Republican Platform To Restore America To The Good Old Days (TIC warning)

Let's see, so far:

No abortions. Ever.

Climate change is a hoax.  Coal will be a clean energy source again.

Bible in the schools, except for the pornographic parts. Since porn is a 'public menace.'

Gay marriage,  bad again.  The anti-regulation wing stopped the call for extra closets in all housing so gays can return.

Even unmarried hetero partnerships will be bad again.

They aren't finished yet.  Look out for:

Free guns to all white new-borns.

Repeal of the 19th Amendment.  And other laws giving women rights over their personal and financial affairs.

Reopening of WW II Japanese internment camps for undocumented immigrants and their terrorist friends.

Return of segregation (I don't think the pro-slavery folks will have enough votes, but who knows?)

Constitutional amendment to exclude human beings from the 'person' category.

Oh yeah, watch out minimum wage.  And maybe businesses can even get child labor back.


Apparently Trump is being hands-off here.  According to the NY Times article,

"That allowed conservative activists like Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, to exert greater influence. Mr. Perkins’s hand could be seen in dozens of amendments on issues like gun control, religious expression and bathroom use."

I'm beginning to think that Perkins' sharing the name of the actor who played Norman Bates is no coincidence.  Can you say Psycho?

He's giving Clinton a great Republican platform to run against.



TIC- tongue-in-cheek

Musings On The Trashing Of Clinton

Let's see, Hillary Clinton is corrupt.  We know this because every time Trump tweets her name he puts "Corrupt" before her name.

STOP!  I've been thinking about a post for the last couple of weeks.  One that would basically say, "Why all this fuss about Clinton's email?  First it was Benghazi, now it's email?  Why do so many people say she's corrupt in polls?  Duh.  Cause Trump keeps tweeting 'corrupt Hillary'.  Over and over and over and over again.

Email?  Give me a break.  She used a private email account.  OK.  That's what they have.  No intention.  No leaks that caused any harm.  Now, I'm all about following the law and all that, but no one gets to the presidential candidate level without leaving a trail.

And I think about how in 2004 the contest was between a Vietnam war hero and a draft dodger, and the Republicans managed to smear the hero with the Swiftboat campaign, and they're trying to do something similar with Clinton.  And they've managed to get the corrupt word stuck to her.

BREAK.  New thought.
There was a tweet I saw the other day:

My gurl headed to #juneau just walked past 4 senators in 1st class and then sees our governor in coach. #OfCourse. #Akleg

15 retweets26 likes

I responded.  Something like:  if you have enough mileage, they bump you up to first class for price of coach.

Others responded:  Agreed, but appearances matter. 

I added:  Appearances are important, but getting below the surface is more important.

The original tweeter responded:  Oh Gurl, I know how upgrades work but take it from someone who used to sing in malls, appearances matter.

0 retweets0 likes

Yes, appearances matter.  So, were the 4 senators in first class because they  paid for first class with state money?  Or they've flown enough that they get bumped up to first class when there are seats available?  And did the governor get bumped up to first class, but chose, for appearances, to stay in coach?  

The answer is, I guess, it doesn't matter,  Appearances matter.  

BACK TO CLINTON.  

So, I'm thinking, yeah, appearances do matter, and Clinton's team know what happened to Kerry in 2004.  They're attacking Trump regularly.  

The campaign has become attack, attack, attack.  Everyone loses in that kind of campaign.  I'm still thinking about how 'corrupt' has become attached to Hillary.  Is it because Sanders and Trump are changing the rules of the campaign and so the old ways, where politicians' compromises necessary to get to the top were basically ignored or seen as business as usual?  Or because Clinton's a woman and so she's held to a higher standard than men?   Or that Trump's 'corrupt Hillary' campaign is working?  Or a combination of all three?  

NEW SIDETRACK.

I google:  If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth.  (I'm assuming you can see the connection between this thought and Trump's 'corrupt Hillary' tweet campaign.)

It gets me to a post on "Goebbels quotes."   Whoa.  I didn't mean to get to Nazi stuff.  Everyone freaks out when you reference Nazis as though you are saying "X is a Nazi."   

What do I do now?  I read the post.  At the bottom:

Misattributed[edit] The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. 

Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler 

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself. 

Attributed to Goebbels in Publications Relating to Various Aspects of Communism (1946), by United States Congress, House Committee on Un-American Activities, Issues 1-15, p. 19, no reliable source has been located, and this is probably simply a further variation of the Big Lie idea
Variants:
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth.
If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
Attributed in "The Sack of Rome" by Alexander Stille, p. 14, and also attributed in "A World Without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance" (2003) by Mike Moore, p. 63

What does that all mean?  That it's in Mein Kampf?  That it's really from "The Sack of Rome"?

So, reluctantly I google:  Mein Kampf volume 1 chapter 6 which gets me here.
So I search for "lie " in chapter 6.  And I get some stuff. The chapter is titled "War Propaganda" and discusses how English war propaganda in WW I was so much better than German propaganda.  But how do I know the translation is any good?  So I search for Mein Kampf in German.  (I studied in Germany for a year at the time when overseas students had to take all their classes in the local language.  My German's not great, but it's good enough, especially with all the online help these days, to see if the translation is accurate.)

Das Volk ist in seiner überwiegenden Mehrheit so feminin veranlagt und eingestellt, daß weniger nüchterne Überlegung als vielmehr gefühlsmäßige Empfindung sein Denken und Handeln bestimmt. 

The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning.

Is the translation any good?  It's amazingly good.  Not because it's a literal translation - which would make little sense in English - but because it takes the meaning and renders it in good clean English.  I checked the next couple of paragraphs, and it stayed good.

Diese Empfindung aber ist nicht kompliziert, sondern sehr einfach und geschlossen. Sie gibt hierbei nicht viel Differenzierungen, sondern ein Positiv oder ein Negativ, Liebe oder Haß, Recht oder Unrecht, Wahrheit oder Lüge, niemals aber halb so und halb so oder teilweise usw. Das alles hat besonders die englische Propaganda in der wahrhaft genialsten Weise verstanden – und berücksichtigt. Dort gab es wirklich keine Halbheiten, die etwa zu Zweifeln hätten anregen können. 

This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that. English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt. 

Das Zeichen für die glänzende Kenntnis der Primitivität der Empfindung der breiten Masse lag in der diesem Zustande angepaßten Greuelpropaganda, die in ebenso rücksichtsloser wie genialer Art die Vorbedingungen für das moralische Standhalten an der Front sicherte, selbst bei größten tatsächlichen Niederlagen, sowie weiter in der ebenso schlagenden Festnagelung des deutschen Feindes als des allein schuldigen Teils am Ausbruch des Krieges: eine Lüge, die nur durch die unbedingte, freche, einseitige Sturheit, mit der sie vorgetragen wurde, der gefühlsmäßigen, immer extremen Einstellung des großen Volkes Rechnung trug und deshalb auch geglaubt wurde. 

Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible for the war – which was a brutal and absolute falsehood – and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed. The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustrated by the fact that after four-and-a-half years, not only was the enemy still carrying on his propagandist work, but it was already undermining the stamina of our people at home.

So, you're asking, where is the stuff about lies becoming truth?  It's a ways below.  First there is the discussion of what the Germans did wrong in WW 1.  They were too even handed, not simplistic enough, too logical.  Needed experts to do this, but we left it to 'feckless statesmen' and 'placid aesthetes and intellectuals.'

Its [propaganda's] chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.  [emphasis added]
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in its effects. Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a persistent policy secures.

The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.

The lies?  Well, it's never exactly said that way.  But the key is to repeat the simple black and white message.  The closest it comes is the last sentence below:

In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.

The last two sentences, this time in the original again.

Sie war im Anfang scheinbar verrückt in der Frechheit ihrer Behauptungen, wurde später unangenehmundward endlich geglaubt.

CAN HE NOW PULL THIS ALL TOGETHER? 

As much as people want to blame social media like Twitter for the simplistic way many voters think, and the effectiveness of constantly repeating a message until it goes from 'idiotic' to 'believed,'  these tactics are not new.  Hitler claims these means were used by the British in WW I to rally its people and troops on to victory.

My sense is that the fuss about Hillary's emails is simply Swiftboating.  Most people understand something simple like using a private email account versus the government account.  But I think in the end it might backfire on the Republicans.  Most people know that they slip between their work and private accounts all the time.  They know that keeping up with the constantly changing technology leaves most folks vulnerable to screwing up.

Two of the key pit bulls attacking Clinton appear to have their own private/public email issues.  Or is this just the Clinton team hitting back?  And even the attorney whose client successfully sued the Palin administration for her use of private email accounts to prevent the public from seeing all her emails via public records requests, is having some second thoughts about whether the public should see every email.

Appearances matter, true.  But life isn't simple.  Getting past superficialities may be difficult with 140 characters, but I think it's still important.  And writing about the complexities helps one understand them and how to focus in on the most important aspects.  Ultimately, we probably make the biggest impact by doing what we're best suited for.  In my case, appearances are there to be questioned and examined.  And as I do that, I can't imagine the email attacks on Clinton are about serious stuff, but rather are mudslinging attempts to tear her down. The focus on the emails shows how little they have (or are they saving the serious stuff for October?)  Calling her the most corrupt candidate in history is sheer propaganda, and Trump does stay on message.  And already that idea, for many, according to the polls, has gone from 'idiotic' to 'disturbing', and by November could become 'believed.'

Live Ghosts Tell Their Human Stories At Anchorage Museum [Cemetery]

Who was that man, I used to wonder, when I saw a name on a building, or a statue.  Or wandering through a cemetery trying to imagine that all of the people named on the graves were people who'd had whole lives - fears, joys, good times, bad.

Dick Reichman as Joseph Reno

So I really had to go to the Anchorage cemetery tour, where actors tell the stories of the people lying below the ground.  The program thanks Cemetery Players Acting Group, Cyrano's Theatre Company, Anchorage Community Theatre, and the Anchorage Memorial Park Cemetery staff.

I first came upon the grave of Joseph Reno (1884 - 1942), whose ghost resembled greatly the Anchorage actor Dick Reichman.   Reno was a businessman, whose bars drew in the paychecks of men who'd come to Alaska to make their fortune.






Reno/Reichman complained at the end that he'd died during WW II, not a good time for Italians in the US, so his name was not on his gravestone.









Sunday evening was perfect weather for the large crowd as we walked around the cemetery to the ten sites marked with flags, where an actor would tell his or her story near where they were buried.  Except in one case.  Rachel Gregory told the story of her husband, Jess Wickersham (1883 - 1924), whom she shot to death with the gun he'd given her, as she explained, as an apology after the previous time he'd beaten her.  She'd already decided that she couldn't continue taking his drunken beatings (had he been drinking at one of Reno's bars?) any more, so she pulled out the gun and shot him.  The judge, seeing her bruises, sent her home and she married a neighbor who'd been kind to her and had helped her on that fatal night.

A few years earlier, John Sturgus (1861 - 1921), Anchorage's first police chief, was shot one night in
the alley behind the Anchorage Hotel if I remember Bruce Kelly's accounting right.  He said he'd taken the job, because year round jobs were scarce, but the bar owners and gambling folks, seemed to have it in for him.  (Did Joseph Reno have anything to do with this one?  I'm only coming up with these questions now and they didn't hint at them Sunday night.)


















Frank Hoffman (1871 - 1937) ghosted by Ron Holmstrom, was also a lawman - a US marshall, who was known for his charm and, if the stories were accurate, would probably be a good trainer for police forces around the country.  He rarely had a gun.  Instead he was polite and talked his suspects into jail, where he fed them well.

Wanda Gelles, whose spirit was channelled by Sara Baird, was the first bank robbery victim in Alaska, while working at Elmer Rasmusson's bank.   (I know, these red flags makes it look like a golf course rather than a cemetery.)

My fantasy was coming true, as these ghosts told their stories at their gravesites.  But there was one name on the list I really wanted to see - Lidia Selkregg (1920 - 1999).  She and I arrived at the School of Business and Public Administration (the name back then) at the same time and we connected instantly.  I knew her well and admired her greatly.

But I was in for a disappointment.  The story itself was fine, and the look was reasonably close, but how it was worded and presented were all wrong.  Audrey Kelly had to imagine Lidia, I guess, and did her own take based solely on the words she was given.  She spoke in calm, well modulated sentences.  But Lidia was never calm or well modulated.  She talked 150 Italian accented words a minute and those words didn't always quite fit together right, one bumping into another as she used 50 words where a native speaker might have used 20 to get the same point across.  But then Lidia was getting three or four or five points across at the same time.  It was more like she was juggling words and breathlessly trying to make sure none of them hit the ground.  And always with a loving smile and sparkling eyes.

It made me wonder how close the other ghosts were to what their real selves sounded like.  The old timers, well, who knows?  But for those who passed away more recently, there are still lots of folks in town who would know.  I know the cemetery folks did research on the lives of the folks highlighted, but did they talk to people about how they spoke?

But I'd like to think that David Haynes got Judge Ralph Moody (1913 - 1997) right, because he was so good.  He told the story of moving from a poor Alabama family to being a judge in Alaska.  And how his own poor background didn't give him any extra sympathy for poor folks.  And how he enforced his dress code - coats and ties gentleman - and how one attorney got to court and had forgotten his tie.  He took a shoelace and put it round his neck like a bolo tie.  Moody said at the end of the tie he asked the attorney about the tie and then fined him for coming to court without shoelaces.


There were ten seances Sunday, these were just a few.  These same graves will reveal their secrets again in August, though I'm having trouble pinning down the exact date.  Here's the Facebook page.  Oh, the tour is free!  But you can (and should) leave a donation.


The Municipal website gives a history of the cemetery.  Here's a short excerpt:

"The Anchorage Memorial Park Cemetery, located between 6th and 9th Avenues and Fairbanks and Cordova Streets in downtown Anchorage, Alaska was originally established as the Cemetery Reserve by President Woodrow Wilson in Executive Order 2242 of August 31, 1915, coincident with the federal survey of the original Anchorage Townsite. Then with Executive Order 2836 of April 10, 1918, President Wilson directed that burial land be made available, without charge, to the public. 

He also ordered that the Cemetery Reserve of the Anchorage Townsite be subdivided to sell up to half of the cemetery land to qualified religious and fraternal organizations. Because of these two provisions, free burial land for the public, and up to 50 percent of the land could be (and now is) owned by private religious and fraternal groups, the Anchorage Memorial Park Cemetery is one of the most unusual cemeteries in the nation. .  ."

[July 12, 2016 9pm:  I can't believe I put museum instead of cemetery in the title.  Face is very red.]

Today Is One Year

My mom died July 11, 2015.  Time, live a fast moving creek, keeps taking her living self further and further off into the distance.  But our memories are strong, her life was long, and we're moving on.

I know she would enjoy these lilies blooming now outside, along with the forget-me-nots.

Short Comments On Different Topics - Transgender Military History, Trump's General VP Prospect, Closing Blogger Comments

Too much to write about, not enough time.  Here are some brief takes on things that have come up.

1.  Watch M*A*S*H Reruns To Train Troops On Getting Along With Transgender Soldiers

Image Source

When I first heard the news that the military was dropping the ban on transgender troops, I thought, what's the big deal? Corporal Klinger wore dresses all the time and it
didn't seem to really bother his unit during the Korean war.  Or the TV viewers.  Of course, cross-dressing is not the same as transgender.  Here's a take on this as part of the evolution of showing transgender folks on television from Bilerico:

"Jamie Farr's crossdressing character, Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger, debuts on the CBS television show M*A*S*H  [1972] - the first transgender-related character to appear regularly on TV. Although Klinger was said to crossdress only as an attempt to be given a discharge from the Army, it is the first moment of particular visibility that deviates from comedians' sporadic use of crossdressing for comedic purposes (popularized by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in the movie "Some Like It Hot" as well as by comedians ranging from Milton Berle to Jerry Lewis to Monty Python's Flying Circus), and develops into sympathetic characterization." 

I was reminded of this by a new LA Times story that says transgender troops in other countries is nothing new.  Well, we had a cross dressing role model on television back in 1972.  I realize that young men are still forming their self-identity including their sexual personas when they enter the military, and some have had some pretty anti-gay / transgender brainwashing.  Let the military recognize this and educate them, and help them to get over any hangups.  Let them watch M*A*S*H reruns.



2.  How About Running For Vice President To Promote Your New Book?

The Washington Post reports that Trump is seriously considering Ret General Michael Flynn, a registered Democrat, as his running mate.  Is anything Trump says serious?  It turns out Flynn's book The Field of Fight comes out on July 12, though apparently you can start reading it already on Amazon:

"Ten years ago we found evidence that al-Qaeda was far more organized and adept than we had previously given them credit for. It took us nearly that long to locate and execute their leader, Osama bin Laden, and we are far from finished. Al-Qaeda has morphed into a much more dangerous, menacing threat: ISIS. A war is being waged against us by radical Islamists, and, as current events demonstrate, they are only getting stronger. This book aims to inform the American people of the grave danger we face in the war on terror―and will continue to face―until our government takes decisive action against the terrorists that want nothing more than to destroy us and our way of life.
Lt. General Michael T. Flynn spent more than 33 years in Army intelligence, working closely with Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other policy, defense and intelligence community, and war-fighting leaders. From coordinating on-the-ground operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to building reliable intelligence networks, to preparing strategic plans for fighting terrorism, Flynn has been a firsthand witness to government screw-ups, smokescreens, and censored information that our leaders don’t want us to know. A year before he was scheduled to retire, Flynn was sacked as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for, among other things, telling a Congressional Committee that the American people are in more danger than we were just a few years ago. Why?
The Field of Fight succinctly lays out why we have failed to stop terrorist groups from growing, and what we must do to stop them. The core message is that if you understand your enemies, it’s a lot easier to defeat them―but because our government has concealed the actions of terrorists like bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam, we don’t fully understand the enormity of the threat they pose against us. A call to action that is sensible, informed, and original, The Field of Fight asserts that we must find a way to not only fight better, but to win."

I'm not sure being an active participant in the Iraq war, where we resoundingly restored democracy to a country that had never had it before, is that great a recommendation.



3.  Blogger Stuff:  Closing comments on a single post

click to enlarge and focus

I posted about the 2013 Anchorage International Film Festival documentaries, which included the film Tales From The Organ Trade.  That attracted ads from kidney traders.  Then I wrote a post called Blogger Ethics:  Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?  Well, in the last month or so, that old post has begun attracting ads from kidney traders again and I mark them as spam.  But I'm tired of that.  So I wondered, "Can I shut off comments on a single post?"  It turns out to be surprisingly easy.  
Just look under options on Post Settings either in create post or edit post (on the right).
The first category is reader comments. Bingo.
Thanks to Blogtimenow.

Let's see if they migrate to this post.

Walking While Black

Here's an excerpt for a beautifully written essay in Lit Hub on walking by a Jamaican connoisseur of walking. The whole essay is worth reading, but in these days police killing black males (and who knows who else that don't get headlines because nobody caught them on video), maybe this rather long excerpt will help people understand why African-Americans are angry and weary.

Garnette Cadogan first writes in this essay about learning to walk in Kingston to avoid an abusive step-father at home. Then again as a college student in New Orleans. Now he's in New York, having gone back to Kingston to visit his dying grandmother just before Katrina struck. An aunt in New York dissuades him from returning to New Orleans and to come to New York first. It helped she gave him the airline ticket. So now he's learned the rules of walking while black in New York, but he gets careless and, late to meet friends, runs to the subway station.

"After a sumptuous Italian dinner and drinks with friends, I was jogging to the subway at Columbus Circle—I was running late to meet another set of friends at a concert downtown. I heard someone shouting and I looked up to see a police officer approaching with his gun trained on me. “Against the car!” In no time, half a dozen cops were upon me, chucking me against the car and tightly handcuffing me. “Why were you running?” “Where are you going?” “Where are you coming from?” “I said, why were you running?!” Since I couldn’t answer everyone at once, I decided to respond first to the one who looked most likely to hit me. I was surrounded by a swarm and tried to focus on just one without inadvertently aggravating the others. 

It didn’t work. As I answered that one, the others got frustrated that I wasn’t answering them fast enough and barked at me. One of them, digging through my already-emptied pockets, asked if I had any weapons, the question more an accusation. Another badgered me about where I was coming from, as if on the 15th round I’d decide to tell him the truth he imagined. Though I kept saying—calmly, of course, which meant trying to manage a tone that ignored my racing heart and their spittle-filled shouts in my face—that I had just left friends two blocks down the road, who were all still there and could vouch for me, to meet other friends whose text messages on my phone could verify that, yes, sir, yes, officer, of course, officer, it made no difference. 

For a black man, to assert your dignity before the police was to risk assault. In fact, the dignity of black people meant less to them, which was why I always felt safer being stopped in front of white witnesses than black witnesses. The cops had less regard for the witness and entreaties of black onlookers, whereas the concern of white witnesses usually registered on them. A black witness asking a question or politely raising an objection could quickly become a fellow detainee. Deference to the police, then, was sine qua non for a safe encounter. 

The cops ignored my explanations and my suggestions and continued to snarl at me. All except one of them, a captain. He put his hand on my back, and said to no one in particular, “If he was running for a long time he would have been sweating.” He then instructed that the cuffs be removed. He told me that a black man had stabbed someone earlier two or three blocks away and they were searching for him. I noted that I had no blood on me and had told his fellow officers where I’d been and how to check my alibi—unaware that it was even an alibi, as no one had told me why I was being held, and of course, I hadn’t dared ask. From what I’d seen, anything beyond passivity would be interpreted as aggression. 

The police captain said I could go. None of the cops who detained me thought an apology was necessary. Like the thug who punched me in the East Village, they seemed to think it was my own fault for running. 

Humiliated, I tried not to make eye contact with the onlookers on the sidewalk, and I was reluctant to pass them to be on my way. The captain, maybe noticing my shame, offered to give me a ride to the subway station. When he dropped me off and I thanked him for his help, he said, “It’s because you were polite that we let you go. If you were acting up it would have been different.” I nodded and said nothing."

I first became aware of 'walking while black' in the summer of 1967 when I visited my Peace Corps  roommate from the summer before (on my way to the second summer of training) at the University of Missouri and he pointed out all his escape routes and the people he needed to escape from.  I wrote about that in a post about the University of Missouri football players speaking up about racism on campus last November.

I've had heard numerous examples like these over the years of how the United States looks very different to blacks than it does to whites.  Cadogan talks about these issues more elegantly than most.

One more thing.  Did you notice this line?

"None of the cops who detained me thought an apology was necessary."

I can understand cops stopping suspects and being nervous.  But when they find out they made a mistake, why wouldn't they apologize?  Because they figure he's guilty of something else and deserves this?  Because they enjoyed getting their aggression out on him?  Because they think they don't have to?

When I did grievance work, I found that most people who were abused, simply wanted an apology, and if the offending supervisor had just said, "I'm sorry" the incident(s) never would have been elevated to a formal grievance.  I think African-Americans might be more sympathetic to cops if their encounters with them weren't so random, so demeaning, and if they were given an apology afterward.  Only the captain in this case acted with any decency at all.  After he'd been humiliated and mistreated and eventually was clearly not the person they were looking for.  The only thing he had in common with the suspect was his skin color.

And I'd strongly recommend reading the whole essay.  Walking down the street in most US cities without thinking about being stopped by the police is one of the privileges white people have that blacks don't.  This essay richly riffs on that theme.

Black Lives Matter Rally Anchorage

This seems to have been the theme for the Anchorage Black Lives Matter rally.











Here's part the crowd along Northern Lights and New Seward Highway about 9:30pm (yes, for you folks outside of Alaska, the sunset was still a couple hours away.)  The rally began at 8pm with representatives of the community and officials talking to the crowd.




Mayor Ethan Berkowitz (in the white shirt) talking to the crowd as everyone linked arms.














The police chief also spoke and here he is with the mayor listening to the other speakers.















Part of the crowd listening to the speakers.

















Lots of people had their cell phones and were talking pictures and videos, both the people in the rally, and later, cars driving by all the demonstrators and their signs.

More of the crowd listening.











Local NAACP member Kevin McGee, woman I don't know, Assembly member Forest Dunbar, and Mayor's staff member, George Martinez.








After the speeches, the crowd lined up along New Seward Highway and along Northern Lights and waved signs and chanted Black Lives Matter, and sometimes All Lives Matter.




 

I have to say that after last night's shootings in Dallas, I found myself wondering how safe going to this rally would be.  That's not really something I've dealt with before.  The only police I was aware of were the police chief and much later some officers who asked people to leave the median and go back to the side of the street where all the other protesters were.

And when people were lined up on New Seward Highway, I couldn't help think about some of the people driving by who would not agree with the sentiment of this rally.  And Alaskan's carry guns.  But many of the people driving by honked and waved in support and people kept calm and there was no violence.

I'm guessing there were 300-400 people there, though there could have been more.  People of a variety of racial backgrounds were there.  (I counted people along Northern Lights Blvd.  When I got 15, I just looked at similar sized clusters.  There were about 6 groups of 15 there.  Then I scanned the rest of the crowd and estimated from there.  Fairly simple, but it gives a reasonable ball park figure.)

If there were 400, that would be similar to a rally of about 10,000 in New York City.  (See my explanation of NY Equivalence in this 2008 post about a women's anti-Palin protest.  Populations have risen a bit and I haven't recalculated, but if NY's population increased about the same rate as Anchorage's did, it should be still pretty close.  The point is that while 400 people may not seem a lot, it's the equivalent of about 10,000 in New York City and that would be a big demonstration.)

Nasturtium

	From Online Etymology: "nasturtium (n.) mid-12c., "plant of the mustard family, like watercress," from Latin nasturtium "cress;" the popular etymology explanation of the name (Pliny) is that it is from Latin *nasitortium, literally "nose-twist," from nasus "nose" (see nose (n.)) + past participle of torquere "to twist" (see torque (n.)); the plant so called for its pungent odor. Modern application to a South American trailing plant with orange flowers first recorded 1704."
"While most edible flowers have a subtle flavor, nasturtiums knock your socks off with their peppery taste. Plus, it's not just the flowers and buds that are packed with a zippy flavor; the young leaves are tender and edible as well. Nasturtiums are popular with chefs and home gardeners because their colorful flowers not only dress up a plate, they're high in vitamins A, C (10 times as much as lettuce), and D." [From National Garden Association]
"This Peruvian native was introduced into Europe back about 1686. During the late 1700s, the famous Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus noted the similarity in appearance between the plant's brilliant flowers and the gold (and often blood-stained) helmets — called tropaea — worn by ancient Roman warriors. Hence the Latin name Tropaeolum." [From MotherEarthNews]
	In Observations on the Colors of Flowers (1899),  Eliphalet Williams Hervey writes that the stripes going down on the nasturtiums are  'honey guides' for insects. (pp 57-59)
Recipe from Horcticult We call this salad The Loro: Ingredients (serves two)  – 10 nasturtium flowers, rinsed thoroughly in cold water  – goat cheese  – 6 oz. baby greens  – 2 tablespoons almonds  – balsamic vinaigrette  – raisins  – 1 clove garlic, minced
	Recipe continued Directions:  1. Roll goat cheese into balls of about ½-inch diameter.  2. Peel away and discard nasturtium sepals, then gently pluck the petals.  3. Smooth petals onto goat cheese balls, arranging them into a floral shape.  5. Toss remaining ingredients  6. Salt and pepper to taste.  7. Garnish with petal-covered cheese balls.  8. Graze!

Launching Cars Off Cliffs And Rockets To Jupiter - Short Term Versus Long Term Thinking

Two stories on the front page of the Alaska Dispatch News Wednesday, July 6, 2016:

ARTICLE 1:  The one with pictures is an Alaska story about launching cars over a cliff as part of Fourth of July celebrations.

ARTICLE 2:  The one below is an international (interplanetary?) story about the Juno probe to Jupiter.

I don't want to read too much into these stories, but I can't help thinking they symbolize two ends of the continuum of human development:  Short term thinking at one end and long term thinking at the other end.

One article tells us about childlike, instant gratification.  That's acknowledged in the article:

"'Any little kid's dream is to roll a rock down a hill. This is times 10,' said Arnie's son, Dustin Hrncir."

And there's even some science in the video (at the online link above) when one person comments, "Gravity always wins."

And they say they drain the fluids before and clean up the mess after.


The other tells us about humans who have to do an amazing amount of calculation, planning, and then have to wait five years to see whether their launch was successful.  People who think this patiently and carefully,  make possible the cars launched over the cliff at Glacier View.

One group takes pleasure in solving incredibly complex puzzles to increase humankind's understanding of the universe, the other takes pleasure in fairly simple problems like launching cars over the cliff.

How we think is invisible to others, and often to ourselves.  We see the outcomes maybe, but not the thoughts.  We might know one man shot another, but we can't know if it was intended or not.  

Over the years, I've discovered that people assume everyone 'thinks' the same way, but there are lots of factors to consider when it comes to thinking and people combine those factors differently.

One of the big differences in this case is between short-term and long-term thinking.  Probably not too many people in the world today do the kind of long term-thinking folks at NASA do.  But any organizations that deal with long term projects - like expanding the Panama Canal, building a pipeline, inventing a self-driving car - have to think long term.

When I think, for example, of Putin's engagement in Syria, I know that Russians play chess a lot more than Americans.  Good chess players think long term - three or more moves ahead.  I'm sure that the Brexit vote is an intended consequence of Putin's intervention in Syria.  Move 1:  force people to flee.  Move 2:  they have few places to go but Europe  Move 3)  Europeans feel invaded by different cultures  Move 4:  Some EU countries, chafing under the EU regulations about refugees, start to look for a way out.  Move 5:  An internally fractured Europe can't agree on how to deal with Russian aggression on former Soviet countries.  Move 6:  Russia can do what it wants with little opposition from Europe.  Putin didn't necessarily anticipate Brexit, but something like it.

When George W. Bush intervened in Iraq, I'm not sure he had even thought out his initial move all that carefully.  The media and Democrats can say what they want about Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein, but it's clear that he kept Iran and internal terrorism in check.  I don't think Bush thought through what would happen when that check on Iran and internal Iraqi dissent was removed.  I'm not endorsing Hussein's methods at all.  His rule was brutal, tyrannical, and cruel.  Not anything an American presidential candidate should laud.  However, a chess player would never have invaded Iraq without anticipating the aftermath of Hussein's fall.

I think a lot of Trump supporters are getting instant gratification through Trump's expressions of their anger and prejudices.  A lot of short term thinking.  Like the people who voted for Brexit, I think the people supporting Trump would quickly find their lives worse off rather than better.  Because they haven't thought out what the next moves will be.

In an Alaskan aside, I heard officials in the Matsu Borough this morning upset by the magnitude of the cuts caused by the Governor's line item vetoes.  I have to say that their representatives and senators have been among the loudest calling for no new revenues and greater cuts in spending.  They  seem to be getting what they were asking for.  (I'd note the one Republican conservative representing Matsu who has been more reasonable on these issues - Colver - is the target of the Republican party's wrath.)


Generalizations are always tricky

But let's be thoughtful about both groups.  Making assumptions about people based on one act in their lives, often leads to miscalculations.  I'm guessing the NASA folks can do incredibly childish things when they're unwinding and having fun.  And I'm guessing that the Glacier View folks have a lot of talents that aren't obvious in this video and story.  Many probably didn't have the kind of family lives that would launch them into good colleges that would enable them to develop their innate abilities to the fullest.

And, assuming they really do clean up all the mess as they claim, off their own property, what is the harm?  It does look like fun.

Say What? When The Outrageous Becomes Normal [Updated]

Sometimes I can't quite believe what I'm reading in the newspapers.  The ideas are so wrong, I wonder how reporters can just drop them into an article as though the thoughts were normal.  If they are the new normal, it is even more disturbing.  I'd like to think the writers are ironically dropping these little bombs intentionally, hoping the readers will react as I'm reacting.

Here are some examples from Tuesday's Alaska Dispatch News.

Example 1:  Sources on the story about Trump's orthodox Jewish son-in-law.  (Yes, that thought is itself pretty bizarre) (originally from the NY Times, which has more than the ADN reprint.)

"Mr. Kushner’s role was described in more than two dozen interviews with friends, colleagues and campaign staff members, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could disclose interactions that were supposed to remain private. Mr. Kushner declined to be interviewed." [emphasis added] 

I can't help but translate the bolded part in my head into:  "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but I have no integrity and I just can't keep a secret."

I don't blame the media.  This is how the rest of us get glimpses behind the scenes.  From people telling secrets.  But which secrets should the media pass on and which keep to themselves?

There are also some serious journalistic problems here.

• How do you know it isn't made up?  Maybe the sources are just playing with the journalist.  
• How does one confirm something like this?  From other anonymous sources?   There are ways, but how many journalists take the time and trouble?
• How do you know this isn't planted information.  What the source is really saying in that case is, "Hey, stupid journalist, I'm going to tell you I have to be anonymous,  and you're going to be excited because you're getting juicy gossip, but really my boss wants this information to get out and I'm using you to do it."

On the other hand, legitimate whistleblowers who reach out to the media as a last resort when there are illegal, dangerous, or otherwise important information the public needs to know, are playing important public service roles.  If they are right. 
And  whistleblowers often legitimately fear serious financial and physical harm, even death if their identity is found out.

[UPDATE July 6, 2016 3:30pm:  Here's a more legitimate situation of an anonymous source in an LA Times story today about misrepresentation of the success of missile tests in January:

"The closest the interceptor came to the target was a distance 20 times greater than what was expected, said the Pentagon scientists, who spoke on condition they not be identified."

Why is this different? The person is revealing that the government agencies and private businesses have been lying about the performance of potentially life saving equipment the government's already spent $40 billion in since 2004 (over $3 billion per year.) The story quotes a second scientist and the first acknowledgement from the agency that there were actually problems.]

In the Kushner case, these are folks who are supposed to be loyal to Kushner, yet, if these weren't intentional plants, they disclosed information that was supposed to remain private.  What kind of person does that to their friends or to their boss?  This sort of thing poisons a group as people try to figure out who leaked what, and innocent people are suspected along with the guilty.  

Example 2:  Tim Kaine's 'one job only' (from the original LA Times piece)  The article is about how Tim Kaine is now ('a' or 'the'?) shortlist favorite to be Clinton's VP candidate.

"On NBC’s “Meet The Press” last week, an appearance facilitated by the Clinton campaign, Kaine offered a quick summary of his experience: mayor of Virginia’s capital of Richmond, its lieutenant governor, governor, Democratic Party chairman and now U.S. senator. 

But, he added, 'I have got one job and one job only right now, and that is to work hard for Hillary Clinton.'”

If I were a Virginia resident, I'd be wondering when I lost half my Senatorial representation.  As a US citizen, I'm wondering why we're paying this US Senator who seems to have abandoned his Senate job to campaign for Clinton.  OK, I realize this might be taken out of context, but dammit, he's being paid to be a US Senator and he should be careful about what he says.


Example 3:  In an article about Amazon dropping 'list prices' (Again, originally a NY Times article)

"Amazon wants to be so deeply embedded in a customer’s life that buying happens as naturally as breathing, and nearly as often."

Do I really have to say anything about that truly appalling thought?  We've gone from 'the customer is always right' to 'the customer is totally brainwashed.'


Of course, these are just little symptoms of this trend of the outrageous becoming normal.  The biggest offense is Donald Trump's long stream of racist, sexist, and other forms of nasty istics.  That his bombast is cheered by some as refreshingly honest might be a topic for another post.