Being Fair On TV By Showing One Rep From 'Each' Side Doesn't Work

Fair people always want to hear 'both' sides of the story.  But sometimes there's only one side. (Sometimes there are four or five different takes.) 

Here's a video from a new comedy news show that applies this idea to Climate Change.






  But what's Last Week Tonight?  According to Wikipedia:  

"Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is an American late-night talk show airing weekly at 11:00 p.m. on HBO in the United States.[1] The half-hour long[2] show premiered on Sunday, April 27, 2014, and is hosted by comedian John Oliver."

Thanks KS for the link.  

Love Your Gay Neighbor Night At East High - Minnery Tries Out A New Approach

Jim Minnery of the Alaska Family Action which includes the Alaska Family Council was holding a Love Your Gay Neighbor Q&A Friday night at East High and although I was tired, it seemed like something I should attend.  I've already posted a short video of the question and answer to: What should I do if my son says he's gay and wants to bring his partner to a family function?

In 2012 Minnery led a successful campaign to stop GLBT folks from being added to the Anchorage Anti-Discrimination ordinance.

There were two couches, for panelists, and narrator Jim Minnery.

Click to Enlarge A Lot

Panelists (left to right)

Peter Hubbard - pastor and author of Love Into Light:  The Gospel, the Homosexual, and the Church.  (I looked for a different link from the previous post, but couldn't find a better one.)  The book argues for the church to find better ways to deal with GLBT parishioners.

Andrew Walker - Is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and the director of policy studies at the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.  (Yes, the Heritage Foundation is the place that former Jim DeMint left the US Senate for.  And some think destroyed its credibility.)

Minnery is in the middle.  It gets more interesting though.

Jeff Johnston - who works at Focus on the Family.  He talked about his former gay life and how he got back to the church.  He now is married to a woman, though he doesn't deny he still has same-sex attractions.  The link is a radio interview that - in the beginning - covers much of how he introduced himself last night.  He said he was not ex-gay or gay. 

Melinda Selmys-   She described herself as a lesbian who broke up with her long time girlfriend when she converted to Catholicism.  She is now married to a man, though she still calls herself a lesbian.

Hubbard and Walker both sounded genuinely committed to love and being welcoming to LGBT folks, but also strongly committed to church doctrine.  Johnston seemed like he was still figuring out who he was and I found his generalizing from his personal experience to all gay men problematic, even though he did recognize everyone is not the same.  Selmys sounded the most grounded in a reality that I could recognize.  


Here's my short take on what I heard

Overall, it sounded like a genuine search for a way to change the church's approach to LGBT issues while staying true to 'biblical truth' (a term I heard a lot that night.) 

1.    Homosexuality has been treated as a special class of irredeemable sin by evangelical churches.  While we helped all other sinners struggle to overcome their issues, we assumed that LGBT folks were beyond God's grace and treated them differently.

2.   But homosexuality is no different from other sins.  From the link to a review of Hubbard's book by Tim Challies:

The gospel makes all the difference and the gospel is exactly what Fred Phelps and so many others have thrown away in their misguided, hate-filled attempts to address homosexuality. “If our attitude toward a gay or lesbian person is disgust, we have forgotten the gospel. We need to remember the goodness and lovingkindness that God poured out on us. God should have looked at us and been disgusted. Instead, without condoning our sin, He loved us and saved us. And I want everyone to know that kind of love!”

3.   We must love our kids, yet also tell them the biblical truth.  Hubbard distinguished between family relationships and church discipline.

4.  Homosexuality is still a sin and having gay sex is not condoned.


What Does This All Mean?

I couldn't help wondering what Minnery's motivation was for bringing these people here.  I also was wondering if this meant that he was having second thoughts on his fight against  Proposition 5 [to add LGBT to the Anchorage Anti-Discrimination ordinance] in 2012.

Prop 5
This question came up in the discussion.  My notes are pretty rough, but this is what I have down for Minnery's comments:

Prop 5 was a hornets' nest; it's the reason I'm having this conference.  We hurt a lot of people.
If there was any business that would deny service to LGBT person, I'd be the first to [defend the LGBT right to service] 

I'd note how easily people can use phrases like "I'd be the first . . . "  There are a lot of people who have already been doing that for years and years.  It's a little presumptuous for Minnery to claim he'd be the first here.  Especially since he led to the fight to keep LGBT people off anti-discrimination ordinance.  Though I'd guess that this phrase just popped into Minnery's head and if he had time to think about it, he would agree with me and say he didn't mean it literally. 

There's a little more, he clarified a little.

But it's different for some issues - marriage, adoption - where the law requires [businesses]  to [serve someone in a situation that violates their religious beliefs].  That crosses the line.

He also made some comments - to explain what Prop 5 was - including a description of the tv commercials they made that suggested day care centers and schools would be required to hire transgender people with the implication transgender people were a reater danger to your children than other people.   As he talked about it, I couldn't be certain, but it seemed more like he was talking about something he was proud of than sorry about.

Minnery's Motivation

A little background first:   The advantage of being some place a long time is that you know a lot of people. I talked to Rick Benjamin, the former pastor at Abbot Loop Community Church, at the break.  I'd gotten to know him when I was helping the Anchorage Ethics Board rewrite the Ethics Code.  (Much of the work was undone later by Muni attorneys.)  I had grown to like and respect Rick and met with him after that work was done so I could ask questions I had about evangelicalism.  One of the things he told me was that issues like abortion and gay rights were not big issues in the church when he was growing up and he thought they became big issues because pastors found that when they talked about them, people gave the church a lot of money.  Friday night Rick offered to introduce me to Jim Minnery.  But we couldn't find him.

After the discussion, Minnery was walking up the aisle and so I went up to him and waited for him to finish talking to someone.  Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News came over introduced me to Minnery and we talked for a few minutes.  I asked about his motivation to host this event.  Our culture is changing, he said.  I asked if he meant church culture or overall culture.  Overall.  And he repeated what he'd said about Prop. 5.  It released a hornets' nest and he realized that a lot of people got hurt.   He said, We won, but we didn't really win.  I asked if he was a competitive person.  I was reminded of a dean who told me his son complained that he was too competitive.  The dean then told me that he did see everything as a contest and he played to win.  It explained a lot of things that I hadn't understood before.  I'm not that kind of person.  I care about ideas and issues, but not about winning personally.  I asked Minnery if he was a competitive person and he said, something like, well, sure.  What I meant, I continued, winning was an important part of defeating Prop 5 and his eyes seemed to light up a bit and he said, of course.  I don't want to project anything onto him that isn't there, but I wonder how many people (probably more men than women) fight hard to win, even if the issue isn't that important.  Or if when they get into a contest, even if they realize a victory will do harm, winning is still more important.

I told him I'd felt a little reluctant to talk to him, but I knew I should, and he invited me to contact him to follow up.  So I will put that on my list of things to do.  Because I still have a lot of questions, which I try to describe now.

Why this change?

Let's look at Minnery's comment that culture is changing.  Peter Hubbard's Love Into Light website has a page on how to respond to last year's  same-sex marriage Supreme Court decision.  Hubbard is strongly opposed to same sex marriage:

Every serious sociological study has concluded that a child does best with his natural father and mother. Of course, the presence of a natural father and mother is not always possible, but a society that legalizes same-sex marriage is codifying dysfunction and intentionally dismantling the family. This dismantling paves the way for every kind of sociological malady. As the meaning of marriage is stretched to near meaninglessness, polygamy and incest will eventually be recognized as “marriage.” If marriage is the government’s way of recognizing love, then on what basis can any government declare two or more sincere people unmarriageable? Marriage, friendship and “shacking up” have all been convoluted. No one can explain the legal difference. And children will pay the price for our country’s moral suicide. This makes us sad.

There's a lot to quibble with.  I'd agree that in the ideal world being raised with one's natural parents would be best.  But

• not all natural parents are good parents.  
• people other than birth parents can be better sometimes
• not all birth parents stick around and there are lots of single mom's and a growing number of single dad's who have no choice
• there are often lots of male or female friends and relatives who can be role models for kids being raised by same-sex couples if that's as big an issue as Peter (and Jeff in the discussion) think it is.  I think it's worth talking about, but don't see it as crucial.
• allowing same-sex marriage doesn't automatically open marriage to other configurations - it's still just two people
• while he cites reputable sociological studies on marriage, he ignores reputable psychological and biological studies of homosexuality.  We can cite, he seems to say, science when it supports the bible, but when it doesn't support the bible we reject it.
• same-sex marriage opponents have said they were fine with marriage equivalent arrangements that weren't called marriage.  In that case the quibble is only about the word marriage.  Not about 'codifying dysfunction.' 
• Religions are free to marry or not marry whomever they choose, but I don't see why they should be able to dictate what people not part of their religion can do
• Actually, other religions cannot marry whomever they choose because even though Islam allows for more than one wife, that is illegal in the United States. 

Basically, to deny same-sex marriage on the grounds that kids should be in a perfect natural parent family is to ignore that a lot of families already don't work that way.

But Peter, at least, doesn't ignore that entirely.  In the talk and on his website, he says that the church had already trashed heterosexual marriage.

"We paved the way for gay marriage by watering down the meaning of marriage through our immorality, selfishness and the culture of divorce in our churches."

So Evangelical Christians seem to be facing a dilemma.   Tim Challies, the book reviewer I cited above, is a pastor in Ontario, Canada.  He writes in the review of Hubbard's book:

It seems inevitable that same-sex marriage will soon be legalized across America; it has been the law in Canada for several years now. Meanwhile the acceptance and celebration of homosexuality is becoming a cultural shibboleth, a means of determining who has a voice worth hearing and who does not.

What I hear in this, and other things I read online, is that now that homosexuality is becoming culturally and legally accepted, the evangelical church has to figure out a way to get rid of its gay bashing past. 

Option one is to reinterpret the scriptures and find a way to 'discover' that homosexuality is not a sin.  Perhaps science has supplanted what was known at the time the bible was written down.  They discussed Matthew Vine's book, God and the Gay Christian, which apparently does find ways to make the bible and homosexuality compatible.  Walker pretty much trashed Vine's thinking in the discussion.  (I found a review of Vine's book by Walker here.)

Option two is to treat LGBT folks with love, but not compromise biblical truths.  I understand that approach, because it's like the one I tried to take as a teacher - treat my students with warmth and respect, but still hold them to high academic standards.  But in the church, it still means labeling them as sinners.  We still love you and will help you find God's grace.

They even had one now married (to a woman) formerly gay man and one Lesbian who is now married to a man.   What was that all about?  It seems it was to show that you can stop acting on your same-sex attraction when you have something more meaningful.  I'd note I can believe both their stories - they didn't deny they still had same-sex attractions -  but their path wouldn't work for everyone.  And the panelists acknowledged this.  Some LGBT folks would have to stay single and celibate. 

So, is this because they are remembering their Christian principles of love?  Or simply a way to keep the church relevant in modern America?   I suspect that it's both.  For some people more of one than the other.

Angels Dancing On The Head Of A Pin

I'm amazed as I watch the dedication of people living in 2014 to this book that was written over a span of more than a thousand years starting over 3000 years ago by people who lived in worlds so totally different from our world today.  I also wonder at what it takes to believe in such a book as the literal and absolute moral truth.  I can easily read it as metaphorically telling us morals through stories - like Aesop's Fables or how some Alaska Native cultures use stories to teach proper behavior.

The idea that the literal word of the bible is the ultimate test of right and wrong just doesn't work for me.  With so many different bibles written in so many different languages, how does one even know the literal bible?  Do we take a Hebrew bible?  One written in Aramaic?  Greek?  Latin?  English?  And of these, which translation?  And which interpretation?

And I'm constantly struck by what seem to me to be inconsistencies.  Something like homosexuality is blown up for a time as a particularly egregious sin.  Yet other biblical 'abominations' such as eating shellfish are ignored.  And I don't hear US evangelicals calling for the stoning of adulterers.   Nor do I hear much complaint about violations of the Fourth Commandment.  (Aren't the Ten Commandments the most important laws?)  Do you see any evangelicals railing against businesses that are open on Sunday?

Science seems to be brought in when it supports biblical truth.  Hubbard, in the quote above, cites sociology to support the notion "that a child does best with his natural father and mother."  But what do they do with psychological and biological science on homosexuality that doesn't support their biblical truth? 

I guess for me, it boils down to letting everyone follow their own religious beliefs.  The problem arises when they want to impose those beliefs on others.  Evangelicals shouldn't practice homosexuality or have same-sex marriages.  But they also should NOT impose their beliefs on others.  And when we have conflicts between the religious (or non-religious) beliefs of people, we have to sift through the issues to determine which person is most harmed.  So, if a wedding photographer who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage is asked to photograph a same sex marriage - we have to parse whose rights are more violated.

I didn't have an official photographer at my wedding so I don't personally feel a wedding photographer is critical to getting married.  But for people who believe in the whole big wedding package - including wedding photographers - a wedding without a photographer isn't a wedding.  Such a photographer isn't being asked to perform a wedding or even worse, get married to a same-sex partner.  But I can understand a photographer believing that her photos of a same-sex wedding would be a form of supporting, even promoting, an act she felt was wrong.  But I can also see a same-sex couple - especially one living in a small town where there is only one photographer - feeling they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, no differently than if a restaurant refused service based on that.

Life is full of conflicts and reasonable people can work them out.    In this situation, a photographer ought to be able to suggest other professional photographers who would do the job.  A gay couple would probably not want someone who wasn't supportive to take the photos of their wedding. 

You can see the issues raised Friday night can lead one down countless paths and we could go on and on exploring them.  But I did think it significant that evangelicals now see their harsh treatment of LGBT folks as a liability and are now trying to figure out how to jettison that approach yet stay consistent with their version of biblical truth.

When I talked to Minnery, he'd said that Ethan Berkowitz, on his talk show, asked Minnery if this was "A Gentler, Kinder Bigotry."  I had been thinking, as I sat in the audience, if this was a "gentler, kinder evangelicalism."  If one is committed to the literal word of the bible as one's moral truth, and your reading of that bible leads to an understanding that homosexuality is a sin, then you are stuck with that conclusion.  I respect that, up to the point that your chosen path to the truth begins to harm the lives of other people.  I think that the defeat of Prop 5 caused harm to LGBT people in Anchorage.  Fortunately, most people don't believe that truth should cause them to treat GLBT folks differently than other folks.  But enough do to make LGBT people fearful that they could lose their jobs or find a suitable place to live if they disclose their sexual orientation.  That's a heavy burden to live with every day. 


[UPDATE 10:40pm:  Here's a view of the Saturday meeting in the Valley from Alaska Commons by Julien Jolivette who writes:

". . . I am a baptized Catholic, and made a fervent foray into conservative evangelicalism as a teenager. But I felt that my past did not prepare me for the experience of being a queer agnostic walking into an event titled “Loving My Gay Neighbor' . . .”]

Anti-Gay Rights Ordinance Fighter, Jim Minnery Asks: "What do you do when your child declares himself to be gay and wants to bring his partner to a family gathering?"

The Alaska Family Action hosted a discussion Friday night entitled: Loving My Gay Neighbor.

Jim Minnery is the Anchorage incarnation of the gay equivalent devil after he successfully led two campaigns to stop LGBT folks from being added to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance.  His Alaska Family Council has been tied to the Koch brothers.  And now he's talking about loving his gay neighbors.  I needed to hear this.

I have a lot to write about this, but I want to take my time and think it through - what I saw and what it might mean.

But meanwhile, here's a little video of the answer to a question Jim Minnery posed to the panel.  The main answer comes from Andrew Walker.  Here's a short bio and discussion with Andrew Walker and here are some of his writings that I could find online.





Here's my transcript of the video.  A few parts were hard to hear, but I think this is pretty accurate.

Q:  What do you do when your child declares himself to be gay and wants to bring his partner to a family gathering?


Andrew Walker:  I would say, this is not me saying, “Thus said the Lord . . .” but “Thus said Walker . . .”

I would say there’s no point which you stop loving the child, showing grace to a child  who has rejected the biblical truth of the teachings on these issues. 

If that were my child, off the collar, identifying as same-sex or gay, homosexual, . . .I would do what I could to communicate the biblical truth to that child, to love that child. 

I have a son and a daughter and another on the way, so I could be experiencing this myself.

I would say, out of love, you should allow that child to bring the partner.  In so far as they both want to come, you have the ability to freely express your values  . .

One of my mentors recently told me that he [had] someone in his office and he says, “Hey, my daughter is in a gay marriage and they have a child by artificial insemination and I love my daughter, ??? where I stand.  I love this child who is now my grandchild.  I want to influence that child’s life, but I feel that some in my church don’t want me to be extending so much love supposedly not caring about the the lifestyle situation they’re in.  And my mentor said, “No. Love. Love, grace. Grace and Truth.   Bring them to the house.  Love that child.  Be a model father for that child. So, that’s what I would do in that situation. 

I would be interested in your (Peter’s) comments as well.

Peter Hubbard:  I agree.  We have been asked that questions, at various levels, consistently, in our church.  So with that many people, that size group, you’re going to have a lot of family connections, with a variety of moral choices.  I believe you have to distinguish between church discipline and family relationships. The fact that a wife has a husband who, for whatever reason, is under discipline from the church, doesn’t mean she has nothing to do with her husband.  The same would be true for children, I believe.

 A major issue, as I understand it, for many young gays, is fear of how their families will react to their identifying as gay and this, if you listen to Dan Savage at all, seems to be particularly problematic among fundamentalist families.

So, in one respect, this is a very positive development - love your child first.  And Peter's explicit distinction between family relationships and church discipline.

But, they all see homosexuality through what they call "biblical truth" and that means homosexuality is a still a sin.  A key note in the discussion last night was that homosexuality has been singled out as a special sin for which there is no redemption.  Peter mentioned that while people would publicly share their struggles with a variety of sins - drugs, promiscuity, pornography - he realized no one had every publicly shared their struggle with same sex attraction.  This particularly sin was treated as irredeemable, that homosexuals had been given over by God and were no longer candidates for grace.

He talked about changing that in his church and his book, according to a reviewer Jim Challies, puts the sin of homosexuality in line with all the other sins. 

Hubbard writes as a pastor, as a counselor and as a man deeply marked by the gospel of divine grace extended toward human sin. He insists that the gospel makes all the difference, for before the cross we are all the same, we are all sinners, we are all in desperate need of grace. He says, “We need Spirit-empowered love to move toward those struggling with [same sex attraction] without despising or excusing their sin, because their sin is our sin—our hearts are no different! … My sin always seems reasonable to me, and your sin inexcusable. Left to myself, I can find a way to justify anything I really want, and the choices I make can hurt the people I most love.”

This is just over three minutes of a three hour discussion.  I'll post more soon.

[UPDATE May 12:  Here's the follow up: Love Your Gay Neighbor Night At East High - Minnery Tries Out A New Approach  

Addiction To Consuming As A Market Failure

Various things have been identified as market failures - that is, their existence causes the free market not to work as efficiently as it is touted.  I've written about some in detail in

Capitalism v. Democracy: Why The Free Market Needs Government To Work.

The one that people who have taken economics tend to remember is 'externalities.'  These are costs to society that the manufacturer doesn't have to recover in the price because they don't pay them.  Pollution is the general example.  Thus their product costs them less than it really costs, because they don't pay the full costs.  The rest of us do in additional health care, in pollution clean up, in chemicals showing up in our food, etc.  

It's why the Citizens' Climate Lobby wants a carbon tax.  It will raise the cost of carbon based products to reflect the externalities and thus make non-carbon alternatives comparatively less expensive.  

But I want to talk about addiction itself as a market failure.  

Markets are supposed to work when there is a knowledgeable buyer and knowledgeable seller, both of whom can walk away from the deal if it isn't a good deal for either of them.  The buyer can say, sorry, that price is too high, I'm not buying.  And the seller won't lower the price past a certain point.  

But what happens if consumers are addicted to a product - say like heroin?  There is no price too high.  Or gasoline?

Those are easy examples.  

What if Americans are simply addicted to consuming?  

They sort of look at prices (that's why most places always have 'sales') but they believe they can't live without the product?  Or they have so many sunk costs in the product that they can't give it up and so they can be continually seduced into buying updates?

Cell phones.  Why is service so expensive?  Because people simply pay whatever is asked. 

Credit card and other bank fees and interest?  Even with newish credit card reform, there are still lots of problems.

What about computer updates?  After a while you have to get the new software because your old software no longer works, or is maintained.   

Or you have no option to buy a car without automatic transmission and windows and door locks?

When the buyer is no longer paying much attention to price, and buys regardless of the price,  or has no choice but to buy features she doesn't want or do totally without, the basic mechanism that's supposed to make the market efficient breaks down.  And I think we're pretty much there these days.  (Think of all the people who can't live without a smart phone.  Or their daily lattes.)

OK, this is just a thought that popped into my head and I haven't fully thought it out or looked to see if someone already worked this out more.  But I'm jotting it down so I don't forget. 

[Of course, I can't post something like this without googling.  There are lots of hits for "addiction as a market failure"  but they seem to be specific - tobacco, gambling, oil* - but not generalized to addiction to consuming itself.  

*the word addiction is in footnote 17

This Time No Cops, Just Moose On Way Home

A little less exciting, a lot more fulfilling, was my ride home from a meeting Tuesday afternoon, compared to Monday afternoon.   Two moose grazing near the airport.

You don't get this in London, Jacob.  Or having everything 15 minutes or less away. 

Cops Surround Car Come Out With Guns Aimed

We just dropped off the wood chipper we rented today and were headed along Commercial to Mt. View when a police car passed us quickly and we saw others ahead.  The cop jumped out of the car and had his  gun out and pointed at the car ahead.  Two more cars came racing in as we sat there trying to figure out what to do.  Here's a picture after an ambulance arrived.  I took some video, but I was too far back for you to see it clearly.

Finally, another officer tapped my window and gestured to turn around and go back.

KTUU has this:

According to APD spokesperson Dani Myren, police were conducting an agency assist for “U.S. Treasury federal agents” near the intersection of Bragaw Street and Mountain View Drive at about 4:15 p.m.

“It looks like we were assisting on a felony extraditable warrant,” Myren said.

Myren says it’s not clear whether the man was trying to commit suicide, but confirms that he did shoot himself and is in unknown condition.

“It looks like there’s a self-inflicted injury at the very least,” Myren said.

"Don't Even Begin to Talk To Them Until You've Forgiven Them For Everything"

It's just too nice to be inside blogging.  So here are a few pics about things I'm not blogging about.  [It turns out I couldn't keep to that goal when I tried to briefly summarize the Citizens' Climate Lobby meeting.  The title gets explained near the end.]

Goose Lake still had ice Saturday

After the Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL) meeting Saturday morning I biked the long way home and digested what I'd heard.   Dana Nuccitelli, a physicist who writes, among other places, at Skeptical Science,  gave some highlights of the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report.  There were actually three recent reports.  The key findings he reported for the first report:

1. 95% confidence level that humans are the main cause of global warming since 1950.
   And that humans are responsible for about 100% of global warming since 1950.  In each of the reports since the 1990s, they've grown in confidence level that humans are the cause.  
2. Predict how much warmer it will get under three different scenarios
1. Business as usual - about 4 or 5˚C (about 9˚F) warming by 2100 as compared to pre-industrial temperatures
2. The GOOD NEWS:  If take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions we can still limit global warming to 2˚C by 2100.  He said 2˚C is a critical number because scientist believe if we go above that we'll have really severe climate effects.  Some scientists say that 2˚C is already too much, but we've already risen 1˚ and another 1/2 will result from the greenhouse gasses already emitted.  So 2˚ is the only reasonable goal we could achieve. 

The second report focused on Climate Impacts and Adaptation - how various scenarios will impact humans and how we can adapt to them and one of the key findings was:

1. For another 2˚C increase we will see an annual decrease of 2% of global income per year and potentially more than that, and if beyond that, economists aren't even comfortable estimating how large they'll be.   Basically it gives us an economic incentive not to go beyond that 2˚C limit.

The third report that came out about a month ago, focused on climate change and  mitigation and the key finding he reported was that:

1. If we act efficiently we can keep global warming going beyond that 2˚C  and it will only cost 0.06% of annual global economic growth.  Putting that into perspective if the global economy grows at 2.3% per year, using that 0.06% figure, it would grow at 2.24% per year.  

So, for a pretty minimal cost, we could prevent very dangerous global warming.  

You can listen to the international phone in presentation here.   These meetings are content rich and move right along.  If you just want to hear the part where Dana talks, go to 11 minutes, where he's being introduced.  and goes to 27:16. 

This post's title comes from a little earlier in the tape where CCL Executive Director and meeting host Mark Reynolds  is talking about one of the CCL staff who was planning a meeting with the Koch brothers. He was trying to explain his difference between being 'nice' and being 'generous.' 

"Sometimes people get confused about what we're trying to do when we we're attempting to do this in the most generous way we possibly can.   What people translate that into sometimes is thinking that we're trying to be a nice organization.  And I don't have any problem with being nice and I'm not against nice people, but that is not what we're trying to do.  53  In my view, being nice implies a certain phoniness, like when you pretend to like someone you don't like.  Whereas human generosity is asking yourself to do something you can't possibly do.  Let me give you one simple example.  I was at a luncheon last November with [corrected spelling: Peter Fiekowsky] who heads up a couple of big projects for CCL.  He's the head of Team Loyal [Oil] and he's also in charge of our hundred year plan.  We were talking before lunch and he had said he'd scheduled his first meeting with the Koch brothers and he asked my advice on what he should talk about.  I try to take as big and generous a view as I possibly can of dealing with people and I really failed in that case because I told Peter I don't know why you're talking to them, I think these are terrible people, I can't imagine meeting with them, I think they're evil, and it's a bad thing.  Peter's always great with me and he's like, OK, Mark, I got that, that's your feedback [?], do you mind if I talk to Father Gerry?  Father Gerry O'Rourke is an 89 year old Catholic priest, who both Peter and I have known for decades and he was instrumental in the North Ireland peace process.  So Peter went off and talked to Father Gerry and we talked later and I said, what did Father Gerry say to you?  And he said, well, he started by saying basically what you said.  And I'm like, see, Peter?  I told you so.  And then he said this:  I'm going to tell you to do what I told the people in Northern Ireland they had to do.  And that is, Don't even begin to talk to them until you have forgiven them for everything.

So that doesn't mean you say out loud to someone "I forgive you."  But it's asking yourself to do something you're not capable of doing at that moment.  You know, I think Charles Du Bois said it correctly.  "The important thing is this:  At any moment to be able to sacrifice what we are for what we could become."  I think that's the organization we're trying to be and the way of working we're trying to emulate  and sometimes people confuse that with something simple called "nice" and I just wanted to be clear that we're all talking about the same thing."

 As you can see, I got carried away with the meeting and actually did write a whole post.  the picture is of Goose Lake which still had, yesterday, ice on the surface of most of the lake.  But we've had several days with temperatures into the 70s (at least in our backyard) so it can't last long.

I'll put up the other pictures later.   Maybe.

How Much Do You Pay Your Lobbyist? Nothing? Maybe That's Why

. . . the things you want your legislature to pass don't get passed.  The Alaska Public Offices Commission posted the list of Alaskan lobbyists, their clients, and their fee on April 24, 2014.

This list is by the lobbyist, with a list of their clients and their fee for each client.  They vary, some are 'annual fee', some 'hourly fee', some 'monthly fee.'

Check out how much different organizations are paying to get continuous monitoring of legislation and access to legislators.  And consider how much you are paying for this kind of service.

I really haven't had much time to look at this list carefully, but, for example,  I'd note that GCI pays:

• Ashley Reed $50,000 a year
  "All legislation, and administrative activities,
  regarding or impacting phone and
  telecommunications services"
• Reed Stoops $40,000 a year for
  
  "All telecommunications issues relating to GCIs
  internet, cable, telephone, wireless and TV
  business in Alaska."
• Sam Kito Jr. $40,000 a year for
  
  "All things regarding telecommunication issues
  and broadcasting issues"
• Eldon Mulder $40,000 a year
  
  "All issues pertaining to information
  technology, broadband and
  telecommunications."

Be careful.  This is probably more complicated than just looking at the list.  Anyone who has insights to things or people on the list, please leave them in the comments.   Below is a scribd version, but you can go to the APOC website and download it yourself here.

Alaska Lobbyist Directory 4-24-2014

Anchorage Summer Begins When . . .

the birch leaves open. 

That's my calculation anyway.  Our backyard thermometer says 75˚F  (23˚C).  It's been too nice to stay inside and try to write something serious.  These are the birch leaves in front of our house.  I don't remember them ever being this early. 

So I've been in the yard doing work that doesn't yet feel like work. 

LVN IT - License Plate Ambiguity

So, it says ALASKA on top.  We were guessing what the bottom meant:

Loving It?

Living It?

Leaving It?