Christie's Great Performance

I missed the news yesterday so I knew nothing about the emails from Chris Christie's deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly.  They indicate that the traffic study that jammed the nation's busiest bridge for a week and clogged the streets of Fort Lee, New Jersey was not the reason of the jam.

Instead it was done intentionally to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee who did not endorse Republican Chris Christie for governor.

I didn't know any of that when I got up this morning and my mom had on Chris Christie's news conference on CNN.

I haven't watched Christie closely.  I live in Alaska.  New Jersey's far away.  But my superficial knowledge was that he was the sensible Republican among those being mentioned as potential presidential candidates.  He worked with President Obama and praised his hurricane Sandy response just before the 2012 election causing other Republicans explode.  He seems to be able to work with Democrats and won reelection as governor by a wide margin in a Democratic state.  He was, I understood, the most likely Republican to be able to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016, but the question was whether he could survive the Republican primaries.

So that was the background I watched the news conference with.

I was impressed.  He sounded sincere.  He didn't seem to be using any notes.  He said the right things about his responsibility - he didn't know anything until yesterday, but he's the governor so he's responsible - and he'd fired the Kelly as soon as he learned about the incriminating emails.

He went on and on - almost two hours.  It was riveting television.  He was good.  He's obviously both intelligent and experienced.  In response to a question about why he didn't ask Kelly about what actually happened before firing her, he said he fired her for lying to him, not for what she did.  Since there were state and federal investigations already announced, if he questioned her it actually might be seen as inappropriate.  He mentioned his own experience as a prosecutor.

He expressed his sadness and disappointment with a close associate he trusted who lied to him.  

But we saw the Wolf of Wall Street the other night. Leonardo DiCaprio as Wall Street huckster Jordan Belfort makes me pause in my judgement.   Belfort could sell anyone anything.  There's a scene that everyone should see.  Belfort is starting his own brokerage firm and he's teaching his crew how to make cold calls to sell penny stocks - ones where the broker gets 50% commission - that are worth basically nothing.  He's got a client on the speaker phone and smoothly tells him the thickest lies about about the potential of the stock, while his body language to his employees tells the story about reeling in the fish and then screwing him.

Everyone should see this scene and have it implanted in their brain so that it rises to one's consciousness every time a car salesman, a cable tv or phone salesman or a stockbroker opens his mouth.  People should see DiCaprio thrusting his pelvis for his salesmen while he so sincerely assures the client that nothing could go wrong. 

I walked out of the three hour movie telling my wife that as skeptical as I already am, this movie makes it hard to trust any one.

And so that's what I brought to this news conference with Christie.  Christie's performance was perfect.  But I also wondered if he were thrusting his pelvis in his head.  There are so many questions.


Was Kelly the culprit or the scapegoat? 

How could he have a staff person he worked closely with for so many years who would lie to him like this?

How did he misjudge who she was so enormously?

Why would they jam up the 'busiest bridge in the world?' to punish a political opponent who, according to Christie, wasn't even on his radar?   This reeks of the kind of dirty tricks that, while both parties commit them, have become more associated with Republicans since Watergate and then the rise of Karl Rove.  

Politics attracts people who need or want power, power over others.  People who need power, I suspect, feel some inferiority, some lack, that this power will help them overcome, that will show others that they are somebody.  And such people seem particularly vulnerable to using their power inappropriately.  This was truly a petty act of retribution.  Petty only in the sense of inappropriately demonstrating one's ability to take revenge for some assumed slight.  But the impact on people was hardly petty.  I saw petty people like this with giant chips on their shoulders in 2011 when I blogged the state legislature in Juneau. 

Was this even a plot by the more conservative wing of the party to derail Christie's presidential campaign?  Or less likely, but plausible, a Clinton plot?

The biggest question outstanding seems to be whether Christie's performance today was genuine or whether he actually knew about this.  If he knew, and today's news conference was just a giant lie, I don't see how he can recover as a presidential candidate.  I don't see how he could stay in office in New Jersey for four more years.

If follow up investigations support his claims of innocence, I'd say today's performance shows him as a very competent leader.  People will still attack him for letting Kelly into his inner circle.  But lots of people have secrets that they hide from those around them and other politicians have had close aides resign because of scandals.

I would note that CNN had a feeding frenzy over this story, repeating parts of the news conference over and over again.  


[UPDATE 9pm - whatever the outcome, this political cartoon by Bill Bramhall of the NY Daily News is priceless:

click image to go to the source:  Bill Bramhall/NY Daily News

Meanwhile, in Pakistan . . .

If you listened to the foreign policy debate of the Republican candidates, you might want to read something with real meat.  The source article is by, according to the blurb in the Asian Times, Indian career diplomat Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar whose assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

The heart of the matter is that the Pakistani citadel has pulled back the bridges leading to it from across the surrounding crocodile-infested moat. This hunkering down is going to be Obama's key problem. Pakistan is boycotting the Bonn Conference II on December 2. This hunkering down should worry the US more than any Pakistani military response to the NATO strike.

The US would know from the Iranian experience that it has no answer for the sort of strategic defiance that an unfriendly nation resolute in its will to resist can put up against an 'enemy' it genuinely considers 'satanic'.

The Pakistani military leadership is traditionally cautious and it is not going to give a military response to the US's provocation. (Indeed, the Taliban are always there to keep bleeding the US and NATO troops.)

This is an Indian talking about US-Pakistani relations. Someone in a position to know a lot more about this sort of thing than most Americans, including most members of Congress and presidential candidates. He's also someone with skin in the game.  It does provide a lot of information to use to help assess other information (or lack of information) you read on this topic.  In discussing the Pakistani response to the NATO air raid which killed 28 Pakistani forces, Bhadrakumar writes:

Exactly what happened in the fateful night of Friday - whether the NATO blundered into a mindless retaliatory (or pre-emptive) act or ventured into a calculated act of high provocation - will remain a mystery. Maybe it is no more important to know, since blood has been drawn and innocence lost, which now becomes the central point.

At any rate, the DDC [Pakistan's Defence Committee of the Cabinet] simply proceeded on the basis that this was a calculated air strike - and by no means an accidental occurrence. Again, the DDC statement implies that in the Pakistan military's estimation, the NATO attack emanated from a US decision. Pakistan lodged a strong protest at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels but that was more for purpose of 'record', while the "operative" part is directed at Washington.

The GHQ in Rawalpindi would have made the assessment within hours of the Salala incident that the US is directly culpable. The GHQ obviously advised the DDC accordingly and recommended the range of measures Pakistan should take by way of what Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani publicly called an "effective response."

The DDC took the following decisions: a) to close NATO's transit routes through Pakistani territory with immediate effect; b) to ask the US to vacate Shamsi airbase within 15 days; c) to "revisit and undertake a complete review" of all "programs, activities and cooperative arrangements" with US, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), including in "diplomatic, political and intelligence" areas; d) to announce shortly a whole range of further measures apropos Pakistan's future cooperation with US, NATO and ISAF.  [Read it all in the Asian Times.]

It makes me think of the advice Vaclav Havel gives in Power of the Powerless. I wrote about it earlier in the context of TSA.  Here it fits in the relation of one nation to another.  Of course, it's a form of civil disobedience as well.  Just say no.   Those who have power say everyone should fight like they do.  That's because they have all the weapons in that sort of battle.  But disobedience is the main  tool of those without power.  There is immense power in simply refusing to cooperate.  Ask the Occupiers.  Ask the Republicans in Congress. 

Thanks to my friend who alerted me to this article.

Principles And Verification Tasks For Journalists And Their Readers

I've mentioned I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills for Engaged Citizens from the University of Melbourne.  Last week I got one of the optional books they recommend - Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel's The Elements of Journalism.  The copy I got from the library is a 2007 edition and given the changes in electronic journalism since then, I'm sure the newer version has been updated quite a bit.  Nevertheless the chapter on verification is still worth thinking about - both for journalists AND for readers (listeners, viewers, etc.)

Much of this stems from, according to the authors, a 1997 meeting of journalists concerned about the future of journalism in the age of digital and commodified journalism.  The meeting led to a group called the Committee of Concerned Journalists.  (I chose this link because it lists their principles of good journalism.)

In Chapter 4, they talk about verification being central in defining good journalism.  I'm going to offer several of the guidelines for journalists including techniques for verification.

Note:  I've done some editing because the authors have written quite a bit about each point and the one and two word titles don't necessarily capture the gist.  I've tried to give a slight bit more to aim the reader in the right direction.  I've added some links at the bottom* for a little more depth.

Let's start with "Intellectual principles of a science of reporting"

1. Do Not Add.  Never add anything that wasn’t there (don't make anything up)
2. Do Not Deceive.  Never deceive your audience
3. Transparency.  Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives (more on transparency below.)
4. Originality.  Rely on your own original reporting (get the facts yourself, don't just rely on others, a particular issue in the age of 24/7 news and online rumors)
5. Humility.  Exercise humility 

 Transparency Questions

1. What does my audience need to know to evaluate this information for itself?
2. Is there anything in our treatment of this that requires explanation, including any controversial decisions made about leaving something in or taking something out?
3. Journalists should acknowledge the questions their stories are not answering. a. Misleading sources: Corollary to transparency. Truth goes both ways. Sources need to be truthful. Some say a misleading source should be revealed. Part of the bargain for anonymity is truthfulness.
4. Masquerading (getting stories with deception) - ok if you follow principles: Three Step Test:
1. Information must be sufficiently vital to public to justify deception
2. There is no other way to get the story
3. Journalist should reveal to audience whenever they mislead sources to get info, and should explain reasons, including 1. why the story justifies deception and 2. why there was no other way to get story.

I'd like to think that I've incorporated most of this in my blogging.  Some comes from having to verify in academic writing, some comes from my personal values of keeping the public interest in mind.  I know that I have often, for example, spoken to readers directly about how I've gotten a story, why I'm writing it a certain way, what cautions they should take interpreting what I've written.  The most typical warning I'd guess, has been reporting meetings when my fingers couldn't keep up with what was being said.  For example, from a redistricting board meeting:

"Below are my very rough notes.  Use with caution, until the official transcripts are available."

And finally I get to the list specifically addressing Verification.   There's a fair bit of discussion on the definition of 'objectivity' and whether a journalist can achieve it.  The authors say that the original use of 'objectivity' coming from Walter Lippmann and others, acknowledged bias in the writer, and offered 'objectivity' as a method that focused on techniques of verification that would unite journalists regardless of their bias.  (I would argue that even those techniques have their built in biases to be aware of, but that's for a different day and post.)


Techniques of Verification

1. Edit with skepticism - check line by line - how do I know this? Why should a reader believe it? what is the assumption behind this sentence? If the story says events may raise questions, who suggested that? Reporter? Source? Citizen?
2. Keep an accuracy checklist (See below - this is particularly useful for readers as well as journalists.)
3. Assume nothing.  (See Protess Method below)
4. Tom French’s red pencil - he made a check after each sentence if he’d double checked it.
5. Be careful of your sources  

Accuracy Checklist (useful for readers to think about when reading/hearing news stories)

• Is the lead of the story sufficiently supported?
• Is the background material, required to understand the story, complete?
• Are all the stakeholders in the story identified and have representatives from that side been contacted and given a chance to talk?
• Does the story pixies [pick sides] or make subtle value judgments?  Will some people like this story more than they should?
• Have you attributed and/or documented all the information in your story to make sure it is correct?
• Do those facts back up the premise of your story?  Do you have multiple sources for controversial facts?
• Did you double-check the quotes make sure they are accurate and in context?  

This is all good stuff for me (and other bloggers) to be thinking about.  I even put a note about originality in a story I posted recently about a Superior Court decision.  I was quoting the Alaska Dispatch's report, but couldn't figure out how to get the decision online.  I noted the journalist's need for originality and my attempt to get the judge's decision in my post.  Yesterday an attorney told me you can't get them online, you have to go to the courthouse and buy it.  I called the court just now trying to see if there was a way, but they haven't been able to point out a link to get the decision.  They connected me to the judge's assistant and I've left a voice mail message.


*Short of getting the book itself, ideally the most recent edition, there are websites you can check on to get a little more depth on each of these points than I'm giving.

On Verification - Transparency, Humility, Originality

Informing the News - an essay based on a book by that title also stems from the Committee of Concerned Journalists' work that overlaps a bit with the lists here.

Protess Method of Verification - a way of thinking about verification by the head of the Chicago Innocence Project.  It's the method he uses with students to determine which prisoners to work with on their appeals.

[I've made some typo corrections, some of which look like auto correct errors.  Others are mine.]

Once Upon A Time I Thought I Might Catch Up. Fat Chance.

As I wrote the title, I realized we never can catch up in life, but I was referring to little things like writing blog posts and paying the bills.  Today was my wife's birthday.  We went for a movie and dinner.   It seemed like a good day to spend the early afternoon in a movie, but the rain had stopped and there were even breaks in the clouds when we got there.

 And the snow was mostly gone from the Chugach.


I've already  written about my mixed feelings about going to see Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.   Now that I've seen it, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have missed anything important.

Even though I've eaten at Musso & Franks, went to movies at the Bruin theater when I was a student at UCLA, and even interviewed George Putnam (there was an ad for his newscast on a bus stop) for my junior high school newspaper.  Putnam arrived in a gold limo - a Rolls, I think - and he smoked through the interview even though his bio said he didn't smoke. (At least that's what my memory tells me.)

The movie began in a Pan Am 747, which set alarms off right way, since the date posted was 1969.  I'd read that the period details had been carefully done.  And yes, I know some odd details.  In this case because I first flew on one of the early Pan Am 747 flights - from Honolulu to Tokyo - in March 1970. (I was flying from a Peace Corps training program I worked at in Hilo to the second part of the training in Thailand.)  Pan Am 1 and 2 had just started flying. I think it was Pan Am 1 that flew around the world toward the west and Pan Am2 to the east.  Did it start earlier in 1969?  I've now had time to look it up and the first commercial flight was in January 1970.

It wasn't a bad movie - though I generally skip movies with lots of violence - but it felt artificial throughout.  Cardboard.  I assume that was intentional since it was about Hollywood and all the phoniness of that life, but as the birthday girl said over dinner at the Thai Kitchen, with all the really good stuff we're seeing on Netflix, it just didn't cut it.

So I'm reduced to writing filler pieces like this because I just haven't had time to finish my thoughts on the Joseph Maguire hearings and several other drafts that probably will never get beyond that stage.  

And tomorrow I start a slew of OLÉ classes.  (Continuing ed classes aimed at retired folks at UAA.  I think they pay for themselves so maybe they won't disappear next year.)   I have an actual project in one that I need to spend extra time on and I haven't figured out what I'm going to do.  It's a Pecha-Kucha class - you present 20 pictures in seven minutes with narration of the story they tell. Well, I've got plenty of pictures, but organizing a compelling story is the challenge.  As I see it now, though I'll probably discover that was the easy part once I get the story figured out.

Other classes I enrolled in include:

• An Overview of the Pebble Copper-Molybdenum-Gold Prospect 
• The Innocence Project
• State and Federal Courts and Current Legal Issues
• Homeless, Homelessness and Finding "Home"

And a one time short class that's a trip to an Escape Room.

I'm hoping the classes will provide plenty of fodder for the blog.

Is A Hate Crime Terrorism?

There's a new Hate Crimes Act in Congress.  From the LA Times yesterday:

Less than a week before eight people — including six Asian women — were killed in the Atlanta-area shootings congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would bolster the Department of Justice’s ability to address COVID-19 hate crimes.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), has been co-sponsored by more than 60 lawmakers and on Friday was endorsed by President Biden, who condemned the “ongoing crisis of gender-based and anti-Asian violence” and urged Congress to “swiftly pass the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.”

So it seems appropriate to repost something I wrote in September 2012.  Back then I titled the post Is Terrorism A Hate Crime?  This time I've reversed the key nouns in the title. Basically, Republicans love Anti-Terror laws but not Hate Crime laws.  They argue that hate crime laws are "thought control" because you have to no the person's intent.  They ignore that intent is what makes an ordinary crime into a terrorist act.  Or that differentiates first degree murder from second and third degree murder.  

So here's the original post:

People get upset over anti-American attacks, like the consulate attack and deaths in Libya.  There's something about terrorist attacks against Americans that adds, literally, insult to injury for most Americans.  Terrorist attacks take, collectively, a minor toll on American lives compared to many other causes of death we pay little attention to.  But they get media attention far out of proportion to their actual impact.  From the Cato Institute, for example:

Any violent crime is terrible, but terrorism is extremely rare in the United States. The risk that any given American will be killed by a terrorist is about the same as the chance that a randomly selected high school football player will one day be a starting quarterback in the Super Bowl. One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder. We would not adopt the "if it saves one life'' theory to justify a ban on bathtubs, even though hundreds of lives would be saved each year. Accordingly, America should reject terrorism legislation that will probably not save any lives and that demands that Americans give up things far more important than bathtubs. 

But emotionally, we are far more affected by terrorism than other causes of death.  We've been willing to compromise basic freedoms to prevent terrorism and punish terrorists  (ie, assassinations, habeas corpus violations, 'extraordinary rendition').   We've been intimidated by terrorists (or manipulated by politicians using terrorist attacks as an excuse) to spend huge amounts to invade the privacy of every airline passenger.  We've committed violence to our justice system to punish those we call terrorists.  The Obama administration's attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York federal court instead of a military court, for example, caused sharp protests.  From the Carnegie Council:

The response of prominent members of the Bush administration and other leading Republicans to the announcement was swift, as they accused the Obama administration of failing to understand the danger of trying a terrorist on US soil. A secondary concern, expressed at Attorney General Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, was that the trial would give the accused the chance to avoid conviction. The protections of a legal team and the vagaries of juries, it was argued, could result in a suspected terrorist escaping justice.  

There is no presumed innocence until proven guilty for terrorists here.  Somehow these crimes are different, are more heinous, are less deserving of the American justice system. 
  
The Patriot Act was passed, in part to increase the penalties for terrorists.
From the Department of Justice website:

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act: 

• Prohibits the harboring of terrorists. The Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as: destruction of aircraft; use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; use of weapons of mass destruction; bombing of government property; sabotage of nuclear facilities; and aircraft piracy. 
• Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists: including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and destruction of national-defense materials. 
• Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killings in federal facilities, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crew members. Under previous law, many terrorism statutes did not specifically prohibit engaging in conspiracies to commit the underlying offenses. In such cases, the government could only bring prosecutions under the general federal conspiracy provision, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years in prison.
• Punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems. 
• Punishes bioterrorists.
• Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

There is something different about a lone angry man shooting up a theater and a terrorist who does the same thing.  The latter apparently commits a crime that is even worse than the former.  It's murder plus. One difference seems to be intent.

Here's how the US Congress has defined terrorism 18 USC §2331 from Cornell Law:

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— 

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended— 

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

These are acts as 1(A) tells us, that are already illegal and now are getting the extra label of terrorism added to them.   

The Justice Department defines Hate Crimes on its website : 

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations. 

What the two acts - hate crimes and terrorism - seem to have in common are:

• Violence
• Intent to intimidate (and I think coerce plays a role in hate crimes too, though the word isn't used in the definition above.) 

If you read white supremacist or white nationalist websites, there is also a clear  goal to change government policies related to race (usually separate the races to save whiteness)  and there is talk of inevitable civil war in the US.  I won't link to those sites, you'll have to find them on your own.

Given the similarity between terrorism and hate crimes, why is there opposition to hate crimes laws by people who support anti-terrorism laws?   

For instance a statement by House Majority leader Boehner (from CBS News):

All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance." 

To be fair to Boehner, CBS contacted his office to see if he objected to all hate crime legislation or just adding gender and sexual orientation:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics." 

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislationwould cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

Of course, religion is NOT an immutable  characteristic.  People choose to change religions all the time and while individual sexual acts may be choices, sexual orientation surely isn't.  But that's besides the point here.

Another legislator also saw the idea of hate crimes as creating "thought" crimes: 

Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to "thought crimes," and he labeled the bill's passage – tied to a defense bill – an "absolute disgrace." 

But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones. 

"We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others," said Buck.

Intent, of course, is the basis for finding someone guilty of murder.  No one cries "thought police" there.  And despite the law, despite Boehner's assertion that "all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance,"  the ACLU points out that some murder victims get less vigorous legal attention than others. 

While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims. 

The emotional attachment of the public and of officials affects how they react to events.

The hatred of a specific group of people makes a normal crime into a hate crime.  It's not  just about the criminal and victim, but about all people who share the targeted characteristic of the victim, whether it's race or religion or gender.

In terrorism, we have the same reaction - it isn't about what the victim did, but who the victim was - an American.  I'm an American, so I too could be randomly victimized if I'm traveling abroad.    The impact is wider and stronger because of the intent of the terrorist to use violence to intimidate anyone who is a member of the group American, just as in hate crimes.

Where's this all going?

I would hope that at least some of the readers can see where this is leading.  For some people - especially those who live in a society in which they are among the dominant population (ie a white male Christian in the US) and are never victimized because of their personal characteristics - it is hard to understand the effect of hate crimes on individuals within that group and on the group collectively.  (Though some people who call themselves Christians claim they are discriminated against.)

It seems to me that when the idea of America is attacked - as when the world trade center was destroyed - Americans react the same as members of traditionally victimized groups (racial and religious minorities, women, gays, etc.).

Even if they can't feel  what an African-American feels when seeing a Confederate flag, perhaps they can understand it's the same way they feel when they see video of planes crashing into the World Trade Center.  It doesn't diminish their feelings to know that the Confederate flag can cause the same feeling to many African-Americans.  It's like translating an emotional context from one culture to another.  

That, of course, assumes logic and consistency, and a real desire for the ideals of democracy and freedom.  There are many who are too fearful to be concerned about anyone else.  There are many whose goals are simply personal benefit and for whom American ideals are merely tools to use to get their own way. (Using American slogans to convince people to vote for them.)

And, there are some who, while emotionally impacted by crimes against the US, would advocate that terrorists deserve no more and no less punishment than those who commit similar crimes without an ideological or political motive.

But deep down, we're all humans who should be able to understand all this.   Even Clarence Thomas spoke up when the Supreme Court considered a cross-burning case and convinced his black robed colleagues that cross burnings were more than free speech, they were acts of intimidation.

Symbolic acts can intimidate and cause other real harm, beyond any direct physical harm to the victim.  

 

Just Let The Kids Do Their Thing, And We'll Be Fine

Every year the Museum hosts an art exhibit from the Anchorage School District.  I managed to get there on the last day.  When you look at the work these kids do, you know that we're in good hands in the future.  There were so many worthy works. Here are just a few.

I'm not sure what Heaven was thinking here, but this definitely says she's feeling and thinking about big issues. 






[Click on any image to enlarge it.]

The piece in the exhibit is just the right face of this box, but I knew that the detail wouldn't show up so I added some close-ups of the details. It is really quite amazing.

Here I've meshed three together - Ellie's frog (close-up, not the whole thing), Kynsey's octopus, and Cache's wolf and caribou.

Here's another one where I'd love to talk to the artist and ask how this portrait was conceived and what it all means.  It took me a bit before I saw the musical notes.  A really interesting piece.

Tristan Burgess Grade 10 - Zebra

A beautifully executed and interesting work.  Who are these men?  How did the artist come up with this?

I'm afraid I didn't do Katie's piece justice here.  The whole picture is in the lower right, then I've zoomed in on reflections in what we guessed were drops of water on the table.  Interesting piece.

 

There was just something about this large poster that spoke to me.

Hazel Marucut Grade 10 - Sirens of the Deep

I don't know why.  I guess it's the complicated simplicity of this piece and the slightly racy innocence. 

I know why I liked this one - I used to make similar doodles in class when I was bored.

They weren't quite together like this in the exhibit, but it seemed the right thing to do.  The tiger fish is by Brey Anna.  The rest you can see if you enlarge it.

Sarah Birdsall Grade 11 - Textured Hand

 And this one speaks for itself. 


My 14 year old companion at the exhibit saw one picture by a classmate.  We both agreed that in most cases, it was pretty easy to tell which ones were done by boys and which by girls.  But not all. 

Internet Imperative and Media Disintegration

My son sent me a couple of links worth checking. I'm sure a variation of this scenario from XKCD has happened in many households of my blogger compatriots.

And J1 also sent me to Roger Ebert's blog. Here he is conveying pretty much my own concerns about bully radio talk show hosts. In this post, for example, I talk about pollution of public discourse. And I've also discussed bullying as an aspect of this. Here's a bit from Ebert:

I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society. He sets a harmful example of acceptable public behavior. He has been an influence on the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels. A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other by angry men. O'Reilly is not the worst offender. That would be Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann is gaining ground. Rachel Maddow provides an admirable example for the boys of firm, passionate outrage, and is more effective for nogt shouting.

Much has been said recently about the possible influence of O'Reilly on the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder. Such a connection is impossible to prove. Yet studies of bullies and their victims suggest a general way such an influence might take place. Bullies like to force others to do their will, while they can stand back and protest their innocence: "I was nowhere near the gymnasium, Sister!"

The whole piece is worth checking out.

It felt right - Myron Stephens and then Andrew Glass

I had decided to leave my camera in my pocket, even though we were sightseeing, sort of.  We were at Bergamot Station in Santa Monica.

Bergamot Station is the historical name for the site on which the gallery complex is located, dating back to 1875 when it was a stop for the Red Line trolley running from Los Angeles to the Santa Monica Pier. Bergamot is a flower of the mint family that once flourished in the area.

The trolly was shut down in 1953 (who needs public transportation anyway?) and eventually the city of Santa Monica converted this into  a big art complex - lots of galleries and the Santa Monica Art Museum. 

But I wasn't going to blog this trip.  Except when we got into the artla gallery this picture caught my eye.  Tim pointed out that this was NOT a blackboard, and the pictures were not taped on it.  It was all painted by Myron Stephens. 








I looked closer.  The tape even has an air bubble.  But there is no tape, just paint. 


Tim pointed out that the chalk was painted with 5 hair brushes.  Part of me doesn't need to know that the artist worked long




and painstakingly to make the painting.  The final outcome is what is important.  And as frivolous as this seems at first, there's something about it.  It talks to me about interpersonal relationships and however old we get, we can get go back into childlike innocence when we make a new connection with a special person.



But there were other works too.


And I really liked these pieces by Andrew Glass.

Can you find the details on top in the whole picture below? Click to enlarge

The paintings had tiny numbers next to them and I didn't keep track of them.  They linked to a price sheet.  The pieces ranged from $1500 to $3000.  Art prices are pretty arbitrary - it depends how close an artist is to people with money and someone who knows how to convince the buyers it's worth the cost.  We are in a getting rid of period, rather than a collecting period of our lives.  But when we've bought stuff it was because we liked it, not with an eye to investment. 

I hope if the artist sees this post, he'll forgive what my camera's done to the colors.  They're sort of close, but not quite.  Here's an excerpt of his artist statement on his website: 

"It is the interplay of materials such as acrylic gels, transparent pigments, alkyd resins and inks that informs this process for me. I am fascinated by the stories they can tell. I want to explore a tactile sensibility, in other words to touch what is on the surface, however still searching for what is lying underneath. With painting, I want to tell a story, uncover and understand what has come before, or is still hidden. This is not only an aesthetic process, but also one that allows me to invent history."

The paintings themselves are available at artla.  

That's Tim in the corner

These two above are details of the painting on the left below.

The door to artla is to the right of the white car at Bergamot Center. 

You can read a September 2012 interview with Andrew Glass here.

[UPDATE:  People who saw this early, might notice I made some changes.  I was confused.  Although I was surprised by the starkly different styles of the chalkboard and then the work below, I clearly hadn't listened carefully to Tim.  Actually, these are two different artists, which makes much more sense. Sorry for any confusion.]

OLÉ Courts Class Does Tour of State Court Buildings Anchorage

This first picture is to remind my non-Alaskan readers that since we are post equinox, we're losing 5 minutes a day of daylight.  So waiting at the bus stop at 7:25am it was still dark!

Here's the courthouse directory on the wall.

We first stopped in a courtroom and Superior Judge Una Gandbhir talked about the kinds of cases she normally hears (civil) and answered questions.  OLÉ folks tend to have lots of questions.  The comment that got my attention was that there was a growing number of people who defend themselves these days.  Fortunately, someone else asked a follow up on that and she expanded.  This only works with civil cases (not criminal) and without a jury.  It's difficult if one side has an attorney and the other is self representing.  

In civil cases, there's no court appointed attorney for those who can't afford one, so that's probably one reason for this.  The judge also said there are lots of material available to help people find the forms they need and learn what they need to do.  

Here's a link to the Alaska Courts main self-help page.

I didn't know what the rules for photos was.  I know that reporters take pictures in state trials.  So I took this one as we were settling down and didn't take a picture when the judge came in.  

There's a tunnel between the Nesbitt and Boney Courthouses, that goes under the street.  We watched the video they show jurors, which I'd seen when I was called to jury duty.  It's quite good going explanations that jurors should hear about their role, the judges' role, the jury's role, etc.  

Then retired Superior Court Judge Elaine Andrews came in and started talking about work she's doing now to help educate people about the court system.  But time was short and we went back through the tunnel to the security office.   This office is responsible for the prisoners who come to court each week and they had a selection of cuffs on the table.  After that we got to see the room where they monitor all the security cameras - including the cells with awaiting prisoners.  We could see some of the cells from that room.  It did not look like a cheerful space.  And I was thinking I'm glad I'm taking the Innocence Project class at the same time as this one.  

Then back through the tunnel to the Boney Courthouse and up to the Supreme Court chamber, where I wanted to be Wednesday afternoon to hear the case of the Alaska youths suing the state for policies (development of oil and gas) which endanger their future by worsening climate change.  I had been up here once when i was covering redistricting.  It's a much nicer space than the cells we'd just been in.

Appellate Judge Tracy Wollenberg was our host here.  She talked about conditions for appealing a case.  A small percentage of cases actually go to trial.  So those that do are people who feel strongly and she said a large number appeal.

She did point out that in Alaska only criminal cases go to the appellate court and are heard by three judges.

Civil cases that are appealed go directly to the Supreme Court.  But the court only hears a relatively few cases.  I think I got that right, but check before you bet money on that.

The tour was over at 10 am (we met at 8:15am) and it was plenty light out by then.  We didn't have any snow in the Anchorage bowl yet, but someone on the tour said there was snow falling (but not sticking) at her Hillside home.  Not sure where this truck started out this morning.

"The United States government has never acknowledged any error in detaining Mr. Boumediene, though a federal judge ordered his release, for lack of evidence, in 2008."

IT was James, a thickset American interrogator nicknamed “the Elephant,” who first told Lakhdar Boumediene that investigators were certain of his innocence, that two years of questioning had shown he was no terrorist, but that it did not matter, Mr. Boumediene says.

The interrogations would continue through what ended up being seven years, three months, three weeks and four days at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. . .  [SCOTT SAYARE, NY Times May 26, 2012]

The United States claims to be a different kind of country.  A democracy that values freedom.  Our government was angry when three young American hikers were arrested in Iran after having crossed the border.  They were arrested in Iran, and it wouldn't be completely irrational for the Iranian government to wonder if they had had any contact with the CIA before entering Iran.  Our government demanded their release.   Boumediene was arrested far from US shores - in Sarajevo where he worked with orphans for the Green Crescent, the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross.

Our moral high ground has been obliterated by Bush's reaction to 9/11 and the conversion of Guantanamo Bay into a 'terrorist' torture camp.  Despite campaign promises Obama has not closed Guantanamo.

American citizens are responsible for this, because we are a democracy.  We are the Board of Directors, so to speak.  And while in the private sector, such directors have found ways to avoid responsibility for their companies' misdeeds, that moral responsibility does lie squarely on them, and in this case, on us.

I've tried to pick out parts of the story that point to all the times he was declared innocent or that there was no evidence.  The rest of his story you can read in the article.  

The United States government has never acknowledged any error in detaining Mr. Boumediene, though a federal judge ordered his release, for lack of evidence, in 2008. The government did not appeal, a Defense Department spokesman noted, though he declined to answer further questions about Mr. Boumediene’s case. A State Department representative declined to discuss the case as well, except to point to a Justice Department statement announcing Mr. Boumediene’s transfer to France, in 2009. 

President George W. Bush hailed his arrest in a State of the Union address on Jan. 29, 2002.

A human being's life isn't worth anything if he can be used by a politician as a symbol of his prowess.  How many times does this have to happen before we (more than the skeptical 20 or 30%) challenge presidents who do this?  

In time, those accusations disappeared, Mr. Boumediene says, replaced by questions about his work with Muslim aid groups and suggestions that those groups financed Islamic terrorism. According to a classified detainee assessment from April 2008, published by WikiLeaks, investigators believed that he was a member of Al Qaeda and the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria. Those charges, too, later vanished. 

In a landmark case that bears Mr. Boumediene’s name, the Supreme Court in 2008 affirmed the right of Guantánamo detainees to challenge their imprisonment in court.

[T]he government’s sole claim was that Mr. Boumediene had intended to travel to Afghanistan to take up arms against the United States. A federal judge rejected that charge as unsubstantiated, noting that it had come from a single unnamed informer. 

The terms of his release have not been made public or revealed even to him.

If this article is accurate, Boumediene wasn't given an apology nor even told the terms of his release.  He's living in France, but without a passport.

Mr. Boumediene, as an American, I am ashamed at how you were treated and I offer you my sincerest apologies.   I know that isn't much, but it's something.  I understand when law enforcement, at any level, arrest someone because they have some evidence of criminal involvement.  But when they know they've made a mistake, there should be an apology, and in egregious cases like this one, some sort of compensation and assistance.  (The article says that he's getting a monthly stipend but he does not know from whom.  I'd like to think the US government is giving it, but I know that's probably wishful thinking.)

And if anyone reading this has a problem with my apology, I'd just ask how you would react if an Iranian apologized just like this to the three American hikers his country imprisoned. 

And to my American readers, we all have a responsibility for getting the US back on the right track.  If you aren't registered to vote, do it this week.  If you are, get ten others to register.  We also need to let Obama know that we aren't pleased with some of the policies that he has continued from the Bush administration.  I understand he's not dealing with a friendly Congress, but let's let him know that we want him to stand up strong for what he believes.  The majority of the American people don't need to agree with you 100%, Mr. President, they just need to know that your core values are good and that you stand firmly behind them. 

AIFF 2013: One.For.Ten - DNA, The Instant Replay For The Justice System

The highlight of the film festival for me so far was Thursday night at Loussac Library.

The showing was the most innovative and powerful I've seen.

The film maker, Will Francome (and his colleagues), as he explained it, determined to take a cross country trip in the US to interview people who had been exonerated of capital offenses and been released from death row.

But they jumped onto Facebook and Twitter to include their audience in developing questions for the people they were going to interview.  They made their film, edited it quickly, and put it online for their FB and Twitter team to see within 24 hours.

And the 'showing' Thursday included a panel of three local leaders in the fight for justice for innocent people convicted of crime.  There were ten short interviews.  One or two were shown.  Then the audience was invited to ask questions or comment.  The panel commented.  Then the next couple of films were shown.

WOW!  The audience was included in making the films and in the showing.  This takes AIFF into new film territory - making the audience participants, not simply passive viewers of the films.  I know people will immediately, and legitimately respond that the festival has had Q&A with film makers from the beginning.

But this was more than that.  At One.For.Ten  the audience was involved from the beginning.  Live audience reaction was part of the film experience.

And if all that weren't enough, the topic - innocent people on death row - is as powerful as you can get.

Most of you missed this.  I didn't know what I was going to experience before I went.  But, you can see the ten films and join into the social media discussions.  The films are at the One.For.Ten website.

These stories are so compelling because they challenge the very basis of our justice system.  I had so many thoughts jumping through my head.

Clearly DNA can change the court's call, just as instant replay can change a sports call.  But saving an innocent man or woman wrongly convicted is far more significant than changing a referee's call.  But like instant replay, it's the kind of objective evidence, that breaks through most human error. (And I'm sure there are ways to incorrectly collect, test, and interpret DNA evidence.)

I asked about the reactions of prosecutors, and, unfortunately, the answers suggested they react badly.  They deny they were wrong.  And, as the blogger at What Do I Know?, I'm fascinated by how people 'know' what they 'know'.  And how they simply cannot see 'truths' that conflict with their own well being.  I know that prosecutors dismiss the claims of innocence of inmates.  Every inmate has found a way to believe he's innocent.  (And I believe that many extremely guilty folks believe they're innocent, making it harder for people who really are innocent.)  The irony is that while prosecutors can see these people deceive themselves, apparently they can't see it when they themselves fall for the same delusion.

So much to think about.  They discussed about ten different reasons/causes for people to be falsely convicted and each of the ten films is supposed to highlight one.  (Though most involve several.)  Some were;

• wrong eyewitnesses
• snitch testimony -  informants lying for their own benefit
• wrong expert witnesses
• racism
• prosecutorial misconduct
• perjury and false testimony
• false confession

It seems to me, short of banning the death sentence, anyone convicted without concrete evidence based on things like eyewitness testimony or snitch testimony and probably other conditions, should not be sentenced to anything more than life.

By the way, one for ten refers to stats that there is one exonerated convict for every ten executed.  

Did I tell you I liked this session? 

AIFF 2019 - Features Part 1: Indigenous Women, Homelessness, Coming of Age, (Young and Old), Bi Polar

There are 12 films in this group and I've got six here and will do a second post with the other six.  We've got a film here with two indigenous women actors, two films with homeless leads, a return to the home country (Italy) to save the family vineyard, a bi-polar college student, and a coming of age film.  (I know it's hokey to try sum them up this way, but the topics may cause some people to be more interested.)

I'd also note that the new website is ready and my first impression is that it's an enormous improvement over past AIFF websites.  But I haven't explored it too closely yet.  It also looks like it's possible to see every film this year, because there aren't two competing films at any given time. I think that's the case but, again, I need to check more carefully.

So, here are the first six of the  NARRATIVE FEATURES

The Body Remembers When The World Broke Open  

Directors:  Kathleen Hepburn & Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers

Canada/Norway

Showing:  Sunday, Dec 08, 2019 2:00 pm   Alaska Experience Theatre - Small

From Imagine Native:

Two Indigenous women, unknown to each other, and from very different backgrounds, meet by chance. Áila is middle class, university educated and light skinned. Rosie is eighteen years old, poor, and has just been assaulted by her boyfriend. When Áila sees Rosie crying barefoot in the street, she makes the decision to help her. What follows is a complicated extended conversation between these two women as they navigate their similarities, differences and shifting power dynamics. Tense and affecting, the film employs long takes and masterfully executed handheld cinematography to unveil a story in real-time, a story that at its core is a testament to the resiliency of Indigenous women.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this film.  Not only is it about two Canadian indigenous women, it's also directed by an indigenous woman.  It also is filmed in real time:

"We had many conversations with our DP, Norm Li, and ultimately settled on shooting 16mm. This required that we develop a rather experimental process which Norm calls “real time transitions.” Once we had all of our locations, we carefully choreographed stitch points throughout the film where one of our camera assistants would have a camera pre-rolling to swap with Norm. This required five days of full crew rehearsal. We filmed the prologue scenes in three days, and filmed the continuous action sequence once a day over five days."

__________________________________________

Banana Split

Director:  Benjamin Ben Kasulke
USA
88 minutes

Showing  Sun, Dec 08, 2019 8:00 pm  
Bear Tooth Theatrepub

I read some descriptions and interviews and then saw the trailer which didn't match what I'd read at all.  Turns out the trailer was for another movie with a similar title.  

This excerpt  comes from  Sumbreak.  I don't want to say too much about the film.  Others have written that the basic description doesn't do justice to this film   So I've picked this part from an interview with  first time director, but experienced cinematographer Ben Kasulke.  They're talking about actress Addison Riecke who plays the little sister.  

"And yeah, with Addison, it was like you know, we saw the tape and I was like, ‘oh my god, this little girl’s great.’ And I didn’t know much about her. She has a really long history of acting. She’s a full-on child actor who works all the time, and so she comes out of the Nickelodeon World and she does comedy but she does comedy in a sort of very wholesome way. And you know I knew that she had done some comedic work.
But I knew that she had worked in The Beguiled, a Sofia Coppola film, so I knew that understood things that might have to exist as visuals or have a little more nuance to them. So she came from a good pedigree and then the word on the street was that she was just this like powerhouse actress, and that all proved to be true.
I was a little nervous. It was my first film and I you know worked with lots of younger actors and actresses as a cinematographer and spent a lot of time with director like Lynn Shelton and Megan Griffiths, who are really adept at making a set that’s conducive to safe, emotional space and getting good performances out of actors of any age, but in particular, children at times. And so I knew that I’d had some good role models as directors and people I’d collaborated with over the years.?"

Here's part of an interview with the director and writer/producer/star Hanna Marks.  It's an after the film Q&A at the Toronto Intl Film Festival.  I cut out the beginning, but it didn't offer me an option to end it early, so, if you're interested, watch as much or little as you like:

__________________________________________

Feral 

Director:  Andrew Wonder
USA
73 minutes

Showing:  Thu, Dec 12, 2019 6:00 pm
Anchorage Museum Auditorium

Mathew Monagle at Film School Rejects pushes films by former documentary makers who switch to narrative features.

". . .  these films ask us to simply exist in a series of moments with the main characters, exposing ourselves to their truths by seeing the world as they see it. And as of this weekend, you can officially add Andrew Wonder‘s Feral to this list of must-see narrative debuts. 

It would be wrong to say that Yazmine (Annapurna Sriram) lives on the streets, considering her actual home is a good hundred feet below them. When we first meet Yazmine, we walk alongside her in the abandoned tunnels and empty homeless camps that litter the underground relics of the MTA; with her as our guide, we eventually find our way into the long-abandoned power station she has converted into her home. But this underground life is only one facet of Yazmine’s existence. In her collection of sweaters and skirts, she can also pass among the fashionable parts of Brooklyn, moving alongside hipsters and bohemians and passing judgment on their hollow lives as she bums cigarettes." (emphasis added)

__________________________________________

From The Vine 

Director:  Sean Cisterna

Canada

94 minutes

Showing:  Friday, Dec 13, 2019 4:00 pm  
Alaska Experience Theatre - Small

This is a new film which had its North American premier in Canada in mid-October.  It's also been at the Napa Film Festival this month, which is fitting for a film on a vineyard.  But there's also not much out there about the film besides stock descriptions

Here's from a review from the  Devour! The Food Film Festival where you can read more:

"It’s the tale of a downtrodden man (Joe Pantoliano) who experiences an ethical crisis and travels back to his hometown in rural Italy to recalibrate his moral compass. There he finds new purpose in reviving his grandfather’s old vineyard, offering the small town of Acerenza a sustainable future, and reconnecting with his estranged family in the process.
From director Sean Cisterna, From The Vine is a delightful yet admittedly predictable affair about the need in life to not live for your work but to work for your life.
Cisterna is an experience Canadian filmmaker and with From The Vine he really does manage to get the most out of a well worn formula.  It looks great and as it launches into its story it’s always nice to see a Canadian film that isn’t overtly TRYING to be a Canadian film.  Cisterna has always had a good sense of story, it all has a genuine flow to it as we move along and it really has a strong sense of self.  That kind of narrative confidence not only comes from the script from the director leading the ship."

__________________________________________

GUTTERBUG 

Director:  Andrew Gibson

USA

100 minutes

Showing:  Wed, Dec 11, 2019 8:00 pm
Alaska Experience Theatre - Small

"Have you ever been walking around Allston and thought, “This place would be the perfect setting for a gritty drama about young, homeless street punks trying to find their place in the world, resisting the tedium of a forced 9-5 careerist lifestyle and simply surviving in a harsh world?” Well, so did Andrew Gibson, who’s gearing up to direct Gutterbug, a film that explores those themes listed above. Gibson is also the former head of video for Allston Pudding, so we’re excited to see him develop a full feature! The project’s synopsis, quoted from the film’s Indie GoGo  description, reads as follows: 
Stephen Bugsby, known by his street name “Bug,” left home on his 18th birthday. GUTTERBUG picks up three years later at his rock bottom. When the punk rock shows end and the drugs wear off, things feel quiet on his dirty mattress under the overpass. The suffocating atmosphere of the homeless environment and its toxic characters spark something in him he forgot he had… Before choosing death as the answer, Bug makes a choice even he didn’t see coming."

Here's an interview with director Andrew Gibson.  This film is focused on some homeless folks and the interviewer here lets us know he was once homeless.   I started it two minutes in when they began talking about the movie.

__________________________________________

Inside The Rain  

Director:  Aaron Fisher

USA

90 minutes

Showing:  Wed, Dec 11, 2019 6:00 pm 
Alaska Experience Theatre - Small

From WBOC:

"Facing expulsion from college over a misunderstanding, a bipolar student (Aaron Fisher) indulges his misery at a strip club where he befriends a beautiful and enigmatic sex worker (Ellen Toland) and they hatch a madcap scheme to prove his innocence.  Rosie Perez stars as a tough love shrink, Eric Roberts as an unhinged film producer, and Catherine Curtin and Paul Schulze as the long-suffering parents. The ultimate underdog film and proof that if you believe in yourself, anything is possible.
"'Inside the Rain' is an important film that deals honestly with issues of mental health, and manages to be at once humorous and poignant," said co-star Rosie Perez.  "I responded to director Aaron Fisher's script, and enjoyed working with him on our scenes together."
"Inside The Rain" has also attracted many film critics attention.  Westwood One states, "Insightful and audacious, with terrific cast…raw and heartfelt emotion." And Tribune Media Services said, ''Inside the Rain' is a captivating story where the brush strokes of life and the arts blend together beautifully.'"

__________________________________________