Friday, November 28, 2008

Claude Lévi-Strauss One Hundredth Birthday - Happy Birthday!

Today - November 28, 2008 - is finally the day Claude Lévi-Strauss turns 100. And yes, he is still alive. I've tried during this last week to offer a glimpse of what he's written and what others have said about him. It's stayed on the fairly heavy side, so for today, here's something everyone can relate to. This takes place in 1941 (I think) when he arrived in the US to teach at Columbia University.

...I arrived in the spring and classes were already over. I went to introduce myself at the New School where I was told all of a sudden, "You can't posibly call yourself Lévi-Strauss. Here you'll say your name is Claude L. Strauss." I asked why, and they said, "The students would find it funny." Because of the blue jeans! So for several years I lived in the States with a mutilated last name.

Ever since, this unfortunate coincidence has continued to haunt me. Like a ghost! Hardly a year goes by without my receiving, usually from Africa, an order for jeans. Shortly after 1950, in Paris, a total stranger came to my door, saying he sold fabric. He had found my name in the telephone book and wanted to propose my name for a pants factory. I objected, saying my position at the university and as a scholar was incompatible with that sort of undertaking. He told me not to worry and explained that the affair would never see the light of day, all he would have to do was suggest it. "Rather than lose exclusive rights to their brand-name, the company would pay handsomely to halt the project. All we would have to do is split the proceeds." I declined.

A few years ago I was at Berkeley as a visiting professor. One evening my wife and I wanted to have dinner in a restaurant where we didn't have reservations. There was a line. A waiter asked for our name so he could call us when our turn came. The moment he heard it, he asked, "The pants or the books?"

One has to admire the level of education of the waiters in California, for in Paris, when my wife leaves her name in a store for an order and people exclaim because it is such a well-known name, it's always because of the pants, never the books
From Claude Lévi-Strauss and Didier Eribon (1988) Conversations with Claude Lévi-Strauss
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 30

The rest of the posts in honor of Lévi-Strauss' birthday are here.

I've seen almost nothing in the mainstream media about this 100 birthday. Googling today, I did find this audio report on National Public Radio.

[Update 9:30pm: Anthropologi has a list of web tributes to Lévi-Strauss.]

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Coup Coming in Thailand?

The ADN finally had a picture of the protests in Thailand on the front page of the B section yesterday. I guess Alaskans could be affected by the Bangkok airport being shut down so they thought it was news.

For those who want to know more about what's happening, Bangkok Pundit keeps a running account with links to news sources:

A Coup in the Works?

Posted by Bangkok Pundit | 11/27/2008 03:08:00 PM [remember they are about 16 hours ahead of Anchorage, so this report is about an hour old as I'm posting]

Thai Rath reports that PPP MPs believe there will be a coup tonight and are going to mobolise "red shirts". Also, that all 6 coalition parties agreed to use legal measures against the PAD who have broken the law to try to provoke a coup. PPP MPs have promised to mobolise not less than 20,000 persons per MP.


In Bangkok, MPs from the coalition parties will ask people to bring their cars on the streets or taxis to close roads to prevent a coup. The coalition parties believe a coup will happen tonight..

They are also going to release details of the financial backers of the PAD especially Bangkok Bank and Kasikorn bank. They will need to ask society's questions and explain to the people why they shouldn't withdraw their money. They will also opppose the purchase of goods from PAD supporting companies. They believe there will be no bloodshed.

Surapong has disclosed that 33 MPs have written a letter to the PM to fire Anupong. He says there is a "smell" of a coup in the air.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

He Said, She Said

The ADN reported the other day on the disagreement about who will become mayor when Mark Begich steps down to become US Senator:
But chairman Matt Claman and vice-chair Sheila Selkregg have very different recollections of commitments that may or may not have been made at a private meeting in April that led to their leadership positions.
I know both these people and think they're both good mayoral material though with very different strengths. I also learned a long time ago, that what I thought I said and what my wife thought I said (and the same about what she said) are often miles apart.

One communication model identifies several places where the message can go wrong.

1. There's the sender
2. The sender has to create a message (the idea he wants to get to the receiver)
2. The message has to go through a medium or two (maybe just a shrug of a shoulder or raising of an eyebrow, or an actual formal language with words which then have to be conveyed through speech, an email, a note, etc.)
3. Then the receiver has to interpret the message she receives.

Each step of the way is fraught with potential problems.
  • Has the sender really figured out what idea he wants to send, or is it still a vague idea?
  • Has the sender translated it into a clear message? If the message is verbal, are the words chosen and organized unambiguously?
  • Does any of the message get lost in the medium through which it is sent? Is the ink smeared? Does the tone of voice send a different message than the content?
  • Finally, does the receiver use words the same way as the sender? How does her mental filtering system modify the meaning of the message?
It's very possible that they are both 'right.' The message that he 'sent' may well be what he said it was and, the message she received may also be what she said it was. But when two people, even two good people, strongly want the same thing, their communications may get skewed. Or worse.

I hope they can both put this all in perspective. We need another good mayor. And an assembly that can work closely with the mayor, but also stand up to the mayor when necessary. Good luck to the both of them and to all of us.

Driveway's Good, My Back Isn't



There were several new inches of snow this morning and I went out to clear the driveway. Our new neighbors had already shoveled the sidewalk all the way to our driveway! I like these neighbors. The snow was soft and dry and it was easy to clear, but I could also feel a little stitch in my lower left back. I put ice on it as soon as I got in, but I'm still walking funny. The deck in back is going to have to wait. But it's pretty and if I don't clear it now, there won't be any cars driving on it to make it much harder to clear later.


The table is open for tomorrow and J has a turkey hiding in our refrigerator. Being mostly vegetarian means that Thanksgiving is still turkey. But she did get another range grown organic bird. If you want the organic spiel, with video, you can look at last year's turkey post.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Anchorage International Film Festival - New Website Coming Soon

I talked to Michele at the Anchorage International Film Festival today. I was concerned about the website. Yes, she knew, and they are feverishly working on the new website. The current website will disappear and the new one will take its place Wednesday or Thursday. So be patient.

I also learned why there were blank pages in the program guide. That's what they sent to the Press and the blanks were for advertising. So, the complete program is already available as a downloadable PDF at the current AIFF site, or in readable form in my last post, and when the next Anchorage Press comes out, probably Thursday. That gives you a week to plan what movies you want to see.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Anchorage International Film Festival Program Guide and Tickets

This week's Press should have the whole AIFF program in it. But for those of you who want it early, there's a peek below. Of course you can get your PDF copy from the website I downloaded it last week and again today, but I can't seem to get the bottom of page 11 or pages 12, 14, or 16. Fortunately, the critical page is 15 which has the week's schedule.


Ticket Prices:



The price is $7 for most screenings.(See the program guide for special prices on classic movies, family matinees and Snowdance shorts.)

A six-pack punch card good for any six screenings is also available for $36.

Special event tickets for the opening night gala, Martini Matinee and the Golden Oosikar Awards are available at the venues the day of the event.

Passes:
All Events Pass is $75 includes all the films and special events.
All Films Pass is $60.

Advance Passes Punch card Purchases

Purchase your festival passes or punch cards in advance or during the festival at the Bear Tooth Theatrepub, AMIPA or www.anchoragefilmfestival.org.

Note: AMIPA is on the 3rd floor of the UAA Library. I can't find the link on the website for purchasing tickets.

The Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center and Regal Fireweed will also sell passes and punch cards during the festival's run.


Note again: Pages 11, 12, 14, and 16 are missing. You can enlarge the pages with down arrow on the right. You can also print the pages full size. I'm posting the top of page 11 (I had to delete 11 for it to work with Scribd] below.
Anchorage International Film Festival 2008 Online Guide
Get your own at Scribd or explore others: Culture Alaska Movies


Top of Page 11 - Double Click to enlarge

A lot of people have done a lot of volunteer work to make this film festival possible so go through the program and find something you like. If you're going to see at least ten films (that's one per day, or several bunched up on the weekends) then get the All Film Pass for $60 (and save $10).

There's also stuff for kids.

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the Festival. They liked how I blogged last year's festival and they've given me one free All Film Pass. They may even link to here, but I otherwise I'm just a film lover who's pushing the festival in general so that we have enough attendance that this becomes a regular event.

Claude Lévi-Strauss One Hundredth Birthday - Post 7: Friendly Ciriticism

[All my Lévi-Strauss Birthday posts are here.]
None of these Lévi-Strauss posts are intended to be accurate reflections individually or as a whole. They are basically snippets from a small pile of books and from websites that I find interesting and perhaps someone else will too.

From Edmund Leach (1970) Claude Lévi-Strauss, New York: Viking Press, pp. 11-13

This search for "fundamental properties" is a recurrent theme in all Lévi-Strauss' writings, but it is not just a matter of antiquarian curiosity. The point is rather that what is fundamental and universal must be the essence of our true nature, and we can use an understanding of that nature to improve ourselves:
The second phase of our undertaing is that while not clinging to elements from any one particular society, we make use of all of them in order to distinguish those principles of social life which may be applied to reform our own customs and not those of customs foreign to our own. . . . Our own society is the only one which we can transform and yet not destroy, since the changes which we should introduce would come from within. (Tristes Tropiques, pp. 391-92)
As this passage shows, Lévi-Strauss is a visionary, and the trouble with those who see visions is that they find it very difficult to recognize the plain matter-of-fact world which the rest of us see all around. Lévi-Strauss pursues his anthropology because he conceives of primitive peoples as "reduced models" of what is essential in all mankind, but the resulting Rousseau-like noble savages inhabit a world very far removed from the dirt and squalor that are the field anthropologist's normal stamping ground.

This is important. A careful study of Tristes Tropiques reveals that, in the whole course of his Brazilian travels, Lévi-Strauss can never have stayed in one place for more than a few weeks at a time and that he was never able to converse easily with any of his native informants in their native language.

There are many kinds of anthropological inquiry, but Malinowski-style intensive field work employing the vernacular, which is now the standard research technique employed by nearly all British and American social anthropologists, is an entirely different procedure from the careful but uncomprehending description of manners and customs, based on the use of special informants and interpreters, which was the original source for most of the ethnographic observations on which Lévi-Strauss, like his Frazerian predecessors, has chosen to rely.

It is perfectly true that an experienced anthropologist, visiting a "new" primitive society for the first time and working with the aid of competent interpreters, may be able, after a stay of only a few days, to develop in his own mind a fairly comprehensive "model" of how the social system works, but it is also true that if he stays for six months and learns to speak the local language very little of that original "model" will remain. Indeed, the task of understanding how the system works will by then appear even more formidable than it did just two days after his first arrival.
Well, I certainly can relate to this. When I had been in Thailand six months, I thought I was just figuring it all out. But after a while, the longer I stayed, the less I knew. Not because I actually knew less, but because my awareness of what I didn't know was growing at a much faster pace than what I did know.

Lévi-Strauss himself has never had the opportunity to suffer this demoralizing experience, and he never comes to grips with the issues involved.

In all of his writings Lévi-Strauss assumes that the simple, first stage "model" generated by the observer's first impressions corresponds quite closely to a genuine (and very important) ethnographic reality - the "conscious model" which is present in the minds of the anthropologist's informants. In contrast, to the anthropologists who have had a wider and more varied range of field experience, it seems all too obvious that this initial model is little more than an amalgam of the observer's own prejudiced presuppositions.

On this account many would argue that Lévi-Strauss, like Frazer, is insufficiently critical of his source material. He always seems to be able to find just what he is looking for. Any evidence, however dubious, is acceptable so long as it fits with logically calculated expectations; but wherever the data runs counter to the theory Lévi-Strauss will either bypass the evidence or marshal the full resources of his powerful invective to have the heresy thrown out of court. So we need to remember that Lévi-Strauss' prime training was in philosophy and law; he consistently behaves like an advocate defending a cause rather than a scientist searching for ultimate truth.

But the philosopher is also a poet. William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity (1933) belongs to a class of literary criticism which is wholly antipathetic to contemporary structuralists, but none the less it makes excellent introductory reading for any would-be student of Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss has not actually published poetry, but his whole attitude to the sounds and meanings and combinations and permutations of language elements betrays his nature. His grand four-volume study of the structure of American Indian mythodoly is not entitled Mythologies but Mythologiques - the "logics of myth" - and the object of the exercise is to explore the mysterious interconnections between these myth-logics and other logics. This is poet's country, and those who get impatient with the tortuous gymnastics of Lévi-Straussian argument - as most of us do - need to remember that he shares with Freud a most remarkable capacity for leading us all unawares into the innermost recesses of our secret emotions.

I'm not sure if this is damning with faint praise, or, what I would rather see it as, an acknowledgment that while Lévi-Strauss does not practice what most anthropologists practice, it's because he is doing something else. I'd go on to say something more sublime, but I'm like that anthropologist who has visited this Lévi-Straussian village for a few weeks. All my impressions are suspect. But there is a lot to churn the brain cells.

The Problem with Snark

I critiqued a letter to the editor a week or so ago. I normally try to edit out any tone of condescension, but the letter really pushed my buttons, and my wife had been out of town and unavailable to check my baser impulses. I've thought about it a couple of days.

The real key to whether snark is appropriate or not depends on the writer's goal. Some possible goals of political blogs.
1. To vent.
2. To stir up the believers.
3. To have authentic discussion in which the writer and the reader/commenter with a different world view are both open to learning something new.

For goal one, snark works just fine.

For goal two, snark can elicit a short term emotional satisfaction - our governor used this effectively to stir up the so-called Republican base. But having non-thinking followers who drool at the sight of their perceived enemies' blood is not a goal of mine. I'd rather have readers who are seeking to resolve problems, interested in understanding thinking that is different from theirs, who are respectful, or at the very least, not disrespectful, of the people with whom they disagree.

For goal three, if the opposing parties agree on a set of rules in which sarcasm is seen as witty or clever and where the debate is really just a sport, then snark probably is not a problem. It may also be a necessary part of some such games where not insulting your opponent is taken as a sign of weakness.

However, for those who passionately hold strong beliefs the snark is seen as a lack of respect. And everybody, ultimately, wants to be taken seriously as a human being. Snark, sarcasm, tone - are all like fingernails scratching 'I'm smarter than you' on a blackboard. The writer may indeed be smarter, but that is not really relevant. If one's goal is to produce facts and logic to show why one strategy is more likely to succeed than another, one has to listen to those who disagree. Listen to understand why they disagree - logical reasons why, emotional reasons why, political reasons why - so that one can address those issues and show the other person why one's own story about the world does not threaten the other person's interests.

Thus, for me, in most cases snark is an expensive luxury - it may feel good, it may get your co-believers cheering - but it tends to shut down the people with whom you want to communicate. I'm fairly confident that the Limbaughs rather enjoy torquing off Democrats, but that doesn't change their minds. It does solidify those who already agree with him.

How many committed Democrats reading this changed their minds because a Republican canvasser explained why McCain was the best candidate? Why would they believe that a Republican could be convinced if they couldn't? But changing those minds is the ultimate challenge. And when you take that challenge, you have to listen carefully, and you will modify 'what you know', despite your certainty in what you already believe. (I know, the Democrats would answer, "Because we're right." But the Republicans believe the same thing.)

I wrote all this a week or so ago. Since then I've seen some letters written by people who'd been through a training session on racism, set up to deal with some racist comments by members of the organization. The training was respectful, in-depth, and dealt with emotional as well as political, economic, and social aspects of race. I was surprised by the the way the letters described people's discomfort during the sessions, gratitude at the opportunity to gain a different perspective of the issue, plus examples of their changed behaviors.

Changing how people see the world IS possible, but it requires understanding the other person's emotional and theoretical world views. It requires respect. And the ability to tell your story in terms that the other person can accept. And the changers also will modify their own world views in the process. Snark is like sand in the gears of this process.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Claude Lévi-Strauss One Hundredth Birthday - Post 5[6]: Myth, History, Stevens' Legacy, and Palin's Turkeys

[All the Lévi-Strauss Birthday posts are here.]
OK, I've got a post title, but can I put it all together so it makes sense to readers? I've titled this blog "What Do I Know?" because I think the question is a critical one for us all to ponder, all the time. The Lévi-Strauss quotes at the beginning of this post look at how anthropologists gather indigenous myths and then how they give them meaning. After the quotes, I look at two current Alaskan (but also national) stories and try to give perspective on how we - mainstream journalists and bloggers as well as general citizens - create our own cultural myths and write our history. I'm the first to acknowledge that I'm not necessarily interpreting Lévi-Strauss accurately, but I think it is still legitimate to let his writing stimulate ideas that can then be used to see 'today' from a different perspective. How do we know?

Lévi-Strauss, in Myth and Meaning ponders in a chapter called "When Myth Becomes History" how we should interpret the meaning of the collected mythology of 'primitive' peoples. In this book he is particularly looking at North and South American myths. The ones in this chapter are particularly relevant to Alaskans since they are about Indians living on the edges of Alaska. I'll try to pick out a few quotes and then make a huge leap and relate this to current Alaska myth making.

Lévi-Strauss begins the chapter raising two problems for the mythologist:
  1. There are two different types of mythic material
    -one type of collection is "like shreds and patches...disconnected stories are put one after the other without any clear relationship"
    -the other type is "coherent mythological stories, all divided into chapters following each other in a quite logical order."
  2. What does the collection mean?
Dealing with the second question, he discusses who collects the myths using what framework.
This second problem is, though still theoretical, of a more practical nature. In former times, let's say in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, mythological material was collected mostly by anthropologists, that is people from the outside. Of course, in many cases, and especially in Canada, they had native collaborators. Let me, for instance, quote the case of Franz Boas, who had a Kwakiutl assistant, George Hunt (as a matter of fact, he was not exactly Kwakiutl because he was born of a Scottish father and Tlingit mother, but he was raised among the Kwakiutl, married among the Kwakiutl, and completely identified with the culture). And for the Tsmishian, Boas had Henry Tate, who was a literate Tsimshian, and Marius Barbeau had William Benyon, who was also a literate Tsimshian. So native co-operation was secured from the beginning, but nevertheless the fact is Hunt, Tate, or Benyon worked under the guidance of the anthropologists, that is they were turned into anthropologists themselves. Of course, they knew the best legends, the traditions belonging to their own clan, their own lineage, but nevertheless they were equally interested in collecting data from other families, other clans, and the like.

When we look at this enormous corpus of Indian mythology, such as, for instance Boas' and Tate's Tsimshian Mythology, or the Kwakiutl texts collected by Hunt, and edited, published, and translated too by Boas, we find more or less the same organization of the data, because it is one which was recommended by the anthropologists: for instance, in the beginning, cosmological and cosmogonic myths, and later on, much later on, what can be considered as legendary tradition and family histories.

It has so happened that this task, started by the anthropologists, the Indians are taking now up themselves, and for different purposes, for instance, to have their language and mythology taught in elementary schools for Indian children. That is very important, I understand, at the moment. Another purpose is to use legendary tradition to validate claims against the white people - territorial claims, political claims, and so on.

So it is extremely important to find out if there is a difference and, if there is, what kind of difference between traditions collected from the outside from those collected on the inside, though as if they were collected from the outside. Canada is fortunate, I should say, in that books about its own mythology and legendary traditions have been organized and published by the Indian specialists themselves. This began early: there is Legends of Vancouver by Pauline Johnson, issued before the First World War. Later on, we had books by Marius Barbeau, who was, of course, not Indian at all, but who tried to collect historical or semi-historical material and make himself the spokesman of his Indian informants; he produced, so to speak, his own version of that mythology.

More interesting, far more interesting, are books such as Men of Medeek published in Kitimat in 1962, which is supposedly the verbatim account collected from the mouth of Chief Walter Wright, a Tsimshian chief of the middle Skeena river, but collected by somebody else, a white field worker who was not even a professional. And even more important is the recent book by Chief Kenneth Harris, who is also a Tsimshian chief, published in 1974 by himself.

So we can, with this kind of material, make a kind of experiment by comparing the material collected by anthropologists, and the material collected and published directly by the Indians. I should not say 'collected,' as a matter of fact, because instead of being traditions from several families, several class, several lineages put together and juxtaposed to each other, what we have in these two books is really the history of one family or one clan, published by one of its descendants.


I'm skipping an interesting chunk that compares Chief Wright's and Chief Harris' histories.

It is practically the same story in both books: it explains that the city was destroyed, that the remnants of the people went on the move, and started difficult peregrinations along the Skeena.

This, of course, could be a historical event, but if we look closely at the way it is explained, we see that the type of event is the same, but not exactly the details. For instance, according to the version, there can be at the original a fight between two villages or two towns, a fight which originated in an adultery; but the story can be either that a husband killed the lover of his wife, or that brothers killed their sister's lover, or that a husband killed his wife because she had a lover. So, you see, we have an explanatory cell. Its basic structure is the same, but the content of the cell is not the same and can vary, so it is a kind of mini-myth if I may say so, because it is very short and very condensed, but it has still the property of a myth in that we can observe it under different transformations. When one element is transformed, the other elements should be rearranged accordingly. This is the first aspect of these clan stories that interests me.

...What we discover by reading these books is that the opposition - the simple opposition between mythology and history which we are accustomed to make - is not at all a clear-cut one, and that there is an intermediary level. Mythogology is static, we find the same mythical elements combined over and over again, but they are in a closed system, let us say, in contradistinction with history, which is, of course, an open system.

The open character of history is secured by the innumerable ways according to which mythical cells, or explanatory cells which were originally mythical, can be arranged and rearranged. It shows us that by using the same material, because it is a kind of common inheritance or common patrimony of all groups, of all clans, or of all lineages, one can nevertheless succeed in building up an original account for each of them. [From Claude Lévi-Strauss (1979) Myth and Meaning, New York: Schocken Books. pp. 35-41]


So, as I understand this, basically Lévi-Strauss is asking questions about how basic stories are told - how they are framed, interpreted, and turned into history. He starts right at the very beginning, how the person - whether outsider or insider - just in the very act of writing down the story, has to make choices of how to organize it. And later he relates the issue of why they write it - is there some purpose it is going to serve? To help secure an anthropology reputation? To keep the attention and funding of the anthropologist? To make land claims?

So when we read the accounts of modern day 'chiefs' like Chief Stevens and Chief Palin, even the most careful recorder will be distorting the stories. Less scrupulous recorders are consciously or unconsciously radically skewing the story to promote their interests. Of course, this conceit is nothing new to any of us. But it is also true that we often tend to forget that our stories aren't 'the truth' but rather they are 'our truth.'

Right now there are two stories being written in Alaska. The Palin story is more at the cell level as Alaskan blogs (and others - the first Alaska blog to show up when I googled the turkey story was on page 5) are taking on seemingly small, trivial incidents, such as the Thanksgiving Turkey Pardoning story (See Celtic Diva, Mudflats, and Immoral Minority for example.) And challenging the story-making power of the mainstream media. In this story, two of the Alaskan bloggers were on the scene of the turkey pardoning and have vigorously challenged the versions of the incident from the Governor's office and the television and newspapers.


(Double click to enlarge)

In the second instance, the Anchorage Daily News editorial section carried a full page of five writers speculating or advocating how history will (or should) remember Ted Stevens. It seems that this corresponds more to Lévi-Strauss's anthropologist taking the existing collections and trying to give them meaning. For all of his career - save for the last couple of years - the cells of the Stevens myth have been written by the mainstream media in Alaska, which have ranged from fawning - the Anchorage Times - to the ADN, which has been basically positive bordering on timid, with just a few recent (last several years) but seriously in depth questioning articles usually authored or co-authored by Rich Mauer. Today's spread is 60% hagiography, 20% laudatory, and only the last of the five pieces raises, fairly gingerly, serious issues.

I'm using the Lévi-Strauss material in part because I'm reading it this week. But I think it informs what we are doing today, by getting us to step back and look at ourselves as we document (and have documented) Alaska history. As a blogger I've tended to do more interpreting of existing stories than actually writing the stories - the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials being the major exception where I was documenting the stories.

In this blog I've tried to keep from jumping to conclusions about Palin. I've tried to present the facts (including the facts of how I knew what I knew) to let the readers make their own conclusions. Though sometimes I've revealed my own conclusions. Occasionally, I've wondered whether the constant in-your-face reporting wasn't getting carried away with its own importance while essentially dealing with basically trivial material while key policy issues go unexamined.

But in the context of Lévi-Strauss' thoughts on myth and history, it's clear the 'cells, ' on which history is built, need to be carefully examined. The careful examination of the Palin stories documents alternative interpretations of what the mainstream media report. While there are bloggers, in Alaska even, whose writing is merely thoughtless venting, there is a core of Alaskan bloggers who have vigorously fought to bring out what they have seen as the truths that weren't otherwise being told. I've watched them with admiration, even if I've winced now and then, as they tenaciously dug into the details of a story and put them out for the world to see. Thanks folks.

In Stevens' case, the cells were never challenged until the very end of his career, and so we have a mass of cells that add up to the interpretation of "Stevens the great man of Alaska History" or "Stevens the great man who whose final days are a footnote."

Only the Michael Carey piece today hints at why, if Stevens was so great and formidable, he wasn't able to keep himself in the Senate. There are lots of things Stevens could have done - straightening up the Republican Party in Alaska; legitimately securing his economic future (Senators make a fair amount of money and their retirement programs would be welcomed by most Americans); standing up for principles besides winning and 'bring home the bacon for Alaskans' - such as the rule of law. (Recent stories in the ADN talk about him bragging about breaking the law to lobby for Alaskan statehood for instance while working for the federal government.  If 'the ends justify the means' is your motto, anything is acceptable if the prize is good enough. And eventually, the law is seen as technicality not to worry about.

So, while it is clear that Ted Stevens' intelligence and tenacity on behalf of Alaska have put roads, schools, hospitals, airports, and museums across Alaska as well as securing Alaska Natives significant land and cash through ANCSA, today's stories will, I suspect, be followed up by more careful analysis as time goes by. There are lots of stories to be written. Why, for example, did the FBI and the Public Integrity Section under a rabidly partisan Republican administration, in a Justice Department that fired attorneys for not vigorously investigating Democrats on flimsy evidence, or for investigating Republicans at all, take on the senior Republican in the US Senate?

Unfortunately, bloggers weren't around to challenge the Stevens myths earlier in his career, challenges that might have made him more self reflective, less accepting of the misdeeds of the Republican money folks, less likely to take the good old boy perks for granted, generally more thoughtful about what and how he did things. Challenges that would have corrected the record that historians will use to eventually write the history of Alaska and Stevens' place in it.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Barack Obama's First Day in the Oval Office with Friends

I mentioned earlier my computer art class assignment to take four different downloaded photos and make your "fantasy" picture by combining them. Well, I got a little carried away and added a few more pictures than I had to. So here's my fantasy - Obama's first day in office with a number of people who helped pave the way. There are many, many I've left out, but here are a few key ones. (Double click to enlarge the image.)




Our current assignment is to do a 30 second video. At last we're using a tool I know as much about or more than most of the others - iMovie. But we are also using Photoshop's animation capabilities. The first attempts have been tedious, but are looking good. I have some real video and some hand made animation. I'm not sure if I'll combine them or just do the animation.