Sleight of Tweet

All over the social media today, folks are talking about Trump's tweets regarding a recount or audit of the vote counts. It's an easy story to cover - Trump's baseless claims about millions of fake votes, and the efforts of various organizations to get recounts going, or look into potential hacks of electronic voting. Enough wheels to make for a good story, a compelling topic, but not too complex.

Also, a NY Times piece popped up about potential conflicts of interest regarding Trump's business holdings and his duties as president (The image is their illustration). This is some seriously in-depth reporting - the article is lengthy, detailed, and references issues that sprawl across the globe. Just one example of something that has already occurred: Trump threatens a ban on Muslim travel into the US, implying all Muslims pose a threat to security; Turkish officials and their dictator Erdogan didn't like this, even suggested removing the Trump name from the buildings he owns in Turkey; Trump then publicly defends Mr Erdogan's crackdown on dissidents (he has fired 100,000 civil workers and jailed 37,000 who disagree with him), and Erdogan's criticisms disappear. Trump's business presence was threatened, so he made a political statement to appease a foreign dictator in order to remove the threat.



Anyway, in my mind, the conflict of interest story is vitally important for the US population to hear about, but it is very complex and not nearly so easy to cover as recount-gate. The conflicts of interest may violate the Emoluments clause in the constitution, but its not very clear. I looked it up because I didn't even recognize the word emoluments, and found a Vox report here.

So likely, Trump or people advising him will successfully distract from this latter important story with the recount business, which is much less likely to change the fact that he is president-elect. Very effective smoke screen.

Its tempting to think the smoke screen will be a pattern - the same sort of thing played out a week earlier. The day that Trump paid a $25 million settlement so that he would not have to go to court for fraud over Trump University, Mike Pence went to see Hamilton. I saw response to the Hamilton story for a week, and precious little on the fraud settlement.

The statement I see around that seems important is this:

This is not normal.

Its important to consistently remind ourselves that all of this is not business-as-usual. It should not be normalized. It is alarming and needs to be dealt with as such. Trump will keep lying, keep making horrible appointments, keep doing things in his own financial interest, and the fact that it will keep happening does NOT make it normal or acceptable.

Pin Postscript: Keep Your Powder Dry

I'm going to start with this

So, I listen to a few podcasts, now. When I learned that one of my favorite authors and geekerati, Pat Rothfuss, was doing a podcast (with Max Temkin, a creator of the game Cards Against Humanity), I immediately began tuning it.

When I went to NerdCon:Stories I got to see a live recording of their podcast. It was marvelous.

Their most recent one, was a reaction to Trump's election. They are both very firmly progressive in their politics, and Max even started and ran a super PAC called the Nuisance Committee during the campaign cycle.

Listen to the whole thing, if you can.

I listened to it just today, and wish I'd heard it before I wrote about safety pins, because they bring up a couple really nice points that I didn't think about or cover well.

First, and I sort of got close to this point without making it clear: Max highlights a weakness of the safety pin: it is really easy to put on and take off a safety pin. Too easy, is his implication - too easy to put on even if you're not super feeling it, and too easy to take off if what it stands for is inconvenient. Max does heavy-lifting type of activism, and has worked on political campaigns, and so I think its easy to see the safety pin as lazy or weak activism from his perspective. He also has positive things to say about the idea, so don't think this point is the sum total of his feelings.

Pat brought up another nice point, though, and it dovetails with the 'easy activism' argument. He also used D&D terminology in his explanation, so I was bound to get attached to it. Look at me acknowledging my bias. His point was that an easy thing to do is maybe just what some people need - people who have never done any activism, who don't typically take any political stands. Maybe now they want to, and maybe for them that safety pin is the first step - sure, they might just take it off next week, but maybe it is the cantrip that leads them to study the magic of social justice and activism. Seriously, listening to Pat explore the D&D analogy is worth listening to the podcast.

None of that starts to explain the title - 'Keep Your Powder Dry'. That is another aspect of their reaction. Maybe it'll get its own blog.

Safety Pins?

So, within a day or two of the election, I saw this meme about safety pins. Apparently the practice originated in the UK post-brexit, when they were experiencing a rise in hate crimes, similar to what we are seeing in the US post-election. As I understood it, you wear a safety pin to identify yourself as a 'safe space' for anyone feeling like they need a safe space.

I thought this was such a great idea - I desperately wanted to do something, anything, and this was do-able. I want to be a safe space, sign me up. I dug through my house and found a safety pin and and wore it when out grocery shopping with my wife. I think it actually helped me be more aware - I was paying attention to my surroundings, looking and listening in case there was a situation that needed a safe space.

And then, maybe 24 or 48 hours after I'd first heard about it, I saw some critiques of the safety pin notion.

For example, A white nationalist source was apparently urging their followers to wear the safety pin to lure people, only to harass or do violence to them. Vile, repugnant, fuckery most foul.

Or this article, So you want to wear a safety pin?, discussing what real-world things you need to think about when declaring yourself the safe space, the person who will defend others. It talks about making a plan, or plans, being prepared to de-escalate a situation, and being prepared for violence. This article shook me up - it made wearing that pin a true, real, responsibility. Was I prepared to step in to fraught, emotional, intense situation instead of walking by? Was I prepared to take a punch for that stranger who needed help? Are your answers the same whether you are alone, with a friend, or with kids? It also was a sad reminder for me as a white male that for some, the risks of all this happening to you have nothing to do with whether you're wearing a safety pin.

Another key perspective that I first saw here, a huffpost piece that says "No, white people, you don't get to put on a pin that says 'I'm a good guy' after you just elected Trump." It points out that a big part of why I might wear the safety pin isn't to stand up for others (which can be done, obviously, without a pin), but to assuage my guilt about being in the demographic that supported Trump and all the horrible baggage he ran on. To point myself out as 'one of the good ones'. Another article (I connect with a lot of what Garrett says here) even calls it a 'pathological need for praise'.

And yes, guilty as charged, I reflected. I do want to have a sign that says I didn't vote for him. I do feel guilty and ashamed of my demographic, and embarrassingly (and subconsciously until reading that piece), I want some credit for not being a bad guy, and that is ridiculous.

I also want to actually take positive action, though. To actually be a safe space for people who need it - that is also real. And I've started. I've been in contact with my state and federal representatives, I started following the ACLU and joined the MN chapter. I've signed a couple petitions and I've started trying to educate myself more, too. I looked for a professional organization supporting minorities or marginalized populations in eye research and I'm not impressed with what I found.

Back to the topic. I won't be wearing the safety pin around; I'll just be trying to take positive action. I will remind myself that I don't need credit or praise for doing so - that being a decent human being is expected, not noteworthy.

ooo, i like that last sentence.

Bubblehead

I used to work as a server at the Drake Diner in Des Moines, IA. It started as a part time job while I was a student, and morphed into a second job after I graduated. Being an easygoing and generally friendly person, I rarely had any trouble dealing with customers; but being an absent-minded person meant I was frequently making extra trips to tables, forgetting one thing or another. After I'd been there a long while and had built up a good working rapport with my manager, she nicknamed me bubblehead. I mentioned it to my roommate, and he laughed a little more than strictly necessary ...

Not so long ago, I wrote about my dislike of 'bubble theology'. I wrote it mere days ahead of the election, and utterly failed to see the now-obvious connection to current events. Bubblehead strikes again.

It seems I am not alone as a liberal/progressive, realizing too late the extent to which our national political discourse has come to exist in bubbles, although I think the term echo chamber is actually better. My twitter feed is populated almost entirely by people who share a lot of my political opinions. My facebook presence is more ideologically diverse, but I clearly focus on what I can connect with, things that align with my own headspace and opinions. I did not unfriend anyone over the course of the election cycle, but I unfollowed at least one person whose comments I saw as offensive. I'm sure the facebook algorithms helped me create my echo chamber, but only because I went down the path on my own. I clicked and read articles with titles that sounded interesting to me. Maybe more importantly, I ignored articles from alt-right news sources, or articles that seemed to contain more bias than information, whatever side they were from.

I'm rambling. The point is that with no intent to do so, I slipped into an echo chamber, where I basically saw a world that reflected my ideology, rather than an accurate picture of our nation. Trump was obviously a horrible excuse for a human being, clearly had disqualified himself a hundred times over from the presidency, and Hillary was eminently qualified, even if she had the frustrating odor of washington politics clinging to her. There was no way the country could make the wrong decision, here - the polls even seemed to show the same picture.

When the FBI director mentioned more e-mails, but within a day it turned out they were from Wiener's device and later they were nothing, I watched the polls tighten in what seemed a totally overblown way. This should have been a smoking gun - obviously a huge portion of the country was seeing this as very important, as important as the debate performances had been. It makes all the sense, in hindsight, because people were in different echo chambers, where different narratives were dominant than the ones I saw.

So. I was complaining about a Christian bubble, while my head was buried in my own echo chamber. The combination of political divisiveness and the internet has made these echo chambers pervasive and dangerous. What is the solution? What do I do differently? I have the feeling it involves a lot of going outside the comforting confines of my echo chamber. Challenging other narratives, without being inflammatory to the people who see that narrative as true. And being open to the idea that maybe the narrative I am following is also wrong, or incomplete, or falls apart outside my echo chamber.

Y'know, just stop being a bubblehead.

Additional thoughts on racism

I didn't get around to saying in my blog post yesterday something that is both important context, and a corollary of the argument I was making.

If I claim Trump supporters are at the least racist because they supported a racist person, then it follows that people who support any other things that are racist must also be labeled that way.

A blatant example is easy to follow: the KKK is a blatantly racist organization, and people who support it are clearly endorsing racism and can fairly be called racist.

Slightly less clear-cut: Voter ID laws that claim to be about preventing voter fraud, but also have the significant and directed effect of lowering minority voter turnout. This is subtler than the KKK, but still racist in its effect, and supporters are endorsing racism.

Even less clear-cut: zoning for neighborhood public schools has created highly segregated schools in many areas - John Oliver had a really good segment about this recently:

Oliver on school segregation

This one implicates a lot of people who are not the first folk who come to mind when I think about racist or racism-prone ideologies. The results, though, are clearly unjust along racial lines and directed at minority populations. So racism is involved here, too.

As the argument for what is racist and who is racist extends, it begins to cover a really, really large percentage of people. And I think that is an important lesson. We are still in many ways a very racist and unjust country and we need to consistently be reminded of it in order to do better. Finding the hidden ways we are racist is as (maybe more?) important than pointing out the obvious ones.

So I'm not only trying to say that Trump voters are racist. I am, too, and I want to move away from that, towards a more just, more equal America. And that means being aware.

Racism and Trump voters

I will be working on the assumption that Trump is racist. I see very clear evidence of that in his comments throughout the campaign. I'm just stating this up front, to be clear. It is the basis from which my thoughts and arguments stem.

The question I'm working on is: does voting for Trump automatically mean that voter is racist? I keep asking myself because I see many people making many claims around this question. 

My immediate gut reaction, uninformed by analysis, is that yes it does. If you know me, you'll know I rarely leave a thought at a gut reaction. 

There is the fairly strong argument that a ton of Trump voters voted for change in our political system, and Trump is simply the catalyst, though flawed. From another angle, if someone was voting against Clinton because she embodied for them the existing, frustrating gridlock of business-as-usual Washington, how can that be racist? 

John Scalzi had a very simple answer to this: 

And a much more detailed account of the same statement, with a beautiful analogy, here: 

Scalzi's Cinemax Theory of Racism

What both of these basically say is that since you voted for someone who was clearly racist, and you knew that he was/is racist, the act of supporting him is a racist act, that racism was part of the package that you cast a vote in support of. This is obviously an uncomfortable thing for someone to grapple with who just wanted to vote against Washington politicking. 

Many people (I'm sure a big majority) who voted for Trump are not people who would personally do horribly racist acts. A few are, and the stories are all over my facebook and twitter feeds, but those are outliers, albeit dangerous ones that need to be dealt with. The thing is, though, they didn't let Trump's racism automatically disqualify him. 

That's a key point. I'm going to repeat it. A vote for Trump meant that the voter did not see Trump's racism and disqualify him as a possibility. 

Trevor Noah and Hasan Minhaj cover this aspect here: 

Not a Deal Breaker?

Another important angle to look at this from is that of the targeted party. If I am a Muslim and someone tells me they voted for Trump, is that person a racist? It becomes so much more personal. The voter said - yes, I support the guy who doesn't think people of your faith should be allowed into the United States, our nation built on immigrants. 

I'm getting away from my point. In the end, a vote for Trump is at bare minimum racist because the voter didn't care enough to disqualify him. At worst, it is racist because he empowers a voter with truly horrible beliefs to feel better about having them. 

Letter to my congressman

Congressman Walz,

Congratulations on winning your seat in the House again! I voted for you from here in Rochester.

I've never written a personally composed letter to my representative before, but I decided in the wake of the election that it was time to be a little more active. I intend that this will not be the last time I write you; I want you to know you have the support of your constituents as you head toward what will undoubtedly be a difficult and trying two years (and more) ahead, and I want you to hear my voice directly, with more nuance than I can give by just voting for you.

Generally, I hope that you will be a loud advocate for ALL the american people, focusing on those who are genuinely and deservedly afraid at the result of the election. People of color, muslims, and the LGBTQI community are already experiencing a rise in hatred as the election results embolden certain, shall we say, 'deplorables'. Please do everything you can to speak on their behalf, and speak loudly. I'm paraphrasing, but I saw on twitter "As white males with privilege, it is time for us to put down a shoudler and block for those who have less."

And please, be loud in general. Be a thorn in the side of the republican majority. In the words of Captain Malcom Reynolds from the Serenity movie, "Aim to misbehave". My support for you will be embiggened rather than endangered, if I see you in the news being bold. (And if you haven't watched Serenity and the Firefly TV series that spawned it, do yourself a favor and make the time!).

Can't let this get too long, so that's all this time.

Respectfully,

Tommy Rinkoski

messy first response

Trump won the election last night. So many emotions in reaction to this are roiling in my mind. This may turn into several posts.

I am so disappointed with our nation. It feels like hate won, and racism won, and misogyny won, the list goes on.

This wasn't supposed to happen. In my head, we were so much better than this.

Uncertainty about what happens next. What do I tell my kids?

Does the America that made this horrible mistake have the strength to weather the results?

I am angry. I want to know who to lash out at. Someone commented on my post of the above picture on facebook, in support of Trump over Clinton, and I wrote a very angry rant before realizing that this person, this friend with a different opinion than me, did not deserve to be the focus of my anger. I made myself delete it and replaced it with a better message, but I am no less angry.

I want to understand how so many people voted the way they did. Because while I feel like hate won, I have to imagine that very few people actually went to the voting booth thinking to themselves "I'm voting for Hate today!" There are a number of factors here. Privilege is big, institutionalized racism and sexism and other intolerances play a big part. The media coverage is a part of it - scandals were equated that had no business being equated. There was a massive drive to shake off the gridlocked establishment politics. All this stuff played into it.

But the result is horrible. Trump's comments and attitudes have targeted so many groups that already struggle in our society. I see friends, family, and figures I admire who are legitimately afraid of this result, and they have every reason to be!

I think the good response, the best choice, is to choose the attitude that #LoveTrumpsHate and try to fill my space with positive energy. Like my friend Kristen said, 'Sing Louder'. And Love Harder. Inspire people to be their best selves by being mine. Reach out hands and words where I can.

I'm also really stuck on the question: 'What do I do with my privilege?' I am white, male, straight, cis, and middle class. I have nearly all the privilege. Today I am really ashamed of that. There must be a responsible, smart, loving thing to do with my privilege, right? what is it?

Election day

So, for all the anxious thought I've put in prior to voting, Today has been really positive so far.

Last couple days, I researched the down ballot candidates and initiatives as well as I was able online. I feel good about my choices, though I wish I had more information on some of them.

This morning, I went to the polling place just after it opened, and there was a very short line left from the people who'd gotten there early. One grumpy lady and some very helpful, cheerful folks working the station. Thank goodness, no sign of any 'poll watchers' or anything intimidating.

I slide my ballot into the machine. Says I'm voter 42 today. I grab a sticker and smile, and seriously, honestly feel like I've been told its all going to be okay. I voted for the woman who will be the first female US president.

Facebook is full of my friends' voting stories - some very emotional about casting their vote in the election. I'm bouyed and still smiling.

I know that I'm in a bit of an echo chamber in my circle of friends online. I know that it could be a tight election and there is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad alternative. But I think I'm going to just try to keep smiling today. Look at all the civic pride of my friends. The excitement about voting in this historic election.

When I go home tonight, I get to read to me nieces and nephew in Baltimore again. We're reading Odd and the Frost Giants, and it was great fun last week. By the time that's done, I can check the news and there should be some early results.

I saw a tweet, someone saying their plan was to listen to act one of hamilton on repeat with 'fight song' thrown in as necessary. i'm down.

earbuds

holy empty outer ears batman

I left my earbuds at home

it started so innocently, last night I put them in to listen to Critical Role, so I didn't keep my wife and kids awake.

Then I probably tossed them somewhere as I sleepily crawled into bed afterwards.

Then i woke up, made sure the kids got on their bus, and got on mine. I also got dressed somewhere in there.

Now I'm at work, and I was scanning through twitter, and there is Aubrey Webber of the doubleclicks playing 'History has its eyes on you' from Hamilton, on the cello.

and I haven't my earbuds.

Can I still listen to this one? yes, I can. Brad is next to me and he won't care - he'll glance over to see what it is and all will be well.

But I have hours of work to do in the culture hood today. My ears will be naked, unsoothed by the dulcet tones of the 'imaginary worlds' podcast, or The Adventure Zone, or Unattended Consequences, or the Hamilton soundtrack, or Postmodern Jukebox. All the things, they will not be in my ears.

I thought being sleepy from staying up late would be the problem today. The Critical Role Hangover. but I didn't plan on missing earbuds.

In other news, I started looking at the ACX website, the audiobook creation exchange. This began because I started reading Odd and the Frost Giants with Mree's kids earlier this week. I remembered how fun it is to read, and they really enjoyed it, and I wondered - what would it take to make a little money recording audiobooks? Answer is basically it would take a recording studio setup. That may or may not stop me.

hagiography

1. The writing and critical study of the lives of the saints; hagiology

For more than a year now, Audrey and I have not been attending church regularly. We've spotted a few places we mean to try attending, and have been urged to try coming back to the church we had been attending by friends, and there are a ton of aspects to those decisions, but here is one that seems relevant to the wotd that came up in our discussion last night (given that you stretch the meaning of saint to include people who really seem to be getting the 'living a life of faith' right, to our eyes):

There is a tendency, probably common to communities in many religions, but that I have experienced directly through the Christian community, particularly in evangelical circles. It involves surrounding oneself with media, people, and content that is all 'Christian', such that your life can exist in a sort of Christian bubble. I think this is a horrible model. A) it blocks out different, new, alternative ideas, encouraging ignorance and enabling atrocities borne of passivity. B) it makes it very easy for there to be a border of the bubble, where things inside are 'good' and approved and things outside are 'bad' - and one of the bedrock planks in Christ's platform was Love thine enemy. C) The bubble becomes a crutch, where you are surrounded by Christianity and thereby don't require a strong inner faith life - its all around you instead.

My views on this are strongly influenced by the people in my life whose faith I most respect - both of my parents, my brother, a handful of my in-laws. These people certainly don't all have the same faith lives, but they all do share one aspect that I find very important. Their faith is a living thing that they have with them always - they nurture it and care for it, and thus they are whole spiritual selves equipped to take their faith with them into any environment, regardless of what other people, ideas, cultures, and forces are around them. There is no bubble, no borders to where and with whom they are comfortable being Christians. In any case, that model seems to be the one that works for all these people whose faith I really admire.

I think there is a third model that isn't quite bubble and isn't the equipped self model, but I haven't thought enough about it to be clear - something like the 'golden path' model, the classic straight and narrow sort of thinking, where you're on it or you're in the weeds. I don't much care for that either.

Anyway, hagiology recalled some of that discussion. blog out.