Orlando Too Much Already

I woke up to NPR trying to talk about a story about which they had only about 20 seconds of facts, yet they kept on for minutes.  And then a few minutes later they returned to repeat their long sparse story. There's got to be a better way for the media to say "This is important" without saying the same few things plus a lot of nothing over and over again.

And how do we respond?  How do we keep on living our lives when we're assaulted by news like this over and over again?  50 people dead.  53 more in the hospital.  People's different internal narratives will lead them to rant about guns, ISIS, the NRA, immigrants, God, gays. About terrorism.  Hate.  To pray for the victims? Does that include the shooter?  To pray for the responders who have to identify bodies and clean up the horror.  For the families, some of whom might only now be finding out their loved one was gay?  Oh dear, the world is so heavy, even as far across the country as I am from Orlando.  And people in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria deal with this sort of slaughter more regularly.  How do they survive?  My personal experience is that children help us survive.  We must provide for them for the youngest of them are mostly unaware of what has happened and they force us to get back to normal to attend to their needs.

Only time lessens such pain.  But the time between atrocities gets shorter and shorter.  Distractions can make the time go faster.   So let me try to distract.  A little.  The coverage I heard this morning repeated that the police were investigating whether this was terrorism or a hate crime.

I'd like to divert you to a long discussion on whether hate crimes are terrorism I put up September 14, 2012.  It looks at the legal definitions of terrorism and hate crimes and points out inconsistency of some politicians who strongly oppose hate crime legislation (and as cautious as I am about jumping to conclusions, I can't imagine how  shooting up a gay nightclub can't be a hate crime) also strongly support antiterrorism legislation.  It's one of my better posts.  

I'm already imagining reading a Bridge of San Luis Rey type book - though ten times longer - that tells the stories of all the people killed and wounded at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

Why Should The Republicans Be Stuck With Trump?

One could, and others have, made the case that Trump is simply the natural result of the lies and vitriol that the Republican Party has been supporting all these years.  From the shameful attack on John Kerry - so nasty that the term 'swift boating' is now part of the political dictionary - to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, to the non-stop attacks on our first Black president, and ruthless attacks on women's rights to obtain an abortion and on immigrants, and their allowing the crazies among the Republicans to act like thugs by playing congressional chicken with the US budget.


But all that aside, suppose they end up with a candidate most of them feel is terrible.  Yes, he followed the rules and got the required number of delegates.  But now they realize that those crazies they cultivated to defeat the Democrats have now saddled them with a man whose election, even just his nomination, is likely to cause the US and the world untold harm.  Whose rhetoric gets no better.  How long can they look the other way?  A man so vain and impulsive that many in the party have withheld their support or given it with obvious distaste.

What if you ordered something at a restaurant and you realize it was a terrible mistake.  You can refuse to eat it.
Or you go to a move that's awful, you can walk out.
Or you're on a date and it's clear you never want to see him again.  You don't have to wait, to end it.
Or the hotel you booked turns out to be above an all night disco.  You don't have to stay.

Is this different?  Well, all those examples were individual choices.  And in all these cases, you'd probably still might have to leave some skin on the table.  So my questions are:

Are the Republicans really obligated to allow this man to be their candidate?
What will they leave on the table if they walk out?


Option 1:  Find some rules in The Rules of The Republican Party that can be used to disqualify Trump.

I've skimmed through the rules and nothing popped out.  Mostly they are about the qualifications of the delegates and how the nominating process is to be run.  I could find nothing about qualities of the nominee.  That's not unreasonable.  The assumption is that candidates as problematic as Trump will never get this close to being nominated.

It might be useful to have something in the rules about the nominee being a registered Republican for a minimum number of years.

The Smoking Gun reports Trump, since 1987, has enrolled as

• a Republican
• a member of the  Independence party member
• a Democrat, 
• a Republican again, 
• "I do not wish to enroll in a party", and finally, in 2012, 
• as a Republican again. 

A five year minimum in the party would make Trump's candidacy moot.  But then someone like Dwight Eisenhower  might not have been eligible to be their candidate in 1952.  (Though I expect a last minute rule change to allow for a popular candidate would be easier than one to eliminate an unpopular candidate.)  Subjective judgments about character make it too easy to disqualify reasonable candidates.

The Democrats have their super-delegates who could be called upon to deny a candidate the nomination.  But after this election there are calls to abolish them.  Maybe after watching Trump and the Republicans, the Democrats will have second thoughts about abolishing them.

The party does have the power to appoint nominees if for some reason there's a vacancy.  Surely Trump isn't going to voluntarily vacate.  (Well, on second thought, nothing is sure with Trump.)

If Trump shoots a reporter who asks a hard question in the next month, I can't imagine that the Republicans couldn't find a way to dump him.  So there must be some line he could cross that would allow dropping him.  But he's crossed so many lines already without him being dropped. . .

The Republicans in the Alaska Legislature have 'unwritten rules.'  One of House Speaker Chenault's staff told me that when I asked to see the rules that were used to strip Rep. Reinbold of her Republican caucus status when she didn't go along with the leadership on the budget.  Perhaps these exist at the national level too and they can use them to stop Trump.


Option 2:  Leave the Republican Party en masse and recreate the party with a new name

This would leave Trump with his supporters in the old GOP, but the rest of the party could reassemble and nominate their own candidate.

I'm not sure what assets - money, property, copyrights/trademarks - they would have to abandon to do this.

Short of this, some could launch an independent run by a Republican alternative to Trump.

I suspect individual Republicans can do this, but getting 'the Party' to agree and do this would be much harder.


Option 3:  Support a third party candidate like the Libertarian Gary Johnson

I saw a letter to the editor in the LA Times that suggested one Republican strategy might be to prevent Clinton from getting enough electoral college votes to win outright and then the election would be decided in the House of Representatives where the Republicans have a big majority.  But, from what I can tell from this League of Women's Voters webpage,

"Results of the mid-December vote in each state are sent to Congress to be counted on January 6, in the presence of the newly elected Senate and House of Representatives."

There's an interesting Atlantic article from October 1980 considering the possibilities that independent candidate John Anderson might get enough electoral college votes to throw the 1980 election into the House of Representatives and what that might look like.

The Washington Post, speculating about the current election, thought that the House of Representatives would be a risky route that would do further damage to legitimacy of the electoral process.



Option 4:  Work with the religious right to have the Apocalypse happen before November.
I don't have an option 4 as you can see, but I'm sure there are other scenarios I haven't thought of.



I'm guessing that if there were rules - written or unwritten - that could get rid of Trump, we'd know about them by now.  It's only because there probably aren't,  that we're hearing talk about third party candidates, not voting for president, or even voting for Clinton.  I suspect that the Sanders' call for getting rid of super delegates, given the Republican situation, is going to have a lot of opposition.

And then there is the issue of what line would Trump have to cross.  Perhaps this is death by a thousand cuts, none of which individually is significant enough to charge him with murder of the Republican Party, and give them an excuse to rescind his nomination.

Bill Pay Glitch At Bank of America

Like many Alaskans, I only have a Bank of America Visa card because it's the only way to get an Alaska Airlines card.  And I use their Bill Pay program to transfer money from my Alaska checking account to pay my monthly Visa bill.

But my mother had a checking and savings account with BofA and there came a time when I had to get my name on those accounts too.  I was a little surprised to see those accounts pop up on my electronic  Bank of America page.  But it made sense and it made it easy to monitor those accounts. 

Early May, I scheduled a payment for June 1.  

June 8, my credit card was declined.  

I called Bank of America.   It seems my payment hadn't been received.  But I've learned to take screen shots every month that show that I paid and I even had the reference number.

So I said, "I scheduled it on Bill Pay, I have proof."  

After a while, he said, "You don't have Bill Pay."  

?????????!!!!!%%%???

He asked if I'd closed any accounts lately.  Yes, I'd closed my mom's accounts when we were in LA in May.  

It turns out that when they closed the accounts, they closed my Bill Pay as well.  And my payment, scheduled for June 1, simply disappeared.  I got no notice that a)  my Bill Pay had been shut down or b) my payment evaporated with it.  I only found out when a credit card payment was declined and I called to find out why.  

Here's how it was explained to me:

The bill pay feature is different if you only have a credit card from also having other accounts at Bank of America.

1. So, when I got added onto my mother's accounts, my old Bill Pay was cancelled and a new one was established.  (I may even have been involved.  I have vague recollections now as I write this, but if so, at the time, I thought it was just a screwup that cancelled my Bill Pay and I was just re-setting it up. 
2. A new, different kind of Bill Pay, that allowed payments from the Bank of America accounts as well as payments to the Visa account to be made from external accounts was set up.  
3. When I closed my mother's accounts, the bill pay was closed too.  Even though there was a pending, scheduled payment.  

I still can't believe they would shut down a pending, scheduled payment without telling me.  

They were nice about it and quickly removed the late fee and interest without my having to ask.  This was all complicated by a larger than normal payment I'd made with my credit card showing up twice in my pending payment list bumping me (without my scheduled June payment) above my limit. 

Fix Needed

They clearly need to add to their computer code, that when bill pay is being closed for a customer when there is a pending, scheduled payment, that the customer is notified.

I suspect not too many people will fall into this situation, but with millions of credit card holders, I'm sure there are others.  So this is a heads up.  

I did call the woman who closed my mom's old accounts in the Santa Monica branch.  She was always very helpful, and clearly on my side.  So I called her to let her know what happened.  Not to complain, but to let her know.  She had no idea that could have happened either.  

What Do All These Countries Have In Common? UPDATED

Poland Latvia Argentina Britain Liberia Austria Brazil South Korea Finland Nepal Mauritius Namibia Norway  Grenada South Africa The Bahamas

Germany China Bolivia San Marino Guinea-Bissau Philippines Haiti East Germany Nicaragua Ireland Burundi Sri Lanka Ecuador Guyana Croatia Namibia Malta

Bangladesh Chile Panama Indonesia Georgia Pakistan Liberia Chile Gabon Israel Lithuania Kyrgyzstan Costa Rica Kosovo Serbia Central African Republic

Don't you even want to think about it before getting the answer?
I'll check the comments.  I suspect lots of folks will find this easy to figure out.

[UPDATE June 10, 2016:  They all have or have had a woman as head of state.  For more details see:

http://www.theglobalist.com/women-on-top-of-the-political-world/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm   ]

Hmong Love

I was standing outside the post office waiting for a friend to mail his letters, when a car pulled up in front of me.

As the lady walked into the post office, I tried to figure out what this vanity plate might mean.  Alaska . . . what?   I had no idea.

She came out pretty quickly and so I asked her.  With a big smile, she said HLUB is love in my language.
What language is that?  I asked.
Hmong.


From an online Hmong-English dictionary, I found only a bit more:

I love you in Hmong

translation and definition "I love you", English-Hmong Dictionary  online

  add translation  

pronunciation:         

Translations into Hmong:

• kuv hlub koj 
  (Phrase  ) 
  
  
  

  

  affirmation of romantic feeling

It's amazing how quickly we take for granted that we can get to something like a Hmong-English dictionary via our computers in a couple of seconds. How many of us actually stop and give thanks for our easy access to the greatest library the world has ever seen?

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.]