"Nextdoor: An alternative reality where black Audis terrorize and everyone is a meth-addled menace"

Someone convinced me I should join Nextdoor - an online community where you can get to know people in your neighborhood and keep up with very local news - and it sounded like a good idea, so I did.  That was about a year ago.

More recently I've been noticing that a lot of people are posting about crime and suspicious people and situations.  I was beginning to think that there were a lot of fearful people on Nextdoor.  Sure, if someone breaks into you car or house, it's reasonable to be upset.  But if most of the posts on something like Nextdoor are about crime, it also magnifies people's perception of the dangers of their neighborhood.  (The same can be said for newspapers and tv news.)

Here are some recent posts from the Nextdoor pages from my neighborhood in Anchorage:

• Unsupervised Kids in Subsidized Housing Neighborhood [she's seen them carry hatchets and guns and take drugs]
• 2003 Black Tahoe stolen in midtown 1/30
• Car rifled. Stolen change, coffee cards, glasses and keys. They keys are for out o state property so not usable for them but a pain for us
• Abandoned Vehicle
• Mail thieves

These were interspersed with lost (and found) cats and dogs, items for sale, but I'd say at least 50% were crime or safety related.    

I guess it came to a head for me when someone posted a warning  earlier this month to be careful during the political seasons for misleading posts:

"Be aware of political actors for 2018, even now
Hey all, you may or may not have seen my activity in a thread regarding the mail voting situation. Just know, the Koch brothers have spent a TON of money in this area(I'm not joking or exaggerating), especially regarding unions, and don't take every resident at their word, because they may not be residents. You can talk to me in person, I'm not a member of anyone except my dance group."

That led M to write:

This is not a political site please do not post political posts .

Followed with:

Thank you M.  I'm thinking of quitting this site as I don't appreciate the nasty attitudes of some of these people.  When I signed up for this site I thought it was for neighbors to let neighbors know about thefts, car break-ins, etc., not an agenda to spout your political views no matter which side.  Surely there are other sites where you can go to vent.

Did that "Be aware of political actors" post sound nasty to you?  I guess "nasty attitudes" means things I disagree with because "Thank you M" was the nastiest attitude I saw.  Then others pointed out the guidelines allow for civil discussions of political issues that impact the local area.  But it appears that some people think this is just for reporting crimes and it seems there are people who see nothing but suspicious people and vehicles.

I'm not sure if people who aren't members can go to the link, but here are the guidelines for Don't Use Nextdoor as a Soapbox.


And so yesterday, when I saw this LA Times opinion piece, I felt a kindred spirit had written it.

Nextdoor: An alternative reality where black Audis terrorize and everyone is a meth-addled menace

He says all I've said, but he's much funnier.  Here's a brief sample:

"In the alternative reality that is Nextdoor, people are committing crimes I’ve never even thought of: casing, lurking, knocking on doors at 11:45 p.m., coating mailbox flaps with glue, “asking people for jumper cables but not actually having a car,” light bulb stealing, taking photos of homes, being an “unstable female” and “stashing a car in my private garage.”
From the very first time I logged on, my mission was clear: Do not let my lovely wife Cassandra find out about Nextdoor. Not because I didn’t want to worry her pretty little head, but because I didn’t want her bothering my pretty little head in panic about every black Audi driving down our block."

Hope You Had a Good April Fool's Day

And a good Easter if you celebrate that.

The US condition makes it difficult to create an April Fool's post that wouldn't seem very plausible to many.  Our president's acts would have qualified as April Fool's jokes in any prior presidency.

Today it's more important to practice kindness.

With those people who engage me in conversation, I try to assume I'm talking to a genius, a future Nobel Prize winner, or a great musician, a dedicated teacher.  I try to believe they may actually be those things.

It's hard to pull that off and I fail regularly.  But I ask people with whom I disagree, why they believe what they believe.  What studies have they undertaken?  What books and articles have they read so I can learn the facts that underlie their argument.  And if they have none to offer, I ask them why it's important for them to believe it.

It's not something I do every day - I don't get into those situations every day.  And it's much easier to react poorly.  And acting poorly isn't reserved for any political persuasion.  I try to ignore physical characteristics.  I try to assume a person's body - whether attractive or unattractive to me - is just a costume that does not reflect the human being wearing it.  And if the person inside isn't very attractive either, I get curious how the once perfectly beautiful little child came to become the disagreeable person talking to me?  Who or what blocked that child's path and warped their humanity?  Might they talk to me about it?  Might that hep or not?

I can't keep this up all the time, but that's my goal.

And humor amongst intimates is a great way to get release.  Jokes that take on the powerful are probably the most permissible.  But jokes at other people's expense are always a risky strategy, particularly with people who have a shaky self image.  Jokes at one's own expense are the most socially acceptable, but not if they hurt the jokester.

Maybe you can guess that my granddaughter and daughter got to town very early this morning and they make me a better person.  We played in the snow.  It turns out our backyard snow has a hard crust on it that makes it great for sliding down.  This snow is very different from the very occasional snowfall she gets at home, that melts in a few days.   I got to hook up the trailer bike to mine and we pedaled to the playground and back.  The world is such a big adventure for my sweetie.  I wish you all a good month.  May you smile more, yet keep resisting evil or being evil.

President Ends His Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

From the White House:

Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

Issued on: January 3, 2018

This was called from the start by some, "the Advisory Commission on Election Fraud" and "on Voter Suppression" by others.

It was suspect from the beginning with Vice President Pence as chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serving as vice-chair. The ACLU has four suits against Kobach claiming in one 

"“Secretary Kobach continues to seek ways to confuse and obstruct voters in Kansas. His flagrant disregard of the court’s findings means that Kansans still face unnecessary barriers to voting. We’re asking the court to immediately block the temporary regulation and to ultimately end this dual system once and for all,” said Sophia Lakin, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project."

The Democratic Secretary of State of Maine, a member of the commission, was suing the commission.  Governing reports:

The suit alleges that the commission's chairman, Vice President Mike Pence, and vice chairman, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which prohibits the body from excluding commissioners from deliberations and information. The Executive Office of the President is also a named defendant, as the office is staffing the commission and maintaining its records. 

"Since the Sept. 12 meeting, I have received no correspondence from the commission other than to acknowledge receipt of my information request" of October 17, Dunlap said in a prepared statement. "Clearly, there is information about this commission being created and discussed, but I have no access to that information and it has not been provided upon request."

One of the commission's staffers was arrested for having child porn on his phone.

There were lots of reasons to not even create this commission in the first place.  Objective studies of voter fraud said this Republican talking point was a non-issue at best, an attempt at voter suppression at worst.

Jennifer Ruben wrote at the Washington Post back in September  that the Commission should be shut down.

But it's not like Trump administration to back down and quit because its critics tell it to.  Was it the likelihood of losing the suits?  Maybe.

I'm guessing that the Republicans wanted to have a federal commission that could make their recommendations for voter suppression under the guise of preventing voter fraud.  But it was getting too difficult.  Locking out the Democrats resulted in the lawsuit which they were likely to lose.

And since they couldn't conduct their business privately as a federal commission, they've decided to go back to secret meetings and scheming to do their dirty business of finding ways to keep Democrats from voting.

And how much did all this cost the taxpayer?  I can't find anything on that.

How Long Is A Generation? Let's Be Careful About Words We Use

Communication between two human beings is hard enough, even when they use the same words to mean the same thing.  But when people use words 'creatively' with meanings that don't match the commonly understood meanings, it gets even harder to understand each other.

From today's Anchorage Daily News story on the death of the Alaska zoo's polar bear Ahpun,

"'She’s been a favorite here for generations of people,' Lampi said Tuesday." 

Generations of people?

But the bear was only 20 years old.  

How long is a generation?  Greg Laden's Blog tells us:

Short Answer: 25 years, but a generation ago it was 20 years.
Long answer: It depends on what you mean by generation.

He goes on to explain biological, generational, and cultural, social generations.  

Now, Lampi may have meant that children, their parents, and grandparents all visited the zoo together, and technically that would be three generations together seeing Ahpun.

But normally 'for generations' means something has gone on across many generations.  Two generations by Laden's count (and I checked others who give the same response) would be 40-50 years.  Which would have made Ahpun a pretty old bear.  Seaworld's website says the oldest polar bear in captivity lived 45 years.

Does it matter?  Words are tools for communication.   And poor communications contribute to most problems humans face in the world.  From the University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium:

"Almost all conflicts involve communication problems, as both a cause and an effect. Misunderstandings, resulting from poor communication, can easily cause a conflict or make it worse. Further, once a conflict has started, communication problems often develop because people in conflict do not communicate with each other as frequently, as openly, and as accurately as they do when relationships are not strained. Thus communication is central to most conflict situations. . .

Speakers often are not clear themselves about what they mean, which almost assures that what they say will be unclear as well. Even when people know what they mean, they often do not say it as clearly as they should. . . "

Lots of little things combine to create big problems.  

#metoo and #ihave - Redefining The Rules Of Sex And Power

There are the written rules - what people are supposed to do and not do - and there are the rules a scientist might write up after observing what really happens.  The first set is prescriptive and the second set is descriptive.  Humans strive to find ways to make the world work the way we think it should.  

I'm trying to find some way to make sense of what the sudden attention to sexual misconduct by powerful males means and how things might look in five years.  Will the power balance be radically different?  Or will all this just fade away and powerful people will continue to do what they want?

The media have been full of women's (and some men's) accounts of being abused by men in power.  #metoo has been well covered.  So when I heard about the hashtag #ihave - where men were supposedly confessing to their own abuse of power, I looked to see what was there.

Disappointing.  You can look yourself.  Maybe there are some serious confessions in there, but it's loaded with unrelated stuff, plus confessions of trivial stuff, plus mock confessions.  It did get me to Steve Locke's "I have led women on, I've cheated"  and "Benjamin Law: Five Things I Admit #IHave Done."  One could say, these are a good start toward self-awareness.

Let's see, here's Locke's list:

1. "I have led women on,"  
2. "I've cheated, and 
3. acted in ways that reflected a sense of entitlement towards the exploitation of women's bodies and behaviours. 
4. I've acted in ways that could be described as 'creepy,' both sober and under the influence. 
5. I've absolutely been overly defensive when called out for my actions, and 
6. have attacked things that certain women loved most about themselves because I felt intimidated by them. The list could go on." 

He also talks about punching a wall and feeling powerful when it frightened the woman he was with.

This is a pretty good list.  But I suspect that many women would also confess to these kinds of behaviors, at least 1, 2, 5, and 6.  Part of this is about growing up, learning how to negotiate the adult world, dealing with one's insecurities.

Locke says he went to therapy (and still goes) to understand and change his unhealthy relationships with women.  

Benjamin Law's list is softer. 

1. Told female friends, "Yeah I'm mates with him, but wouldn't be if I was a woman" – because I knew of his weird and predatory behaviour around women.  [I guess he's saying he shouldn't be mates with the guy.]
2. Laughed awkwardly at sexist remarks in professional situations, instead of pulling men up.
3. Almost gone on TV to discuss a book written by a famous Australian musician who has been violent against women I know.
4. Declined disclosing my wage to a female colleague who suspected she was being paid less than me (she was) for fear of reprisal from our male boss who'd told me to keep it quiet.
5. Suggested things were far worse in the past.

I'm not saying that this list doesn't help people become aware of little ways people can passively support systems of abuse.  But what women are #metoo-ing is far more egregious than what I'm seeing on #ihave.  (I checked to see if I should capitalize #IHave, but it got be back to #ihave.)

I even saw a tweet that compared #metoo and #ihave to the public denouncements and confessions of the Cultural Revolution in China.  I understand why someone might see a connection, but the differences are far more significant, starting with the fact that the Cultural Revolution denouncements were instigated by Mao.  Not by the people who were wronged.  

And while I recognize that men's careers might be ruined by false accusations, far, far more women's careers and lives have been ruined by actual sexual harassment and assault.  When the number of men's ruined careers starts approaching 25% of the number of women's ruined lives, then we can start worrying more about false accusation.  Not that we shouldn't call them out.  But it's no reason to dismiss such accusations altogether.

The ideal would be equal power between two people so that anything that might be construed as sexual is consensual.  Here's what it seems like we have to overcome:

Taking advantage of an unequal power relationship.    (I recognize that some might argue that our society, with an assist from nature,  gives extra power to men so this is always the case.  But ask any man who's been turned down for a date, if there are many individual women who have more more power than many individual men.)  Some of the key sources of power:

• Physical Strength - men are often stronger and larger than women and can force themselves on women
• Authority - laws or customs give someone the right to wield power over another - a teacher, a boss, a pastor, a parent, a police officer, a building permit official
• Social Power - society awards greater credibility for all sorts of reasons - persuasiveness, physical attractiveness, occupation, connections, charisma 
• Economic Power - those with money have power over those without

For each of these sources of power, except physical strength, there is an implied transaction.  One person trades sexual favors - from touching to intercourse - for something the other person has the power to give or take away - a grade, a job, a dinner, a passport, a better life, etc.  For men, physical strength can be the clincher if the other forms, in the end, don't get them what they want.  

Are all these equal? Or are some worse than others?  Here's my proposed hierarchy, recognizing that these actions often combine more than one aspect.

• Forcible rape - where there is not even a modicum of consent is the worst.  
• The threat to take away a woman's  job or to otherwise make her life more difficult if she doesn't consent to his overtures.   
• The offer of something she needs or wants in exchange for sex.  

The idea here of consent is conceptual.  Technically, if someone were forced to judge, there could be different levels of consent depending on how necessary or discretionary the given or taken 'item' is.  I think readers can imagine a continuum of scenarios from essentially forced to essentially consensual.  

Sex or Power?   Some argue that all rape is about power, not sex.  As a former young man, I can't help but be skeptical.  Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.  The alcohol, music, and body contact at a bar or party can easily lead a young man to take advantage of a woman, not to exert power, but to have sexual release. But, of course, much of Weinstein's inappropriate touching was a way of showing the world his power as a relatively unattractive man to have beautiful women around him who  allowed him to touch them inappropriately.  And for some (many?) men, power is an aphrodisiac, in which case the power and the sex are combined.  

But one doesn't have to be a powerful mogul to combine sex and power.  All the men for whom sex is the game of pursuing the prey until she submits and who then lose interest after the 'conquest' exhibit some variation of this combined sexual desire and power.  

If there is no other position of power involved, if the sex is not in exchange for something else, things get murkier.  How does one determine consent?  When I was coming of age, girls were supposed to save sex until marriage.  Consent was not socially acceptable.  They were supposed to say no and the boy was supposed to somehow know the difference between a real no and a face saving no that meant, keep going.  Hollywood still gives us countless role models that sex is a hunt - think, for example, of Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother.  Just go through this list of Barney quotes and think about how Marshall, Ted, Robin, and Lily love him despite his predatory behavior.

Is There Ever Equality?  Suppose we have two college students who meet and find each other attractive enough to go out on a date.  Neither has an official position of power over the other.  Yet one might be older, or more attractive, or richer, or more talented, or more socially inept, or more sexually experienced than the other.  They may each have qualities that makes one superior in some ways and inferior in other ways.  One may be more attracted to the other, than the other way around.  Each of these conditions gives a modicum of power to one or the other, though it may change from moment to moment, or month to month.   

It's in this situation that I think we have to give people more space to make mistakes, to experiment, to grow up without serious reprisals.  I'm not talking about men who lie and cheat to get sex.  But I am talking about people who don't yet know who they are or what they want;  who aren't that comfortable with themselves or with others.  I'm talking about people who have difficulty reading non-verbal cues from others.  These people are going to make sexual mistakes.  They need some room to learn how to be in a relationship.  But they also need to recognize that another person is involved and be respectful. [Hmmm, this sounds like an ad for sex education in schools.]  If they get into powerful positions, this pass no longer applies.  Besides, they ought to have enough money to get professional help.

OK, that's a first draft for ways to think about this.

And as I was writing this - I let it sit overnight and then made more changes - I came up with another interesting project:  Make a list of Weinstein brothers films, watch them, and rate them on how women are treated by the men.  (Actually, that's a good thing to do with all movies.  My daughter first suggested that to me long ago.)  To what extent do we as movie goers accept abusive treatment of women in films and thus encourage men to model that behavior?

[UPDATE January 27, 2018:  My daughter also brought the Bechdel test to my attention.  To pass this test a movie must have:
(1)  at least two women in it, who
(2) who talk to each other, about
(3) something besides a man.
Something to pay attention to when you watch movies.]

[We started watching How I Met Your Mother on Netflix.  I wanted to see why it was so popular.  It's well written, fast paced, funny, and the episodes are short.  It was a good way to take the edge off after heavy shows, like Vietnam.  But really, Barney's behavior toward women is manipulative, devious, and everything that is wrong with perpetual one night stands based on the idea of the hunt.  The show does give glimpses of his inherent loneliness and fear of commitment,  but it glorifies his relentless pursuit of the one night stand, through deceit and with absolutely no regard for the women he pursues.]

Fathers And Sons: A Way Of Respectfully Resolving Disagreement

"Siddhartha said:  "With your permission, Father, I have come to tell you that I wish to leave your house tomorrow and join the ascetics.  I wish to become a Samana.  I trust my father will not object."
The Brahmin was silent so long that the stars passed across the small window and changed their design before the silence in the room was finally broken.  His son stood silent and motionless with his arms folded.  The father, silent and motionless, sat on the mat, and the stars passed across the sky.  Then his father said:  'It is not seemly for Brahmins to utter forceful and angry words, but there is displeasure in my heart.  I should not like to hear you make this request a second time.'
The Brahmin rose slowly.  Siddhartha remained silent with folded arms.
'Why are you waiting?' asked his father.
'You know why,' answered Siddhartha.
His father left the room displeased and lay down on his bed."

The father has trouble sleeping and gets up hourly and sees his son still standing arms folded.

"And in the last hour of the night, before daybreak, he returned again, entered the room and saw the youth standing there.  He seemed tall and a stranger to him.
'Siddhartha,' he said, 'why are you waiting?'
'You know why.'
'Will you go on standing and waiting until it is day, noon, evening?'
'I will stand and wait.'
'You will grow tired, Siddhartha.'
'I will grow tired.'
'You will fall asleep, Siddhartha.'
'I will not fall asleep.'
'You will die, Siddhartha.'
'I will die.'
'And would you rather die than obey your father?'
'Siddhartha has always obeyed his father.'
'So you will give up your project?'
'Siddhartha will do what his father tells him.'
The first light of day entered the room.  The Brahmin saw that Siddhartha's knees trembled slightly, but there was no trembling in Siddhartha's face;  his eyes looked far away.  Then the father realized that Siddhartha could no longer remain with him at home - that he had already left him.
The father touched Siddhartha's shoulder.
'You will go into the forest,' he said, 'and become a Samana.  If you find bliss in the forest, come back and teach it to me.  If you find disillusionment, come back, and we shall again offer sacrifices to the gods together.  Now go, kiss your mother and tell her where you are going."

These are not, of course, ordinary men.  Siddhartha went on to find enlightenment in the forest to become the Buddha.   But then everyone has the capacity to do extraordinary things.

The way they speak to each shows what true respect sounds like.  I particularly like the father's expression of displeasure:

 'It is not seemly for Brahmins to utter forceful and angry words, but there is displeasure in my heart.  I should not like to hear you make this request a second time.'

Just imagine our president saying these words to a New York Times reporter at a press conference.

This comes from the first chapter of Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.  Translated by Hilda Rosner.  You can read the whole book at Gutenberg.org , though it may be a different translator.

ACS Revamped Email - Second Attempt Coming Soon, Maybe

Here's an email I got from ACS last November announcing their revamped email system.

If they sent an email saying it didn't happen, I never saw it.  I did eventually call and ask and was told, no, it didn't happen.  Postponed.

So here's an email I got yesterday.

They ACS email is pretty basic, so it would be nice to get a revamped version.  Or maybe not.  The old one is serviceable without a lot of bells and whistles.  We'll see a) if the new one really comes Feb. 1, and b) if it's worth the trouble.

Great Way To Start First Full Day Of Trump Administration - “Come out of the circle of time And into the circle of love.”

My granddaughter's birthday party with her friends was this morning at 10.  So my wife and daughter marched to the ferry terminal with the people headed to the Seattle Women's March.  I got to take care of my granddaughter and then walk with her to the party location.  A four year old birthday party is a great reminder of what's important in life.  

Then this evening we went to a presentation by Jamal Rahman, a Sufi iman from Seattle who came to talk. Every now and then you meet and/or hear a person talk who touches deep inside of you.   That happened tonight.

A key theme was the five steps to peace.   Here are my notes from a napkin I had.

Obviously, that's not going to convey much to you, but while I'm inspired by hearing and meeting this man, I also need to process a bit more.  I just want to say, Jamal was wise, spiritual, funny, patient, humble, and peaceful, and insightful.   Yes, there's a little bit of confirmation bias here, but sometimes you know, just know, this man is the real deal.

The title quote is from Rumi.  It was one of many quotes and stories that left my mind and heart full
and brought peace. The message basically was what we all know - we must communicate with the 'others' in our world.  To do so, we have to open our hearts and listen rather than try to convince.  We have to first meet human to human.  We have to let go of our own ego.   Something I've been trying to say on this blog, but not nearly as articulately and as comfortably as Jamal has done.

So I'll leave you with this partial description from Jamal Rahman's website:

"Jamal Rahman is a popular speaker on Islam, Sufi spirituality, and interfaith relations. Along with his Interfaith Amigos, he has been featured in the New York Times, CBS News, BBC, and various NPR programs. Jamal is co-founder and Muslim Sufi minister at Interfaith Community Sanctuary and adjunct faculty at Seattle University. He is a former co-host of Interfaith Talk Radio and travels nationally and internationally, presenting at retreats and workshops.
He is the author of Sacred Laughter of the Sufis: Awakening the Soul with the Mullah's Comic Teaching Stories and Other Islamic Wisdom; Spiritual Gems of Islam: Insights & Practices from the Qur'an, Hadith, Rumi & Muslim Teaching Stories to Enlighten the Heart & Mind; The Fragrance of Faith: The Enlightened Heart of Islam; and coauthor of Religion Gone Astray: What We Found at the Heart of Interfaith; Out of Darkness into Light: Spiritual Guidance in the Quran with Reflections from Jewish and Christian Sources; and Getting to the Heart of Interfaith: The Eye-Opening, Hope-Filled Friendship of a Pastor, a Rabbi, and an Imam.
Jamal's passion lies in interfaith community building. He remains rooted in his Islamic tradition and cultivates a "spaciousness" by being open to the beauty and wisdom of other faiths. By authentically and appreciatively understanding other paths, Jamal feels that he becomes a better Muslim. This spaciousness is not about conversion but about completion.
Since 9/11 Jamal has been collaborating with Rabbi Ted Falcon and Pastor Don Mackenzie. Affectionately known as the Interfaith Amigos, they tour the country sharing the message of spiritual inclusivity.
Imam Jamal, originally from Bangladesh, has an abiding faith in the power of heart-to-heart connections to encompass differences and dissolve prejudices. He enjoys programs that celebrate life and unity through delight, laughter, and food. He has a private spiritual counseling practice serving individuals and couples, and is available for interfaith weddings and ceremonies. Jamal offers a variety of classes and workshops, including the popular "Blush of the Beloved," a course in spiritual deepening and discernment drawing upon the practices, insights, and wisdom within Sufism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism."

AIFF2016: GayLa Night Filmmakers Bennett Wallace (Real Boy) and Alex Myung (Arrival) Q&A

Back in December I got some video of the Q&A at the Anchorage International Film Festival's GayLa night.  Alex Myung's animated film Arrival opened.  It's a visually beautiful story of a young, Asian-American gay man leaving for the big city and later coming out to his mom.  It got the first runner up award for animation at the festival.

The second film, a feature documentary called Real Boy, follows Bennett Wallace's transition to a boy.  

[You can see the trailers for both films here.]

After the showing, they went on stage together to answer questions.  I've paraphrased the question below.  I got most of the Q&A but I think there were a few more questions I missed.
The first went to Alex.  The Bennett got some, and then it went back to Alex for the last one.

For Alex:

Q1:  Was this how you came out or someone you know?
Q2:  Was it always going to be a film without dialog?

For Bennett:

Q3:  How has the relationships with your parents evolved since the film?
Q4:  Given that the film portrays your cutting yourself, what would you tell kids today who are cutting?
Q5:  Would it have helped you to see a film like this?  [Spoiler:  "It would have changed my life."
Q6:  How did the film come about?
Q7:  How did it feel living your life with the camera on you all the time?  [Spoiler:  "At first I felt I always had to say something really profound.  That didn't last long."  "It was difficult when we filmed in public."
Q8:  How is Joe doing now?

For Alex:

Q9:  I seemed to see a Miyazaki influence, was he a model for you?

The Three Body Problem

As people look toward 2017 with relief that 2016 will be over, I have several thoughts.

1. First, a lot of people probably think 2016 was great.  Their candidate was elected to office and now their 'enemies' are feeling what they have felt for the last eight years.  (I could, of course, argue that this is different, but in their minds it's the same - their team won.)   
2. Second, as I read the headlines in the paper and online about what a bad year it's been, I'm wondering what makes people think 2017 is going to be better.  There's lots of news we never read about because it wasn't sensational enough or bad enough.  But the key news item - the US election - doesn't suggest to me a better year.  There will be unanticipated benefits like in any disaster.  People will pull together and discover friends and personal strengths they didn't know they had.  But the man who will be slumming by moving to the White House, thinks he's the smartest guy around.   The truly smartest people are those who know they know very little.  The only way one can be totally sure of oneself is if one has a very simplistic view of the world.  And we have a very cocksure new president and that doesn't bode well.  Yes, there will be some positive impacts here and there, but overall and in the long run, the American people and the world are going to pay big time for the new president's on-the-job training and winner mentality.  
3. But third, I've just finished reading The Three Body Problem which has as one of its key points - don't assume the alternative of a very bad thing won't be worse.   This is a very interesting book, not simply because of the story it tells and how it tells it.  It is a Chinese science fiction novel that won the Hugo Award for best novel in 2015, which makes it unique already.  

The story begins with the Red Guard harassing to death a renowned physics professor during  the Cultural Revolution.   Physicists play a big role in this book.  I really don't want to talk about any more of the plot than that.  Having the plot reveal itself as you turn the pages is a big part of the enjoyment of the book.

I will say that the book's structure has the reader  opening doors into new worlds and thinking wow, I didn't expect this.  Only to have a new door and another new world and another wow, and then another, and another, and another.  This is the first part of a trilogy. The other parts are already available.  I'm just a little behind.

But, getting back to the opening of this post, I will say that the reader will spend time in a secret Chinese military post scanning the universe for signs of intelligent life.  And there's a signal.  And the person who is on duty at the time secretly sends back a signal.  The human condition, this physicist feels, is so dire, that humans would be better off being rescued by a superior form of being.

I'll say no more about the plot, but I'd send you back to my third point above.

It's a fascinating book and I'm looking forward to the next volume of the trilogy.  Have a Happy New Year and focus on making what we have better rather than looking for a savior to take care of things for us.

#Brazen

From a Washington Post story that ran in theADN today.  This was supposed to be a post-election forum at Harvard, but it apparently got out of hand:

"At which point, [Kellyanne] Conway accused Clinton’s team of being sore losers.
“Guys, I can tell you are angry, but wow,” she said. 'Hashtag he’s your president. How’s that? Will you ever accept the election results? Will you tell your protesters that he’s their president too?'”

Kellyanne Conway has a gift for talking quickly around any subject with total confidence.  She could talk herself out of being arrested even when a cop caught her red handed robbing a bank.  And this is just one example of her brazenness.  [There's video at the link above.]

She's been Trump's spokesperson.  Trump.  The guy who spent several years denying that Obama was a US citizen thus he couldn't be the president of the US.  He knew it was total fabrication.  It was a power game for Trump.  Like a three year old having a tantrum to get everyone to pay attention.

Given that context,  his spokesperson has the nerve to complain that Clinton folks, whose candidate has over 2 million more votes than Trump, and want a recount in some key states like Wisconsin where Trump won by only 10,000 votes, protesteth too much?

But she goes by the Trump  playbook - Attack, Counterattack, Never Apologize.

I'm guessing that many of the Trump supporters know she's all bluff, but they take great pleasure when the highly educated Democratic spokespeople don't know how to respond to this outrageousness.

"Hashtag he's your president." Really?  We're in Twitterspeak?  Would would George Orwell say?

They were taught in school to be rational, factual, and debate a logical argument.  They - I probably should say 'we' - have trouble debating total nonsense.

This is like when Mao gave kids the power to humiliate and beat their teachers and parents.  Facts and science had lost all their power.  The Communist Party line became truth.

This is the humiliation all people of reason and civility face when ruthless power takes over and all logic, law, decency fall by the wayside.  Truth is what power says it is.


It's going to get worse before it gets better.   Trump doesn't see the law as a barrier.  He simply does what he wants and then if he gets caught, asks, "how much do I need to pay to make you go away?"

This is going to get uglier.  I suspect that the people Trump is lining up for his cabinet are not used to following orders from a grade school bully.  If Mitt Romney thinks that he can help steady the course working from the inside, he's in for a big surprise.  But I'd like to have people like him inside there and keeping a diary of what transpires outside the view of the media.

I'm supposed to give readers positive things to do when I rant like this.  I suggest you read  Lord of The Flies.  It describes where we are right now very well.

Extrovert Advantage For Presidential Candidates, Introvert Advantages For President

Lots of factors that affect who gets elected president in the United States.  One, that seems to have a disproportionate impact, is the introversion/extroversion factor.  It's no surprise to anyone if I say that Hillary Clinton is much more introverted than Donald Trump.

And it's an issue important enough that a Rasmussen Reports survey actually asks people which candidate they'd rather have a beer with.  And it's not surprising that Trump comes out ahead.  (The large lead with men overcomes the small lead Clinton has with women on this question.)

Reading below, keep in mind that all bifurcations can grossly oversimplify and that people fall somewhere on a continuum from very introverted to very extroverted.  And I've just picked a list of characteristics I found online that seemed consistent with other things I've read on this.  The list was aimed at introversion and extroversion advantages at work.

As you go through the list, you'll probably quibble about the description as it applies to either Trump or Clinton.  For instance, in the Extroverts column, "have excellent communication and verbal skills.' I would say that Trump is very fluid and quick on his feet when talking, though I'm not sure that always translates to 'excellent communication.'

Basically, the extrovert sounds more comfortable speaking to strangers and crowds.  And for many, that translates into more honest, more genuine.  They are more comfortable coming up to strangers and talking because they can talk at that superficial level that one uses until you get a better comfort level with someone.  Introverts tend to hate 'small-talk."  They want to talk about serious stuff.  And, at least theoretically, people think more of people who think deeply.  I get lots of hits still on a 2011 post about the Eleanor Roosevelt quote "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."


For the extrovert, talking is about connecting with other people more than about the content.

For the introvert, talking is about the content more than connecting with other people.  

So here's the list I got from My Star Job:

Introverts

Extroverts

Care about their job and their organisation  Concentrate well in quiet atmospheres  May know more than they reveal  Have very good attention to details  Love to handle long and complex problems  May seem aloof and quiet  Dislike interruptions and intrusions  Work well with little supervision  Always think and reflect before taking action  Do not like to attract attention to themselves

Always keep abreast of what is happening at work  Formulate good ideas through discussions and interactions  Socialise and network well  Have excellent communication and verbal skills  Love to be a part of everything  Get bored and impatient when work gets slow and repetitive Are fantastic at marketing themselves and their organisation  Thrive on attention · Are good at multi-tasking  Respond quickly to requests and always aim to find quick solutions

I think the best candidate AND the best president is balanced enough to be able to at least act as an extrovert and as an introvert as the occasion warrants.  But I also think most people are more comfortable with extroverts than with introverts.  And that seems to be the consensus.

Susan Cain's book Quiet:The Power of Introverts, reports her research on the topic.  Cain identifies many ways that our society encourages extroversion over introversion.  One example she gives is being pressured to put away her book and join the group activities at summer camp.  Our society is biased to favor extroverts.  From Ted Talks blog:

"That bias, she claims, is everyone’s loss. While the world certainly need extroverts, it also needs introverts doing what they do best. It’s a bias that has no name. To understand it, we need to understand that introversion isn’t about not being social, it’s not being shy, it’s about how someone responds to stimulation. While extroverts crave social interaction, introverts are much more alive while they’re alone. Cain brings in her thesis with the insight that, 'The key to maximizing talents is to put yourself into the zone of stimulation that’s right for you.'”

When we consider our current presidential campaign and the debates, I'd suggest we include in our discussions of the candidates, this factor of introversion and extroversion.

Clearly Trump is a raging extrovert - so much so that it's something of a problem.  But Clinton is definitely an introvert who, as a candidate, is forced to act in an extrovert role.  That's why she doesn't seem genuine, because she can't be her natural self while campaigning.  And all the time in front of crowds of people surely is taking its toll on her energy level.  As an introvert, she needs quiet alone time to recharge.  So our American bias against introverts hurts people's perception of Clinton.  It's even worse than it was for someone like Romney (also an introvert) because women are expected to be extroverts more than men are.

For those struggling to understand how Trump is still statistically in the presidential race, this is clearly a factor, and one we should be talking about.

(Though the years of right wing media attacks and congressional hearings on Benghazi and on emails have also had their effect in making people feel Clinton is more dishonest than past candidates for president. )

Who's On A Shoestring?

There's an excellent opinion piece by Elise Patkotak in today's Alaska Dispatch News.  It's a response to Rep. Tammie Wilson's call for an investigation into why social workers are (allegedly) removing kids unnecessarily from their homes.  Everyone should read it.  (That sounds a bit pretentious of me telling people what they should read.  Let me rephrase that.  People interested in the welfare of kids, or in Wilson's claims, who want to better understand the issue can get a good, quick overview of what social workers face in Alaska.  Patkotak's response, based on her own experience as a social worker, isn't to punish social workers, but to have enough of them and enough backup services so they can do their jobs.)





But I do have an issue with the title (which usually is something an editor adds, not the writer.)  Here
it is:

Social workers can't protect Alaska 

kids on shoestring budget

What's wrong you ask.  Is it poor kids that can't be protected?  Or is it poor social workers who can't do the protecting?

This is a simple style issue that Strunk and White pointed out long ago in Elements of Style. (The link takes you to the book online.)  The specific item I'm quoting is from Section III, Elementary Rules of Composition, number 16 which begins on page 15.

16. Keep related words together. The position of the words in a sentence is the principal means of showing their relationship. The writer must therefore, so far as possible, bring together the words, and groups of words, that are related in thought, and keep apart those which are not so related.

Here's the specific rule of thumb for this case and some examples.

Modifiers should come, if possible next to the word they modify. If several expressions modify the same word, they should be so arranged that no wrong relation is suggested.

• All the members were not present.
• Not all the members were present.
• He only found two mistakes.
• He found only two mistakes.
• Major R. E. Joyce will give a lecture on Tuesday evening in Bailey Hall, to which the public is invited, on "My Experiences in Mesopotamia" at eight P. M.
• On Tuesday evening at eight P. M., Major R. E. Joyce will give in Bailey Hall a lecture on "My Experiences in Mesopotamia." The public is invited.

Let's add one more example here:

• Social workers can't protect Alaska kids on shoestring budget
• Social workers on shoestring budget can't protect Alaska kids

To me, the improvements are pretty clear, but if anyone has a question about why the bolded examples are better, leave a comment or email me (email's in right column above blog archive.)

Why does this matter?  Because humans have a lot of trouble communicating ideas from one person to another.  Even when they get everything right, there's miscommunication.  People who write - particularly editors at newspapers - should follow Strunk and White's rules (including their admonition about knowing when to break them) as automatically as they use the turn indicator in their car.  It doesn't solve miscommunication problems, but it doesn't add to the problems either.


Note:  Feedburner's been working reasonably well for the last two weeks, putting links to my posts up on other blogs.  Until yesterday's post.  So if you got here from another blog, here's a link to yesterday's post - The World's Disappearing Wilderness - The Importance of Long Term Thinking.

". . . attack, counterattack and never apologize."

The title comes from a Washington Post article describing Roy Cohn as Trump's lawyer and mentor.  For those who don't recognize the name, Cohn was the model for the Angels in America character who personifies evil.  The son of an influential judge, Cohn began young as Sen. Joe McCarthy's aide in the Congressional Red and homosexual witch hunt in the 1950s.  His career goes morally downhill from there, according to the article.

The point of the authors, though, is that he took in Trump and introduced him to the power brokers of New York and Washington DC and taught Trump his basic strategy: attack, counterattack and never apologize.

What we've seen from his tweet torrent, this does seem to be how Trump work.  He certainly hates to apologize.

It's worth reading the whole thing as we try to understand the phenomenon of Trump.

And it seems Cohn's story shares the Orlando shooter's closeted homosexuality.  Well, we don't know if the shooter had any actual gay encounters, but he seems to have been drawn to gay venues.  Cohn apparently was much more active sexually, but he witnessed (even participated in) the career and sometimes life destroying outing of homosexuals with Sen. McCarthy.

One wonders whether the shooter's rampage and Cohn's ruthless pursuit of power were both related to some sort of homophobic self-loathing. And fear of being outed. The article mentions Cohn's portrayal in Angels in America, and when I googled the two together, I got to a series of compelling Youtube excerpts.

Like this one where Cohn's long time doctor tells him he has AIDS and Cohn insists he's not a homosexual and he has liver cancer.  He's more concerned about being exposed as gay (and thus as a member of a group without 'clout') than he is about the terminal diagnosis.  I can't embed the video, but here's the link.

And the Washington Post article is also worth reading.  The authors' book on Trump comes out in August.  Good timing on their part.

[UPDATE July 21, 2016:  here's a follow up post on Cohn I did on June 24 -  "Roy Cohn was one of the most loathsome characters in American history, so why did he have so many influential friends?"]

Talking With Republican Members of Congress About Climate Change

South Florida Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo was the speaker on Saturday's international phone-in Citizens Climate Lobby meeting.  He talked about his bi-partisan committee on climate change in the House.  If you're a Republican who wants to join, you must invite a Democrat to join at the same time, and vice versa.

Since I wasn't in Anchorage, I checked online to find the local chapter contact info for  Bainbridge Island.  The group was very welcoming and I enjoyed getting to meet people there who were also CCL members.  They gave me some ideas to bring back to Anchorage for our chapter work.

Bainbridge Island CCL meeting March 2016

Curbelo's interest comes from representing South Florida. He knows that without strong, immediate action, rising oceans due to climate change will inundate his district.  He even jokes with his House colleagues that they need to act because when his district is underwater he'll move to their district and run against them.

He identifies two extremes - the deniers and the alarmists.  As a Republican talking to Republicans, I guess that is helpful.  But I would take exception to arguing that those extremes are equivalent.  While there are people who may claim exaggerated dangers for climate change, many of those who were called alarmists in the past have been proven to have understated the dangers or how quickly things like Arctic ice cap melting was going to happen.  "Alarmists' are, at worst, exaggerating the truth.  Deniers are flat out wrong, and some have knowingly lied publicly to cast doubt on the very real dangers of climate change.

But it's not the policy of CCL to argue with partners, but to find what they have in common, and you can get the sense of that if you listen to Saturday's meeting which you can do below.

The most positive message I got from Rep. Curbelo was when he said there are many Republicans who are ready to come out of the Climate Change closet and support efforts to cut carbon.  He suggested that once the primaries are over, more Republicans will get on board.




Curbelo likes the carbon fee option because it's a market based solution.  He even pointed out that we already have a default carbon tax - the cost of the EPA - and that a market based fee would be more predictable than EPA regulations.

As I've said before, I joined CCL because I think climate change is the single most important issue facing the world and that CCL is one of, if not the, most efficient and effective organization I've ever come across.  And it takes a fairly Buddhist approach to connecting with other people who are normally considered adversaries.

After Curbelo, there's a connection with one of the Canadian members who talks about Trudeau's visit to Washington, and also his plans for a nationally integrated carbon fee program.  Then preparations for district meetings and the national conference in DC in June.  A key issues is learning to listen rather than try to respond immediately when talking with congress members and their staffers.  Mark, the coordinator, also talked about the explosion of international members in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Latin America which has happened since the climate summit in Paris.

Odds And Ends - Central American Peaks, 99 Year Life Ends, Race, Police, And Headlines

A colleague has driven from Seattle to Mexico in the hopes of climbing the highest mountain in each Central American country.  (I actually have a book of the highest peaks in all the US states, but doubt that at this point I'll reach the tops of too many of them.)  Anyway, Sharman's blogging the trip and some of you might like to follow along.  Her partner Mike made it to the top of Mexico's highest mountain Citlaltépetl, but Sharman decided not to fight the altitude and only went part of the way.

Frank at 99

My step-mother's husband died the other day. (She married him after my father died.)  We saw them Here's a video I made of the two of them in 2008, with more biography of each.
in early January.  Frank was 99.  He grew up in Czechoslovakia, speaking Hungarian and Czech and was in Nazi work camps during WWII.  His younger brother Larry got out of Europe before WW II to study at UCLA.  Larry died a couple of years ago.

Time speeds along.  The Anchorage IRS advocate (I didn't know each state had one.  Sen. Murkowski's office contacted her on my behalf.) called yesterday to let us know she's working on the case and will get back to me.

I probably should have mentioned yesterday for folks not in Anchorage that the library steps are getting torn down to reconfigure the entrance. We aren't tearing down the library.  The fact that money was found for this is a positive sign.   The old entrance was a compromise between the original architectural design and lack of funds to do it right.  That led to the main entrance being on the second floor with a big staircase.  Not terribly accessible, especially in the winter when the steps got covered with snow.  So they built a cover.  But now they are planning to put the main entrance on the ground floor.  I haven't seen the detailed plans.


I still have video from the racial equity summit Monday and Tuesday. (And from other encounters as well.)  A regular reader also send a link to an interesting article about researchers demonstrating subconscious responses that show racism based on very quick (less than a second) views of people.  Clever techniques to figure this out.  Interesting article.   Here's the beginning.

"Jennifer Eberhardt presented her research at a law enforcement conference, she braced for a cold shoulder. How much would streetwise cops care what a social psychology professor had to say about the hidden reaches of racial bias? Instead, she heard gasps, the loudest after she described an experiment that showed how quickly people link black faces with crime or danger at a subconscious level. In the experiment, students looking at a screen were exposed to a subliminal flurry of black or white faces. The subjects were then asked to identify blurry images as they came into focus frame by frame.

The makeup of the facial prompts had little effect on how quickly people recognized mundane items like staplers or books. But with images of weapons, the difference was stark—subjects who had unknowingly seen black faces needed far fewer frames to identify a gun or a knife than those who had been shown white faces. For a profession dealing in split-second decisions, the implications were powerful." [To read the rest]

This is particularly interesting in light of Mike Dingman's commentary in the ADN today about police reaction to the Mayor's intent to diversify the Anchorage police department.  The headline was:

"Mayor calls for diversity in APD, and some folks get the vapors"

But then again, I'm seeing more and more sensational headlines these days.  When you read the article it doesn't seem as extreme as the headline.  Like this teaser on the cover of the ADN today:

"In sharp clash, Clinton and Sanders swap barbs and views
In a brutally caustic debate Thursday night . . ."

Really?  If the Clinton/Sanders exchange was 'brutally caustic' how would you describe the recent Republican debates.  In the article (link is to original NY Times article) it tells us that Clinton said,

". . . months of criticism by Mr. Sanders over her taking speaking fees from Wall Street banks amounted to a suggestion that she was corrupt — or, as she put it, a 'very artful smear.'

Is this an attempt to be even handed?  To make the Democrats look as belligerent as the Republicans?

The Modern Family

I'm at the living room table at my Macbook.

My daughter is on the couch with her Macbook.

My son-in-law is in the easy chair with his iPad.

And I can see my wife in the kitchen with her iPad.

My granddaughter is in bed.   She doesn't have an electronic device.  She's been delighted with the
old phone we found in the garage.

I guess in a different era, after saying all we wanted to say to each other, we'd be watching television or reading.

But we did get a lot of things done today.  Couple of trips to the thrift shop to drop things off.  Got the picture back from the framer.  Got rid of some stuff on FreeCycleand found a a stroller there to use while my granddaughter is here.  Dug out the flower bed where the plumber thinks the roots are getting into the pipe, then he came over to dig further.  Talked to the IRS this morning, after a 40 minute wait, only to be told that because I didn't have my CAF number, she couldn't talk to me.  Mind you, I've spoken to IRS agents on the phone seven or more times this year and none has refused to talk to me without my giving them the CAF number.  They've checked the computer records and saw I had the right to talk to them about my mom's account and they talked to me.  The only thing Ms. Rutherford let slip today was that she could see I had a CAF number.  Actually, I don't believe I ever got anything telling me what it was.  For 2014 an agent got oral permission from my mom back in January I believe for me to represent her and he wrote that into the record.  And he told me to apply for 2015.  But for this year no one ever told me the number.  And no one has ever used that to not talk to me before.  I tried to call back, but got the recording that they were busy and to call back another day.  That's just a little bit of the day's chores.

There was also a rather frightening incident where I was trying to make a left turn.  I'd eased out to the center when there were no cars coming from my left, and was waiting for a clearing on the other side of the street.  A car appeared on the left and didn't see me until very late and slammed on the brakes and stopped about three feet from me.  My passenger thought he'd been texting and looked up and saw me. I know if he was looking where he was going, he should have seen me there long before he braked.  Cars on the other side then stopped and waved me on to make my left turn.  If he had waited another two seconds to look up and brake, I'd probably not be writing this now.  I just sat there watching the car come at me.  I couldn't go forward into the traffic.  I guess I could have jumped onto the passenger's lap, but I don't think I had time to get out of the seatbelt and do that.  And would being further from the impact location make up for not having my seatbelt on?  I didn't think of any of this until hours later.  I wasn't scared at the time.  I just watched it as though I wasn't involved. But later the awareness of how close I was to a life altering event broke through.  I'm a pretty careful driver, but I put myself into a vulnerable spot trying to make that left turn.  We put our trust in other drivers every time we're on the road, but how we drive increases or decreases our risks as well.  All this is to say, readers, drive with care.  Go a little out of your way rather than make difficult turns on busy streets.

The very best part of the day was I a ten minute conversation in gibberish with my granddaughter.  It was a back and forth exchange of nonsense sentences with intonations that made them into declarative sentences and questions, expressed surprise or mock disagreement.  There were smiles, serious expressions, and lots of laughter.  So much fun.  A wonderful reason to be careful and stay alive and mobile.

[Sorry for those seeing this reposted - Feedburner problems again. This seems to be a morning problem.]

From Ashes To Ashes And Flowers

Al Jolson's grave

The day started out taking my mom's ashes to the cemetery.  I did ask if I could have a few spoonfuls of ash to keep and they said, yes, of course.  Her ashes will soon be within 100 yards of Al Jolson's remains, so I'm sure she'll keep well entertained.   And if no one else has done it yet, she'll let him know that blackface doesn't cut it any more.  In December, on my brother's birthday, we'll do a small family ceremony.  I'm sure my mom and brother will be catching up on things. 

The day ended at a film showing sponsored by the LA Times of  Loreak (Flowers), the Spanish entry for an Academy Award for best foreign language film.  In one scene a key character's casket is put into the crematorium, burned up, and then the ashes are collected and put into a plastic bag, and slipped into an urn.  I don't think I've ever taken an urn full of ashes to a cemetery before (though I did go pick them up from the mortuary) and I've never seen such a detailed depiction of a cremation before in a movie.  Or maybe I have and I've forgotten, and this one caught my attention because of this morning's task.

Watching the film  I began to wonder why I couldn't catch a single word of the Spanish.  Nada.  Is Spanish Spanish that different from Mexican Spanish?  No, I've understood bits and pieces of other Spanish movies.  This sounded totally strange.  At the end, I thought it could be Catalan or Basque.  I thought Catalan was more related to Spanish and so picked Basque.

At the end of the film, an LA Times film writer Mark Olsen interviewed the two directors
Jon Garaño and José Mari Goenaga and more gentleman with the film whose name I didn't catch.  And the first question he asked was about having a Basque language film submitted for an Oscar.  (It's still got a long way to go since 81 countries have submitted films in this category.)

I enjoyed the movie.  It had a much slower pace than American films, but that was ok, and the filmmakers said afterward that was deliberate, because the film was about what was in the characters' heads and that takes time to understand.  The story line included a very clever intertwining of events.  It wasn't dense or obscure and if one takes a bit of time to think it through, one can get it, but it was nice to hear from the filmmakers themselves what they tried to do and why.   

This was a good warm up for the Anchorage International Film Festival.  By the way, my last posts never got Feedburned to other blogrolls.  I did a post on the documentaries in competition at AIFF this year.  If you missed that post, it's here.

Microagression - Response to the Backlash

I've been thinking about the idea of fairness lately and want to write some on that topic.  Here's a related issue that I'll note for now.  

Little, isolated irritations can be brushed off by most of us, but when one becomes the victim of an onslaught of irritations, it can lead to more serious emotional problems.

That's the basic idea behind microagression.

The term has been specifically used to talk about how getting a daily flow of comments about one's race, religion, weight, or sexual orientation,  can take a heavy toll on people. 

Board members of Healing Racism in Anchorage talk about how the meetings are a place of refuge, a place where people understood their issues, where they didn't have to explain themselves.  That idea of needing a refuge, lends validity for me, of the idea of microagression. 

But there has recently been some pushback on that notion of microagression.  And here's a thoughtful response in the LA Times to that pushbook.

"Microaggressions hurt

By Regina Rini

   IF YOU live near a college campus or read anxious think pieces, you’ve probably heard about “microaggression.” A microaggression is a relatively minor insult to a member of a marginalized group, perceived as damaging to that person’s standing as a social equal. Examples listed on a blog called Oberlin Microaggressions include shopkeepers acting suspicious toward people of color, or someone saying to a Jewish student, “Since Hitler is dead, you don’t have to worry about being killed by him anymore.” A microaggression is not necessarily a deliberate insult, and any one instance might be an honest mistake. But over time a pattern of microaggression can cause macro harm by continuously reminding members of marginalized groups of their precarious position.    A recent paper by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning claims that talk of microaggression signals the appearance of a new moral culture, a “culture of victimhood.” In the paper, Campbell and Manning present a history of Western morality.    First there was a “culture of honor,” which prized physical bravery. Insults demanded an aggressive reply. Picture two medieval knights glowering at each other, swords drawn.    Then the culture of honor was displaced by a “culture of dignity,” in which individuals let minor insults slide and reported more serious offenses to impartial authorities. Picture a 1950s businessman telling the constable about a neighbor peeking in windows.    Finally, there is an emerging “culture of victimhood,” in which individuals publicly call attention to insults in the hope of rallying support from others and inducing the authorities to act. Picture a Latina student tweeting about her professor’s racist comments.    There is a serious problem with Campbell and Manning’s moral history, and exposing it helps us see that the culture of victimhood label is misleading. .  .  ."

I've given the first few paragraphs,   You can read the whole article here.  

And if you think about how quickly white males of the Tea Party persuasion or some fundamentalist Christians feel attacked when other folks simply ask for fair treatment, you can see that the issue of sensitivity isn't limited to the marginalized of society. 

Humans Versus Robots Answering Phones - LADWP Human The Worst

This past week I've been going through my mom's mail and calling different government agencies, insurance companies, utilities, etc.

I'm totally fed up.

I'm tired of machines asking for account numbers.  Or giving me five choices.  Then three more, then two more, none of which fits. 

Even though they are getting more sophisticated ("If you need more time to find the number, just say 'need more time'), most of the time I really need to talk to a human because I have issues the computers aren't programmed to handle.   And sometimes they don't even work - "When you're ready, say 'ready.'" just kept playing the music even though I said "ready" several times with increasing volume.

If it were simple, I'd just do it online in most cases, simply to avoid the machines answering the phones.  I'm calling because my issue needs a human.

Most of the humans I eventually talk to are really good.  To give you a sense of my . . .  well frustration isn't quite right because my expectations are so low now.  Exhaustion is probably closer.

The LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP)- There was a bill that was due Tuesday.  Since we only got here Tuesday, I hadn't seen it or paid it. 

I just called to see if they had a grace period of a few days.   When I finally got to the human, I told her my mom's name.  Well, the account was in my step-dad's initials (just the middle initial was different from my mom's).

Steve:  Well, it's my mom's account.  She just died.   The name you have has been dead for thirty years.   I'm just trying to find out the grace period or if there's a place near by where I can pay this.
LADWP:  If the account holder is dead we have to close the account and open a new account.
Steve;  That's fine, but for now I just want to pay the bill right now and I'll change it later.
LADWP:  If the account holder is dead we have to cut off the service in three days unless there is a new account and it will cost $19 to change it.
Steve:  The account holder has been dead for over 30 years, I don't see how another week or month is going to matter.
LADWP:  Once we've been notified we shut off services after three days unless it's changed.

You can imagine how I'm feeling now.

Steve:  Look, I just called so I could pay this bill on time and now you're threatening to shut off the water and power?
LADWP:  I'm sorry that is the policy.  Please give me your social security number.

When I hesitated, she repeated the turn off the service threat.  "We need it to check your credit."  OK, I can understand, and credit checking is one of the reasons one has to give a social security number, but it doesn't mean, in this identity theft era, that I like it.

She put me on hold.  When she came back I had collected myself and voiced my dissatisfaction in a mostly calm, but impatient voice.

Steve:  Look, I've been calling lots of organizations since my mom died.  You are the first person I've talked to who hasn't had the decency to say something like, "I'm sorry for your loss."  And all the other places have been understanding and offered me extra time if I needed it.   You, in contrast,  are threatening to shut off the water and power in three days if I don't do everything you say.  I might as well be talking to a robot who isn't programmed to understand human beings and have some discretion or decency.  

At that point she changed her tone.  She apologized, gave her condolences, but also said they deal with thousands of people every day and don't know what the circumstances are.  In the end, she said I could mail it in and not go to the office and stand in line to pay that day.

My assumption is that LADWP is putting lots of pressure on employees who answer phones, and that is reflected in how this woman responded.  I'm sure there are lots of people who skip out on unpaid bills, but that's no reason to treat me like they did.  In the end she acknowledged this was a long time account (my family moved into this house in 1956) and that the bills were always paid on time.

I'm inclined to think the problem really rests on LADWP.  They're known for scandals about hig employee salaries and  their billing as well as over expenditures and secrecy.

I don't think they should get any rewards for customer service either.

And let me say that every other person I've talked to over the phone since my mom died has immediately stopped and offered condolences and been extra nice and accommodating in handling the issues.  It hasn't always been quick and there have sometimes been problems down the line (although Verizon lowered the rate to $96 a month - tv on vacation hold - the new bill was for $335), but when I've called back they've been gracious and helpful.

NOTE:  I started this several days ago.  Saturday this letter arrived from LADWP addressed to [initials] Deceased [last name].  Maybe I should put it on my mom's ashes until she decides what to do with it. (I've already sent them a check.)  Except it's not to my mom, but my step-dad whose been dead over 30 years.  I could take it to the cemetery and tape it to his memorial. 

I've smudged the initials, last name, address, etc.

We've had letters addressed to my mom, and to her estate, but not with 'deceased' as part of her name.  More reason to believe this is an insensitive organization and it wasn't simply the operator I got.