startling, and cut against conventional wisdom’s predictions of savagery and hysteria.

* Fritz tried to synthesize what his team was learning from their fieldwork in an essay he called “Disasters and Mental Health.” “Disasters,” he wrote, “are, of course, occasions for profound human misery.” But they didn’t appear to create the chaos people feared. “The notions that disaster survivors inevitably or typically engage in panic, looting, and scapegoating, or become helpless, hysterical, and neurotic simply do not stand the test of critical research scrutiny.” In fact, Fritz claimed, the people in those ruined communities seemed pretty happy. There might even be “therapeutic effects” to disasters, he argued—and from there, his speculations grew even more radical: “As social animals,” he wrote, “people perhaps come closer to fulfilling their basic human needs in the aftermath of disaster than at any other time.”

* Even amid all that devastation, people seemed happy—even gleeful. Somehow, [William] James wrote, the shattered city was overtaken by “universal equanimity.” He described people sleeping outside for several nights afterward, partly to keep safe from aftershocks, “but also to work off their emotion, and get the full unusualness out of the experience.” People felt a connection to one another, a kinship that’s often lacking in ordinary life, and this togetherness seemed to make their problems more bearable.
“Surely the cutting edge of all our usual misfortunates comes from their character of loneliness,” James wrote. In regular life, we suffer alone. But in San Francisco, each person’s “private miseries were merged in the vast general sum of privation.” As a result, to James, the victims didn’t seem like victims; they seemed empowered. He did not hear “a single whine or plaintive word,” even among those who’d suffered the starkest losses. There was only “cheerfulness.”

* What is safety, anyway? Genie seemed to be conceding how randomly our lives are jostled and spun around, that nothing is fixed, that even the ground we stand on is in motion. Underneath us, there is only instability. Beyond us, there’s only chance.
But she’d also recognized a way of surviving such a world. It was what Genie had created in Anchorage that weekend by talking on the radio, and what she planned to stay focused on now: not an antidote to that unpredictability, exactly, but at least a strategy for withstanding it, for wringing meaning from a life we know to be unsteady and provisional. The best she and her family could do was to hold on to one another.
Our force for counteracting chaos is connection.

Posted in Alaska, Earthquakes | Comments Off on This Is Chance!: The Shaking of an All-American City, A Voice That Held It Together

FBI Raid Spurs Armed Resistance Against The Federal Government (8-19-22)

00:30 I’ve devoted my life to public service
02:00 Tucker asks if Dr. Oz is a bad candidate?
05:00 America’s crime problem
26:00 10 Telltale Signs You’re About To Get Raided By The FBI, https://babylonbee.com/news/12-telltale-signs-youre-about-to-get-raided-by-the-fbi
28:00 Right-wing revolt against FBI, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/19/fallout-mar-a-lago-search-00052799
35:00 Roger Cohen says Odessa is defiant, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/19/world/europe/odesa-ukraine-putin-russia.html
42:50 The Creation of Meaning – The Denial of Death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43zh_za_eQ
51:00 Ernest Becker and Heroism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbrswEpFTQ
1:02:00 The Secret Powers of an Australian Prime Minister, Now Revealed, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/world/australia/scott-morrison-minister.html
1:23:00 Lynne Cheney, Political Shibboleths and Mind-Blowing Spectacles

Posted in America | Comments Off on FBI Raid Spurs Armed Resistance Against The Federal Government (8-19-22)

What is Christian nationalism? (8-18-22)

00:30 Tucker Carlson on the mid-terms
05:00 How is John Fetterman winning in PA?
11:00 Republicans should run on reducing crime, immigration
20:00 What is Christian nationalism?
32:30 The Creation of Meaning – The Denial of Death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43zh_za_eQ
51:50 The Creation of Meaning – Escape From Evil, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAyR2R14BSg
54:00 We’re risking WWIII in Ukraine, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine
1:43:10 The Legacy of Ernest Becker: Death, Ideologies, and Cultures, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8WqjciN1E
1:50:00 Andrew Anglin trashes the AR
1:56:00 Better Call Saul concludes

Posted in America | Comments Off on What is Christian nationalism? (8-18-22)

Hunger can be hard to recognize? (8-18-22)

I was walking down the street and saw this ludicrous billboard.

I’ve been to Friday night services in Orthodox programs where fighting food insecurity is the main agenda item. Apparently, it is an effective way to appeal to left-of-center Jews disaffected with Judaism.

James Bovard writes in 2014: According to the U.S. Agriculture Department, American households suffer far more “food insecurity” than do families in Angola, Mozambique and Pakistan. The USDA uses different standards to gauge domestic and foreign “food security,” but neither measure make senses. Still, that technicality will do nothing to deter politicians and pundits from demagoging the hunger issue.

The Agriculture Department reported Sept. 3 that 14.3 percent of American households — 49 million people — suffered from “food insecurity” last year. This number is little changed from last year despite the fact that the federal government is now feeding more than 100 million Americans.

The USDA defines food insecurity as being “uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food” at times during the year. Most of those USDA-labeled “food insecure” did not run out of food; instead, they reported “reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet” with “little or no indication of reduced food intake.”

If someone states that they feared running out of food for a single day (but didn’t run out), that is an indicator of being “food insecure” for the entire year — regardless of whether they ever missed a single meal. If someone felt they needed organic kale, but could only afford conventional kale, that is another “food insecure” indicator. If an obese person felt they needed 5,000 calories a day but could only afford 4,800 calories, they could be labeled “food insecure.”

One of the survey’s preliminary screening question asks: “In the last 12 months, did you ever run short of money and try to make your food or your food money go further?” Why should we be concerned that shoppers want their food dollars to go further? This was formerly taught as a virtue in high school home-economics classes, and now it is a pretext for a federal alarm.

Even though USDA’s food-security statistics do not measure hunger, that is how the media portrays the report. After the recent announcement, a Voice of America headline proclaimed: “USDA: Hunger Threatens 1 in 7 Americans.” A Philadelphia Inquirer headline lamented: “USDA: Despite slight improvement, hunger persists.” The Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota announced: “Hunger a growing problem for South Dakota.” Slate declared: “The Number of Hungry Americans Has Barely Fallen Since the Recession.” The media are following in the footsteps of President Obama, who announced after the 2009 food-security report was released, that “hunger rose significantly last year … . My administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger.”

Some comments on the report focus on data highlighting the plight of minorities. A North Dallas Gazette headline stressed: “Black families facing hunger at nearly twice the rate of other groups.” But a survey by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service found that black children aged 2 to 11 consume significantly more calories than white children.

Many liberals are invoking the USDA report as proof that more food handouts are needed. Joel Berg, a New York “anti-hunger activist” who pockets a six-figure salary thanks largely to AmeriCorps grants, wailed, “A country that combines massive hunger with record Wall Street markets is so derailed, we can’t even find our tracks anymore.” But food insecurity has surged at the same time that far more Americans became government dependents. The number of food-stamp recipients soared from 26 million to 46 million at the same time that food insecurity rose from 11.1 percent to 14.3 percent of the nation’s households.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Hunger can be hard to recognize? (8-18-22)

Comments At Steve Sailer On The FBI Raid

From here:

* The raid was overwrought, but the managerial Obama clique can afford to be reckless: they control the domestic security services and appear to have the full cooperation of CIA and the Pentagon. We all know the role of the media. Look forward to weeks of strategic leaking from the Trump cache and the activation of astro-turf white nationalists just in time for the erection.

* Different sorts of documents get classified:

1) Summaries of the US government’s current take on world events and their current plans on how to deal with them — e.g., we don’t think Baby Kim will move against South Korea this month; if the PRC moves against Taiwan, here are our military options; etc.

2) Details on our human intelligence gathering: e.g., Colonel Yuri Ivanov, who is a CIA asset, tells us that Putin is seriously ill; our spy Colonel Kim tells us that Baby Kim is not ill; etc.

3) Technical details of our intelligence gathering technology, our military communications systems, our weapons systems, etc. that would enable adversaries to subvert or counter those system: e.g., here is the encryption/decryption codes we use to communicate with our nuclear sub fleet; here are self-destruct codes for our missiles; etc.

Items under category (1) are very hot at the time. But they grow stale. What the US Intel Community thought about Baby Kim or Putin is 2018 is now of only historical interest: it is of little value to our adversaries.

Items under category (2) could get people killed (Colonels Ivanov and Kim in my examples): these remain critical for many decades.

Items under category (3) could get us all killed: this, at least in my experience, is the bulk of the SCI classified material.

Now, the key point is that, as President, Trump had no reason to know or care or have an interest in anything in category (3) — i.e., the technical details of our weapons, intelligence-gathering, or communications technology.

The Donald is a real-estate developer: show him the schematics for our nuclear weapons, our spy satellites, or our military comm systems, and those design documents would be completely meaningless to Trump. Show them to me…. well, I am a physicist with experience in the defense industry: give me enough time with such documents, and I can tell you a lot!

And the Russians and Chinese have lots of people like me — they would love to get such documents, which is why they are very highly classified.

But Trump almost certainly never had such documents in his possession: he didn’t need to see them, and he would have had no interest in them.

Similarly, for documents in category (2) that give the actual names of overseas spies, etc.: Trump needed to know that Putin was sick, but Trump neither needed to know nor did he care that such data came from Colonel Ivanov, or Dr. Glazov, or some maid in the Kremlin named Masha.

Which leaves category (1). And I bet Trump did have some category (1) documents at Mar-a-Lago: i.e., summaries of US intelligence evaluations of what was going on in the world back in 2017 or 2019 or whatever.

But such summaries are now so stale as to be basically irrelevant.

A little secret that is rarely mentioned: a lot of US Intel analysts are basically frustrated academics who work for the CIA, DIA, or whatever. Much of their output is classified, but academics at, say, Stanford or Harvard or Georgetown produce similar studies that are, of course, not classified.

In fact, the most secret fact about the Intel Community’s reports to the President is that this is what is influencing the President’s thinking right now.

Again it becomes stale in a very short time: most of it really should be declassified within a few years.

I think Julie Kelly’s current column is correct: they are going to indict Trump over this.

But I am pretty sure they will be indicting him over documents in category (1), which contain information that is now no more critical than what you could get by reading old copies of Foreign Affairs or the Economist.

* What matters in this case is not the putative documents, but the following:

1) The very fact that law enforcement controlled by political actors raided the home of a political opponent.

2) The warrant was signed by a judge who is and has been a clear, vocal, outspoken opponent of the political opponent who was raided. A judge is a member of the judiciary branch in a government in which powers are supposed to be separated.

3) The raid was essentially condoned and carried out by people working for a president who ran against the former president and may have to run against him again.

4) Presidents have full authority over all classified information and can de-classify it and presumably do whatever they want with it, even take it home if they so choose, if they make that decision while they are the president.

5) A president is elected by The People to have full executive power and must by necessity be able to exercise that power without fear of reprisal by successors if he is to be able to carry out his duties and the will of The People who elected him.

This raid is completely wrong and would be wrong even if President Trump had decided to take home the secret formula for Coca-Cola. (Well, maybe THEN it would be called for. Some things are sacred.)

BTW, I have difficulty imagining that every document that matters in this case does not have one or more copies somewhere still safe, including electronic, virtual copies. It is actually quite quaint to think that going in and taking some boxes of paper will make a difference, but what do I know?

And again, it’s not the documents that matter. This is another in the long line of phony moves that the powers that be have made against Trump since even while he was running the first time. This is an attempt, one way or another, to hobble him, so slander him, to tie him up so he cannot run or win or harm them.

Also, the hypothesis is reasonable that this is really about documentation that proves the ratfucking that the FBI, CIA, powers that be, Clinton campaign, Obama administration, et. al. were doing. In fact, this raid is probably just a continuation of what the documents prove.

And I don’t even like Trump, though I voted for him. What other choice was there? What are our choices now, and do they even matter anymore? Did they ever really?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Comments At Steve Sailer On The FBI Raid