Hands Across America

After last night’s college football final, I should mention a weird discovery I made during Bowl Month. Over the holidays, I saw a bowl game involving Texas State University. Yeah, can you believe Texas has a State university? Lyndon Johnson even went there. Anyway, I noticed the coach was wearing a hat with this odd hand sign on it. It looked like this:

 

It's the coach of a large university, so I'm assuming it's not offensive. I figured it was just some obscure clothing brand or something. But then they showed some Texas State fans in the crowd, and they were giving the same sign (and always with the left hand.) Fearing this was some sort of cult, I googled "Texas State hand gesture," and was relieved to see that it was much more innocent than I'd imagined.

Yes, it's the map of Texas. 

So that got me wondering what other states could have their own hand map. Obviously, there's Michigan. 

But don’t forget the Upper Peninsula…

I couldn’t think of any provinces that could be represented with hand signals, but there were quite a few states:

Idaho

Outback II: Electric Bugaboo

When the Outback Steakhouse started to get big, with its pseudo-Australian stylings, I wondered what a Canadian version of that would look like. And now I’ve stumbled across the fact that there was, indeed, an American chain of Canadian-themed steakhouses.

Bugaboo Creek Steakhouse appears to have been limited to the North East, but there were quite a few of them. The interiors modelled on a Canadian lodge, with log-cabin stylings. Unfortunately, they didn’t survive the Great Recession, so it’s nothing but memories and grainy YouTube videos now.

But wait, it wasn’t just Canadian symbols applied to the Outback formula, it was also a mashup with Chuck-E-Cheese. It had wall-mounted animal heads that spoke with animatronics, and a tree that would give you nuggets of Canadian trivia.

I’m kind of dumbfounded by all this. Partly that it existed at all, and partly that it isn't legendary in Canada. Usually we're obsessed with how Americans see us, and here's this very concrete artifact of their collective mental picture. You’d think this would be a part of our collective lore right up there with that car with skis on the roof and American plates that we all remember seeing that one time.

Bugaboo Creek was founded in the early nineties, and my family did a road trip through New England in the late-eighties, so we just missed it. I can’t imagine the shock we would have had if we had driven through a New Hampshire tourist-town, down that street with all the family restaurants on it, and seen this in between the Denny’s and the Ponderosa. I’m sure we would have run screaming as soon as the moose over our table started talking.

But surely some Canadians saw it — it’s not like it was sequestered in Nebraska, or some other part of the U.S. that Canadians are unlikely to go. You’d think some New Brunswicker looking for cheap beer and cigarettes in Maine would have wandered into the Bugaboo Creek in Bangor. He tells his friends, and the next thing you know, Rick Mercer is interviewing that tree for a “Talking To Americans” segment.

But when I Googled Bugaboo Creek Steakhouse, all I could find — in between pages on the real-life Bugaboo Provincial Park in British Columbia — were the reminiscences of Americans who missed going there, or were freaked out by the robots, or a bit of both. Even when I specifically Googled “what Canadians thought of Bugaboo Creek Steakhouse” I couldn’t find anything.

There are still a few menus left on line, but they’re just standard steakhouse stuff. Except for a few moose and snowbird references in the names, there was nothing to distinguish it. There were none of the bad Canadian puns I was hoping for. “Prime (Minister) Rib?” “Fill-Eh Mignon?” “Sir John A. Loin?” Also, no actual Canadian stuff like poutine or Nanaimo bars or milk served in bags. So in the end it’s a half-pound nothingburger, not arousing Canada’s indignation or appreciation. Plus creepy robots.

I’m Gonna Mess Your Mind

Congratulations to Spain on winning the women’s World Cup. They now join Germany as the only countries to win both World Cups. Meanwhile everyone’s world has been turned upside-down by the jump in parity in women’s soccer, leading to plenty of upsets and Cinderella teams.

Here in Canada, we’re in mourning; we won gold at the Olympics - in our greatest soccer achievement ever - but followed that up with not getting out of the opening round here. If you’re not familiar with it, in men’s soccer, the Olympics are limited to under 23, but for women, there’s no limit, so it’s like smaller a World Cup. So you’d think it would be harder to advance in the Olympics, where you’re playing higher quality teams sooner. And yet, Canada has gone to the Olympic semi-finals three times in a row, but only made the World Cup semis once, back in 2003.

But for much of the world, the big news is the early exit for the two-time defending champion Americans. If you watch the men’s World Cup, you know that favoured teams having an embarrassing run and going home early is a regular occurrence. But now supporters of the U.S. Women are in existential panic.

Years ago, I noted that it was weird but refreshing to watch the fans of American men’s soccer, because it was one of the few places where the United States was regarded as just another country. What was especially weird was that American fans seemed to be okay with that. To be fair, we’re only talking about a subset of Americans, since the majority don’t really follow soccer even when the U.S. is involved, but there is a subculture within the U.S. that cares about its team, even on the men’s side, and it’s remarkable what an internationally-reasonable attitude they have.

All that’s happening right now is that the U.S. Women’s team is going to have to take on that same attitude. While watching the hype surrounding the Americans going for a Women’s World Cup three-peat, I realized that the truly unusual thing about the Men’s team fandom is that it’s one of the only places where you’ll see Americans being patriotic, but not buying into American Exceptionalism. They’re proud of their country, they support their team, but they don’t think their country is inherently better or apart from the others. The women’s team will have to adopt that attitude. In their case, they’re a great team, but just a team. So it’s a subtle change, but they’ll have to go from thinking of themselves as the Harlem Globetrotters to merely the New York Yankees.

Watching Americans watch their Women’s team, it’s been more like business as usual for Americans in international sports, with even well-meaning Americans seeing their team as above everything else. Take advertising, for instance. Even here in Canada, we’re subjected to ads for American brands that glorify the American women, oblivious to the fact that they’re our chief rivals, and thus, not really who we want to see celebrated in every commercial break. It’s reminiscent of that one American you see on lists of the dumbest things said on the internet, asking a British person if they celebrate the Fourth of July. 

Partly, this is because their Women’s team has been a boon for those looking for female role models. And finding role models for our kids is a universal thing, so they’re just assuming the whole world will join in on glorifying the stars of their team. It hasn’t occurred to them that if my daughter’s role model was just knocked out of the tournament by your daughter’s role model, then I won’t want to join in on the adulation.

And that brings us to the goodish news: you can look at this as another example of women’s soccer hitting the mainstream. When a sport starts out and creeps along in the margins of the sports world, there tends to be a communal feeling, like it’s all of us against the world, looking for acceptance of our sport. But once you’re in the mainstream, we can all think of it in competitive terms. This sport has finally made the big time, now that I hate your daughter’s role model.

All About That Bass, No Pressure

At a recent hockey game, a commentator was discussing the scoring slump of Max Pacioretty, the winger for Las Vegas who was acquired in an off-season trade. The commentator said that he had asked a local reporter if he was under any pressure because of the lack of scoring. That reporter just said, of course not, it's Vegas. After all, hockey teams don't get nearly the media exposure in the US, even in markets where the sport is popular. The subtext is that Pacioretty had previously played his whole career in Montreal, where players are constantly in the spotlight. Had he started the season this slowly there, it would have been the only thing the city was talking about for a week.

And that's a concern that comes up a lot in Canada. Our hockey teams have never been great at attracting free-agents. Sure, the Leafs signed John Tavares this summer, but generally we haven’t made big splashy signings, and we'd like a better idea of why. Some say it's higher taxes, some say it's the cold winters. But if that were true, northern blue states would have the same problem, but it doesn’t work out that way. So many wonder if it's the media fishbowl that we put our hockey players in.

It’s great if you’re a successful hockey player in Canada; you’ll be treated like a god. But there will be a lot of pressure too. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it’s a negative with little upside. In most sports, being under the media microscope comes with more money or a better chance or winning. That’s why people love to sign with Barcelona or the Yankees. But the NHL’s salary cap means that you get the same money wherever you sign. And with that, the chance of winning is no different for Canada’s hockey teams, and the evidence is that they have even less chance. It seems that all things being equal, players would rather not have the pressure than risk it to get extra fame.

I've heard a lot of people over the years discuss this price of fame outside the context of sports. Is it worth the fame and fortune if you can't go about your life in peace and privacy? I remember a DJ once hypothesizing that bassists have the best life of any musicians. They get the same share of the money, as well as the cheers and whatever happens backstage and in the hotel. But once that’s over, they can go about their lives in peace with no one recognizing them.

But being a hockey star in the US is a similar perfect balance. Mostly, you go about your life unbothered. But then every few days you get to spend a few hours surrounded by adoring fans cheering you on. Within the arena, people know who you are and care about you, but once the game is over you go back to anonymity.

I know it's sacrilege to say, but the Americans have it right, in their own way. They care just enough about hockey, but not too much. Indeed, that’s how the whole world should work: We have this big event where everyone is really excited and has a good time, but when it’s over, we put it aside and stop worrying about it, and treat the participants like normal people. Yes, we should all learn from American hockey fans. When they show up.

Dougie Jekyll And Gordie McHyde

Canada has entered a spat with the United States. Of course, it’s not a common thing for us to be in a spat with anyone. Yes, we've had plenty of disputes with the US, but they’re usually esoteric trade issues that get fought in a court. National leaders taking shots at each other? Not our style.

People sometimes bring up our territorial dispute with Denmark over Hans Island. The Canadian government says it should be ours because it is part of the Northern Archipelago which was claimed by Britain and inherited by Canada. The Danes say it should be theirs because it is closer to Greenland, which they own. This “dispute” amuses others because of the comically low-key way that it is fought. That is, it’s “fought” by each nation occasionally sending a ship to the island to take down the other country’s flag and put up their own.

It may surprise outsiders, but there are those in Canada who don't like our low key approach. I'm not talking politicians - those in government who want a more active role are still confined by the limited tax base of a country that won't put up with the military taking up half our budget. So their get-tough attitude comes out as a commitment to buy 7 destroyers instead of the 6 that those wimpy liberals would have bought.

No, I'm thinking of the talk of average people, in coffee shops, living rooms, and online. Most Canadians appreciate our civility, but you occasionally come across folks who think we need to be more forceful, that we should go in to Hans Island guns blazing and set up a Tim Hortons.

But here's what makes this week's American dispute interesting: the subsection of Canadians that longs for aggression overlaps with populist conservatives who generally love the United States and would like us to be closer to them. Of course, most of the time this correlation works out fine; The US is the poster child for aggressive foreign policy, and the easiest way for us Canadians to get more aggressive would be to tag along on their latest adventure.

So what are they supposed to do when we're having a tiff with their beloved American role models? I swear I could hear heads exploding all over the country as they tried to solve that puzzle . It's made worse by the fact that the attack on the Great White North was entirely the creation of Donald Trump, a great aggressive role model.

I was kind of worried what I might see online: so often these days, political sides trump all else, so I wondered how many conservative Canadians might take Trump's side in all this. In the past I've been disappointed that many politically naive Canadians have assumed that their mild distaste for a pretty-boy PM is the equal of the ideological diametric opposite in the White House. But to my surprise, people have been coming out in support of Trudeau. Even self-professed Trump admirer Doug Ford took Trudeau's side.

So maybe this is one of those cases where the political sides are going to start realigning. If a Republican president can be anti-trade, maybe Canadian conservatives will start being anti-American.  It might be good for us if the urge to be nationally assertive could work with the desire to have a separate identity. Watch out, Denmark.

The Fat Of The Land

Lots of people are looking at President Trump's cleanish bill of health after his first on-the-job physical. That surprised everyone by saying that he is in quite good health for a septuagenarian, and not, as assumed, like a sedentary fast-food devotee.

But putting aside his doctor's opinions, the numbers have raised doubts. It says that Trump is 6'3" and 240 pounds, which would count him as medically acceptable, though suspiciously close to the obese classification. That's led doubters to a lot of comparisons with athletes of similar size. For instance, Albert Pujols is the same height and a pound more, but more athletic looking than the President.

But that can be easily explained. After all, muscle is denser than fat, so an athlete is going to look slimmer than a non-exerciser of the same weight. A bigger oddity is his height. Although the physical pegged him at 6'3", he has apparently previously been listed as 6'2". Also, in photos, he looks to be of similar height to Barack Obama (6'1") and noticeably shorter than Jeb Bush (6'3".)

So lots of people have been making fun of the President's weight. It's far from the first time, though such jokes have been few and far between, since there's been so many other things to make fun of. Once again, I'm not really sure why I'm writing a blog post on this; it will probably be obsolete before I finish.

Ridiculing Trump's body has led to a question about the morality of humour. A long time ago, I noted that there are basically three reasons why you might make jokes at another's expense:

• playful teasing, such as what goes on between friends
• ridicule of someone you don't like
• you can't think of any other topic for a joke. And also, you're an asshole.

Most people would agree that the first category is acceptable. And all but the amoral would agree that the last is not (Keep in mind, we're only talking about the morality of humour, not the legality, so put the free speech placards away.) The second category is a bit more questionable. But I've always been okay with it.

Overall, a good way to decide whether a joke fits in an acceptable or unacceptable category is to ask whether you'd be comfortable saying it to the person who is the butt of the joke. If it's the first one, you wouldn't mind, because that person is in on the joke. The second should be okay too, as they'll be offended but you figure that they deserve it. And the third is unacceptable, since you'd be offending an innocent person, and you're really only making the joke because you assumed you'd never have to face the consequences.

So that's moral backing of my humour, which I've always tried to stick to in outlets such as my blog. I'm sure I haven't been completely faithful to it, but it's what I've tried to do.

In recent years, however, I've noticed that there's a flaw in the reasoning. I noticed it not with Trump, but with another not-so-sympathetic character in American politics, Newt Gingrich. I strongly disagree with his political priorities, as well as some of the things he's done in his personal life, so he would fit squarely into the second category.

He's also a bit overweight. And his round face tends to remind you of that fact. So I find that a lot of liberal comics use that weight and his general attractiveness as a convenient put-down. That made me feel uneasy. Sure, he may be an opportunistic bully who doesn't deserve to have his feelings respected. But insults are a bludgeon that hit everyone similar, most of whom have not done any of the things the original target did.

So I've added a caveat to that second kind of ridicule: you can make fun of these people, but only if you're going after the thing that made you want to attack them in the first place. If they are truly worthy of your scorn, you won't have trouble finding something.

Kneel Before Sod

The situation in North Korea is still tense. And Puerto Rico's infrastructure was devestated by hurricane Maria. But here we are talking about football players kneeling. Well, that's what Donald Trump wants to talk about, and everyone else is following along. I'm guessing that's because unlike North Korea, Puerto Rico, and the Obamacare repeal, this is something where there's a chance to fight back.

Some have suggested that Trump made the condemnation of NFL players kneeling for the anthem as a distraction, so we won't notice the health care disaster, or because he knows that there's incriminating Russia evidence about to drop. But the world just doesn't seem to work that way any more. We're used to new megastories coming at us every few hours; we can easily drop one story for another whenever we need to. Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm writing this article late at night; there will probably be a new outrage by morning.

The real reason for Trump's attack is that it's a great issue for him to score points with his base. It's got everything he likes: nationalism, condemning dissent, and a racist subtext. The whole thing is not very surprising really. What is interesting, though, is that the way each sport has responded has illustrated the sport's personality.

Football

I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction. A lot of players protested, there didn't seem to be much anger. There was even some official sanctioning, including the anthem singer himself kneeling in Detroit. No one seems to have been fired over this, or even much anger expressed by the owners (though give them a few days.) And there was thankfully little of the feel-good avoidance I complained about previously.

Having said that, the guy who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, is still without a job. So teams and owners' tentative support of their players comes with a big dose of hypocracy. Which is typical NFL too.

Basketball

The NBA and Basketball's culture clearly won the weekend. Trump looked desperate when he revoked Steph Curry's unaccepted invitation to the White House. And the Warriors' decision to "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion" in Washington in place of a White House visit was a bold response. And Lebron James's Twitter burn of Trump was something Kim Jong Un could only dream of. Come on, NBA stars, I'm trying to hate you. Stop acting like the only adults in the room.

Hockey

The NHL isn't really involved, but somehow managed to turn the incident into a public relations loss by choosing now to announce that the Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins will still be visiting the White House. It's just like them to find a way to lose a controversy they weren't involved in.

Having said that, I will forgive the NHL and become a Penguins fan if Yevgeny Malkin spends the entire visit acting like he's only there to pass on Putin's latest instructions to Trump.

But this is also typical of the paradox that hockey culture hates to rock the boat. It's a sport that takes bravery to play, yet never seems to generate bravery away from the rink among its players.

Baseball

It seemed kind of separated from the rest of the sports world. After all, it is the most conservative, traditional, and increasingly the whitest sport. So it seemed almost like an afterthought when news came out that A's catcher Bruce Maxwell knelt for the anthem. We were like, oh, right, baseball players might be doing that too.

But going back to the hurricane: given Trump's lackluster reaction, you have to wonder how many Puerto Rican players don't feel like standing for the anthem right about now.

Nascar

In sharp constrast with the other sports, Nascar was totally on board with Trump. Legendary car owners Richard Petty and Richard Childress both said they would fire any employees who didn't stand for the anthem - to my knowledge, the only owners in any sport to follow Trump's advice.

Of course, this is just the latest example of how Nascar is fine with being exactly what everyone expects it to be. It's like they want to make it really clear whether you are welcome in the sport or not. Certainly I'm feeling happier with my decision to walk away from it.

Cleveland Crocks

In this weekend's NFL games, the TV coverage treated the National Anthem as a competition of its own. Even highlights noted who, if anyone, didn't stand for the anthem, or gave the black power sign. If you're not aware, this started with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem in protest of the treatment of African Americans. Kaepernick himself was suspicious by his absence, having still not been signed this season. Although his performance has gone downhill since nearly winning the Super Bowl in 2013, it's still hard to believe that he's not qualified for a league with about a hundred quarterback jobs. It will get even more suspicious as time goes on, and we see some of the has-beens and never-weres that aren't getting the job done.

But in Cleveland, they headed-off the anthem controversy by having a big video on the scoreboard urging peace and understanding.

A special message on unity and equality from members of the Cleveland Browns. pic.twitter.com/CvyTdgTaIS

— Cleveland Browns (@Browns) September 10, 2017

This video gave me a new level of understanding of America. Suddenly I get it. I get why black people hate it when you say, "All Lives Matter." I mean sure, I'd heard lots of explanations. And I'd seen the recent meme that tries to address the flooding in Houston with "All Cities Matter." But it didn't really hit home until I saw this attempt to show concern for real - and rather specific - problems using a bunch of vague platitudes.

It's become apparent in recent years that America has problems that have been around for a while, but lurk beneath a friendly sheen of agreeable principles. The challenge of activists has been to call attention to those problems that are getting ignored by a big portion of Americans that should be sympathetic but are turning a blind eye. Making a feel-good video that doesn't acknowledge any problems is just adding to that facade.

Okay, you can make the point that in the current America where up is down and Nazis are normalized, actually promoting those positive principles is a radical step. And if you're going to promote those values, then the ideal place is the national Lowest Common Denominator, football. But I've moved beyond that. Yes, I'm apparently woke now.

The Men They Couldn't Hang, Stepped To The Mic And Sang

Both Sides Now

There's been a lot of work parsing Trump's unwillingness to single-out the white supremacist groups in Charlottesville.  Most of the focus I've seen is on his administration's long history of playing footsie with the far-right.  But I think that's misguided.  Trump isn't trying to reach out to Neo-Nazis; he's trying to appeal to the people who don't really like the KKK and friends, but are also really uncomfortable with Black Lives Matter and many other activist groups. In short, they don't like people disrupting the status quo .

In A Mirror, Darkly

Trump did his best to establish false-equivalence between heavily armed fascists and those protesting them. Some in the media fell for it, replaying his press conference antics without noting whether his claims were true.  But I think journalists are slowly getting wise.  Or at least, they've started running with the "Trump is nuts" narrative instead of the usual "one side against the other" narrative.

But what really worries me is a relatively small part of the press conference.  Trump didn't merely draw a parallel between the side, but he labeled the counter protesters, giving them the name that seemed the natural counterpart to the so-called "Alt Right." It's a name no one was actually using, and doesn't really make sense, since there isn't really any new force on the left, just the usual groups working harder when fighting the new efforts associated with the Alt Right.

You notice I'm not saying the new name?  That's because I think it's going to be the most dangerous thing to come out of this whole event.  A lot of people are laughing at the name; after all, it's defined as anyone who opposes Nazis, so that would seem to be most of humanity. But the problem is, it's an invitation for false-equivalence.  It invites people to group those countering hate together as though it was one group with its own agenda, rather than what it is: people acting on what most of our society believes in. It makes it sound like they are as much a separate group outside the mainstream as the hat groups themselves are.  In short, it invites the sort of world view I described Trump encouraging in the first section. So I cringe every time I here someone repeat it, even if it is to ridicule it.  It's such a dangerous idea that you shouldn't be giving it any publicity.

Working For The Clampdown

One strange aspect of Charlottesville was the focus of the anger.  Throughout most of my life, whenever bigotry has bubbled to the surface in America, it's generally been pointed at Hispanics, Blacks, or Muslims.  Yes, I know, there's more to it than that, but those are the big targets that you hear about from race-baiting politicians and conservative media.

And yet, when you wade through the ground-level coverage of the hate groups present, they frequently jumped straight to Jews as their hated group of choice.  I really didn't see that coming, since the march was supposedly about a Civil War statue, and their hero in the White House has generally left them alone.  During the campaign, I mentioned that Jews were staying away from Trump, and one explanation given was that they understood that they would inevitably be targeted by the movement.  They sure called that right.

But why are the haters so angry at Jews, despite no coaching from the media or politicians? Recently, an explanation was proposed in the Washington Post: Because they have the privilege to fight back.

Say, remember when "haters" just meant people who were really negative?  Taylor Swift used to sing about them?  Innocent times.

This Used To Be My Playground

There's a dispute going on about how to see Charlottesville. On one side, you have (mostly white) people saying things like "everything has changed" or "this isn't America." On the other side, you have (mostly black) people saying, "this is nothing new."

To some extent, this is a misunderstanding of nuance.  If a person says, "this isn't my America," it's not clear whether they mean, "I refuse to believe this hatred exists here," or, "my vision of this country is a society that's better than this."  The first interpretation is naive and ignorant, while the second is just very idealized rhetoric, and not really a problem.

The trouble is that in recent years, a lot of the most egregious incidents of racism in the U.S. have been disguised within government and corporate policies, hidden in societal norms, or covered over by the justice system.  So activists have gotten used to pointing out that there have long been problems that most of the population just isn't seeing.  That's become enough of an instinctive reaction that even after an incident that seems like a game changer, they're still telling everyone that it wasn't that big of a deal.  I can understand why they would feel that way, but I don't think that's the best message to be putting out there right now.  At a time when white America is finally ready to believe that racism is a problem, you don't want to be telling them that no, it's business as usual.

Many Sides

All week I've been working on a post about the negative reaction to the newly announced TV show Confederate. I was examining the use of dystopia in modern storytelling, and the historical struggles of African-Americans, trying to understand all arguments being made, and agonizing over the subtleties of each perspective. Then the Charlottesville protest happened, as if to say, "fuck subtlety." Fine then.

• Even by the usual standards of the media, it was amazing how long it took to state what actually happened. First it was "violence broke out at a protest, one person was killed." Then it was a car hitting protesters, no mention of intentionality or which side. Then it came out that it was the counter protesters who were hit. Then we find out the car accellerated at the protesters. And finally, we find out that it was Black Lives Matter protesters who were intentionality hit. A massive story that took all day for them to admit.
• The person killed was local paralegal Heather Heyer
• Her death kind of eclipsed the brutal beating of Deandre Harris, whose life was probably saved by fellow protesters.
• There was the bizarre situation in which a hate group from Detroit co-opted the Detroit Red Wings' logo, and the team was forced to issue a condemnation. As many pointed out, they acted quicker and more definitively than Trump.
• Another point not lost on people: This is a University town, and the protesters chose mid-August, the time when there would be the fewest people to confront them.
• Trump hit a new low with the vaguest possible condemnation, implying that the violence came from "many sides." America's Neo-nazis were overjoyed that they didn't get condemned. Dog whistle received.
• By the way, this all started because of talk about removing a statue of Robert E. Lee. It's in the middle of "Emancipation Park."
• It also got lost that two police officers were killed in a helicopter crash on the way there.
• There were plenty of complaints about police inaction, with a mere three arrests (compare that to 30 the first night of Ferguson protests. ) However, it's also hard to blame them given how outgunned the police was compared to some of the militias on hand.
• I didn't even realize that Tiki Torch is a brand, but apparently they didn't appreciate being associated with white nationalism either, and issued their own condemnation. And I'm sure the makers of bland men's clothing will be for ways to distance themselves, now that they're quickly becoming the new white hood. I know the next time I shop for clothes, I'll stop and ask myself, does this make me look like a Nazi?

Negativeland

There have surely been many news stories lost in the United States in the midst of the Trump tumult. Different aspects of the main story are in danger of getting lost; what hope is there for other news?

One story that should be noted is the shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota. Of course, there have been many stories of innocent people killed by police in recent years. But this event is different.

Strangely, what sets it apart is not what happened, but what didn't. Police didn't defend their actions or deflect blame - the chief even resigned. The media didn't demonize the victim.

I'm sure you can see where this is going. In this case, the victim is white. Observing it is infuriating: it's provided confirmation of just how differently blacks and whites are treated by American police, media and politicians. So really, it's a big story, but only in the negative; the story here is that there is no story. Even if the media had both the inclination and space to report on it, it's hard to point to the absence of events.

And even if you are paying attention to it, it's hard to know how to take it. Seeing what's going on now might be anger-inducing, but it's important to remember that it's not the treatment this case is receiving that is the problem - after all, this is how it's supposed to be. Let's not forget that this woman's death is still a tragedy.

The situation is similar to that of Trayvon Martin. Defendant George Zimmerman was found not-guilty in large part because of lack of evidence. As I mentioned at the time, really that was the right verdict; the frustrating part was not that, but the knowledge that a black defendant would never have received the same allowance.

These inverted news stories are an obstacle for anyone trying to get the message out about poor treatment of African Americans. In order to really illustrate it, you need to call attention to these nothing-to-see-here-folks incidents. It takes some effort to try to demonstrate to a skeptical audience what is happening.

Sword Fight

There's this phenomenon I've noticed in activism, and I don't know if it has a name. It's when people waste their efforts on useless endeavours. There's a number of different reasons why:

• working harder to piss off The Man than on actual change
• fighting sectarian battles
• working for esoteric intellectual goals, not what actually helps
• laying the groundwork for idealistic concepts that will never come to be

The commonality in each of these is that they're overthinking the situation. It can be just a case of wasting effort, but what's really frustrating about it, is when people actually end up working against themselves. For instance, there was this case a few years ago when someone was trying to convince poor people not to vote as a protest. You'd think that voting would be a no-brainer for activists, but here you have people voluntarily forfeiting it, for no reason but their own over-analysis.

I've always had a theory that this activist tire-spinning is at its worst in times and places where liberal ideas are favoured. That's when activists are indulgent, and don't consider that they must eternally struggle against political enemies. When progressive ideas fall out of favour, activists are forced to fight for everything, and can't afford to waste effort. They think about what's truly important, fight for their priorities and compromise on those things that don't really make a difference.  It forces a rigorous efficiency.

I first came to this way of thinking in university. Universities are ripe for these problems to begin with, being filled with liberal intellectuals. And Canada is ripe for it, with our liberal leanings, and interventionist government traditions. People often take that for granted, and don't consider that others are working to roll back past progress. And this being the nineties, we'd had decades where the only conservative force was the Mulroney government, who in retrospect was hardly regressive. So an activist in this environment would feel quite unchallenged.

But there were plenty of hints that all was not well in progressive world. Newt Gingrich was trying to remake the American government. Here in Ontario, Mike Harris was handing out torches and pitchforks to angry suburbanites. And in pop-culture and word-of-mouth, it was clear that political correctness had become a lightning rod that was being used to demonize lots of positive actions.

I observed that this negativity seemed to be forcing American activists to think about what was important to them in a way that Canadians - particularly those around me on campus - didn't. I remember that when Bill Clinton's infidelities came out, Canadian feminists were ready to throw him under the bus, while American feminists defended him; they understood that a cad in the White House is a small price to pay to have a charismatic politician working against the conservative tsunami.

But now I think I may have to throw out the theory. It's because of what I'm seeing from African-American activists. You would think that if I'm right about political challenges forcing people to adopt a battle-tested robustness, then Black Americans in the alt-right era would be about as efficiently pragmatic as possible. And yet, I keep finding people disappearing into a spiral of opaque justifications of nonsensical actions.

The latest concerns a meme you may have seen recently. A white woman on the campus of Colgate University went around campus carrying a sword. Why she had a sword is a bit of a mystery - I thought Americans preferred guns. Anyway, her prancing around with a sword didn't seem to concern anyone, and was generally greeted as a whimsical prank. She goes on to report that months later, the campus was put on lock down after reports of a gunman. That turned out to be the result of someone seeing a black man with a glue gun and panicking. So now the woman is passing the story around as an example of white privilege: When people saw her they assumed the best, while they assumed the worst for that black man.

You would think that this meme would be welcomed by black activists. A white person finally understands white privilege! And she's explaining it to other white people! But no, in the upside-down world of activism, this woman's actions were criticized for... well - I don’t really know, but it sure has made the author of this article angry.

Obviously, you can understand why black activists would be frustrated by the circumstance. It’s unfair that this white woman gets credit for making point that blacks have been trying to make for years. But the writers of this article don’t seem to realize the unfairness is not her fault. I’m left wondering what exactly she should have done that would have been better. It’s telling that the author goes on to express frustration with white allies - a complaint I’ve heard a few times. If spreading your message for you leads to frustration, it’s hard to imagine how that relationship could work out better.

So here we are in an era of high racial tension, and people trying to fix problems are getting shouted down. It's not quite talking your own cohort into not voting, but it is the sort of  intellectual time waster I'd hoped we'd left behind.

The Alternative Facts Are Out There

There are many reasons to be disappointed by the Trump presidency, but here's one you may not have thought of: We now know definitively that there are no aliens.  I mean, aliens may exist, but no one on this planet knows about them.  The reasoning is simple: if the U.S. government was sitting on secret evidence of aliens - say, from Roswell - then they would have had to tell Donald Trump about it when he took office.  And there's no way he could sit on a secret like that.

You know that would be on Twitter within the first month.  At the very least, there'd be some hint of it. Say, he responds to a "small hands" joke with "hey, I've seen gray dudes and they have some really small hands."

Okay, maybe he'd leak it, but only to the Russians.  But even then we'd see some evidence of it.  You know, Putin annexes New Mexico, or announces a new fighter plane that's suspiciously saucer-shaped.

Just to be clear, I never thought that there was secret knowledge of aliens.  But a part of me sort of hoped that there was something to it. But now I know it's nothing, it's disappointing.  That's sort of emblematic of this administration, to reveal unpleasant realities.  Losing faith in humanity was worse, but now I've even lost faith in aliens.

I Hope Melissa McCarthy Was Free This Weekend

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer got into trouble this week for his attempt to compare Syria's dictator to Hitler. He tried to say Assad is even worse, because he used chemical weapons against his own people, unlike Hitler. It was quickly pointed out that Hitler was quite famous for gassing his own people, even if it wasn't on the battlefield.

I'm amazed at how not-angry I am at this. After all, it has the classic Trump attrocity characteristics:

• It's incredibly agressive
• It's not true
• It has racist undertones
• It's from a guy who's clearly in over his head

So why can't I get angry at this? I'm sure it's partly because Trump vs. Assad is one of the few fights where I'd back Trump. But the main reason I'm not feeling the hate towards Spicer is that in this incident, normalicy seems to have reasserted itself.

Sure, the infraction may have been classic Trumpism. But as they say on the Internet, you'll never guess what happens next:

• A journalist corrects him immediately.
• Spicer admits he was wrong
• The media concentrates on the story, without some tortured attempt at false equivalence
• Spicer continues appologizing, rather than doubling down.
• Others with an interest in supporting Trump don't look the other way.

Wow, it's like the good old days of 2014. So, much as I would have liked to see Spicer resign, or come to some personal revelation about his life choices, I'm actually coming away from this feeling better about things.

Don't Tell Me 'Cause It Hurts

It's been a week since the election, and I've seen a lot of articles passed around social media from disillusioned liberals. A lot of them have been good: They explain people's perspectives and how the result affects them personally. It's informative, and can be emotionally healthy for people to share their burdens. And of course, they can show people how they can do constructive and/or cathartic things to help the causes they believe in.

However, I've seen a few themes that are not helpful. Please think before posting anything with the following ideas:

Bernie would have won

Yes I know, you have that poll from the primaries that showed he'd beat Trump. Well, there was also a poll showing Hillary would beat Trump. You know when it was taken? The day before the election!

We should run Michelle in 2020

A lawyer and ex-first-lady from a centre-left ideology who we look up to because she seems very intelligent and self-confident? I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere...

First of all, note that she - like any famous person entering politics - benefits from the fact that she hasn't taken a stance on anything yet. She'll drop in popularity once she starts taking stands on things. And of course, see my write-up about how we only like strong women when they're not looking for more power.

At least the campaign is over

My fellow straight white able bodied cis males really need to stop saying this. I'm looking your way, Stephen Colbert. Yes, for us, it's over. But for many others, it's only starting.

It was a vicious campaign, we as a nation lost perspective

I'm still looking your way, Stephen. Actually, it was one ordinary campaign, and one over-the-top negative, vindictive, dishonest campaign. And it was the over-the-top negative, vindictive, dishonest campaign that won, so we're going to see more of that in the future. So once again, it's only beginning.

Let's remember, we're all Americans

That's kind of the point. One campaign was built around exclusion, and that was the side that won. So if you're now saying, "can't we all just get along?" the answer is no, Americans apparently don't want to get along. This appeal to work together is another example of a plea we hear a lot: "Let's put aside our differences, and work together to achieve the things my side wants."

Top Ten Good Things About Donald Trump Winning The Election

10. No need to listen to years of "It was rigged!"
9. Make America Great Again? More like Make The Daily Show Great Again!
8. Years from now, when you meet a young man named "Donnie," you'll already know plenty about his parents.
7. Conservatives have bought about all the survivalist gear they'll ever need; it's time for liberals to get in on it.
6. All the commemorative country songs.
5. ...and all the hilarious products Trump himself will sell to commemorate his win.
4. We can spend the next few months watching the media slowly realize that Trump really is President, and it's not that entertaining.
3. Assuming the pattern goes full-circle, we'll now get intelligent, polite, experienced reality stars.
2. Now that we have a new paradigm for successful political personalities, it will be fun watching other candidates try to copy it.
1. Deep-down, we all know it: this is the Karmic price for the Cubs winning the World Series

Eighteen Months Of Insanity

I'm headed back to my media-proof bunker for the next twenty-four hours. But if you want to read even more about the American election, here's a list of all my posts about it.

April, 2015

Hillary Begins The Ascent - ah, a more innocent time when the biggest problem for Hillary Clinton was that people kept calling her by her first name

July, 2015

Where Devils Fear To Tread - a negative impact from Donald Trump's campaign, win or lose

August, 2015

And Now Here It Is, Your Moment Of Absolute Panic - I'm first onto the Trump-is-scary-not-funny bandwagon

Electioneering: No Surprises - I make a clever explanation of Donald Trump's popularity, and a not-so-clever predition about his election success

October, 2015

Split The Difference - the difficulty in finding a candidate that appeals to everyone (bonus: I make a brilliant election prediction)

That's The News, And I Am Outta Here - about Trump's SNL hosting

November, 2015

Two Rails Are Safe, Let's Try The Third - outlining how Trump may Go Too Far

February, 2016

One Nightmare Down, Three To Go - I come up with several nightmare scenarios for the election, none of which are Trump winning the nomination

March, 2016

A Rare Right Turn - NASCAR's sort-of but not-really endorsement of Donald Trump

May, 2016

Cruz In For A Bruisin' - Poor Ted Cruz, he tried so hard

Preparing For The Trump Influx - a less serious discussion of how Canada can deal with Americans fleeing their country after a Trump election win.

June, 2016

Whistlin' Yankee - how Trump has changed how politicians refer to controversial topics

July, 2016

A Sudden Sense of Liberty - I tackle the old question of why relgious Americans love Donald Trump so much

August, 2016

A Smear To Far - the aftermath of Trump's attack on Captain Khan's family

Politically Incorrect Humour - I try in vain to convince non-political-junkies not to try doing political jokes during this election

Scar Tissue - I look at conservatives and their taste in 90's music

September, 2016

Lies, Damned Lies, And Satire - how comedians and talk shows have handled the election

October, 2016

Going Back For Thirds - a quick rundown of third-party candidates

Surveying The Slightly Insulted - how minorities not targetted by Trump have reacted to him

Do Rats Get Adorable Little Lifeboats To Abandon Sinking Ships? - the sexual assault accusations against Donald Trump and their effects on his candidacy

Try To Keep Up - more aftermath of Trump's sex assault issue

Peace Offering - the morality of Democrats paying for a firebombed Republican office

November, 2016

This Is On You - the effects of gender on Hillary Clinton's likability

I Know You Are But What Am I - the single weirdest thing about Donald Trump's campaign

I Know You Are But What Am I

Okay, there's a million unbelievable things that have happened in this election, so I'm just going to look at the most unbelievable, at least to me.

Melania Trump has announced that she wants to fight bullying, particularly cyber-bullying. Okay, that's weird to begin with, but not the unbelievable thing that I'm getting to. Sure, a First Lady usually picks a cause to promote, so nice of her to consider that. Aside from the fact that it's a bit presumptuous to be anouncing that before the election, there's the huge problem that she's married to someone who is basically bullying personified.

But there is precedent for this sort of thing. I've written about bullying-hypocrisy before. And Laureen Harper, wife of PM Stephen, tried to promote an anti-bullying strategy, also oblivious to the fact that she was married to Exhibit A. I'd like to think that they, on some level, they understand that their husbands are part of the problem. Remember how Barabara Bush, first lady to Bush Sr., promoted literacy. And then we met her son. And her other son. And her nephew.

Melania fighting bullying is strange, but wouldn't even make the top hundred strange things in this campaign. But here's the thing that I haven't been able to understand right from the start: Trump's a bully, and a candidate bullying his way almost all the way to the presidency doesn't surprise me. But, Trump is so bad at being a bully.

I mean, he's definitely got some abilities: in the primaries he showed a talent for someone's weakness and attaching a label that would stick. Low-energy Jeb, little Marco Rubio, that showed some real evil social skills. But there have also been so many blatantly obvious, grasping at straws moments. "No puppet, no puppet...You're the puppet" Really? Seven-year-olds on a playground would laugh at someone who tried to deflect an insult so desperately.

Countless people have noticed the pattern that he keeps insulting people by accusing others of his own faults, like some sort of ready-made psychoanalysis. It's comical, but it also displays his own weaknesses for all to see. Again, on any playground, that sort of thing would be exploited by everyone around him.

And then there's his common tactic of avoiding questions by spouting a meandering stream of diversions, vague descriptions and promises without details. Of course, polilticians have verbally dodged questions forever, but he is, once again, incredibly bad at it. Rather than distract us from bad news - as most politicians would - he transparently displays that he has no knowledge or plans on the topic he was asked about. Some people have compared this technique to that of a child giving a book report and hoping the teacher won't figure out he hasn't read the book. But a different metaphor is that of a kid trying to fit in, exaggerate his experience, tell everyone he's drank beer, kissed a girl, or kicked someone's ass.

So I don't get it. Bullying is part of everyone's past, and I can understand that the amoral or the authoritarian might be taken-in as adults by someone who displays the traits of a bully as proof of strength. But surely anyone who displays that agression as clumsily as Trump does would end up seeming like a wannabe, and perceived as just another weakling.

You Say You're Not Really That Keen On A Revolution

Most people think of politics as a spectrum. That is, you're not just "left" or "right;" there are different degrees from one extreme to the other. As such, you'd think that people's allegiance would be based on distance on the scale, not just which side you're on. As an analogy, a six-foot-tall man might be called "tall," as is a seven-footer. But really, the six-footer's life is less like the seven-footer, and more like a five-foot-six guy, even though the latter is considered "short." Similarly, centre-right and centre-left politicians have more in common with each other than they do with the extreme voices in their own party.

At least, you'd think so. In practice, I find that people usually find a kinship with others in their own side, even if their views are very different.

An example is when people observe politics in other countries. In the US, all of politics is shifted to the right compared to much of the Western world, such that conservative politicians from other places have policies similar to American liberals. Yet, you still see international conservatives supporting American conservatives, even if the latter is far from the ideals of the former.

Obviously, this whole discussion is motivated by Donald Trump and the cavalcade of Republicans who have knuckled under and agreed to support him. In many cases, this is even after heavily criticising him. And it's even more perplexing when you consider that the Democrats have nominated a business-friendly centrist who would seem to be about as tempting a nominee as they're likely to get.

It all makes you wonder if everyone is, at heart, an extremist. Maybe we only differ in how pragmatic we are in our pursuit of those ideals. That seems especially likely when we look at the other American party's experience in the primary season. On the surface, the battle between the centrist Clinton and the socialist Sanders is a pretty wide divide. Clinton is unofficially running for Obama's third term, while Sanders was calling for revolutionary changes.

But the view changes when you try comparing politicians' actual beliefs, rather than their policies. You never know whether a moderate politician truly believes their moderate policies are the best, or merely think the moderate policies are all they are able to get accepted. Of course, we can never know the answer to this question, as a pragmatic moderate wouldn't want to let on that they secretly want more extreme policies. But the point is that you don't know for certain what a moderate really wants; they could be ideologically the same as any extremist.

So maybe Hillary Clinton is as socialist as Bernie Sanders, and moderate Republicans have always secretly wanted a Donald Trump type figure. Though that does beg the question: does anyone want moderate policies? In most facets of life, the majority doesn't want extremism. Modern music is not just death metal and ambient electronic, so you don't expect politics to just be communism and fascism.

My guess is the explanation is about comfort. Going back to the idea of the political spectrum: we may all have an idea of the best place on the spectrum to be, but we also have a side we'd like to err on. Political people seem to only be afraid of attacks from one side. For instance, a moderate liberal may not want abolish tradition, but they aren't really afraid of or bothered by it the same way a conservative would be.

If we're not scared of the extremists on our own end of the spectrum, we might choose them over a relatively close candidate on the other side. It comes down to the things we value. You may disagree with an extremist's methods and the degrees they go to, but you may still share their priorities. And thus, you'll know that they won't harm the things you hold most sacred.

This Is On You

I think Hugh Laurie summed up the U.S. election recently when he appeared on Colbert. Most news focussed on Dr. House diagnosing Donald Trump. But that's not what I'm talking about - after all, do we really need one more person trying to explain what's wrong with him at this point? No, what I thought was insightful was his confusion at people's attitude to Hillary Clinton. As he put it:

The people who hate Hillary hate her so much...I feel as if I've missed the first reel of the film where she burned down the orphanage or something.

That's been my attitude all along. And it's fitting that I saw my views spelled out so clearly on a talk show, because I also had another moment of clarity about Hillary Clinton while watching a talk show.

It was back during the 2008 election campaign, when Bill Maher was on Leno. He happened to mention her name, provoking a few boos from the crowd. Rather than use that as a springboard to take easy shots at her, he challenged the booers, saying,

If you hate Hillary Clinton, that is so on you. She's a bland centrist. If you hate her, those are your issues. You were molested by a real estate lady or something.

Ironically, I could only find the exact text of that quote at a right-wing blog. But back to the issue. Maher has got a point. Centrist Democrats are the vanilla of politics: not everyone will like it, but no one will really hate it. When you actually look at what Hillary stands for and does, you can certainly explain why Republicans will not be won over, or why the far left won't be excited about her. But there's really no explanation for hatred.

But the understanding of Hillary hatred gets more difficult when you look back at her long-term popularity as a poltician. Sady Doyle points out that she's actually been quite popular once she has a job. Her highest popularity was only a few years ago when she was Secretary of State, but her approval ratings plummet when she runs for President. Of course, you can expect a politician to lose some popularity when exposed to political campaigns, but even that can't explain the night-and-day difference in how she's been seen over the past eight years.

People grasp at different explanations, like a lack of charisma. But I don't remember anything this antagonistic against Mitt Romney or Al Gore. But a bland poltician who gets instantly hated when she shows career aspirations? Let's face it: it's all about gender. We've reached a point where we're okay with women in positions of power, but we still haven't accepted women being assertive or striving to achieve.

Armed with that perspective, you can also understand everyone's sudden love affair with Michelle Obama. She's campaigning for Clinton, essentially saying the same things, and getting heaps of praise for it. And people are saying - with varying degrees of subtlety - how much better it would be if she was the one running against Trump. But that's naive. Of course we love her; she's not running for president.  Give her the nomination and the knives will come out.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this problem is how the prejudice is perpetrated by both genders. Throughout the campaign, I've seen so many women express the same vague-but-strong dislike of Hillary Clinton. There'll be talk of attitude, mannerisms, maybe a comparison to a disliked woman you knew in the past.

I know, as a man, I'm not normally in position to school women on sexism. But as a straight-white-able-bodied-cis-male, if there's one thing I do know, it's prejudice. So let me tell you: prejudice doesn't feel wrong. In fact, it doesn't feel like anything. It feels like you, your feelings. When you hate someone but there's no logical reason why. Or when you're okay with Group X, you just don't like this particular member of Group X. That's what it feels like, and you have to challenge yourself on that. It's something we all have to learn to do.