Why 'Polarizing' Is Misleadingly Used To Describe Ali

I was struck by a headline on a NY Times article printed in the Alaska Dispatch on Saturday, "Polarizing boxing legend Ali dies at 74."  Why'd they use the word 'polarizing' in the title?  Reading the article, I found that writer Robert Lipsyte, used it in the article.

"Ali was as polarizing a superstar as the sports world has ever produced — both admired and vilified in the 1960s and ’70s for his religious, political and social stances. His refusal to be drafted during the Vietnam War, his rejection of racial integration at the height of the civil rights movement, his conversion from Christianity to Islam and the changing of his “slave” name, Cassius Clay, to one bestowed by the separatist black sect he joined, the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, were perceived as serious threats by the conservative establishment and noble acts of defiance by the liberal opposition." [emphasis added]

I guess my question is who, exactly, was polarizing?  Was it Ali, who simply wanted to claim his rights as an American citizen to choose his own religion and to be able to oppose his government's war policy?

Or was it the American media and the people it panders to who didn't like the idea of a big, strong, handsome, black male claiming his freedom to not take crap from white Christians?  Blacks then (and to some extent today still) were expected to be humble and thankful for every crumb they got from white America.

I would argue that Ali wasn't polarizing.  America's economic, social, and political culture was polarizing for anyone who didn't agree with it.  As a black man in 1960s USA, claiming his full rights as an American citizen was particularly unacceptable to those in power.

And today, that's exactly why Mohammad Ali is so revered by so many around the world.  He stood up to the man, without apology, but with lots of good humor.

Was Ali perfect?  That's a dumb question.  Sure he had flaws, but without an amazing amount of self-confidence he would not be remembered this week the way he is.  And, of course, the obvious follow up questions are:  Am I perfect?  Are you perfect?  Is anyone perfect?

I wonder how different the world would be today if Americans had been more thoughtful when Cassius Clay became Mohammad Ali and when Lew Alcindor became Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
If Americans had paid more attention, listened to the stories of these men and why they converted to Islam, respected their decisions and had learned more about Islam, and been less condescending of Islam and other non-Christian religions, we might live in a very different world today.


And as I think about Ali, and how he has evolved from 'polarizing'  to greatest American sports  hero,  I also think about Bernie Sanders.  Whom, it seems, the establishment Democratic politicians and the establishment media wish would sit down and shut up.  As they did with Ali.   But Sanders is 74 years old.  It's his time.  When I talked to Jane Sanders here in Anchorage last March, she told me that Sanders was campaigning to create a movement that, whether he won the nomination or the election or not, the movement was the most important thing.

A movement that would bring out people to vote and pressure their legislators to fight the corruption of money and the favoring of Wall Street and other big corporations.  That would fight for greater income equity in the US.  That would fight for acceptance of all the various people who make up the USA.

Like Ali, Sanders doesn't have to apologize to anyone.  He doesn't have to listen to the establishment when they condescendingly tell him, "OK, you surprised us, but you're not really one of us, not our calibre, so just enjoy your momentary glory and sit down and shut up."

The issues he's raising about Clinton - her war record, her connections with Wall Street, her personal wealth - are all issues that reflect the path the Clintons took.  They are all pretty consistent with all politicians who have been able to position themselves for a chance at the White House.  That is to say, Hillary Clinton isn't that different - other than gender and a more impressive resume than most - from most other presidential contenders.

Except that her opponent is Bernie Sanders whose stand on most issues has been pretty consistent over the years.  And when he calls her out on these things, he is simply distinguishing himself from her.   Will that hurt her after the convention?  One can argue it's made her stronger by forcing her to debate these issues and develop strategies to counteract them.  And they are moving her somewhat to the left, that political area that was inhabited by Republicans like Richard Nixon 40 years ago.  When the mainstream Democrats were even more to the left.  Bernie's campaign has resonated because the American people have finally become weary of politics as usual as witnessed by the success of the alleged Republican nominee and of Bernie Sanders.

Sanders isn't stupid.  He knows that Clinton is a much better choice than Trump, and he'll support Clinton and do everything he can to get his supporters to vote her.  But he wants to demonstrate the power of this new movement and use the primaries like a surfer uses the waves - to take this new movement as far as he can while the surf's up.  And he wants his supporters to have time to get over their letdown.  To understand that the movement will continue, but that Trump will set it back much more than Clinton would.  And to give Clinton time to show she understands their pain and their passion and will embrace their ideals.

And like Mohammad Ali, Sanders doesn't need to apologize.  And I'm guessing that 20 years out, his name will be associated with massive change in American politics.  I also am sure that, if that happens, inevitably, forces will build up to find new ways to exploit the system.  Free people have to constantly fight to maintain their freedom and to keep moving  in the direction of a more fair and equitable country and world.

Greeting Summer Friends

As we hit June, more and more flowers are opening for their summer, above ground vacation.

The forget-me-not seems the perfect flower to start with as we remember our friends from last summer.  And it's the state flower.  Maybe we should send some of these to our Republican legislators to remind them that Alaskans are waiting for them to not just cut the budget, but to recognize that we're adults who are willing to pay our fair share to balance the budget.  

Some big pumpkin colored lilies.  

And, of course, the wild iris.  

And some daisy too.  

And finally, not a flower, but Campbell Creek, as I came back from some errands on the bike trail.  One of the reasons I live here - this wonderful wild creek meandering through the middle of Anchorage.  Although we're very near the Seward Highway, we're also in this seemingly wild spot.  

It Got Here Fast, But Here Isn't Where It Was Supposed To Be

When we were in LA in April, I went to the post office to get my mom's mail forwarded here to Anchorage.  The supervisor I talked to was understanding, but she wanted to see some documentation that said I was the responsible person for my mom's estate.  I had some pages that named me, but not all the pages.  I'd thought we were done with that and everything was in Alaska.  I did have a death certificate.  I did suggest she talk to Eric who delivers the mail and has for years and knew my mom, knew the caregiver, and knew us.

Then we went back to Anchorage.

I called her before we went back to LA in May.  She said she'd talked to Eric and she had approved it.  But when we got to LA,  mail was still coming to the house, most of it stuff that went right to recycling.  Eric said he was still waiting for the instructions to start forwarding the mail.

A little after we got back to Anchorage I got a letter from a higher level supervisor saying I needed to send a death certificate, a change of address form (for just one individual per form), and some proof that I had the authority to get the mail.  So I wrote up an affidavit (I'd already had one notarized to get into my mom's safe deposit box) and took it to the credit union to be notarized.  (The banks in LA don't do notary work any more - at least not my mom's banks - but the credit union here in Anchorage still does it free for members.)

Then I took all three items to the post office.  I put everything into an old 8.5x5.5 manila envelop, with the original address covered with paper and the new address.  Same with the old return address.  The lady behind the counter weighed it and put new stamps on over the old one.   That was late Wednesday afternoon.

Thursday, the envelop was in our mailbox!   The address was clear and big and said "Send To" above it.  How could they do that?   Fast, yes.  Wednesday afternoon to Thursday afternoon.  But it was supposed to go to LA.

Friday morning I went back to the post office.  The woman who had helped me wasn't there, but the other two women who'd been there were working.  When I got to the counter she very quickly assessed the problem.

PO Lady:  You used an old envelope?
Steve:    Yes
PO Lady:   Yeah, well see, it has a bar code, so that's why it went to your house.
Steve:  But the address is really clear.
PO Lady:  It reads the bar code.

She drew a pen line through the bar code.  And charged me another 61 cents.

Steve:  So I get punished for recycling old envelopes?
PO Lady:  Well, you have to pay the new postage.
Steve:  Why didn't the person tell me?
PO Lady:  She's new.  She didn't know.

OK, I understand that they need good proof that I'm the one with the authority to get my mom's mail. Potential rival heirs can get pretty devious as I found out when a relative died and one of the siblings screwed the others.

And I understand why bar codes are a good idea.  So, I'm not complaining.  I'm just relating and warning others to be careful when they reuse envelopes.  Check for old bar codes and cover them or cross them out.

What's An Iconic Photograph? Thinking About Tank Man

 A lone student protestor blocks Chinese army tanks near Tiananmen Square.

In 1989, when this photo was taken, most people still believed in the power of a photograph to tell the truth.  With digital photography and Photoshop people are still taken in by the apparent 'truth' of a photograph, but many people are also much more skeptical.

PetaPixel writes about this photo:

"AP photographer Jeff Widener’s “Tank Man” photo, shown above, is widely considered to be one of the most iconic photos of the 20th century."

 Though Business Insider says that Stuart Franklin's image is the iconic image,

". . . Franklin's image is arguably the most iconic, having appeared in Time and Life magazines, and winning him a World Press Award."

There were actually four photographers who managed to smuggle their film out of Beijing that day, all shooting from balconies or rooms at the Beijing Hotel about half a mile away:  Widener, Charlie Cole, Franklin, and Arthur Tsang Hin Wah. A fifth photographer, Terril Jones, got shots from ground level, but did not publish them until the 20th anniversary in 2009.  He wasn't aware of what he had until the film was developed several weeks after the events.  There were also two videos made of the event that got out.

My questions today, 27 years later, are about what makes a picture 'iconic,' what story does it tell, and  how close is the story to what really happened (assuming anyone can even know that)?   I'm afraid I'm only going to make some quick stabs at answers, and perhaps raise more questions about how we interpret what we see.  

1.  What makes a picture iconic?

Wikipedia's definition is similar to many others I found:

An icon (from Greek εἰκών eikōn "image") is typically a painting depicting Christ, Mary, saints and/or angels, which is venerated among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and in certain Catholic Churches. Icons may also be cast in metal, carved in stone, embroidered on cloth, painted on wood, done in mosaic or fresco work, printed on paper or metal, etc. Icons are often illuminated with a candle or jar of oil with a wick.

The term has evolved to have a more generic meaning which is appropriate to the idea of an 'iconic photo'  (from Oxford online):

"A person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something: 'this iron-jawed icon of American manhood.'"

So, what exactly is the tank man photo a symbol of?

2.  What does the picture tell us?

Here's how the New York Times interpreted the photo in 2009:

"The moment instantly became a symbol of the protests as well as a symbol against oppression worldwide — an anonymous act of defiance seared into our collective consciousnesses."

Charlie Cole, one of the photographers on a balcony at the Beijing Hotel, says it this way (from the same NY Times article, in which  he also gives a detailed account of what happened and how he got his film past the Chinese Public Security Bureau):

"I think his action captured peoples’ hearts everywhere, and when the moment came, his character defined the moment, rather than the moment defining him. He made the image. I was just one of the photographers."

For people outside of China, this is probably the story we give to and take from this photo. [Yes, 'give to' because all interpretation is based on how our brains relate the meaning based on what we already know and expect.]

For Chinese officials, I suspect it represents the restraint of the Chinese government which patiently bore months of demonstrations.  It also showed the compassion of the tank drivers who didn't run over this man.  We get a hint of this in a 1990 interview Barbara Walters conducted with then Chinese Communist Party Secretary Jiang Zemin.

"Walters : Yes. Do you have any idea what happened to him ?
Jiang : I think the picture you mentioned just now shows exactly that the
person stood in front of a tank and the tank stopped. Why did the
tank stopped ? Did the child stop the tank ? It's because the tanks--
the people in the tanks -- didn't want to run over the people
standing in the way. But I think this picture just proved that."  (Emphasis added)
(Transcript of the interview are from a Google Group forum.)

I'd add one more interpretation.  I arrived in Hong Kong for my Fulbright at Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 1989, barely a month after Tiananmen.  I met a number of people who had been in Beijing during those times, and ended up taking a group of students to Beijing the following May.  It was a trip we had to schedule well before the first anniversary of Tiananmen, because the parents of my students didn't want them in Beijing during the anniversary.  One student wasn't allowed to come at all because his father thought it was potentially too dangerous.

But I'd like to highlight here just one story.  I had a student who was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).  He'd spent time in a mental hospital and had either thought about or actually tried to commit suicide (I don't recall exactly.)  He told me his interpretation of this picture, which went something like this:

"I wanted to be Tank Man.  I could end my life as a hero."

I'd say this was a version of what in the US is called suicide by cop.  When he told me this, he had a wistful smile on his face.  He considered this the perfect way to go.  This was his reaction to this photo.  [As I write this, 27 years later, I realize that I don't know if he had a wistful smile.  I've seen him with a wistful smile, but did he really have it when he told me that?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'm just writing this to remind folks not to trust people's old memories.]

We could spend days studying what this image means to different people and whether it has any meaning to people in China at all?  The photo was suppressed in China.  Given the scope of the internet today, I'm not sure how many people have since had access to this picture.  But as I was working on this post, I came across a  Japan Times story on a photoshopped version of this picture from 2013 with Tank Man standing in front of a line of giant, yellow rubber duckies.  The article said

"Internet searches for 'big yellow duck' were blocked by Chinese censors, but the image went viral on social media overseas."

But let's move on to the more concrete aspects of the picture.  What does it factually tell us?

3.   How close is our understanding of the content of the picture to what actually happened?

Here's how Wikipedia describes the photo:

"Tank Man (also Unknown Protester or Unknown Rebel) is the nickname of an unidentified man who stood in front of a column of tanks on June 5, 1989, the morning after the Chinese military had suppressed the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 by force. As the lead tank maneuvered to pass by the man, he repeatedly shifted his position in order to obstruct the tank's attempted path around him. The incident was filmed and seen worldwide."

Did you catch that?  June 5.  June 4 is the date of the so called Tiananmen Massacre.  The photo was taken the day after.  I didn't realize that until I was working on this post.  If you google Tank Man Tiananmen, you'll see a number of pictures.  This one is very closely cropped.  Others show a long line of tanks.  And here's one from the shots taken by Stuart Franklin (you can see it and more of the original slides and about Franklin's story here.)

Image from Business Insider

This is an image of one of the original slides that Stuart Franklin took that day from a balcony of the Beijing Hotel.
The green arrow was on the image I copied.  It points to Tank Man walking into the road.  I've added the yellow circle.  It shows Tiananmen Square, which continues to the left of the circle beyond the photo.  The tanks are headed away from Tiananmen Square.  In the bigger scheme of things, I don't think that means all that much, except for the way we in the West, most of whom have never been to Tiananmen Square, associate this with atrocities in Tiananmen Square itself.  Knowledge gained since June 3, 4, and 5, 1989, seems to show that most of the people who died did not die at Tiananmen Square, but at other locations in Beijing.  And most of the deaths were workers, not students.  Again, I think those are details that don't change the meaning of all this, but I am simply trying to discuss the difference between people's perception of the facts and the facts of the photo.  And how cropping
a photo can take away the context of the image.

Again, the images (since multiple images of this event  shot from the same location were published and now we can see many more that weren't originally published) have a meaning that goes beyond what happened that day.

And now that we've discussed the photo and questions about what it means, here's some video footage of the event that also gives more context (though it doesn't show the people walking Tank Man away.)






And, here's another take on the image.  Stuart Franklin talks about another image he took during the demonstrations at Tiananmen Square in spring 1989, that he would prefer symbolized Tiananmen demonstrations.

From Business Insider

"This is an image that changed everything because, for me, it crystallized the spirit of revolt. The uprising in Tiananmen Square was one of the most moving events I’ve witnessed. It was a tragedy to see unarmed young people shot down in cold blood. It was a movement for freedom of expression, for basic rights, and against the outrage of official corruption. It ended badly, a stain on the reputation of a great country. The facts should not be denied, but discussed, so that people can move on. A lot of things were misreported on both sides. A lot of outside actors were involved that may have worsened the situation for the students and their protest. I want this photograph to be available to people for whom this is an important memory. It symbolizes the courage of the time. What it doesn’t show is the bloodshed. I am best known for the image of the tank man. That is called an ‘iconic’ image, but what such images sometimes obscure, with the passing of time, is all the other pictures that lend explanatory power to the story. I’m interested in history, and this landmark event changed my life.” — Stuart Franklin

An ironic twist I can't help but mention, TechDirt reports that a Chinese firm now owns the rights to the Tank Man photo.

And finally, I'd note that Tiananmen 天 (tian) , 安 (an) , 门 (men)  means, literally, Heaven+Peaceful+Gate (Door)

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]