IRS Issues Seem To Be Resolved

I've written before about my saga with the IRS and the payroll tax snafu for my mom's caregiver.  This is related to my mom's 2014 taxes.  Long story, short, three quarters taxes were put into a business account.  The fourth quarter was paid with my mom's personal taxes.  (Details are in the link above, but I was working with my mom's tax accountant AND a payroll company that was supposed to do all the reporting and paying of taxes.)

So, in early 2015 I started getting letters from the IRS.  From the business side, they said, "We have $12,000, but no return was filed."  From the personal side, "You owe us $12,000."

I would call and explain and they were very nice and understanding, but each month I'd get more letters, with interest and penalties added.  No one I called - and often I had to wait one or two hours to even talk to someone - was able to fix it.

Eventually, someone told me to amend the personal taxes and get the payroll taxes out of there.  That happened around last September.

At one point I went to my local IRS office because the permission I had to talk on behalf of my mother ended when she passed away and I had to get permission all over again.  The local IRS person was actually able to see both sides - personal and business - on the computer and make some changes.  But not enough.  The letters and penalties kept coming.  I kept calling.

One agent said to call the Taxpayer Advocate office.  But they had changed the rules a couple weeks earlier and no longer helped out in "long term unresolved problems."  Only hardships.  Mine wasn't a hardship.  I wasn't going to lose my house over this.

At this point I called Senator Murkowski's office in total frustration.  They took my information.  A couple of weeks later I got a call from the Alaska taxpayer advocate.  It seems that in addition to the office I'd called, there's an advocate in every state as well.

She's been working on this for about six months now.  She's managed to
1.  get the money out of the personal side and into the business side
2.  get the personal side to remove all penalties and additional interest, and finally
3.  get the business side to remove all penalties and additional interest

I would note that after she called me to say the personal side is set and she thought the business side would be resolved shortly, I got a letter saying the IRS was going to seize my assets to cover the $1300 in penalties and interest that had accumulated on the business side.

But the advocate, when I called, said not to worry, the business side had removed all the penalties as well.

Not only were the penalties removed, the personal side sent me a $30 check refund, and the business side finally sent me a letter saying all the penalties have been removed and they are sending $130 refund.  That I haven't seen yet.

I still think it is crazy that no one was ever able to just go into the computer and move the money from one account to the other until the advocate got involved.  This was a completely simple and easy to understand issue.  All the money had been sent to the IRS in a timely way.  They just had to move some of it from one account to another.

I understand that the anti-government and anti-tax bias Congress results in underfunding for the IRS which is the cause for the long delays and for the lack of well trained agents.  But someone should have fixed this in early 2015 instead of mid 2016 and they would have saved all kinds of time for me and for the IRS in dealing with my simple problem.

The  underfunding for the IRS means agents spend all their time with people like me who have tried to do the right thing get dinged from computer generated laters that don't understand the context, and they don't have time to go after people who are actively engaged in fraud.

For some in Congress, that is probably the intent.  For others, the intent is to erode government so more people get pissed off at government inefficiency and vote to shut down government.  Others are just following the cult of no government.  And probably some are mixing all three motives.

But I'd like to thank Sen. Murkowski's office for hooking me up with the Alaska tax advocate and the advocate - Cindy - for putting this to rest.  The only thing left is that final refund check.

For anyone who has a nanny or a caregiver that they are employing close to full time, I'd highly recommend the payroll company we used for 2015 - Homepay.  They specialize in doing the taxes for home based employees and my mom's CPA had nothing but praise for the reports they sent him and the payments they made to the state and the IRS.  It also was much easier for me to use to pay my mom's caregiver - I could put in the hours online and figure it out and I found a way through Chase to transfer the money directly into the caregiver's bank account.  I think it was called quickpay.

Gotta run and get someone from the airport.

[UPDATE July 20, 2017:  New post is up now with a new 'discrepancy is resolved' letter that I got today.]

Gulls Swarm Red Tailed Hawk Demo At Loussac

I was at Loussac Library yesterday - below is an update photo of the renovation you can compare to he earlier ones here - and they had a women giving a talk with a red tailed hawk on her arm.  There were a number of interesting factoids - they keep the eggs at 100˚F and their body temp is even higher - and people were asking questions - "Do you ever worry about that beak being so close to your face?" (A:  "I her food source and she trusts me to protect her.")


At one point the speaker pointed out that the hawk was checking out the few gulls flying by.  And then people began noticing there were a lot more gulls.  And then a couple dove at the hawk - breaking their dive still pretty well above it.

At this point, I figured the still picture didn't cut it and I switched to video.  It starts out with a very brief shot of the woman holding the hawk, then goes up to the sky where we see and hear the gulls swarming about and making lots of noise - presumably a danger call, that a predator is in the area.

Then we go back to the platform as the speaker decides it's a good idea to put the red tailed hawk back into her carrying case, and then back up to the gulls (which is the thumbnail that's on the video.)



The representative of the library explained that normally these sorts of demonstrations take place indoors, but due to the renovations, the Marsden Auditorium wasn't available.  Actually, this made for a much more natural and interesting lesson in bird behavior.

Here's an overview of a Stanford study on gull-predator behavior:

"When a weasel, fox, or other predator enters a breeding colony of gulls, numerous birds gather in the air above the intruder, making it very conspicuous. Gulls come from a considerable distance and circle or hover over the predator for quite a while, sometimes even landing in its vicinity before returning to their territories. With the exception of those whose nests are immediately threatened, the gulls show little inclination to attack. Instead they appear nervous and ready to flee. 

Experiments using models of predators show that breeding Herring and Lesser Black-backed Gulls are more attracted to models that have a dead gull placed close to them than they are to the models alone. Furthermore, once gulls have seen a predator model with a dead gull, they are more attracted to it if experimenters place it within the colony again on the same day, even without the dead gull. Indeed, there is some evidence that the heightened reaction to the predator lasts at least a day after it is seen with the dead bird. This heightened reaction is specific to the predator model seen with the corpse -- there is no increased reaction to a model of a different predator subsequently presented in the same place. After seeing a predator model with a dead gull, the live gulls alight farther from the model on subsequent encounters. They remain attracted, but are more cautious. 

These results indicate that the attraction of the gulls to their enemies is a method of learning about them. Apparently they can generalize -- they draw conclusions about the predator after another gull has had a lethal encounter with it. This is a beneficial reaction, since mammalian predators such as weasels and foxes may engage in "surplus killing -- dispatching more victims than they can consume. Also these hunters can specialize for a period of time on one group of prey. An animal that has killed one gull may be more likely to kill others; individual foxes have been observed habitually killing gulls in breeding colonies. It requires little imagination, then, to see the potential adaptive advantage for gulls of investigating predators."

And here's a view of the front of the library as of June 1, 2016.  You can see some March 23 and May 11 pictures here.

"It's kind of fun to do the impossible" [Redone]

[I managed to do something I've never done before.  Usually, that's a good thing, meaning I've stretched myself in a positive way.  But this time it isn't.  Because of Feedburner troubles, I was going to repost "It's fun to do the impossible."   So I opened the post into edit mode and copied the post.  But before I pasted it into a new post, I realized that it had a comment.  I decided to just leave it and finish a new post I was doing.  I got distracted by phone calls and then started the new post on gulls swarming over a red tailed hawk talk.  When I posted the gulls, I realized immediately that I'd posted it in the open "impossible" post, which was now gone, except for the comment.  So, this is an attempted recreation of the 'impossible" post.]

There's a product that many Alaskans use, but we are all forced to get it from an Outside corporation, when it could be very easily handled by local businesses.  So I met with a CEO of a local organization that could potentially handle this business to get his take on my idea.  He was totally on the same page, and they'd even talked about a variation on my idea.  He agreed with all my logic, but said that the Outside competitor was almost impossible to overcome.  

But then he got up to get something out of a file cabinet, and I saw a sign in the window sill, that I couldn't see when he was sitting in front of me.

When he sat down again, I pointed to the sign and said that I'd come to the right person.  He turned around to see what I was talking about.  Then laughed and said, "Yes."  So he's going to talk to people in his organization and related organizations to see how much support there might be.

I'm being vague at the moment about the idea itself until we have more momentum going.  Stay tuned.

I'm actually doing this where the old post was (I had hit the 'revert to draft' key) so I think the comment is still there.  But just in case I'm wrong (again) I'm adding it here to be safe.


And here's the comment that post had.

Jacob Dugan-Brause
Well, you know what one can say about Disney (referencing header quote): Success comes down to Mickey Mouse. Do have fun, whatever you're up to! on "It's Kind of fun to do the impossible"

Does The Supreme Court Really Matter That Much?

One thought game I like to play as often as possible is to take something I believe so strongly, that I don't even consider that I might be wrong, and question its validity.

[Synopsis:  Is the Supreme Court the Holy Grail of US presidential elections, important enough for party members to ignore their candidates' flaws so at least they can appoint the next Supreme Court justice or two?  Or is its importance over rated?  This post gives some evidence that both parties treat the court that way.  The crux to me seems to be the extent to which the court's decisions can thwart voters - like in Bush v Gore or in gutting the Voting Rights Act.

But the Supreme Court is the issue, only because we are unable to solve our differences at a lower level.  The worst issues get kicked up to the Supreme Court.  A  bigger long term issue is the need for grass roots movements to get Americans of different ideologies to talk to each other and to break the media's narrative of the unbridgeable divide.  I believe that most people's basic values are much more aligned than the media portray.  With more Americans speaking with a more united voice, Congress will be less polarized, and the court's decisions will be more focused on legal, rather than political, disputes.   The details are below.]

In discussions about the election - whether it's whether Republicans should support Trump or Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton - all roads seem to lead to the balance of the Supreme Court.  As much as you may dislike your party's candidate, you don't want the other party appointing the next Supreme Court justices.

Some examples I found online:

From left-leaning The Nation:

"The Supreme Court Is the Most Important Issue in the 2016 Election If Republicans obstruct Obama, the next Democratic president can shape the most progressive court since the 1960s."

The opening sentence of that article lists the reasons:

"Healthcare, gay marriage, voting rights, affirmative action, reproductive rights, labor rights, immigration, climate change."

And from another voice on the left a piece at TPM:

"The Implications for the Nation of a changing Supreme Court. There is so much at stake concerning the Supreme Court for the next few years. As I wrote in Plutocrats United, the easiest way to amend the Constitution to deal with campaign finance disasters like the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United is not to formally amend the Constitution, but instead to change the composition of the Supreme Court. Regardless of what happens with Justice Scalia’s replacement, there will be likely at least three other Justices to be appointed over the next 4-8 years of the next President’s term. The stakes on all the issues people care about—from abortion to guns, from campaign finance and voting rights to affirmative action and the environment, depend upon 9 unelected Justices who serve for life."

From the conservative Weekly Standard, there's a recent article about Zubik v Burwell (on whether non-profits should have to notify the government they do not want to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans) with the title:

"The Stakes Are High: A timely reminder of the importance of the Supreme Court." 

Richard Wolf, writing in USA Today, back in October 2015 wrote that the Supreme Court is a bigger deal to Republicans than Democrats.

Note:  I do have to acknowledge that when looking for these quotes, I did find a lot of articles on whether Republicans should vote for Trump or Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton that did NOT mention the Supreme Court.

So, is the Supreme Court enough reason to vote for someone you're seriously unhappy with?  

The recent conservative leaning Supreme Court (before Scalia's death) declared money a form of speech in Citizens United, and allowed same sex marriage, upheld the Affordable Care Act, and struck down a number of voting rights provisions.

As big a deal as many liberals make of Citizens United, I would point out that social media have offered a counterweight to money.  And we have seen all the big money going to fight Trump's nomination, it would appear today, unsuccessfully.  And Sanders has managed to refuse PAC money yet to stay in the race and win many primaries and caucuses through the power of the internet and a strong ground game.

Even with a five-four conservative majority, Obama Care and same sex marriage are now the law of the land.

Though the gutting of sections of the Voting Rights Act does pose a serious threat of continued gerrymandering by the many Republican controlled states and allows for obstacles to be erected that prevent - generally - the poor and non-white voters from getting to the polls.  That does fundamentally weaken the chance for the majority's vote to be counted.  For democracy to work. (OK, I understand that a lot of people would laugh at the idea that democracy works at all.  There's only so much I can squeeze into this blog post.  But I've touched on this issue under the label ten steps to dismantling democracy, which I created after a post of that name about Naomi Wolf's book The End of America.)

But there are Republicans telling other Republicans to vote for Clinton.  He's not even mentioning the Supreme Court.

But Democrats tend to be telling Sanders voters to vote for Clinton.  The articles I saw saying Sanders voters should go with Trump tended to be from conservative outlets.  For example, The Federalist.

Here's Ben Shapiro's take at The Daily Wire on why voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court isn't a good reason.  (It's the fourth of five reasons to vote for Trump that Shapiro says are false.) Also  he dismisses the importance of the Supreme Court at the end.  I'd note that I don't understand how he thinks a Trump victory will lead to a Democratic US Senate.):

"4. But The Supreme Court! Trump, the logic goes, will select a more conservative Supreme Court Justice than Hillary Clinton. There is no evidence to support this contention. Again, Republicans are highly likely to lose the Senate to Democrats. Does anyone truly think Trump has the stomach to fight for a constitutional conservative on the Court when he thinks that Supreme Court justices prosecute crimes and sign bills? Ronald Reagan missed two out of three Supreme Court picks. George H.W. Bush went one for two. George W. went one for two. Ford went zero for one, and Nixon went one for four. Does anyone think that Donald Trump will do better than any of these people? Trump has never backed a constitutional balance of powers; he doesn’t know what that phrase means. If you’re hanging your hopes for a conservative Court on Donald Trump, you’re being conned.
Beyond that, the Supreme Court is not the best hope for the Constitution. That hope lies at the state level, and in resistance to unconstitutional legislation and decisions." [from The Daily Wire.]

The Republicans have, for decades now, focused on grooming conservative attorneys to go into the federal court system and on gaining control of state governorships and legislatures. The Federalist Society has played a big role here.  This movement is a mix, I'm sure, of those who truly believe in various conservative ideologies, those who are opportunists looking for jobs and power on a relatively low level, and those who are looking for power and wealth on a relatively high level.  They've made anti-regulatory arguments into personal freedom issues and used those to challenge science that was harmful to their personal interests - science that said smoking caused cancer, science that says global warming is caused by humans.  They've carefully played the emotions of the religious and the less educated on issues like abortion and gay rights.  And they've fought the whole idea of government, except to serve their own interests.  At least that's what it looks like from where I sit.

The Democrats seem to have been focused on specific issues, but not on long term structural strategies like the Republicans.

The media have also played a negative role.  As the newspaper business has become corporatized, and profit becomes the most important motive, news becomes entertainment.  Conflicts generate more readers than calm, so the media now focus more on conflict, and our view of the world is distorted by the exception (the conflict), not the norm (the people who live peaceful lives.)  (That's not to say that profit and conflict  haven't always played a role in the news.)  This election is basically a reality television show - a political "Survivor" - that focuses on personal characteristics, gossip, and strategies to knock competitors off the show, not on the important issues.  No wonder Trump is the Republican nominee.  He's a veteran of reality tv.

The way I see it, taking back our country is something that people have to do.  It's not something Trump will do for us.  Taking back our country is not about going back to when white males did ok because women and non-whites were blocked from the best careers, the best universities, from voting, from controlling their own lives.  It's about going back to when there was a thriving working class, and college grads didn't have huge debts along with their diplomas,  when people with different world views at least knew each other and talked to each other civilly.

The bright side of the internet can help us take our country back.  But it's something that has to be done, ultimately, face to face, community by community.  Immigrants have to share family stories with working class white families.  Black and Latino high school students have to do the same with those who would cut public school funds and together they should work out  better ways to educate our young.  Wealthy owners of corporations need to eat meals at the homes of their lowest paid employees and learn to see the world through their eyes.  And the advocates of regulation need to spend some time in businesses that are tied up by rules.  We have lots of problems, but they are all resolvable if we see each other as well intended human beings and not as 'the enemy.'

Basically we need to talk to each other about the basic issues.  Our childhoods and our relationships with our parents and siblings and partners and kids.  How we earn. save, and spend money.  What our fears are, what our joys are.  What our dreams are.  Why we smoke, drink, take drugs.  Why we don't.  When we do this, we'll find out how much we really have in common.  We'll be able to learn better strategies for getting past our obstacles from those who have already done that.   Good art and literature can help here.  When we start talking to each other as people, as members of our community, rather than as the enemy, everything else will work itself out.

So yes, the Supreme Court is important.  But it's only important because we're so polarized that we can't make important decisions.  Those intractable issues get bumped up to the court.  We need to resolve things at a much lower level and let the Supreme Court worry about legal, not political, issues.

Parent Bias Blocks Message, Prevents Better Response

[UPDATE May 28, 2016:  Chris Thompson has a longer article on the subject today, with a lot more detail about the problems with short term missions abroad and to Alaska.]

All decent parents naturally jump in to protect their children.  But how they see their role as protector varies in different situations.  Some let kids experiment and take risks.  Some don't.  Some block them from what they see as harmful information.  What and when should kids know more about the tooth fairy or sex is tricky.  

But sometimes kids need to face evidence that makes them uncomfortable.  I'd like to offer this parent different option than the denial that her letter to the editor suggests.  And, who knows, after getting her initial anger off her chest in the letter below, perhaps she calmed down and came up with my suggestion on her own.

Here's the letter to the editor in Wednesday's paper that got my attention:

Don’t criticize selflessness
I am the mother of a 16-year-old teenager who is going on the St. John United Methodist Church mission trip to South Africa at the end of May. This trip was mentioned in Chris Thompson’s article “Why Short-Term Mission Trips May Do More Harm Than Good.” Thirty young adults and 10 adults are giving up two weeks of their summer to help complete living quarters for the people of Ocean View, South Africa. They are also helping to improve soccer fields and related structures for a local soccer organization. Money has been raised specially for the purpose of this trip and many of the teenagers have worked very hard for the last two years to earn their own money to pay for their travel expenses. For someone to write that these teens and adults may be doing more harm than good is heartbreaking to me. We constantly fault the younger generation for being self-absorbed. Here is a group who will make a huge difference in the lives of the community of Ocean View, and they are being criticized for it. Chris Thompson owes these selfless people an apology. — 

Carla Wight
Anchorage

Who is this evil Chris Thompson who dares to raise questions about the moral value of a mission trip to do good in Africa?  According to the ADN,

"Chris Thompson is a religion scholar who visits local churches and writes about his experiences and matters of faith on his blog, churchvisits.com."

The original article was written byThompson, the man who writes the weekly column in the ADN on religious issues in Anchorage and beyond.  The article talks about why sometimes such trips can do harm and also gives examples of mission trips that do work for both the helpers and the receivers.

Here's the part that Ms. Wight seems to specifically object to:

"A large local church group will shortly depart for South Africa, an expensive trip. What's really going on here? In a paper published in the journal Trends and Issues in Missions, Liberty University professor Don Fanning makes a powerful case that short-term missions can create dependencies and problems among the very people short-term missionaries are supposed to be helping. South Africa, like Alaska, is about 80 percent Christian.
Church attendance, a key measure of religiosity, shows South Africa's weekly church attendance at 56-60 percent per week, while recent Gallup data shows Alaska weekly attendance ranks it in the bottom 10 states, with 26 percent attending weekly. The mission field is here in Alaska, as I've argued before, not other areas of the world. Many local churches are missing the boat: local member involvement is critical."

I understand part of Ms. Wight's reaction.  The timing of the article is difficult.  It's the end of May.  The group is about to leave or may have already left.  The people have most assuredly already got their tickets and there is no way that they can gracefully or economically pull out of the trip and look for one that is more in keeping with the best of Christian theology.   Furthermore, it's a bit of a downer to have someone raise questions about your do-good trip to Africa just as you are about to leave.

But I find Ms. Wight's reaction more problematic.

"For someone to write that these teens and adults may be doing more harm than good is heartbreaking to me."

Ms. Wight has blocked out the possibility that Thompson is right.  She's heartbroken, not because some short-term missions may do harm, but because of how it will make the teens - including her daughter [son] -  feel.  Sort of like being concerned about the doctor's feelings when he's about to perform surgery and someone brings him an article that questions that sort of surgery.  Sorry, it's too late, everything is set up and the patient's insurance has already been approved.   Seems to me we should be focused on the patient, not the doctor.  And the top priority of missions should be to improve the lives of the recipients.  Not to make the do-gooders feel good about themselves.  Ideally, they should be humbled that they are blessed to be in a situation where they can help others.

Thompson's taking off point is an article from Trends In Missions from Liberty University. This isn't a study by people who dislike religion.  Liberty University  bills itself as the world's largest Christian University.   Fairbanks senator Pete Kelly got his undergraduate degree there.

Here's the concern.  The author, Dr. Don Fanning writes:

"My father once told me that the surest way to create your worst enemy out of your best friend is to loan him money. When he is suppose [sic] to return the funds, he will likely not be available to do so and the mere reminder to him will begin a deteriorating relationship that inevitably will end in animosity.
In this chapter we will deal with the following topics:

• The dangers of dependency
• Short-term trips and dependency
• How to avoid dependency
• Four Perspectives for Using Money in Missions"

This could actually be a much greater learning experience for Ms. Wight's daughter [son] than anyone anticipated.

Instead of saying, "Don't listen to that man who is questioning what you're doing", a more useful response would be to give her daughter [son] and the whole group the Chris Thompson article and the Liberty University article and have them discuss the two articles among themselves and with the people they will be working with in South Africa.

There is even a seven principle checklist at the end of the Fanning article which they can use to evaluate their project and, if after the trip, they think the article is good, they can make sure St. John's uses the principles to choose future projects:

 Goals and methods of helping are not defined unilaterally. Do not develop a plan then invite non-Westerners to join in at a later stage. 

Do not base the relationship on a one-way flow of resources. "Complementarity, not assistance, lies at the heart of effective partnerships....A partnership moves beyond assistance to complementarity when each partner makes different but crucial contributions to a common goal.”

Do not allow money to become the most highly valued resource. We tend to put a premium on our own resources rather than on the resources of our non-Western counterparts. In most cases, non-Western partners may rely on Western partners for financial and technological resources, but Western partners are dependent on the human resources, linguistic skills, cultural insight, and relevant lifestyle of their non- Western partners. ... If money becomes the driving force, the golden rule takes hold -- the one with the gold rules.

Do not fund the entire cost of the project without clear justification. "In the face of enormous economic inequities, there is inherent pressure on Western partners to be the "sugar daddy" for more "needy" partners.

Do not interfere in the administration of the partner's organization. It’s okay to give advice when asked or to admonish a partner when a serious misconduct occurs.

Do not do for others what they can better do for themselves. People, like organizations, become strong and effective only when they make decisions, initiate action and solve problems. This may lower the level of accomplishment short-term, but will ensure a long-term progress.

Do not rely on a "one-size-fits-all" policy, especially with policies. For example, one agency gives only 10% of the total need in any project. This may work well in some circumstances and be detrimental in another.

The key principle today is the interdependency or mutual dependency in the task of world evangelism (Rickett, 2003).

Will the article make Ms. Wight's daughter [son] uncomfortable?  Probably.  But most real learning - where your view of the world shifts a bit - involves discomfort as your old views are challenged and you have to revise what you know.

Helping others is always fraught with moral dilemmas, some of which are pointed out in the Fanning article.  It's hard for the helpers not to feel some superiority over the people they are helping.  And to feel pleased with themselves for doing good.  And the recipients are supposed to be grateful to you.  Actually, as the seven principles suggest, this should be a partnership in which both sides contribute what they can.  There should be givers and receivers.   Imagine 40 people showing up in this town in South Africa to build housing and soccer fields.  Unemployment is high there.  Why import Americans?  What are they contributing that the locals couldn't do themselves?

And imagine the airfare.  I looked up tickets for the end of May and got $1,900 to South Africa.  So I looked for July thinking it would be cheaper if I booked in advance.  I got $2400.  Let's say the church got a good group rate, say $1500.  Times forty people.  That's $60,000.

I also looked up the average salary in South Africa.  In February 2014 it was R11,641 which my computer says is $743, or $8916 per year.  The group's airfare would pay an annual salary for six people.

Wouldn't it make more sense to hire local workers in South Africa to do the work they plan than to have 40 Americans show up for two weeks?   Maybe not.  Maybe the learning of the Americans and the fellowship they all get interacting with each other would be worth it.  But if you asked the people in South Africa whether they think importing free American labor for two weeks at the cost of $60,000 was a good deal, I bet they might think of a different way to use the money.

And that's part of what the seven principles are about.  Involving both sides to plan the project.  But they're also about not just giving money one way, which can lead to dependence, so just sending $60,000 isn't the answer either.  But I'd say raising the money just for the Africans, without getting a trip to Africa out of it, would be a lot more selfless.  I'm not suggesting that any of these options is better.  I'm just saying all these kinds of calculations should be thought through and the African recipients should be in on the discussions, as the principles suggest.

[UPDATE June 26, 2016:  There's been more on this issue.  Chris Thompson wrote a followup column on June 10.  And Nick Wight wrote a letter to the editor.  I'm assuming that Nick is the son of the original letter writer.  So I've changed 'daughter' in this post to 'son.'  I don't think the gender was mentioned, so I originally decided not to arbitrarily make it a male.  And I'm guessing that Nick is a male here.]

 [For those of you who have read this, I apologize for the repost. Feedburner isn't doing it's job, but the update link to Thompson's new post not the subject fills in a lot of the issues with short-term missions that he didn't talk about in the previous article.]

Phlox and Flax and Sweeney Todd

Great day today and the flowers are summer show.  I very accidentally planted things out front that start early and end late with different things blooming throughout the summer.  One of the early ones is the phlox.  These dime sized flowers put on a great show.

And if you look in the upper right corner, you can see several tiny blue flowers.  Those are flax.  They've been coming back and, I think, reseeding themselves every summer since about 2011.  They start early and stay most of the summer.  Opening up in the day and closing at night.  Also, tiny flowers.

There were flowers mentioned at last night's performance of Sweeney Todd.  Mrs. Lovett sings (from  MetroLyrics):

I've been thinking flowers, maybe daisies
To brighten up the room
Don't you think some flowers, pretty daisies
Might relieve the gloom?
Ah, wait, love, wait

Sweeney Todd has to be one of the most perfect Broadway musicals, more a blend of musical and opera by Stephen Sondheim.  The plot, the music, the lyrics, everything weaves together.  Here's a post I did before seeing the movie with Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd in 2007.

Back in those early blogging days, I was still testing to see if my camera could take video at the movies.  It was before Youtube was anything and even getting previews online was hard.  Besides I thought that if book reviewers could pick what they wanted to quote in their reviews, movie reviewers should be able to do the same and not be restrained by what the studio wants you to use. (I still think that.)  But there's lots more video available these days so I don't do that any more.  But there is some video in this post after we saw the movie and it will give you a sense of the story and the great music.

Another aspect of this musical is that while Sweeney is the main focus, a number of different characters get the lead on different songs.   There was a younger crowd than I normally see in the Discovery Theater and a lot more tattoos.

And since I don't take pictures without prior permission at live performances, I only have this picture of the first few orchestra members warming up in the pit well before the show began.

Sweeney is a treat and it's playing tonight and through the weekend.  I'd highly recommend it.  There were some great performances.  I particularly liked Enrique Bravo as Sweeney, Victoria Bundonis as Mrs. Lovett, and Zebadiah Bodine as Tobias Ragg.  But everyone was good.

This is a Perseverance Theater (Juneau) production and ticket information is here.  There are significant discounts for military, seniors, and students.

[Reposting once again because of Feedburner problems]

Costco Packaging Problems

Costco, among others, is known for its hard plastic packaging that is incredibly tricky to open.  But that packaging is also wasteful.

I needed some AAA batteries and I was at Costco.  So I bought a package of 32.  More than I need, but so much cheaper per battery than elsewhere, that I bought them.

Once I got them home, I needed a way to store them since their packaging was useless once it was opened.  That's when I realized how little space the batteries needed to contain them.

The Costco package was 6.5" by 11" - and one inch high.

I got all the batteries into a little box - 2X3X2.

I can put the cardboard part into the recycling, but the plastic, here in Anchorage, has to go to the landfill.

I realize that the small packages are harder to see on the shelf, but they can up them up with big signs.
I realize that the big packages are harder to shoplift, and I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but I know there's a way that we just haven't thought of yet.

Brandon Lentz

I was sitting in Terminal 9 at SEATAC last week eating my yakisoba across from a striking young individual who was working on posters with another woman.

Blogging gives me the excuse to say hello and ask what the posters were about.  (I shouldn't need an excuse, but I'm basically pretty shy.)

So meet Brandon Lentz.


Brandon's putting on a show June 3 at GRC  (Green River College.)




Here's some of Brandon's music from Sound Cloud.  I like it.

Packing Pictures Past Alaska Airlines And TSA

The renting guy in LA said to get rid of the valuables and particularly pointed out two pictures he didn't think we should leave in my mom's house.  Two were pretty big - more than I could carry on to the plane.  The biggest one had glass as did the smallest.  He said they all use plexiglass now.

two pics at Box Bros

I finally checked out shipping places to see about getting packing material.  That got me to Box Bros on Wilshire and Barrington.  Yes, they could wrap them for the plane.  I gave them Alaska Airlines size limits for oversized baggage.






I mention the company name because I think I got exceptional service.  It was clear that Dave saw these pictures as a challenge - how to adequately wrap them, particularly the big one, while staying within the size constraints.  He said he'd done a lot with art work.  I didn't give them a lot of time, because by the time I thought about just taking them home, there were just a couple of days left.  We even needed a friend to take them and pick them up because the big picture wouldn't fit in my mom's car.  And we would need a van cab to get them to the airport.

Dave [Dan, who has more hair] doing some calculations

We needed to be at the airport for a 10:30am flight.  I figured we needed extra time in case it was hard to get a van taxi, because it was morning traffic time, and if there were any problems with the boxes.  And then I realized that TSA wouldn't take kindly to these big sealed boxes.

I was ready to just leave them in the garage in their new boxes.  That's when I decided to write a letter to TSA explaining what was in the packages, why I was taking them to Alaska, why I was a very low risk profile (we're meeting our granddaughter during our layover in Seattle, so we really want to get there), etc.  Wouldn't X-ray or sniffer dogs do?   I taped a copy on each box in an enveloped marked. "TSA".

the boxes with suitcase for scale

The cab was late.  I called.  They were having trouble getting a van.  (I had called the night before.)  But we still had a lot of time.  I called again.  I'd just leave the boxes in the garage and get a regular cab, but they said a van was on the way.  We got to the airport ok.  The baggage guy at Alaska didn't charge for one of the boxes - "It doesn't look that big."  (It's $75 for each oversize piece. Alaska Club members (anyone living in Alaska) can have two free bags going to and from Alaska.

We lugged them over to the oversized receiving area, got through security - really not that many people, especially given the hype about big lines this summer - and to the gate with an hour to spare.  Then I hear our names over the loudspeaker.  The Alaska Airlines agent said they wanted me at TSA to open the boxes.

So I had to go back out of security to the oversized baggage area.  They called TSA down.  I pointed out the letters on the boxes.  He said, yes, that's why we called you to let you open them.  They're too big for the X-ray.  So with the boxcutters they had, I cut the tape along the seams of the cardboard outer box and showed them the foam and bubble wrap.  Both boxes.  I could see his brain working - he understood why I didn't want to unwrap them, but he did need to check.  He called a supervisor and they decided to use the chemical test strips.  I spread things enough for him to slide his hand in

with the tape between the bubble wrap and the foam in each box.  I asked if I could tape it while we waited.  He said that technically I wasn't allowed to touch it once it went through security and he'd retape it.  What time does your plane leave?  10:30.  Hmm.  40 minutes.  The OK came and he told me to go back to the gate.  They were loading the plane.  We got on and I sat in my window seat.  A little later a baggage cart came out with the two boxes and they were loaded onto the plane.

They made it through SEATAC during our layover.  And they were waiting at the oversized baggage spot in Anchorage.  There was one van in the taxi line and we got them home.  That was Thursday night.  I moved them from the garage to a  downstairs room on Friday, but didn't open them.  As long as I didn't, they weren't broken.  Schrodinger's pictures.

Saturday I opened them.  







Here are the two smaller ones packed together.  They were both fine.



Then to the big one.  It took a while to get it out of the box and then start unwrapping all the heavy duty clear wrap paper holding everything together.  Then getting the bubble wrap off.  It looked good so far.  Then the masking tape like paper Dave had put on the glass.  So far so good.

And when it was all off, the glass was fine.  It all made it in as good a shape as they started the trip in.

And they look good here.  The last picture, not shown, is of palm trees on the beach at Key West.  My dad was stationed there during WW II (some people get rough assignments) and my mom was there as well.  And a friend of hers did the water color of a beach they went to.  And since I was born there at the very end of the war, it has special meaning for me too.  It's been above my mom's bed all these years.

I called Dave to let him know his wrapping had kept the pictures safe and he sounded truly pleased to know.






And then there was all the debris to clean up.

The bubble wrap we'll use again - there is still a lot of breakable stuff at my mom's.  The cardboard we'll find a use for, and if not, it's at least recyclable.


In Amsterdam and in Israel security folks interviewed individual passengers and determine by what they say and how they act, whether to let people go.  In the US it usually seems much more mechanical and statistically done.  (J was randomly selected for a second check this time.)  So, it was nice to see agents who used discretion and evaluated our risk factor and found a way to check the boxes without tearing everything apart.

But I also recognize that several types of privilege were in my favor.  Because we've traveled so much while my mom was ailing, we're Alaska MVP, and we get TSA pre check 80% of the time.  So this is a frequent route and we've been ok in the past.  (Did they check that out?  I'm guessing they did, but who knows?)  I'm an older white male.  I'm well educated and know how to write out my case.  Would this work for my colleague who's Indian-American?  I'm guessing it would have been a harder decision for the TSA agents.

All Genders Restroom

Here's the door to one of the restrooms at the Seattle Aquarium.







We'd been able to book our flight home from LA with a six hour layover in Seattle and we were meeting our daughter and granddaughter at the aquarium.

  We looped around over downtown Seattle and could see the aquarium, but they wouldn't let us out until they landed a few minutes south at the airport.

Since my granddaughter started walking, it's been a minor dilemma when she and I were out together and one of us had to pee.  I obviously couldn't take her into the women's room, but should I take her into the men's room?

If I had to go, there was no choice.  I wasn't going to leave her outside the restroom where I couldn't see her.  She came into the men's room.  And as she got older and knew when she had to go, I still have had to take her into the men's room.

No one got excited.  No one ever made a fuss about her presence in the men's room.  I wasn't totally comfortable.  While I believe in openness and that we should be able to talk about anything that a kid raises, I also feel it important to let her mother be the guide on this.  And we haven't talked about this.  And what if my granddaughter doesn't raise questions, out loud?  But sometimes you have to make a decision on the spot.

I also understand that it's different when an adult male goes into a women's restroom, especially when a woman is alone in the restroom, especially if she's ever been sexually abused.  But that could happen any time, any where.  With or without laws about transgender access to restrooms.

As I see this issue there are several key points.  But the absolutely most important is simply understanding the fluidity of gender.  And for the current situation - what a transgender identity is about.  I'm certainly no expert on this, but I seem to know a lot more than the folks freaking out over transgender rights and bathrooms.

Understanding transgender.    From the moment of birth, we are segregated into boy or girl. Pink or blue.  I wrote about my experiences on this with my granddaughter at the playground two years ago.  We know there is more than black or white, good or bad, open or closed, up or down, smart or dumb, and every other pair of opposites.  There are shades of gray.  A person  can be good at some things and bad at others.  A car can be good at one time and bad at another.  But male or female, to many people, are absolutes.  Penis or no penis.

But it's not that simple.  Every year, about 2000 babies are born with "ambiguous genitals."

Ambiguous genitals refer to the uncertain appearance of a baby's external sexual features. Sometimes a female foetus is born with ovaries but male-like external genitals (female pseudo-hermaphroditism). A male may be born with testicles (which have yet to descend from the pelvis) but with female-like external genitalia (male pseudo-hermaphroditism). Rarely, newborns may even have both ovaries and testicles and ambiguous genitals (true hermaphroditism). In addition, there may be other congenital defects present in these newborns, such as hypospadias in males. This is a condition in which the urethral (urinary) opening is not in its normal position on the tip of a penis but is on the underside.  [From Gender Centre]

So what happens when babies are born with ambiguous genitals?

Approximately 10 times a year in Houston, at the birth of a certain type of baby, a special crisis team at Texas Children's Hospital springs into action. Assembled in 2001, the unusual team includes a psychologist, urologist, geneticist, endocrinologist, and ethicist. Its mission: to counsel parents of infants sometimes referred to as "intersex" babies—that is, babies of indeterminate physical gender. That such a team exists—and that it often counsels deferring surgery for infants who are otherwise healthy—reflects a radical new thinking among doctors about gender identity and outside efforts to shape it. Instead of surgically "fixing" such children to make them (visually, at least) either male or female, a handful of U.S. specialists now argue that such infants should be left alone and eventually be allowed to choose their gender identity. The approach challenges decades of conventional wisdom about what to do with infants whose genitalia don't conform to the "norm." Until very recently, such children were automatically altered with surgery, often with tragic consequences. Each year, about one in 2,000 children is born with ambiguous-looking genitalia.

One in 2000 children a year.  In 2014 there were 3,988,076 babies born in the US, so that comes to just under 2000 babies who weren't physically classifiable as clearly a boy or a girl. One in 2,000 is a tiny fraction of the population, but it's still 2000 people a year.  For Anchorage, assuming a random distribution, with a population of about 300,000, given one in 2000,  there should be 150 transgender folks.  That's a tiny minority.  So it's reasonable that most people don't know anyone who is transgender, especially since it isn't something people tell you when they meet you.  But it's not reasonable to stay ignorant, given the attention in this issue, and to treat these folks poorly.

Given the importance our society attaches to whether someone is male or female - remember, it's the first thing we ask when a new baby is born - being of ambiguous gender has to be one of the most difficult identity issues one can imagine. Especially when everyone assumes that you have to be either a boy or a girl. What do these 2000 people a year have to deal with every day of their lives?

For me, the first serious introduction to these questions came in Jeffrey Eugenides' book Middlesex, which tells three generations of familial history of Calliope Stephanides, a Greek American girl who doesn't feel like a girl.  It won a Pulitzer Prize and I recommend it - not only for what one can learn about intersex people, but because it's a wonderful novel.

Closing Thoughts

We're having this debate about transgender bathrooms because people are ignorant.  That's not a judgmental statement, merely descriptive.  People really don't understand about intersex or transgender or ambiguous genitalia.  They don't understand it because they don't even know it exists. We've been taught that you're either male or female.

Some people are naturally ignorant.  That is they have been taught people are male or female and their life experiences match what they've been taught.  Gays and lesbians have given them some cognitive dissonance, but even gay folk are still identified as male or female.

Some people are willfully ignorant.  They refuse to seek information that challenges what they 'know.'

Some people, in this election year, see this as an issue that could help the Republican Party overcome what looks like a hopeless presidential race for them.  Wedge issues have been a big part of the party's strategy over the years.  For a more academic approach on this click here.  I'm sure there were Republicans clapping with glee when the Obama administration announced it was suing North Carolina.  But I'm guessing there will be a lot of education in the next six months.  Not only on transgender issues, but also on the other aspects of North Carolina's HB 2 which attacks things like minimum wage and the right to sue over employment discrimination.

When my granddaughter had to go potty (her language, not mine) we weren't near the all genders  restroom and I took her into the men's room.  There were stalls as well as urinals.  We used a stall and no one's privacy was disturbed.

[Yes, Feedburner problems continue. I'm reposting what I put up earlier.  Finding a better RSS feed is on my todo list.  Anyone with suggestions let me know.]