My Fantasy: Amy Demboski and Jim Minnery Meet Scott Turner Schofield

[REPOST due to Feedburner* problems][Scott was the artistic director of Anchorage's Out North for about two years.]

Melisa Green, posted a link to this New York Daily News article at Bent Alaska Facebook page. 

"The Daily News exclusively learned the latest transgender person to make a splash in the world of mainstream television is Scott Turner Schofield, who has joined the cast of CBS’ long-running soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful” and will make his first appearance May 8 — bringing a real-life verve to an already controversial storyline.
Schofield is making his TV acting debut on the Emmy Award-winning daytime series, after winning raves in regional theater throughout the years."

Thanks to writing a blog, I can tell you when I first met Scott - January 2, 2010.  He was at Out North as a visiting performer and introduced the Under 30 production.  I was so taken by how he held himself, spoke, what he said, and his warmth, that I mentioned him with a shaky photo  in the post I did of Under 30 that he introduced that night.

In July that year, Scott had just become the artistic

Scott Turner Schofield at Out North Anchorage July 2010

director of Out North.  Again, he just introduced the main act, but it was one helluva good intro.   Here's what I said about him then, as part of a post about the performance he introduced - Wu Man and Friends.

"On the right is Scott Schofield, Out North's new artistic director after the performance.  Preparation for the performance began just as he arrived at OutNorth.  His introduction Wednesday was a pleasure to listen to.  His words were good, his delivery fluent, and he effortlessly rotated to acknowledge the audience members sitting behind him on the stage. "

It was only later that we saw him perform "Two truths and a Lie." and even later when he came back to perform his resurrection piece.

I try not to say "I told you so" but in this case I'm delighted to.  And I have the blog posts to prove it.

And while the Supreme Court uses the law to argue their personal takes on the issue of same-sex marriage and the Anchorage mayor's race is once again discussing LGBT rights, I think it's important for as many people as possible to watch Scott Turner Schofield's Ted Talk.

My fantasy is that someone gets Jim Minnery and Amy Demboski to watch this Ted Talk until they get it.  Maybe they can dig deep enough into themselves - the way Scott did - to discover why LGBT folks make them so crazy.   Those of you who didn't have the pleasure of seeing Scott while he was in Anchorage, this will help show you why I was so impressed.


 



*Feedburner note:  Feedburner relays new messages to subscribers and blogrolls so that they know there is a new post.  Usually it works fine.  But too often it doesn't.  Sometimes it's clear that there is lengthy code in something I've copied from somewhere else and if I get rid of it, Feedburner works.  Sometimes it's just mysterious.  Like this post.  I posted it yesterday, but it didn't get to blogrolls.  I posted it again last night.  This morning it still wasn't on blogrolls.  So I did it again this morning and it worked.  The only people this might irritate, besides me, are subscribers who actually do get notified several times for the same post.  My apologies to them.  This is why I'm writing this here.  It's a particular problem when I'm posting something that's time sensitive - like election results, or a note about an event coming up soon.  

News Flash: If Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal, No One Will Have To Marry A Same Sex Partner

Everyone will be free to choose to marry the person they love.

I write this the day after the US Supreme Court heard Obergefall v. Hodges.  And after equal rights became an issue once again in an Anchorage mayoral race. 

From today's ADN:

“This is the kind of mayor we need for Anchorage on May 5,” wrote Prevo, using all capital letters and referencing the date of the runoff election. “Not one like Ethan Berkowitz who supports same-sex marriage and ordinances that will take away the rights of those who do not agree with him.”

Not sure what rights, other than to discriminate against people they don't like, Prevo's people will lose.  While LGBT folks lose lots of rights from Prevo's position.

Let's hope Jerry Prevo's message no longer matters to Anchorage voters next week and that he'll have to find some other issue to get his people to hand over their money to support his religious empire in Anchorage.  

How Can You Help People In Nepal? Meet Usha.

We had dinner at the Spice Route restaurant in the Pavillion Mall on Bainbridge Island.  As we were leaving we began talking to one the employees there.  It turns out she's from Nepal and, understandably, very upset about the earthquake that just happened.    Alaskan readers, if you think this is too far away, she also lived in Homer for two years.

She's trying to figure out how she can get help here and get it back to Nepal.  Not only does she need all the things that are needed, she also needs local Bainbridge Island folks to help her organize this.  (And Poulsbo folks, you're in this too - that's where she lives.)

I offered to make a video, which I did, but I had to cut it short because my memory card got full.  Here it is:

"My name is Usha McCollum.  I live in Poulsbo, Washington and I’d from Nepal.  Right now the earthquake very affected my family, the whole country, my relatives.  I spoke with my mom, a since a long time trying to talk with her two days ago,  she sounds like she’s ok, but she didn’t explain what was going on, because she’s old, she’s nervous,  and I tried, you know, to make it better for her, but right now even I’m trying to call but I haven’t any connection with her. 

But right now I’m just pray, just pray,   So, right now, I concerned about Nepal, what can I do about it?  You know, for relief, those people, those children, my country.  I’m trying to help from  where I am in the Bainbridge Island Indian restaurant, I’m trying to think about it, making the posters, making the pictures, whatever, making a fundraiser, making a dinner here, and trying to explain to the community, maybe talk, maybe school, I’m going to start from tomorrow."

She works at the Spice Route Indian restaurant in the Pavillion mall (upstairs) on Madison on Bainbridge Island.  You can contact her there at 206 780 3545.  If she's not there, let them know why you're calling.   If you can help in any way.  Go by there and let them know.  She's trying to figure out ways to raise some money to send to Nepal.  Maybe you can invite her to talk to your school or your organization.  Anyone involved in philanthropy or aid programs could give her some guidance for other organizations that she could work with.

And she lives in Poulsbo, so folks there might want to chip in as well. 

Lastly, are there any people in Homer who remember her?  She came with her then husband Paul McCollum whom she met in Nepal.  Or you can email me at whatdoino(at)alaska.net and I'll forward your message to her. 

My Brain Is Dead. Blogging Sensibly Not Possible At Moment. Some Pics Instead

Planes have been taking off to the east lately, and ours did too Sunday.  Here's UAA as we flew over.  You can it bigger if you click on the picture.  This was from my little camera, so it's not as clear as some of those below. 

Into Seattle. 

School buses. 

An Alaska Airlines attendant was scanning all the baggage tags as they came off the conveyor belt.  I hadn't seen that before.  I must say that Alaska Airlines' 20 minute baggage guarantee is what has us checking in luggage these days.  No more endless waits for bags.  They really do get them on the carousels within  20 minutes of getting to the gate.  And on those rare occasions when they don't, they give you a coupon for $25 on your next flight or mileage.  Alaska Airlines shows it can be done.  If the other airlines can't do it, it's cause it's not that important to them I guess.

 
Downtown Seattle from the car.

Alaska Press Club Conference Ends Saturday Sunset

Susitna was silhouetted by the sunset as we left the Awards Dinner for the Press Club.  Steve Heimel got honored with a first amendment award and gave a passionate speech about the need to fight constantly to keep the first amendment.

Vera Starbard, and her husband Joe, two of our table mates, took home several awards for First Alaskans Magazine.  She's also written a play - Our Voices Will Be Heard -that's scheduled to be performed in Anchorage next January.  Lisa Phu and Matt Miller from KTOO were also at our table and also got awards. 



There's so much to write about the conference.  I have lots of notes, but didn't have time to do anything with them.  I went to four sessions on data journalism - using data sets to find trends and ways to graphically display them.




I'll try to write more about them, but meanwhile, here's a picture of Andy Eschbacher during his presentation on data mapping.  He works for CartoDB with offices in Madrid and Brooklyn.  They have software for combining data and maps, including a free level, and I intend to try my hand at their tutorials to see if I can get to a point where I can use this.













And then there's the log guy who I met at the last session.  He's from Kentucky, I think he said, visiting a friend in Alaska, and he carries this log around a lot.  There was something about being good when he works with kids.  (I can hear some of the presenters asking, "But where's the rest of the story, you're leaving us hanging  . ."  I think some mysteries are good, and all the readers can create their own story about the log guy. 



What Do I Know?  got some recognition at the dinner - two second places.  One for Best Current Events/News Blog and and another for Best Commentary Blog.  There was also a third place in Arts Reporting Print/Online small organization.  That was for a my Q&A page for the Anchorage International Film Festival.      It's nice to know that others think this little blog is doing some things right.  Thank you Alaska Press Club. 

The Press Club's Facebook page says all the rewards will be posted at their website on Monday.  And the Twitter hashtag #AlaskaPressClub already has a lot of pictures of awards up.
[Update May 3:  Here's the whole spreadsheet of the winners at the Alaska Press Club site]

Ethical Issues Raised by Electronic Media - AK Press Club Breakout Session Today

I've proposed a breakout session at the Alaska Press Club conference today.

These are issues I've been thinking about, but then I got a 2011 Anchorage Daily News article the other day and it came up like this:

According to the internet, this article was an Alaska Dispatch News article, not an Anchorage Daily News article.   The Dispatch didn't buy the News until 2014.  Does that matter?  Most people outside of Anchorage wouldn't know, and would credit this article to the Dispatch.  That may not be a big thing, but it's a symbol of my concerns - the ability to change history online.  

Someone interested in newspapers themselves, who didn't know about Alaska would think the Dispatch was Anchorage's newspaper since forever.  

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  With hard copy newspapers in the library or on microfiche, you see the original published version.   With electronic online publications,  that published version no longer exists.  Anyone with access, can change what the newspaper said.

Editing published work

The Alaska Press Club contest rules say:

"All entries must be submitted as they were published or broadcast."

But everyone changes their online versions.  Typos get corrected.  Updates get added.  I had two readers this week alert me to spelling errors, which I then fixed.  And when events change, it makes sense to alert readers of an old post of that change.  Either to add information or link to a newer post that has that information.

My own blog rule has been:
1.  For typos and minor stylistic rewording, I just change it without any notice.
2.  For changes that might change the meaning, I strikeout the old and [bracket the new] and I'll mark the date it was updated. 
This seems to be a reasonable approach.  It cleans up sloppy writing that slips here where I don't have an editor, but it prevents me from changing the story in ways that might hide my mistakes or make it look I was prescient.

Blogger also has another feature that's handy, but raises issues.  It lets bloggers change the publication time.  That's useful for scheduling a post.  There have been times, for example, when Feedburner doesn't relay my post and I've gone back and reposted it at about the same time as the original post to wake Feedburner up.  But someone could just as easily backdate predictions about an election or a sports event or anything.

Changing The Records of History
My biggest concern is the ability to change what was written and to backdate.  What if someone gets into the newspaper files and changes history?  It shouldn't be that hard to do.  Most libraries have stopped storing paper copies of newspapers and journals.   Web caching is our only back up, but it's not clear to me that this is a foolproof way to stop or catch online document tampering.

So, these are the kinds of things I'm proposed for a breakout session at 11:45am today at the Alaska Press Club.  There's a bulletin board to see the exact room.  (In fact I will probably tamper, after the the original post, with this post to add the room number later this morning.)

[UPDATE June 12:  Here's the follow up post done well after the conference ended.  It covers the issues that we discussed.  More than I thought of on my own.]

University Budget Cuts to Impact 200 UAA Postions

UAA Chancelor sent out an email to the university community today outlining the impacts of a $19 million cut in the budget.   Here's probably the critical line:

"Over the next few weeks, UAA will announce layoffs, reduced work assignments, position reductions and program eliminations that will affect approximately 200 positions, some of which are already vacant."

Here's the whole email:

Dear UAA community,

 

For several months you’ve been hearing about the budget challenges the University is currently facing. As a result of combined operating budget cuts from FY15 and FY16, UAA is dealing with a budget shortfall of about $19.5 million. We know this will impact our institution at every level. Despite these fiscal challenges, our goal, as always, is to provide our students with a quality education.

 

To help reduce the overall burden of these budget reductions, UAA will join UAF, UAS and UA Statewide in a leadership-level furlough beginning in FY16. Officers of the University will receive 10 furlough days; senior administrators will receive 7; non-represented academic leaders will receive 5. This will impact 69 UAA employees, all at the leadership level. Though difficult, these furloughs will help save UAA about $270,000 in operating expenses in FY16.

 

This is the second year in a row that UAA is absorbing cuts to our operating budget. In FY15, we reduced spending, implemented service efficiencies, made alignment improvements through Prioritization and left vacant positions unfilled. With another cut in state funding in FY16—coupled with increased utility costs and unfunded building operations—personnel and programs will be affected. Over the next few weeks, UAA will announce layoffs, reduced work assignments, position reductions and program eliminations that will affect approximately 200 positions, some of which are already vacant. This is the most painful impact of the budget shortfall because it hits at the heart of our community—our people.

 

In FY16, the campus community will see fewer support personnel and/or reduced hours in student services, human resources, information technology, facility upkeep and facility maintenance. Academic units will see increases in teaching loads, larger class sizes, reductions in course sections and a reduction in adjunct faculty positions. Program transformations and eliminations identified through the Prioritization process will be finalized by the end of June 2015. Our focus will remain on quality teaching and research.

 

I know this news seems grim, but we all know that UAA is an amazing university with truly outstanding faculty, staff and students. Difficult times promote creative thinking, and I am confident our community will come together to use this situation to become an even better and stronger university. 

 

I’d like to encourage you to continue to celebrate the amazing things our students, faculty and staff are accomplishing every day. Even in times like these, we are doing incredible work.

 

Sincerely,

 

Tom Case

Chancellor

 

UA Statewide furlough announcement: https://www.alaska.edu/files/hr/hr-procedures/University-of-Alaska-Announces-FY16-Leadership-Furloughs.pdf

Furlough information: https://www.alaska.edu/hr/hr-procedures/furlough/

Ethics On The Fly

[From Alaska Press Club session - these are rough notes, missed a lot, but it will give you a sense of the session.  Too much happening to do more.  Lots of good discussion.]

Presenters
Jacqui Banaszynski

Lanpher and Banaszynski

Katherine Lanpher

Ethical Responsibilities of an Editor?

Editor and reporter not different - emphasis different.  Reporter more in the field and with resources.  Relationship fraught with conflict - obligation to sources, don't want to lose them, cutting deals with them.

Sports beat reporter didn't do serious sports investigation reports.

Editor's responsibility - ask all the right questions, protect reporters and company.  Both have responsibility to craft.  Pressure points - want to protect reporter, but have bigger responsibilities.

Didn't think we had ethical quandaries, but, yes, off course.

Free lance reporting - consequences.  Al Jazeera has three reporters in Egyptian prison.  Responsibility for safety.  James Foley, Danny Pearl - doing one dumb thing.  Not run dangerous stuff, then others will follow.  If someone takes him hostage, we can't send in rescue.  

Bring back to other end of the spectrum.  Every decision journalist makes is an ethical one.  Who to talk to who not to talk to.  Using one word versus another can be an ethical decision.

Take for granted, fair and ethical, get all sides of the story.  So why do we take police report, maybe talk to victim, but who are we missing?  We do that all over, don't talk to the suspects.

Reporter versus Editor - back to Rolling Stone - we could talk for days.  Huge cohort adamant that reporter should never write again.   She was a freelancer.  She didn't have regular benefits, salary,  . . .

But she still shouldn't have done what she did.

Decision that might be ethical in one situation isn't in another. 

Margaret Sullivan - interface between NY Times and public.

Ethics at a small time publication.

My other half is journalist.  Got fired when economy went bad.  60 year old white guy, unemployed.  Invented his own job.  Funky little fabulous newspaper.  I was invited to big fancy lunch for politician.
You can't go.
I have to.
You can't go to fundraiser, you're a journalist, unless you go to Republican fund raisers.
Publisher, me, had a long discussion with the editor (me), and the publisher won.

New Yorker Piece - Rachel Aviv  - small town newspaper reporting New Town B - editor is a philosopher.  Made decision how they were going to serve their community after watching how the national media covered things.  Consciously decided to do news that would help the community - never mention the name of the massacre.

Ethics is not something you have, rather something you do.  Values is something you have. 

 Discussion of small time publisher going to fund raiser.
Won't vote in primaries - if have to register for a party.  
I don't want anyone to think they know where I am politically and how that would affect my writing. 
This is changing with your generation - they see and question the false neutrality of the press.  Say, wouldn't it be better to be open where we stand on things.  And that raises interesting territory.  Where do you draw the line?  Yes I'm going to be involved in my community and civic life, but will do with with certain guidelines. 
I assume if you go to Occupy Wall Street, you're going to cover it.  My boss, a Brit, at the Guardian, it was policy that you went to the protest.  We've had heated words because we have a South African . . . 

Things got more into advocacy - sending a gay reporter to cover the Obergefell case in the Supreme Court.  There was a long discussion about whether transparency is enough to overcome people's bias.  Early AIDS writing was done by gay press, because they knew what was happening.  What about covering the opening of a new store owned by reporter's sister, who is the only reporter in a small town.  Response:  Disclose the relationship.

Off the record.  Don't assume people use it the same way.  Be clear what that person means.  Public officials owe people information, even private officials in some cases, probably shouldn't let them go off the record.  Exploratory interview - still trying to figure out what the story is.  "I'm still trying to decide if there is a story about how public records.   .  I need help figuring whether there is a story."

"Why don't we try it on the record.  How much can you tell me on the record?"

Different with public officials who know how to dance and private citizens who don't usually deal with the press, need time to explain. 

Moved to small town, people weren't used to reporters reporting everything.  Set up one-on-one meetings with officials and talked about the public meetings law and my roll and how we could get along - and that helped a lot. 

Alaska Commons Sending Reporter To The Supreme Court Next Week

John Arono tweeted this evening:

So, we're quite happy to make this announcement: Alaska Commons' Brandon Roulet will be reporting from inside #SCOTUS for #Obergefell.
— Alaska Commons (@alaskacommons) April 24, 2015

What the hell is Obergefell?  Or SCOTUS?

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court Of The United States.

Obergefell is short for  Obergefell v. Hodges.  It's the Ohio case challenging the state's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside of Ohio.  But there are actually four cases combined under Obergefell.  From SCOTUS blog:

The merits brief filed in the Kentucky case (Bourke v. Beshear) is the only one that discusses both questions: the validity of state bans on same-sex marriage, and the validity of state bans on the recognition of existing same-sex marriages.   The brief filed in the Michigan case (DeBoer v. Snyder) discusses only the marriage question, and each of the briefs filed in the Ohio (Obergefell v. Hodges) and Tennessee (Tanco v. Haslam) cases deals only with the recognition question.  (When a final decision is issued, it will have the Obergefell v. Hodges title, simply because that case was the first to reach the Justices.)

 Got that?  Two challenges:

1.  Can states ban same-sex marriages?
2.  Can states ban recognition of existing same-sex marriages?


This will be heard Tuesday (April 28) in the Supreme Court.


So what lies ahead for Mr. Roulet?  SCOTUS blog has a special page telling journalists what to expect at the Supreme Court Tuesday.

First, reporters are told they need to get press passes.  This, Mr. Roulet has succeeded in doing.  Next, they are told to get familiar with the case and this page for reporters has a section briefing them on how to do that.

Then comes the section on what actually happens at the Supreme Court.  I wish I had had something like that when I went to the Federal Court hearings in Anchorage back in 2007, but it was not near as competitive getting in and I was able to learn on-the-job.  Plus the rules changed from the first trial to the next.  (Reporters could bring cell phones past security and their computers into the court room after the first trial.)

Here's what Mr. Roulet has ahead of him:

"On the day of the oral argument, plan to arrive early. The Court’s Public Information Office will tell you when to check in, but give yourself plenty of time before that, because you will need to go through security to enter the Court building, and there may be lines to do so. Once you are through, head to the PIO for your pass, which will include a seat assignment, and information on using the wifi in the press room, which is right next door to the PIO. You can’t take any electronics into the Courtroom, but you can leave your laptop, phones, and other belongings in the press room. The press room will be crowded: most of the room is devoted to cubicles for the roughly two dozen reporters who cover the Court on a regular basis, so there will be lots of people milling around (and packed into) the remaining space.
The staff of the Public Information Office (who are, by the way, extremely helpful) will take reporters up to the Courtroom in groups, based on their seat assignments. If you are in one of the early groups, be prepared to sit and wait for a while. (On the bright side, that will give you plenty of time to observe, and perhaps participate in, a time-honored tradition for reporters covering really high-profile cases: standing up and craning your neck to see what celebrities – or what passes for celebrities in Washington – are in the public seats.)
Before you enter the Courtroom, you will have to go through a second security screening. This one involves both passing through a metal detector and a close visual examination of anything you want to bring in with you. Be warned: this inspection can include opening up smaller items like wallets or lipsticks, so it may be easier just to leave everything but your notepad and pens (and, if you are over forty, your reading glasses) in the press room.
At about five minutes before ten, one of the police officers in the Courtroom will make an announcement that includes instructions for the audience: Remain completely silent throughout the proceedings, notify an officer if you see anything suspicious, and in the event of an emergency do exactly what the officer tells you to do.
At ten o’clock, you will hear a buzzer, the Court’s marshal will call the Courtroom to order, and everyone (including you) will stand up as the Justices enter the Courtroom. The Chief Justice sits in the middle, and then the other Justices are arranged around him in order of seniority: Justice Antonin Scalia, the most senior Associate Justice, is on his right, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, the second-most-senior Associate Justice, is on his left. This continues through (in order of seniority) Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer (who sits next to Justice Thomas and often has animated conversations with him), and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, until you get to Justice Elena Kagan, the Court’s junior Justice. She sits on the far right (the Chief Justice’s left) end of the bench."  [emphasis added]

 If you want to know what happens next, you can go to the SCOTUS blog "A reporter’s guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court."

The piece talks about what might happen next:

There could be
1.   summaries of opinions for earlier cases.
2.   swearings-in ceremonies for members of the Supreme Court bar.

The regular Supreme Court bar will run upstairs and take their assigned seats in the press section after hearing the opinions downstairs.  It also mentions that there are seats from which you can't see the justices and recommends people listen to tapes so they can recognize the voices.

Then there will be oral arguments which have been allotted two-and-a-half hours - 90 minutes longer than normal.   The first part (90 minutes) is for the marriage questions and the second part (60 minutes) is for the recognition question.  The plaintiffs (those challenging the ban) go first.  The SCOTUS blog goes into detail about each of the attorneys on both sides of each question. 


If you want to know details of the arguments themselves you can't go wrong by going to the SCOTUS blog page that indexes all their posts on this case.

Congratulations Brandon and Alaska Commons!  We're looking forward to hearing your first hand account. 

If you want to hear the proceedings yourself, here's what the Court posted on March 5:

 The Court will provide the audio recording and transcript of the oral argument in 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and consolidated cases, on an expedited basis through the Court’s Website. The argument is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, April 28 from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.
           The Court will post the audio recording and unofficial transcript as soon as the digital files are available for uploading to the Website.  The audio recording and transcript should be available no later than 2 p.m. on April 28.
           Anyone interested in the proceedings will be able to access the recording and transcript directly through links on the homepage of the Court’s Website. The Court’s Website address is www.supremecourt.gov.

 So, by 10am Alaska time, next Tuesday, you should be able to listen in.

What will they decide?  A SCOTUS blog commentary predicts, after a lengthy explanation in part 1 and part 2, the Court will overturn the bans on same-sex marriage.

I looked for a conservative opinion and checked the CATO Institute's post on this case.  While conservative, CATO also leans libertarian.  So I guess I shouldn't have been surprise to read this:

"Joining with noted originalist scholar (and Federalist Society co-founder) Steven Calabresi and Yale law professor William Eskridge—one of the leading experts on American legal history—we urge the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and finally fulfill the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under law to millions of gay Americans and their children. We argue that the lower court’s ruling was inconsistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The fact that the provision’s ratifiers didn’t automatically or explicitly understand that it would eventually require states to recognize same-sex marriages is irrelevant; all that matters is what it meant in 1868 for a state to 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'”

But we won't know until June (probably) what they actually decide.  


I have no idea how the court's public information office decides who gets passes.  I'm wondering though, whether the fact that Alaska is listed on one of the amicus briefs helped secure the pass.  While I decried the decision to put us on that brief, maybe this is a positive side-effect.  Or maybe it has nothing to do with it. 

Is This The PSA That Comes Up On The Alaksa House And Senate Majority's Screens?

Things I find on Twitter:





[UPDATE for non-Alaskans:  Pick.Click.Give. is the campaign to get Alaskans to make a donation to a non-profit organization by deducting it from their Permanent Fund Dividend checks each year.  The video is from Alaska Robotics out of Juneau.  They do great stuff.]