“Honoring the longstanding tradition of a peaceful transfer of power is paramount. I apologize to the American people for not respecting their will. I have called President-elect Biden and congratulated him on his win and offered to help his team in anyway I can.”
A story, compliments of The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer:
“In a hearing on November 17th, Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, at eighty-seven, is the oldest member of the Senate, grilled a witness. Reading from a sheaf of prepared papers, she asked Jack Dorsey, the C.E.O. of Twitter, whether his company was doing enough to stem the spread of disinformation. Elaborating, she read in full a tweet that President Trump had disseminated on November 7th, falsely claiming to have won the Presidential election. She then asked Dorsey if Twitter’s labelling of the tweet as disputed had adequately alerted readers that it was a bald lie.
It was a good question. Feinstein seemed sharp and focussed. For decades, she has been the epitome of a female trailblazer in Washington, always hyper-prepared. But this time, after Dorsey responded, Feinstein asked him the same question again, reading it word for word, along with the Trump tweet. Her inflection was eerily identical. Feinstein looked and sounded just as authoritative, seemingly registering no awareness that she was repeating herself verbatim. Dorsey graciously answered the question all over again.”
If that’s not concerning enough, how ’bout this:
“Schumer had several serious and painful talks with Feinstein, according to well-informed sources. Overtures were also made to enlist the help of Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. Feinstein, meanwhile, was surprised and upset by Schumer’s message. He had wanted her to step aside on her own terms, with her dignity intact, but “she wasn’t really all that aware of the extent to which she’d been compromised,” one well-informed Senate source told me. “It was hurtful and distressing to have it pointed out.” Compounding the problem, Feinstein seemed to forget about the conversations soon after they talked, so Schumer had to confront her again. “It was like Groundhog Day, but with the pain fresh each time.”
What the hell is going on? Why did Californians elect an 87-year old for a six year term? Was it because there wasn’t anyone a little younger and of sounder mind? And as Mayer makes clear, it’s not just California. Other citizens in other states are doing the same thing.
1A. The Resentment That Never Sleeps. Rising anxiety over declining social status tells us a lot about how we got here and where we’re going.
1B. Why So Many Men Stuck With Trump In 2020.
Sociology y’all.
Given your intellectual nature, no doubt you need more reading, but take your time with 1A in particular with its numerous substantive links. And seeing that you haven’t submitted it yet, I suspect your EDUC 205 exam is still a work-in-progress.
Alternative title, “The Truth is Stranger Than Fiction”.
Unless you’re a MAGA True Believer, it’s impossible to read this Politico piece, “‘Every Day Was Like a “Veep” Episode’: The Veepiest Moments of the Trump Era” without at least smiling if not laughing out loud.
Nice framing:
“When House of Cards debuted on Netflix in 2013, Americans were shocked and a little thrilled to imagine that its sharp, murderous plotlines might reflect the real Washington—a sinister place where calculating, ruthlessly effective pols achieved their dreams by shoving reporters in front of Metro cars. But the people who actually work in D.C. were quick to log a correction: The day-to-day experience of politics in the nation’s capital is really much more like HBO’s Veep—a constant near-train wreck of bumbling, improvisation and profanity.
Presidents have generally succeeded in keeping that aspect of the job well-hidden, managing to project an image of executive competence no matter how absurd the backstage dynamics.
And then came Donald Trump.”
The anecdotes are especially funny, if like me, you savored every episode of HBO’s Veep staring Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Who I’ve had a thing for ever since Seinfeld. Please don’t tell the Good Wife.
Great last paragraph:
“Detractors may point out that we have called on Donald Trump to resign four times this year already and that it won’t work because he doesn’t read Slate and is not a fan of the ‘ideas journalism’ sector in general. Those detractors are traitors to the United States and President Pence should arrest them.”
It’s easy to forget what life was like before global position satellites revolutionized sports technology. I remember rolling my front bike wheel next to a wooden yardstick in my parent’s garage in a desperate attempt to calibrate my sensor that was attached to a couple of spokes. And then using electrical tape to align the wire that ran to the head unit along the fork and head tube. Cumbersome is putting it mildly. And what did I get for all my efforts, a precarious, only mildly accurate set up that constantly needed attention.
Fast forward several decades. Bluetooth, wireless GPS, and (almost always) automatic syncing which results in extremely accurate data recording with a tenth of the effort. Check out what my wrist computer generated during this morning’s run.
When I first returned to rehab running from my hamstring injury, my average stride length was only 1.16m as opposed to the normal 1.2m. How cool is it that satellites in Outer Space confirm that not only do I feel better, but I am better.
A question for the nerds (used affectionately of course). Why is there a net gain of 35 feet when I started and stopped in my driveway?
The more important question is why do we fret about whether life is improving when we don’t have to wrestle with rulers, electrical tape and wires anymore?
EDUC 205. Fall 2020. Take-home Final Exam. Due by 10a.m. Tuesday, December 15th.
Context: “The difference between past and present calls for racial equity is that advocates, such as in Evanston, are demanding that Americans choose sides: Are you racist or antiracist?”
Congratulations, you’ve been hired as Dean of Culture and Climate by the Evanston Illinois School District (six-figure salary). In that role, you are expected to advise the School Board, the Superintendent, and the district’s principals on the following types of questions:
The Board and Superintendent do not expect you to answer all of these questions in great detail. Rather, they have asked you to provide the district’s principals and K-8 classroom teachers with a list of “Antiracist Guiding Principles for Evanston’s School Leaders and Teachers.” These “Guiding Principles” should help them answer these questions and similar future ones that will inevitably surface over time. What essential multicultural education knowledge, skills, and/or key concepts should guide their decision-making?
Because these principals and teachers are so busy, you’ve been asked to keep your “Antiracist Guiding Principles for Evanston’s School Leaders and Teachers” document to no more than two pages single-spaced with one line between paragraphs like this document. Keep in mind that the principals and teachers will better understand your principles if you provide them with a few examples of how to apply them in the context of a few of the aforementioned questions.
Your district document will be evaluated on how thoroughly and thoughtfully you apply our course content in crafting your guiding principles. More specifically, how well you synthesize what you’ve learned from reflecting on your own K-12 school experience, Sara Ahmed’s writing, my teaching, your classmates’ contributions to discussions, and everything else you read, watched, and listened to this semester. While there isn’t one correct set of guidelines, some guidelines will ease the districts decision making more than others because of their rich substance, practical insights, and clear wording.
Two to three months of not running due to injury now feels like two to three years as I seek to return to my previous level of mediocrity. On Saturday’s long run, I found myself eavesdropping in the back of the pack as two friends commiserated about how markedly their respective work cultures have changed. In simplest terms, an underlying “whose most ‘woke’ competition” has broken out in both their workplaces.
The diversity leaders are attempting to teach their colleagues to respect differences, accept everyone’s social identities, and subvert traditional power dynamics. The participants are learning not to say how they really feel, lest they unwittingly stray from the liberal progressive path laid out before them.
Because the diversity leaders are focused on outcomes and not process, they’re plodding ahead completely unaware of the “go along to get along” self censorship that their work is whipping up. A phenomenon that makes meaningful change nearly impossible.
As a long-time discussion leader, I’ve gotten very good at understanding this dynamic. And disassembling and reassembling it in my classrooms. But as an educator and fallible human being, I’ll never get that challenging work just right. At best, it’s always two steps forward and one back. Just like last week in one of my undergraduate classes. I flailed around a bit and then a student had the courage, and made the time, to enlighten me.
In class, I suggested that as a country maybe we needed to recognize our limits and take some time to lower the temperature on conversations about politics and race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. “Pass the ball backwards” I suggested, before advancing up the pitch again.
My student gave me permission to share most of what he wrote me shortly after class ended. His fourth paragraph makes me think I did not communicate my message as clearly as I could have, but that does not take away at all from his overarching message:
“My takeaway from the conversation was that in the end, politics are simply politics, and one’s views reflect their level of education. This does apply in certain situations, but it is not applicable to basic human rights. As a white cishet (cisgender heterosexual) man, you do not experience these issues and therefore need to do more work to understand them. An important thing to remember is that the burden of your education on an issue does not fall onto those affected by it. As we have discussed in this class, most educators are white. I have had a very slim number of queer educators as well. Because of this, existing in these spaces made for white cishet people is exhausting. I am constantly expected to perform and have these conversations for people to convince them that I should be allowed to exist. Fighting constantly to be permitted to simply exist takes a heavy toll and as an ally in a privileged position it is your responsibility to do research and educate yourself on these topics rather than expect minorities to do the labor of educating you because for those minorities, those conversations can be dangerous.
As a white cishet man, you can have these conversations with certainty that you are safe. As a queer AFAB (assigned female at birth) person these discussions can put me at serious risk.
Furthermore, you need to understand how much more drastic this is with our current administration. Almost immediately after Trump came into office in 2017, his administration removed the official pages on civil rights and LGBTQ+ rights from the official White House website. Earlier this year, the Trump administration removed nondiscrimination protections in healthcare for LGBTQ+ people. Even more recently, with Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court, there has been new potential for marriage equality to be taken away. This is only an incredibly short list of ways that the Trump administration has directly impacted my rights. These conversations are so sensitive and are not as simple as disagreeing. If I meet someone who disagrees with my basic human rights, I am meeting someone who thinks that I do not deserve healthcare as a trans person and as an AFAB person. In a more extreme situation, as is with our vice president Mike Pence, someone disagreeing with me could mean that they believe I should be in a conversion therapy camp or worse. I do not have the privilege of agreeing to disagree because that disagreement can mean the loss of my life.
The human rights that do exist in our country today did not come from accepting or dismissing bigotry. The Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act of 1990 came to be because of disabled people protesting and restricting access to federal buildings, public transport, and other such things. The civil rights movement consisted of endless protests, sitting in the front of busses, and countless other acts. Women’s suffrage was fought for with protests and marches. Child labor laws came to be because of people fighting for children’s rights and safety. In Martin Luther King Jr.’s words, a riot is the language of the unheard. The expectation to be silent and accept mistreatment in hopes that we will be kindly gifted our rights and safety is ridiculous. This is why these conversations are not as simple as disagreement. I cannot sit and agree to disagree with someone’s opinion if their opinion is that I do not deserve basic human decency and rights.
To close this email, I want to reiterate that I do not mean this to seem like I am telling you exactly what you need to think or believe. My main objective with this is to hopefully bring you more perspective on why this mindset could be harmful. If you wish to discuss any of this further, I would be glad to discuss it over email. I appreciate you having a class environment in which I feel comfortable bringing up these issues and having this conversation.”
My second reply to him:
“Follow up question. Or more accurately, I’d like to practice active reading/listening to see if I understand correctly. Are you saying that some people (or maybe many people since 73m voted for T) are irredeemable and therefore personal safety has to take priority over dialogue? If so, I better understand why because of your thoughtful explanation of your lived experience. But as an educator working with students across the political spectrum, it’s difficult for me to conclude that.”
And his reply to my reply:
“I wouldn’t necessarily say that people are irredeemable, but more so that people that choose to not listen to minorities cannot be educated by them regardless of how much effort those minorities put into the conversation. The burden of those conversations can’t fall on the people affected by it because those people are being silenced, and therefore it becomes nearly impossible to change bigoted people’s mindset unless more privileged people educate themselves and use their voices.”
Obviously, I can’t tell my speedy running friends not to self-censor themselves, but my student has convinced me that opting out until “cooler heads prevail” isn’t an option for me. That doesn’t mean I have a failsafe roadmap on how to proceed. All I know for sure is I have to remain open to being taught by my students, and other people whose life experiences are markedly different than mine, and continue “getting more comfortable being uncomfortable”.
According to the Economist via Forbes. Unsure of the date or methodology.
Certainly, we could find several smaller towns that are even more conservative than these to recommend to our international visitor. According to another list a Google search produced, our friend could just throw a dart at a map of Texas.
Pressing Pause 