A. Fog Of Politics B. Privacy And Security

A.  Fog of Politics

As I get ready to head out to the Democratic caucus in Anchorage this morning, the world outside is shrouded in fog.

OK, I apologize, Part B will live up to its name much better than Part A.








B.  Privacy and Security

Image from The Intercept

There was a live panel discussion on Privacy and Security last night in Arizona that was also online.  It's definitely worth watching.  Noam Chomsky, Edward Snowden, and Glen Greenwald.  If you know who those people are, you know this is worth watching.  If you don't know who they are, you should at least look them up.   Nuala O’Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, was the moderator.

Here's the link:  https://theintercept.com/a-conversation-about-privacy/

The discussion ranged from definitions of privacy and security to the tension between them.  They talked about the top secret and other designations and how no one has identified anyone who has been killed because of Snowden's leaks, or even the Wikileaks.  How most of the things labeled top secret are for the security of the government officials, not for the security of the public.  It's a very thoughtful and rational discussion.  Everyone should watch this, and contrast it to some of the shrill and thoughtless rhetoric of the political debates.

It's long.  You can watch it in two sittings or just listen to it while you're doing mindless household tasks.

One topic that came up was how individuals can secure their own lives and this morning on Twitter,  Martin Shelton has linked to his own guide on how to do this - Securing Your Digital Life Like a Normal Person

More on the caucus when I get back tonight.

How Safe Is Loussac During Construction?

I voted at Loussac Library Wednesday.  Here's the atrium with the original steps removed.  The whole atrium is blocked off.  (From the Alaska Collection silo.)

This next shot shows the wall that's been created to block off the atrium from the inside on the second and third floors.

The library was packed Wednesday, even though it was sunny and nice out.

But there was only one working elevator.  When I was ready to go, the first time the 3rd elevator door opened, it was too full to get in.  (Well, I suspect New Yorkers would have been able to squeeze in, but Alaskans like a little more personal space)  You can see people waiting for the elevator on the right.

There is a big staircase from the second to third floor, except it's in the atrium area that is currently blocked off.  So you can't walk from the second to the third floor.   You have to take the elevator.  And passage ways are much narrower than normal.  With the entrance and checkout on the ground floor, it's disorienting.

While I was waiting for an elevator, I asked a librarian whether there were stairs.  She pointed to the far corner and said there are emergency stairs, but an alarm will go off if you take them.  I pointed out that there weren't any obvious signs leading people to the exit stairs.  "We've mentioned that at staff meetings,"  I was told.

I suspect that the fire marshals assumed there would be two working elevators, but even then, it seems to me that the lack of stairs between the second and third floor is a serious problem.  At the very least, they could open the emergency stairs between those two floors so people who'd rather walk, could do that.  People around me didn't know if there were stairs from the first to the second floor either. (The steps and elevator in the old entrance are obviously - from the top picture - gone now.)


Here's a before and after picture of the steps from February 4 and today.

(Careful readers will note that I said it was a nice sunny day today.  There were clouds and this picture was taken while a cloud blocked the sun.)

Why I Live Here: 10 Minute Interview With Jane Sanders

The Alaska Dispatch News said that Bernie Sanders' wife would be in Alaska for three days and that she was going to meet with media this afternoon.  I emailed the Sanders Alaska campaign to find out where and didn't have that much time to get my stuff together and go down to the Lakefront Hotel (the old Millennium on Spenard).

When I got to the hotel there were several other news people, a couple of whom I knew.  It was then I learned this wasn't just going to be a press conference, but that we would each get five minutes one-on-one with Jane Sanders.

Living in Anchorage has meant, on a number of occasions, that I've been able to meet people whom I would never meet if I lived in LA or Seattle.  We're a small place and when important people are here, there's much more chance to connect with them.

So below is my video of our talk.  I normally have talked to people standing up and hold my camera close to my face and the interviewee.  But we sat at a table and and I put my camera on the table which resulted in a terrible camera angle, with Jane Sanders seeming to be looking up.  She was looking at me.  So I apologize to Mrs. Sanders for messing that up.  But I think it's still worth posting the whole ten minutes (as it turned out) of our conversation.

I also seem to have cut out the beginning of my first questions which gives the context for the end of it that starts the video. Here are the questions I asked.  The first part of Question 1 didn't get recorded so it's helpful to have the whole question here.

Question 1:  The symbolic value of electing an African-American president in 2008 was pretty big.  It sent an important message to African-Americans and other people of color, and to the world.  Electing Hillary Clinton would also have an important symbolic value for women.  What does Bernie Sanders have to offer to women to offset the symbolic value of electing a woman?

Question 2:  The Sanders campaign has been about revolution.  I get that Part A of the revolution is getting elected.  But then, what is Part B?

Jane Sanders mentioned making a college education accessible to all, which led to a third question about the corporatization of universities negatively affecting both faculty and students.




Later, there was a gathering of Bernie Sanders supporters in the hotel.  I decided to stay and see how that went.  I'd guess there were between 150 and 170 people there, filling the room.  There was no public announcements that I know other than on the Sanders' Alaska website.   It was a highly enthusiastic crowd and it seemed to me there were lots of folks under 40 and a reasonable collection of folks over 60.  Those in-between were underrepresented.  I'll try to put up more on that later.

The Alaska Democratic Caucus is Saturday.  I also got a phone call this afternoon that hooked me into a conference call from Bill Clinton.  So maybe this is a teeny taste of what Iowans must feel like before their primary.

Dear Sen. Pete Kelly, I Have Some Questions

 Alaska Commons quotes you, Senator, and I have a few questions.   First, here's the Commons' quote:

“I’m not someone who says we should have a government this size,” Senate Finance Co-chair Pete Kelly (R-Fairbanks) began.

As a matter of fact, I’d like it to be smaller, but the fact is that, adjusted for inflation and population growth, I think last year was about the lowest spend we’d had going all the way back to 2003, which was the other low point.
That isn’t to say, “Oh great, we need to tax people.” That isn’t where I’m going with it. The point is that… we’re at the point where we have to view differently how we interact with the administration. One of the things that [Walker] has been so reluctant to support are unallocated reductions. I don’t blame him. What that does is it puts most of the onus onto the executive to figure ways to make government smaller. That’s the way any corporation’s going to work. That’s the way any board of directors — whether it’s a non-profit or a profit-seeking corporation — that’s the way they’re going to work. They’re going to say to the president, “We’re out of money. You’ve got to figure out how to manage this thing. Sorry. That’s your job.”
So what we’ve heard in the past — and I’m not trying to criticize. I think these kinds of backs and forth [sic] were appropriate in years past when we would do something like that, and the governor would say something like, “You’ve got to do your job.” No. The job of the executive is to manage the administration. That is not our job. We are not up to the task because we are a board of directors. That isn’t how a board of directors works. And I think we’re to the point now where we do have to eliminate programs. We probably have to hand the governor an unallocated [reduction]. My apologies. The unallocated that we put into the budget earlier had program reductions and reforms and those kinds of things to back that up. They’re still there… Those statute changes are working through the legislature, but it’s time now to say,
“Uh-oh. We’ve got to make this thing smaller.” And we’re not going to sit at this table and go through line by line and say, “You can lay off that guy and lay off that guy or reduce that program or stop matching those funds.” That is the job of the executive. And I think we just have to deliver a smaller budget, and we have to do it fairly quick because the air’s out of the tires as of that spring forecast.”

Because the Environmental Protection Agency and non-governmental organizations inhibit resource development, Kelly said, “The only choice we have now is to deliver some draconian cuts to the governor.”

First, I would say that you and I have totally different views of the role of government and the role of business.  But let's just start with things that don't stem from those differences.

"One of the things that [Walker] has been so reluctant to support are unallocated reductions. I don’t blame him. What that does is it puts most of the onus onto the executive to figure ways to make government smaller. That’s the way any corporation’s going to work. That’s the way any board of directors — whether it’s a non-profit or a profit-seeking corporation — that’s the way they’re going to work. They’re going to say to the president, 'We’re out of money. You’ve got to figure out how to manage this thing. Sorry. That’s your job.'”

This is not my experience, Senator.  Boards of directors are there, especially with non-profits, to help the organization succeed.  They set policy.  Often the Board members are expected to donate a significant sum and to assist in fundraising.   Especially when times are rough.  But you seem to have   taken raising money off the table.  Most members of boards want their organization to thrive and grow.  You sound like you don't even like the government you're there to serve.    Usually, when an organization is out of money, the board does everything it can to help the organization raise more money to achieve its mission. But you seem to be saying, well, it's tough times Gov, you're on your own.

"I think these kinds of backs and forth [sic] were appropriate in years past when we would do something like that, and the governor would say something like, “You’ve got to do your job.” No. The job of the executive is to manage the administration. That is not our job. We are not up to the task because we are a board of directors. That isn’t how a board of directors works. And I think we’re to the point now where we do have to eliminate programs. We probably have to hand the governor an unallocated [reduction]."

Senator, first, I'd humbly disagree with your characterization that the legislature is a board of directors.  Most non-profit boards don't get paid and like for-profit boards, they meet infrequently.  The legislature has a constitutionally mandated role that is far more significant than a board of directors'.  It's that branch of government (which is much more significant than a non-profit or for-profit organization) that is supposed to allocate funds for the government to use to operate.  They're also supposed to raise new revenues when the government is running out of money.

The Alaska State Constitution says the legislature will pass laws and the governor will execute them. Let's just look at one section - Health, Education, and Welfare - of the Alaska Constitution:

1. Public Education The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
§ 2. State University The University of Alaska is hereby established as the state university and constituted a body corporate. It shall have title to all real and personal property now or hereafter set aside for or conveyed to it. Its property shall be administered and disposed of according to law.
§ 3. Board of Regents The University of Alaska shall be governed by a board of regents. The regents shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The board shall, in accordance with law, formulate policy and appoint the president of the university. He shall be the executive officer of the board.
§ 4. Public Health The legislature shall provide for the promotion and protection of public health.
§ 5. Public Welfare The legislature shall provide for public welfare.

The responsibility is vested in the legislature to provide, not the executive branch.  Now, I understand that the legislature can delegate its authority to the executive branch.  But you're not making that argument.  You're just saying that it's not your job, when it appears that it actually is.


And, excuse me, but I have one more question on this part of your quote.   If it was "appropriate  in years past" as you've said, then why is it inappropriate now?  What exactly changed?  I realize in the past, when the legislature was spending lots of money, and even last year before oil prices plummeted,  the legislators could take credit for the spending of money on projects.  Now that there isn't enough money, and people are going to get hurt by the cuts, I can understand that you might rather put all the blame on the governor.  How else can you explain your change in attitude?

Especially, since you and the rest of majority legislature have picked things the governor can NOT cut,  like  tax credits on the oil companies, and  continuing funding for mega projects like the Knik Arm Bridge.  (Even after the federal DOT rejected their loan requests  for a seventh time because of faulty projections of revenues).  So, from my perspective, you aren't exactly keeping hands off.  You seem, instead to be protecting things you want to keep, but then telling the governor he has to be the one who, because there's no money left, has to cut schools and to programs that assist the disabled and the elderly, etc.

Instead of working hard, like the boards of directors in your analogy, to raise more money when a key revenue source dries up, you are explicitly telling the governor, he's not allowed to raise more money.

"Because the Environmental Protection Agency and non-governmental organizations inhibit resource development, Kelly said, 'The only choice we have now is to deliver some draconian cuts to the governor.'”

So, Sen. Kelly are you saying, "We could have raised more money and kept the same size government if we kept exploiting Alaska's non-renewable resources, but the EPA and environmentalists won't let us?"  I know that is the line that the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity have been peddling.  That would also explain why the legislature is continuing with its half a million dollar appeal of the expansion of medicaid in Alaska.   But while Shell did claim EPA regulation caused them to leave Alaska, we all know the real reason was that they didn't strike oil and because the price of oil crashed. And our revenue shortfall isn't because of regulation either, it's also because the price of oil crashed. After all, you and your colleagues gave the oil companies a huge credit recently, which is now part of our budget problems. Please explain to me what I'm missing.

But, Senator, this last quote seems to suggest that if the price of oil hadn't crashed,  we wouldn't have to cut the budget.  If that's true, then your real objection isn't so much big government, but paying for government the way every other state does - through taxes, instead of the oil windfall we've been enjoying for 40 years.

And since you refer to developing natural resources - which our state constitution encourages we do in a thoughtful way -  I'd also like to point out that the inhibiting factor for the development of our most important renewable resource - our people - is the legislature.  For the majority cutting schools seems to cause much less angst than cutting oil company subsidies and mega-projects.

One last point, Senator.  You talk about draconian cuts, as do many people.  I'd like to point out what that term originally meant.  From Merriam-Webster:

"Draconian comes from Draco, the name of a 7th-century B.C. Athenian legislator who created a written code of law. Draco's code was intended to clarify preexistent laws, but its severity is what made it really memorable. In Draco's code, even minor offenses were punishable by death, and failure to pay one's debts could result in slavery. Draconian, as a result, became associated with things cruel or harsh." 

There's more to the quote.  It says that nowadays people use the term to refer to things as trivial as parking fines going up, so in that sense, your usage isn't out of the ordinary.  It's like like calling a school principal who enforces a dress code a Nazi.   It's hyperbole.  It often comes from someone who knows the word, but isn't really familiar with its origin and the horror that really happened.

I noticed, Senator, from your website, that you got a Bachelor's degree in Management from Liberty University, which touts itself as the world's largest Christian university as well as the nation's largest online university.  And since you graduated while you were serving in the legislature, I can understand the convenience of an online degree.  The university's website also tells us

"Learn, develop, and grow at Liberty so you can impact your culture as a Champion for Christ."

Since you got your degree in management, I'd be curious what you studied about government and how government is fundamentally different from private sector management.

I'm also curious, Senator, how you reconcile being a Champion for Christ with making draconian cuts that will undoubtedly make life much more difficult for Alaska's poorest people?

And maybe some day we can meet for lunch and you and I can discuss all these things.   I'm sure you have lots of stories you can tell me and that perhaps I might have some insights you haven't heard before.

Breakup

Breakup used to be in March and April.   Nowadays, break up happens after each sizable snow storm.
We had a record breaking snow fall Saturday, and the bike paths were pretty wet yesterday, but the snow is mostly gone.  But here's a picture of Campbell Creek from yesterday.

No, I couldn't figure out what kinds of tracks those were.

Why Has Brussels Become The Terrorist Capital Of Europe?

Is it really the terrorist capital?

From the director of UC Berkeley's Institute of European Studies:

Belgium has a sad record. With some 450 jihadists, it is Europe’s largest contributor per capita of ISIS fighters in Syria. The country has also been mentioned in connection to a series of recent ISIS attacks: In May 2014, a returned jihadist from Syria opened fire at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. In January 2015, two suspected jihadists were shot by the police in the city of Verviers. In August 2015, two members of the U.S. military stopped a jihadist attacker who had boarded a train in Brussels.

Business Insider offers similar statistics  and then goes on:

Muslim immigrants are not well integrated into Belgian society despite decades of immigration there from countries like Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, and Algeria. 

While Muslim Belgians make up only 4% to 6% of the country’s population, some politicians say their very presence threatens the Belgian way of life. 

Wearing a face veil can earn you a $200 fine in Belgium, and far-right anti-immigrant political groups have achieved healthy levels of support. 

Vlaams Belang, a Flemish political party that has advocated deporting Muslim immigrants who don’t renounce their faith, has achieved upward of 20% of the vote in some regional elections.

When I was a student in Germany back in the mid-60's one rarely ever saw a dark-skinned person.  Well, not unless you include Italians and Greeks as dark-skinned.  They were in Germany as guest workers because after the war, Germany had a shortage of men to work in the factories.  Then came Turks.  These folks, originally, were expected to return to their countries when the work was done.  But things don't work out the way you planned.

The rest of northern Europe had varying degrees of guest workers.  Some had immigrants from former colonies after liberation of the those colonies.  In any case, all these countries were relatively homogenous before all this.  I say relatively because there were Jews, Gypsies, and other stray populations.  And, of course, Switzerland is divided into three different language groups.

And the Belgians, even before 'others' came, were divided among the Flemish speakers and the French speakers.  The linguistic disagreements spilled over into policy disagreements and after the June 2010 election, it took 540 days for the Belgians to form a government.

My sense from the visits I've had in Belgium coincides with the Business Insider quote about poor integration.  This is true, of course, of the other European countries with large Muslim populations, but Belgium seems even worse.  Some may stem from the fact that the Flemish and the Walloons (French speakers) already don't get along that well and they don't have time for getting to know and understand their new citizens.  Instead the immigrants end up in ghettoes and feel unwelcome.  Ripe for recruitment.

It's tricky using US standards to judge what's happening in European nations.  Our history of race relations - from Native Americans, to African-Americans, to Japanese-Americans, and Latin-Americans - is pretty dismal and we have hundreds of years of history.

Original photos (bf) from Daily Mail  and (wf) here.

But this looks bad.  Again, most whites in the US know very clearly that blackface is insulting and demeaning.  I don't know the context in Belgium.   For them things we would consider blatant racism is stuff that they might think, "Oh, I didn't know that was offensive."  That, of course, is the case for more subtle things in the US, like telling someone with Asian features how good their English is (without considering that they might be native-born Americans.)   That's my short preface on this picture I photoshopped and the story below of the Belgian foreign minister, Didier Rehnders from last March.

From Al Jazeera

"Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders appeared in blackface at an annual folklore festival in Brussels on Saturday, causing an international media storm that put a spotlight on the country's race relations and led to calls for the former colonial power to grapple with its bloody history.
Dressed as an “African notable,” according to the City of Brussels, Reynders tweeted a picture of himself at the Noirauds event, a yearly festival dating back to 1876. At the rally, Belgium’s wealthy citizens don top hats, ruffs and blackface — all under the eye of Belgium’s Queen Paola, who presides over Les Noirauds, or The Blacks. The country’s elite collect money for disadvantaged children and a kid's trip to the circus.
 The images quickly circulated around the world after French broadcaster France2 reported on the event, noting that the tradition’s imagery could appear racist but that this didn’t dissuade Reynders from taking part.
 The minister told the broadcaster it was “a very enjoyable experience” to participate in the folkloristic tradition while raising money for the children. “I think that’s what counts most today,” he said."  [emphasis added]

Hey, it's just folklore, nothing racist.  Just imagine John Kerry showing up in blackface and saying it's just folk tradition.

So what folk tradition?  From an NBC story which says that Black Pete helps Saint Nicholas at Christmas time.  His picture on merchandise greatly boosts sales.  You know how touchy some American Christians get about tinkering with their Christmas traditions.  Here's from the NBC report:

Traditionalists say Black Pete is just part of an innocent children's holiday which also includes singing songs, exchanging poems, gifts and spending time with family. Some even say he only appears Black because he was covered in soot when he came down the chimney bearing gifts. For them, it is in no way associated with slavery or racism. 

However, those against the tradition quickly point out that the character comes from the 19th century children's book "Saint Nicholas and His Servant," in which the servant, Black Pete is described as a Black Moor from Spain. While Black Pete may be part of Dutch folklore, his portrayal is part of historically negative stereotypes of Black people dating back to colonialism.  [emphasis added]

And Belgium's history of colonialism is particularly nasty.  The Belgians were late getting colonies. In part because Belgium didn't gain its independence from Holland until 1830.  According to Wikipedia the Belgians tried to make a deal to colonize Hawaii, but that fell through.

"Colonial rule in the Congo began in the late 19th century. King Leopold II of Belgium, frustrated by his nation's lack of international power and prestige, tried to persuade the government to support colonial expansion around the then-largely unexplored Congo Basin. Their ambivalence resulted in Leopold's creating a colony on his own account. With support from a number of Western countries, who viewed Leopold as a useful buffer between rival colonial powers on the Continent, Leopold achieved international recognition for a personal colony, the Congo Free State, in 1885."

And as I said, King Leopold's rule was particularly brutal.

Excerpted from History Today:

Leopold’s hell operated by an insane logic. Villages were set quotas of rubber and the gendarmerie were sent in to collect it – a process that was sped up by looting, arson and rape. If a village failed to reach its quota hostages would be taken and shot. To ensure that the gendarmerie didn’t waste their bullets hunting for food, they were required to produce the severed hands of victims. As a consequence a trade in severed hands developed among the villagers and those police that couldn’t reach their quotas. . . 

. . . Sheppard, a Presbyterian missionary, recalled in his diary passing by more than a dozen burned villages. He was taken to the headquarters of a gendarmerie recruit called Mlumba Nkusa, described by Sheppard as ‘a most repulsive looking man’ because his teeth were filed into sharp points, his eyebrows were shaven and his eyelashes plucked out. Leopold had demanded that Mlumba collect 60 slaves and a huge amount of rubber, but only eight slaves and 2,500 balls of rubber had been gathered. ‘I think we killed between 80 and 90,’ said Mlumba of the local workers. He took Sheppard to a hut reserved for the rape of hostages and to another for the preservation of collected hands. Sheppard counted 81 hands hanging over the fire. The Congolese horror ended when international outrage compelled the Belgian state to take control of the colony in 1908. Estimates for the number of people killed range between two and 15 million, easily putting Leopold in the top ten of history’s mass murderers. When he died in 1909 the king’s funeral cortege was booed. Conceptually Leopold’s reign of terror was a bridge between the imperialism of the 19th century and the totalitarianism of the 20th.  [emphasis added]

Belgium is the home of the EU.  It's a modern country in many ways.  Its people are educated.  But on these issues, apparently not well-educated.  It has a bloody colonial history and its elite seem to be clueless about their immigrants' cultures and needs.   There's nothing here for Americans to get smug about since Americans are mostly unaware of their white privilege and bristle when it's pointed out.  American blacks are better integrated into our society.  They breast-fed and raised the kids of slave owners.  Yet they still get treated horribly by our justice system.  More horribly than others.

None of this is intended to excuse, in any way, ISIS terrorist attacks.  But I'm guessing that if immigrants to Belgium were treated with respect and helped to become part of Belgian culture, they wouldn't find ISIS recruiters so tempting.  But when the Flemish and the French in Belgium still take 540 days to agree on forming a government, it's understandable why they don't get along better with their immigrants.

And that doesn't mean that warm, hospitable treatment of each immigrant would eliminate every extremist among  their Muslim population.  After all, there are extremists among Christians and among Jews as well.  (And other religions too.)  I suspect you'll find, among these folks, a number of people using fundamental religion as a cover for whatever social and mental issues they have.

Note:  I'm not an expert on Belgium.  Over the last twenty years or so, I've been to Brussels maybe five times - for professional conferences and to visit a first cousin of my father.  I've done some googling to check my acquired knowledge.  I've also spent time talking to people about immigrant issues in Germany, both Muslims and ethnic Germans.  And I've looked around the internet to supplement what I know, also double checking the facts I've found to make sure I'm not quoting some  outliers nobody else agrees with.

What Merrick Garland And Donald Trump Have In Common

[Warning:  I'm just letting my brain work out a bit here.  I'm trying to puzzle out some meaning from the bizarre stories we get from the so called news these days.  Consider these rough notes on strange times for future reference.]

Basically, the Republican establishment is doing all they can to block both their nominations.


Part 1:  What little birdie is tweeting into Sen. McConnell's ear?

McConnell has stated (in slightly different words) that the constitution gives the president only three years per term and so the president shouldn't put forward a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.  And so the Senate will not hold hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland.  Where is this specious argument coming from?

• The Federalist Society which has been working so hard to take over US judgeships in order to get courts to take stronger pro-business, anti-regulation decisions?  I can understand their frustration as their years of planning and grooming look wasted as the Republican party implodes.  
• CEO's who have court cases coming up before the Supreme Court?  As I understand it, a new justice wouldn't be able to weigh in on cases that have been argued already at the Supreme Court.  But there are plenty more cases in the pipeline.  This would make the most sense because these are people who have a short term interest in not having one more liberal judge on the court before their case gets heard.  

Think Progress writes:

"McConnell responded that he 'can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.'”

They'd never want to do that, but sometimes you have to do things you'd rather not do.

The article then goes on to discuss the court cases the NRA and NFIB have had before the Supreme Court and how they are trying to get the court to approve something Congress explicitly voted down.  I'm sure other groups with such interests in the composition of the Supreme Court have access to McConnell and his friends.


Otherwise, I can't fathom McConnell's logic, as he argues today that Garland's nomination won't be heard even after the November elections.   But I know most things make sense when you know all the details.  Maybe if we knew who McConnell lunches with and what they tell him we'd understand this better.

There's got to be more to McConnell than most of us get to see.  He's been married to two strong women.   His first wife was Sherrill Redmon who is a feminist scholar and was the head of Smith College's women's collection.  His second wife is Taiwan born, former Bush Secretary of Labor and head of the Peace Corps, Elaine Chao.

What he says about Garland makes little sense, except when you're surrounded by people who reinforce your skewed view of the world.  After all, it doesn't look like, at this point, the Republicans are going to retake the White House.  If we get the second President Clinton, she'll likely appoint a more liberal candidate.  And if the Republican party continues on its current track, the Democrats could retake the Senate.  One letter writer in the LA Times, suggested President Clinton could appoint the soon to be out-of-work Barack Obama.  But he might have to recuse himself in cases arising from his administration, so that probably isn't a good idea.

Or maybe McConnell's buddies are planning a coup after the November elections, but then getting rid of a Supreme Court justice or two would be a minor problem.

Part 2:  And then the New York Times reports:

"Republican leaders adamantly opposed to Donald J. Trump’s candidacy are preparing a 100-day campaign to deny him the presidential nomination, starting with an aggressive battle in Wisconsin’s April 5 primary and extending into the summer, with a delegate-by-delegate lobbying effort that would cast Mr. Trump as a calamitous choice for the general election."

Who are these 'Republican leaders"?  The article doesn't say much.  In normal times, one would think that a Republican Senate Majority leader would be one of them, but McConnell is never mentioned.  We get:

• " William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, has circulated a memo to a small number of conservative allies detailing the process by which an independent candidate could get on general-election ballots across the country."
• "David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, which has spent millions on ads attacking Mr. Trump, said his group met on Wednesday and concluded it was still possible to avert Mr. Trump’s nomination."
• "Trump opponents convened a series of war councils last week. . ."
• "To justify rejecting Mr. Trump in Cleveland, Republicans say they will have to convince both delegates and the public that it was not the party’s obligation to hand him a nomination he did not secure on his own.
• 'The burden is on Trump, not the party, if he fails to clinch the nomination,'  said David Winston, a Republican pollster who advises the House leadership. 'He has presented himself as the ultimate dealmaker, and it’s on him to close this one.'” "Mitt Romney, the party’s nominee in 2012, attempted to bridge that divide on Friday by revealing that he would support Mr. Cruz in Utah. . ."
•  "About two dozen conservative leaders met Thursday at a private club in Washington, where some pushed for the group to come out for Mr. Cruz to rebut the perception that the stop-Trump campaign was an establishment plot. 'If we leave here supporting Cruz, then we’re anti-establishment,' said one participant, who could be heard by a reporter outside."
• ". . . Erick Erickson, an influential conservative commentator, who convened the meeting."

I understand the NY Times writer interviewed people who didn't want to be named, but he's left it pretty vague.  Who are these 'conservative leaders' and who in the Republican party would acknowledge them as leaders?

Erick Erickson, by the way, according to Wikipedia, is a 40 year old blogger, newscaster who was born in Louisiana, went to school in Dubai from age 5 to 15 while his father worked for Conoco-Philips.  This is who convenes two dozen conservative leaders?  Just a few years ago, blogger was a dirty word.


This opposition to Trump makes more sense to me than the opposition to Garland.  In fact it's gratifying to know that top level conservatives are appalled by Trump's racism and inciting violence.  Because it marks progress. Racism and violence never seemed to bother them in the past.  They embraced the Southern Strategy and have fought against voting rights for people of color and supported law and order legislation that disproportionately imprisoned blacks, they're against immigration reform, they love the NRA and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.  So to oppose violent racists is progress.

I can't help thinking it's really more about Trump's unpredictability and the fear of losing the power they have in Washington.   And all the things they've been able to do all these years without any serious accountability to the public.

But I don't have access to their texts or phone calls, so I really don't know specifics.  But with stories like these about 'leading conservatives' plotting to keep Trump from getting the nomination, I'm sure they're going to win the hearts and minds of their Tea Party core.

Photoshopping Spring Icicles

The sun is rising from the east now.  That may not sound like a big deal for most, but in the winter in Anchorage, the sun barely peeks up above the southern horizon.  Now it's in the east, and by the solstice it will be rising in the north, circling around the sky, and then dipping down again in the north.  So I had a little sunlight behind these icicles.

My autofocus was trying to decide if I wanted the icicles or the trees in the background.  So I took one of the pictures with the icicles  way out of focus and played with it in photoshop.


On top is the original picture with the blurred icicle.  Some interesting shapes, but not a very pleasing picture.









In the middle is the same picture after playing with it in curves.  I like the background here, but not the icicle.











And on the bottom, is using filters on the picture above it.  I'm pretty sure I used reticulation in the sketch folder, but I can't replicate it.  I get the purples, but not the greens.

In this last group, the middle picture is the original - the icicles somewhat out of focus.  Again, a bit of curves help, and then back to filters.  The one on the right is the posterize filter.  Can't remember the one on the right.

Why Passover And Easter Are A Month Apart This Year

Well, almost a month.

It seemed to me, though I'd never actually looked it up, that Easter and Passover were generally pretty close together and it had something to do with the last supper being a seder.

 But I noticed this year that Easter is March 27 and Passover doesn't begin until April 22.

 I got an answer - but I decided to double check and the other answers were overlapping, but not quite exactly the same. So here are three sources. This one is about why they are both generally around the same time, from My Jewish Learning:

"First, their inviolable matrix is spring. In each case, the calendar is adjusted to ensure that the holiday is celebrated early in the spring. For the church, which believed that the resurrection took place on a Sunday, the First Council of Nicaea in 325 determined that Easter should always fall on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. In consequence, Easter remained without a fixed date but proximate to the full moon, which coincided with the start of Passover on the 15th of Nissan. 

By the same token, the rabbis understood the verse “You go free on this day, in the month of Aviv” (Exodus 13:4) to restrict Passover to early spring — that is in a transitional month when the winter rains end and the weather turns mild. The word “Aviv” actually means fresh ears of barley.   

Moreover, since the Torah had stipulated that the month in which the exodus from Egypt occurred should mark the start of a new year (Exodus 12:2), the end of the prior year was subject to periodic extension in order to keep the Jewish lunar calendar in sync with the solar year. Thus, if the barley in the fields or the fruit on the trees had not ripened sufficiently for bringing the omer [the first barley sheaf, which was donated to the Temple] or the first fruits to the Temple, the arrival of Passover could be delayed by declaring a leap year and doubling the final month of Adar (Tosefta Sanhedrin 2:2). In short, Easter and Passover were destined to coincide time and again. .  ."

Here's the first one I found that looked at why the two were not so close together this year.  It's from Studies In The Word, and has the dubious title of "Why the Jewish calendar will be incorrect in 2016":

In trying to follow Exodus 12:2, Exodus 13:3-4, 7-10, and Numbers 9:2-3, Judaism [I didn't know that Judaism could speak] says that Passover, which they celebrate on Nisan 15 rather than on Nisan 14, must not fall before the northern hemisphere spring equinox (Tekufot Nisan). The spring equinox currently occurs each year on March 20th or 21st and is that time when day and night are of approximately equal length. The spring equinox establishes the first day of spring. It is a solar, not a lunar, phenomenon. 

But current Jewish calendar procedures periodically conflict with the use of the equinox to establish the first month of the religious year: 

In 2016, Nisan 14 (Passover) can fall on March 22, the first opportunity for the 14th day of a Biblical month to occur after the equinox. But the Jewish calendar sets Nisan 14 at April 22nd. Why? Because the Jewish year 5776 (the spring months of 2016 fall within the Jewish year 5776) happens to be the 19th year of the 19-year calendar cycle and is then, by Judaic definition, a leap year (the 13th month must be added). This forces the first month to begin one month later than it normally would. Unfortunately, their calendar leap year tradition is so rigid that they fail to follow what we agree is the correct interpretation of the scriptures listed above, that God gave them, which strongly imply that the Passover must be kept at the first opportunity on or after the spring equinox. 

What allows them to ignore their own calendar rules? One reason they feel free to adjust the calendar to their liking is because Leviticus 23:2 and 4 are interpreted by Jewish Oral Law as saying that the people are allowed to keep the Holy Days on whatever day is most convenient.

Another site I looked at explained why Easter and Passover were several weeks apart in 2014 - which shouldn't be related to a 19 year cycle if 2016 is on that cycle.  Part of this explanation comes from an astronomer:

"The Last Supper was indeed the Passover; thus Holy Thursday, in the year that Christ was crucified, fell on Passover. That made Easter, the day that Christ rose from the dead, the Sunday after Passover. 

Because Christians in different areas were celebrating Easter on different days, the Council of Nicaea, in A.D. 325, established a formula for calculating the date of Easter. That formula was designed to place Easter at the same point in the astronomical cycle every year; if followed, it would always place Easter on a Sunday after Passover. And indeed, that formula is still followed today. 

Why, then, will Jews celebrate Passover beginning on April 19, 2008, while Western Christians will celebrate Easter on March 23? 

The answer, as William H. Jefferys, the Harlan J. Smith Centennial Professor of Astronomy (Emeritus) at the University of Texas at Austin, explains, is that, since the standardization of the Hebrew calendar in the fourth century A.D., "actual observations of celestial events no longer played a part in the determination of the date of Passover." Thus, "the rule for Passover, which was originally intended to track the vernal equinox, has gotten a few days off." 

The same thing has happened with the Eastern Orthodox calculation of the date of Easter. Because the Eastern Orthodox still use the astronomically incorrect Julian calendar, rather than the Gregorian calendar that was adopted in the West in 1582, the Orthodox will celebrate Easter this year on April 27. 

With the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the West brought the calculation of Easter back into sync with the astronomical calendar. In other words, the Western date of Easter is the most closely aligned to the astronomical cycles on which the date of Passover is supposed to be based."

This last one  "the rule for Passover . . . has gotten a few days off" but that doesn't explain why it was three weeks off in 2008 and is again that far off in 2016, which the second reference says is due to the Jewish calendar leap year.

I've quoted a little more than I normally would because there are lots of nuggets and I don't think I could summarize as neatly as the writers did.

Real Snow

Compared the the anemic snow we had earlier this week, today it's been snowing steadily all day.  I swept - yes the broom was easier with the two or three inches of light fluffy snow - the driveway and sidewalk this morning.


Here's a glimpse of the snow in the backyard.




And then this afternoon I shoveled another five or six inches that accumulated since the morning.

The equinox officially begins here this evening.