Racist Or Just Insensitive Juvenile Prank? (Those Aren't Mutually Exclusive)

 Coming back from Denali last week, we stopped at Kashwitna Lake.  Not a terribly scenic spot that day, but good for a quick break from driving.    

The bulletin board on the other hand, offered a little MatSu humor.  Even though the announcements have State of Alaska Fish and Game seals, I somehow think they aren't from the State.  And I decided not to check with the State.

This is in the most conservative borough in Alaska and I'm not sure whether there's some hidden right wing propaganda or whether this is just non-political, teen humor.  I don't think they info sheets had  been up long.  They showed no signs of rain and the staples hadn't started to bleed rust.  

Given that [the Alaska Guide says] Kashwitna comes from a Tainana Indian name, this is probably more than a little disrespectful.  

I found this about the Fukawi Indian tribe on Reddit:

Go to Jokes

r/Jokes•10 yr. ago

noccusJohnstein

"The story of the Fukawi Indian Tribe 

Our tribe has rich and long-standing history. Long time ago, our tribe wander the wilderness. For many years, we wander looking for land to call our own. Our chief led our people through mountains, valleys, seashores and plains.

People were born wandering. People died wandering. After an entire generation of wanderers were born and died, our chief, then very old, led us to top of great mountain. He stood atop mountain summit and faced his people. He looked around. He looked far and wide. He then shouted to the gods,

"We're the Fukawi! We're the Fukawi! WHERE THE FUCK ARE WE?!"

26

Sort by:

•10 yr. ago

This was originally told by the chief in the 60s show "FTroop". But it was "Hekawee' then.

Is this really worth a post?  I guess I consider it a form a graffiti and worth noting.  Though the more I think about this, I'm getting heavy racist vibes. Should I even leave it up?  Maybe just to alert folks.  

Denali Was Out In Full Glory

Here was the view from the mile 135 Denali Lookout point last Tuesday afternoon.  The mountain was magnificent.  The tallest mountain in North America.  All 20,310 feet (6,190.5 m) were showing, just about.  Aconcagua in Argentina is 22,831 feet (6,959 m).  But Aconcagua is one of many peaks in the Andes range.  The whole of Denali can be seen from 3000 feet and up.  And Tuesday it was all out and clear.  

After about four years in Alaska, I wanted to make a post card of clouds, labeled "Denali as most tourists see it."   There was a couple from Toronto there taking in the sight and I wanted to let them know how lucky they were to see this great view.  And we became friends for the next couple of days, enjoying the park together.  

Below is that same view on Thursday afternoon on our return to Anchorage.  My postcard view.  You'd never know North America's highest mountain was hiding behind those clouds.  You can also see that a lot of snow melted in those two days.  

And below is a picture of Denali from the North (on the right), on the road in the National Park.  Still clear.  

Our Canadian friends got great views of the mountain.  Below it resembles a full moon just rising.  

But as lucky as they were with the Mountain, they were unlucky with animals.  I don't remember a trip to Denali when we saw so few big animals.  The few we saw were not particularly close. There were plenty of ptarmigan, gulls, and ground squirrels.  

First we hiked along the Savage River trail.  We've learned from past experience that this early in the season, the trail on the east side is still full of snow and ice in parts, so we hike to the bridge along the west side (right side in the photo) and returned the same way.  

As you get closer to the bridge (about one mile each way) you start to see these Tolkien rocks.  

And excuse me for putting all these photos up extra large.  Denali National Park is extra large and even this effort doesn't do it justice.  

We stopped at Sanctuary campground for lunch, where we saw this giant head in the rocky mountain across the way.  Anyone else see it?  Two of us did.

Just before Teklanika campground, there is a pair of small lakes, ponds really.  One had buffleheads and pintails and a kingfisher.  The other had northern shovelers.  

We parked at the Teklanika overview - which is as far as you are allowed to drive - and walked down to the bridge below.  You can drive in the first 30 miles only until May 20 when the tour busses start.  (Well, they already had some tour busses for the benefit of cruise line passengers, but not too many.)  Beginning May 20 you can only drive as far as Savage River (12 miles in.)  The road is still closed at mile 40 due a a huge avalanche a few years back.  So 20 miles further to Eilson, and then the next 30 to Wonder Lake aren't accessible. An Anchorage Daily News article say it won't be done until 2026.

It was only as we were headed back after a long day, that we saw the first large animal - a caribou.  There were two moose after that.  Denali - being far north with a short growing season and a long winter, is no Serengeti.  There just isn't enough food for the large herds in Africa.  But three large animal sightings is pitiful.   It was a VERY windy day, and perhaps that kept the animals hunkered down.  

Our new friends headed to their hotel outside the park and we got back to our campground.  I'd brought a bunch of the broken tree limbs from the back yard post winter clean up and some nice dry pieces of firewood and we quickly had a dinner cooked in foil.  First on the grill while the flames were high, and then on the coals a little longer.  

Wordle's Limited Shelflife

[For those without a lot of time or patience, the gist of this post is: WORDLE is running out of valid words.  A problem exacerbated because they let people play already used words, even though they can't 'win.']

I've been through different phases of WORDLE playing.  I started with random words, then moved to starting with words that had high frequency letters.  The idea of starting with the same word everyday, in hopes that one day I'd get the word on the first round, didn't hold me for long.  It got boring.  Even  WORDLE has switched the word it starts with several times.  

For a few months now, my first word has been coming from Spelling Bee.  I pick one of the five letter words, with preference for the ones that have the most frequently used letters.  I skip the words with double letters - that seems like a waste.  Yes, they do use words with double letters now and then, but it would be really lucky to the the right double letter on the right day.  Sometimes there are no words that have five different letters.  Then I pick a four-letter word I can make a new word by adding a letter.  Often I'm stuck with a word that has one or two low probability letters.  And sometimes one of them is in the word and I get a leg up.  

My goal in the last few months has been to have more games I complete with three words than with fours.  I was going after having my total count of 3s higher than my total count of 4s.  I reached that goal a few days ago.  But it's getting easier to do that.  

Let me explain.  Yesterday was the 1054th WORDLE.  (Each WORDLE is numbered)

WORDS THAT DON'T WORK

There are some rules about the words they pick.  

1. No profanity.  But I was surprised the day they used PRICK.  Yes, it has normal meanings, and I guess that was their logic. 
2. They also don't seem to choose words that are demeaning to various people.  
3. No proper names (unless it has another meaning as well)  DAVID and SUSAN won't work.  RANDY will.  

In all three cases, when you type in such a word, it's rejected altogether.  You won't lose a turn if you type in one of these invalid words.

Then there's another class of words that aren't used 

1. Past tense words that end -ed.  You can play these words, but they won't win.   Irregular past tense words like WROTE are ok.  
2.  Regular plurals that end with an 's'. 
3. Words that have already been the winning word in past WORDLE games.  

These #3 words can be used, but words that have already been used, aren't eligible to win again.      On the one hand, such words can be useful when you are trying to choose a word that will eliminate help you find or eliminate letters, The -ed words and the previous winner words  are even used in their analysis section when they show the words still possible after each round. (This only happens after you are done and choose 'Analyze.")

I'm not sure how I know these things.  Partly by trial and error.  Maybe I found a website with tips like this.  I just don't remember.  I did just look at WORDLE's help page, but it only says it has to be a valid word.  

1054 - Why is this important.  

While English has lots of words, the number of five letter English words, as I've explained above, a that are valid and that can win is smaller.  In the ANALYSIS section (after you finish for the day)  WORDLE tells you how many VALID words are left.  I don't recall there being much more than 1000 ever shown after my first word.  That would mean that the five letters I just used in the first word, would raise the total, if they were still in play.  But by that much.

Are you getting my drift ye?.  WORDLE is going to run out of words.  

With over 1000 games already played, there are already over 1000 words that are no long valid.  That is, you can play them, but they can't be the winning word.  

In my eyes, that's somewhat unfair.  Well, not somewhat unfair.  Just unfair.  People new to WORDLE have no idea of what words have already been winners.  Even long time players can't remember all those words.  

But they internet knows.  There are websites that list the already used words - in alphabetical order and in chronological order.  I use Five Forks.   And since those words cannot be winners again, I've decided it's ok for me to look up the possible words on my list for the next round, so I don't waste guesses on words that can't win.  

Do I feel guilty?  Sure, there is something about this that doesn't feel quite right.  But the idea that perfectly legitimate words (not proper names, not plurals ending in 's', not slurs) simply cannot win because they've won already, seems even less fair. It's ok that WORDLE doesn't allow repeats, but that they don't disqualify them as invalid (since they can't win they should accept them on the list.)

And that's why I say WORDLE has a limited shellfire.  It's going to run out of words,  And by using the lists of past WORDLE words, it's easier now to get a 3 than in the beginning.  

That doesn't mean I'll always get a 3.  But I now have more 3s than 4s.  OK, There's a lot more 5s than 2s and more 6s than 1s.  

Not sure how many more of these I'm going to do.  

A Ride Down The Road

 Gave the car a spin this afternoon.  It's good to get out of town a bit.  

Looking across Turnagain Arm from the Seward Highway.  Can you see the tracks where rocks have slid down over the snow?

Same mountain, a little closer view.

McHugh Creek

Looking across Turnagain Arm from McHugh Creek

A muskrat at Potter Marsh

Sometimes A Car Repair Shop Is A Community - Ralfy At Culmination Motorsports

I got my 1971 VW Westphalia serviced by Kurt Schreiber in Wasilla for nearly 20 years until he retired.  Around that time our 25 year old van had holes in the floor and we got wet when we went through puddles.  I worried we might lose a passenger if we hit a bad bump.  Kurt said, "Steve, you've gotten your money's worth.  Time to let it go."

Sticker shock kept us from replacing the old van.  The new one was ten times what we paid for the first one new.  But since I wanted to be in a tent and my wife wanted to be in a hotel, the camper was the compromise that we needed.  It took two years to take the leap.  

Our kids were Outside.  M, at school in Boston said the dealers laughed at her when she inquired about VW campers.  They didn't sell them.  J, in Seattle, found a new one for $5,000 less than the Anchorage price.  He drove it up to Vancouver and we flew down for a family week there, then drove it back to Anchorage.  

Since then,  getting maintenance was more like a business deal than dropping it off with a friend who knew how to fix my car and I knew I could trust.  

But when I called Arctic Imports to schedule a maintenance this year, they said they no longer

worked on VW vans.  But when I asked, they gave me the name to two places who would.  Arctic is a little funkier than most businesses, but at Culmination it seems like everyone cares about you and your car.  

Culmination Motorsports sounded a bit ominous, but their website said they specialized in German cars and did everything from general maintenance to restoration.  Perfect.  

I think this is going to be more of a community than a business relationship.  Listen to owner Ralfy talk about his business in the video below.  Why the name Culmination?   The difference between 'new', 'classic', and 'vintage.'  Who his customers are.  The 'cult' of Culmination.  Why repair shops no longer have brand names in their names.   Toward the end he explains that Eurovans are sort of like the neglected step-child of VW. 

I'd note that I haven't done much video in the last few years (and YouTube has lots more options and requirements than it used to) and I don't often blog about businesses.  Only when I'm impressed.  And, of course, there's no payment from the business in return.  

Can you find the 'bright golden 160' Ralfy mentions in the video?  For people who know where the Fire Island Bakery South Anchorage location was - that's now Rafelito's and Culmination Motorsports.  I couldn't find addresses on any of the businesses on the short stretch of 91st west of King Street when I first went there.  The street turns right and dead ends.  It was the VW vans in the parking lot that told me I was at the right place.  

So, now I'm waiting for other VW vans to honk and wave.  (Well, that sort of happens anyway.)

Biking In Anchorage In Full Swing

 First off, I should say that for the fat tire and studded tire bikers, Anchorage is a year round biking town.  For folks like me, biking doesn't really start until most of the snow is off the bike paths.  The paths along the main roads have been clear since April 1 at least.  Here's Dowling on one of my early April rides.  

But as of the past weekend, the trails I've tried - and from reports of others - the bike trails along the greenbelts are now snow and ice free.  This was the trail from Goose Lake along Northern Lights and then over the the Alaska Native Medical Center last Friday.  The shiny stuff on the trail is melt water from the snow on the edge of the trail.  

Goose Lake, last Friday was still covered with ice as have been other small lakes I've been by.  

I still can't imagine the folks that designed these bike paths on the roads that bulge into the street at the corners.  The biker has to move left into traffic.  What were they thinking?  OK, you can have space marked off from the cars, but only most of the way.  Then we push you into the roadway.  I'm guessing this wasn't a biker.  Or even worse, an engineer who hates being forced to add bike lines, so he (a she wouldn't have done this) does the trail part way and then gets revenge at the corners.  (Any engineers reading this - I'm just being playful, like the person who designed this.)

On Bainbridge Island, where they have a similar design, they have curb cuts so bikes go on the sidewalk instead of the street.  

But this is a fairly recent improvement for the bike lanes on Bainbridge Island.  

Saturday I explored the Campbell Creek trail going south.  It was mostly clear, but there were still a few stretches with ice/snow.  So coming back I decided to explore along Old Seward Highway.  I didn't realize how grimy some of the streets between Old and New Seward are.  This was 66th I believe.  There was a fire in the old barrel in the middle.  

And not all the paths along main streets are great. This is one of the worst.  36th Avenue west of the Old Seward Highway on the south side of the street.  The big gravel lot north of New Sagaya feeds rocks and gravel onto the sidewalk.  There are big holes in the sidewalk.  This is just east of the little mall that has ACS and the Pita Pit.  The sidewalk has disappeared under rock and broken asphalt.  

And here's a picture in Spenard.  I can't quite believe this was the first moose I've seen since we got back into Anchorage early March.  It paid no attention to me.  I was biking back from the Providence branch in the old REI space.  No one had bothered to tell me that my doctor had recently moved from their to Building S over on the main Providence campus.  But, I got to see the moose.

Israel-Gaza VI: Finding Criteria For A Just Resolution

Thıs ıs a long post in which I try to link different ideas together.  Since I'm not posting every day nowadays, you can come back and finish this one over a few days. :) 


[OVERVIEW:  This post looks at the question:  What criteria would you use to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian and Israel claims to Palestine?  Then it uses information from the previous five posts, as well as additional information, on Israel and Gaza to show why this is not the black and white issue both sides claim it to be.  Sounds pretty simple, but I started this back in early March and I've been trying to tease out the key points since.  Not sure it will get any better so posting it now. Have fun.]

Map from https://www.quora.com/What-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-mean

Parts I-IV of this series of posts briefly discussed a number of subjects to show how complicated the Israeli-Gaza war is and why ıt ıs hard to speak intelligently and knowledgeably about the topic. 

 Part V outlined a few observations I came to while researching and writing the first four posts.  

In this post, I want to give an example of how those complexities make simple answers to any of this an easy, perhaps, but uninformed response. I'll refer to a number of the issues I identified in the earlier posts. I get that people grasp for some easy answer, especially in response to the unconscionable killing of Palestinians in Gaza.  But as comforting as that might be, slogans based on ignorance lead to even more confusion and anger.   

Let's look at the question of who has the best claim to the land between the river and the sea.  This refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.  On the map you can see that would cover all of modern day Israel as well as the Palestinian areas - Gaza and the West Bank.  

I include the map here because it's been said that many people shouting the motto "From the river to the sea" supposedly didn't know which river and which sea were meant.  [But are these claims true or just made to discredit demonstrators?  The link talks about hiring a polling company to ask students - but it didn't say that they were specifically students demonstrating and shouting the phrase.  There is so much spin going on over this topic we need to take everything with a grain of salt. We need to ask people what they mean before we attack them.]

While the Hamas declaration of 1988 (highlighted in Part IV) clearly says Hamas wants an Islamic state controlling all of historic Palestine (the British Mandate), this NPR article says many students chanting the slogan mean they want peace and freedom for all people living between the river and the sea. 

Hamas originally claimed all the land (see the section on the Hamas declaration in Part IV) which would mean the elimination of Israel, on the grounds that Palestinians have lived there for generations.  They claim that Israel is a colonial state taken from the local Palestinians by Europeans and Americans.   Israelis claim that Jews have lived there for thousands of years.  

That's very different from wanting peace and freedom for everyone living from the river to the sea.  

Basically, the current Israeli government led by Netanyahu wants Israel to exist and to have control over the Palestinian areas, because, as I understand it, they do not trust Arabs to peacefully live in their own country adjacent to Israel. 

And Hamas wants an Islamic State to control the whole area.  At least that's what the 1988 declaration says.  Yesterday (April 25, 2024) AP said.

"A top Hamas political official told The Associated Press the Islamic militant group is willing to agree to a truce of five years or more with Israel and that it would lay down its weapons and convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders."

But the AP article goes on to say:

"Over the years, Hamas has sometimes moderated its public position with respect to the possibility of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But its political program still officially “rejects any alternative to the full liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea” — referring to the area reaching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which includes lands that now make up Israel."

So one of the issues that both sides seem to totally disagree about is who has the right to live in this territory between the river and the sea.  Both groups?  One group? or the other?  How can this disagreement be resolved?  Let's just look at this one question to get a sense of how NOT easy this all is.  

Who has the most legitimate claims to the territory Israel occupies?

I would ask people to step back now and contemplate how one would evaluate those claims?  How should an impartial judge answer that question?  What criteria would such an objective observer use to determine who had the most legitimate claim to that land?  Must it be all or nothing?

Even coming up with criteria is fraught with problems.  Philosopher John Rawls has proposed a way to create rules for a just society - it would have to be done collectively, before anyone knows what role they will be assigned in that society.  Otherwise you give your role favorable conditions.  

",,,everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor principles to their own advantage:

"[N]o one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

The same problems are true about setting up the criteria for evaluating the claims to this land.  People will favor those criteria that they know will lead to the outcome they prefer.  But in the world we live in, that veil of ignorance is not possible.  

So which criteria to use?

1. Who's been there the longest?  
1. How would you measure this? 
1. Jews have lived in and around Jerusalem and other parts of Israel for about 3000 years.  
2. Christianity is 2000 years old, and 
3. Mohamed didn't found Islam until 610 AD.  
2. Whose traditions are connected to the land?     
1. Jerusalem holds major holy sites for all three religions. Plus others like Bahá'ì.
3. What group's culture has no other homeland where the majority of the population share their language, religion, and customs other than in this disputed land?  
4. What group has the most people?
5. Who will make the best use of the land? 
6. Flip a coin?

Below are some thoughts on intricacies of answering the questions above (particularly 1-3)

1.  National borders change constantly over time.  Hong Kong was under British rule from 1898- 1997.  India was a British colony for nearly two hundred years. After India became independent,  Pakistan split from India in 1947.  Bangladesh split from Pakistan in 1971. Russia colonized parts of Alaska from the 1830s until they sold all of Alaska to the United States in 1867. Though they only had colonized  relatively small portion of Alaska and the indigenous population had no say in any of this. Alaska became a US state in 1959.  Hawaii became an internationally recognized kingdom in 1808 but then was conquered by the US in 1898.  

Today's African nations' boundaries were dictated mostly by European colonial rulers, focused on exploiting natural resources, not which groups of people lived where.  

The Ottoman empire controlled Palestine for 400 years until the British took over and eventually, through the Balfour Declaration created Israel.  After the creation of Israel in 1948, the West Bank was basically controlled by Jordan and Gaza was controlled by Egypt until the 1967 war.  

2. Colonization

The Hamas Charter talks about Israel as a colonial power.  But let's look at that a little more carefully.  Here's a generally common definition much like this one from dictionary.com

"-a country or territory claimed and forcibly taken control of by a foreign power which sends its own people to settle there:

-a group of people who leave their native country to form a settlement in a territory that their own government has claimed and forcibly taken control of:"

European nations set up colonies in the Western Hemisphere, South America, Asia, Australia.  In all cases the colony was controlled by a mother country elsewhere.

Israel is a special case.  There is no mother country.  Instead we have a people scattered around in many other countries - always a small religious minority, often reviled and with fewer rights than other citizens.  And then, of course, there was the Holocaust.  

So Jews had no homeland where their religion and culture was protected and where they weren't a minority.  From Wikipedia:

"According to the Hebrew Bible, the First Temple was built in the 10th century BCE, during the reign of Solomon over the United Kingdom of Israel. It stood until c. 587 BCE, when it was destroyed during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem.[1] Almost a century later, the First Temple was replaced by the Second Temple, which was built after the Neo-Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Achaemenid Persian Empire. While the Second Temple stood for a longer period of time than the First Temple, it was likewise destroyed during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE."

My sense is that Hamas knows there is no Jewish mother country (in the US where Jews have their largest population, they make up less than 3% of the total population.)  Hamas seems to be using 'colonial' to imply that Western nations, in some sense, are the 'White" mother nations of Israel.  And Britain was the last European nation to have control over Palestine and agreed to the creation of Israel.  

But if the State of Israel were to be dissolved, there really is no 'home' country for Jews to go to.  Though Caryn Aviv and David Shneer, in their 2005 book New Jews argue that the idea of diaspora may be out of date, that there are vibrant Jewish communities around the world where Jews feel rooted and do not long to return Israel.  They argue for exchanging fear - and Israel as the safe home for Jews - for hope based on all the new ways Jews are redefining themselves.  But this is a tiny minority opinion.

On the other hand, Palestinian Muslims speak Arabic and follow Islam.  There are many Islamic countries in the world, where Arabic is spoken.  Yet their argument that being Palestinian makes them different from other Arab cultures is partially confirmed by the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan - both close neighbors of Israel - do not want a large influx of Palestinians.  

But the Islamic State that Hamas declares (in their declaration) is mandated for Palestine, would be radically different from the culture that Palestinians have developed in Palestine.  

"The Islamic Resistance Movement [firmly] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Trust] upon all Muslim generations till the day of Resurrection." 

Such an Islamic state would be more different from current Palestinian culture than if Palestinians moved to most other Arab countries.  Or even non Arab countries. And how does this accommodate the Christian Arabs who live in Palestine?   

3.  Countries where Indigenous Populations regained control have been former colonies

Most former colonies that are now independent countries  are former European colonies.  The  borders imposed by the foreign conquerors often didn't match the local indigenous boundaries and led to countries that have different ethnic groups competing for power.  Israel and Palestine is such an example.  

So while it's accurate to say that England left behind the seeds of conflict in the former Palestine Mandate as it did in other former colonies, the Jews of Israel are different from the colonialists who exploited other European colonies.   While many, if not most, came from Europe, they can trace their historical connection to the land back 3000 years.  And others have come from Arabic countries in North Africa and the Middle East.  These are people who spoke Arabic as well as ancient biblical languages into the 20th Century.

In other cases - say the US and much of South America  - the European settlers simply attempted to Christianize the indigenous populations, move them,  and if that didn't work, annihilate them.  

When the Soviet Union collapsed, former member states, such as the Yugoslavia, broke up, not peacefully,  into smaller states based on ethnicity.  East Germany, more peacefully, joined West Germany.  

Is there a solution both sides would agree to?

To the extent that Hamas and Netanyahu's government are negotiating, probably not.   

The parties' demands are mutually exclusive 

The Israeli government under Netanyahu says elimination of Hamas and Israeli control of Gaza is what they will accept.  [But note, the wording changes regularly, but the basics seem to stay the same.] While Hamas has pulled back, at least on paper, from demanding that they will not be satisfied until the Jewish state no longer exists, they still believe that all of Palestine is rightfully an Islamic State whose laws should be based on the Koran.  

Could other nations get Hamas and and the current Israeli government to come to an agreement?

The world leaders have been trying since the creation of Israel with no lasting success.

What leverage do outside players have on Israel and Palestinians?

Both parties get their weapons from foreign countries, though Israel itself has a formidable arms industry of its own.  

The outside supporters could tell Israel and Hamas that they will cut off all weapons until there is a peace treaty.  Let's look at the key countries involved.

Middle East Eye says that while the US is by far the biggest arms supplier to Israel, they also get weapons from Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, and Canada, 

The American Friends Service Committee has put out a list of companies that profit from the Israeli attacks on Gaza.  Go to the link to see the list.  Besides major players like Boeing and Lockheed, there are many others.  

This AP article identifies sources of Palestinian weapons:

“'The majority of their arms are of Russian, Chinese or Iranian origin, but North Korean weapons and those produced in former Warsaw Pact countries are also present in the arsenal,' said N.R. Jenzen-Jones, an expert in military arms who is director of the Australian-based Armament Research Services. "

 There are Israeli Jews and Palestinians who would like a two state solution with peace and cooperation between the two

My conclusion is that both parties have legitimate claims to independent states in the land between the river and the sea.  I don't see an easy path to that option.  In fact the only paths I see now are in people's imaginations.  Here are visions of peaceful coexistence, one Israeli, one Palestinian.  : 

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib     https://twitter.com/afalkhatib/status/1782241783843553568

Haggai Matar   https://www.972mag.com/lament-israelis-gaza-october-7/

Whether the voices of fear and anger will continue to dominate or whether some versions along the lines these two call for is possible, only time will tell.  

Finally, are students wrong to protest against the killings in Gaza?  Absolutely not.  Are they protesting perfectly?  Of course not.  Protest organizers often lose control of the protests they've organized.  Let's not get distracted from the issue they are protesting - the slaughter of almost 40,000 civilians, mostly women and children.  And administrators and police groups are reacting to them the same way administrators and police groups reacted to the anti-war demonstrations in the US in the 1960s and 70s.  Four students were shot by National Guard troops at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.  From the pictures I'm seeing of current demonstrations, Kent State might well be repeated soon.  Let's hope not.  

Alaska Press Club Friday - Judy Woodruff, Climate, Saving Local News

The Alaska Press Club annual conference gives this lone blogger an opportunity to connect with other journalists and learn something.  This really should be several posts, but I'm going to cover today pretty fast, just to give you a sense of things, but not too much detail.  

First session I went to was  Covering Climate Change in Rural Alaska.  

The room was pretty full for this panel of journalists who have worked in rural Alaska.  Issues covered how to get stories, particularly as outsiders;  how to write them so the local folks feel they've been fairly represented.  

Jackie Qataliña Schaeffer

The panelist I got the most from wasn't a journalist  (well that's not completely clear, she may have once been) who is now the Director, Climate Initiatives, at the Alaska Native Tribal Consortium, Jackie Qataliña Schaeffer.  

I've spent a lot of time learning about cross-cultural translation by spending a year or more in several cultures outside of my own.  I've paid close attention to Alaska Native issues and people in the years I've lived in Alaska.  But Jackie said things that captured wisdoms I'd never heard articulated like that before.  (Yes, I know I owe you a couple of examples, but my notes aren't good enough to write them here in a way that would due justice to she said. But trust me, she's comfortable and culturally fluent in the world of Alaska Native cultures and the more recently arrived Euro-American culture.  

                          Two of the other panelists who had a lot to contribute:  Rachel Waldholz and Tom Kizzia.

Keynote:  Judy Woodruff, PBS Newshour

The room was packed when I got there and I ended up in a seat right in front of the podium and it was clear I was barely going to see more than the speaker's forehead, so I took this shot while she was being introduced.  

Her theme was the two or three year tour of the US she's making trying to learn more about the extreme political divide that now exists in the US.  She started with Pugh Research (where she visited) polling data that shows the divide far greater than ever in any of their polls over the years.  She talked about Republicans who thought Democrats were immoral and Democrats who thought the same of Republicans.  About families that don't celebrate Thanksgiving together any more.  There used to be married couples who managed to stay together even though they were of different political parties.  Today, she said, that was down to 2-3% of married couples.  

She talked about the causes of the divide and they were all the usual suspects.  When she got to the media she emphasized the importance of local news and how the loss of some 2500 local newspapers was a blow to democracy.  That those local papers were raw glue that kept communities together, where people saw themselves and their neighbors mentioned in print whether it was local sports pages or stories about community arts, non-profits, local businesses.  And that local reporters were crucial to informing local communities about the local officials and keeping them accountable.  

John Palfrey,MacArthur Foundation

This all led into the next sessions (not accidentally) which dealt with an initiative Press Forward co-founded by the MacArthur Foundation (which supports the PBS Newshour) and the Knight Foundation.  When I looked at their website just now, there are lots of other foundations listed, but from the discussion it seems the two speakers in the next sessions - John Palfrey, CEO of the MacArthur Foundation and Jim Brady, Vice President for Journalism at the Knight Foundation - went out and encouraged the others to join this initiative.  

John and then Jim talked about Press Forward as one effort to save democracy by helping make local journalism sustainable as technology and online media are eroding traditional revenue sources for local newspapers.

They've raised half a billion dollars (!) so far and now are working on the other half.  

Jim Brady and Lori Townsend

Above is Jim Brady of the Knight Foundation being interviewed by Alaska Public Media News Director Lori Townsend.  While Palfrey talked more about the creation and vision of Press Forward and raising money, Brady spoke more to the kinds of things they are funding.  Sustainability was a word that was used often.  

Press Forward Alaska came to be with the help of the Rasmuson and Atwood Foundations and the strong public broadcasting network here which has already been working on the kinds of alliances among different media outlets Press Forward is encouraging.  There were other local Press Forward projects, but Alaska is the first State Project.  

The last part of this Press Forward Initiative presentation was a panel of Alaskan journalists involved in cooperative projects.  And as I write this, I'm guessing that somehow they have been touched by Press Forward assistance, though I didn't catch that link at the time. 

Here are David Hulen (with the mic), editor of the Anchorage Daily News, Amy Bushatz, Mat-Su Sentinel, Joaqlin Estus, Indian Country Today, and moderator Wesley Early, Anchorage reporter at Alaska Public Media.

Finally, I wrapped the day up talking in the lobby with Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media and John McKay, an Anchorage First Amendment attorney who represents most local media.  (I realize the sentence says 'an', but John probably is 'the' key attorney in this field.)

I'd never met Ed (center) before and as a blogger, I often find myself having to convince people I'm not a flake.  John showed up at the right time.  John was an early supporter of my blogging work and when he worked out a deal for media covering the political corruption trials back in 2007 and 2008, to share the audio/vidoe evidence in the trials and to take cell phones and computers past the court security, he (unbeknownst to me) included my name on the list of journalists getting these privileges.  He later helped me out when I was threatened with a law suit for questioning the legitimacy of the Alaska International Film Festival whose only presence in Alaska was a post office box and which had no actual festival.  While we were talking Lori Townsend joined us briefly as she was leaving because she had a program to host at 5pm.  

That's it.  An incomplete view of the Alaska Press Club conference today.  But despite the fact that the conference is made up of journalists, not many of us actually cover what happens.  

As Trump's Jury Gets Chosen, I Get Summons ForJury Duty

 It was an email from the Alaska Court System.

The time I've been summoned for is in June.  So I'm guessing the folks who ended up as potential jurors in the Trump case in New York were probably summoned much earlier as well.

I was wondering why it came to my email.  In the past it's always come via the post office.  In Alaska, people who have requested a Permanent Fund Check are on the list.  

Next I had to fill out an online questionnaire to insure I was eligible - an Alaska resident, a US citizen, over 18, etc.  

Here's a link to the instructions jurors get.  Most of it is routine FAQs - will I get paid?  how much?  what about food?  parking?  how long will I serve?  etc.  

But given the attention to picking the jury in New York, I thought the section picking jurors for a particular trial might be of interest to people.  Of course, these are Alaska rules not New York rules so there may be some differences.  This is the voir dir - the choosing and removing of jurors by the attorneys.  

How are jurors chosen to sit on a jury?

There are several methods a judge may use to select a jury. The following paragraphs describe the most common methods.

When a trial is ready to begin, a group of potential jurors will be called into the courtroom. The clerk will ask the potential jurors to swear or affirm that they will truthfully answer the questions about to be asked of them.

Trials begin with jury selection. Names are randomly selected from those on jury service to form a panel from which the trial jury will be selected. The judge excuses those on the panel whose knowledge of the people or the circumstances would affect their impartiality.

    J-180 (7/22) 10

You will be told the names of the parties and their attorneys and the nature of the case. You will be asked such things as whether you know or are related to anyone involved in the case, have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the case, have formed or expressed an opinion, or have any personal bias or prejudice that might affect how you decide the case.

Depending on your court location, one of two methods will be used to select the first group of potential jurors to take seats in the jury box:

Method #1: The names of all potential jurors will be placed on slips of paper in a small box. The clerk will then draw a certain number of names from the box and ask those persons to take seats in the jury box. Method #2: A computer will produce a list of potential jurors in random order and the clerk will ask the first group of persons on that list to take seats in the jury box.

The judge and the lawyers for each side will ask you some questions. If you are reluctant to answer a particular question in public, you may ask the judge to be examined privately on that topic.

The lawyers will be allowed to ask that certain potential jurors be excused “for cause." The lawyer must explain why the lawyer believes the juror would not be a fair and impartial juror in the case. The judge may or may not grant these requests. After all seated jurors have been “passed for cause," the lawyers will be allowed to “peremptorily disqualify” a certain number of jurors (this means to disqualify them without stating the reason why). The number of peremptory disqualifications allowed depends on the type of case.

After the required number of jurors has been accepted, the jurors take an oath swearing or affirming that they will hear the case and give a verdict based solely on the evidence introduced and the instructions of the court. The trial is then ready to begin.

I see jury duty as one of the responsibilities US citizens have in exchange for the freedom and opportunities we have.  It's a less frequent responsibility than voting, but maybe even more important.  I also know that jurors are required to be impartial and that many if not most jurors struggle to overcome biases they have that could lead them to an erroneous decision.   

The Street - A 1946 Primer On Structural Racism

 My bookclub is reading The Street by Ann Petry this month.  

It was first published in 1946.  Remember that date.  It says on the cover of the 1976 edition that it has sold over a million copies.  

It's a story of an attractive young Black woman living in Harlem at the end of WW II, struggling to find a path to a better life.  It shifts here and there to the stories of other characters she deals with, but it's basically Lutie Johnso's story.

What I find of most interest is that 

• this book got published in 1946
• that many copies were sold
• that the message seems to have little impact on White understanding

I'm guessing about the last point.  Perhaps it caused a number of White folks to adjust their assessment of Black folk in the United States an to better understand the enormous obstacles they faced.  And maybe I'm just frustrated that it has taken so long to change White thinking,  After all, it was 1953 when James Baldwin's first book - Go Tell It On The Mountain - was published.  But Richard Wright's Native Son was published in 1940.  

A 1992 NYTimes article about the republication of The Street gives us more background about the author and how the book got published and that it was a big hit right away.  

Scattered throughout the book, Lutie Johnson reflects on al the obstacles Black women (and men) faced.  How impossible it was to get ahead, to escape poverty.  How the housing was terrible, paying the rent difficult.  Black men had trouble getting jobs, so the women worked and quickly became single mothers whose kids had no safe, healthy places to go after school until their mom's got home from work.  

Here are a couple of pages to give an example of Lutie's reflections.  This first one is when her husband was laid off and in desperation, Lutie takes a job in Connecticut as a maid.  This leaves her husband home to raise their young son.  

The facing page tells us that her boss' mother has come to visit over Christmas.  The sentence begins on the previous page:  "A tall think woman with ... cold gray eyes..."

And this second passage is much later.  While Lutie was out of Harlem most of the month working for White people in a large house, her husband took up with another woman.  Lutie has quit her job and is back in Harlem in a depressing, small apartment with her son.  

On the previous page she had, walking home,  encountered a woman whose head was bleeding.  

"Yes, she thought, she and Bub [her eight year old son] had to get out of ... 116th Street.  

In the 1992 New York Times article we learn that Ann Petry grew up comfortably in a small town in Connecticut.  

"Mrs. Petry's grandfather was a chemist and her father a pharmacist who owned his own drugstore in town. Her mother was a barber, then a chiropodist and finally started her own linen business. Mrs. Petry graduated from the College of Pharmacy of the University of Connecticut and worked for a time in the family shop. A Comfortable Childhood

Theirs was one of the few black families in this old Connecticut town then, and still is today, but the incidents of prejudice, said Mrs. Petry, have been few. Hers was a childhood of privilege, especially for a black child of those days. Two working parents, family all about, enough money for hair ribbons, new shoes, warm meals and college. Mrs. Petry came to known firsthand the traumas of the street only after she married in 1938 and moved to Harlem."

I'm still puzzled about the impact this book had.  Over a million copies had been sold by the time the 1992 paperback version was published.  Who were those people?  How did they react?  How many did anything to make the lives of Black folks easier?  How many were White?  Black?  

This book wasn't talking about the suffering of Black people in the South.  It was about people in New York City.

The original review of the book, says it was published in February 1946.  A bit of context - Donald Trump was born June 14, 1946.  I'm guessing neither of his parents read this book.  

One other thought:  As I read this book and imagined who might have read the book, I got this image of all the people who had ever read it gathered together for a week to talk about the book and what actions they could take to change things.  To a degree, social media moves us in that direction.  Not all the readers of a book, but a significant number can share the experience.