“I see you finally got your first adult cell phone,” Vero told me when I visited her yesterday. I was busy snap, snap, snapping away with my new Nokia X2, a super sophisticated camera that, very James Bond-like, has been ingeniously disguised as a tiny, lower-end cell phone.

Carla gifted me the X2 on Sunday, and hasn’t been able to get much of my attention since.

“You don’t really need a phone with a camera,” she commented on Monday night. “You need a camera with a phone.”

Oh right. This phone in this camera is real! And so is the great radio! And, hell, I could put my music collection on it if, um, I had a music collection. Hell, it will even play the videos I will load onto it as soon as I expand the memory, which is, um, expandable.

I know I’m a Luddite, but am I really the only one who is surprised that a piece of technology this sophisticated and elegant doesn’t earn the “smart” designation? If this is a dumb phone, I can’t even imagine what kind of cameras you First World People are making calls on.

And, no, I do not have any regrets being 5 or 10 years late to the everyone’s-got-a-camera-in-his-phone party. You see, whenever I have a camera in hand, 1) I can’t seem to stop snap, snap, snapping away with it, 2) I like to take pictures of people at close range, and 3) as a result (and I’m sorry about this, Carla), I sometimes make people a little antsy. Well. . .

It turns out that in 2011, even in the Third World, you can take as many pictures of people as you want, and you can do so as close as you want. Not only do people not mind, thy don’t even notice. They just think you’re on the phone.

It wasn’t a dirty joke. That’s what I was expecting when I opened the email Carla forwarded me yesterday from Uncle Maurice up in New Jersey.

You see, it was titled “Space Shuttle Cockpit,” and so I was sure it was one of the inoffensive “dirty” jokes he’s always passing around. But, no, this is the actual cockpit of the Space Shuttle Discovery — made as it gets decommissioned, snif, sif.

I guess Carla felt compelled to share after our talk about the significance of The Last Shuttle mission, which made me feel sad and sentimental — Josh and I woke up early on April 12, 1981, to see the first shuttle blast off — but, I confess, I couldn’t even do a good job of explaining to Carla what the hell the Shuttle is. Oh well.

This kind of 360VR experience often makes me feel dizzy and disoriented, but isn’t a little dizzy disorientation appropriate when visiting a place designed for floating astronauts?

Yesterday Human Rights Watch published this image of mine to illustrate the article “Protecting Women From Unsafe Abortions in Argentina.” In it, Marianne Møllmann, HRW’s Advocacy Director of the Women’s Rights Division, recounts her experience speaking at an Argentine Congressional meeting on November 30, 2010. The meeting was historic: Argentina’s government publicly opened a debate to consider decriminalizing abortion.

Møllmann has been working on safeguarding the reproductive rights of Argentine women for years, having researched, written and publicised two influential HRW reports on the topic. These put international pressure on the government, directly supporting the efforts of local groups and politicians to bring the “abortion issue” to Congress. (I illustrated the cover of the second report, “Illusions of Care,” released last fall. )

HRW asked me to provide photography coverage of Møllmann’s activities on November 30.

I was totally blown away by seeing Møllmann in action. To me, the most incredible aspect of her advocacy efforts was the fact that when she arrived in Buenos Aires that Tuesday morning — by overnight plane from New York — Møllmann had no idea exactly what she was stepping into. After-the-fact press coverage (and even HRW’s own reporting) make it seems otherwise. But the fact is that Møllmann had received nothing more than a vague invite from an Argentine Congresswoman, and subsequently she could confirm almost nothing about the day’s events.

As I photographed Møllmann going over her notes outside “Congreso,” she explained that she might be meeting with just a few legislators and receive little or no press coverage. Or perhaps, she said, she would face scores of legislators and receive massive press coverage. She didn’t know if she would be given five minutes to speak or an hour, if she would be part of a panel or a sole presenter. It was possible, she said, that she could be used as the face of third-party international organization to help Argentine legislators open the debate in the most positive manner possible.

I was fascinated by this possible role that Møllmann/HRW might play, but utterly dumbfounded that she had, with only two hours before her meeting, no idea what this meeting would be. Without recalling my earliest sexual experiences, I can’t even begin to imagine that kind of pressure mixed with uncertainty.

Soon Møllmann’s cell phone rang, a Congresswoman showed up at the café and, after a few minutes of chatting, Møllmann was whisked past Congress’s entrance security — as well as protesters both for and against the legalization of abortion. It turned out that this was going to be a major event. In little more than an hour Møllmann would be the only speaker addressing a large Congressional meeting. Cameras from every major Argentine news agency would be rolling. She would take a slew of dificult follow-up questions, first from members from Congress, then a mob of press, then in individual interviews throughout the afternoon.

I was amazed by how Møllmann handled the hectic pace, the uncertainty of the events as they unfolded and the swarms of Argentines who wanted her attention. Some of these saw her as a supportive ally, others as a dangerous enemy. (One group had launched a FaceBook page attacking Møllmann before her arrival, prompting HRW to take extra security measures to ensure her safety.) Ally or enemy, all wanted her to ask her tough questions about a very tough issue.

Thoughts regarding abortion legislation are difficult for anyone to express in any context, even among two friends who are ideologically in line with each other. The exception to this, of course, is if you’re fanatical. If you’re fanatical, abortion is easy to discuss. If your the rest of us, it’s so very difficult.

Møllmann is not at all fanatical, and she always expresses utmost respect for the thinking and emotions of those who are uncomfortable with abortion — even if they have launched a FaceBook hate campaign against her. She understands. It’s basically impossible to legislate such a personal issue, but it’s necessary.

Although Møllmann is respectful, she is even more pragmatic. Decriminalizing abortion, she is convinced, is the only way to reduce the rate of deaths to pregnant woman that result from illegal abortions. To those who would say that these abortions should not take place, Møllmann does not argue the point. She simply, pragmatically points out that legal or not, abortions have always and will always take place.

Møllmann’s pragmatism seems to come, at least in part, from her Western European upbringing. (The funny “ø” in her name hints to her Danish roots). She explained to me that in a number of Western European countries abortion laws are not as cut-and-dry as the “yes” or “no” approach to the legality of abortion in many countries, such as the United States (“yes”) and Argentina (“no”). Rather, a woman’s right to access abortion depends on how pregnant she is.

For example, in Denmark you can have an abortion legally in your first trimester of pregnancy; in your third trimester of pregnancy you can only receive an abortion if the pregnancy poses a serious risk to your health. This approach, which I had not been aware of, makes perfect sense to me, and it seems much better suited to the nature of abortion than either a “yes” or “no” approach. (At eight months your fetus is unarguably much closer to a baby than at the moment of conception, regardless of when you might believe a fetus becomes “human.”)

I’m getting off track a bit by starting to go into such fine points. The real point is that any such fine points regarding abortion were beyond the scope of what Møllmann might communicate on November 30th. As her uncertain Tuesday morning turned into a frantic afternoon, Møllmann had to keep her wits about her to best share the most pertinent message in the most effective way. And this is exactly what she did.

From my point of view (as a language-learning moron), Møllmann gets major points for doing all of this in beautifully fluid Spanish, which is her third (or maybe fourth?) language. She also gets a whole different kind of points for doing all of this with a attitude of humility.

When I mention humility, be clear that I’m not going to paint Møllmann as a pushover. She brings that rare, focused, controlled kind of fighting to the table for which lawyers are known. (In fact, she studied law but never practiced.) No, when I mention Møllmann’s humility I am referring to the fact that, on the one hand, she understands that there is extremely little that she (or Human Rights Watch or any outside force) can do to change the laws (or attitudes) of a foreign nation (or its people). On the other hand, she is hellbent on protecting and improving the rights of women. And when she sees a chance to make a difference, even if it’s a very slim one, she is willing to commit years of work to a specific cause — as with her efforts in Argentina. All along she has known that her work might come to nothing, but nonetheless she seems to trust that the efforts have value nonetheless.

Tuesday, November 30th, was one of the rare moments in Møllmann’s career when she could see the results of her work come too such a visible, positive head. And yet, with humility, she never once took credit for “making a difference.” She did, pragmatically, take credit for being a small, important part of large movement that might make a difference.

“Protecting Women From Unsafe Abortions in Argentina” is informative — good background knowledge for anyone unfamiliar with the topic — but it does not convey the feverish energy of the day nor (to my mind) a true sense of the skills (and energy!) required by Møllmann to accomplish her work.

It will sound corny, but it’s true: I felt privileged to have the opportunity to photograph Marianne Møllmann at work. It was educational, inspiring and downright mesmerizing.

This gallery features more of my images from my coverage of the Congressional meeting on November 30, including these three visions of at Møllmann at work.

To help keep women's rights in the limelight, Møllmann -- who arrived by plane only a few hours earlier -- gives an interview by phone, minutes before testifying before Congress.

When answering the question of a Congresswoman opposed to abortion, Møllmann was respectful, articulate, confident, pragmatic and forceful. This impressive combination of qualities make her good at her job and, no doubt, they would have been respected by General San Martín -- pictured behind her.

If she were claustrophobic, Møllmann couldn't have handled the press "press" after speaking. However, she managed to seem at ease in front of the cameras, deftly handling a barrage of questions -- in Spanish, which is not her native tongue.

New Year’s is the most celebrated holiday in Buenos Aires — tons of family, food and fireworks, which explode citywide at midnight, but keep popping off well into the morning. Back home from family festivities at Hernan’s — we were 25 with Yalu’s family — I was enjoying the fresh, cool air that came as a wonderful relief after our week-long hot spell. (Three days sin luz — without electricity.) I found myself clicking away a bit, to capture the Southern Cross, which you can make out to the left of the firework burst in this photo, if you know what to look for. It’s on its left side, pointing to to the right, south. The outermost light steam from the firework burst cuts through the center of the Cross, covering over Acrux, the bottommost star in the constellation.

The firework burst came as a total surprise. It was pure luck that I had the camera on the tripod with the 20-second exposure dialed in. This was the third of three small, local fireworks that eruputed within my view from our patio, just outside our kitchen door. When I heard the report for this one, I squeezed the trigger and captured this view of Buenos Aires New Years at 03:45, 1/1/11.

The previous capture better shows off the Southern Cross:

For all you astronomy geeks (you, Peter), a NASA-enhanced close up:

Ethan and General William Alexander Hammond, M.D. (August 28, 1828 – January 5, 1900)

“Es igual a Jason,” laughs Carla.

If that was true, than he would look like this. . .

“Jason en otra vida fue William Hammond,” Carla insists. I don’t see it, but mabye it’s the uniform.

Um. . .I’m not sure sure. Carla says we should check with Ethan.

What’s your vote?

Looking for a definition of “New Media” for my latest AC Blog post, I bumped into this post by  The Fat Man in which he shares his pet peeve frustrations with this quote:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It was funny timing, as just this morning in my personal journaling I was writing about how I feel like I’ve had a sudden, major shift in my thinking regarding the ole nature versus nurture dialog. I won’t freak you out by quoting myself, but the gist of my thinking is that I feel as though I’m suddenly seeing that my nature is my nature is my nature — regardless of whether I like it or not. In other words, who I was born to be might be a much more powerful force in regard who I actually am than the Freudian thinking I was reared on will allow me to accept.

I’m not downplaying the importance of nurture to make or break one’s life (or day). (Hell, all that Freudian thinking certainly influenced my thoughts about — and my reaction to — the nature of my nature.) Rather, I think I’m starting to accept that, to use another famous quote, “I am what I am.”

For me, I think this might have profound (if subtle) implications — especially in terms of being less frustrated by my making the same mistakes over and over again. This head-banging frustration makes me feel insane, even if I’m not, especially because I think I should (or at least can) change how I act in many cases, when in many cases I act the same.

I can see that this abstract thinking is better left for a personal journal entry, so I’ll get back to The Fat Man and his ragging on the “definition of insanity” quote, which has made me, too, cringe since the first time I heard it. The funny thing is that I heard it from a very smart person whom I respect a great deal, and I think I totally got the sentiment she was sharing. If that had been the last time I heard the quote that would have been fine, but like The Fat Man, I kept on hearing it, often thrown out like wisdom when it doesn’t seem very wise at all.

The last time I heard it was just last week, from Veronica, and I didn’t say anything because she’s way smarter than I am and she comes up with the best, wittiest original quotable material of anyone I know. So I let it pass. But I’m glad that The Fat Man did not.

He notes that it this quote was never said by Benjamin Franklin (a source I had never heard quoted) and that “It isn’t the definition of insanity” and “It is harmful advice.”

I’m not so worried about strict definitions (are there any?) and I don’t really see it as harmful advice, but I do think that it might be harmful in spirit.

Everyone I know does the same stupid stuff again and again, so rather than being the definition of “insanity” this quote might better serve as en example of “common human behavior.” We’re all struggling, and we all make the same mistake a lot more than once.

The most interesting part of the post by The Fat Man is the comments. There are 103 and the last one was made just seven days ago, even though the post is four years old! Whoa. A lot of strong feelings about this quote.

The best comments are those in which people chime in with a spirit of fun, using many famous quotes to express their thoughts. But a lot of people out there are tender to any insults directed to this quote. My favorite quote-liker is Meredith Peterson who says:

This quote is used a lot in rehabs and AA groups, because, in essence, it helps people realize that they can’t keep pursuing negative habits and expect any result but the same outcome over and over again.

And who ends her comment with:

I am clinically insane…..and this quotation keeps me from repeating negative patterns.

Ms. Peterson might be clinically insane but she’s smart enough to point out that if a quote is helpful a quote is helpful. In other words, it might not be right but it can be right for a given person.

I should end here, but I can’t resist the opportunity to rag on AA. I can’t stand AA, which I see as a destructive cult, not a sane way for all people to go about reducing alcohol intake. I have such venom toward AA because I’ve seen its cult-like approach really screw over a few people I know. On the other hand, I know people who have been immensely helped by AA. In other words, AA might not be right but it can be right for a give person.

This AA information from Ms. Peterson made sense. The person from I first heard the “definition of insanity” quote is a regular AA-er. She, for one, has been helped immensely by the cult. So there’s one for AA!

Ultimately, I wonder why The Fat Man and I are so irritated by this quote. He gives a number of logical reasons why the quote is idiotic, but idiotic quotes don’t usually rub our skin so rawly. And his logical reasons incite people to agree logically or react emotionally. This makes me think that there is something cult-like about this quote.

I’m not even sure what that means, but my sense is that it has something to do with trying to influence people — for better or worse — in very specific ways using very vague information, which sounds very specific. I mean, think about it. The real problem with this quote — that starts with “The definition of insanity is” — is that it is not a definition at all. It has nothing to do with insanity. It is about behavior, but it is vague, and so even though it sounds very specific it is not saying anything at all. So it seems that if we are hearing this, someone is trying to influence us, using non-information information.

I’m glad that expression (not a quote at all) is working for my friend who has been helped by AA. And I’m glad that it helps the thoughtful Ms. Peterson in avoiding the repetition of negative patterns. Sweet.

For me, I’m starting to think that perhaps the worst negative pattern I have been engaged in throughout my life is to think that I can avoid the negative patterns that are part of who I am, and to act on this thinking. And if there are qualities that are part of who I am that I cannot avoid, should they be labeled negative?

Took the bus down to Quilmes yesterday for the first time. Whodathunkit.

See more of Pete’s New York City paintings on his art blog.

Above is detail from “Neighborhood Bar“, which seems atypical of Pete’s work to me. I love it, but not as much as Sunset on W 86th, below, which seems more indicative of Pete’s exploration of colors and textures in the Upper West Side. This painting is also the best representation I have ever seen of how I, myself, see New York City. (Without the copyright thingy, of course.)