Florida Condo Squabble Over Repairs, Good Metaphor For US

The US in the title is for both the United States and 'us' as individuals.

 

Source

The headline of this Washington Post article republished in the Anchorage Daily News is probably a good reflection on the US democracy in general.  

Condo owners belong to associations and have to make group decisions about how to manage the condos.  Most stuff tends to get done by the board, but bigger issues have to get approved by the membership.  Things like making major repairs.  

I'm imagining the basic debates the owners had:

1. Technical Stuff:  How do we actually know how serious the problems with the structure are? How much repair do we really have to do to?  
2. Emotional Stuff:  How much is this going to cost me?  Am I really in danger?  Is someone trying to rip us off?

Engineering reports are fairly technical and most owners probably won't read them that carefully if at all.  And if they do read them, many don't have an engineering education they would need to judge the level of urgency of the required repairs.

And when they see the price tags - $80,000 to $300,000 per unit - they have to assess how that affects their life expectations and goals.  If that amount of money would seriously jeopardize their economic security, then they're much more likely to downplay the urgency.  

But we know, in this case, there are (as I write) 24 known dead and 124 missing.  Different owners are being affected differently, regardless of the positions they took on the repairs.  There's the dead and missing.  The other residents who now have had to evacuate their homes.  The owners who don't live there, just rent out their condos.  There are people who were visiting who knew nothing about the issue.  

The condo collapse is a very tangible (I'm resisting the term I'd normally use here - concrete) example of where we are in the US today on issue after issue - from COVID to guns to climate change.  

1.  We argue over the facts, over the science, over the likelihood of different scenarios.

2.  Our involvement is affected by our emotional involvement, our life dreams, our fears, and for the leaders, the level of their personal need for power.  How many people are Board members for the good of the condos or because it gives them power and some sort of standing, prestige?  Same question for our legislators.

3.  For US issues (and this is true around the world) we have a factor that probably didn't play a big role in the condo association - deliberate misinformation campaigns to stir doubt about everything, which lets the venal continue their actions in the confusion.

There were visible signs at the condo of the dangers - cracking, water seepage, concrete deterioration -  so that people could see something needed to be done.  The visible signs of climate change keep piling on, but we're like members of the condo association - squabbling rather than taking the obvious necessary actions we need to take. [A carbon fee and dividend is by far the most effective and viable way to prevent the most carbon release.  You can see more about that here. But Republicans (mainly) throw up roadblock after roadblock.]]

There are human variations that affect how people make decisions:

• Ability to deal with change 
• Ability to comprehend complex, abstract issues
• Comfort with risk and uncertainty
• Personal sense of power and ability to make a difference

Some of the items above are influenced by genetics, but also by the conditions we grew up with:

• Economic security and ability
• Educational opportunities and choices
• Amount of love we got from our families and communities

I'm sure you can all add to the lists.  

Step One to a better democracy:  people need to learn about themselves and where they are on these and other factors and what their relatively strengths  and weaknesses are.  

The obstacles for many people are not out there in the world, but lurking in our own sense of self.  

Redistricting Board Meeting May 26, 2021 - Board Picks VRA Consultant, But All Discussion Of Candidates Was In Executive Session

It was clear from the agenda that most of the meeting would be in Executive Session  to interview candidates for Voting Rights Act consultant.  They carefully explained the legal bases for going into Executive Session.  They estimated they would take 45 minutes per interview which would have been 135 minutes.  The phone was muted for just about two hours.  

They also announced beforehand that after the contract with the VRA consultant was signed, they would let us know who the three applicants were and give their proposals to anyone who requests them.  

My understanding of Executive Session in Alaska is that their discussion about who they were going to choose should have been in public.  But I"m sure they would argue they couldn't have had that discussion without revealing confidential information.  They did vote in public, but it was clear that all the discussion was held in Executive Session.  They'd already agreed before they came out of Executive Session.  

Here are my rough notes of the meeting:

2:35 - Meeting connected but LIO connection can't hear them.  So just hear the LIO person asking if they can hear her.  

2:42pm - starting to hear things - discussing training for computer redistricting program.

2:43pm - opening meeting.  Apologizing for technical problem delay

Establish quorum - taking roll - all there

John:  would like one change, item 5.  Haven't read minutes from past meetings and I'd like to hold off til next meeting so I can read them all carefully.  Modify to eliminate item 5.  

Budd:  Not really amending. Have another suggestion for form - add footer to each page that says ARB p1/x.  That would make it much easier to find a certain page.  

John:  Don't need to make it a motion.  They've got the message and all concur.  Discussion on motion to amend the agenda?  Hearing none, lets move to adopt amended agenda.  Adopted.

First Item:  Public Testimony - anyone want to testify.  One member- Sen Giessel:  Thanks Mr. Chairman.  Good afternoon.  Calling on behalf of myself.  Thank the board about hiring a Voting Rights consultant.  Worried about Census Bureau manipulating the data.  People knowledgable about the state and you should see the distortions.  Thank you.  

John:  

???:  Quick comment:  Thank Sen Giessel.  Concerned that Alaska Native/Aemerican issues with census.  

Giessel:  Glad to hear you're engaged.  Concern that data will be unfairly distorted.  

2:50pm Sound went dead.  

2:54pm  back on - Peter three responses that seem substantially qualified. We will keep the documents confidential until after someone is chosen.  That is to protect the competitive information from the other respondents.  Also to protect confidential information.  So for those reasons go into executive session, to interview voting rights consultants.  Again explaining details of legal reasons for going into ES

???:  Got text message that audio dropped.

Peter:  We paused for that and got it corrected.  Nothing was missed. 

2:50pm John:  Going into ES.  We set aside 45 minutes for each interview.  There are three.  It may not take that long.  Then we'll come out and discuss and possibly take action then.  

So back by 5:15pm maybe earlier.  

First respondent 

4:53 - out of ES

Discussion:  

Rasie hand or go right to motion regarding VRA itself.

Bethany:  I move the Board move into contract with selected responded and set up contract. 

Melanie: 2nd

John:  Discussion?  No discussion?  Adopted.  

Staff and myself will negotiate the contract and get back to public.

Last item on agenda.  If not motion to adjourn?

Melanie:  So moved

John:  Seconded by Budd.  No objection.  Adjourned.  

Blogger Changes, Afghanistan, North Korea's Security Threat

 Blogging Changes:  This notice started popping up when I've opened my blog posting page.  For those of you with an email subscription - blogger says there are 1,342  FeedBurner subscribers - after July 2021 you won't get your emails of new posts.  Here's the notice:

FollowByEmail widget (Feedburner) is going away 

You are receiving this information because your blog uses the FollowByEmail widget (Feedburner). 
Recently, the Feedburner team released a system update announcement , that the email subscription service will be discontinued in July 2021. 
After July 2021, your feed will still continue to work, but the automated emails to your subscribers will no longer be supported. If you’d like to continue sending emails, you can download your subscriber contacts. Learn how

I'm still trying to figure out how to move the email subscribers to a different automated email system.  Although it sounds like they are being helpful - "Learn how" for example - the links aren't really very intuitive.  

So, this is an alert.  I'm not concerned yet.  I have a couple of months to figure it out.  I'll let you know more later.  

Should We Get Out Of Afghanistan?  This is not something I've delved into deeply.  They're my thoughts based on generally following the news plus reading more deeply on various other world events, including the Vietnam war.  Below are links to what others are arguing.  I didn't read those until after I wrote my own thoughts out.

Arguments for getting out:

1.  We've been there 20 years and it's our longest war so far and staying longer doesn't promise conditions will improve

2.  First the British, then the Russians got bogged down in Afghanistan.  Both, particularly Russia, are geographically much closer but eventually saw their wars in Afghanistan as unwindable.  We should recognize that there are some things we simply can't do.

3.  Like Vietnam, we are supporting a corrupt government against a dedicated local army.  Much of the corruption is created by the billions of dollars in aid and equipment the US sends to Afghanistan.

4.  Voice of America reports some 241,000 people have been killed in the Afghan war.  (I'm assuming the site is actually Voice of America, but I'm not sure.)  So our presence hasn't been terrific for the Afghan people anyway.  

4.  There are humanitarian horror zones in a number of countries around the world - Burma, Yemen, for example - but we aren't arguing to intervene there.

5.  There are other security issues that will be compromised because of our military commitment in Afghanistan.  

Arguments for staying:

1.  Terrible things are likely to happen when we leave.  

2.  The status of women in Afghanistan will be worsened by our departure.  

Sunk costs refer to the money (or other resources) one has already spent on a particularly project.  Psychologically, once we started something, we want to finish it, to regain those loses.  It's a bad reason to stay.  Yes, terrible things are likely to happen when we leave, but terrible things have happened regularly to the Afghan people throughout the time we've been there.  And the costs to the US in dollars and in the mental and physical health of the soldiers who have been there is staggering.

Sometimes you have to take the least bad option.  For the US, that seems to be leaving Afghanistan. For the women of Afghanistan, it's not looking rosy.  

Vox staying for leaving

Vox case for staying

Brookings:  The Decision to Withdraw fromAfghanistan is the Right One

Lawfare Blog:  The Logic of Staying in Afghanistan and the Logic of Getting Out

On Kim Jung Il's Threat In Response to Biden

There was a short news blurb in the Anchorage Daily News today:

"North Korea on Sunday warned that the United States will face 'a very grave situation' and alleged that President Joe Biden 'made a big blunder' in his recent speech by calling the North a security threat."

Actually, it seems like North Korea confirmed Biden's assessment of the threat.   

Alaska Redistricting Board Goes Into Executive Session To Interview Legal Advisor Applicant

[These are my rough notes as I first waited, then listened in to meeting.  Most people identified themselves, but sometimes forgot and not sure about all the voices yet.  Some comments, but a follow up post coming concerning how and why they went into executive session.]

 Here's the agenda.  [While I'm waiting for the meeting to begin, I've put some notes on the agenda in [brackets].  My notes on the meeting will be below the agenda and below the Proposed Outreach Directive.

Proposed Agenda: 

Date: Time: Place:

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

February 26, 2021 2:30 pm

Teleconference:

Public Numbers: Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive  [I've also added most of this below.]

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session 

8. Adjournment

2:25pm - Much of this meeting will be in Executive Session as the Board interviews law firms that responded to the RFI for legal services for the Board.  The attorney for the Board plays a pretty large role in advising the Board on what they are legally required, permitted, or prohibited from doing.  And often the guidelines are not that clear, so they have to figure out the best possible path.  

2:28pm still waiting for the meeting to begin.  There were some voices a few minutes ago, but it's quiet now.  I'd note that the Public Outreach Directive linked above in the agenda, is pretty broad.

"The staff mission is to:

1. 1)  Facilitate the Redistricting Board’s decision-making process through administrative, technical and logistical support. 

1. 2)  Explain the redistricting process and resulting Board decisions to the public.

2. 3)  Assist legal counsel to defend the Board’s decisions in the courts."

Then there's:

"Direction to Staff  [My guess is the staff wrote this for the Board, a bit ironic]

The Board directs the staff to proactively engage in public outreach using means and technologies which best facilitates the Board’s work.

1) Who is the “Public”? – In this context the public means all Alaskans, their elected local and state representatives, local government bodies, interested parties such as ANSCA Corporations, political parties and other non-governmental organizations and their representatives.

2) What is the message? – Staff should endeavor to be as helpful and specific as possible while educating the public about the Board’s constitutional mission, governing laws, policies and procedures, open meetings guidelines, public notice practices, procurement process, sources for additional information, and Census methodology and timing. The staff should work to educate the public about the various constraints placed on the board: namely the 4 constitutional standards of compactness, contiguity, social- economic integration and population equity (one person, one vote) as well as a general summary of Federal guidelines enacted in the Voting Rights Act. Staff should be prepared to provide a general overview of the most relevant case law as it applies to the Board for the 2020 cycle. (Shelby, Egan etc)

3) Is there anything the staff should not communicate? – Yes. The staff must not divulge specific content of executive sessions, matters subject to attorney-client, deliberative privilege, or details of litigation strategy options. The staff should refrain from making projections about what the board will or won’t do in any specific situation. The staff should not cast negative dispersions on any member of the public or their representative, even during hostile legal proceedings."

2:34pm - my phone line is still quiet.   

2:36pm -"the host has rejoined the conference" 

2:40pm - Guessing that one of the members is either late or having trouble with the zoom connection.

2:44pm - still quiet, but my phone says I'm 25 minutes into the call.  

2:46pm - some voices, sounds like someone is having technical difficulties connecting.  Discussion about groups and people the staff should be reaching out to.  Talking about non-profits - 

Q:  public wants to know "what is redistricting?"  A:  Questions will range from those basic questions to more complicated issues that I still have.  Non-profits are on the list.

Nicole:  something we should be very much engaged in.  Extended time line to our advantage.  . . .

Nonprofits, municipalities, when safe to travel, invite whole community, and as much outreach as we can.

A:  Outline of outreach can have a few more groups, but general consensus is outline.

Melanie:  Good start.  For me, timelines and more concrete plan so we will have information of redistricting process for anyone who needs it.  Leave it for staff, like to see, dates, locations on your websites.  Mechanism for groups that want us to meet with them.  Board, or staff.  I know it's next on our agenda.  Want to be pro-active in our outreach.  Also for groups that want specific meetings.  

A:  Intention, once Board agrees, get down to brass tacks and get going.  Tap into Board members' local knowledge to help figure out best times for different regions.  

John? ;  Segue into #5 - reviewing the archives, as time gets closer, as we're drawing lines, there will be numberouns requests of people who want to meet with Board.  How do we route these?  Forward them on, file them, what do we do?  

???:  When you get personal requests (Members and Staff).  Open discussion on it.  

??:  Thanks.  Mixed feelings about this.  Already had handful out of the blue calls because people heard I was on the Board and they want to talk about some legislative issues.  I say, you're way too early.  Deal with us a lot later.  There will be more of this happening.  Nice to have a policy to say that individual board members won't engage in off-the record side bars.  But a good way to get feedback.  Just thinking out loud here.  Nature of private conversations and how that fits with public meeting rules versus being as available as possible.  thanks.

John:  Agree.  Fine line.  We're open about their ideas, but some boundary to indicate what we might and might not do.

Melanie:  suggestion:  I already got phone call that wants to speak to me as Board member, and I declined until we establish procedure.  Need to be as transparent as possible, that info should be shared with the group and the public:  Melanie Banke has met with Group X in official capacity.  Need these ground rules.  My preference is to let these meetings with individuals, but if we have a formal mechanism, the pressure for individual meetings will lessen.  If I just meet with some groups, but not other groups, looks partisan.  Needs to be transparent with record of meeting.

Bethany:  Like sense of what we mean by a meeting.  Talking to someone about something else altogether and then they start talking about Redistricting.  Telling me what they think.  Gets sticky.  Tough to define and track these conversations.  

John:  May be difficult to quantify all that in a document and policy.  May come down to individual judgment and what we feel comfortable with.  And Melanie's idea about what we've discussed.  But that is that line between individual conversations that strays too Redistricting.

Nicole:  In favor of system where B member and staff can talk to folks, but I don't know every conversation requires a memo.  [hard to understand]

Bethany:  Casual conversations.  Staff will let us know as individual board members.  I'm talking about formal meeting requests.  If we have a plan there won't be individuals lobbying us.  

John:  Ask staff to draft something for us.  Maybe can capture some of this in policy.  Areas that might be sticky.  Circulate to us all and start to work on it.  Later decide what that might be.

Staff:  Certainly we can do that.

??:  For now, all meeting requests go through staff.  I don't want individuals calling me.  I don't feel comfortable having side meetings with groups.  Staff can share we have outreach plan in development.  Until we have something more formal.  

John:  Board like that as an interim policy?  We may have differences of opinion.  

Bethany:  Comfortable with that if we are talking about a group.  But with individuals harder to figure out how to handle that.  

Budd:  Same as Bethany.  Shouldn't restrict ourselves from calls or casual conversations with people who grab you by the collar and ask questions.  But if more formal talks to groups, we need a more formal policy in place.

Nicole:  sounds good.  

Bethany:  Goal to avoid appearance of us taking favorites.  It will be the wealthier groups with lobbyists that will be trying to influence us.  Avoid appearances of impropriety or that we can be influenced by special interests.  Want to be transparent.  

John:  even as legislator being lobbied all the time by people.  We legally can't have a majority of us in meetings like that.  Meanwhile, if formal request, special interest group, defer.

Bethany:  I really mean a group.  General information about redistricting versus formal meetings.  

John:  Item 6.  Software Training.

Peter:  Yes, we saw need for training, and hire people to help with training.  We have a contractor with 12 instructional videos, and links to that training.  And also a corporate virtual training seminar.  After look at your own training, then have a formal training session with the board.  

John:  If we are really going to be utilize software, shouldn't train too early because I'll forget it when we get the data.  Other thoughts?  If people want to get started, they can do that.

Peter:  We'll send out links on Monday.

John:  Next, interview with one of the law firms that replied.  Thanks to Brittany for working on this.  Doing it in Executive Session.  Ready now to interview one of the respondents.  

Moved to move to executive session:  Peter if you can coordinate with leg affairs and let us know.  

[There's an issue here for me about them not announcing who they are interviewing.  Last time round when they interviewed for a new Executive Director, the ADN challenged them because they didn't announce the finalists. 

3:16 - was disconnected.  

1.  Call to order

2.  Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda  [If 1-3 happened I did not hear it on the line I was on.]

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive 

     

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests 

 [Some members showed concern about:  a) transparency about who they talk to outside of meetings,  b) avoiding being pestered by people who want to lobby them  c) concern about what things they can and can't say  d) want a policy to govern this.]

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.] [Just for the Board, no mention of the public having access to software.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session [follow up post coming on this- why didn't they mention the finalists?  why did they need to go into Executive Session?  

8. Adjournment [They went into ES and didn't mention coming out of ES to do anything else, including adjourn.]

AIFF2020: Awards - Watch The Ceremony

 I don't spend a lot of time on Facebook.  So I only just found out last night that the Anchorage International Film Festival Awards was at noon today.  But you can watch the Awards now.

I'd note that there were so many films - many of them shorts - that it's hard to keep them all straight. And a number of winners are films I just didn't get too.  But the website is still up and you can browse through the titles with one screenshot each and a short description to jar your memory.  The Trailers are also still up.  

Jury Awards - Jurors are selected by the festival to review and choose the best films in the festival.  While trying to pick 'the best' is often fraught with personal biases (what one judge likes or relates to compared to what another likes) and often means great films aren't chosen, they also help film makers get attention of funders and distributors.  

Made in Alaska Short Films

2nd Runner Up  Pebble Redux Yáa at Wooné

Runner Up - Who We are

Winner:  To Keep As One

Made in Alaska Features

Winner:  Classic

Animated Shorts

2nd Runner Up:  Just for the Record

Runner Up:  Diminuendo

Winner:  Gon, the Little Fox

Horror Shorts - Late Night Chills

2nd Runner Up  - Antique

Runner Up - History of Monsters

Winner - The Burden 

Feature  Documentaries

2nd Runner Up  - Everything That Could Have Been/ On Our Own Island

Runner Up - Race To Alaska

Winner - Never Too Late:  The Doc Severinsen Story 

Narrative Short

2nd Runner Up  - Undercut

Runner Up - Masel Tov Cocktail

Winner - Jane 

Short Documentaries

2nd Runner Up  - Let's Go To Antarctica

Runner Up - Sky Aelans

Winner - Reclamation:  Rise at Standing Rock

Narrative Features

2nd Runner Up  - Last Days of Capitalism

Runner Up - The Woman In the Photographs

Winner - Dinner in America

Screenplay Competition

2nd Runner Up -  Bloodletters

Runner Up -Brook Farm

Winner - The Orchestra’

Audience Awards - Film makers often say these the the most important awards.  These are the films the audience enjoyed most.  In a number of cases, I think the audience chose better than the jurors.  

After School Special

2nd Runner Up - Son of Salvation

Runner Up - Fragments

Winner - Where Did She Go?

Made in Alaska

2nd Runner Up -To Keep As One

Runner Up - Pebble Redux

Winner -  Bad River

Made in Alaska Feature

Winner - Classic

Animated Shorts

Narrative Feature - 

2nd Runner Up - Sad Little Fact

Runner Up - Just For The Record

Winner - Grab My Hand:  A letter To My Dad

Documentary Shorts

2nd Runner Up - Sky Aelans

Runner Up-  Keep Saray Home

Winner - Hysterical Girl 

Narrative Shorts

2nd Runner Up - Rebel

Runner Up - Kama’aina (Child of the Land)

Winner - Masel Tov Cocktail

Documentary Feature -

2nd Runner Up -  Never Too Late:  Doc Severinsen Story

Runner Up -Pushout:  The Criminalization of Black Girls in High School

Winner - Race To Alaska

Narrative Feature - 

2nd Runner Up -  Paper Spiders

Runner Up -Foster Boy

Winner - Dinner in America

I'll try to do another post looking at the winners and comparing them to my favorites.  But I would mention a couple of narrative features that got left out that should have been recognized, but this was probably the strongest category and the films recognized were strong.

The Subject 

My Son

My two top picks for the festival - Masel Tov Cocktail and Grab My Hand - both got top honors from the Audience.  Both were 'perfect' films - that is they told their stories using film techniques to make their points beautifully.  Everything worked - the content and the filmmaking.  They wouldn't have the same impact in another medium.  

I'll focus more on them in a follow up post.  

Election Thoughts 2: What Gives the AP (Associated Press) The Right To Call The Election?

 Actually, anyone has the right to call the election at any time.  Whether anyone pays any attention is another matter.  Here, from the India Times, are the details of how the outcome is officially determined. (It's interesting that the first answer to my Google question was the India Times.  Does this have anything to do with a) India being the second most populous country in the world and b) Kamala Harris being the new vice president?):  

"On December 14th, the members of the Electoral College will meet in their respective state capitals to formally vote for the position of president and vice president. On January 6th, 2021, electoral votes will be counted before a joint session of Congress, where the president of the Senate will formally announce the election results."

So, I guess my answer would be that AP can call the election because they have the history and reputation for accuracy and even-handedness that gives them the credibility necessary to be listened to. The AP style manual sets the standard for AP reporters around the world and many other non-AP media use it even if they stray on some points here and there.  

The "ABOUT THE AP' page says:

"The AP's mission is to get it first but first get it right, and to be the first choice for news, by providing the fastest, most accurate reporting from every corner of the globe across all media types and platforms"

I checked the Table of Contents of my 2015 copy to see what they said about calling presidential elections.  Nothing really. 

The index sends us to "election returns" which just gives us technical standards (ie "Use figures with commas eery three digits starting at the right and counting left.")  It also sends you to "vote tabulations" but that too is is just technical standards for what words to use, use numbers for totals, etc.  

I can't find anything on how they call  elections in the Style Manual, but I did google and found this explanation "EXPLAINER: Why AP called the 2020 election for Joe Biden" on AP's website.  It goes into detail how they did it.  

For more about the AP, here's their "Our Story" page.  It covers their 

• Mission,
• History, 
• News Values and Principles, 
• Leadership, 
• Corporate Archives
• Brand

 I'd note that the "Stylebook" (pages 1-296) of the manual is made up of entries in alphabetical order like a dictionary.

I'd also note it says that nothing in the Style Manual may be reproduced without permission.  I've got the picture of the manual and table of contents as part of a news story here.  And a very brief quote.  I'm hoping this isn't in violation of their rules.  

Applying Factfulness To Why People Might Vote For Trump Part I

[I thought I would just take a few of the ideas from Rosling's book and them apply them to Trump supporters to see why he still has so many.  But as I started making the list, I realized that so many of the obstacles to good decisions he mentions are relevant.  And because the book has great end of chapter summaries, it's easy to give an outline (though that leaves out most of the examples that help readers understand the points.)  So I'm adding this note on top to say, this post will outline those key points I wanted and I'll do a follow up post applying them to our current political situation.  As I went through them again, I realized they also illustrate problems among those opposing Trump as well.  And I recommend going to the links - particularly to the fact test and to lgapfinder.]

Factfulness::  Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World - and Why Things Are Better Than You Think  by Hans Rosling, starts out with a self test on facts about how the world is doing, which you can take here.  The first question is:

1. In all low-income countries across the world today, how many girls finish primary

school?

 a.  20%

 b.  40%

 c.  60%

In the book he relates the many different places he's given the test - to college students, business people, bankers, doctors, heads of international organizations, Nobel Prize winners, etc.  All the groups, he tells us, scored worse than chimpanzees.  (Who randomly choosing one of three options would get 33% right.)

The questions all relate to how human beings are doing around the world.  He argues they are doing much better than most people think.  And everyone in the West, he argues, think everything is getting worse, because we have mental models of "US" and "THEM" - US being being relatively rich (mostly) Western societies and THEM being the poor starving masses in the rest of the world who will never, ever be able to catch up to how we live in the West.  

Reality, he argues, is much different.  Rather than US and THEM with a giant unbridgeable gap between the two, he presents us with a different model.  One without a gap.  Instead, he says there is US which he calls (income) Level 4, then Level 3, Level 2, and finally THEM in Level 1.  The gap is filled with five billion people.  Levels 1 and 4 have one billion each.  So, most people are in that gap most people mistakenly see.  In fact, the website he and his co-authors (his son and daughter-in-law) set up to present the data they use to convince people their world views are wrong, is called Gapminder.  (Any one who's ridden a subway in Britain or a relatively recent British colony will hear in their heads the warning "Mind the Gap")  

Here's how he describes the levels:

Level 1 - making $1 a day

Five kids, spend hours/day walking barefoot to get water with the single family bucket.  They gather firewood for cooking, little or no access to medical care, the same porridge for every meal. (1 billion people)

Level 2 - making $4 a day

Buy food you didn't grow, raise chickens, sandals for kids, bike, more buckets, less time getting water, gas for cooking, kids can go to school instead of finding firewood. Electricity, but not reliable. Mattress to sleep on. (3 billion people)

Level 3 - $16 from multiple jobs.  Cold water tap. Stable electricity improves kids' homework.  Buys fridge, motorcycle, can travel to better paying job.  (2 billion people)

Level 4 - >$33 a day

Rich consumer.  >12 years education.  You've been on an airplane on vacation.  Hot and cold indoor water.  Can eat out once a month and buy a car.  (1 billion people)

At the Gapminder website on Dollar Street you can see pictures of families at all four levels (it seems that each column is a level) in different countries.  And, of course, you'll notice that there are people living at all four levels in most countries.  

Most of the book talks about why people are so misinformed about facts about the world and how to counteract them.  We have a number of built in human instincts that might have been useful to human beings tens of thousands of years ago, but today can get us into trouble.  We have to learn to control them.  

The Gap Instinct - The tendency to polarize things, to see an unbridgeable gap between rich and poor, them and us.  Remember to:

• Beware comparisons of averages
• Beware of comparisons of extremes
• The view from up here - Things are distorted (as the view from Level 4)

The Negativity Instinct - tendency to see and report on the bad things that happen, not the good.  Remember:

• Better and bad - things can be getting better and still be bad, it's not either/or
• Good news is not news - doesn't get reported the way bad news does
• Gradual improvement is not news - slowly improving conditions aren't newsworthy
• More news doesn't equal more suffering - often bad news due to better surveillance of suffering, not a worsening.  Our news and social media bring us lots of bad news
• Beware of rosy pasts - The good old days are much better in hindsight than we people lived them

The Straight Line Instinct  - this is seeing a trend and assuming it will always be that way.  Remember to:

• Not assume straight lines - many trends are not straight lines but are curves.  We may be only looking at a short part of the line.  (He talks about various trends, but about population particularly for this one.  He argues that as people improve their wealth and move up to a higher level, they have fewer children and that all the population experts agree that at about 11 billion people the world population will level off.  

The Fear Instinct - Frightening things get our attention.  Our natural fears of violence, captivity, and contamination make us systematically overestimate these risks.  To control the fear instinct, calculate the risks.

• The scary world:  fear v reality - the world seems scarier than it is because it has been filtered by your attention filter or by the media precisely because it is scary
• Risk=danger x exposure - The risk is not related to how scary something is, but by a) how dangerous it is and b) how much you're exposed to it 

The Size Instinct - Lonely numbers seem impressive (large or small).  How to get things into proportion:

• Compare - Single numbers alone are misleading.  Look for comparisons (with past numbers, numbers in other locations, etc.)  
• 80/20 Rule - Generally, a few things account for most of the impact.  Figure out the 20% that's most important
• Divide - Amounts and Rates tell different stories.  Comparing countries, say, the numbers are misleading.  Look for rates per person instead.  

The Generalization Instinct - Categorization is necessary to survive, but categories can be misleading.  We have to avoid generalizing incorrectly.

• Look for differences within groups - find ways to break them down into smaller and smaller categories
• Look for similarities across groups - and ask if your categories are correct
• Look for differences across groups - do not assume what applies to one group applies to another (what applies to Level 4, for example, applies to other Levels)
• Beware of "the majority" - Majority just means more than half, there's another 49%
• Beware of vivid examples - Vivid images are easy to recall, but they may not be representative
• Assume people are not idiots - When things seem strange, be curious and humble and think.  In what way is this a smart solution?

The Destiny Instinct - Many things (such as people, countries, religion, and cultures) appear to be moving in a constant direction because the change is so slow, but slow changes gradually become big ones.  

• Keep track of gradual Improvements - small change every year can become a huge change over decades.
• Update your knowledge - Some knowledge goes out of date quickly.  Technology, countries, societies, cultures, and religions are constantly changing.
• Talk to Grandpa - think about your values are different from those of your grandparents
• Collect examples of cultural change - Challenge the idea that today's culture must also have been yesterday's and will be tomorrow's.

The Single Perspective Instinct - A single perspective can limit your imagination, better to look at problems from many angles to get a more accurate understanding.

• Test your ideas - Have people who disagree with you test your ideas
• Limited expertise - Don't claim expertise beyond your field.  Be humble about what you don't know.
• Hammers and Nails - From the saying: "If you give a young child a hammer, he will think everything needs pounding."  If you get good with a tool don't use it too often.  If you have analyzed a problem in depth, you can end up exaggerating its importance.  No one tool is good for everything.  Be open to ideas from other fields.
• Numbers, but not only numbers -  Love numbers for what they tell you about real lives.
• Beware of simple ideas and simple solutions - History is full of visionaries who used simple utopian visions to justify terrible actions.  Welcome complications.

The Blame Instinct - He told a story in this chapter about a problem with a pharmaceutical company for not looking for solutions to poor people's diseases.  A student of his suggested someone should punch the CEO in the nose.  He replied, I will see him next week, but if I did that would it solve the problem?  He answers to the board.  Should I punch them in the nose too?  They answer to shareholders who want profits.  Should I go after the shareholders?  Retirement funds hold lots of pharmaceutical stocks that help pay pensions for old folks.  When you see your grandfather next week, maybe you should punch him in the nose.  The desire to find a scapegoat is universal, but things are more complicated.  

• Look for causes, not villains - spend your energy on understanding the multiple interacting causes, or system, that created the situation.
• Look for systems, not heroes.  When someone claims to have caused something good, ask whether the outcome might have happened anyway, even if that individual had done nothing.  Give the systems the credit.

The Urgency Instinct - When often rush decisions because of a perceived, but not necessarily true, urgency.  Control this by taking small steps.

• Take a breath - When your urgency instinct is triggered, your other instincts kick in and your analysis shuts down.  Ask for more time and information.  It's rarely now or never and rarely either/or.
• Insist on the data - If something is urgent and important, it should be measured.  Beware of relevant but inaccurate data
• Beware of fortune tellers - Any prediction about the future is uncertain.  Beware of of predictions that fail to acknowledge that.  Ask how often such predictions have been right before.
• Be wary of drastic action - Ask what the side effects will be.  Ask how the idea has been tested.  Step-by-step practical improvements are less dramatic but usually more effective.

I'll put a link to Part II here when it's ready, but I'm guessing that readers can start applying these instincts to both Trump supporters and opponents.  

Thoughts On Pebble Mine After 6 Classes

I've been to six of the planned eight OLÉ classes on Pebble Mine. Here's my sense of this mega project to extract copper, gold, molybdenum, and other metals in a remote area adjacent to the world's largest salmon fishery.


1.  Obsession:   Anyone who wants to undertake a project of this scope in the United States has to be an obsessive gambler. The amount of time and effort it takes to get all the permits, to get to the site, to put in infrastructure, to put in all the safety procedures, to woo the local communities, and to so raw mining and then to clean up everything is enormous.   I suspect that for some people this is a challenge, like climbing the peaks of the world's highest mountains.  I imagine for all who undertake such projects, the promise of great riches is a key factor.  And apparently, getting a project along a certain part of the way, means the project can then be sold to someone else.  And I'm not exactly sure who's money is at risk and what sort of tax benefits some may get out of losses in a project like this.
For example here are some of the Pebble Mine presentation slides that show a sense of the enormous scope of the project without getting into minutiae:

They have to process such enormous amounts of ore because the amount of valuable minerals is a tiny fraction.

This is just the site for the current 20 year planned mine.  There's a much richer ore deposit to the east of this, but it's buried under bedrock and harder to get at.  No one seems to believe that this project is going to end after 20 years.  That's just the point where they will begin this process over again to then go after the rest of the ore.

2. Complexity.  There is no one person who has the knowledge and experience to be able to assimilate all the data in order to make a yes or no decision on a project like this.  There's way too much technical data from too many different areas.  We've been told about tests of chemical reactions, groundwater studies, surface water studies, acidity, toxicity, bulk tailings and pyritic tailings,  porphyry intrusions, how copper affects salmon's ability to smell, the many federal and state regulations, and  growing demand for copper in green economy,

Here's an overview of the Baseline Study - an attempt to document the existing conditions.  Who is really going to read 30,000 pages?

3.  Many Decisions.   There isn't just one decision.  There are many permits and approvals to get - some of which can stop the project.

On the left are the US Army Corps of Engineers authorities.  On the right are other federal laws. (clicking on any of the images will enlarge and focus them)

And there are approvals and permits needed from Alaska.

And here are all the groups involved in the Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact.

Although we got charts showing the decision making process, no one ever said who exactly makes the final decision.  Is it just one person?  Or several people?  We still have two more sessions so I can ask next week.  (I'll miss the last session, unfortunately.)

4. Risk.   In fact, this is NOT a technical decision. Ultimately it's a decision about risk.  How much risk is there and is that risk worth the possible consequences?  It's about the level of comfort with risk the decision maker has.  There isn't just one risk, but many.  At the extreme is the potentially catastrophic consequence of destroying the salmon in Bristol Bay.  McNeil River bears are also nearby.  Then there are the possibilities of lesser impacts on the salmon and other parts of the environment around the mine site.  On the other side are the benefits, which the Pebble folks identified as employment for local people and the importance of copper in the new green environment.  And, of course, the hundreds of millions of potential profit.

Here are some slides from the presentation of Bristol Bay Native Corporation which opposes the mine:

And this slide from the Pebble Mine folks:

5.  Ultimately It's A Values Based Decision.  Aside from the decision maker(s) comfort with and exposure to risk in this situation, this all boils down to two opposing world views:

1. The United States is based on individual freedom and capitalism which allow, even encourage, individuals and corporations to go out and exploit the world's God given natural resources to become rich and make the general economy better
2. Human beings are part of nature, not APART from nature.  Humans have been exploiting the planet and now it has reached the point that human caused climate change will make life and survival for humans and most other species of life much harder.

6.  The Decision.   The decision on Pebble will probably be determined not so much by all the technical details that are being presented, but by where on the spectrum between World Views #1 and #2  the decision maker(s) sit.


7.  Money.  As I review all this, I realize that one important aspect* of the Pebble Mine project has not been discussed in the class - how the project is being financed.  I made the assumption in #1 above that this was a gamble.  But bits of conversation after class with presenters makes me question that.  At one point I made a comment about Northern Dynasty (the company that has been at the lead in this project) and someone said, they won't be the ones who actually carry all this out.  They will be sold out.  So I have questions about how a deal like this is put together.    Who actually has money at risk?  Who is investing in this?  What are their motives?  How much of the expenses of doing all the preparation costs are only paper losses?

These all boil down to who is actually risking how much money and what do they stand to gain?  To what extent do tax payers end up underwriting this because of tax deductions for business expenses or tax offsets for losses?

*Of course there are other important aspects that haven't been discussed that I haven't yet thought of, I'm sure.

To Impeach Now Or Not - Stepping Back To Understand The Debate A Little Differently

I've written on the topic before, but this time I want to consider the motivation of people (Democrats) who differ because some want to start impeachment right now and others say that its futile if the Senate votes it down.  I'm just thinking out loud here.  So bear with me as I wander into a little philosophy.

Philosophers talk about deontology and utilitarianism.  From Gabriela Guzman:

Deontological ethics is an ethics system that judges whether an action is right or wrong based on a moral code. Consequences of those actions are not taken into consideration. This ethics system is intended to be precise and by the book. Doing the right thing means to follow proper rules of behavior and, by doing so, promoting fairness and equality. . . (emphasis added)

In the other hand, utilitarian ethics state that a course of action should be taken by considering the most positive outcome. This ethics system is more accurate when it comes to addressing complicated situations, which solutions are not as trivial.

[This is a very brief pair of definitions.  For more nuance, check out the link above, or find other sites that discuss it.]

 Roughly, using this way of seeing the debate, one could argue that those calling for impeachment now - because they see the president as having committed high crimes, misdemeanors, and treason - is the right thing to do.  It doesn't matter whether the Senate votes for impeachment.  Doing the right thing is what is important.  The law/constitution was broken, so action must be taken.  At the extreme case would be the swimming referee in Anchorage who disqualified a female swimmer because the rules required the butt cheeks to be covered.

And those calling for a careful calculation of how this is going to play out in the Senate before impeaching, could be seen as utilitarians.  What's the point, they'd say, of the House voting to impeach, if the Senate does[n't] vote to convict?

But, of course, life doesn't settle into neatly articulated categories.  One could argue that demanding impeachment hearings start now, is the best strategy  to get rid of the president - either via impeachment of the 2020 election. Impeachment hearings give the House the power to investigate the president's actions, to get documents, tapes, and to compel witnesses to testify.  That process itself, they would argue, could lead to revelations that would swing enough Republican Senators to obtain a successful conviction in the Senate.  And, even if that doesn't happen, it could reveal enough to help Democrats take the presidency in 2020.  Which would put those folks into the utilitarian camp.

Rep. Pelosi, who clearly represents the chief utilitarian in the original scenario, would argue that getting rid of Trump and restoring the US to a nation of law, is the ultimate goal.  If we go the impeachment route, we need to win, not make a show of ideologically pure failure.

As I think about this, I'd say Rep. Pelosi fits fairly neatly into the utilitarian box.  But I suspect the impeach now faction is made up of folks who are clearly deontologists and also utilitarians, who see impeaching now as the path to the best overall outcome.  And some may feel that impeaching now is both the right thing to do and the most likely path to accomplish their goals.

These splits among people who ostensibly hold the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) is not uncommon.  Humans probably line up somewhere on a continuum from Deontology to Utilitarianism.  Those on the ends of the scales aren't likely to budge.

About Pulling Out Of Syria

[I'm thinking out loud here, trying to bring disparate thoughts together.  Bear with me.]

It's not at all clear to me the costs and benefits of the US having troops in Syria.  I think finding ways to pull out of places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and ending support of the Saudi war in Yemen are important goals.

Ro Khanna, a Democratic member of congress from California, in this Washington Post piece,  supports President Trump's instinct to pull out of Syria, though he argues we need to do it in a way better coordinated with our allies, and in a way that uses leverage over Turkey's Erdogan that keeps him from massacring Kurds in the area.

He also mentions,

"We have spent more money in Afghanistan than we did in the Marshall Plan and continue to spend more than $40 billion each year."

The Marshall Plan helped Western Europe rebuild after the destruction of WW II.  It help lift their economy so Western Europe could help us defend against the Soviet Union as the Cold War ramped up and so they could buy American products, which helped repay what we spent.

Imagine $40 billion a year.  What could the US have spent that money on?  Helping with education and economic development in Central America so that the people there could make a living and build safe lives, so they wouldn't feel the need to flee over the US border.

Think of the US veterans who wouldn't be suffering from PTSD and other serious ailments, not to mention missing body parts.  War is only good for people who make money selling guns, planes, tanks, technology, and all the support items needed for soldiers to live and fight and die.

Think about all the fossil fuel that would not have been used. And how global warming would have been a little bit slower.   The Union of Concerned Scientists write:

"The U.S. military is the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world. Every year, our armed forces consume more than 100 million barrels of oil to power ships, vehicles, aircraft, and ground operations—enough for over 4 million trips around the Earth, assuming 25 mpg."

According to Wired, $40 billion a year is only 2/3 of what's needed to rebuild our infrastructure.

" $1 trillion sounds great, but it ain't enough, not if the country wants to keeping fixing roads ten years down the line. According a US Department of Transportation report, just maintaining current highways and bridges through 2030 will cost a cool $65.3 billion—per year. That’s being conservative."

You get the point.  If the Soviet Union, which borders Afghanistan could take control, how can the US do it from half-way around the world away?

Unfortunately, few people, and I know this includes many members of congress, don't have a comprehensive understanding of the factors involved in wars like the ones we're involved in.  We originally went to Afghanistan to punish those who killed 2,955 people on 9/11, 2605 of whom were American citizens.

Brown University's Cost of War study offers this summary of what we've unleashed* in return:

SUMMARY

• Over 480,000 have died due to direct war violence, and several times as many indirectly

• Over 244,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting

• 21 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons

• The US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $5.9 trillion dollars

• The US government is conducting counterterror activities in 76 countries

• The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad

READ ALL FINDINGS

*I say 'unleashed' because the US forces didn't kill all these civilians, but the wars we've engaged in have.

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader.  Getting actual figures of the number of people his regime killed - civilians and and conscripted soldiers - is not easy.  As I look, numbers range in the hundreds of thousands - at least 300,000 and probably significantly more than that.  Some sources:

• State Department Summary
• The Scotsman
• Wikipedia

Surely, there are people alive who wouldn't be if we hadn't invaded Iraq.  But there are also people who are dead, who wouldn't be if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

I'd note this Brookings Institute (a liberal leaning think tank) prediction from 2002 about the costs of getting into a war with Iraq which I found while getting data for this post:

An invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein would likely cost the United States about $50 billion, though it could plausibly range from $25 billion to $75 billion or so, with likely annual U.S. costs of maintaining order in Iraq ranging from $5 billion to $20 billion for a number of years thereafter. The latter costs of winning the peace, and associated wear and tear on American military personnel, may actually turn out to be a greater concern than the one-time cost of winning the war.

If only it had been so 'cheap.'

My point is, again, that the number of people who actually have looked closely at all the costs and benefits - economic, human, political, opportunity costs - is relatively few.  I'm not in that group.

It's clear to me though, that the money spent "fighting terrorism" could have been better spent creating opportunities for human beings - education, health care, economic development.  These kinds of initiatives would have created positive changes in people's lives and put the United States and the world in a much better place than it is now.

It's time people went back and read some of the old stories we were supposed to learn simple truths from.  For instance the story of B'rer Rabbit and the Tar Baby might be an apt story for the United States' war on terrorism.





I'd note that many such old stories are seen today as sexist or racist.  I suspected people hadfound reason to question the Uncle Remus stories.  So  I checked and they have.  But it's hard not to be racist if you grow up in the United States even today.  Joel Chandler Harris was born just before the Civil War in the South, so surely he had lots of racist tendencies.  But all that considering, it seems he was pretty progressive for his times, and the Uncle Remus stories seem to be a tribute to an old black slave Harris looked up to.  See this Pittsburgh Gazette article on Harris' life.

In The Unbelievably Racist World of Classic Children's Lit,   Malcolm Jones writes:

"The case of Joel Chandler Harris is particularly relevant in this regard. A lifelong southerner and an Atlanta newspaper editor (and incidentally a friend of Twain’s), Harris was probably as enlightened as a white person could be in his time and place. If you read his Uncle Remus stories, you’ll see that to Harris, Uncle Remus was a hero. He’s certainly the smartest and kindest person, black or white, in the narrative that frames the folk tales collected by the author from former slaves.
More important, had Harris not collected those folktales, we almost surely would have missed much of a vast trove of oral storytelling (“our most precious piece of stolen goods,” Twain called them—so that’s what we were getting away with!), because before Harris, no one else had the sense to realize how wonderful those stories were, much less that they should be recorded for posterity. Whatever sins he may have been guilty of, Harris knew at least that much. James Weldon Johnson called the 185 stories published by Harris 'the greatest body of folklore America has produced.'”  

He's not as kind to Disney's Song of the South, from which this clip was taken.

None of this changes my belief that the sooner we get Trump out of the presidency the better for the world and the United States.  And the Republicans who have had control of both houses of Congress since Trump became president, share the blame, because they haven't done their job as a check on the criminal* who is in the White House.

*I think that anyone who looks at the Trump organization and Trump objectively has to acknowledge that he has abused our laws repeatedly.