More Waste In Packaging

 Waste in packaging is another thing that has become normalized.  Unless it's egregious, we just wade our way through it, without even thinking about it.

I felt this one qualified as egregious.

The pills came in these three plastic bottles inside the box behind.

Each plastic bottle had 14 - FOURTEEN - pills!

When I put them all into one bottle they reached up to the blue line. (That was supposed to be an arrow pointing down to the blue line.)

That's about 1/5 of the bottle.  There were three bottles, so only 1/15 of the bottles' volume was actually needed for the pills.  That's not counting the box the three bottles were packaged in.

So the contents needed about 7% of the packaging (again, not counting the box this was all in.)  So about 93% of the packaging was unnecessary.  

OK, I get that stores don't want to sell things so small that it's easy for a shopper to put something into a pocket or purse without paying.  There have to be more creative solutions to stopping shoplifting.  If humans can figure out how to get to the moon, they can figure out how to not pollute the earth with excessive packaging.  

I'd also note a story in the LA Times Sunday.  Mike Hiltzik wrote a follow up to the big story earlier this year that stores were losing $45 billion to organized crime shoplifting.  

Politicians and the media both repeated the fabricated number without question.  And law enforcement agencies love it because such stories help them get ever increasing budgets to fight crime.  But for them crime means the guy who shoplifts $30 worth of groceries, not companies that steal billions from their employees and customers.

Why do I add all these other issues to a simple story about badly packaged pills?  Cause everything has a context.  Telling stories without the larger context is just relating miscellaneous anecdotes.  There's a lot more context for this pill story, but I'm just adding a little here so that readers at least think about the larger context and maybe even add more themselves.  

.  

The Battle Of Algiers Offers Insights Into Israel-Gaza War

 I haven't posted about the Israel-Gaza* war for a variety of reasons, the key ones being the unreliability of the many accusations flung back and forth, the very complication of the issues including all the action going on behind the scenes that we don't know anything about.  

I've come up with a list of about a dozen issues that I see as important for anyone trying to understand what is happening and why.  Surely there are more.  And they all have threads that wind into the other issues. 

Guerilla Warfare 

One of the issues is the nature of guerrilla warfare.  Having been alive as the Vietnam War (or the American War as the Vietnamese call it), Afghanistan - first Russia and then US - I've learned a little bit about guerrilla warfare.  We see it when a militarily weak group of people feel badly mistreated and take on their overwhelmingly powerful perceived oppressors.   

Here's Wikipedia's summary:

"The main strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare tend to involve the use of a small attacking, mobile force against a large, unwieldy force. The guerrilla force is largely or entirely organized in small units that are dependent on the support of the local population. Tactically, the guerrilla army makes the repetitive attacks far from the opponent's center of gravity with a view to keeping its own casualties to a minimum and imposing a constant debilitating strain on the enemy. This may provoke the enemy into a brutal, excessively destructive response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrillas, ultimately compelling the enemy to withdraw. One of the most famous examples of this was during the Irish War of Independence. Michael Collins, a leader of the Irish Republican Army, often used this tactic to take out squads of British soldiers, mainly in Munster, especially Cork."

In this case, Hamas are clearly the guerrillas against the overwhelming military strength of Israel.   

Wikipedia in a separate article offers a history of guerrilla warfare back to 6th Century BC China.

For me, the nature of guerrilla warfare got much clearer when I saw the movie The Battle Of Algiers, sometime in the 1970s.  

I'd strongly recommend watching this film for anyone who wants to understand what is happening now in Israel and Gaza.  

The Internet Archive has posted the film and has links to embed it in blogs and other websites.  I have never before posted a full movie like this and it feels a bit wrong.  You can also watch it at the Internet Archive.  

Aside from showing guerrilla warfare from the point of view of the guerrillas, it's a classic example of cinéma vérité.  It's just a really well made movie.  

Without understanding the underlying reasons a group uses guerrilla warfare tactics, it's hard to understand a war in which guerrilla forces fight against a much more dominant culture.  

History shows us many examples where overpowering military advantage eventually loses to an organized, but much, much weaker resistance movement.  But there are also examples of that weaker unit being crushed.  My sense here, though, is that the ruthlessness of Israel's response will create millions of more resisters among the Palestinians. 

Astute readers will have figured out that I've once again avoided the topic of Israel and Gaza.  Yes, and no.  It's much to complex a topic to deal with in one post.  I'll refine my list of key issues and then post the list.  Then I'll cover as many of the issues as I have the stomach for in other posts - some on just one issue, others may combine a few.  

In the meantime, I'd challenge readers to come up with their own lists of the key issues.  Then you'll be able to compare your lists with mine and, I hope, improve my list in the comments.  

Make some popcorn and enjoy the movie.  

*I've labeled this Israeli-Gaza war, but one could also say Israeli-Palestinian war.  

Can Your Physician Use Telehealth To Treat You When You're Out Of State?

 I was out-of-state when my doctor's office called to set up a telehealth appointment for me.  The date they wanted was when I was going to be back in Alaska.  I thought, wow, this is great.  If I'm out-of-state, I can still have an appointment with my doctor if needed.  

But they said, "No, you have to be in Alaska."  

For me, that makes no sense.  If I need a doctor when I'm not in Alaska, I'd rather see my doctor than a one I don't know.  [Of course if there's a need for physical contact or tests, it's not going to work as well.]  

So when I had my appointment, I asked, "Why can't we do this if I'm out-of-state?"

The nurse, the doctor, and the doctor's supervisor (this is through Providence) weren't exactly sure.  They'd been advised that it had to be Alaska only.  Licensing seemed to be a possible reason, but they weren't sure.  And they couldn't cite any documents I could see for myself.

Whether this was a state law, regulation, Providence policy or something else, they didn't know.  

So I decided I would try to track this down.  Here's what I've found out so far.

• During COVID emergency health declarations waived some interstate telehealth barriers, and much of what first pops up in searches are pandemic era webpages, some of which have dates on them.  
• A big issue IS the need to be licensed in the state where the patient is located
• Another issue has to do with payment for patients on the state medicaid or other health programs
• Some states allow out-of-state doctors to have telehealth appointments in their states, but the rules aren't easy to figure out for individual doctors.  There are various conditions one has to meet, and one has to be sure the source of information reflects the current law, that no changes have been made

Interactive at the site which appears
to be updated frequently

CCHP (The Center for Connected Health Policy) has some of the best information I've found so far.  Their Out Of State Providers page has a map that links to the policies for every state.  And they seem to keep it up to date.  One was updated this month.

For instance, here's what it says for Arizona:

"Arizona

Last updated 11/07/2023

A provider who is not licensed within the State of Arizona may provide Telehealth services to an AHCCCS member located in the state if the provider is an AHCCCS registered provider and complies with all requirements listed within A.R.S. § 36-3606.

SOURCE: AZ Medical Policy for AHCCCS Covered Services. Telehealth and Telemedicine Ch 300, (320-I pg. 2), Approved 8/29/23. (Accessed Nov. 2023)."

AHCCCS refers to Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. The link isn't really that complicated, but if I were a physician, I'd want an attorney to read it.  

From HHS:

"Some states have temporary practice laws to support existing provider-patient relationships and minimize gaps in care. These laws allow a provider to practice for a limited amount of time, usually less than 30 days, in another state if their patient is temporarily visiting that state for business, a family visit, or other reasons."

This includes what I would be after - treating one of their regular patients who happens to be temporarily out of state. 

What states clearly or not so clearlyseem to allow out of state doctors not licensed in the patient's state to provide telehealth services to patients located in their state?  Go to the CCHP map page to get details for each state.

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Connecticut
• Georgia - "Physicians with licenses in other states may be licensed under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact"  You can read more about this Compact here.  They also have a map that shows which states are in various steps in the process of joining the Compact.  
• Indiana - "Out-of-state providers can perform telehealth services without fulfilling the out-of-state prior authorization requirement if they have the subtype “Telemedicine” attached to their enrollment.  See Module for requirements."
• Kentucky - this one seems particularly liberal.
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• Oklahoma
• Oregon - Looks like a liberal policy
• South Dakota
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Most of the concern seems to be with the State reimbursing for services to Medicaid patients.  There are various conditions placed on out of state providers.  Note that I said 'appear to allow out of state" providers.  And there were some states that might allow out of state providers who are not licensed in the patient's state, but I couldn't really tell for sure.  

So, the problem doesn't seem to lie with the State of Alaska. 

The issue is 

• with other states - some do and some don't allow it, and those that do have different requirements
• with Providence for making a blanket policy rather than tailoring it to the states that allow for out of state doctors.  Providence should know which
• which states do not allow out of state doctors to have telehealth appointments with people in their states, 
• which states do allow it, and 
• what the requirements are for those that do
• with doctors who have licenses to practice in other states letting Providence know that

I would like to think this is simply policy that hasn't caught up with technology changes and not simply stodgy hospital administrators not wanting to change or lazily using the law as an excuse

But I also understand that collecting all the necessary data and keeping it up to date is somewhat of a challenge.  But I was able to do this in less that four hours, so someone in the Prov administration should also be able to do it.  Especially since Providence serves Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.

AIFF 2023: The Winners Announced Saturday Night

 I got the names of the winners at the Awards Event.  Well, the ones I could hear clearly.  I tried to get the names of the ones I missed but they seemed to want to post them on the Festival website before I did, so I let it go.  

 Later, I'll compare them to my favorites, but I'm back at the airport headed south to meet family in LA.  Overall I think the choices are reasonable.  There are some I never got to see.  More than normal, especially for  a festival that had fewer films than normal.  And there were no opportunities to see a film again if you missed it when it was shown.  

They will show 'the best of the fest' Sunday, Dec. 16 at the Alaska Experience Theater.  They said it would be an all day showing of films and they'll put up the list sometime this week.  

There were lots of shorts, but the number of feature documentaries and narrative films seemed thin.  I think this is reflected in the fact that there was only one winner in the Narrative Features category.  And the one comment I will make now, is that Ariel: Back To Buenos Aires which was an excellent film - the story was important and well told, the actors were terrific, and the cinematography was strong.  There were no gratuitous shots of Buenos Aires, they all added to the story.  It should have gotten an award.  I'm not quibbling about Farewell Mr Haffmann.  It was an excellent film and I could easily argue it was the best.  But Ariel was also an excellent film that got shortchanged in my opinion.  

Festival Directors Ida Myklebost and John Gamache
at the Awards Ceremony

Here are the winners as posted on the AIFF Facebook page:

THE WINNERS

of the 23rd edition of the Anchorage International Film Festival are...

...drumroll...

...:

AUDIENCE AWARDS

---Documentary Feature---

WINNER: "Dusty & Stones" by Jesse Rudoy

2nd place: "The Body Politic" by Gabriel Francis Paz Goodenough

3rd place: "Ranger" by Austin Peck

---Narrative Feature---

WINNER: "Farewell, Mr. Haffmann" by Fred Cavayé

---Made in Alaska---

WINNER: "One with the Whale" by Peter Chelkowski & Jim Wickens

2nd place: "A Piece of Myself" by Vivienne Ayres, Nidhi Kumar & Audrey Shuppert

3rd Place: "Nourishing The Kenai" by Emrys Eller

---Short Animated---

WINNER: "Mano" by Brittany Biggs

2nd place: "Witchfairy" by Cedric Igodt & David Van de Weyer

3rd Place: "love bubbles" by Marcel Hobi

---Short Documentary---

WINNER: "Seeds of Change" by Maximilian Armstrong

2nd place: "This Is Where I Learned Not To Sleep" by Anne de Mare & Kirsten Kelly

3rd Place: "The Winterkeeper" by Laurence Topham & David Levene

---Short Narrative---

3rd Place: "Barely Breathing" by Derek Evans & Neal Reddy

2nd place: "Infraction" by Timothy Blackwood

WINNER: "The Bond" by Jahmil Eady

JURY AWARDS

---Documentary Feature---

WINNER: "Wild Life – The Lance Mackey Story" by Finn-Erik Rognan

2nd place: "Dusty & Stones" by Jesse Rudoy

3rd Place: "Karen Carpenter: Starving For Perfection" by Randy Martin

---Narrative Feature---

WINNER: "Farewell, Mr. Haffmann" by Fred Cavayé

---Made in Alaska---

WINNER: "A Piece of Myself" by Vivienne Ayres, Nidhi Kumar & Audrey Shuppert

2nd place: "One With The Whale" by Peter Chelkowski & Jim Wickens

3rd Place: "School of Fish" by Colin Arisman & Oliver Sutro

---Short Animated---

WINNER: "Little Hurts" by Deborah Solomon

2nd place: "Mano" by Brittany Biggs

3rd Place: "Awakening: The First Day" by Jos Diaz Contreras & Santiago Carrasquilla

---Short Documentary---

WINNER: "This Is Where I Learned Not To Sleep" by Anne de Mare & Kirsten Kelly

2nd place: "Funny Not Funny" by Ben Feldman & Marc D'Agostino

3rd Place: "The Winterkeeper" by Laurence Topham & David Levene

---Short Narrative---

WINNER: "The Stupid Boy" by Phil Dunn

2nd place: "The Old Young Crow" by Liam LoPinto

3rd Place: "Limite" by George Nicholas

SCREENPLAY AWARDS

---Short Screenplay---

WINNER: "Pending" by Jennifer Rapaport

2nd place: "Wildflower" by Peter Salisbury

3rd Place: "Devil’s Instrument" by Frederik Ehrhardt

---Feature Screenplay---

WINNER: "Gramps" by John Stimpson, Geoffrey Taylor and Rapaport

2nd place: "Wreckage" by Colin Scott

3rd Place: "The Most Marvelous Man in the World" by Colin Scott and Kris Burton

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL

It was a good festival and I'll post a few more posts.  One, as I said, comparing my favorites to the winners.  Another to share my thoughts about the festival itself overall.  

AIFF: Sunday Offers Impressive Crime/Prison Lessons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIFF: Great Alaskan Shorts/Amazing Narrative "Ariel: Back To Buenos Aires"

 The Alaska Shorts at noon was a great four film program.  All the films were technically well made and all told important stories.  I thought I'd given up on staying up late to post about the festival, but I feel compelled.  

All of these were worth watching and you can learn more about them all here.

 I'm going to focus on True Colors -  Film maker Brad Hillwig said he wanted to do a film about Anchorage having the most diverse schools in the country.  He focused on Bartlett High School,  its diversity, how the school works to make that diversity part of the curriculum, and highlighted two of the outstanding students - a Filipino/Pacific Islander football player and the daughter of an African, Muslim immigrant.  It was an inspiring film in lots of ways.   One of the students - Oumi - was there which was exciting too.  

There were film makers representing all the films there  

The afternoon and evening films at the Museum were also good to outstanding.   Below is Tora Johanna Turøy again, talking festival director Ida Myklebost after her film was shown at the museum.

Ariel: Back To Buenos Aires was amazing.  It was beautifully filmed - with the tango scenes and the Buenos Aires street scenes not just adding color but meaningfully adding to the story.  A few times the camera goes around and around the subjects in a way that is beautiful and heightens the emotional pitch of the scenes.  

The content is powerful!  A sister and brother in their 30s, fly to Argentina where they were born.  The older sister, on the plane, tells her brother she suspects he was adopted because she doesn't remember her mom being pregnant with him.  Anyone who know the history of Argentina will quickly figure out where this is leading.  

A powerful film, made even more powerful by the cinematography and editing so good you don't even think about it.

I'm sure this will be one of the top films at the festival and they will show the award winning films again the week after the festival.  Be sure to see it!!

Citizen Sleuth was also interesting.  A film maker making a film about a Crime podcaster.  We see a sincere podcaster digging deep into a car accident death that she suspects was murder. 

AIFF2023: Saturday Dec. 2: Lots of Shorts, Trip to Argentina

 SATURDAY - December 2, 2023  - Anchorage International Film Festival

BEAR TOOTH  - NOON

4  Shorts - Made in Alaska - view list here.

BEAR TOOTH - 3pm

Documentary Narrative:  Citizen Sleuth

SlashFilm says:

"'Citizen Sleuth' is a darkly funny, engaging, and thrilling documentary about a true crime podcast that has all the fascinating twists and turns of true crime, while flipping the script and focusing on the voice behind the podcast. The documentary chronicles not a tragic death, but the rise and fall of a podcast dedicated to it, and the complicated ways its host became trapped in her own narrative."

This is 82 minutes, so there should be plenty of time to get to the Museum for the rest of the films starting at 5pm.

ANCHORAGE MUSEUM - 5pm

7 Shorts - "Love Me" Program   See the list here.

ANCHORAGE MUSEUM - 7pm  *This program has a warning:  18 and over only.

6 Shorts - "Do We Still Need Feminism" Program  See the list here.

ANCHORAGE MUSEUM - 9pm  

Feature Narrative - Ariel Back To Buenos Aires 

From the film's website: 

"ARIEL BACK TO BUENOS AIRES follows the tumultuous siblings Davie and Diana Vega as they return to Argentina, country of their birth and learn to dance tango. They uncover secrets about their family history that call into question everything they hold to be true, but that free Davie from his existential misery. A story of how the past holds us in its embrace – only by engaging with it can we find freedom. A lacerating love letter to the city of Buenos Aires."

The website says it is also streaming on Apple TV.  It's won a number of awards at film festivals this year.  

 

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.  

How Long Should It Take To Build Or Repair Public Works?

 [A note.  I thought I posted this this morning.  But when I came back, it was not there.  Not even the draft.  That hasn't happened in a long time.  I'm pretty sure I hit publish.  I know for sure I had a complete draft.  I wasn't ready to rewrite it, so I took a walk, hoping it would mysteriously show up.  It hasn't.  Maybe this second attempt will be better than the first.  I had a bunch of links.  Maybe you don't need them.  But I don't like to post half-assed either.  Let's see what happens.  I'm going to save this much.  Shut blogger down.  Turn it back on, then see if the missing post was hiding somewhere and decided to stop messing with me.]

[Note 2:  I shut down all the Blogspot windows and then opened one back up and there was my old post.  Glad I didn't start writing it all over.  I highly recommend taking walks.] 

[Note 3:  I see the problem now.  I wrote this as a "Page" which is what Blogger calls 'tabs'.  So it didn't show up as a Post, but rather as a Tab, which doesn't show up on the main page. You can find the current tabs up on top, below the orange header.]

An article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports that a damaged part of a critical freeway (The 10, or the Santa Monica Freeway as I knew it when it was first built) would be completed by Tuesday instead of the original five week estimate.  

"Publicly, state officials stood by that timeline for most of this week, saying the freeway was likely to reopen in December. But behind the scenes, according to a Caltrans engineer familiar with the project, crews were scrambling to hit a more ambitious target and have the overpass ready for Thanksgiving travel.

The work paid off, and on Thursday, Newsom confirmed what the Caltrans crews had been working toward: All lanes in both directions will be open to traffic by Tuesday “at the latest,” he announced, though repair work will be ongoing."

The damage was caused by a large fire under the bridge a week ago Saturday.  If the Tuesday date pans out, then will be 10 days from damage to repair.  

Earlier this year a major bridge in Philadelphia collapsed.  The initial repair time estimates were "weeks or months."

"Workers are beginning to rebuild the collapsed section of Interstate 95 outside Philadelphia. Construction is expected to take weeks or months, and have ramifications up and down the East Coast."

In the end it took just 12 days. 

"Six lanes reopened to motorists at noon on Friday, 12 days after a bridge collapsed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro announced."

In the case of LA, the quick reopening was credited to  the bridge structure not being as severely damaged as expected.  An unnamed engineer told the LA Times political pressure was also involved::

“'Go faster. The political heat is on.'

There has been 'a dead-heat, crazy push to get this bridge open by Monday or Tuesday,'”

I've been wondering, in recent years, why things like road construction in Anchorage seem to take forever. 

•  Is it because the work can only be done in the summer so contractors take on lots of projects and work on one project for a while, then another, then back to the first ones?  
• Are they just stretching out the work for more pay?  That seems unlikely because the pay should be settled in the contract with bonuses for being early and penalties for being late.  
• Is the Municipality or the State Department of Transportation just not writing good contracts? 
• And why do the same roads seem to need to be redone over and over again? 
• I know there's an unhealthy relationship between the State DOT and the construction industry [a major engineering company has the contract to do public engagement and while the presentations to the public are first class, their financial interests have to bias them toward building every project and I've several projects where the public was overwhelmingly opposed but the state ignored the public]

I don't know the answers to these questions.  I know there are lots of complaints about driving around construction, but I don't know that anyone has undertaken a study to find out why things take so long.  

But these two highway projects that were completed much faster than originally scheduled  (in LA I'm assuming the Tuesday deadline will be met) reminded me of a visit to the Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California some years ago.  

They built ships there for World War II and I recalled they were built in phenomenal speed.  So I looked it up again today.  

 "The Liberty ship Robert E. Peary was assembled in less than five days as a part of a competition among shipyards. By 1944, the yard routinely needed only a bit more than two weeks to assemble a Liberty ship.^[3]"  (From Wikipedia) 

A whole ship built in five days!!!!!

That's a model we should have before us at all times.  But also remember the conditions:

• That five day record was part of a competition among shipyards, so competition (in this case I don't think there were rewards other than psychic rewards) played a factor.
• There was the collective will to win a war.
• And women did much if not most of the work  (Need I say more?)

There's also another aspect that needs to be considered.  From the Rosie The Riveter Park site:

"Working conditions on the Home Front were difficult and dangerous. Between the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and the D-Day Invasion of Europe in June of 1944, there were more Home Front industrial casualties than military casualties." (emphasis added) (from the National Park Service)

And there were some unanticipated benefits as well:  

"This high number of industrial casualties would lead to improved workplace safety and regulations, as well as better access to affordable health care. 

Another challenge faced by working women on the Home Front was childcare, as mothers comprised a significant portion of the work force. This led to the establishment of child development centers and the professional field of early childhood development."

Given the state of child care in the US today, I'd say these were short lived benefits, since after the war, when soldiers returned home, the women lost their jobs and were expected to go back to being housewives.  

I'd also note than when I wrote about Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park ten years ago, Bill Butler pointed out in the comments that the ships weren't meant to last long and they had lots and lots of workers putting together modular ships.  

I do hope though that we start getting reporters looking into the title question - how long should public projects take?  Why do they take so long?  When and how can they be sped up if necessary?  

And it's not just public projects.  Alaska Communications (ACS) started putting fiber optic into my neighborhood last June or July.  The door to door salesman said the new high speed internet would be ready in three to four weeks.  The confirmation email from ACS said 12-14 weeks.  Then at the end of summer,  a new email said something like, "Well, you know, construction doesn't always go as planned. This project won't be ready until next year." 

We saw signs of work - bright orange cables lying around - and sometimes we even saw workers digging trenches.  But it seemed like there was far more work to do than workers to do it.  Meanwhile ACS has my (and how many others') payment for the high speed internet we were supposed to be enjoying as of several months ago, but haven't gotten yet.  

 

How Much Flu? New Respiratory Virus Page And Subscribe Again To Blog

 A couple of notices:

1.   New Respiratory Virus Tab  

 I've ended the COVID tracking (there are three tabs (pages in Blogger lingo) above going back to March 11, 2020 where I've tracked COVID cases as reported by the state. 

In October the 'archived' their COVID dashboards and created a new 'Snapshot' for Respiratory Viruses.  I've started a new tab to track those numbers.  So far (since mid October) reported flu cases have gone up pretty dramatically.  RSV is starting to move up, but there are only 22 reported cases in Alaska on the last snapshot.  COVID cases are declining, but there were still 231 cases reported.  

You can find these updates at the Respiratory Virus Cases October 2023-? tab above (under the orange header)

2.  Subscriptions

I recently notice I was no longer getting email alerts when there was a new post.  I resubscribed the other day and I'm getting alerts again.  You can subscribe at the top of the right column.  Just put your email address in the box and hit SUBSCRIBE.