Privilege and Harrison Bergeron

We have reached the point in my blogging where I criticize beloved figures, starting with a beloved author.

I first read "Harrison Bergeron" in junior high. My first reaction was to be disturbed. Most of our class discussion focused on how even though they called Harrison a genius he seemed pretty stupid. It took me much longer to think about the fact that efforts toward equality don't really work that way.

Think about it. Even with affirmative action having been on the books for a while, a black college student has the same change of getting a job as a white high school dropout. When they do get the job, they get paid less. Their efforts to use that salary to invest in a home usually involve worse loan deals and less valuable property - even after those practices were declared illegal - so they lag behind in gaining wealth. People still feel threatened by affirmative action and get angry about it.

The common conception is that the story was a satire relating to wealth equality, and the points in the previous paragraph can apply to that. On the surface it is more about actual physical disabilities. Looking at that, steps toward equality generally involve accommodations like ramps and reserved parking spaces closer to the entrance. Maybe there are larger screens for the visually impaired. They don't remove all obstacles caused by the disabilities, but they allow participation by individuals who do have something to give. It doesn't take anything away from those without disabilities. It certainly doesn't lead to weighing down the strong and putting masks on the beautiful.

The absurdity of it could be seen as the point of satire, and you could hope that Vonnegut's point was to show how ridiculous the fears were for those who worried about talk of equality. That doesn't seem likely. In trying to see if anyone else had addressed those issues, I found this:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kathleenfounds/and-yet?utm_term=.jkOVnQYyP2#.naVdjQ0GOZ

It relates to the story "Welcome to the Monkey House", originally published in Playboy but later in a collection (by that name) of stories that included "Harrison Bergeron". And yes, apparently the way you satirize simultaneous concerns about overpopulation and the Pope reconfirming his opposition to birth control (plus equality) is therapeutic rape, done humbly. Right.

I don't think Kurt Vonnegut was a bad man. He sounds like a pretty nice man, but he was white and he was male, and especially in the 1960s that put him in a position where there were things he just didn't need to worry about.

This is a time of finding lots of anger and fear about a change in the social order, and there are people who aren't even that high up in the social order but who still cling to it because they're afraid of being lower still.

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

I'm not saying that you can't find Black people who will argue against affirmative action or women who will shame victims of rape - they are out there. You will also find white men who look beyond that. But it's easy not to know if you don't have to know. There are still a lot of people who have to know.

I try to never forget that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-boeskool/when-youre-accustomed-to-privilege_b_9460662.html

Band Review: Into the Night and Tyler Simmons

I'm combining two follows who do not provide a lot of material on their own.

First is Into the Night. I was followed by one user who had a link to a video in his profile, but now does not, perhaps having moved on. There may or may not be another member of the band who is doing more with his personal Youtube channel.

They do have a an original song, kind of hardcore but with some melodic lyricism, and the guitar is well-played, but I'm not sure there's still a band here. This may be a downside to my long lead time for reviews, though the follow happened in June, so it wasn't even the full six months.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwG-lBNwOTwcvQeFwBHslLQ/featured

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNVLo08X1eDjOOjHRvO8C5g

https://twitter.com/imjonnyboy_

Tyler Simmons followed me about a week after Jonathan. He has more material, but not additional original material, with all but one of the songs being covers. Being relatively young, it may make sense for Simmons to accumulate more life experience and have more things to write about.

I know the names of the other artists he covers, but only one of the songs. I think he has a good voice and sounds good, but I don't know how they compare, except for that one.

That one is a cover of "Imagine", and I hate it. It's a duet, and together they flatten the song and I'm not even really a Lennon fan.

Right now Simmons is a 16-year old Canadian actor who is not bad at guitar or singing and is pretty cute, but he is still growing into whomever he is going to be. One of the covers is a Justin Bieber song, which reminds us there is a wide range of options for how he can turn out.

http://tylersimmons.ca/

https://www.facebook.com/tylersimmusic

https://soundcloud.com/tyler-simmons-553619858

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGr8name

https://twitter.com/Tylersimmusic

Band Review: Orisonata

Orisonata is a progressive metal project, a collaboration between Jason Lee Greenberg and his wife Jennifer Grassman, a classically trained vocalist.

Among their influences they cite many bands, but also Jules Verne and J.R.R. Tolkien. It is not surprising that the tracks on their self-titled album refer to works of fantasy ("The Once and Future King"), science-fiction ("Journey to the Center of the Earth"), religion ("The Great Baptism"), folklore ("Robin Hood") and myth ("The Muses").

Tracks are long - the shortest is 5:07 - and dramatic: big guitar, big voice, and big keyboards (another listed influence is Johann Sebastian Bach). This band is in the business of epic quests.

I do not think they are being pretentious, but I did feel it was a bit silly and overblown. I feel the same way about Trans-Siberian Orchestra, though, and they have a definite fan base. Fans of Dragonforce might also be interested.

https://orisonata.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/Orisonata/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh8Tx8FRvOgQONksbtCzrEA

https://orisonata.bandcamp.com/

https://twitter.com/Orisonata

The slippery slope

There are probably two points I should make about yesterday's not comfortable with racism but still passionately anti-globalist tweeter. The first is that he is in the UK. That means that he may be seeing different news coverage than we do here, and a lot of the coverage may be influenced by the lead-in and aftermath to the Brexit vote.

The other thing is that he recently made a movie that was filmed in seventeen countries by getting the help of other people. That initially sounds like someone who would be very into globalism, except I guess that they are all staying in their respective countries.

I do not automatically rule out that there can be legitimate concerns about globalization and immigration, which seems to be the bigger concern among those who mention globalization. I also cannot be blind to the history of ostracizing and blaming immigrants for things that were not their faults. It's been something that has worked very well for the rich - immigrants provide a cheap labor pool for the capitalists to exploit and a scapegoat for social problems caused by their greed. Convenient.

The scapegoating shouldn't work so easily. For example, some people raise security concerns about accepting refugees, but if you look at both the current vetting process and how many incidents that happen come from people who are already citizens, it should fall apart. That it doesn't is - I believe - a result of deeply ensconced prejudices. Often it is racism, but it could be simply Anglocentrism. That those prejudices are part of a structure that enfolds sexism and ableism is not a coincidence.

Let me jump over to two other things that I was reading last week. One was about the toll the news is taking on some survivors of harassment and assault. They see the automatic attempts to discredit the survivors' accounts, and the power structure, and it brings back the memories and the feelings of that time.

Two of the women affected by that are women that I admire a lot. They are so smart, and well-read and deep-thinking. They are hard-working and creative. They were very valuable, until they were women of color accusing a white man who was a prominent feminist of abuse. Then they were targeted and harassed and abused by a lot of people instead of just the one.

One of the recipients of the abuse posted this article:

https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-make-great-informants-how-gender-violence-on-the-left-enables-state-violence-in-radical-movements/

Having read about the Black Panthers and AIM not that long ago, it resonated. In the case of one of the Black Panther examples and the RNC protester examples, what stands out is the increase in violence. The spy who is supposed to be discovering criminal activity is actually causing it. This can destroy an organization pretty effectively, hurting the image, tarnishing the message, and getting members jailed.

You don't have to be a provocateur to bring a group down. Being a misogynist in an anti-racism group can be enough. Looking down on women of color and valuing them less in a feminist group can be enough. Working for gay rights, but snubbing the members of color or lesbians or bisexuals or holding onto transphobia can be enough.

It happens all the time. I have seen volunteer organizations go through terrible rivalries and turnover, with deeply dedicated people hurt and alienated, and that was just for dog adoption. The issue was still that some people need to exert power over others. Because our society is built on a foundation where the ability to oppress and dominate is often related to race and gender and sexuality, it makes it easy to bring out the worst in us.

It should have been easy for members in the infiltrated groups to turn down the suggested violence. "No. That's not what we're about. That's not how we are doing things." But it is easy to give in to people who are taking charge, and who are higher up in the kyriarchy. In the same way, it can be very hard to challenge them when it appears they are being abusive, and support the victims. It is very easy to tell people whose needs are not being met that they have to wait because this other thing is more important. It's easy to say by going against him, you are damaging us, instead of examining the damage caused by the rotten core.

That's how we sell our souls, except, it's not a clear transaction for a lot of people. Sometimes it's just a continual numbing when you choose the path of least resistance and shun the thing that makes you feel uncomfortable. The more privilege you have, the easier it is to do.

I do not claim to have all of the answers. I do believe that if we are holding on to having superiority against one group, or blaming everything on one group, it corrupts us. It gets us into bed with vile people. You can lose your sensitivity to what is vile. It has been happening all along.

If your revolution isn't intersectional, it's crap.

Changing minds

Yesterday's troll has not been the only person to challenge my sisters politically, though she was certainly becoming the most prominent.

One thing we have discussed periodically is whether there is even a point in having these conversations, because no one is listening. Remember the coworker who is Christian but does not believe you have to love others? He loves discussing politics with her, except "discuss" might be an overstatement because it implies that some listening goes along with the talking.

My response would often revert to having seen two people change their minds. It's rare, and it's hard to say what makes it happen, but it is at least a possibility. I want to go over those, and then something else that recently happened.

For the first one, I don't know what happened. He had been a Sanders supporter and virulently anti-Clinton. One day he posted that he had been wrong; Clinton has been serving people all her life. He seems to be back to supporting third-party candidates now, but for a while it was really encouraging.

I know the turning point for the other, and it was something that freaked me out. It was the video contrasting two men of different races demonstrating their right to open carry an AR-15.

I was shaking mad when I saw it. It seemed like a great way to get the Black man killed, and I was so angry with whoever had decided to risk his life to prove a point. That is discounting his willing participation, and they probably thought the cameras provided a measure of security, but I felt sick. I felt sick not from what I was seeing there, but from fear because of what I already knew.

It was different for her. She had blamed many incidents before on non-compliance and attitude and reverse racism, but with that video she saw it. Not everyone did; there are people who argue about it being a holstering issue and having nothing to do with racism. For at least one person it made a difference, so you never know.

The day after the previously discussed Facebook scuffle, a mutual on Twitter posted that he didn't understand why a certain phrasing that Donald Trump had used was perceived as anti-Semitic. I knew that one, so I responded. Soon it felt like I was down the rabbit hole, because he just didn't see any evidence that Trump was racist. After all, he had an Orthodox Jewish son-in-law and had dated Black women.

Relationships don't automatically heal racism, and there is a lot of evidence for that, but I focused on some of the more obvious signs of racism, and concerns about Trump setting the stage for violence in the wake of his defeat. He knew that wouldn't be a problem, because while he had seen people against both Trump and Clinton in his Twitter feed, there were lots of pro-Trump tweets and none in favor of Clinton.

That can be an interesting commentary on how it is easy to insulate yourself from differing viewpoints, but at the same time, he follows me. I have tweeted things in favor of Clinton, and he's not seeing it. There are a lot of people with her.

That didn't feel like it was going anywhere. He did delete some of his tweets praising Trump during the conversation, so maybe there was some impact, but it was hard to tell. The next day I found an article that was really pertinent, and passed it on to him:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism

He promised to check it out, and that was the end of our interaction. However, the next day he tweeted that only one person had been against globalism and why did it have to be Trump? Maybe he did see something. Maybe he at least has a better understanding of why some people have concerns.

What may not be obvious from that story is that I found that interaction exhausting. Between him then and Rachel the day before, I wanted to give up all political discourse because it is not worth it. But then sometimes it might be, so I stay in there.

I do have some ideas on why the anti-globalism candidate might necessarily be the groping racist misogynist that is Trump. More on that tomorrow.

Scuffles

I've been fighting on the internet again..

There is a good chance this will keep up. The election is getting closer, there is a lot of bad information out there, and it's important to me; I feel a responsibility to post things. However, that's not how the first one happened.

For a while now, every political post that either of my younger sisters has posted has been attacked by their former hairdresser. They would sometimes ask me for help with rebuttals, but it would always result in more frustration. Sometimes the things she said were too poorly conceived to answer easily, but when they would do a reasonable response anyway she would shrug it off, saying she needed to get back to doing something else, and she didn't want to get unfriendly. She was already so unfriendly that it was hard to take that justification seriously.

She had been getting worse, and I was pretty fed up with her, so much so that on the day of the dust up I had posted a Facebook status about how frustrating she was. It got a lot of likes, but I didn't think that much about it. After all, I know she is not the only person like that out there, and my status also complimented my friends for not pulling that crap. Then she went after both of them again.

A picture of the president with a child (lots of good Obama/child pics out there) and a compliment to his nature drew on a scathing argument that he couldn't be a good kind person because he is pro-abortion. Then on another post she put her incorrect, poorly articulated comment followed by a "Done" so you would know that you are not supposed to answer.

I try to avoid conflict, but once I'm in, I'm in. I came out swinging, and I was pretty clear about her being stupid. The thing is, she's not intelligent, but I wouldn't have made a big deal out of that if she had not been being a jerk, which she continued.

One thing I had not been anticipating was that other friends of mine came to my defense. I don't even know how it happened, because only one of them was a mutual with my sisters and I, and I know none of them were friends with Rachel (and unlikely to become friends now). I'm sure she felt piled on - which is not a good feeling - but she did not learn anything. She claimed I had nothing better to do than be a troll when the precise reason I was there was because she has been trolling my sisters consistently. No sense of irony whatsoever.

It was nice to have others affirming my intelligence and goodness, and this is where it gets interesting. One of the things she threw at me was that I am just a sad, lonely single. She is Mormon, like my sisters and I, and our church is very family-oriented. My friends who contributed are not LDS, so I know that particular insult seemed very wrong to them, though most members I know would be horrified at that being thrown out as an insult as well.

I mention it, because I think in Rachel's mind, well of course we are liberal and pro-choice and can support Clinton and Obama - we are not doing what is right. She had previously ended a lot of arguments to Julie with Julie just not understanding because she doesn't have children. Whether the issue is merely that we have not been quite righteous enough to be blessed with husbands and children (and once you have those, you are never sad or lonely) or we are rebelliously staying single and childless on purpose, I am not sure, but it gives her the moral high ground.

I think that for her - and for a lot of other people - there is a mental block that anyone can be smart and good and still believe differently politically. I don't say it based on this interaction alone. Saturday night one of my posts got an unusually scriptural response from one Mormon, but also a kind of aggressive response from someone who wasn't. And when another friend (who is Mormon) stepped in to defend me, he flew into attack mode on her, calling her stupid and accusing her of being on food stamps. (She has a PhD and has never been on government aid, though that would not be a crime.) Because obviously if she is liberal, she must be poor and stupid, as must I. (But I am only poor, and clearly I have friends who will vouch for the smart part.)

This division is not right. No political party has a monopoly on good or evil. As everything becomes more polarizing, it can seem that way. Certainly, I can feel like people don't question themselves enough, or their political alignment, but even as execrable as I think Trump is, I can't automatically assume someone who supports him is that execrable.

Rachel unfriended my sisters, and that was my goal. I was tired of them getting abused for daring to think differently and they were reluctant to unfriend her because that's like giving up. I deliberately disrupted that. (And although she only unfriended them she said she was blocking them, because she isn't even smart enough to know what those things mean.)

However, I have not unfriended the people from the other interactions. I did delete some posts, but I am going to try to preserve those relationships. Abuse is a reason not too, but if we can manage to disagree without abuse, then we should do that. I'm going to try.

Spell check does not like my use of "unfriend" as a verb, and frankly, it feels weird having a post where I get so specific on everyone's religious affiliation, but it seemed relevant. We'll' see how tomorrow's post goes.

Band Review: Micah Buzan

Micah Buzan is a musician and an animator.

The focus on the animation may result in there being less information about the music. In this case, I wish he had written a little more about his genre or influences, because I am not sure how to describe the music.

There are ways in which it reminds me of Chiptunes. It is never quite that beepy, but there are often mechanical grooves running under the music. That also makes it kind of resemble techno, but maybe with some additional influence from surf music. That probably doesn't make sense, but listen to "Horus V.S. Set" and see if you get what I mean.

As there are many animation videos, and because Buzan makes videos for other musicians, trying to find songs on Youtube can be frustrating. Soundcloud and Bandcamp will work better for that.

https://www.facebook.com/MicahBuzanMUSIC

https://soundcloud.com/micahbuzan

https://micahbuzan.bandcamp.com/

https://www.youtube.com/user/MicahBuzan

https://twitter.com/MIcahBuzan

Band Review: Just Offshore

Just Offshore is a progressive rock band from New York, the work of Cold Sweat drummer Russ Mate.

Most tracks are instrumental, but "An Old Man Selling Easter Eggs and a Small Piggy Bank" is more spoken word. All of them fit into a feeling of being more experimental, playing with moods and sequences.

2016 release Landfall seems to be the most musical and the most interesting, especially on "Gray".

Just Offshore requires some patience, but fans of progressive rock should at least check it out.

http://justoff.com/

https://www.facebook.com/JustOffshoreMusic/

https://twitter.com/justoffshore1

Your vote

Today's post will seem to have some inherent contradictions.

It is the right time to cover it. Monday was about how vote by mail eases voter participation, and while Tuesday was specifically about Measure 97, it was also about respectful disagreement. Maybe today's material is a natural fit.

There has been a fair amount of talk this year about not wasting your vote, because a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton, or a vote for Stein or Sanders is a vote for Trump. I have never liked that.

I have wondered if I would feel differently this year. If Trump did win, would I be angry at the people who voted for him and the people who didn't like him but didn't vote for Clinton? Trump is a terrible candidate, but no, I still want people to vote for whom they want.

People point to the 2000 election, and how if the 81,000 Nader voters had voted for Gore, he would have won. That's no small thing. The World Trade Center attacks might have been thwarted if you had a president who didn't dismiss intelligence that wasn't about Iraq. It could still have happened and we might even still have invaded Afghanistan for their sheltering of Al Qaeda, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Lehman Brothers might not have happened, and the environment would probably be in better shape. The surplus being drained and big tax cuts that failed to stimulate the economy probably would not have happened.

That is all speculation, though the probabilities involved should be a good reminder of the hubris it took Nader to say there is no difference between the two parties. However, his supporters still should have been able to vote for Nader. The real problem was the improper purges from the Florida voter rolls and other impropriety that still barely gave W the state. Take away the manipulations of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and the conscience of the Nader voters doesn't hurt.

I want everyone to have their vote. We are in an election where there is a great candidate who has been slandered for so long that many voters have a totally distorted view of her and are against her for poor reasons. We have an election where the basest impulses in human nature and years of the GOP and Fox News spreading misinformation and class warfare have led to the worst candidate in human history. I can't say I don't care, because I care deeply, but I still want everyone to cast the vote they want.

So this is where we get to the contradiction, because my desire for your autonomy may be combined with my thinking your vote is stupid and abhorrent. It's not that different from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is democracy, and all of the voices should be heard.

It doesn't mean I don't wish for better news sources, and better schools and education that brings back civics classes, because this process could be improved, but the improvement is not voter disenfranchisement or intimidation or apathy.

So if you wish to vote for a racist misogynistic monger of hate and fear who is unable to exercise any self-control because he sees no need to, but it may make him the worst person ever to have access to the nuclear codes, who has spent years cheating workers out of pay and still has to keep declaring bankruptcy because we need a businessman, that is your right. Have at it.

And if you hate Clinton but are scared of Trump, so you think Johnson is the answer, despite the fact that he does not feel the need to stay abreast of foreign policy on even our hot spots while running for president, and that he is against affordable health care and higher education, but pro-choice and pro-pot doesn't bother you, go for it! I am thrilled to see many of you supporting a pro-choice candidate.

Or if you think Stein, who doesn't call herself anti-vax but merely says a lot of the same things they say in the same ways and contexts, because Heaven knows the Green Party and saving the Earth shouldn't have to get bogged down in science, do it. Blessed be!

Or if you think Evan McMullin is the answer, despite the winning plan being an electoral tie between Trump and Clinton - despite Clinton's lead over Trump continuing to grow - resulting in Congress giving it to the "neutral" candidate as long as he wins one state, thus completely nullifying the votes of the residents of the other 49 states, may you live happily ever after.

Same thing with write-ins; you vote your conscience. You should.

I am voting for an extraordinary candidate, and if you support any of the others, there may be a few sentences here that feel against you. Worse has been said about mine, and I'll survive.

My conscience and brain are working together, and I am voting the way that I want. I wish the same for all of you.

Measure 97

This is the main Oregon issue I want to talk about. I certainly find Measure 98 interesting, and the candidate races, but I don't have my ballot and pamphlet yet, and I don't generally feel a need to make recommendations on every race.

Measure 97 is different for me because it touches on a very important issue, and the ads against it are giving me a lot of thoughts and feelings.

Here is the summary of Measure 97:

"Current law requires each corporation or affiliated group of corporations filing a federal tax return to pay annual minimum tax; amount of tax is determined by tax bracket corresponding to amount of corporation’s Oregon sales; corporations with sales of $100 million or more pay $100,000. Measure increases annual minimum tax on corporations with Oregon sales of more than $25 million; imposes minimum tax of $30,001 plus 2.5% of amount of sales above $25 million; eliminates tax cap; benefit companies (business entities that create public benefit) taxed under current law. Applies to tax years beginning on/after January 1, 2017. Revenue from tax increase goes to public education (early childhood through grade 12); health care; services for senior citizens."

Well of course Gina supports that; she is a tax and spend liberal! Okay, but there's more to it than that.

I find it interesting how the opposition ads capitalize on Oregon's tax history. Oregon's budget has been having trouble since Don McIntire's Measure 5 from 1990, and school funding has been a pretty constant source of concern since then. While the imbalance seems to relate more to businesses not paying a reasonable share (which is not only a measure 5 issue), a more common proposal to address the insufficiency has been sales tax. Oregonians hate the idea of a sales tax.

I hate the idea of a sales tax too. The mere hassle of having to do the mental calculations in your head while at the store to figure out what you will really be paying was my first reason. That comes from being a child on vacation in other states. I might have had a dollar or two to spend, so a few cents could make a big difference.

That is probably less of a concern as an adult, but now I have a greater awareness of how regressive a sales tax is, affecting most the people who can spare the least. Yes, you can write it so that the barest necessities are tax-exempt, but the more items you exempt the less effective the source of revenue. In addition, there is a tendency to over-scrutinize the purchases of poor people already; I don't want to be having that discussion where we decide that they can have unprepared foods but should never be able to get something from the deli.

Regardless, I totally get the genius of opponents calling this a sales tax. "It's on sales! Not on profits!" Yes, that should make it hated. It also misses the point.

The reason such wording is necessary is because some businesses are brilliant at spending their money as soon as they make it, thus never having a profit. (You may notice that as a non-corporate entity, spending your money does not make it tax-exempt.)

Hollywood is notorious for this. There have been lawsuits about people who were promised a share of the profits, but never got any because a very successful film never produced any profits. (This is why smart agents negotiate takes of the total box office.) Similarly, there are businesses that spend money on luxury penthouses for their executives and private jets and sky boxes, and they become business expenses.

It is smart to focus on the impact on family farms, because Oregonians love family farms. I do question how many family farms have over $25 million in annual sales, though, because everything I have seen on farming makes that number seem high. Hospitals might, but part of the increase is going to health care so it could even out.

Here's the thing, if your company is making $25 million in sales, but it is all taken up by operating expenses so you cannot afford the $30,000 plus 2.5%, maybe you should raise prices. That can probably be done reasonably. If you are manipulating budgets because your greed is more important than children, seniors, and health, my sympathy is all drained away.

I can respect differences of opinion. I can respect them in general, and on specific ways of resolving various issues. I don't approve of trying to weasel out of paying taxes, but I can understand the motivation.

However, when you use deception to convince people to go against their best interests to serve your own, apparently with the assumption that they are stupid, I really hate that. I've got my eyes on you.

Vote yes on 97.

http://voteyeson97.org/initiative/

Voting Right

I want to spend some time on Oregon issues. As we get closer to November 8th, many people will be waiting to cast their votes, but Oregonians may have turned in their ballots a few weeks before that. I will turn in my ballot before that. It makes sense to address local issues earlier, but I want to start with the process.

There have been some calls recently for making election day a national holiday. Support has come from Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama himself. I understand why they support it, I get what they are going for, and it is not the answer.

The people who get federal holidays off are already the ones with the fewest obstacles to voting. There is a larger percentage of the population who does not. Your barista works on federal holidays. So does your nurse, and your retail salesperson, and your friendly local police officer. Some of them fill positions where there needs to be someone available at all times, and for some of them it's just a matter of maximizing profits when other people are off and have time to shop, but a new holiday would not benefit them.

Voting by mail will.

I have been voting long enough to remember before we had vote by mail. That includes a memory of getting home late one rainy night and the precinct had been moved, and I came really close to not getting there in time. Even without that, I remember that no matter how hard I would pore over the voter's pamphlet, there in the booth some things would be hard to remember.

It is a wonderful thing to be able to fill out the ballot at home, looking things up when I am not sure, and getting the batch of envelopes for the whole household ready to drop off (or mail, but we usually drop them off).

That can fit into any working schedule. Because it creates a paper trail, it can address concerns about voter fraud. It's beautiful. It's effective.

It takes away the long lines, and the opportunities for voter intimidation. Sure, those who like to manipulate the process will start looking for new ways to do so, but it cuts off a lot of their old ways.

I know some people like the feeling of civic engagement they get going into the little booth, but I respectfully suggest that there might be other ways to get that feeling, and possibly where the efforts are more helpful. Churches that have offered bus rides to the polls can have ballot parties, and trips to cast the completed ballots.

Rest of the US, Oregon has something to teach you. (Yes, I know we're not the only ones doing it now, but we started it.)

Nationwide, let's move to vote by mail.

Band Review: Forever Still

Forever Still is a heavy rock band from Denmark.

That comes from their own description, but I appreciate it. There are trappings of hard rock and heavy metal, and they could pass for Goth, but there is an emphasis on melody and emotion that does not fit neatly into any of them. They have the ability to go in that direction - vocalist Maja Shining can growl-shout with the best of them - but they often choose to do other things.

This comes from the band's own decision to be completely honest and emotional. That content may include anger and aggression, but they also include depression and anxiety, and perseverance and recovery.

Having recently reviewed a musician who seemed to be aiming for this but failed, this was a nice reminder of what could have been.

Forever Still starts touring with Lacuna Coil in two weeks.

http://foreverstill.dk/

https://www.facebook.com/Foreverstill

https://www.youtube.com/user/ForeverStillOfficial

https://twitter.com/foreverstilldk

Band Review: Viz Dawg

Matt Vizzi is the buffest rapper I have ever reviewed. It is easy to think of what he does as jock rap, as exemplified by "Get Me The Ball" his most memorable song. I like that he has something else that he is passionate about and incorporates it. Otherwise I did not find much memorable.

Rap fans may respond more, especially if they like sports.

https://soundcloud.com/matt-vizzi

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJoB8T7LEEtkMZZ_mygkuEw

https://twitter.com/Vizdawg

Not an accidental racist

It's not that a Trump presidency ever sounded less than horrible to me, but it has taken disturbing racist turns that I really need to get off my chest.

Maybe the first point to make is that no racism is accidental. Individuals may not intend to imbibe it, but there are people who have worked very hard at different times to separate the interests of poor whites from poor people of color, to discredit any gains made by people of color (often through outright destruction), and to roll back progress. Thomas Dixon Jr. wrote a false novel about Reconstruction, and D. W. Griffith turned it into a film. Woodrow Wilson re-segregated government departments that had been integrated. Those are just a few examples that come to mind easily.

There is also a legacy of politicians perpetuating those stereotypes - often cynically - to appeal to voters. Nixon and Reagan did this with tough-on-crime/war-on-drugs campaigning and legislation.

It often used coded language. Being openly racist stopped being acceptable in polite company, but you can say "urban", "crime", and "welfare", and the message is received (regardless of how many criminals and government aid recipients are white).

The GOP has held on tightly to their racist dog-whistles, and building on them. They should not have been caught so off guard by Trump's popularity. Yes, he dropped the veneer, but it was only a thin veneer at best. It was equally easy to believe that Trump was simply not intellectual or self-aware enough to see the value in maintaining any veneer. Instead of tying illegal immigration closely to crime, he can just call Mexican rapists. It got a laugh for Amy Schumer, so why shouldn't it work for him?

Trump's supporters respond to how honest he is, and you could think that because he has dropped the code and is speaking openly that is true, but he has adopted a whole new code. I guess the first warning sign was when Trump compared Hillary Clinton to Angela Merkel:

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trumps-new-attack-on-hillary-echoes-white-supremacist-websites-70579c9d7e50#.3u48dtfws

I did think it was a strange way to go; Merkel doesn't come up a lot in casual conversation. Apparently I only thought that because I am not a white supremacist. They hate Merkel, so referencing her strikes a chord with them.

Not long after that, Donald Trump Jr. referenced the gas chambers. This is another phrase that resonates with white supremacists. Jr. later denied that there was any Holocaust reference - and how typical of the reporters to assume so - but he is also the one to send out memes with Skittles and Pepe the Frog. The Skittles analogy offended a lot of people and drew some good responses anyway, but what was easy to miss is that Skittles have been a thing for white supremacists since Trayvon Martin's death.

It was still hard for me to believe that Trump Sr. was such a devoted racist. Even something that vile still seemed to require more depth than he has. I could buy that Trump Jr. is the committed white supremacist, but that between his influence on one side and Putin's on the other, there is a real nightmare world being created. Then this turned up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-eugenics_us_57ec4cc2e4b024a52d2cc7f9

This may do more to explain Trump than anything else. His deep belief in the superiority of his genes could be why he thinks he is smart and good at business despite a great quantity of evidence to the contrary. It does seem primed to go right past narcissist onto sociopath, though I suspect that is more nurture than nature. (Okay, both.)

But the scariest thing that brings me back to is this:

http://bluenationreview.com/trump-is-seeking-a-white-nationalist-awakening-not-the-white-house/

This was posted before the Merkel comment, and it seemed to ludicrous. I mean, I saw the logic, and it seemed like a more achievable goal than winning the election, but still, could that really be his endgame? Now I'm not sure. Trump is sowing hatred, and confidence that the hatred is just. As he implies that his loss would be a sign of a rigged system, it worries me.

A Trump victory was always going to be a disaster; I never questioned that. It looks like he's working things so that disaster will accompany his defeat as well.

His defeat still needs to happen, but it's a concern.

Beyond sympathy

This feels like the right time to share an embarrassing story.

My mitigating factors are that it was when things had just started getting worse with Mom, and I'd had a really horrible week. Also, about a third of my Twitter time is bolstering up depressed teenagers. I got online and saw someone talking about erasure, referring to the erasure of Black contributions to history and culture. Suddenly "Oh L'Amour", by Erasure, started playing in my head, and it was the first thing that had felt good that week, so I replied about listening to Erasure, because they gave me a boost and I wanted to give her a boost.

It came off as very flippant. That wasn't how I meant it, but I hadn't thought it through. Danceable English pop has an important place in my memories and emotions, but not everyone shares that. When your people are being systematically erased, that is big enough that even if you love the band (and it could be hard to get past the name), it still wouldn't make the interjection welcome. Finally, that bad attempt to comfort came not at a time when she was expressing pain but when she was teaching. It may be tinged with pain, but that doesn't make it okay to derail the lesson.

The saddest part is that I did it already knowing about this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/24/what-charlize-theron-doesn-t-get-about-black-hollywood.html

I saw it at the time, I understood what Charlize Theron did wrong without attributing any bad intentions to her, but I still repeated her mistake.

In Theron's case, beauty is complicated for women anyway. There are many social and media influences telling you that you must be attractive and why you aren't and how you need to change. It is easy to be sensitive to that, and want to be supportive.

I don't know if it gave Viola Davis a boost to be called hot, but I know it can't make up for years of history and dehumanization where your gender and color is constantly compared to animals, and has to be the opposite of feminine so you can work while the "real" (white) women are protected and put on a pedestal (which does have its own problems), and where you are assaulted and it can't even be rape because they're too promiscuous to be raped. And then if you say anything about it you're an "angry Black woman".

Even if Davis is getting good roles now, that doesn't change all the years that she didn't. It doesn't change things for all the other actresses who aren't getting their fair chance. That's exceptionalism, like President Obama being elected twice. There are wonderful things about it, but the problem is not resolved. That doesn't get fixed by a compliment. If the compliment eases the discomfort of the listener, and ends the conversation, well, when is it going to get fixed?

So, people get upset when the "racist" label is applied - even when you are identifying an action or something said as racist, without writing off the person. That's letting feelings derail again. If something is in fact racist, it is harmful, and therefore a decent person must be willing to listen to the criticism.

Structural and systemic racism are real, with deep roots. They also make it easier for personal racist beliefs to persist. A person can justify thinking of Black people as criminals because that's what they see on the news without examining how the media reports news or how the law is enforced, but inequality is a factor.

We had been at a point when it was considered bad and low-class to be overtly racist, but privately believing it and allowing the structure to endure was fine. That has brought us back to where overt racism has become really popular. Of course it did, if people won't openly face the structure.

Notice how many of these stories focus around Black women. They face racism and sexism together, combined into what Northeastern professor Moya Bailey has named "misogynoir". They are all too familiar with the depth and breadth of the problem. If we support them, we will be fighting the real ugliness.

Here are some more good posts:

https://medium.com/@Blackamazon/the-something-else-eleven-years-online-cf170db13935#.xrj3hcpng

http://www.xojane.com/issues/fasttailedgirls-sexual-assault-of-black-girls-is-not-a-joke

https://mic.com/articles/152965/meet-moya-bailey-the-black-woman-who-created-the-term-misogynoir#.QKuL3ts8E

http://www.crunkfeministcollective.com/2016/08/03/connect-the-dots-for-korryn-gaines-skye-mockabee-and-joyce-queweay/

Deplorable

It is completely characteristic of this election cycle that there has been more pushback about Hillary Clinton's use of the phrase "basket of deplorables" than the many nasty things Donald Trump says regularly. There is a different standard, which has been pretty obvious.

I did read one somewhat critical post that I respect, because at one point Clinton calls some in that group irredeemable - which no one can know - and also that she is speaking as an outsider to that group, which makes sense. I get that, and gladly offer the link in case anyone else wants to check it out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/hillary-clintons-redemption-problem/article31826105/

Sarah Kendzior is an excellent writer with a deep background knowledge of both middle America and the Middle East.

Beyond that, I want to spend more time on what is right in what Clinton said. First of all, if you look at the full quote, there are a lot of caveats there. Nuanced communication doesn't make headlines, but it does more for increased understanding.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/

Her larger point was that Trump supporters include people who are wildly enthusiastic about the racism and people who are suffering and want change. That is completely true. It should be easier to reach out to and communicate with the people who are hoping for change as opposed to those who are thrilled that their messages filled with every kind of phobia you can imagine. That is a reasonable thing to say.

I am actually not sure how true it is, because racism goes deep and gets wound up with a lot of things. That can make it hard to talk about, though that's what we're doing this week. However, the point I want to make right now is that it is absolutely reasonable to call racism deplorable.

Race-baiting is deplorable. Misogyny is deplorable. Stirring up hatred is deplorable.

Last week I wrote about political correctness, where some people object strongly to pressure to use language that is not aggressively offensive (even though - or perhaps because - that sensitivity leads to greater understanding). Well, some people who object to any sensitivity on the part of others get remarkably offended when the harsh language is used on them.

I believe tomorrow I am going to write about the issues with personalizing talk of racism, and then Wednesday about how this racism is not accidental. Today is just that racism is bad. And soon we will get into how all of the -isms and -phobias connect, but for me the racism is the most central issue, because of its appeal to the Alt-Right.

Yes, misogyny has played a strong role, especially because Clinton is a woman. That appeals to some people, and the homophobia appeals to some religious groups. Racism has been a GOP dog whistle for a while, but this year it's coming out as a clarion call, and that is horrible. I'm fine with saying that. I don't want any misunderstanding about that.

Old justifications for racism were based on myths and self-interest. Current efforts to maintain it require valiant efforts to block out facts - efforts that could be better spent on improving things for everyone.

If you are holding on to the superiority of Western values, take a look at the evil the West has done through colonialism - evil that was justified as allowable due to the superiority and the cultivation that it brought, but it was just an excuse for unbridled greed.

If you want to talk about the superiority of Christian values, as a Christian I say that is not enough. My sister works with a Christian who is very critical of her as a liberal and as a Mormon. We thought the common ground might be love for others, but he flat out told her that he doesn't need to love everyone. If I were to take my values from him, I would be a worse person. I value kindness, and honesty, and compassion and generosity. Those traits should be found among Christians, but they are not limited to us.

I have been aware of Breitbart for a long time as an entity that doctors videos and manipulates things to push an agenda - often against people who are doing really good things. This association with racism and the alt right is new to me, but I can't be surprised by it. Dishonesty and manipulation - evil - goes right along with racism. That's how it works. Let's just be really clear about that.

And yes, people can buy into this evil without intentionally being evil, but there's a danger of infection based on the company you keep. Remembering that there are people there too, and there have been forces in society that make it easy to take comfort on that side is important, and generous, but there are also people who revel in it.

They are deplorable. It shouldn't even need to be said, but apparently it does.