Can A Kosher Caterer Refuse To Serve Ham? Bad Analogy

Here's the letter to the editor in the LA Times today:

To the editor: A Christian couple have the right serve ham at their wedding reception, but shouldn't a kosher caterer have the right — on religious grounds — to decline their business?
Chris Norby, Fullerton

 This letter is in response to the backlash against the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

Because of the strong backlash, it's clear people understand what was wrong with the law passed and signed last week.  But I also recognize that some Christians still don't get it.  And I can understand that someone who is strongly opposed to gay marriage and thinks that opposition is based on the bible (rather than an interpretation of the bible, or the use of the bible to justify a personal bias), would feel that having to celebrate a gay union by taking good photographs or by baking a cake for the wedding would be a compromise of values. 

I would not like to be the photographer who is hired to make the Ku Klux Klan look warm and fuzzy. 

And I've written about this conflict when it was an issue in Arizona.  and raised a lot of the contextual issues.     

In the case of this letter to the editor, we can focus more narrowly on this false analogy.  The two situations just aren't the same.  

A wedding photographer is asked to take pictures at a wedding, exactly the same thing he does at any other wedding.  What's different is that the couple he's taking pictures of are the same gender. He's not being asked to marry another man or even to hold hands with another man.  He's not being asked to do anything at all that could be construed as having sex with someone of the same gender.  Christianity has many prescriptions and prohibitions, but many Christians agree that the golden rule is a key concept in Christianity.  It doesn't say, treat good people like you would have others treat you. 

So, a wedding photographer, is being asked to do what he does for a living - take pictures at a wedding.  In taking pictures at a gay wedding, the photographer takes pictures like he would at any other wedding, plus, if the photographer is uncomfortable or even hates lgbt folks, he has the opportunity to follow the golden rule, indeed, to follow Matthew's even more relevant words, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

On the other hand, kosher caterers, never serve pork.  So, to ask a kosher caterer to serve pork, would be to ask him to do something he doesn't do in the course of his business.  He doesn't serve pork to anyone.  Similarly,  professional photographer who never  does weddings, could easily turn down a request from a gay couple to photograph their wedding without it being discrimination.  He doesn't even need a religious reason. 

The point is, if you offer services to the public, you can't refuse those services to someone except for legitimate business reasons - they can't pay, they are disturbing other clients, they are asking for services you don't normally provide, they are underage for the service you provide, or other personal issues about specific individuals that disrupt your business.  

I would note an additional problem for kosher caterers.  In addition to ham and shellfish prohibitions (all of which are in the bible, by the way, so perhaps the photographer shouldn't take pictures at any wedding that has ham or shellfish), kosher caterers may not serve meat and milk dishes in the same meal and those products may not use even the same dishes.  And the dishes have to be washed in separate sinks and stored in separate cabinets.  Serving ham would ruin all the caterers dishes and cutlery for future kosher events.   Not just ham would be a problem,  cheeseburgers would be forbidden, and you couldn't have the guests use the same plates even for meat and dairy related foods.

A wedding photographer or cake maker, on the other hand, is simply doing the job they would do for any other wedding. They aren't being asked to use special equipment or ingredients.  They aren't changing anything they normally do.  What's different is they object to the addition or subtraction of one penis in the wedding party. 

For lgbt folks, this isn't about forcing Christian photographers to take pictures at their weddings.  It's about not being discriminated against by businesses based on their sexual orientation.  

Taking good wedding photos is an art.  An artist who hates the assignment he's given, won't produce good work.  A baker who thinks gay weddings are an abomination, might be distracted enough to put too much salt in the cake batter.   

I'm sure that the vast majority of gay couples do not want someone who hates gays to take pictures at their wedding.  Most gay couples will want to patronize gay friendly businesses anyway.  But in the case where someone lives in a remote community and there is only one photographer or one bakery, the issue arises.  But the key issues is the moral and legal point about discrimination and not serving people simple out of personal dislike, even if the dislike is somehow connected to religion.  This just sounds too much like, I'm not a racist, but  . . .

I might be a little more sympathetic to self proclaimed Christian photographers if they also refused to do weddings of people who were having sex before they got married, or if they continued violating any of the ten commandments - not respecting the sabbath, stealing, killing, not honoring their parents, coveting, say, as big a wedding as someone else, etc.  

On a much larger level, I would hope that people see issues like this as mere distractions from the really important threats to our democratic society - the power of corporations over Congress, through financing elections, resulting in their ability to pass legislation that further increases the power of corporations to the detriment of most other Americans.   Climate change.  Grossly unequal distribution of wealth (a result of all that corporate power over Congress.) 

As a side note, I did find a sermon that seems to have been widely distributed that does use the kosher caterer to raise questions about religious organizations being forced to comply with the Affordable Care Act.  I think that's a closer analogy, but there are still problems there as well. 

Obama Offers Refuge On US Land To Nine Climate Threatened Nations

President Obama today announced that the US would provide new homelands for the nine most climate-change endangered island nations in the world (see table below).  Here is part of the text of the president's speech: 

These nine nations, with a total land size of 1300 square miles (almost the size of Yosemite National Park, 4/5 the size of Rhode Island, and 2/3 the size of Anchorage, Alaska) with a total population of just under 900.000 (less than 1/3 of one percent of the US population), are severely threatened by sea level rise caused by global warming.

These are independent nations whose very existence is threatened by changes in the world's climate caused, in large part, by the side effects of our great prosperity.  We have a moral obligation to the people of these nations, an obligation to assure them that the world will not only find space for them to live, but will also respect their cultures and sovereignty.

There are many different ways the world can react to the crisis faced by these nations.  The world has shown, time and again, its generosity to nations suffering from natural disasters.  But the nations of the world often take a long time to come to agreements  to assist in  human caused disasters.  Thus, today I am guaranteeing that if, by 2020, the United Nations or other international bodies have not found a fair and suitable way to relocate these nations, the United States will find federally owned land in the United States.  The people of each nation must decide whether they want to remain sovereign nations or not.  If they do, they can have the same status US Indian tribes have as sovereign nations within the United States.

These are just the nine nations most immediately threatened by climate change.  I am taking the lead today in this, in hopes that other nations will quickly line up to assist the other nations that will face climate change related disasters later."

Pacific Ocean	Caribbean Sea	Indian Ocean	Size m2 / k2	Population
Marshall Islands			70/181	68,000
Kiribati			313/811	103,500
Tuvalu			10/26	10, 837
Tonga			289/748	103,036
Federated States of Micronesia			271/702	106,104
Cook Islands			91/240	19,569
	Antigua		108/281	80,161
	Nevis		35/93	12,106
		Maldives	115/298	393,500

From Reuters Youtube of Maldives President Cabinet Meeting

The president of the Maldives sent an official thank you letter after a cabinet meeting in their under water chamber.  Other island presidents praised Obama for his humanity and foresight. 

Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to blast the president.  Former Canadian citizen  Ted Cruz blasted the president for proposing to bring more immigrants to the US before solving the existing immigration problem.  He went on to say it was totally unnecessary anyway: 

"The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened,"

House Speaker John Boehner found the idea of giving federal land to foreigners outrageous.  

"That land belongs to the states it's in."

Senate majority leader  Mitch McConnell was nearly unintelligible, his face red and contorted, as he listened to the speech.  

"Half those lands are former British colonies.  Let the English take them in."

In response to reporters' questions about his critics' charges, Obama said,

"The United States is also a former British colony, and few of us would choose to go back to Great Britain.  And yes, there are low lying US cities that are threatened, like Manhattan and Miami.  We will help New Yorkers cope as their island goes underwater.  Remember, too, they are United States citizens who have the right to move anywhere in the US.   However, we are certain that Floridians, whose governor has banned the terms climate change and global warming, will trust that Governor Scott will also ban climate change itself.  We will, of course, send scuba gear for residents, just in case their governor's voodoo doesn't work. 

All of the critics of this policy are also strong supporters, as am I,  of Israel, a country that was created in the Middle East, at a time when the Jewish people faced the possibility of extinction.  If we can ask the people who were living in what now is Israel to share their land, surely Americans can share a tiny fraction of our land with these tiny island nations."

Three law suits have already been  filed in federal courts challenging the president's power to carry out any of these promises.  For the president's complete speech and Republican responses, click here.    For people who wish to know more about this issue, here is a report I've found since writing, but before publishing, this post.

Yamato Ya Becomes Sushi Yako

We told friends to meet us at Yamato Ya, a Japanese restaurant we'd been going to since - it seems forever.  If I recall right they were in what's now the New Sagaya mall on Old Seward before it was the New Sagaya.  A long time Anchorage Japanese family ran it, with three sisters waiting tables.  When it passed down to a younger relative from Hawaii, the sisters - in their seventies  - gradually eased out.

When their lease was up in 2011, New Sagaya raised the rent and they decided to move down the street closer to Moose's Tooth.  The move changed the atmosphere quite a bit.

The Alaska Wine Guy moved into their old space.

It was no longer the cozy little restaurant with sushi bar.  There was just too much room, but we kept going, even as the menu, including the prices, morphed a bit.  But the much younger Thai waitresses were always very friendly and the food was good.  I'd recommended it recently to a group I know, but they told me that it was closed.  We'd just eaten there and as I passed it recently the sign was still there.

So we arrived, just as our friends were calling us to say it wasn't Yamato Ya.  I was parked looking at this big sign - same as before - seeing Sushi Yako over the old image and not registering this was, in fact, a new name.   

We decided to go in and try it out.

It's a totally new place, even though the sign is almost identical. 

While they are waiting for their liquor license, the waitress told us, the sushi plates (except for the specials) are $9.99.  









They've changed the interior look dramatically with this blue wine rack in the middle.

The wait staff was very friendly and helpful, but it appears that one of the last Japanese owned Japanese restaurants in Anchorage has become Korean. 

Rules Have Consequences - Thoughts on Chenault and Reinbold And Republican Caucus Rules

ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

This was to explain why Rep. Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican caucus of the Alaska state house of representatives.  She had voted against the caucus budget which is against 'the rules.'

So I tried to find those rules.

I googled Alaska House of Representatives rules and got a pdf of the Uniform Rules. 

FOREWORD

The Constitution of the State of Alaska (sec. 12, art. II) provides: “The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure." It is noteworthy that the drafters of the constitution did not say "each house” shall adopt, but rather emphasized that the "houses" should adopt uniform rules. It was the intention of the writers that Alaska should avoid the circumstances of many state legislatures where one finds house rules, senate rules, and joint rules. The uniform system is intended to permit the members and the public to follow or conduct the legislative process without a confusion of rules. The rules are adopted by both houses sitting in joint session as one body.  .  .

There are 55 rules covering things like Expenditures (#6),  Use of Chambers and Offices (12), Daily Calendar (#18), and other procedural rules.


I called several legislative offices, including Rep. Reinbold's, (her voice mail message said she's short on staff and getting lots of calls) to see if they could steer me to the rules that she violated.

I got a person at my own representative's office, Democrat Andy Josephson.  He said that it wasn't in the uniform code, it was rules that Republican caucus had.  He didn't know where I could find them.  Did the Democrats have caucus rules too that I could get?  No, there were no such rules on the Democratic side.   (A call to Aurora Hauke, caucus staff for party head Chris Tuck confirmed that.  There are no rules - they aren't a binding caucus.)  Josephson's staffer suggested I check with speaker Chenault's office.

A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.  

They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said.

I asked how he spelled his name and he said he didn't want to be quoted.  I asked to confirm I was talking to staff in the Speaker's office.  He said, on the administrative side, not the political side. 

Maybe there are other unwritten rules about speaking to the media and that 'things can happen.' 

So, originally, I was going to write about the idea that rules have consequences.   But it seems more fruitful to talk about different kinds of rules. 


Natural Rules versus Human Made Rules

The "laws" of nature are statements of what humans have observed and documented.   Some are fairly straightforward and understandable - like the law of gravity, at least on earth.  If you jump out of a tree, off a building, from an airplane the consequence will be that you will descend at a predictable rate of speed.  But beyond that, the consequences are less certain.  If you land in a swimming pool, or hit a soft awning, or are wearing a parachute, you may well survive and live happily ever after.

Man made rules are different.  They are simply what those in power decide how others are to behave.  They could be decreed, they could be democratically voted on.  There's nothing inherently universal or moral about them.  They could be moral, but possibly they are not.

Natural Rules -  These are neither moral nor immoral, they simply exist, and we all are subject to the consequences of not paying attention.  We could freeze to death or get burned.  We could drown or get pregnant.  We could get fat or fit.   We may think the consequences are good or bad, but not in a moral sense. 


Human Made Rules

Human rules have a moral component because they are human made and those who make the rules are morally, if not legally, responsible for the consequences.  And we also attach a moral component on whether people follow the rules, at least some rules. 

Just off the top of my head, here are some examples of the reasons for having rules.  

1.  For the benefit of the whole.  These are rules that are helpful when people live among other people and don't have to interact with other people.  Traffic rules are intended to make it safer and more efficient to drive.  Having people drive on the right side of the road has obvious benefits.  Stop lights and signs to regulate cars going through intersections does too.  Roberts Rules of Order are intended to make meetings run more smoothly.  They set procedures for how to engage in potentially heated debate.  Fair weights and measures rules also have intrinsic sense.  Sometimes they seem silly, like when you wait for a red light at 3 am and there is no other traffic, but most of us understand that benefit is worth the occasional inconveniences.

2.  To maintain order among those who can't order themselves.  Parents establish rules for their kids.  Schools have rules for students.  Prisons have rules for prisoners.  I suspect that kids in school could learn a great deal about life and would be far more willing to follow school rules if they had some say in setting the rules.  I suspect that for a lot of things that go on in prison, prisoners could participate in the official prison rules. The assumption here is that the population is not yet capable of making good decisions on their own and so some or many rules must be imposed. 

3.  Rules to make life easier.  People can set up arbitrary rules that just simplify things.  In a household you might establish a weekly menu that repeats every week.  You might have a rule to walk the dog at certain times every day.  It just reduces the amount of decision-making.  Restaurants and stores set up times they will be open and closed.

4.  Rules for fun and to challenge ourselves.   We set up rules for games.  We set up rules for certain art forms, such as sonnets and haiku.  These are rules people generally can choose to follow or not.  I would say that rules of professional sports go well beyond this.

5.  Rules to exert power over others.  These are rules those in power are able to impose on everyone else.  The British rules over the American colonies.  Rules that governed slavery in the US South and later segregation.  Rules a kidnapper might impose on his captives.  Rules a corporation imposes on its employees and customers.

I suspect that rarely do any of these kinds of rules exist in their pure form.  Instead they blend with other kinds on this list.  Numbers 1 and 3, ideally would overlap.  All the rules can be tainted when some people have more power to make the rules and then each will also overlap with Number 5.  Parents (Number 2) could have good reasonable rules for their kids, but they can also add in rules to make their own lives easier (Number 3) because they can (Number 5). 

As people understand more about nature (including human nature) and as power shifts, rules get adjusted.  As we gained knowledge of health hazards, we've put restrictions on smoking and required seat belts in cars.  In these cases, knowledge also resulted in a power shift, albeit very slowly. 

 Unwritten Rules  

Every Knows them
Lots of rules are unwritten simply because everyone knows them.  They get passed along orally.   People are expected to learn many social rules at home or at school or through spiritual communities,  and because they are reinforced from interacting with other people.  They may actually be written - in needlepoint, in song lyrics, in self-help books - somewhere, just not in official law books. These are rules that may have real consequences and while they are unwritten, they aren't hidden.  In fact, they are so universally known and followed, that writing them may seem unnecessary.  The more homogeneous a community, the less necessary it is to spell out these rules. 

Secrecy and Power
But other rules are unwritten because the creators and enforcers know there's something wrong with the rules and written evidence of their existence is inadvisable.  Say, the rules of initiation rituals at some college fraternities, or unwritten rules for illegal discrimination in hiring. 


How Does This All Reflect On The Republican Caucus' Unwritten Rules?

I'm guessing that the Republican leadership would tell us that their unwritten rules are an example of Number 1 - they are for the general good.  Privately, they would acknowledge that they are about Number 5 - to help strengthen the party leadership's ability to get caucus members to obey.

The fact that these are unwritten rules suggests to me that the leadership knows there's something not quite right about them.  They're a bit like a parent saying, "If you argue with me, you'll be sorry."  They are treating Reinbold (and the rest of their caucus members) like unruly children.  Something some Democrats would probably say is appropriate.   And something the Republicans would say they have to do to achieve party goals.

But there is something inherently wrong about this.  To say that 'rules have consequences' suggests that everyone knows the rules.  But if you don't write them down . . . There was a time when federal regulations were not easily accessible.  It took the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946 to require federal agencies to establish procedures for writing regulations and making them available for all to see.  Unwritten rules can be changed without evidence that the old one existed.  It's the kind of thing tyrants do.  It rubs the wrong way in a democracy.  Especially when these are rules that govern how our democratic legislature works.  There's no way that a member of the general public or even a member of the Republican party can 'see' the rules.  You have to, it seems, be an insider.  Or the rule has to be publicly enforced, as in this case, for its existence to become evident to the general public.

 But there are other anti-democratic aspects of this.  We know that by cutting Rep. Reinbold out of the caucus and dropping her from her committee assignments (all except one), the party is weakening the representation of Reinbold's constituency.  Their elected representative has less formal power to shape legislation than even Democrats in the minority caucus.   It also weakens the representation of all members of the caucus to the extent that they are afraid to vote against the budget even if they believe that is the wish of their constituents. 

As a parent, I believed in rules having consequences.  A perceptive parent learns quickly that if they don't, the rules have no power.  Perceptive parents don't impose rules they can't enforce.  And since good parental rules are intended to help their kids survive to adulthood and thrive when they do, parents create rules that parallel, as much as possible, the natural and human made rules the kids  will face in life.  But even if all one's rules are good and sensible, kids continue to grow and learn.  And they will test the parents' will on all the rules.  That's part of learning about their own power and how to use it.  We found, though, that when our kids were given some control over the rules and the consequences, they could experiment with their own power needs in a more constructive way.

I understand that the Republican leadership would like to keep its caucus orderly.  But rules that require them to vote along party lines or suffer severe consequences, are inconsistent with democracy.  The power to 'deliver the votes,' as I see it, is only important if one has promised some outside interest you'd get something passed or if it is needed to gratify one's own control needs.

And as with dealing with children, especially rules perceived to be unfair cause resentment and rebellion.  Actions have consequences. 

Another Mayoral Cannadate? Charlo Green's Victim Youtube

Nat Herz tweeted a link to a video of Charlo Greene proclaiming that the War on Drugs is really a War on You and Me.

"As I stared down the barrel of a police officer's gun, they made it very clear that the war they're waging is one for power over us. .  .   Anonymous reports were all the Anchorage police department needed to knock down my front door, put a gun in my face and rob me and the eight medical marijuana cardholders on-site of our cannabis, computers, and cards, a month after we legalized recreational marijuana."

Screenshot from Youtube video

Here's how the ADN portrayed the March 20 event:

Anchorage police served a search warrant on the Alaska Cannabis Club's downtown clubhouse on Friday afternoon, taking boxes of evidence from the residence as club owner Charlo Greene watched.
Anchorage Police Department spokesperson Jennifer Castro told reporters on scene later Friday afternoon that police had received reports of illegal marijuana sales occurring at the clubhouse. No charges had been filed Friday, Castro said.
Police arrived about 1 p.m., Greene said. Greene, whose legal name is Charlene Egbe, is a former television news reporter who achieved national notoriety in September when she quit on-air after announcing she was the owner of the club. . .


. . . Two marked police cars were outside the residence on Friday afternoon, with a few more arriving as the search wore on. Greene said about seven officers were boxing up marijuana plants, computers, papers and other materials in the clubhouse. Greene said she was free to go but chose to wait while police took evidence from the home.
An officer on scene confirmed no arrests were being made Friday afternoon.
At 3:10 p.m., police began to load evidence in paper bags and cardboard boxes into a white van from the back door of the clubhouse. At about 3:15 p.m., a red pickup and black Jeep were towed away from the house.

Nothing about a broken down door or a gun in the face.  You'd think she would have told them when she described the other things that happened.  (I've emailed the reporter Laurel Andrews to see if she just left it out. I'll update when I hear back.)

All I know about Charlo Greene is what I've read in the newspapers - as a news anchor  she pushed for legalizing marijuana while she was (unknown to the public) also the owner of the Alaska Cannabis Club.  She got fired for that.  And she's, apparently, not waiting for the legislature to enact the legislation regulating marijuana as the initiative called for it to do.

I'm not unsympathetic to victims of overzealous or biased police, though it helps someone's cause if the police were actually abusive and the person arrested was innocent.  I can't help but be a little skeptical of her victimhood here.  Sounds like she's taking advantage of the 'police treat blacks differently' meme.  Not that she mentions race and not that I don't believe that blacks do get stopped by police more often and treated worse by police than do whites.  Rather than saying it's race related, it could be (and that's all she's claiming) marijuana related.  Is it possible it's law related too? 

"The officer had his hand on the trigger as I, a law-abiding citizen, stared down the receiving end of an assault rife that my tax dollars paid for.  And in that moment I thought, I've done everything right."

Pretty dramatic.  Why wasn't this in the March 20 story?  And the thing about paying taxes.    Clearly, criminals don't get a pass because they paid their property taxes.  I think the point she's making is that she's not a criminal.  

Perhaps this is a cross-cultural issue:

"In spite of growing up in poverty, I became the first of my six brothers and sisters to earn a college degree.  I chose positive friends, I haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last three years.  I've dedicated my life to healing our community, with cannabis."

People growing up in poverty grow up in a different culture from people growing up in the middle class.  At the political corruption trials, I mused in a post about how Bill Allen related his life story in a family of itinerant farm workers, moving from place to place, missing lots of school and dropping out at age 15 to become a welder.  It was clear to me that he got little or no help from government and probably had no education about the rule of law.  He seemed to me to be a man who truly worked his way up from poverty through smarts and hard work.  For him, it seemed,  the law was yet one more obstacle, that a businessman had to overcome.  I don't agree or condone that stand, but I can understand it.

Is Charlo the same?  She did what she was supposed to do - went to school, got positive friends, stopped breaking the law.  The American Dream the Republicans so cherish.  Though another story about her dispute with the other tenant in the Cannabis Club building, suggests she's sugar coating a bit.  And if she graduated from college, she had a lot more opportunity to benefit from and learn about government and the rule of law than Bill Allen.  And since she seems to treat truth lightly, I can't help but want more evidence before I completely buy her portrayal of her childhood. 

But surely we shouldn't hold her to higher standards than we do other mayoral candidates, such as Dan Coffey who even confesses his and asks for absolution on his website.  This was even too much today for the last surviving dinosaur from the Anchorage Times, Paul Jenkins. 

Now we have two women candidates in the race.  But we have so much better potential women candidates.

Hairy Woodpecker and Friends At Still Icy Potter Marsh

One more post from last Sunday's outing.  [The other two were Always Looks Different:  Turnagain Arm and McHugh Creek]  We stopped at Potter Marsh on the way home [as we did two weeks before.] 

The only birds we saw this time - and this is not a complaint - were a pair of hairy woodpeckers and a flock of bohemian waxwings. 

The woodpeckers were fun.  Maybe it's my early introduction to Woody as a kid.  Surely the red patch helps, and the tapping noise.  And one of my favorite posts, which still gets hits from weird folks like me, is Why Don't Woodpeckers Get Brain Damage? 









The waxwings too, but they're more common, and we'd recently had a very close view as they came to feast on the Mt. Ash berries in the tree in front of our house.  Here their spectacular colors aren't visible.

This time without such an obvious single food outlet as the Mt. Ash, they were scattered in pairs and small groups around the marsh. 

Here's a typical view of the marsh, though the summer tourists don't get to see it with the ice.

The boardwalk has signs prohibiting, among other things, dogs.  And as we got back to our car, we saw this one waiting patiently in the car for it's servants. 

Blogger Ethics: Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?

One of  my 2013 Anchorage Film Festival posts included a short overview of the film "Tales from the Organ Trade."  A documentary about selling and buying kidneys and the people involved - on various sides, sellers, buyers, and doctors.  

Today someone left a comment - basically, it's an ad for a hospital that buys and sells kidneys in India. 

So, what should I do with it?  Delete it?  Leave it as a comment on the movie?  When I went to get the link for that old post, I saw that there was already another similar type of comment.  I can't remember if I saw it and decided to leave it, or I never saw it.  It was posted a few months after the original post.  

The film itself was not a clear cut condemnation.  While it showed how poor folks risked their lives for pitifully small amounts of money and rich folks spent huge amounts to get a kidney, it did show some strong arguments for letting people who need a kidney pay for one.  

Thoughts? 

Apollo Hospital Friday, March 27, 2015 at 6:11:00 AM AKDT

Hi friends greeting from Apollo Hospital India (Dr. Leo Gomez).
Specialist hospital that buy human kidney.
If you are Interested in Selling or buying Kidney
Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Phone number : +9191678XXXX
Email : apollohospitalkidneydep@gmail.com
Dr. Leo Gomez

SteveSaturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM AKDT
I don't know. Normally I'd delete that message, but it's an eerie reminder of what the movie was about. Readers, what should I do with it? Leave it? Delete it?

Blogger Ethics: Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?

One of  my 2013 Anchorage Film Festival posts included a short overview of the film "Tales from the Organ Trade."  A documentary about selling and buying kidneys and the people involved - on various sides, sellers, buyers, and doctors. 

[UPDATE March 30, 2015:  Inspired by the most recent Anon (3/30/15) comment, I'm adding a link to HBO where you can download the movie "Tales From The Organ Trade."  You can also go to the movie's website where you can watch the trailer.]

Today someone left a comment - basically, it's an ad for a hospital that buys and sells kidneys in India. 

So, what should I do with it?  Delete it?  Leave it as a comment on the movie?  When I went to get the link for that old post, I saw that there was already another similar type of comment.  I can't remember if I saw it and decided to leave it, or I never saw it.  It was posted a few months after the original post.  

The film itself was not a clear cut condemnation.  While it showed how poor folks risked their lives for pitifully small amounts of money and rich folks spent huge amounts to get a kidney, it did show some strong arguments for letting people who need a kidney pay for one.  

Thoughts? 

Apollo HospitalFriday, March 27, 2015 at 6:11:00 AM AKDT

Hi friends greeting from Apollo Hospital India (Dr. Leo Gomez).
Specialist hospital that buy human kidney.
If you are Interested in Selling or buying Kidney
Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Phone number : +919167859153
Email : apollohospitalkidneydep@gmail.com
Dr. Leo Gomez

ReplyDelete

SteveSaturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM AKDT
I don't know. Normally I'd delete that message, but it's an eerie reminder of what the movie was about. Readers, what should I do with it? Leave it? Delete it?
ReplyDelete

Suppose Your New Job Was To Betray Your Brothers

Two couples have tried to create the Perfect Arrangement.  It's the 1950s.  Bob Martindale works for the State Department.  Neighbor Norma Baxter is his secretary.  They live in adjoining apartments, appropriately connected by a closet.

March 19 - April 4 Thu/Fri/Sat 7pm

Out North - Primrose and Debarr (kitty corner from Costco)

So this doesn't get lost:   this is a funny play, and you'll laugh, but it packs a punch.  

Bob's assignment of late, has been to root Communists out of the State Department, but they're mostly gone and now his boss has assigned him the task of getting rid of the deviants.  He undertakes this job knowing that he and his lover and Norma and hers are safe in their Perfect Arrangement.

Opening Night Reception After The Performance at Out North

This is a neatly done play by Topher Payne - who was here last Thursday for the West Coast premiere of his work.  There's lots going on in the play.  There are the two different worlds - a social facade of voice and intonation and topic for straight visitors where the ladies chatter about recipes and shopping, the men disparage the women,  and then there's the more open expression of ideas in uncensored vocabulary when the two couples are alone.

But the play is not simply a play about being in the closet or homosexuals for that matter.  Rather it's about marginalized people who have learned to act one way in the outside world and another at home, and who are always worried that their real being will be discovered and always tortured because it can't be.  This play could be about black slaves in the south, or women in a male dominated work place, or undocumented workers. . .

And as the tension rose when Bob was required to make lists of deviants to be fired, I couldn't help think about the Jewish capos in concentration camps who got slightly better treatment for cooperating with the Nazis and keeping tabs on the others.  The dialogue was explicit about the conflict between trying to save oneself and one's duty to the others.  About the small benefits of blending in versus the great losses of denying one's true identity.  We could see the characters' slow debilitating stress of staying hidden, the fear of being discovered and the change it will mean, and the enticing but dangerous thought of standing up and declaring one's identity.  Echoes of the struggle in Selma.  

This is a powerful play with strong acting -  well worth seeing.  Below is a video of the playwright, Topher Payne, talking at the reception after the performance.  You can also see a video with directors/actors Krista Schwarting and Jay Burns here.

McHugh Creek

Here are a few pictures from Sunday's hike on the Johnson Pass trail from McHugh Creek.  The cottonwoods - and everything else - are still naked.  Below you can see them in different states.

Devil's club was budding. 

A couple of weeks ago, we came by and only the lower parking lot (right)  was open, but Sunday, the gate to the upper parking areas was open. 








And the creek was still flowing mostly under the ice.