What Do Octopuses Feel?

I started this post a week or so ago.  And I previously posted about David Scheel's book, Many Things Under a Rock.  But our book club met this past week and David Scheel, an Alaska Pacific University (APU) professor, attended the meeting.  I would like to spend more time on the book, but it's due at the library and I have many things on a list to do. So this is pretty quick and dirty.  [He would have much preferred, he said only half jokingly, that we bought our copies rather than borrowed from the library."]

Scheel at our meeting comparing the
anatomy of a stuffed octopus 
to a real octopuses parts

In his book about his study of octopuses* one of the questions David Scheel, asks is, "Do animals share some feelings, like hunger and fear?"

Prior to this question he described observing an octopus leave the protection of its den, to search for food.  There's the conflict between fear (and the safety of the octopuses den) and wandering out in search of food, where it's more vulnerable to predators.  

Scheel writes:

"Do animals share some feelings, like hunger and fear?  These feelings are imperative and evolutionarily ancient.  There are perhaps no more basic feelings than the urges to eat and to avoid being eaten.  Australian physiologist Derek Denton named these ancient and demanding urges the primordial emotions." (p. 191)

We learn from Scheel that Denton identified other primordial emotions:  

"thirst, breathlessness (air hunger), food hunger, pain, salt hunger, muscle fatigue, sleepiness, the urge to pass urine, the urge to defecate. sexual orgasm, and the urge to regulate body temperature." (p. 192)

I guess I can accept the notion that these are 'feelings.'  We 'feel' hungry, thirsty, horny, like we need to pee, or need air.  But are these emotions?  We don't need to quibble about words if we agree to define them, for the purpose of the discussion.  But going a step further, Scheel asks whether octopuses are self-aware.  

He discusses octopus activity when different predators are nearby and tells us they act differently depending on the type of predator.  They are extremely cautious and tend to stay in their dens when a lurking, lunging predator lies waiting.  

"Octopuses do not react in the same way to every predator.  An octopus may freeze briefly or adopt a more camouflaged body pattern when a fast moving predator looms into view, but once the predator has passed normal activity returns. Swarming predators, such as he sometimes aggressive Ocean Leatherjakets, are usually ignored if near the den despite the fact that they can mob and kill an octopus that finds itself without shelter. . . Only the presence of a particular kind of predator shut down octopuses for the entire day - a sit-and-wait predator that lurked motionless nearby, awaiting a careless move." (pp. 207-208)

I'm comfortable accepting that this shows an ability to categorize, in this case, different categories of predators.  But whether this is a sign of self awareness is a different issue for me.  It could be an inherited ability passed on from octopuses with it, because it enabled them to survive better.  

Scheel also describes an encounter with an octopus.  He's following an octopus from a distance.  At some point the octopus is aware that Scheel is there.  He has his eye on Scheel as he hides the rest of his body by flattening it and changing its colors.  Scheel tells us that being able to hide itself from a predator shows that the octopus understands what the predator can see.  I realized that I had never thought about that particular skill - the ability to understand how and what another creature can see.

In another example, he tells us about having eye contact with another octopus.  Scheel looked away for a second and the octopus noticed that distraction and took advantage of it to disappear.  

I'm not sure why this surprised me.  I have assumed without thinking, that most animals can do this.  Again, is 'other awareness' a sign of consciousness?  Of self-awareness?

I don't know.  And Scheel, both in the book and at our book club, emphasized that our knowledge of octopus behavior is in its infancy.  Observing wild octopus is challenging,  and biologists aren't sure what captured octopus behavior reflects wild octopus behavior. Knowing what an octopus is thinking and even if it is thinking is a real challenge. At this point much of what we know is speculation based on limited observation and for further research to confirm or reject.  

I do recommend the book.  I said at the meeting that I found it very readable.  The chapters were clearly written mixing octopus encounters and observations with thoughts about octopus behavior and even inclusions of other animal behavior (Scheel studied lions in Tanzania for example.)  But that I found one chapter, maybe two, enough for one sitting. The end of one chapter didn't demand I read the next one.  Scheel said that made sense, since many of the chapters were written as stand alone articles.  

*I asked before the meeting formally began why 'octopuses' instead of 'octopi.'  He said it was a long story and then we got distracted and the meeting began.  I asked because in the book it was always octopuses, not octopi.  

Seattle Outing - Food And Art

Our grand parenting duties shrink back as our granddaughter gets older and has more autonomy and more activities to fill up her time.  That's not a bad thing.  We still get to spend lots of time with our daughter and granddaughter, but I also have plenty of time to read, think, write, and delete emails  that never seem to slow down.  Even as I unsubscribe to emailers I never subscribed to, new ones seem to find me.  

But we had an anniversary yesterday and we decided to take the ferry and wander around downtown Seattle.  

It's been pretty rainy, but the sun made itself known as we approached the ferry terminal.  

We tried the post office on 1st Street, but it was closed for lunch.  

So we made our way to Pike Place Market for some clam chowder.  The seats weren't that comfy, but the chowder was hot and the guy with the red sleeves kept up a constant entertaining chatter.  

We wandered a bit through the market.  Then across the street to a kitchen ware shop where we found a gift for our granddaughter and her dad.  We stopped in at H-Market for a look around.  Then made it to another post office where I was able to send my package.  I had the book in an envelope I'd received a different book in, but the clerk immediately told me I should buy a new envelope which would be cheaper than buying a roll of tape for the envelope.  While we waited, another customer asked another clerk if he could tape the address label on and was told to buy a roll of tape ($3.99).  This is new.  Post office personnel used to be helpful.  I guess Trump's postmaster who's apparently still in charge, thinks saving pennies is better than making customers feel like coming back.  

Then to the Seattle Art Museum.  I'm always taken aback by how much it costs to enter major museums these days.  I know it costs money to run things, but art is a major expression of a culture and museums are a serious part of public education.  If we can pay to be the most armed country in the world, we ought to pay even a percent of that for public art museums.  But I quickly got over that as we interacted with what was on the walls, the floors, and even the ceiling in places.  

There's clearly a change in how museums display items.  There's a lot of obviously intentional diversity.  There's mixing up of pieces of different eras and cultures to find (or at least claim to find) commonalities.  

And I was particularly struck by the universality of human art - both geographically and in terms of time.  We tend to think that we are smarter and more skilled than people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago.  Certainly a fair chunk of today's US population (like those who believe their cult leader is going to improve their lives) aren't nearly as wise as the brightest people in past generations.  

On the left is Charles d'Amboise.  The painting was done about 1505 (just over 500 years ago) by Bernardine de'Conti who lived in Milan about 1470 -1522.  

The description says:

"The French nobleman Charles d'Amboise became the governor of the Duchy of Milan after it was conquered by France.  The collar of scallop shells and knots denotes the Order of SaintMichael, granted to him about 1505, perhaps the occasion for commissioning this portrait. 

D'Amboise was a friend and patron of Leonardo da Vinci, but he hired a more conservative artist for his portrait and chose to be portrayed in a classic profile view, which records his features but provides no psychological insight.  He most likely wanted to link his image with the great rulers of the ancient past, depicted in side views on coins and medals like those shown in the case nearby  D'Ambroise himself was an avid coin collector as he proudly demonstrates here."

I'm going to assume the curator knows a lot more than I do about art and this painting.  But I'm not sure why a side view can't provide psychological insight, or that a full face portrait can.  But what little we learn tells us a great deal.  With a different haircut, or maybe just a baseball cap, he could fit in walking down the street today.  There was a hierarchy of which he was in an upper level, and he collected coins.  And the painter could easily get work in today's world.  Both could probably fit into 2024 fairly easily with a little bit of coaching on the advances of science.  

The one on the right is not as old (about 1699), painted by French artist  Nicolas Colombel who lived from 1644-1717.  He died fifteen years before George Washington was born.  He was a year younger than Isaac Newton, but died ten years before Newton.  Nevertheless, the story of Cupid (Eros) and Psyche is much older.  Wikipedia tells us:

"Eros and Psyche appear in Greek art as early as the 4th century BC"

The curator wrote the following to accompany this painting:

"The jealous goddess Venus sent her son Cupid to make Psyche fall in love with a horrible monster.  Instead, Cupid became enamored himself and installed Psyche in a palace where he visited her at night so that she couldn't learn his identity.  One night she stole a peek at his beautiful face.  Startled awake, Cupid left immediately, and his palace vanished.  Psyche wandered the earth search for her lover, performing impossible tasks set by Venus in hopes of winning him back.  Finally, Jupiter intervened:  he made Psyche a goddess and reunited her with Cupid, giving their story a happy ending.  Here Cupid has just abandoned Psyche, who chases him as he hovers out of reach.  This moment allows Colombel, a French artist who was trained in Rome, to show the Roman countryside - the appropriate setting for this classical myth." 

So this story goes back 2500 years, yet we have the same human emotions and conflicts: a woman possibly falling in love with a monster (how many battered wives are there today?);  a forbidden young love;  a jealous and vengeful mother-in-law (no they aren't married, but Venus was Cupid's mother).  I'm not sure why the curator thinks the Roman woods to be the appropriate background, perhaps because the Romans appropriated much of Greek culture including their myths.  

I knew from the beginning this post was going to be much too long, so let me jump to another exhibit - this of Ausralian aboriginal artists.  

These large detailed paintings speak to me in a language I can't identify.  They tell stories of people and worlds I do not know.  Yet they move me a great deal.  This is a beauty and a visual language that still exists, outside of Western culture.   

Here's detail of a painting called Kalipinypa Rockhole (2003) painted by Elizabeth Marks Nakamara.  The curator writes:

"Lightning bolts that ignite the sky are the source for this striking white maze.  Kalipinypa is an important site where ancestral forces swept in with a huge storm that caused lightning to flash and water to rush across the country.  They left behind a rock hole surrounded with sandhills that are seen here as vibrant patterns created by dotting that fuses into lines that wiggle ever so slightly.  Elizabeth Marks Nakamara was married to the renowned artist Mick Namarari.  She watched his painting for years but did not begin to paint herself until after his death in 1998."

One more from that collection.  There's no story with the description - just the facts: 

" Marapinti, 2016

Acrylic on canvas

Nanyuma Napangati

Australian Aboriginal, Pintupi people,

Papunya, Western Desert, Northern Territory,

born 1940"

Most of what I know about Australian Aboriginal culture comes from Bruce Chatwin's book Songlines, which I wrote about here.  And songlines (check the link, really!) are clearly part of this art.  Truly a book worth reading.  

Another descriptor at this exhibit read:

"'Dreaming is an all-embracing concept that provides rules for living, a moral code, as well as rules for interacting withthenatural environment' - Jeannie Herbert Nungwarrayi(Walpiri speaker) 2000

Dreaming is known by Pintupi speakers as Tjukurrpa.  Tjukurrpa is called a template for a dynamic duty or way of observing laws passed down by ancestors - the powerful shape-shifting creators who formulated the earth's features, people, and culture.  Dreamings stimulate intellectual and emotional life, as people recall extensive genealogies and ceremonial song cycles that describe the ancestors' adventures.  No country - the lands, waters, flora, and fauna of an area - is without a trail of their presence, which offers a living continuum of wisdom for all to learn from.

Dotting was a biodegradable at for for centuries - on ceremonial objects, in sand paintings, and on painted and adorned bodies.  Dots of ochres, down, feathers, and leaves could at times totally overcome a human form, enabling dancers to enter a mythic envelope as they enacted ceremonies. Dots began appearing in painting as a echo of this sacred significance.  Some contend they help conceal sacred knowledge, and others suggest they express the flash of ancestral power.'

Surely, there's nothing here more supernatural than believers of Western religions embrace.  

There was so much more reshaping edges of my brain and heart.  The ways of human beings haven't really changed all that much since homo sapiens appeared.  When politicians call for STEM education that leaves out art and music and humanities, we leave students with a huge hole.  Science has given us a way to tinker with nature, but without a study of the human spirit and behavior and morality, we leave out the part that helps us make decisions about what technology is worth pursuing and what is likely to give us more pain than joy.  

We are reminded about this daily - from the movie Oppenheimer, to politicians' inability to pass gun reform that would significantly reduce the loss of life, to the onset of AI as a profit making venture that has the possibility of eliminating people's ability to discern truth.  

AIFF: Sunday Offers Impressive Crime/Prison Lessons

 I missed the noon movie Sunday.  I just needed a little more time to recuperate. 

Saturday morning had a great set of Alaska themed or made films.  I was very pleased that we are past the days when Alaska films were any Alaskan project where someone writes a story and goes out (usually) into the woods and experiments with how their cameras and mics work.  

That elation didn't survive Sunday's Alaska Shorts Program.  There were good ones mostly.  And that's all I'll say.  

The afternoon Documentary Feature - The Body Politic - was a riveting look at Baltimore mayor Brandon Scott.   We see Scott elected into office as a young Black man who saw his first shooting at 10, and vowed that the basic approach of mass arresting of Black men had to be replaced.  The alternative was to give people options in life other than crime and prison.    He comes into office after 327 (maybe it was 37) people had been murdered in the previous year, vowing to cut murders by 15%.  But pro-active reaching out to folks is a long term strategy and takes a while to work.  He monitored every murder as they outpaced his target.  The Republican governor, who controlled prisons, parole, and critical social services, refused to meet with Scott and said he needed to beef up the police to stop the crime.

The discussion afterward included director Gabriel Francis Paz Goodenough, film subject Erricka Bridgeford, and another film maker whose name and role I didn't quite catch.  Ida, the director of the festival is on the right.  Ericka is in the middle.  

You can read more about the film from a Baltimore paper and read an interview with the director here.

The next shorts program began with another excellent film - The Bond - which was short and packed a powerful punch as we see an incarcerated woman having her baby, shackled, and then having the baby taken from her.  The filming, the story, the acting were all just right.  

The last program were three films related to prison and domestic violence.  

Infraction told the true story of an inmate who the judge had, at some point concluded was innocent, but was still locked up.

Seeds of Change told the story of a farmer who takes on the project of setting up a farm adjacent to a prison and then utilizing prisoners to work on the farm.  The fresh food is served in the prison.  The film shows the effect of the farm work on the prisoners who worked there and the effects of having fresh food prepared well on the prisoners. 

Where I Learned Not to Sleep  - The camera follows two retired police who grew up with domestic violence, doing training programs for police on how to approach domestic violence situations.  

The whole afternoon and evening illustrated the need to treat citizens, abused women,  and prisoners with dignity and respect to break the cycle of violence and criminality.  

There's much more to say, but this at least gives you a sense of what I got out of the festival on Sunday.  

$229 Million Settlement Is More Than 1/3 Of Santa Monica's Budget For Sex Offenses

The Richard Winton in the LA Times writes this week: (the link should be accessible) 

"This week, Santa Monica settled more lawsuits, bringing its total payout to $229.285 million — the most costly single-perpetrator sexual abuse disbursement for any municipality in the state."

Imagine what Santa Monica could have done for poor families, for the homeless, for schools, for health care, for $229 million.  That's more than 1/3 of the total Santa Monica budget for 2022-2023!

From the City of Santa Monica, 2022:

"The total adopted budget for the City for FY 2022-23 is $665.4 million."

There's a lot to untangle in this story.  I've got other posts in draft form lined up, but this one tugs at a number of issues I've been mulling over.  With good administration, this shouldn't happen. With good accountability mechanisms this shouldn't have happened for so long.  There are ways to, if not totally prevent such things, certainly to minimize their impact.   But there are also other societal issues that need to be addressed, particularly how we deal with pedophiles.  So let's look at some of the issues here.

1.  The Cost of poor oversight

One study said it was $3 billion over the last ten years.  That's just police!  That's an average of $300 million per year.  But I'm guessing with this single, one quarter of a billion dollar settlement, almost the average annual cost reported in this study, either that $3 billion figure is low, or awards are getting higher.  

But the cost isn't just in money.  The costs include:

• impacts on the lives of people who were harmed by the police and others.  In the Santa Monica case over 200 kids have reported the employee abused them.  Eighty were part of the settlement
• impacts on public safety since police were were spending time abusing citizens instead of protecting them, when people are wrongly convicted, the actual perpetrator isn't apprehended
• impacts on trust in government - among those abused and their families and among the general public when these crimes and settlements are publicized
• opportunity costs - the costs of things this money could have done (though one of the reports says most of this comes from insurance companies, which means all other organizations pay higher insurance rates, and I'd guess it spills over to the rest of us paying car, health, and other insurance

Here's another NPR piece looking at these issues.

2.  Why we don't see  

Most people see what they want to see.  

"The confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to search for, favor, interpret, and recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs. For example, if someone is presented with a lot of information on a certain topic, the confirmation bias can cause them to only remember the bits of information that confirm what they already thought."

We also have a truth bias.  Certainly honest people have a tendency to assume others are honest as well. (And there is evidence that most people are basically honest.)

So adding these two tendencies together, we tend to discount indicators of trouble and hold on to more positive interpretations of the behavior we see.  Especially of a person we've known and respected over the years.  "Nah, he couldn't have done that." 

And the people whose behavior is problematic are often (I'm guessing here) quite capable of giving us believable stories to explain away the problems.  This is why it's often a good idea to have outsiders, people who don't know the people involved,  come in to investigate problems.  

But we also have negative biases.  People who complain might be part of an out group - many of the kids in the Santa Monica case were from poor, immigrant families whose parents might fear deportation if they report and are less likely to be believed if they report.  

Most people, I would argue, take a long time before they realize that something is seriously wrong.  And then it takes a long time to report it.  How long did it take you to acknowledge that your (car, toilet, spouse) had a problem.   Then once you accepted it, how long to take action to fix it.

"But his biggest claim to fame was his work as a volunteer in the Police Activities League, where, beginning in the late 1980s, he worked with boys and girls in the nonprofit’s after-school program.

Uller was a familiar face at the PAL center that served Santa Monica’s Latino neighborhoods, often traveling in a police vehicle and befriending generations of youths.

It took decades to uncover that Uller was a sexual predator, the center of a stunning series of crimes that destroyed the lives of children and exposed grave questions as to why it took so long for authorities to uncover what he was doing."

3.  Why why don't act when we do see

Humans seem to have a basic loyalty built in to one's 'group.'  Betraying family, friends, and community (church, work group, etc.) are seen as moral violations and we have lots of negative names for people who do that - snitch, tattletale, traitor, stool-pigeon, etc.  Among law enforcement agencies, this is often known as "the blue wall of silence."

Competing against that loyalty, we have the Rule of Law - a set of moral expectations for people living in a community, in a society.  

When group loyalty comes in conflict with rule of law, individuals face a moral quandary.  Which set of rules should one follow?  We recognize this in the law with rules that allow spouses to not testify against each other, that ban nepotism and other forms of conflict of interest.  I'd argue that the group loyalty is built into our genes, our emotional make up.  The rule of law is something we learn logically.  And strong emotion generally beats out logic.  

“You have to understand in this liberal city, this is a Black and brown part of the city, and no one in the government was watching out for our kids. The Pico neighborhood was marginalized in that era,” said De la Torre, noting that Uller’s abuse occurred “under the shield of law enforcement” and “not one person lost a job” in response to the oversight.

Reporting people in our in-group for breaches of the rule of law  has real, immediate consequences on our families, our social circle, and even on our employment.  

This conflict keeps many from speaking up, even when they see wrong doing.  If you've ever lied to protect a friend, a family member, or someone else you have a close bond with, you understand what I'm talking about.  

3.  When Good Employees Also Do Bad

Seeing wrongdoing becomes particularly difficult when

• the employee is otherwise exemplary in their job performance

"In nearly three decades as a civilian employee with the Santa Monica Police Department and the city, Eric Uller was considered a standout public servant who won awards for his technological innovations."

• has work activities where they work independently, where supervision is not close - such as working with youth after school. (I should mention I was an after school playground director at an elementary school to help pay for college, and I was usually alone with the kids, without supervision. No, I didn't abuse that independence, and I suspect most people don't.)

4.  How the US deals with 'wrong' sex

 Right now in the US, there probably aren't many people considered lower than pedophiles. Gay sex used to have a similar stigma (which, given all the anti-trans laws were seeing introduced across the US now), isn't completely gone either.  Sex and marriage between people of different races was also illegal.  Despite a US Supreme Court ruling banning such laws, 

"As of February 3, 2021, seven states still required couples to declare their racial background when applying for a marriage license, without which they cannot marry. The states are Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota (since 1977),[42] New Hampshire, and Alabama."

There are good reasons for our laws against adults having sex with children, though the lines get blurry as the age of the child gets higher and the age of the adult gets lower.  There's no question about why a 30 year old shouldn't have sex with a nine year old.  Yet according to NBC news in 2019:

"Idaho and California are not alone in not having a minimum marriage age. A majority of states, which issue marriage licenses, allow 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, a few allow 14-year-olds, and 13 states have no minimum marriage age as of September. Before 2016 — when Virginia became the first state to put its marriage age into law — more than half of the states had no minimum marriage age fixed by statute."

While it appears there are requirements for parental or court approval, it does appear that there are no minimum ages in these states.  I would guess that the proponents for allowing  young marriage often argue that pregnant girls should be allowed to marry the fathers - but I didn't look that up and could be wrong.  

My point in all this is that some sexual preferences are seen as evil while others are perfectly ok. (Though for many, still, sex outside of marriage is frowned on.)  

People don't choose at some point in their lives to be sexually stimulated by one type of sexual encounter or another.  Some argue some attractions are genetic.  Some argue that sexual preferences are based on early sexual encounters.  

People with heterosexual preferences would appear to be the luckiest.  These are what our society condones.  While some people frown on any sex out of marriage, heterosexual sex among the consenting, unmarried seems to be alive and well.   The kinkier the sex and the more people will disapprove.  As people's preferences stray from heterosexual, single partner sex, there is more disapproval.  

But imagine if a person were forbidden from having unmarried heterosexual sex and punished if they did.  Buzzweed lists a number of ways women have been punished in the US, some of which involved sexual acts.

For many people the sexual urge is very powerful, even irresistible.  I suspect that is probably the case of people who view child pornography and who engage in sex with children.  I would only request that people who have been in situations where they could not resist their sexual urges with another person, consider what it would have been like if that other person were legally a child.  Or for people who couldn't resist opening a porn site and watching porn that turned them on.  

I'm not defending pedophiles.  But simply labeling them monsters and locking them up forever is not a good way to reduce pedophilia.  I'm only suggesting that such urges can be hard to control.  And many such relationships that are considered taboo today, have in different periods of time been acceptable.  And sexual practices condoned today were in past times seen as evil.  

But we've evolved in our beliefs that sex should be consensual.  We've evolved in our beliefs that people in positions of authority have a power in the sexual relationship that makes consent, at best, a morally difficult determination.  

And we believe that adults having sex with young children is, without question, non consensual and also an example of an unbalanced power relationship.  

Child pornography is a problem because children have been exploited to produce the images.  Is viewing drawings of child sex as viewing photos and videos?

If AI could produce child pornography (I suspect it already can and does) without any actual children being involved, would that be ok?  Some will argue that such pornography would lead to actual sexual encounters.  But we really don't know how many viewers of child pornography actually go out and find victims.  

My goal here is to raise the question of whether there are ways to recognize some people's sexual attraction to children, even let them indulge in pornography that didn't exploit actual children, and also figure out ways to protect children from sexual predators?  

The person in this article excelled in some aspects of his job.  But he had a taboo sexual attraction to children.  What do you think his options were to seek help from a counselor?  In many situations people who professionally learn about child abuse are mandated to report that to the authorities.  

If this were not such a reviled and taboo attraction, would this employee have been able to seek and get counseling and treatment that would have helped him deal with his inappropriate attractions?  Psych Central says:

"Pedophilic disorder treatment options include medication, hormone, and psychosocial therapies. “Stigma often discourages people from seeking help, but resources are available."

Most mental health problems are stigmatized making it difficult for people to seek help.  Pedophilia  is probably one of the most stigmatized.  

That leads me to offer a few options for reducing sex between adults and children.

Some ways to lessen the incidence of work related pedophilia:

1. General education to let people know that there are treatments for people sexually attracted to children and reducing the stigma connected to it so people are more likely to seek such treatment  (I realize that this is a long term solution, since people with more common, more visible mental health problems also avoid getting help because of the stigma involved.)
2. Education in schools that teaches children how to recognize inappropriate touch, acts of grooming, and steps to take when they encounter such behavior.  Erin Merrin came to Alaska in 2015 and got such a program (Erin's Law) adopted, despite the obstacles set by then Senator Dunleavy, under the guise of 'parental rights.'  Now Governor Dunleavy is still using 'parents rights' as a cover for trying to weaken Erin's Law.  Erin's Law has been adopted in a number of states and seems like one of the more promising ways to reduce pedophilia, by educating the potential victims. 
3. Increased vigilance for situations where children are vulnerable to predatory adults - situations where adults work with children such as playgrounds, social services that care for children, recreational activities such as sports and Boy Scouts.  
4. Changing the laws that give public employees immunity for lapses at work.  There do need to be protections against lawsuits or people wouldn't become public servants.  I think the bulk of monetary punishment still needs to be born by the agency.  But individuals who make serious mistakes, who don't report abuse they know about (not just sex related) should also have some monetary consequences.  

That's a start.  I'm sure others can think of other ways to do this sort of work.  

Redistricting Board - Ups And Downs - I Try to Sum Things Up And Comment on Loose Ends

Key substantive accomplishments:

• Board adopted their revised Cantwell map - putting it back into Denali Borough as directed thy the Court.  This was easy and there was no real debate because everyone agreed. 
• Narrowed the number of plans the Board is considering from three to two.
• Option 2  remains the same - The East Anchorage Plaintiffs plan which just changes four Senate pairings
• Option 3b (I think that's the agreed on label) replaces Option 3 -The Ruedrich plan which keeps North Eagle River/Chugiak connected with JBER and Government Hill and North Anchorage and pairs South Eagle River with South Anchorage Hillside down to Girdwood.  Ruedrich offered some changes today which leave more Senate pairings that were in the original proclamation plan.

Option 1 - The Bahnke Plan - was discarded.  Presumably because it changed more than just the just those districts directly affected by fixing Senate seat K as directed by the Court, which said only to change those other districts immediately affected by the change.  

Beyond that there was a lot of tension at times and a lot of making nice trying to smooth over the tensions.  I can talk about those things - maybe in a later post - but they are more of interest regarding interpersonal relations, listening, trying to do things without acknowledging what you're trying to do - than with where the Board is now in terms of getting their job done and what that final package might look like.  

But I would like to comment on a few things:

Law School helps with logic and dealing with reality

I've called the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, out for his manner of presenting things during the Court hearings.  I want to say that he's a much nicer person when he's in his role as advisor to the Board.  Perhaps that comes from having five bosses some of whom strongly disagree with each other.  And despite my prior criticism of his courtroom manner, he won three out of the five cases against the Board in the Superior Court and the same number at the Supreme Court.  Though they weren't the same cases.  

In the last few days he's been an important voice for reason and reasonableness.  He's tactfully tried to pull the Board back from some problematic decisions.  

For example, Craig Campbell submitted a new map that created a new Senate district that wasn't contiguous, but had a solution to this.  The Board just needed to take some unpopulated census tracks and swap them from one district to another to make the new Senate seat contiguous.  

Singer calmly advised (paraphrased since I didn't catch it verbatim)

"Could Board adjust House map?  It would need a very good explanation for the Court.  Because there are other alternatives before you.  Would be a real push.  Adding Mr. Campbell’s to add non-populated census blocks, the sound of it raises question of compactness.  Making it less compact would raise eyebrows.  Not my first choice or recommendation."

He didn't use words like "absurd" but rather when he was saying no he delicately strung his words together so as not to offend.   

I would say the same for Simpson as well.  When Binkley proclaimed that he wouldn't vote to approve the Cantwell map ordered by the Supreme Court because he disagreed with the ruling, (again, an approximation of what he said:)

"We all voted in favor of the Cantwell extension, whatever, all though it was a good idea. We were trying to accommodate residents of the area, I certainly agree with you regarding the corporation boundaries.  Feel it should be a consideration, not requirement, mapping of legislative districts.  However the order of the SC is clear on this point and my vote will be in favor, rather than continue to create heat over this issue.  Should heed the court’s decision and move on."

He did this a few other times.  Is this a less partisan Simpson?  I don't think we should assume that, but he is a trained and successful attorney and he understand the rule of law and how the system works.   

[Added about midnightr:  Borromeo is also an attorney and has been generally direct and and logical.  And I don't mean to imply that you need to go to law school to get logical and understand the rule of law.  Bahnke has stayed close to the key issues and been logical in her comments and actions as well.] 

Why Were Borromeo's Conflicts Ignored During the Scheduling?

The  Court gave the Board about a two week window to work on fixing the maps.  April 1 through 15.  On the first day, member Simpson said he'd cleared his calendar and was available.  I believe member Marcum mentioned a conflict and Bahnke mentioned  she couldn't meet on Friday.  Then the Board set up dates for this week - Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday I think.  Borromeo was pushing to get things done right away.  She said it could be done in 15 minutes.  

Tuesday, new dates were proposed - Thursday, Saturday.  Then Binkley, I think, said they should finish things on Wednesday and Thursday April 13 and 14.  At this point Borromeo said she had all day meetings those days.  Simpson said he couldn't make it on Saturday, Sunday or Monday.  Someone mentioned that he'd said he cleared his calendar for two weeks.  He responded that when the schedule was set the first day, he adding activities on the off days.  Bahnke wanted to meet on Tuesday and that's when we learned that Binkley had a conflict on Tuesday.  

Several more times Borromeo mentioned she had a all day meetings on April 13 and 14.  

Eventually they worked out that they could have public testimony without all the members being there and since they were recorded, people could watch the recordings when they were free.  

But that still left a tug of war between those who wanted to finish things earlier (the B Team - see yesterday's post) and those who wanted to take their time and pointed out that the Judge didn't ask for a new plan by April 15, just a status report (The R Team).  So today there was more debate.  Borromeo wanted to finish things on Saturday and the R Team wanted to give the public and themselves more time to get up to speed.  Binkley repeated that they'll spend the time they need on the 13th and 14th.  I was thinking - but Borromeo said she had all day meetings those days.  And then she said it herself:  "Why are other people’s conflicts taken into account, but not mine?"  

Why?  Was Binkley so set on holding off until the 13th and 14th that he didn't want to hear what she said, so he didn't?  He seemed to have those dates set from early on.  Was the conflict between dealing with her request and what he'd decided too much to handle so he just ignored it?  Usually Binkley is the flexible man.  Anything can be changed at the last minute.  Let's not lock ourselves in.  Even though the Board specifically decided yesterday that the first public testimony today would be reserved for people talking about Cantwell, Binkley let three people talk about Anchorage.  He didn't politely say, "We're just doing Cantwell first" and ask them to wait.  And when someone mentioned this, he said, well they called in and I didn't want to cut them off.  So as willing as Binkley is normally to be extremely flexible - to the point that it makes the Board less efficient - in this case he was dead set on April 13 and 14.  Given the R team's consistent mantra of taking the time we need, there's not that much rush, plus the public testimony from those opposed to the Bahnke plan also saying the process should be delayed until later, I can't help but think that this is a coordinated effort.  No proof, just looking at the bits of evidence out there.  

I'm still gathering information on this issue so I'll stop here and just leave it for people to consider.  

Don't Forget Senate Rotation and Truncation

One of the issues I want to talk about is expediency vs. taking our time, because it's been an issue debated by Board members and by members of the public testifying.  I'm working on this topic, trying to get answers no one has been able to definitively give me. 

But part of this debate came up earlier, I think, when member Bahnke said she was disturbed about not meeting to make the decisions until next Wednesday and Thursday (April 13 and 14) because the court wanted an update by April 15.  She asked about whether metes and bounds would be necessary for the changed Senate seats.  Chair Binkley responded that for Senate seats that isn't necessary because they are made up of House seats which have already had their metes and bounds done. (That is creating a verbal description of the boundaries of each district.)  That is true, though today Binkley wanted to add the Craig Campbell map to the Options and it would have required changes to a House district and that would have then required metes and bounds for that newly adjusted district.  That's not going to happen because the Board rejected that idea.  

But once the new Senate seats are approved, there will need to be an assessment of whether the new Senate seats need to be truncated (probably, because all but one were truncated the first time round) and then how the new seats will fit into the Senate Rotation system. (One third of the senate must be up for election each year, so the Board has to determine which year each of the new seats will need to run in which election cycle.)  Last time round, the Board managed to do this in a way that forced Republican Senators who hadn't been strong supporters of the Governor into extra elections. I wrote about this last November 26, 2021.

So, post Senate pairings will not be quite as 'home and clear' as Chair Binkley suggested.  Though since there should only be four or so Senate seats affected, this might not take too long, but I would hope people look at this process more carefully to be sure there isn't a hidden political twist to this as there was last time.  

Concluding Remarks

As you can probably tell, the meetings have been packed with undercurrents and I could write on half a dozen or more but there isn't enough time.  And with daily meetings, more comes in each day.  

I would note an email I got as a subscriber to the Board's email announcement this evening that also summarizes what happened today and where you can find the public testimony.  I'll just copy it to the end here.  

Thursday's meeting starts at noon.  

Good evening subscribers,

The Board met today with the following key action points:

1. The Board adopted proposed revisions to House Districts 29, 30 and 36 in response to the Alaska Supreme Court's order that Cantwell should be placed with the Denali Borough. A new House district shapefile has been produced, error checked and is being utilized to craft revised metes and bounds.
2. 
   
3. The Board received substantial public testimony regarding Senate pairings in Anchorage.
4. 
   
5. The Board unanimously adopted a revised version of Senate Pairing Option 3, now labeled 3B for the purposes of public feedback and review.
6. 
   
7. The Board unanimously withdrew Senate Pairing Option 1, originally adopted for purposes of public feedback on Monday, April 4th.

The 2022 Proposals webpage has been updated with larger scale, higher resolution Senate Pairings Option maps for Option 2 and Option 3B. The original Anchorage bowl focused maps remain. All maps are click-to-enlarge.  

• https://www.akredistrict.org/2022-proposed-revisions/

The Meeting Info (Minutes & Audio) page linked from the website footer has been updated with yesterday's public testimony and audio recordings of recent meetings.

• https://www.akredistrict.org/board-audio-minutes/

Today's written testimony submissions will be compiled and delivered to board members late this evening, then redacted to protect personal contact details and posted to the Meeting Info page tomorrow as time permits.

Why Secrecy At The US Supreme Court?

In a CNN article The secret Supreme Court: Late nights, courtesy votes and the unwritten 6-vote rule  Joan Biskupic,  tells us that the justices have a weekly meeting in secret.

"At their weekly private sessions, the nine decide which pending petitions to take up and, separately, cast votes on cases that already have been argued."

Justice Stephen Breyer is quoted:

"Regarding the general need for confidentiality, Breyer said, 'Transparency is usually a word that means something good, but I would say about the conference, it's important not to have transparency. ... It is very important for people to say what they really think about these cases, and that's what happens. So I worry about changing that and somehow bringing the public into the conference.'" (emphasis added)

 This really needed to be followed up.  Here are some questions I would have wanted to ask in that interview. (I recognize that these things might not come immediately to mind in the interview, but Biscupic is  described by CNN as 

"Joan Biskupic, a full-time CNN legal analyst, has covered the Supreme Court for twenty-five years and is the author of several books on the judiciary."

These are Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments.  They can't be fired for what they say unless it rises to the level of impeachable by the US Senate. 

Justice Breyer, can you give some hypothetical examples of the kinds of things justices say that you think they wouldn't say if these meetings were public?

It's not that their language or behavior is objectionable because you say:

"What happens," Breyer told CNN, "is it's highly professional. People go around the table. They discuss the question in the case ... the chief justice and Justice (Clarence) Thomas and me and so forth around. ... People say what they think. And they say it politely, and they say it professionally."

Are there people outside the court who they feel accountable to and they would feel compelled to hide their real thoughts so these people wouldn't hear them?

If, for example, someone appointed to the court based on the strong support of the Federalist Society.  Do they say things that organization might object too?  If they said those things at these meetings, isn't it likely that other justices also appointed through the efforts of the Federalist Society would let that be known to the Federalist Society?

Is it because they are polite and reasonable to justices that their 'side' dislikes and that would be embarrassing?  

Are there things you might self-censor if this were to be public?  Why?

Is there an issue that what they say might reveal a bias for or against potential litigants at the court? 

Do they tell jokes that might be offensive to some groups in the US population? 

Are there concerns that US Senators who voted for a judge would regret that vote?  So what?  I mean simply, what would be the consequence to the judge?

Are you Ms. Biscupic perhaps too close to the court that you are reluctant to push Breyer beyond some line of appropriateness?  Would a different reporter who didn't have a relationship with the judges feel more comfortable asking such questions?  Or would such a journalist simply not have the access you have?  And would pushing further to ask these sorts of questions jeopardize your access to the justices?  I know nothing about Ms. Biscupic.  I could be totally wrong here.  I do know there have been concerns that the White House press falls into a relationship with the President and his press secretaries that can be jeopardized by asking unacceptable questions.  That's probably true about journalists who cover the court as well.  

Again, these justices have lifetime appointments.  What do they have to hide at this point?  And from whom?  I'd surely like to hear Justice Breyer or other justices answer these questions.  

I'd also note that I have, in the past, studied the concept of privacy in government, quite closely.  Nearly all public officials fear public scrutiny and in this day and age of social media, any ill-advised words could easily be copied out of context and tweeted to the world.  But Congress has adapted to C-Span.  And justices who feel the same concerns about becoming viral sensations would have a better understanding of the concerns that everyone else has.  

I would argue that all groups that are used to being able to talk, unaccountably, in private, resist when that protection is challenged.  

I recall working hard to get the Anchorage Municipal Assembly covered live by the local cable company when they arrived in Anchorage in the mid 1980s.  Assembly members on all political sides voiced concerns that such exposure would change how members debated.  But after a couple of months it quickly became obvious that a) citizens were tuning in and b) that assembly members forgot the cameras were running and didn't really change their behavior.  Recent turmoil at the Assembly was available for all to see first hand and not simply depend on how the media reported it.

So I would hope that journalists who have access to Supreme Court justices do dig deeper and push the judges to voice exactly how and why they would not be candid if the meetings were public.  

"For her, the head scarf did not just stand for God's love, it also proclaimed her faith and preserved her honor."

Nobel Prize winning Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk's Snow takes place in a northeastern Turkish town (Kars) during a long snowstorm.  Ka (yes, Kars and Ka was confusing to me at first) is a journalist/poet from Istanbul who's recently returned to Turkey from years in Germany.  He's ostensibly gone to Kars to report on high school girls who have been committing suicide rather than stop
wearing head coverings. It appears, though, that rekindling an old love with a woman who now lives in Kars was the underlying real reason.  [I'd note here that the author tells us that suicide is a sin in Islam.]

I call this to your attention because the book, and the passage below, seems like an examination of intense human belief and behavior that offers insight into people with strong ideological attachments to fighting masks and vaccines.  In the excerpt here, a group of high school girls have been discussing the suicide of a classmate.  

It reminds me that people's behavior can't be attributed to one simple cause.  While people have a tendency to do that, things are more complex (like why Ka went to Kars.)  There are lots of factors that play a contributing role. 

"Why don't you tell the story, Hande?' said Kadife.  'There's nothing to be ashamed of.'

'No, that's not true.  There's a great deal to be ashamed of, and that's why I want to talk about it,' Hande said.  Her large eyes flashed with a strange joy.  She smiled as if recalling a happy memory and said, 'It's forty days exactly since our friend Teslime's suicide.  Of all the girls in our group, Teslime was the one most dedicated to the struggle for her religion and the word of God.  For her, the head scarf did not just stand for God's love, it also proclaimed her faith and preserved her honor.  None of us could have ever imagined she would kill herself.  Despite pressure both at school and at home to take off the scarf - her father and her teachers were relentless - Teslime held her ground.  She was about to be expelled from school in her third year of study, just on the verge of graduating.  Then one day her father had some visitors from police headquarters;  they told him that if he didn't send his daughter to school scafrless, they would close down his grocery stored run him out of Kars.

'The father threatened to throw Teslime out of the house, and when this tactic failed he entered into negotiations to marry her off to a forty-five-year-old policeman who had lost his wife.  Things had gone so far that the policeman was coming to the store with flowers.  So revolted was Teslime by this gray-eyed widower, she told us, she was thinking of taking off her head scarf if it would save her from this marriage, but she just couldn't bring herself to do it.  

'Some of us agreed that she should uncover her head to avoid marrying the gray-eyed widower and some of us said, 'Why don't you threaten your father with suicide?'  I was the one who urged this most strongly.  I really didn't want Teslime to give up her head scarf.  I don't know how many times I said, 'Teslime, it's far better to kill yourself than to uncover your head.'  But I was just saying it for the sake of conversation.  We believed what the papers said - that the suicide girls had killed themselves because they had no faith, because they were slaves to materialism, because they had been unlucky in love;  all I was trying to do was give Teslime's father a fright.  Teslime was a devout girl so I assumed she would never seriously consider suicide.  But when we heard that she had hanged herself, I was the first to believe it.  And what's more, I knew that, had I been in her shoes, I would have done the same thing.  

'After Teslime's suicide, Hande decided to take off her head scarf and go back to school;  she didn't want to cause her parents any more distress,' Kadfe explained.  "They'd made so many sacrifices, gone without so much, to giver her the right sort of upbringing;  the things most parents do for an only son, they did for her.  Her parents have always assumed that Hande would be able to support them one day, because Hande is very clever.'

She was speaking in a soft voice, almost whispering, but still loud enough for Hande to hear her, and like everyone else in the room, Hande was listening, even with her tear-filled eyes still fixed to the television screen.

'At first the rest of us tried to talk her out of removing her scarf, but when we realized that her going uncovered was better than her committing suicide, we supported her decision.  When a girl has accepted the head scarf as the word of God and the symbol of faith, it's very difficult for her t take it off.  Hande spent days locked up insider her house trying to concentrate' (pp. 119-120)

While Islam has a much longer and widespread tradition than Trumpism, we can see the same strong ideological link between the symbols (wearing head scarves and not wearing masks).   More important, it would seem,  there is a basic human tendency to take strong symbolic action in defiance of the authorities, in alliance with other rebels - sometimes with good reasons, often on a false path.

Here, for both the girls in Kars and the anti-maskers today, the face/head coverings touch a deep aspect of their identity that triggers an extreme bond among fellow believers.  Both are confronted with conflicts with other loyalties they have - the girls to their parents and school, anti-maskers to their own health and that of their family members and close friends.  And there are other factors intertwined - Teslime's possible marriage to a much older man, and anti-maskers', as one example, the impact on their small businesses .  And then there are the influences of friends as they discuss how to handle all these conflicts. 

 It would be helpful to those supporting masks to hear the private discussions among anti-maskers. how similar are they to this passage from Pamuk?

That's the basic post.  You can stop here if you like.  But a few other things have popped up while I wrote.

As I was seeking a link to Pamuk's background, I found this passage.  The highlighted part of this excerpt from Pamuk's Nobel Prize biography seems to also involve relevant themes:

"Pamuk’s international breakthrough came with his third novel, Beyaz Kale (1985; The White Castle, 1992). It is structured as an historical novel set in 17th-century Istanbul, but its content is primarily a story about how our ego builds on stories and fictions of different sorts. Personality is shown to be a variable construction. The story’s main character, a Venetian sold as a slave to the young scholar Hodja, finds in Hodja his own reflection. As the two men recount their life stories to each other, there occurs an exchange of identities. It is perhaps, on a symbolic level, the European novel captured then allied with an alien culture."

 I'd note, finally, that great fiction tells the inherent stories of humankind.  It reveals the basic human condition and reactions to that condition across cultures and times.  It gets past the cultural facades to find those human emotions and struggles that we recognize everywhere and anytime that humans live.  

This way of understanding isn't anti-science, but rather it demonstrates truths that science is (not yet?) capable of confirming.  But it takes time for these great works to be sifted from lesser ones.  There are many competitors in any present time that may attract followers to short term cultural truths that eventually will be uncovered as the stories that uphold the current power structure.  

"Don’t call them “at-risk.” They’re “at-promise" And 3 Other Articles Of Interest

Let's start off with some good news.  If you're only going to link to one of these articles, I recommend this one.   There are better ways to do things.  For one things, being smaller and close to your people helps.   I also want to disclose that the head of Fledge is a close relative.

Novel Holding Company Africa Eats Has Raised $1.8M For Its Impact Startups (Forbes)

About a year ago, Fledge, which operates about 10 impact accelerators around the world, launched Africa Eats, a holding company with 27 agriculture and food-focused Africa-based graduates of the networks’ programs. The goal: supporting entrepreneurs on-the-ground with an intimate understanding of how best to address hunger and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Since then, the company has raised close to $2 million—and, despite the pandemic, the portfolio companies are doing fine.

Another good news story, where calling attention to labels can make a difference.  Not 'at risk.'  'At promise.'  Most kids want to be good people, they just need support for those dreams.

Caring for the environment helps South King County kids recovering from trauma or hardship find a sense of purpose  (From the Seattle Times)

"This summer, Park, Amine and Tracy are among two dozen mostly South King County youth learning to be stewards of the environment. 

They clean urban lakes during kayak patrols, plant trees, learn field mapping skills and test water quality in streams and rivers on state parks and public lands. They’re on water or trails several days each month. They’re paid $15 an hour for the work — enough to keep most of them from having to take other part- or full-time jobs that would otherwise consume their days — and they’re getting leadership training so they can help lead conservation and pollution prevention efforts in the future. . .

Many of the youth involved in Unleash the Brilliance have faced early adverse experiences “on steroids,” says Dorsey. Amine was peer pressured into regularly using drugs in middle school; his grades and relationship with his parents tanked. Park’s family faced bankruptcy. Other youth bore witness to their parents’ addictions, moved around a lot or lived in extreme poverty. Some have a history of being incarcerated, skipping class or facing delays graduating from high school. 

Dorsey sees them for their potential. Don’t call them “at-risk.” They’re “at-promise,” he says."

How much do your peers impact your behavior?  This Atlantic article addresess peer pressure and vaccination.  

The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable:  Why targets of deliberate deception often hesitate to admit they’ve been deceived

"Something very strange has been happening in Missouri: A hospital in the state, Ozarks Healthcare, had to create a “private setting” for patients afraid of being seen getting vaccinated against COVID-19. In a video produced by the hospital, the physician Priscilla Frase says, “Several people come in to get vaccinated who have tried to sort of disguise their appearance and even went so far as to say, ‘Please, please, please don’t let anybody know that I got this vaccine.’” Although they want to protect themselves from the coronavirus and its variants, these patients are desperate to ensure that their vaccine-skeptical friends and family never find out what they have done. . .

Shifting from an individual to a relational perspective helps us understand why people are seeking vaccination in disguise. They want to save face within the very specific set of social ties that sociologists call “reference groups”—the neighborhoods, churches, workplaces, and friendship networks that help people obtain the income, information, companionship, mutual aid, and other resources they need to live. The price of access to those resources is conformity to group norms. That’s why nobody strives for the good opinion of everyone; most people primarily seek the approval of people in their own reference groups."

Do you know whether your insurance company is insuring coal companies?

U.S. INSURERS FAIL ON CLIMATE ACTION:   Global insurers make coal increasingly “uninsurable”; whole industry fails to act on oil & gas  

LONDON (December 2, 2020)—U.S. insurance companies lag behind their global peers and play a key role in enabling the fossil fuel industry, the Insure Our Future campaign revealed today in its fourth annual scorecard on insurers’ climate policies. 

Insuring Our Future: The 2020 Scorecard on Insurance, Fossil Fuels and Climate Change finds that most European and Australian insurers no longer provide coverage for new coal projects, which has made it harder and costlier to secure the insurance that coal projects need to operate. Coal companies face rate increases of up to 40%. Controversial projects—like the Adani Group’s Carmichael coal mine in Australia—are finding it hard to obtain insurance at all. This demonstrates the insurance industry’s unique power to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels.  

 More useful for most folks is the scorecard here.  

Unfortunately, smaller companies like All State and State Farm aren't listed here.  They are both independent companies.  But Geico is owned by Berkshire Hathaway which is one of the worst offenders.

 

Netflix Recs: Prosecuting Evil: The Extraordinary World of Ben Ferencz And Two Short Films

 Tip 1:  Prosecuting Evil:  The Extraordinary World of Ben Ferencz   

I'm doing this one first because it leaves Netflix on May 31 - so you need to watch it now if you want to see it there.  As portrayed in the film, Ben Ferencz is a truly remarkable person. (The link goes to his website which has a wealth of information.)   Born in Romania in 1920, he immigrated to the US before he was one.  A teacher alerted his mother that he was gifted - "We didn't know what gifted meant.  No one had ever given us gifts." - she encouraged him to go to college.  From City College of New York to Harvard law school where he was a research assistant for a professor who had written one of the only books on war crimes.  He was with the US army when they liberated some concentration camps and when he returned the US was called to DC - he assumes the professor had recommended him - to work on prosecuting Nazi war criminals.  

He ended up as the lead prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials (at 27!) and went on from there to be a pioneer in human rights law including a long battle to establish the International Criminal Court to prosecute leaders who commit human rights violations.  

While there is, necessarily, some disturbing Holocaust footage, I got inspiration from a man who took on impossible tasks and saw them through.  Who never gave up on his quest to make the world a better, more peaceful place.  A true role model.  

He was still alive in 2018 when the film was made and apparently - looking at his website - is still alive today.  In the film he was still working hard on peace issues at 98.  

It leaves Netflix May 31 - That's Monday.  But it's also available through Prime (though I don't like to encourage people to support Amazon.)

A key relevant issue for me in this film was his arguments that Nazi war criminals should NOT be just forgotten and that they should be prosecuted, not as retribution, but as a warning to future leaders, to let them know these things will not go unpunished.  

That is a key reason why the January 6 investigation needs to be undertaken.  To not investigate and prosecute at the highest levels, is to encourage another insurrection.  Republican legislators in a number of states are already setting up ways to overrule election officials and make themselves in charge of deciding who has won the election.  Germans did not take the Nazi threat seriously until it was too late.  We are in early 1930s Germany territory right now in the United States.  

I'd like my junior senator - Dan Sullivan - to see this movie.  He doesn't seem to understand the values I hold.  The cultural background and values that Ferencz represents - highly valuing peace and justice and fighting injustice (no I don't think that that is redundant) - mirror the cultural background and values I grew up with.  Valuing peace and fighting AGAINST war, is not un-American and it's very much part of being a human being.  I just wish I was one percent as effective as he is.  I'll work on it.  

That's why this is such an important film.

Tip 2:  If you search "short films" Netflix will give you a page of short films, maybe 5 minutes to an hour.  (Some are longer because they are collections of short films.)  This is a great option if you don't have time for a long movie or don't want to get hooked into a series at the moment.

The first one we picked was Two Distant Strangers.  It said "Academy Award Winner" so we figured it was worth watching.  It's part of their "Black Lives Matter Collection."  Basically it's a Ground Hog day type movie where the black protagonist keeps running into the same cop who mistreats him in different ways and his attempts to avoid and/or improve the interaction.  

The second one was The Trader, because it was short and was a Georgian movie.  Not Georgia - the state of Staci Abrams, but Georgia in Central Asia.  How many films have you seen from Georgia?  Probably none.  

The film follows a man with a truck who goes from village to village selling trinkets and cheap household goods and used clothing.  He'll take money, but mostly he's trading for potatoes which he takes to Tblisi and sells to traders in the market.

What always strikes me about films from places that are foreign to me (though by now it shouldn't anymore) is how much people are alike.  The architecture, the landscape, the dress, the language may be different, but humans are really all the same.  Particularly poignant here were a couple of scenes with little kids.  The Trader uses bubbles to attract kids and then tells them to bring their parents to buy them things.  

The actions and smiles of  little kids chasing the soap bubbles was no different all all from little kids in well off households in the US.  Another, older kids was asked what he wanted to do when he grew up and his facial expressions and body language was no different from an embarrassed 12 year old anywhere in the world.  

Overall, I recommend escaping from the Netflix recommendations and searching by countries to find a lot of interesting films that help us see how much the human condition is the same everywhere.  Get over your aversion to subtitles.  Just do it.  There are excellent films and series  from India, Korea, Turkey, Scandinavia, the Spanish speaking world.  

An Obsession With Motorcycle Gangs

The LA Times has an article today on Bo Bushnell, who became obsessed with collecting the memorabilia of outlaw motorcycle gangs.  He spent years finding and getting to know members and former members.  Many of the original members are now in their 70s or dead.  The article mentions at the end that Bushnell has a new obsession - street gangs.  

"It’s not that he’s obsessed with gangs any more than he was with motorcycle clubs.

“'The gangs and the clubs, they’re just the backdrop,' he said. 'It’s the people, and the personal stories, that fascinate me. I have always been interested in outsiders and outlaws, and these are the ultimate outlaws.'”

And I think that is something we need to always be doing all the time - look closer at the stereotypes we have of people and groups we only know through the media.  Yes, motorcycle clubs and street gangs have done terrible things.  But why?  Who are the people who were attracted to those organizations?  What do they have in common?  Are there things we can do as a society to minimize the number of people who get involved in organized violence against others?  I'm not sure Bushnell's interviews and documents answer those questions, but it's worth reading the article.  

"The real value of the collection is its capacity to correct the monstrous image of outlaw bikers and give them their true place in history, said Paul d’Orleans, motorcycle historian and curator of the influential bike culture website the Vintagent.

“These few hundred club members had an enormous impact on our culture at large by their mere existence, and they also created a unique and peculiarly American folk-art movement with their custom motorcycles,” D’Orleans said. Like it or not, he added, 'That movement evolved into a billion-dollar worldwide custom motorcycle industry'.”

Blooming Hoya And Dripping Icicle - The World Is Better Than Media Portray

 

These hoya flowers are past their prime.  It's a natural part of the cycle of birth and death.   

From Bloomscape:

"Hoya plants are some of the easiest indoor houseplants to care for. They are slow-growing vining plants native to tropical and subtropical Asia. They are also known as Wax plants due to their thick and shiny foliage. As Hoyas mature, they produce clusters of sweet-smelling star-shaped flowers."

 They were pretty amazing a week ago.

And even though those blooms are gone, there's a new cluster starting to bud.  

This plant has been growing downstairs in our 'greenhouse' - really a room with lots of south facing windows - for years. It does tend to bloom most years with minimal care on my part.  

Spring is technically here according to the calendar, but we still have plenty of winter on the ground and icicles hanging from our roof.

[While the drop on its way down is kind of neat, I accidentally deleted the drop that was just below the end of the icicle, still suspended by a trail of water.  The whole three foot icicle, after growing for a week or two, came crashing down just after I took this picture.]

[UPDATE March 24, 2021 1:30am:  I found the deleted album on my phone and there was the other picture.  So here it is:                                                                                                          ]

But we are getting significantly more light every day.  At Anchorage's latitude we are gaining almost 6 minutes a day - an hour in 10 days.  That's just the official 'daylight' but we have much longer twilight periods than further south.  

Yesterday I pulled out my bike - the old one with the studded tires - to ride to a routine annual physical not far from our house.  

And here's rider's view on my way home.  I'm still amazed at how well the studded tires worked on the icier parts of the way home.  

This pictures in this post are for Barbara and an Anonymous commenter  in recent days lamenting the sorry state of the world.  Our news media give us a negatively skewed view of things.   

But we also have had a lot of positive things happening.  My sense is that the anger of Republicans that boiled over on January 6 is a reflection that they feel their privilege slipping away.  They, of course, don't think of it as privilege.  They still believe in various mantras that help justify why rich people are rich and poor people are poor.  Mantras that put all the onus on the individual and ignore how social norms and beliefs, economic and legal infrastructure, and the media portrayal of some ideal USA, all combine to advantage white males.  But their anger now reflects that women and people of color have made great strides toward equality.  The election of a black president brought it all home, for many.  White males no longer can assume they get to go to the front of the line.  Now women and minorities have much better access to good education and then good jobs.  Just look at how the number of women doctors and lawyers and members of Congress have increased in recent decades.  The same is true for people of color.  For example.

Our job now is to change the conditions that produce people who understand their place in the world and work to make the world more just for everyone.  No individual has to save the world.  We all just have to take care of our selves and our families and friends.  If we have energy and resources and creativity left over, then we can help others, then we can work for a happier society. 

But when we do work to improve the conditions we live in,  we should working humbly.  Not to prove how good we are.  Not to make others grateful to us.  But in recognition that we've been lucky to have what we have and that in our own gratefulness, we want to share it.  Some of what we have we have earned through our own hard work.  Some because we've been the lucky winners of the birth lottery.

But nature itself is a lottery which affects our happiness.   I've heard that, despite what one might think, more people get down during spring and early summer than other times of the year. I did double check on that and found that indeed, spring and early summer are the worst.  And it's more so further north than closer to the equator.  So I send my hoya flowers and dripping icicle to all.  May you find pockets of peace and hope that you can fill up with good stories, good friends, good food, and good ideas.