Why People In Anchorage Don't See Much Of Alaska

Alaska Airlines extended its Permanent Fund Dividend sale.  I've just copied the first six destinations from Anchorage that were listed.

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Adak Island (ADK)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$449 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Albuquerque (ABQ)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$179 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Atlanta (ATL)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$249 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Austin (AUS)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$199 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Baltimore (BWI)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$229 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Barrow (BRW)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$149 

one way

[The out-of-state distances come from convert it]

So let's see how much that comes to when converted to cost per mile;

From Anchorage to Adak = 1,192 miles  or $.38 per mile
From Anchorage to Albuquerque = 2578 miles  or $.07 per mile
From Anchorage to Atlanta = 3365 or $.07 per mile
From Anchorage to Austin =  3125 or $.06 per mile
From Anchorage to Baltimore = 3317 or $.07 per mile
From Anchorage to Barrow =  725 miles or $.21 per mile

[UPDATE Oct 10, 2018  8pm- here are some more Alaska destinations (miles from air miles calculator)
Anchorage to Bethel = 399 miles (at $99) = $.25 per mile
Anchorage to Cordova = 160 miles (at $99) = $.62 per mile
Anchorage to Dutch Harbor = 792 miles (at $349) =  $.44 per mile
Anchorage to Fairbanks - 261 miles (at $77) = $.30 per mile
Anchorage to Juneau =  571 miles (at $137) = $.24 per mile
Anchorage to Ketchikan = 775 miles  (@ $169) = $.22 per mile
Anchorage to Kodiak = 253 miles (@ $109) = $.43 per mile
Anchorage to Kotzebue =  548 miles  (@ $129) = $.24  per mile
Anchorage to Nome =  539 miles  (@ $129) = $.24  per mile
Anchorage to Petersburg =  671 miles  (@ $149) = $.22  per mile
Anchorage to Sitka =  592 miles  (@ $148) = $.25  per mile
Anchorage to Yakutat =  373 miles  (@ $149) = $.40  per mile]


I understand that airline prices are related to prices offered by competitors and that Alaska Airlines has little to no competition when flying around Alaska.  But what it means is that:

• Unless someone's job requires Alaska travel paid by the  employer, most Alaskans can fly out of state for much less than they can fly in state
• Rural Alaskans, whose income is below the state average, are a big part of Alaska Airlines' profits
• If they aren't (if Alaska Air is making plenty with out of state flights) then why not give rural Alaskans a break here?

And I got a notice today from the Alaska Permanent Fund that they deposited my $1600 into my checking account.  And Alaska Airlines, like every other business, wants their cut of every Alaskans PFD.

Where Do We Go From Here? Republicans And Power

Democracy is not about outcome - it's about the process we take to get outcomes.  We are supposed to make decisions in ways that represent the will of the people.  That's, of course, an ideal that originally didn't include women, Indians, or blacks.

The constitution was intended to set up processes that would insure a reasonably decent life for, at least, white males with property.  Over the years, others got added, at least on paper, to the decision making as voters. The representation of women and people of color has grown in Congress.  We saw some very smart women in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, yet in the end, it was white males who dominated once again.  "She's credible and poised, but we're going with our guy."  For the Republicans, democratic process was short circuited so they could get the outcome they wanted.


The US Constitution begins:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I hope our newest originalist pays attention to these basic goals (particularly the ones I've highlighted.  We certainly are not succeeding when it comes to domestic tranquility and the general welfare is getting less important than the welfare of the wealthy.  Senators Graham and McConnell and the president were more worried about justice for some man who might get falsely accused than they were about all the women that have been and continue to be actually sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted.

When Supreme Court justices required 60 votes for confirmation, presidents had to offer justices who were moderate enough to garner at least some votes from the party out of power.  The Republicans lowered the bar to 50 votes.  And Saturday they got 50 votes from Senators representing only 44.2% of the US population.  Those 48 Senators who opposed Kavanaugh represented 55.8% of the US population.

This can be, because every state gets two senators - my state, Alaska, with only under 800,000 people gets the same number of U. S. Senators as California with nearly 40 million people.  This disconnect between the idea of  majority rule and what really happens has reached the breaking point as McConnell pushed Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, against popular will and without allowing the FBI to do a real investigation.  (The real story - not the he said/she details the media got all over - was what deals people were offered behind closed doors, and what threats were made if they didn't take those offers.  The Alaska Republican Party is already considering stripping Lisa Murkowski of her red R.

Such a sharply divided decision bodes nothing good, except maybe stronger calls for reform.  It lays bare the partisan nature of the Republicans packing the court.  Obama's choice of Merrick Garland was met with bi-partisan recognition of his qualification to be on the court, and McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings.  The Democrats had relatively mild opposition to Neil Gorsuch.  It was only when a candidate as openly partisan, as Kavanaugh revealed himself in the hearings, was nominated that Democrats really dug in to oppose him.

We are in a crisis of confidence in our government.  Here are a couple of possible scenarios I to watch for::

1. Chief Justice Roberts has shown at times, that he understands that the court needs credibility.  He broke with his fellow (I can use that term because they are all men) conservatives to preserve Obamacare.  If he recognizes the crisis that is coming to the court with his name on it, he may well take Kennedy's swing role from time to time.  
2. If Roberts doesn't work to moderate the courts' decisions, there will be growing calls to increase the size of the court.  If you look carefully through the Constitution, you won't find the number of justices set.  It's set by Congress and has changed several times over the last two hundred plus years.   You can read more about the size of the court here and here   
3. Since Republicans have taken off their nice masks, it will be hard for Democrats to not follow suit.  In Game Theory, the Prisoners Dilemma to be precise,  the Tit for Tat strategy wins in the long run.  It requires a player to mimic the moves of his opponent.  Start by cooperating, but if the opponent 'defects' (in the language of Game Theory), then you need to defect too.  If the other side doesn't wise up, this strategy can lead to endless warfare.  

A Break From Movies - Watch Live on YouTube US National Boys Under 18 Soccer Championship

I got notice of this game and live presentation because I know someone on the Washington State team.  It starts about now.  You can watch it here.  Or below.

2017 National League - 18U Boys - 

Field 2- 4pm - Day 2 - 

Washington Premier 00 vs. NCFC Elite 

Here's a link to the US Soccer Youth website.    [UPDATE 2pm (Alaska time):  The game ended in a 1-1 tie.  It seemed to be raining pretty hard most of the game, which should have given the Washington team an advantage since they often play in cold rain.]]

I would mention that there is criticism of soccer programs in the US because they are relatively expensive and require a lot of parent participation particularly for driving to games.  The concern is that lower income kids - particularly immigrants from countries with soccer traditions - are kept out of the professional soccer pipeline in the US.  

Homeland Security Supporting Book Industry By Banning Electronic Devices On Planes

The title, of course, is the glass half full interpretation.

Al Jazeera, among others, reports:

"The United States is barring passengers on flights originating in eight Muslim-majority countries from carrying any electronic device bigger than a mobile phone, the Department of Homeland Security said.  . .
Laptops, e-readers, cameras, tablets, printers, electronic games and portable DVD players are affected by the ban - which applies to direct flights to the US - but they may still be stowed in the hold in checked baggage."

But I'd also expect luggage is going to take much longer to be ready to be picked up on arrival in the US as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can now look at people's computers without having to take them directly from the owners.  I'm sure Homeland Security has ways to open and copy the contents of people's devices without knowing the passwords.

So people will need to find ways to detect if their computers have been played with while they are separated from them, just to know whether their data has been diddled while their devices were out of their grasp. Here's a four year old post talking about how 'pros' protect their laptops. (Not very well it seems.)

Will this spawn a new industry that provided secure lockboxes to put computers in that would make it a little harder for agents to open them?

This Guardian article questions the logic of the rules.  If they can be used as explosive devices, then they would still be dangerous in cargo areas.  If it's about hacking, well, the article points out that cell phones are computers.  It offers another possibility

"US airlines have been lobbying the Trump administration to intervene in the Persian Gulf, where they have contended for years that the investments in three rapidly expanding airlines in the area – Etihad Airways, Qatar, and Emirates – constitute unfair government subsidies with which Delta, American and United cannot compete. All three Middle Eastern airlines are among the carriers affected by the electronics ban."

I guess when you are as unpredictable as our president, people will believe he would meddle with anything in any way he pleases.

I'm sticking with the idea that DHS (or some other security agency) wants access to what's on people's computers.   Is anyone going to keep track of how long it takes for luggage to get through before and after this policy goes into effect?

Will the cloud enable people to take essentially empty computers through customs and other governmental checkpoints?  But then who's protecting the cloud?

When do we declare privacy officially extinct?

And here's a Washington Post article asking similar questions.

Soccer Break

Ater 90 minutes of regular play, this game, whose winner would play in the championship game the next day (later today), was 0-0.

The game was on one of many soccer fields at Starfire Sports Complex, a large soccer complex in Seattle where, I'm told, the Sounders once played.  This league, Washington Youth Soccer,  is separate from the high school league, which starts later.

The game began an hour late because the previous game also went into to overtimes and was decided with penalty kicks.  It was in the low 40s (F) and while the players were mostly in short sleeves, the spectators had space heaters and lots of clothing.  At least the Starfire sports complex has indoor fields too and I could watch the game from inside.  The damp cold here is more penetrating than Anchorages dry cold, and just standing around outside doesn't keep one warm.

It wasn't until near the end of the second overtime that there was a flurry of action near the goal and the team I was rooting for (a relative was playing), and while the goalie saved this one,

This one made it. I think.  The camera captures the action, but you can also miss things.  If not this one, then immediately after.   I think the ball in the shot below is just to the left of the goalie's chest in this picture.

It took me a while to figure out how the clock works here.  It goes up to 90 minutes in the regular game.  Then it keeps going to 100 minutes in the first overtime.  Then it starts again at zero.  So, if I have this right

 Today's game will be for the state championship in the under 17 group.

Eichenwald On Why Democrats Should Block Trump Supreme Court Nominee

 Who's Kurt Eichenwald?

Eichenwald's huge book on Enron, Conspiracy of Fools, was a masterpiece of putting all the pieces of that puzzle together in a page turner of a book that became a best seller.  His book about the FBI, The Informant  was made into a movie.  Here's Wikipedia's description of his most recent book:

"In 2012 he published his fourth book, 500 Days. Also a New York Times bestseller, the book chronicled the events in governments around the world in the 500 days after the 9/11 attacks. It revealed details of the American program of NSA eavesdropping, torture policy, the American government's briefings on the coming attacks before 9/11, and the details of debates within the British government."

This guy is relentless in his investigative reporting and he's an elegant writer.  Again I use  Wikipedia to explain those skills:

"During his first months of college, Eichenwald sustained a concussion, which was soon followed by noticeable epileptic seizures. Diagnosed with epilepsy in November of his freshman year, he continued to attend school despite repeated grand mal seizures.[3]
After having two outdoor seizures on campus, he was dismissed from Swarthmore, in apparent violation of federal law.[3] He contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services and fought his way back into school,[3][4] an experience that he has credited with giving him the willingness to take on institutions in his muckraking reporting.[citation needed] He graduated with his class in 1983, receiving a degree in political science, with distinction.[3]"

What does it mean to be hypocritical?

From the Cambridge dictionary:

"hypocritical, adjective,  It’s hypocritical for him to criticize her for doing the same things that he does."

One of the things I find most galling is the Republicans' hypocrisy for complaining that the Democrats are doing the very things they began the moment Obama become president.  It would make sense that Republicans think the Democrats are doing this for purely partisan reasons, since this appears to be the Republicans' motive. (Recall McConnell proclaiming the Republicans' top priority in 2009 was to prevent Obama's reelection.)  But they must understand that the Democrats have legitimate grave fears about the future of this nation, because a number of Republicans have already expressed such concerns.

Why Eichenwald believes Democrats must go all out to reject the Gorsuch nomination

I'm offering these excerpts from a Kurt Eichenwald article in Newsweek because he says what I'm thinking, but he does a much better job than I can at tying up all the loose ends.

It's his reasoning why the Democrats should oppose Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.  He begins that his opposition and this article violate his long held beliefs about how a democratic government should run.  He acknowledges that Gorsuch is well qualified and had he been nominated in the past, he would have supported him.

His objections come from how the Republicans have violated the process of democracy by the way they obstructed Obama's court appointments.

"Gorsuch, unfortunately, must be sacrificed on the altar of obscene partisanship erected by the Republicans in recent years. Temper tantrums designed to undermine the Constitution for naked political purposes cannot be rewarded. Our government cannot survive the short-term games-playing that has replaced fidelity to the intent of the Founding Fathers’ work in forming this once-great nation. 

This goes back to the unconscionable decision of Republicans who refused to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, another eminently qualified candidate, who served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second most important court in the nation. But in a decision that will go down as one of the greatest abuses of the Constitution in this nation’s history, the Senate’s Republican majority, under the leadership of their unprincipled majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications and would not take a vote."

He then discusses the rule McConnell made up about not approving a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of the presidency, saying the slot should be reserved for the next president.  Eichenwald blasts this made up rule as pure partisanship and unrelated to any Senate precedents or tradition, citing 24 such last year nominations, 21 of which were approved.

Then he quotes from several letters written by different groups of legal scholars vehemently denouncing the Senate Republicans' refusal to bring Garland to a floor vote.  He shows the mendacity of the Republicans offering philosophical rules about the last year of the presidency by quoting Sen. Grassley in Obama's first term of office refusing to rule on a nominee for the DC circuit court by making up another rule about not breaking the four-four ideological balance in that court.  He proceeds:

"This might explain why Democrats now say the Supreme Court should remain divided in the same way—four justices appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republicans—for the rest of Trump’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that President Trump puts up,” said Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. 'I promise you.'”

He then cites a liberal think tank, Americans for a Progressive Judiciary, declaration that it would be perfectly honorable and constitutional for Democrats to block every single Trump court appointment. He ends his paragraph on that think tank with this quote:

 “If you truly believe that a particular nominee would wreak havoc on America, why not do everything you can to stop him?” 

I’m sure these words of principle enrage conservatives. I’m sure they believe that the Democrats' allowing the high court to continue in its current hobbled state throughout Trump’s term is un-American and destructive to our country. In fact, these statements have already been roundly condemned on Fox News, with numerous pundits ripping at the Democratic Party (or Democrat Party) for allowing its thirst for partisan advantage to blind it to our constitutional principles. And if you’re a conservative, I hope you seethe at those statements. 

Why? Because it exposes your grotesque hypocrisy. 

You see, I lied. Feinstein never said anything about the Democrats refusing to confirm any Trump nominee for the next four years—that was actually Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, in statements he made when most of the political world believed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was going to be president. As for the comment from the Americans for a Progressive Judiciary? I made up the name; as far as I can tell, no such organization exists. Instead, I was quoting the conservative publication The Federalist, which, once again, was writing at a time when almost no one believed Trump would win, to justify engaging in a blanket refusal to ever confirm any Clinton nominee.
Now if you’re a conservative who was angered by those statements when you thought they came from Democrats—and now that you know they were uttered by your partisan brethren, you’re scrambling to justify them—face facts: You are lying and self-deluded."

His argument against approving Trump nominees?  The Republicans have broken all pretense of respecting the constitutional role of the US Senate to advise and consent on presidential court appointments.  Instead they have simply blocked as many as they could for pure partisan short term gain.  It's a precedent the Democrats cannot let them get away with.  He takes a swipe at Alito as

“'the worst justice in history' ©, as I’ve previously written." 

He argues that Alito's opinions are predictable and he (Eichenwald):

"enjoy[s] trying to predict what assertions of nonexistent fact he will employ in his arrogant effort to reach the outcome he desires."

But this is not a gratuitous swipe at Alito.  It's part of his argument that the Supreme Court is now a partisan body and will be as long as Alito is on it.

Eichenwald's justification for his change of heart is this:

"The Republicans cannot be allowed to reap the rewards of unprincipled obstructionism that sets a precedent that will destroy the last remnant of our country’s constitutional credibility."

He continues:

"So what should the Democrats do? Fight. Recognize the nature of the other party. There is no longer reason; there is no longer fidelity to our history or to the founders’ intents; there is no longer compromise. Republicans cannot be allowed to benefit from their efforts to undermine the intent of the framers of our Constitution. (To give you an idea of how bad this could become if Democrats don’t fight, think of this: That conservative commentator writing for The Federalist who was justifying obstructing every Clinton nominee argued that Republicans, as an option, could constitutionally just let the Supreme Court die if it could be done without paying too high a political price. There is no limit to how far the Republicans may go.)"

He then goes on to explain why, even if the Republicans vote to remove the 2/3 vote for Supreme Court approval, the Democrats should now block Gorsuch.  I'll let you see how he ends his argument over at the Newsweek site itself.  It's not a strategy I would have thought of.

But I do want to put in a plug for understanding the Prisoner's Dilemma problem and the Tit-For-Tat strategy that research suggests is the best way to combat an opponent that refuses to cooperate.  It's a critical lesson that Democrats need to understand and adapt in their strategy.

I've written about the Prisoner's Dilemma before and if you don't know it, or the Tit-for-Tat strategy, I'd strongly recommend you check out the explanations in this earlier post.  It helps explain a lot of what is going on in the world - conflicts that get resolved and those that don't.  Basically it shows that cooperation, in the long run, wins.  Unless your opponent always reneges.  In that case the opponent will always win.  Until you also copy his strategy.  If that leads to mutual cooperation, both will do better.  If both sides continue to renege then both sides go into a downward lose-lose spiral.

Obama Still Alive And Well After 8 Years - What Did Trump Say Today?

I remember back in 2009, that many of us worried that Barrack Obama wouldn't survive his presidency.  So as I watched the new president being sworn in, I was delighted to see Obama there.

I hope those who have great fears about the next four years, will see at the conclusion of the Trump presidency, that their worst fears weren't realized.



Meanwhile, some reactions to the new president's inaugural speech.  It wasn't a typical Trump speech.  He only used the word "I" about three times. (I say 'about' because the word counters can be tricky, especially with single letter words.  I checked some words using a search function, but I also used an online word counter. The numbers vary a bit, so my numbers here are approximate.)  He used 'we' over 40 times and 'you' and 'your' about 23 times.  The words 'environment,' 'constitution,' 'climate,' and 'health,' were not mentioned. Though he did mention 'the misery of disease.'   "Law' was mentioned once - as part of 'law enforcement.'

But it painted a vision of a dark America with many people suffering poverty, unemployment, crime, and bad schools which will all be made great again.  He talked about America First, a phrase used by Nazi sympathizers who wanted to keep the US out of the second world war.  You can see his competitive model of the world throughout his speech.  Our team is going to start winning again was a key message.  Another key message was giving power back to the people from the corrupt politicians.


Here are some excerpts and my reactions.  You can watch or read it all here.

"Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come."

That was one of two uses of the word 'together.'  The other time it was attached to making America great again.

". . . today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another -- but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People."

Exactly who the 'American people' are, who 'you' is supposed to mean is not clear in this speech.  Though I suspect Trump supporters think it means them and Trump opponents think it means Trump supporters too.  

"For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished -- but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered -- but the jobs left, and the factories closed."

Government is the bad guy.  That's a pretty common theme in the US.  I've been thinking about a post that argues government isn't the enemy because it's been taken over by business.  If government is corrupt, whose paying to corrupt it?  All the corporations who spend billions on lobbying to pass laws that help them and kill laws that would make corporations more accountable.  

Trump doesn't mention the non-governmental multi-millionaire and billionaire class that is getting richer at the expense of everyone else, he only mentions their puppets, the politicians.  

"January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

Who exactly will become the rulers again?  Not Native Americans or African-Americans, since they never were the rulers.  Not Asian-Americans or Hispanics.  Not LGBT folks.  Not women.  Who does that leave?  OK, he does mention women in the next sentence, but this is the 'forgotten men and women.'  Is this where he's talking about the Native Americans and all the others? Why does that seem like putting words in his mouth?  Toni Morrison's essay in the NYTimes offers one explanation of this part of the Trump appeal.

"You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens."

This comes closer to classic Trump rhetoric - 'which the world has never seen before.'  You can make statements like this if you never read about history or about the rest of the world.  

"Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public."

I bet if we sat in with the speech writers, we would have heard some debate about whether to mention health care.  Well, maybe not.  I doubt there was any discussion about climate change.

Here is where it begins to sound like a Communist Chinese report on human rights abuses in the US.

"But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential."

"This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."

Why don't I think this is a call to restrict the sale of automatic weapons?

"We are one nation -- and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny."

This is the closest this speech comes to a unity theme.  But the idea that Trump feels anyone else's pain just doesn't ring true to me.  

"For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; we've defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon." 

When I was a graduate student, I was surprised to read a review of American foreign aid packages. The aid bills in Congress always stipulate that US products are used to aid other countries and for the most part US companies get contracts to do the work.  It was always a good way to distribute money to American companies and workers in the guise of helping others.  Let's not fool ourselves that spending money abroad hurts the US.  If it did, Congress wouldn't pass those budgets.  They get lobbied by all the companies whose products - often things they can't sell - are going to be bought by the US to ship overseas.  It's a great stimulus to the economy. (See especially the bottom of page 44 in this report.)  And military spending has enriched American businesses since the Revolutionary War.  

Seeing American infrastructure rebuilt would be a great thing.  And it would be great for American businesses to thrive and for them to create lots of good paying jobs to build that infrastructure.  I just don't want them to get unduly wealthy, their employees overworked and underpaid, and a shoddy end product.  

"One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world."

This is a side-effect of capitalism.  Companies work to make a profit.  If they make more profit by going overseas, that's what they'll do.  But as many jobs, maybe more, are lost to automation of jobs.  In the 50s and 60s there were articles about how Americans would spend their leisure time when automation brought the work week to 30 hours.  What those writers weren't thinking was that the benefits would go to the owners, not the workers.  That 'leisure' is called today 'unemployment.'

It seems to me that 'ripped from their homes' was related to unregulated mortgage schemes ultimately the fault of big banks that were making money so fast they didn't care about the consumer.  Government's involvement was that they didn't regulate the banks closely enough.  

"We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this moment on, it's going to be America First."

As mentioned above, America First, has a dark history.  If Trump sticks to his word here, his friend Vlad is in for a surprise.  I'm not holding my breath.

"Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength."

No, other countries aren't 'stealing' our companies.  Even though they may be owned by Americans, these are Americans who weigh their costs and benefits and decide to ship jobs overseas.  

"We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones -- and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth."

I can't in any way defend people who murder women and children in cold blood.  But they are still human beings.  To deny that may be an attempt to distance oneself from the atrocities that humans commit.  The leaders who led the genocides in Africa used similar language - calling their enemies cockroaches to be eradicated.  Dehumanizing the enemy is practiced all over the world.   However misguided ISIS terrorists are, they come from situations where they are alienated enough to be susceptible to recruitment.  And then they are trained to obey orders and be loyal to the group.  

Here's a passage I'd love to have the new president discuss with, say, Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers.

"At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, "How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."

Whoa!  Total allegiance to the United States of America!  I imagine a lot of Christians might argue that their first allegiance is to God.  Others might say their allegiance is to all of humankind, not just to Americans.  And what does that mean for people who don't agree with what the United States is doing - say like Trump until today?   Or people who have dual citizenship?  Is that going to be abolished?  What will happen to someone who has only 75% allegiance to the USA?  Should we have more loyalty to corrupt Americans than to saintly citizens of other countries?  

I like that he suggests there is no room for prejudice, but I don't understand how that follows from loyalty to the US. White Nationalists would argue they are completely loyal to the US, but with whites in power.  

Then there is the bible quote.  What exactly does "God's people" mean to Trump?  It's from the Old Testament, so does it refers to Jews?  Is it understood to mean Christians?  Christians and Jews?  What about Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists?  It would be nice to hear an explanation of what Trump, or the speech writers, had in mind.  

Knowing that bible translations vary greatly, I looked it up.  Of 22 different translations, biblehub  shows only one that mentions "God's people."  All the others refer to when "brethren" or "brothers" live together in unity.  (One says 'brothers and sisters.")  To suggest that it's "good and pleasant' when brethren live together in unity, also suggests that it's common for them not to.  The bible it comes from appears to be one of the most used, which raises questions about how close to the original biblical language most American Christians are.  

This is going to be an interesting four years.  

AIFF2016: My Picks Alongside The Festival's Picks

I don't have any serious issues with the Festival winners this year as I have had in the past.  Maybe I'm just mellowing, but I think the quality the films in competition was generally higher this year than in recent years.

But there are some films which I thought got overlooked and I'd like to point them out.  There are others that I might have added to this list had I seen them.

The films in competition* in the various categories are listed below with the festival winners bolded.

[*These are films the programmers picked as the best of the selected films and 'in competition' for a prize.]

FEATURES
Demimonde (Hungary) Winner
Donald Cried (USA)
First Girl I Loved (USA) First Runner Up
Heredity (Columbia)
Planet Outtakring (Austria)
Youth in Oregon (USA) Honorable Mention

I could argue why any of these films should have won the top prize.  All had strengths that made them strong contenders.  I think Demimonde was a fine pick.  Youth in Oregon was also a good movie, though it was a Hollywood film with some well known actors - less of a film festival picture.

Here are my top three,   not in any particular order.

I would have put Donald Cried in the top three.  It had a very powerful and complicated lead character who was played amazingly by the actor Kris Avedisian.  This was a powerful film about going home, but also about making amends, as an adult, for treating people badly as a teen.  Here's a post I did after seeing Donald Cried.

And Planet Ottakring was an adult fairy tale of a movie set in Ottakring, a real working class neighborhood in Vienna.  This film has clear cut good guys and bad guys, with Frau Hahn as a Cruella Deville class female villain. The good guys a little more complicated.  The story was written as a vehicle to introduce the concept of a local community currency based on historical events in Wörkl, Austria in 1932.  The writer, Mike Majzen told me via email, that he then wanted to make a more interesting screenplay in which to package that idea.  He succeeded beautifully.  Of course the director and the cast had something to do with that too.  [See more on the Wörkl financial experiment in Planet Ottakring in my post on Features in Competition.  Actually, I have more about all the features in competition at the link.]

Demimonde is like the fanciest, most decadent cake in a Budapest bakery.  It's exquisite looking, it's rich, it's got a dark story to tell.  Attila Szász deserved his second top prize at AIFF in three years.  He and his crew do beautiful and meaningful work.

But Heredity still haunts my mind as well.  This Columbian film explored the long term effects of being abandoned by one's father and the dangers of trusting the mental health professionals.  Luckily for the main character, his wife believed in him.  I need to do some more research on whether this film was based on a true story and if there are examples of cases like this one.


SHORTS (SUPER)
20 Matches  Winner
Death$ in a $mall Town
How To Lose Weight in 4 Easy Steps
A Magician Honorable Mention
On Time First Runner Up

20 Matches was an excellent choice.  An original approach to telling a story that made palpable the grim story being told.   And yes, 20 matches were involved.  On Time was a powerful tale, well told,  with a punch in the gut ending.  A Magician had a good message wrapped in a quick and amusing story.  All good picks.  

​SHORTS​

Curmudgeons
Gorilla - First Runner Up
Il Campione (The Champion )
Like A Butterfly - Honorable Mention
My Mom and the Girl
Thunder Road  - Winner

I ended up seeing Thunder Road four times.  It was worth seeing once, maybe twice.  But I was waiting for the next film to start the third and fourth times.  A really good film should hold up longer.  I know people liked it because it was done in one long-shot and the actor showed a range of emotions.  But those things weren't enough for repeated viewings for me.  And his Karaoke ruined the song Thunder Road forever.  You can watch the whole movie here and decide for yourself.  It also won a major prize at Sundance, so I'm probably the odd man out here.

I only saw a part of Like a Butterfly so I don't have an opinion.  Gorilla  is a solid, satisfying film.  It might have been honorable mention in my choices.

My favorite short wasn't even in competition.  Sing For Your Supper was pulled me in from the beginning.  The basic concept - a land where you literally pay for things by singing and if you can't sing you end up begging - was brilliant, and the creation of a believable dystopian world in a short film was remarkable, as were the musical numbers and the acting.  A terrific short that, in my opinion, should have been the winner.

Another favorite was GlaswAsian Tales.  This film interwove the tales of several Asian-Scots in Glascow seamlessly connected a series of the people and stories with flashes of biting wit.  A look at the world from the view of the 'other' as signaled by the title's play on the usual word for people from Glascow.

Pay Day is a grim Hungarian short that shows the impact of a loan-shark in a small village.  Powerful.

And I want to mention Salt Man too.  A unique short about an artist living and working in a remote salt mine (collecting salt) in Iran, with his young daughter, talking about art and creativity and censorship.  He lives, emotionally, off the awards he wins from festivals around the world.  Another really strong and unique film.


DOCUMENTARY

Documentary Shorts
I’ll Wait Here (Austria)
Pickle (USA)  First Runner Up
Starring Austin Pendleton (USA) Winner  Winner
The BlindSide (India)  Honorable Mention

This seems to be the thinnest category. There were only four documentary shorts in competition. I didn't get to see The Blindside. [Until I was about to post this.  I found it online and you can watch it.  I think it's a more profound film than the other two and gets its message across in 3 minutes.]  I'm not sure why I'll Wait Here was in competition.  Someone shot a video of his grandparents at a Swiss spa.The editing makes it more than a family film.  One could argue that it causes us to pause and ponder what's important.  Some people see Jesus in strange places, so I guess some programmer saw something in this film that I missed. This is not an attempt to put down I'll Wait Here.  But I think there were other short docs that were probably better.  Pendleton was a film about an interesting person - a character actor who was sort of hidden in plain sight.  Pendleton's not unlike The Blindside, in subject matter.  A nice tribute, something you could show at Pendleton's funeral.  But it doesn't have the heart of the Indian film.

[After watching The Blindside online after the festival, and after the first draft of this post, I decided to see what I could find of the other short documentaries.  Mostly I could only see trailers.  I'll withhold further judgment until I can see the whole films.]

Feature-Length Documentaries
Best and Most Beautiful Things (USA) Honorable Mention  (tie)
Drokpa (China) First Runner Up
Goodbye Darling, I’m Off to Fight (Italy)
SHU-DE! (USA)
Happy Lucky Golden Tofu Panda Dragon Good Time Fun Fun Show (USA) Honorable Mention (tie)
The Cinema Travellers (India) Winner
The Slippers (USA)

These were all good films.  The choices were hard.   I loved The Cinema Travellers.  The other winners (I didn't get to see Dropka) were all worthy.  I did hear really good things about Walk With Me (not in competition) and it won an Audience Award.  I'm hoping to see it.


ANIMATION
Murderous Tales (Czech Republic)
Green Light (South Korea)
A Space in Time (France) Honorable Mention
Adija (USA)
Alike (Spain)   Winner
Arrival: A Short Film by Alex Myung (USA)  First Runner Up
Hum (USA)
Just Like it Used to Be (USA)
My Life I Don't Want (Myanmar)
Pearl (United Kingdom, USA)
Red (Iran)
Under the Apple Tree (Netherlands)

The winners were all fine.  I especially liked Arrival.  But I do want to mention My Life I Don't Want.   Using simple graphics Nyan Kyal Say encapsulates the basics of being a woman world wide.  A brilliant film.  So simple, so profound.


I'm afraid I never got to any of the Made In Alaska films so I have no comment on them.

I thought this year's festival had strong films in many categories and I don't have any serious beefs with the festival's winners.  They were all good and the choices boil down to something in the films that appealed to particular judges that were different from appealed to me in some cases.

AIFF2016: Film Festival Winners

[UPDATE Dec 11, 2016  10:45pm:  All the awards listed and related photos are up.]

This post was updated many times from when I put up the list of all the films in competition and as the winner were announced in each category, and as I put up pictures of winning film makers and some of the festival programmers.

Todd Salat  Aurora*

Jury Awards
Made in Alaska

Alaska's Mind-Blowing Aurora  Honorable Mention
Find Me
I am Yupik  Winner
Interior
Speaking from the HeART
Super Salmon  First Runner Up

Ryan Peterson - Super Salmon*

Really, I didn't know these two would win awards - I took these pictures less than ten minutes ago.
Ryan said his film would be available online next week.

Alex Myung Arrival**

Animation 
Murderous Tales (Czech Republic)                    
Green Light (South Korea)
A Space in Time (France) Honorable Mention
Adija (USA)
Alike (Spain) Winner
Arrival: A Short Film by Alex Myung (USA) First Runner Up
Hum (USA)
Just Like it Used to Be (USA)
My Life I Don't Want (Myanmar)
Pearl (United Kingdom, USA)
Red (Iran)
Under the Apple Tree (Netherlands)

[UPDATE:  I erroneously marked Adija as the winner - wishful thinking on my part.  I really liked Adija, the spray painting was magical.  But Alike was also good.  And they look almost the same.  Sorry to both film makers of both films if you saw this before the correction.]

Rich Curtner Shorts Programer center*

Super Shorts

How To Lose Weight in 4 Easy Steps (USA)
Death$ in a $mall Town (USA)
20 Matches (USA)  Winner
A Reasonable Request (USA)
A Magician (UK) Honorable Mention
On Time (USA) First Runner Up

Programmer George Pollock (Shorts) Juror Kelly Walters (Features)*

Shorts
Il Campione (The Champion) (Italy)                      
Like a Butterfly (USA)  Honorable Mention
Thunder Road (USA)  Winner
My Mom and The Girl (USA)
Gorilla (USA)  First Runner Up
Curmudgeons (USA)









Documentary Short

I’ll Wait Here (Austria)
Pickle (USA) First Runner Up
Starring Austin Pendleton (USA) Winner
The BlindSide (India) Honorable Mention

Best and Most Beautiful director Zevgetis**  

Documentary Feature Length
Best and Most Beautiful Things (USA) Honorable Mention
Drokpa (China) First Runner Up

Kate Rigg Happy Lucky...*

Goodbye Darling, I’m Off to Fight (Italy)
SHU-DE! (USA)
Happy Lucky Golden Tofu Panda Dragon Good Time Fun Fun Show (USA) Honorable Mention
The Cinema Travellers (India) Winner
The Slippers (USA)

Attila Szász director Demimonde***

Feature

Putnam and Hunter Producers First Girl I Loved**

Demimonde (Hungary)  Winner   AK Small
Donald Cried (USA)
First Girl I Loved (USA)  First Runner Up            

Heredity (Columbia)
Planet Outtakring (Austria)
Youth in Oregon (USA)  Honorable Mention






Audience Choice

John Serpe - Producer The Happys**

Feature - The Happys

Documentary - Walk With Me

Jesse Nesser, Walk With Me, With his Oosik*

* photos taken at Awards Ceremony
**photos taken earlier during the Festival
***screenshot from 2014 Skype interview

Gulls Swarm Red Tailed Hawk Demo At Loussac

I was at Loussac Library yesterday - below is an update photo of the renovation you can compare to he earlier ones here - and they had a women giving a talk with a red tailed hawk on her arm.  There were a number of interesting factoids - they keep the eggs at 100˚F and their body temp is even higher - and people were asking questions - "Do you ever worry about that beak being so close to your face?" (A:  "I her food source and she trusts me to protect her.")


At one point the speaker pointed out that the hawk was checking out the few gulls flying by.  And then people began noticing there were a lot more gulls.  And then a couple dove at the hawk - breaking their dive still pretty well above it.

At this point, I figured the still picture didn't cut it and I switched to video.  It starts out with a very brief shot of the woman holding the hawk, then goes up to the sky where we see and hear the gulls swarming about and making lots of noise - presumably a danger call, that a predator is in the area.

Then we go back to the platform as the speaker decides it's a good idea to put the red tailed hawk back into her carrying case, and then back up to the gulls (which is the thumbnail that's on the video.)



The representative of the library explained that normally these sorts of demonstrations take place indoors, but due to the renovations, the Marsden Auditorium wasn't available.  Actually, this made for a much more natural and interesting lesson in bird behavior.

Here's an overview of a Stanford study on gull-predator behavior:

"When a weasel, fox, or other predator enters a breeding colony of gulls, numerous birds gather in the air above the intruder, making it very conspicuous. Gulls come from a considerable distance and circle or hover over the predator for quite a while, sometimes even landing in its vicinity before returning to their territories. With the exception of those whose nests are immediately threatened, the gulls show little inclination to attack. Instead they appear nervous and ready to flee. 

Experiments using models of predators show that breeding Herring and Lesser Black-backed Gulls are more attracted to models that have a dead gull placed close to them than they are to the models alone. Furthermore, once gulls have seen a predator model with a dead gull, they are more attracted to it if experimenters place it within the colony again on the same day, even without the dead gull. Indeed, there is some evidence that the heightened reaction to the predator lasts at least a day after it is seen with the dead bird. This heightened reaction is specific to the predator model seen with the corpse -- there is no increased reaction to a model of a different predator subsequently presented in the same place. After seeing a predator model with a dead gull, the live gulls alight farther from the model on subsequent encounters. They remain attracted, but are more cautious. 

These results indicate that the attraction of the gulls to their enemies is a method of learning about them. Apparently they can generalize -- they draw conclusions about the predator after another gull has had a lethal encounter with it. This is a beneficial reaction, since mammalian predators such as weasels and foxes may engage in "surplus killing -- dispatching more victims than they can consume. Also these hunters can specialize for a period of time on one group of prey. An animal that has killed one gull may be more likely to kill others; individual foxes have been observed habitually killing gulls in breeding colonies. It requires little imagination, then, to see the potential adaptive advantage for gulls of investigating predators."

And here's a view of the front of the library as of June 1, 2016.  You can see some March 23 and May 11 pictures here.