“[under the law] just because something is in the public domain doesn’t mean it’s been officially released or declassified by the U.S. government.”

That's what a CIA spokeswoman, Jennifer Youngblood, is quoted as saying by the NY Times, in a story about the redactions made by the CIA to a book about 9/11 by written by a former FBI agent.

The agent, Ali H. Soufan, argues in the book that the C.I.A. missed a chance to derail the 2001 plot by withholding from the F.B.I. information about two future 9/11 hijackers living in San Diego, according to several people who have read the manuscript. And he gives a detailed, firsthand account of the C.I.A.’s move toward brutal treatment in its interrogations, saying the harsh methods used on the agency’s first important captive, Abu Zubaydah, were unnecessary and counterproductive.

The article suggests that the C.I.A.'s redactions are more about either avoiding embarrassment or trying to control how the history of 9/11 is told than national security.  The CIA spokeswoman, of course, denies this:

“The suggestion that the Central Intelligence Agency has requested redactions on this publication because it doesn’t like the content is ridiculous. The C.I.A.’s pre-publication review process looks solely at the issue of whether information is classified.”

We saw this issue earlier when it came out that federal employees, who are not allowed to read classified information they aren't cleared to read, were not allowed to read any of the wikileaks cables, even though the material was in the public domain.


As I often try to point out here, everything is related, and today, there was an article in the ADN by Judith Kleinfeld titled "Thought the Cure for Most Blunders."  In it she cites an example from psychologist Madeline Van Heckeof's book, Blind Spot, about going to the driveup ATM window and proudly pointing out to a young foreign visitor in the car, that the US is sensitive to the handicapped - they have Braille on the ATM machine.  The young guest laughs and asks,  "How many blind people drive?"


Van Heckeof, as related by Kleinfeld, goes on to explain that

Most of the time our minds work pretty well. But sometimes smart people do stupid things, she points out. We have a systematic set of "blind spots" in our minds like the blind spots in our cars.

I strongly believe that people have, what you could call, blind spots.  And we shouldn't have blind spots when looking at stories about blind spots.  Just like anti-tax zealots who ridicule scientific studies funded by the US government by taking things totally out of context, I shouldn't do the same thing here.

It does seem silly to have braille on a drive through ATM, until you think that when they make the machines, they probably don't distinguish between the keys on walk-up and drive-through machines.  So they just put the braille on all of them.  Should they make different keys for drive-through machines? Maybe not so ridiculous in the long run.  

But that doesn't mean we don't have blind spots.  Part of this blog's goal is to get people to see such blindspots.

So, what about hiding classified material?  I'm less tolerant about this, but I can think of reasons why the C.I.A.  would want to suppress material, even if it's already publicly available.

1. While it might be available in the public domain, it might not be available where someone was likely to find it.  A new book will make it more accessible to more people.  
2. A book could take a lot of different pieces of information available in different places in the public domain and put them all together - such as how to build a bomb.  Fewer people would be able to figure it all out if the book didn't come out.
3. All of us who have made mistakes, surely, would like to prevent others from explaining how stupid we were, if we could. 
4. As suggested in the article, there may be an attempt to control the information that is used to write history and information that contradicts one's beliefs.  In this case, the article suggests that Soufan's account contradicts, among other things, Cheney's assertions that torture was necessary to get information.

While there are times when points 1 and 2 might be legitimate, my bias tends to favor errors of openness over errors of secrecy.  It just seems openness, in the long run, is better for a democracy than secrecy.  If one uses the possibility of something bad happening, one could justify making everything secret. 

The 3rd reason, while a natural inclination for all humans, isn't justifiable for government officials in a democracy.  The information has to get out and then people can form their conclusions about performance and accountability.

The same logic fits for the 4th point.  Suppressing information is no way to find the truth.

So, check out your own blind spots.  And gently help others, including me, see theirs. 

"When I'm an Elder" (Where's Bethel?)

Good stuff here.  I get to the video slowly.  If you don't care about the other stuff, just slide on down to the video.  It's short and well worth watching.  Then you might want to go back and read. 

This project was first conceived by teens in a youth group (Teens Acting Against Violence -TAAV)  housed at the Tundra Women's Coalition in Bethel, Alaska in the Yukon-Koskokwim area.

For non-Alaskans, and for many Alaskans too, a little geography lesson would help.   The Yukon-Kuskowim Delta is where the two large rivers - Yukon and the Kuskokwim - drain into the Bering Sea.

Based on map from Enchanted Learning.com

Most people have heard of the Yukon River, but what about the  Kuskokwim?

Wikipedia says the Kuskokwim River is 702 miles long and

 is the ninth largest river in the United States by average discharge volume at its mouth and seventeenth largest by basin drainage area.^[6]
The river provides the principal drainage for an area of the remote Alaska Interior on the north and west side of the Alaska Range, flowing southwest into Kuskokwim Bay on the Bering Sea. Except for its headwaters in the mountains, the river is broad and flat for its entire course, making it a useful transportation route for many types of watercraft. It is the longest free flowing river* in the United States.

*What's a free flowing river?

A body of water existing or flowing under natural conditions without impoundments, diversions, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway (as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - 16 USC 1286 [b]). Also see Riprap. (references)

According to Wikipedia, the Yukon is 1980 miles long and there's a dam at White Horse, Yukon Territories.

Adapted from a map at KYUKonAssignment in Kuwait

When I am an Elder: A World Without Violence includes youth from Bethel, Kipnuk, Kwethluk, and Napaskiak**  reflecting on what they would like to see in their communities when they are  Elders.  (*My source spelled the village with an 's'.  Maybe there are two similarly named villages, but I'm guessing it doesn't have an 's'.)
[UPDATE Jan. 31, 2013 - see comment #3 below that explains there are two - one with and one without the 's'.  Thanks!]






The video was made by the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault [I'm on the steering committee which is why I know about this], with funding from the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence.


For non-Alaskans, I'd point out that Western Alaska (and most of Southeastern Alaska) is off the road system. An area larger than any other US state, (and possibly Texas and California combined) is not connected by any roads. Transportation to and from these communities is by boat in the summer and snow machine or dogsled in the winter, by air all year. The map below shows Alaska's road system.

map from travelalaska

(Those straight east-westish lines aren't roads.)

Leftover LA Post - Rawesome Raided (But Not Cargill)

We've been back in Anchorage almost a week now, but I still have some leftover LA material that seems worth sharing.  For example. . .

We were headed down Rose to the beach the one day, when we saw this sign:

There had to be an interesting story here.  I remembered something about them being closed once before when we were in LA.    Here's some background information from The Food Renegade:

On the heels of the recent news about raw milk’s safety comes an alarmingly disturbing coordinated multi-agency raid on Rawesome Foods — a raw food buying co-op in Los Angeles. This morning’s SWAT-style raid was coordinated at both Rawesome Foods and Healthy Family Farms and has led to three arrests so far, the confiscation of personal computer equipment and raw milk cheeses, and the dumping of more than $10,000 worth of raw milk down the drain.
According to early reports from people on the scene, James Stewart (owner of Rawesome Foods), Sharon Palmer (of Healthy Family Farms), and Victoria Bloch (local L.A. co-chapter leader for the Weston A. Price foundation) have all been arrested on charges of conspiracy to sell unpasteurized milk products.
The raid was carried out by gun carrying officers of the LA County Sheriff’s Office, the FDA, the Dept. of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control.

They have a short video too.

I don't know enough about this.   I know people can get sick from unpasteurized milk, but there are also ways to handle the milk to prevent this.  This is one of those dilemmas - if a lot of people got sick from Rawesome products, the government would be blamed for not checking them carefully.  But then, how long has Rawesome been selling raw milk and how many people have gotten sick?  How sick? 

Here's a little more clarification from a New York Times article:

. . . And then, on Thursday, James Stewart, the proprietor, was arraigned on charges of illegally making, improperly labeling and illegally selling raw milk products, as well as other charges related to Rawesome’s operations. Two farmers who work with Rawesome were also named in the district attorney’s complaint.
Though it is legal to sell unpasteurized milk products in California, Rawesome, which has operated in Venice for more than six years, never obtained a license to do so — or, indeed, any type of business license.
Lela Buttery, a trustee at Rawesome, said it had no license because it was not a store. Instead, she called it a “club.” Club members paid an annual fee, which allowed them to peruse the produce, milk products and honey on Rawesome’s shelves, which they paid for — $7 for a pint of raw goat’s milk — to cover the cost of production. Members also signed waivers to signal they understood the risks of consuming raw food.
Rawesome is staffed by volunteers, who take home food for their efforts, and no one, Ms. Buttery said, is making money from his or her work there. . .

. . . Siobhan DeLancey, a spokeswoman for the federal Food and Drug Administration, which participated in the investigation of Rawesome, said the administration banned the interstate sale of raw milk products because they could be dangerous for those with compromised immune systems.
“Our biggest concern is really with children, because pathogens that can be in raw milk can be extremely dangerous for the classically at-risk,” she said. “We’ve seen people wind up as paraplegics.”
But raw food enthusiasts are convinced of raw milk’s healthfulness — and still have plenty of options around here.
“I drink it all the time,” said Laura Avery, who runs a farmers’ market in Santa Monica where raw milk products are sold. “I believe it’s a safer product.” 

The Washington Post Communities section posted a long piece as well.  So, we have the left and the right on this one.  

The Atlantic has an article that points out that while Rawesome was raided and its owner and two others taken to jail with an initial bail set at $121,000, food conglomerate Cargill was deciding how to voluntarily recall turkey contaminated with salmonella.

Despite a lack of victims, Rawesome stands accused. And while Cargill has no shortage of victims, nobody at the company has been charged with a crime over the turkey recall. The government has fewer options against multinational corporations than it does against neighborhood food co-ops. USDA oversees the safety of meat products but can only encourage "voluntary recalls" of products that have been infected with antibiotic-resistant pathogens, reports Tom Philpott of Mother Jones. The final decision to recall was left to the company, which inevitably considered the bottom line as well as public safety when making its decision.

While Cargill self-polices, the Rawesome club has been under more intense scrutiny than members even realized. "Since the raid it's come out that we've been under investigation since June 30 of last year," Buttery says. "They've been monitoring us from unmarked vehicles; they have agents who have become members."

That moves us from the protecting the public narrative to the large food conglomerates vs. small natural food supporters.   This seemed to have been a theme of the natural food folks in the debate over what was called the Food Safety Modernization Act. 

Strange, Weird, Wonderful, and Cool Buildings

Someone came to my blog today through a link at Strange, Weird, Wonderful, and Cool Buildings. SWWCB posted this picture I took in January of the Frank Gehry house at Venice Beach.

Let me tell you, this is probably the least weird of the buildings on that page.  They are definitely worth looking at.  Click here to see them. 

Gehry's Disney Concert Hall

In a separate  blog post at Strange, Weird . . . for today, "the grumpy old limey" gives some background on the Gehry beach house, more pictures, and cites it as an example that Gehry does more than "flowing curves and metal claddings. . ."  (You can see those curves and claddings in this post of mine and yet another one of Gehry's spectacular Disney Concert Hall which is a photographer's dream building.)




The Strange, Weird, Wonderful, and Cool Buildings page of images includes, among other oddities, the Kunsthaus in Graz, Austria which looks something like a cross between an amphibian and a UFO; the Flying Saucer House in Tennessee;  the UFO house which is listed in both Texas and Florida;   the Sheep House and the Dog House in New Zealand (no problem figuring out which ones those are);  and there's the Crooked House in Poland.

These all stretch one's conception of what a building can be.  Go look and rearrange your brain cells a bit. 

The Writing Prior To The Posting

It's been over 24 hours since my last post. It's not like I've run out of things to say. I have a stack of backed up posts on a variety of topics - thoughts on the Redistricting Board's submission to the Department of Justice, the Municipality's approach to Boards and Commissions, the movie "The Help", a bear we saw near Child's Glacier, the mayor's justification for being able to veto amendments to ordinances before the ordinance has passed, a story about housing problems in Kosovo, Moira Kalman and book covers, and on and on.  Some of these are already lengthy drafts. Some just  ideas.  Or photos.  I have a video of the bear.  But they just aren't ready.

While it may not always seem like it, I try to write these posts in a way that pinpoints the most important parts of the issue and follows Strunk and White's Elementary Principles of Composition.  (The link goes to Strunk's 1918 edition online.  The countless newer editions have more modern examples, but the basic advice is the same pithy insight into clearer writing.)

So, I write.  Maybe I'll put up some photos or a video.  As I write, new questions arise.  Or I see connections to other seemingly unrelated issues.  I'll google and check out background information.  Sometimes, but rarely, I'll make phone calls.   I revise.  Move stuff. Delete stuff.  Maybe it's repetitious or doesn't directly add to the story.  Though I do keep in a number of digressions that add context.  (I'm a big fan of Tristram Shandy (read paragraph 2 and the quote in the link) and I even did a post on Dickens' thoughts on meandering.  Clifford Geertz's thick description is another influence.)

When it seems close to complete, I'll push the preview button and read it there.  That leads to a long series of backs-and-forths between the post and the preview as I correct typos, cut out unnecessary verbiage, or have an entirely new thought about how to clarify a point. 

I could keep editing forever, because it's always improvable. But each change carries the possibility of new errors.  While I do this, to some extent, with every post, the more sensitive the topic, the more I work at it.  Eventually, there comes a point where I say, "OK, this is it.  I'll look at the preview one more time, but no more changes unless it's flat out wrong."  And even then I might see something I missed before which would be so much better if . . . and I revise it despite my 'last time' resolve.  [I know, some of you are thinking, "He does all that?  It must be really bad to start with."  It is.]


I don't have an editor to correct my overlooked typos or give me deadlines or assignments.  One of the best ADN reporters once told me the benefits (of no editor) far outweigh the drawbacks.  So this one is not a complaint.  Well, none are complaints, just explanations of what happens before something gets posted.

Some of these posts have been held up because I've tried to get a little more information. (Does anyone out there know if the Greater Anchorage Area Borough (GAAB) had a charter? And if it did, do you know where I can get a copy? I've talked to the Archives at UAA, the Alaskana Room at Loussac,  the State Archives in Juneau,  the Mayor of the GAAB, and the Municipal Clerk's office. They either said they didn't know or it would cost to do more research. Did I mention the Boundary Commission?)

Sometimes I just have to do something else for a while so my brain can sort things out without me disturbing it.  When I get back to it, a day or three later, it's all much clearer.  But it may also mean I have to start all over with a totally new structure. 

Sometimes other things present themselves to be blogged. They look like quick, easy posts (like this one did),  but usually turn out to have some twist that takes much longer than I intended.

And while I got 2 more gigabytes memory for my MacBook (another post to be written) my cursor has begun to skip to seemingly random places, to select what I've just typed, and then to delete it with the next stroke. If I type realllllllll slooooooooowly it doesn't happen as much.  And sometimes I get five minutes with no quirks. (This feral cursor would make an amusing video.)

And this is supposed to be fun, so sometimes I have to just leave a post awhile, until it's fun again, and not work.

And my wife offered a massage, which is always better than blogging.

Wait, Ear, You Missed The Best Part . . .

The Alaska Ear is the Sunday political gossip column in the Anchorage Daily News.  It covers the more personal aspects of local politicians and other local celebrities.  Personally, I think the behind the scenes relationships - who went to school with whom, who regularly fish together, who are business partners, etc. - helps us understand the surface news.  The point shouldn't be to embarrass folks as much as to let people know things like  Politician X and Lobbyist Y were college roommates.  That sort of stuff makes it easier to understand why some bills move through the legislature and others don't.

Anyway, the Ear  today had a short piece on former Assembly member Dan Coffey's walking out miffed after he made a presentation at the Huffman-O'Malley Community Council meeting.  Coffey's had lucrative contracts* over the past year  to suggest revisions to the Mayor on the last draft of the Title 21 revisions.  This is the code for implementing the Anchorage 2020 plan that was the product of 8 or so years of massive public meetings on the future of Anchorage.  The new Code was approved by the Assembly - including Coffey - and sent to the Planning Department for minor technical changes for consistency and such things.

But then Mayor Sullivan got elected and he's given Coffey a couple of sole-source contracts to look into making the code, apparently, more builder friendly.  A coalition of groups that had been involved with the public process that created the Code has gotten organized.  (I got invited, as a blogger, to a couple of their meetings.) They argue that Title 21 has already been through lots of compromises with the building interests and now Coffey has spent a year talking with people at BOMA** (Building Owners and Managers Association) about how they'd like the Code to be changed after it was basically approved.   Not in open meetings where others could hear and challengel inaccuracies. Like you negotiate  to buy a house and after you're done, the realtor goes back to the seller and makes more changes behind your back.

The Coalition - loosely grouped around the call to "Free Title 21" - has been asking to see Coffey's new draft, but has been regularly told it wasn't going to be available until October when it is heard at Planning and Zoning.  They're upset they'll only have two weeks to go through hundreds of pages trying to figure out where Coffey made changes.

So, Ear writes:

During the Q&A session that followed, according to people who were there, local resident and former Planning and Zoning Commissioner John Weddleton*** told the group that Coffey's presentation was "one extreme view" with "many inaccuracies." Earwigs report a clearly irritated Coffey replied that if people wanted to know what was in the plan, they could get a copy and read it themselves, then stalked out. [2nd emphasis added.]

Hmmm. Dan, who was often the smartest man in the room on Assembly night, could always dish it out but can't always take it.

Wait Ear, you missed the best part.  The real issue is that so far, the public has not been able to get or see a copy of the report.  Coffey and Sullivan have refused to share it. Does this mean it's now available for public view?  Or has Ear taken liberties with the facts herself?


 
*  What I understand is the second contract (the work wasn't completed in the first contract period) for Feb - June 2011 was for $30,000.

**The Mayor gave his State of the City Address at a BOMA meeting this year.

***Weddleton has been part of the Free Title 21 efforts.

Dumping Poisons Into The Sea No More

My normal run route along golf course

My favorite part of the run from my mom's to the beach - along Rose and the tree lined Penmar golf course - was blocked with cement borders. There was this sign explaining why.

Click to make it more readable

  So, the water and other wastes that go down the gutter into the sewer has always just been flowing, completely untreated, into the ocean at Venice Beach.  And now they are going to treat the water.  This is a good thing since pollution going into oceans isn't good.   The LAProp O website explains:

"The voters of Los Angeles overwhelmingly passed Proposition O, which authorized the City of Los Angeles to issue a series of general obligation bonds for up to $500 million for projects to protect public health by cleaning up pollution, including bacteria and trash, in the City's watercourses, beaches and the ocean, in order to meet Federal Clean Water Act requirements"

There are eight other LA projects.  The website also explains why Penmar is one of the projects:

"Existing Conditions
Currently, urban runoff and rainwater from the area flows into the Rose Avenue Storm Drain. This pipe carries untreated stormwater and dry weather runoff to the surf zone at Venice Beach."

The new system is designed so

"up to nearly three million gallons (per storm event) of stormwater from this watershed that is currently untreated will be kept out of the drain that flows into Santa Monica Bay;"

This is the drain that the water comes out at Venice Beach at the end of Rose Avenue.  It's summer here, so I'm not sure if they've blocked it already or there just isn't any water. 


I took the picture below from on top of the drain out to where it flows when there's a flow.

"The major project components consist of a stormwater diversion structure, pumps, storm drain sewer pipes and sanitary sewer pipes, and an underground storage tank;"

West end of golf course

"Project location: Along portions of Frederick St. and Rose Ave. in Venice, adjacent to the Penmar Golf Course and under a portion of the Penmar Recreation Center Park play fields. Other project work will take place in a few local streets;"

Map from LAPropO website

I seem to have deleted the picture of the large hole and dirt pile at Penmar playground (the green circle in the map above.)  You can see from the map, it's going to be a storage tank. There's still a year to go before it's done. [UPDATE Aug 30:  I found the missing photo, see below.]

And the water in the tank, after being cleaned, will be used to water the golf course instead of being dumped dirty into the ocean.  

Following the first phase of work, a disinfection system will be built to treat a portion of the stormwater flow. The safe, treated water will be locally reused for landscape irrigation at the Penmar Golf Course, Penmar Recreation Center Park, and Marine Park.

I still found a manhole in Santa Monica on my run that suggests their waste water is still going into the ocean.  And we have similar warnings on Anchorage sewers.

I'm not  sure how much of an impact this will have.  It seems that Ocean Acidification is a much greater threat to the oceans, and no one (except maybe the invisible hand that market economists claim controls the economy) is serious about cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions. I guess every little bit helps.

For a different mindset on all this, here's Science Friday's video of the week.  This guy build an eco-friendly sustainable floating toilet.  It's worth a look.

Seldovians - You Get Jason Farnham Next

The Seldovia Arts Council arranged for a pianist Jason  Farnham to give a concert in Seldovia Saturday night, and we got a sneak preview at Out North in Anchorage last night.








He's a very good pianist, but he's also an entertainer.  This is good piano playing, but definitely not high-brow. 

The Seldovia Gazette gives the specifics:

Saturday, August 20th, 7:30pm at the 

Sea Otter Community Center! 








Yes, if I had shut my eyes and just listened,  I wouldn't have known he was lying down on the job.

"Let justice be done, though the world perish" - Kantian Philosophy and the No-Tax Pledge

Note:  It's always dangerous to blog about philosophy because a) I will always be forced to simplify complicated and nuanced ideas  and b) My own understanding of philosophy is limited.  But I'm offering some links for anyone interested to pursue the nuances.  Those who know more are, of course, encouraged to correct, clarify, or otherwise improve what I've written. 

Robin Young talked to Howard Gleckman this morning on "Here and Now" about "the bi-partisan Congressional “super committee” for debt reduction."  Gleckman, at one point, says

"The reason that Wall Street is having such a bad time is, not because it's worried about the long term federal deficit, but because it's worried about a recession."

He goes on to say we need a combination of short term spending (and revenue raising) and long term deficit reduction.

(And if we want support for this position, there was another story (Jim Zarolli) today about how investors are putting money into Treasury bonds, despite the credit downgrade and even though they are at the lowest interest rate in 50 years or so.) 

But all the Republicans on the bi-partisan committee (and most in Congress), Robin Young points out, have taken Grover Nordquist's No-Tax pledge.  So they feel they must stick to that pledge. 

And that's where Kant comes in.

"Kant's theory is an example of a deontological or duty-based ethics : it judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved. (Roughly, a deontological theory looks at inputs rather than outcomes.) One reason for the shift away from consequences to duties is that, in spite of our best efforts, we cannot control the future. We are praised or blamed for actions within our control, and that includes our willing, not our achieving. This is not to say that Kant did not care about the outcomes of our actions--we all wish for good things. Rather Kant insisted that as far as the moral evaluation of our actions was concerned, consequences did not matter" [from a Woford.edu webpage]

What does that mean?  In the simplest form, Kant thought people should follow their principles without regard to the consequences. You stick to your principles no matter the consequences. 

A competing philosophical position is called utilitarianism which argues that one should weigh the consequences of one's actions.  For example, for Kant, if telling the truth is a maxim one follows, one must never lie.  For utilitarians this causes a problem if, say, a Nazi in 1940 Germany asked if you were hiding Jews in your house (and you were.)  Utilitarians would argue that there are times when there are conflicting values - and one has to know which values one holds are the most important.  Is the value of the lives of the people you are hiding greater than the value of telling the truth?

And that's when we get to things like No-Tax pledges.  Politicians promise to never vote for a tax increase.  All other consequences are irrelevant because they are keeping to this pledge.  Is breaking that pledge a greater harm than causing huge economic harm, like renewing the recession? 

Kant was no fool.  You can read the complexities of his ideas at Wikipedia.

But I suspect that few of the politicians who have taken the no-tax pledge have read Kant, or even know that their stand on the pledge follows Kant's position.

Rather, it seems that many of them are actually doing this for a very unKantian reason - they fear that if they break their pledge, they won't get reelected in the Republican primaries.  If that is the case, then they are, in fact, taking consequences into consideration.  But the consequences they are considering are their own personal benefit, not the benefit of the US economy.

"Under the Counterfeited Zeal for God.. ."

We saw Henry IV Part 2 last night.  It was a performance filmed at the Globe Theater in London - an authentic replica, according to the introductory film, of the first Globe Theater.  This is the theater that Shakespeare wrote for and the people quoted in the film - actors, directors, stage designers - all agreed that the 600 members of the audience who stand during the whole performance change the experience of the actor radically.  (Another 900 or so sit in boxes.) The fact that they perform in natural light means the audience is very visible.  Someone even said they are performers in the play.  And as I watched the movie my eye wandered to the audience from the actors in the beginning, but not at the end.  (I wonder if they had fewer shots of the audience at the end.)

This was rather like the movie theater showings of the Metropolitan Opera - with higher ticket prices and an audience that is probably not your average audience.  No cell phones went off, but the smell of garlic and jalapenos interrupted the performance for me.  I imagine in Shakespeare's time, people ate during a three hour performance like this so I get over it.  (OK, I'm over it.)

Technically, I was occasionally distracted by a dip in the volume as, I'm guessing, the actor moved from one microphone to another.

Oh yes, then there was Shakespeare's play itself.  Even with the introductory film, it was hard to keep track of all the characters and, at times, to track the meaning of the words.  But a couple themes jumped out at me near the end, reminding me that underneath our modern veneer, we are just humans who aren't much different from humans long ago.

"We are time's subjects, and time bids be gone."

. . . it is the time,
And not the king, that doth you injuries.

This debate lingers today.  Is Obama doing injuries?  Or is it the time?

And using one's devotion to God for earthly gains is nothing new.  Below, Lancaster speaks to the Archbishop of York:

Who hath not heard it spoken
How deep you were within the books of God?
To us the speaker in his parliament;
To us the imagined voice of God himself;
The very opener and intelligencer
Between the grace, the sanctities of heaven
And our dull workings. O, who shall believe
But you misuse the reverence of your place,
Employ the countenance and grace of heaven,
As a false favourite doth his prince's name,
In deeds dishonourable? You have ta'en up,
Under the counterfeited zeal of God,
The subjects of his substitute, my father,
And both against the peace of heaven and him
Have here up-swarm'd them.