Search the KHIT Blog

Monday, January 29, 2024

A breadth of sneering anti-"Woke Cultural Elites" vitriol.

 One Convenient Location.

~ 900 pages [pdf] of what they call their "Opening Salvo."
Any logical incoherence in the foregoing paragraph jump out at you?
"Americans' First Amendment rights?" As long as you, minmally, abstain from citing
or writing favorably about the words & phrases fundamental to the "Woke" cohort?
Moreover, your use of such terminology (unless evoked disparagingly)
precludes your eligibility for federal employment in 2025 and beyond.

THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH evolved in the West for 2,000 years, beginning with the Athenians (although not without a few setbacks, such as the death of Socrates). But America was the first country in history to enshrine a formal, legal, and enforceable protection for free expression, ensuring that people have the right to speak no matter who’s pissed off or how powerful they are.

Whenever a society collapses in on itself, free speech is the first thing to go. That’s how you know we’re in the process of closing up shop. Our legal protections remain in place—that’s why so many of us were able to smack the Trump piñata to such effect—but the culture of free speech is eroding every day. Ask an Oberlin student—fresh outta Shaker Heights, coming in hot, with a heart as big as all outdoors and a 3 in AP Bio—to tell you what speech is acceptable, and she’ll tell you that it’s speech that doesn’t hurt the feelings of anyone belonging to a protected class.

Flanagan, Caitlin. On Thinking for Yourself (Atlantic Editions) (pp. 72-73). Zando. Kindle Edition.
On the heels of my prior Dr. Blackstock post, some interesting and timely reading.
Lots more shortly. Gotta go fetch Calvin... 

Zack De Piero taught writing for four years in the English department at Penn State’s Abington campus. Then he resigned and, in 2023, filed a lawsuit alleging that administrators and other faculty members discriminated against him because he is white. In his telling, the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by creating a hostile work environment. In response, hundreds of academics signed an open letter calling the lawsuit a reactionary attack on “ongoing efforts in diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.”

The dispute, like so many in higher education, pits a faction that believes that the prevailing campus attitudes toward identity are racist against a faction that believes that they help fight racism. It is hardly unique in raising the question of whether DEI initiatives ever go too far. Still, this case stands out, not only because it resulted in a federal lawsuit, but because earlier this month, a judge denied Penn State’s motion to dismiss De Piero’s hostile-workplace claim. The case can now go to trial.

The ruling comes as backlash against DEI initiatives is growing and questions about when they violate antidiscrimination law remain unsettled. More significant, it establishes a standard that federal judges of varying ideologies could plausibly adopt, and that other plaintiffs can use to bring bias claims to trial.

This isn’t a case where, say, a white Donald Trump appointee who hates academia took an extreme position, like “Any departure from color-blindness is illegal,” that would be overturned on appeal. This particular judge is more difficult for DEI partisans to dismiss. Wendy Beetlestone, a Black district-court judge born in Nigeria, was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama. She was announced last year as the University of Liverpool’s next chancellor; she is clearly not hostile to higher education. And the substance of her ruling is hard for would-be critics to reject in full…

Critical race theory was yesterday’s scandal. Today, diversity-equity-and-inclusion initiatives are in the crosshairs of critics across the political spectrum who seek to dismantle any notion that racism is systemic and thus deserving of systemic remedies. Though the crisis at Harvard University began with questions concerning the prevalence of antisemitism and ended with charges of plagiarism against its president, Claudine Gay—who then resigned—for many of Gay’s opponents, D.E.I. initiatives appear to have been the main target. When the conservative activist Chris Rufo wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the role of conservatives, including himself, in ending Gay’s presidency, antisemitism and plagiarism received no meaningful mention. Instead, Rufo focussed on conservatives’ efforts to end D.E.I. in higher education. In his own long statement, Gay’s chief critic, the billionaire hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman, said that D.E.I. was the “root cause” of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus…

There's a ton more. These will serve illustratively apropos of the broad cultural gnashing for the moment.

OK, whatever your opinion of the breadth of consenting adults' erotica proclivities and indulgences (irrespective of media expression format), this lame willful conflation is, well,—utterly predictable, I guess. First, gauzy as it may be jurisprudentially, it's "obscenity" that crosses the decisis ConLaw line. Moreover, the characterization of porn as "omnipresently manifested" in "transgender ideology and sexualization of chlldren..."

What? Need I really elaborate? Flamboyant adult hetero "swinger" Roger Stone apparently didn't get The Memo. Neither did the FL anti-woke book banners “Moms For Liberty” FFM video hotties.

The foregoing rather exemplifies the aggregate problem with this poignant "Opening Salvo." I am currently close to 400 pages through these ~900 pages.** This crew simply cannot resist larding up even otherwise often relatively unremarkable policy reform propositions (however "illiberal") with their fevered (projective?) visions of innocent toddlers fellating Cultural Elite Woke Trannies.
(** And, I've keyword/phrase-searched most of the principal red-meat straw-gender-fluid fallacies spanning the text in pursuit of their conclusionary contexts. Yeah, the riff is endemic. Don't take me at my word. "Do Your Own Research." Cmd-F is Your Friend.)
** Gotta love SECTION 4(26), by Peter Navarro,
now convicted & sentenced for Contempt of Congress.

...On the right there is constant complaints of the “liberal bias” in the media, and on the left there are complaints of the rise of right-wing media which they feel is biased and radicalizing. The culture wars focus mainly on schools, because those schools teach not only facts and knowledge but convey the values of our society. The left views DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiates as promoting social justice while the right views it as brainwashing the next generation with liberal propaganda. This is an oversimplification, but it is the basic dynamic. Even industry has been targeted by the culture wars… The Neurologica Blog

Hmmm... they're gonna be hiring? (A sort of "temp agency?" I’m seein’ a Netflix Series…) What could possibly go wrong?
Well, you have to give up personal info to simply get a peek at the application. Congratulations, you are now a donor prospect. ("Your monthly donation commitment will prioritize your application ranking.")
Just let me guess as to what kinds of CV/personal "vetting" info you'll have to submit? Will it include a gamut of ideological purity questions? A list of all your social media accounts?

Seriously, kiddies?

Spend a bit of time surfing their website. Draw your own conclusions.
Wafts of Trump University in the air?

I'm 10 days out from my 78th birthday. I think a new car is in order.
arf, arf...

ragion di stato

Get a load of this dude:

...Alternatively, in a formulation I prefer, one can imagine an illiberal legalism that is not “conservative” at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order.

This approach should take as its starting point substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good, principles that officials (including, but by no means limited to, judges) should read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution. These principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality”—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority. Such principles promote the common good and make for a just and well-ordered society.

To be sure, some have attempted to ground an idea of the common good on an originalist understanding, taking advantage of the natural-rights orientation of the founding era. Yet that approach leaves originalism in ultimate control, hoping that the original understanding will happen to be morally appealing. I am talking about a different, more ambitious project, one that abandons the defensive crouch of originalism and that refuses any longer to play within the terms set by legal liberalism. Ronald Dworkin, the legal scholar and philosopher, used to urge “moral readings of the Constitution.”Common-good constitutionalism is methodologically Dworkinian, but advocates a very different set of substantive moral commitments and priorities from Dworkin’s, which were of a conventionally left-liberal bent.

Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them. Instead it draws upon an immemorial tradition that includes, in addition to positive law, sources such as the ius gentium—the law of nations or the “general law” common to all civilized legal systems—and principles of objective natural morality, including legal morality in the sense used by the American legal theorist Lon Fuller: the inner logic that the activity of law should follow in order to function well as law.

Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself. Constraints on power are good only derivatively, insofar as they contribute to the common good; the emphasis should not be on liberty as an abstract object of quasi-religious devotion, but on particular human liberties whose protection is a duty of justice or prudence on the part of the ruler.

Finally, unlike legal liberalism, common-good constitutionalism does not suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy, because it sees that law is parental, a wise teacher and an inculcator of good habits. Just authority in rulers can be exercised for the good of subjects, if necessary even against the subjects’ own perceptions of what is best for them—perceptions that may change over time anyway, as the law teaches, habituates, and re-forms them. Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being.

Common-good constitutionalism draws inspiration from the early modern theory of ragion di stato—reason of state,” which, despite the connotations that have become attached to its name, is not at all a tradition of unscrupulous machination. (Indeed, it was formulated precisely to combat amoral technocratic visions of rule as the maximization of princely power.) Instead the ragion di stato tradition elaborates a set of principles for the just exercise of authority. Promoting a substantive vision of the good is, always and everywhere, the proper function of rulers. Every act of public-regarding government has been founded on such a vision; any contrary view is an illusion. Liberal and libertarian constitutional decisions that claim to rule out “morality” as a ground for public action are incoherent, even fraudulent, for they rest on merely a particular account of morality, an implausible account.

Given that it is legitimate for rulers to pursue the common good,  constitutional law should elaborate subsidiary principles that make such rule efficacious. Constitutional law must afford broad scope for rulers to promote—as the ragion di stato put it, in a famous trinity of principles—peace, justice, and abundance. Today, we may add health and safety to that list, in very much the same spirit. In a globalized world that relates to the natural and biological environment in a deeply disordered way, a just state is a state that has ample authority to protect the vulnerable from the ravages of pandemics, natural disasters, and climate change, and from the underlying structures of corporate power that contribute to these events. Because the ragion di stato is not ashamed of strong rule, does not see it as presumptively suspect in the way liberalism does, a further corollary is that authority and hierarchy are also principles of constitutionalism. Finally, and perhaps most important, just rule emphasizes solidarity and subsidiarity. Authority is held in trust for and exercised on behalf of the community and the subsidiary groups that make up a community, not for the benefit of individuals taken one by one.

How, if at all, are these principles to be grounded in the constitutional text and in conventional legal sources? The sweeping generalities and famous ambiguities of our Constitution, an old and in places obscure document, afford ample space for substantive moral readings that promote peace, justice, abundance, health, and safety, by means of just authority, hierarchy, solidarity, and subsidiarity. The general-welfare clause, which gives Congress “power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” is an obvious place to ground principles of common-good constitutionalism (despite a liberal tradition of reading the clause in a cramped fashion), as is the Constitution’s preamble, with its references to general welfare and domestic tranquility, to the perfection of the union, and to justice. Constitutional words such as freedom and liberty need not be given libertarian readings; instead they can be read in light of a better conception of liberty as the natural human capacity to act in accordance with reasoned morality.

...The Court’s jurisprudence on free speech, abortion, sexual liberties, and related matters will prove vulnerable under a regime of common-good constitutionalism. The claim, from the notorious joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that each individual may “define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” should be not only rejected but stamped as abominable, beyond the realm of the acceptable forever after. So too should the libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology—that government is forbidden to judge the quality and moral worth of public speech, that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,”  and so on—fall under the ax...

After reading up on His Opus Dei-ness in finer depth (he's got a Thing for Monarchism), I tweeted him (he's at Harvard) with a question concerning a couple of core specifics apropos of "the Common Good."
His response was simply to block me for my Great Unwashed Temerity.
Reproductive rights? Suck it up, sistahs.


 Watch it all closely.
278 days to Nov 5th…

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

NPR while in the car: Another author and book come to my attention

Cheryl and I typically fetch our 4 yr old Grandson Calvin from his preschool on Mondays through Thursdays, so the kids can finish their workdays.

Yesterday while schlepping down to Fell's Point we had NPR's Fresh Air on the radio.

I noted the author and book title in my iPhone. The book was released this morning.
Downloaded it first thing when I got up.
Reading it sort of "in reverse" at the outset, following the Intro: Epilogue, Acknowledgements, Chapters 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and then back to 1 and moving forward... "The Benjamin Button Analytical Reading Method." I do this kind of path sometimes when I am conversant in the topic (retired Medicare analyst), feel like I can trust the author(s), and want to get a quick take on the policy/solutions recommendations. e.g.,
From CHAPTER 15: Actions Speak Louder than Words

To The Nation’s Health-Care Institutions: You have historically, intentionally, and currently proven yourselves untrustworthy to Black communities. You have not treated Black patients with the humanity they deserve. You have excluded community partners in critical decision-making that has affected their neighborhoods and lives. You lack community members on the boards of your institutions. You have not formed meaningful and generative relationships with the community-based organizations that have been embedded in our communities for decades. In your hospital systems, you continue to use race-based tools to calculate, for example, kidney function, and health-care technologies with bias embedded in them, such as pulse oximeters that reinforce and even exacerbate racial health inequities. We need you to do better. We need you to provide structurally competent and culturally centered care to Black communities—care that takes into consideration the social, economic, and political context in which people live. We need you to be intentional about earning the trust of Black communities so that people will be more willing to seek care even before they really need it and have the opportunity to form meaningful and healthy relationships with health-care professionals.

To Medical Schools and Academic Medical Centers: You have one of the most important jobs. You are educating our future physicians, but you are not doing enough. I left NYU and many more will leave academic medical centers because of empty and performative diversity statements; creating chief diversity officer or dean of diversity positions that are set up to fail by providing too little commitment in funding, administrative support, and empowerment; your pushback against feedback from Black students, staff, and faculty; and your upholding and relentless centering of white supremacist cultural values—like individualism, defensiveness, fear of open conflict, overemphasis of the written word, and quantity over quality—that the educator and activist Dr. Tema Jon Okun has written about so eloquently…

Blackstock, Uché. Legacy
(pp. 256-257). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

To White Physicians and Health-care Professionals: This is not our struggle to fight alone. Your Black colleagues are exhausted. Your Black patients are dying. The first step toward fixing racial health inequities is for you to acknowledge that systemic racism exists and do your own due diligence to understand how it operates and impacts health outcomes. You must recognize your own individual biases and racism, no matter how altruistic or well intentioned you think you are. You may think you are treating all your patients the same, that you are colorblind, that you are giving everyone the best possible care, but you may be reinforcing systemic inequities in your interactions with Black patients by ignoring how interpersonal and systemic racism impact their health…
[pg 259]

To Elected Officials and Leaders: Closing the gap of long-standing racial health inequities will require sustained investment and commitment at all levels of government to dismantle racism and the degree to which it impacts the social determinants of health in Black communities—housing, education, employment, transportation, access to health care and healthy foods, and structural racism within health-care systems…
[pg  260]

To White Americans: You have work to do around your kitchen tables. No more hollow promises. No more ignoring our calls for action. And if you consider yourself liberal or a progressive or a supporter of Black Lives Matter, then that requires you to talk with your family, friends, loved ones, and acquaintances about systemic racism and their own biases, harmful decisions, and silence. Participating in the latest social media hashtag trend does not mean you have reckoned with anything. Our collective grief and the generational and systemic issues we face did not magically appear—white supremacy and privilege have manifested it all. We are living in two Americas because of systemic racism. I’m still angry that it took the savage murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a white police officer for some white Americans to see the horror of racism. He and so many others of us should be alive today, and it should never have taken that heinous incident to wake you up…
[pg 262]

To The United States: However tragic, depressing, and preventable this current moment is, I also think it’s a moment in which we are called upon to think about transformative change more broadly for Black Americans, including how we can and must provide more equitable and quality health care.

If arguably the wealthiest, most well-resourced country in the world cannot take care of its own people, especially those who are crumbling under the weight of oppression, then I am deeply concerned about where we go from here.

I hope that this book is an urgent reminder of the work we have left to do. It takes all of us, from each of our seats on the arc of justice, to make a real difference in people’s lives. Beyond rhetoric, we need everyone on board to dismantle systemic racism and white supremacy—these ills are greater than any one of us.
[pp 263-4]
My first reaction was "oh, boy, Tucker Carlson will have an aneurism!"

My next thought was "Y'all gotta hook up with Mark Cuban. He is smacking the absolute shit outa the whiny-assed racist anti-DEI MAGA crowd these days."

BTW: See my 2015 riff on "#BlackDocsMatter" (please forgive the link rot).

"George Floyd?" With ya there, this ole Whitey.
Much more to come. This had not been on my radar for today.


Yeah. I am reminded of some 15 yr-old musings of mine.

I will by no means be the first to note that our medical industry is not really a "system," nor is it predominantly about "health care." It is more aptly described as a patchwork post hoc disease and injury management and remediation enterprise, one that is more or less "systematic" in any true sense only at the clinical level. Beyond that it comprises a confounding perplex of endlessly contending for-profit and not-for-profit entities acting far too often at ruinously expensive cross-purposes.

Another quick personal story:

During my first tenure (early 1990's) serving as an analyst for the Nevada/Utah Medicare Peer Review Agency (they're now called "QIO's" - Quality Improvement Organizations), in addition to our core Medicare oversight work, we had a number of small sidebar contracts, one of which involved ongoing analytical assessments of the Clark County Nevada self-funded employee health plan. One morning I accompanied my Sup, our Senior Analyst Dr. Moore, to a regular meeting of the plan's Executive Committee, wherein we would report on our latest plan utilization/outcomes evaluation.

A portion of the morning -- perhaps a half-hour, IIRC -- was always devoted to hearing claims denials appeals brought by Clark County employees. This day, two appeals were heard: one regarding an outpatient medical claim, the other concerning a dental encounter. The total sum at issue was about $350. Both appeals were denied, thereby "saving" the plan this nominal amount.

Bored by this administrative tedium, as I sat at the conference table, I did a quick, rough estimate back-of-the-envelope calculation. About a dozen executive/professional people consumed a half hour adjudicating these disputes, or, equivalently, 6 FTE hours. Assume a plausible blended G&A-multiplied cost estimate of the total compensation time for all these folks, plus all of the clerical/administrative time consumed in the processing (and subsequently denying) of these minor claims from the moment of their filing to this very hour.

Clark County easily spent well in excess of an additional $1,000 to "save" $350 at the expense of these two hapless employees, by my reckoning.

Similar scenarios -- public and private -- surely play out every day within our "health care system." Clark County would have been way ahead to have simply vetted the initial claims for fraud and then paid them! (This is one observation implicitly at the heart of the "Universal Coverage / Single Payer" model.)

But, as my Senior Medical Director was fond of pointing out, "every misspent dollar in our health care system goes into someone's paycheck."
I took a shot at "Single Payer" in 1994 via my first grad school paper—on "Argument Analysis & Evaluation." [pdf]
Argument synopsis:

Notwithstanding public misgivings about making significant public policy driven changes in the care industry, there is extensive and persuasive empirical evidence of costly inadequacies in the system-such as lack of access/coverage uneven levels of quality of service and outcomes, market-driven rather clinical priorities, waste and duplication, etc., that can best be corrected by a unified approach to improvement driven by a scientific focus on quality issues (broadly defined) rather than those of short-term cost-control, competition, and piecemeal regulatory strategies and tactics.A single-payer health care system reformed by implementation of the ten principles detailed herein would at once extend medical access to all, reduce costs, improve clinical outcomes of the sick and injured, and elevate the overall health status of the nation, resulting in win-win consequences for providers and citizens alike.
30 years later, the problems largely remain, or have worsened in some ways—particularly with respect to racial inequities.


And, fast forward.



LET’S MOVE ON TO the final tenet of pseudoscientific racism:
One can predict average human behavioral and cognitive traits based on these broad racial categories. Racial traits are heritable and immutable, and so will be deeply resistant to any social intervention, thereby excusing ongoing oppression and denial of educational and economic opportunity to broadly defined “racial” groups.
If, as is widely held by racists, genetic differences account for a large share of the remaining IQ test score gap between blacks and whites in the United States, then there must be average differences in the prevalence of gene variants, starting with the thousand or so intelligence-related genes that have been revealed by the large GWAS investigations. Furthermore, those average racial differences must be sufficient to account for a large part of the remaining nine-point gap in IQ test score.

I can’t say this loudly enough: There is no evidence for significant average differences in intelligence-related genes between “races.” Not between self-identified whites and blacks in the United States, nor between any pair of self-defined racial groups. Not only that, there is no evidence for racial group differences in genes that have been linked to any behavioral or cognitive trait. Not aggression. Not ADHD. Not extraversion. Not depression. Nada, niente, nichts, bupkis.

Science is not about what could happen; it’s about what we can prove did happen. To assert that genetic variants underlying “racial” differences in cognitive or behavioral traits must exist because of some just-so story about continent-wide selective pressure, without providing the genetic evidence, is nonsense. It is the very definition of nonscientific, self-serving racial bigotry.

Linden, David. Unique (pp. 246-247). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. 
From Chapter 8, about 30 minutes of dispositive whup-ass. I love that book. The ongoing simplistic conflation of culturally/ socially/ environmentally evolved ("adaptive") phenotype with biochemical DNA genotype is one of our most severe chronic cognitive (and political) maladies.
More to come, including equally-deserved props for twin sister Oni and her important work.

A humbling family.


287 days to election day.

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Trump Forever?

Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee, and he has vowed revenge on his political enemies. His voters want revenge as well—on their fellow citizens.

Last night’s Iowa caucus results confirm that Donald Trump is almost certainly headed for the GOP presidential nomination. So much for the hopes of establishment Republicans (the handful who remain, anyway) and other conservatives that voters would refuse to join Trump’s personal crusade for vengeance against the American system of government.

Such hopes were always the thinnest of reeds: The Republican base actively embraces Trump’s grievances; it emulates his pettiness; it supports his childlike inability to accept responsibility. These voters are not sighing in resignation and voting for the lesser of two or three or four evils. They are getting what they want—because they, too, are set on revenge.

These voters are not settling a political score. Rather, they want to get even with other Americans, their own neighbors, for a simmering (and likely unexpected) humiliation that many of them seem to have felt ever since swearing loyalty to Trump.

A lot of people, especially in the media, have a hard time accepting this simple truth…
      — Tom Nichols
Read a review in my new Science Magazine.
A family history of the Universe
Musings on natural phenomena merge with tales from a science journalist’s personal life

The voice of Nell Greenfieldboyce may well already be in your head. The longtime National Public Radio (NPR) science reporter steadily brings listeners news from deep inside the cell, the ocean, space, and more. In Transient and Strange: Notes on the Science of Life, her essays elucidate tornadoes, meteors, black holes, and fleas, among other phenomena of our shared world. She also probes deeply into her own past and psyche, interweaving facts with personal history. In print as in radio, her voice is wry, charming, informative, and, indeed, sometimes strange. (The title references Walt Whitman’s poem “Year of Meteors.”)

The prompting to bring often lofty science findings down to the private realm is instigated when Greenfieldboyce becomes a parent. “I suddenly had a new audience. A much smaller audience—only two, instead of millions,” she writes, “but with higher emotional stakes.”...
Stay tuned...

Monday, January 15, 2024

A quick diversion for some pure Beluga whale goodness

A tender moment between "Russian Spy Beluga" "Hvaldimir" and fisherman Joar Hesten, is shared in this photograph, which has been given finalist status in the 2021 Sony World Photography Awards.
Hesten was the one who freed Hvaldimir from the military camera harness he had been wearing when he suddenly showed up in northern Norway in April 2019. During that summer and autumn, Hesten visited the whale, looked after it, and discussed with local fisherman how they could best protect it.
5 weeks ago, Hvaldimir, who comes and goes as he pleases, was in Sórfold Norway appearing fit and active. He has been there since November, according to locals who keep an eye on him.
apropos, see "If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal." Also, a prior riff on "Sentience."