Heartache With Hard Work

Dollhouse – Omega

Meh. It wasn’t a bad episode, but for all the times over the course of the season when I said to myself “sure, this isn’t a resolution yet, but presumably they’re building to something” the finale was a bit of a let-down. A number of things remain unresolved, and quite a few more have been tied up, but in some of the least interesting or satisfying ways possible.

Things I liked:
* I loved the idea that what motivates Alpha is a desire to destroy the past. And that the crucial difference between him and Echo is that she is not similarly motivated.

* The Whiskey/Dr. Saunders stuff was good. I definitely wasn’t surprised to find out that she was a ‘former’ doll (though I wasn’t confident enough in that prediction to actually write it down here), but the way the scenes played out still gave it some major emotional resonance. And it’s one of the few instances where what happened in this episode forced you to go back and really try and see earlier scenes from a new perspective.

* I thought the Topher/Dr. Saunders stuff was well done, too. I’m still of two minds about Topher the character, but I think Fran Kranz is selling him for me. I see ambiguities there in ways that don’t really show up for me in some of the more ‘significant’ characters. I’m not sure I *like* him, but I’m definitely curious to see what’s underneath.

* I loved the way “who are you” was a major theme of this episode. It calls to mind one of my favorite bits from Babylon-5 of course. Especially since the competing questions in that show are “who are you?” and “what do you want?” – and the Dollhouse is about nothing OTHER than “what do you want?”

* I thought the concept of ‘having many personalities as opposed to multiple personalities’ was explored in a somewhat interesting fashion. By which I mean: I was not enthusiastic about what they DID with it (see below), but the background concept and some of the intial forays into the mind(s) of Alpha/Echo were intriguing. I’ve been reading a lot of Nietzsche for class lately, and I think the ham-handed references in the episode, while blundering in one sense (see below) actually do point to a deeper convergence. Alpha is not ‘the ubermensch’ in the sense that such a being would literally exist as the embodiment of the next step of evolution. But he does signify the possibility that if we could really, truly understand the fact of perspectives it would radically change our entire concept of the world.

They didn’t go in this direction, preferring to default to the painfully boring conclusion that Alpha was just always a psychopath, but I think the thing that is truly interesting about Alpha is the notion that he can no longer lend any credence to the mythic lives that we live in our day-to-day existence. Truth for him is a composite. It is nothing at all because he alone of all people contains within himself the incommensurable, unbridgeable gap between perceptions.

If we grasp for God out of a fundamental nihilism – a feeling of existential despair at the possibility that there is no meaning other than our own – then what does Alpha grasp for? He knows that there is nothing more than perspective, and further realizes that there is no escape from that abyss. I think it would be interesting to explore that. What happens when you finally and completely encounter the possibility that there is no purpose, but only necessity?

Sadly, they don’t really get into it. Which brings me to my complaints:

* So Alpha is just a psychopath? That’s it? The reason for his orchestration of all this stuff over the season is…wait for it…he thinks Echo is pretty? The build-up had me imagining a character that would give some depth to the gray areas of the show. Instead we got a stock megalomaniac who is obsessed over some girl. Lame.

* The ‘composite event’ was just a computer glitch? So if that hadn’t happened, Alpha would just be up in the attic and everything would be rolling on merrily? Meh.

* “Especially not now that we have a black president” is the most embarrassing line I’ve ever heard in a Joss show. It still makes me cringe thinking about it.

* The chase/fight at the power plant was silly. The Alpha/Echo fight was somewhat exciting but once the boys showed up it felt like a bad 80s cop show.

* How were they not able to QUICKLY figure out the details of the pre-Alpha personality? They had to literally go find the woman to see that her face had been cut? They don’t have access to a database?

* I am incredibly frustrated with the Ballard plotline. He gets to ‘save’ Caroline by catching her tape? He decides to work for the Dollhouse? He doesn’t come face to face with any of the darkness they implied over the rest of the season? He just reverts to form, as if all that stuff didn’t happen. As Maia puts it:

I would have been Ok if Ballard’s arc for this episode had been that he came to realise that actives were people, and his attitude towards Caroline was everything Joel Myner had said it was, and this led to his changed his attitude towards Mellie. It’s not where I would have gone with the character, but I wouldn’t have minded if they’d done it. But instead they just ended on him choosing Mellie, as a twist. In Haunted and Briar Rose, the character had gone to a dark place, but a necessary and inevitable dark place. But rather than develop that they just ignored it. It was a cheesy catch, a hand-shake with Madeline (sorry about that time I knew I was raping you) and that’s it.

* Why does Echo go back to the Dollhouse? “I signed a contract” is beyond silly. She has her tape and the machine that Alpha built. Why doesn’t she just go put herself back in her body and make her merry way? If there is an answer to this, surely they could at least suggest what it might be.

* The final scene was bad. Her whispering “Caroline” as she goes down to sleep is classic stupid-TV manipulation. Not to mention that it’s basically identical to the way they’ve closed 3 or 4 others episodes.

* I am not convinced by their treatment of the concept of ‘souls’ and the broader question of embodiment. I appreciate the idea that there is something embedded in a person that is not simply their mind. I would find the premise of the show to be pretty uninteresting if they stuck with the party line that it’s literally all just a disembodied mind that is written onto a disk and can be stuck willy-nilly into any body.

But…I want them to do something with this. Based on this episode, it almost seems like the conclusion we’re supposed to draw is the totally facile explanation that there’s a ‘soul’ which is inexplicable, ineffable, and which endures in some sort of eternal way. Which is not intriguing in the least, or different from any of the millions of other takes on this question. Maybe that’s not where they are going (well, where they would go in a non-cancelled world), but it seems like that’s what’s implied.

Concluding thoughts: I like the show, and it’ll be a shame when it gets canceled. But in a lot of ways it was a bit of a mess. And I’m not convinced they really know how to resolve any of the questions they’re asking.

Let me rephrase. I don’t even necessarily want resolution. I’m perfectly happy with ambiguity if it’s a constructed and meaningful ambiguity. That’s what they seemed to be cultivating at times, and it’s the reason why I wanted the show to succeed. But in the end the ambiguity mostly fell to either side. On the one hand, they offered simplistic answers (there is a soul, he was always crazy, etc.) which resolved the question but not in manner that gave the questions any weight. On the other hand, they turned ambiguity into vagueness and confusion.

What I really wanted was heavy questions that left me troubled. Questions that suggested a burden worth bearing. What I got were light answers to light questions. Not always. And not completely. But too often for me to consider this show a success on its own terms. It aimed at things and could not follow through.

I’ll still be sad when it gets canceled. I think it has a lot of potential, and even with the letdowns, I enjoyed watching it, and would have continued for a long time. If nothing else, it got me thinking in a way that few shows do. And you have to reward effort even if the execution doesn’t quite live up.

I wrote about six months ago that I didn’t think it would be that terrible if Obama waited until 2010 to act on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I’ve changed my mind. It’s a stupid, bigoted policy. It hurts real live people with no discernible benefits. It’s going to go inevitably so why not now?

I initially thought waiting a little bit might not be a disaster assuming that Obama was still committed to getting it done eventually. Given the various dissemblances on this issue lately, though, I don’t feel as comfortable relying on that. I’m worried that they see this as a political landmine with little upside.

And I think that’s wrong. On ethical grounds, obviously. But I think it’s stupid politically, too. The tide is turning, slowly but surely on “the gay issue.” I think we’re now at the point where gay marriage may still be a little bit too hot to touch for the president, but only because it has become the ‘acceptable’ repository for anti-gay sentiment.

For people who feel uncomfortable with this stuff, they don’t have to feel bad if they oppose gay marriage because there’s a plausible (in their mind) argument about preserving something separate. They’re ‘pro-marriage’ not ‘anti-gay.’ It doesn’t make any actual sense, but the cognitive dissonance doesn’t get them too bad.

But the upshot of this is that it’s quickly becoming less and less acceptable to outrightly express anti-gay sentiment. You can still feel it, but it’s not really acceptable to say it.

And the arguments against letting gays serve openly are so transparently stupid (and opposed by such a large percentage of people already) that I just can’t see them getting much traction. The result: suddenly gay politics put CONSERVATIVES in a tough place. They can come up guns blazing and solidify the perspective of them as a parochial, discriminatory party – creating further marginalization. Or they can sense the turning tide and meekly let it happen. Either way, the bill passes and it’s a win for Democrats.

I *hope* that part of the delay has been about sending word down the chain of command that this is coming in an effort to let the military brass know. And I hope that another part has simply been about taking some time to solidify the impression of Obama and the new administration as the legitimate makers of military policy from within the military.

But it’s really time now for Obama to give a speech where he explicitly commits to working on repealing DADT. It’s Congress so it’ll take time to get it done. But now is the time to make it a priority.

Potemkin City Limits – Propagandhi
Supporting Caste – Propagandhi

So I included an old Propagandhi song in the post I just did, and it occurred to me I might as well take the opportunity to write about the new Propagandhi album Supporting Caste.

First some background. A few years ago I called the new Lawrence Arms record “the best punk record since London Calling.” I was wrong. Not that I don’t think Oh! Calcutta is anything but amazing, but I forgot about the debut album from Propagandhi. How to Clean Everything was a revelation to a kid in high school in the mid 90s. It was everything you couldn’t get in other music. Funny, angry, smart, unafraid to be naive, but also steeped in a barely restrained bitterness and biting cynicism. Compared to that, everything since couldn’t help but be a let-down.

It took me several years to really start to appreciate their follow-up Less Talk, More Rock, although in time I discovered a stunning album buried amidst overblown song titles and some less-than-impressive hooks.

After that, however, I mostly gave up on them. John K Samson left the band, and I think it made a pretty big deal. You know how Paul McCartney’s solo career consists of a decent number of perfectly fine tracks often buried amidst albums that are stuffed to the gills with pappy love songs? Imagine that process in reverse. The post Samson-Propagandhi has gone decidedly heavier, often veering almost into metal territory. The clever word-play, the air of goofiness, and sweet and tender hooks…all gone. And without those things to provide balance, the dynamic was lost.

It’s not for me to say if the objective quality of their work declined. But it no longer appealed to me.

Which brings us to the present…and further questions on my part. I also can’t really tell if Supporting Caste signals a change in the trend or not. Rather, I like Supporting Caste quite a bit more than its predecessors, but I’m not sure if A) it’s a one-off situation, a curious coincidence, B) they haven’t changed the sound, but I’m now at a place where it’s starting to appeal to me, or C) they have changed, but in ways that I’ve processed subliminally but can’t quite put into words yet.

Whatever it is, I definitely enjoy this album – if not every piece of it. For one thing, in terms of sheer musical talent it’s miles away from their beginnings. For all that the debut was a masterpiece, no one would ever accuse them of exceptional musicianship. These days, the arrangements are actually pretty tight, the drumming is explosive, and the little cascades of guitar riffs are right on the spot.

Some of tracks get a little bit beyond me, but there are a number of excellent songs here. “Potemkin City Limits,” “Supporting Caste,” “Tertium Non Datur,” and “The Bangers Embrace” all get me excited in a way I haven’t been about this band in over a decade. It’s a nice feeling.

…And We Thought That Nation-States Were a Bad Idea – Propagandhi

Peter at the Duck of Minerva discusses Stephen Walt’s non-realist assessment of defense spending:

Lets review: Realism assumes an anarchic world of rational state actors maximizing security, defined as sufficient military force to defend the integrity of a the state. In that anarchic environment, systemic pressures are the primary factor states rationally consider in security decisions.

In other words, all states act the same, the only thing that differentiates them is their relative position in world politics, ie their relative power.

What Walt claims in his post is that the systemic pressures of anarchy have absolutely no bearing on US defense budgetign and policy. Rather, crazy domestic lobbies have hijacked USFP for some damn fool ideological crusade. This analysis is all well and good, but, and here’s the kicker, Walt’s theory–Realism–says this shouldn’t matter, not one lick! States can have all the internal politics they want, but in the end, systemic pressures shape security policy.

I don’t really see the problem here. The absolutist realist position, that literally every state behaves in purely objective security interests in all cases is, of course, on-its-face wrong. But no one actually thinks that. Not even Mearsheimer.

What “realists” really think is that the theory of realism is the most effective means of conceptualizing international relations. For them, it is the backdrop against which all other issues must be understood. Thus, if a specific issue fails to comport with realist theory, it demands explanation.

And while every state will operate in a variety of non-realist manners, on the whole they will fall in line with the larger theory. Any state which routinely and regularly flaunts its own security interests will encounter ever-increasing problems and either fall in line or collapse under the weight of its ‘irrational’ decisions.

In short, realists take their theory as the ‘natural’ condition for international politics and therefore are keenly interested in situations where the theory fails to correspond with reality. Folks like Walt clearly find it a lot more interesting to explore the limits of realism than it would be to re-hash the same discussions of force dynamics and bargaining theory.

There is, of course, PLENTY of room for criticism of such efforts. And I also agree with the sentiment from the DoM post that suggests that Walt (and all realists, really) tread remarkably close to constructivism as they dance their way through the hurdles created by their insistence on seeing the world through the lens of a universalizing theory. But that’s just a reason to recognize that constructivism – in its more ‘conservative’ forms, at least – is little more than a self-aware realism, and therefore not nearly the threat to institutionalized theory than the more mainstream folks might imagine.

UPDATE: Dan Nexon has a more complete post on this subject (with a reference to Guzzini, even!).

There’s a recent trend to get super-angry that Republicans would consider filibustering judicial appointments. “But you insisted that Bush’s appointees shouldn’t be filibustered!” they sputter.

Well, yes. And Democrats claimed that they had every right to do so. Now the positions are reversed and – shockingly – opinions about the legitimacy of the question have flipped, too. Fancy that.

I tend to believe that the filibuster should be an exceptional device – preserved for relatively rare occasions. In principle, I’d like to see that made the norm.

But that’s not the issue here. What frustrates me is people who clearly are only concerned with what will fulfill their particular political objectives and who latch onto “principle” as a justification. This game of “you started it! No, you did!” is embarrassing for both sides. It’s childish and silly, and it does a disservice to the real issues here.

Either you actually value a particular process and are willing to consistently affirm that process even when it disadvantages you, or you are only concerned with outcomes and need to make whatever normative argument you want based on that.

The latter case isn’t bad. It’s a perfectly reasonable position, and it’s even consistent to care MORE about results than process, while still wishing there was a way to get out of the impasse. That describes my position. I dislike the filibuster – particularly when it is treated as a matter of course that every single piece of legislation must now get 60 votes – but I do not expect the opposition to abandon it, nor did I want the Democrats to completely disavow it. Its utility in a two-party system is too obvious to expect anyone to unilaterally give it up.

What I would really like to see is genuine effort to reform these practices. A few months ago I proposed a bunch of things the Democrats could do now that they were in power to demonstrate their legitimate interest in good governance. I still think they should do some of that stuff, because there are some things that are important for the long-term functioning if a strong democracy even if it requires sacrificing a powerful position in the short term.

But there are other ideas that really deserve more attention – such as implementing new rules, but grandparenting in the current operating procedures for several more election cycles. There’s been talk recently of fixing the stupid Supreme Court appointment process. Making it an 18-year term, for example, and cycling in someone new every two years. It would help end the silly unpredictability, it would prevent people like Souter and Stevens feeling obliged to hang on indefinitely so that they can get replaced by an ideologically similar judge.

The problem is that any such change messes with the current balance. So whichever side would be disadvantaged has every incentive to block it. So instead, build in a sufficient buffer to ensure that no one will know who it might hurt or help.

When people say they like post-partisanship, this is the kind of thing a lot of them are talking about. They don’t mean “bipartisan” compromises where both sides make a deal that satisfies neither. They mean stuff where there’s a clearly best-case scenario, but the political vagaries of a politics that lives entirely in the moment make it impossible.

Just A Silhouette – Ex Lovers

What an absolute wonder of a song! It’s the sort of track that you have to listen to over and over because it just makes you feel so damn happy to hear that little guitar line. And don’t even get me started on the interlude – which feels as unhurried and carefree as anything I’ve heard in years.

This is every song from Sarah Records, filtered through the memories of every 80s band that should’ve made it big but no one ever knew about. Hearing something like this just reminds you of how great it is to be alive.

Ex Lovers have a couple singles on Rough Trade (and “Photobooth” is every bit as good as “Just a Silhouette), but I want an LP!

(h/t to Neon Gold)

Pew has a neat presentation of the newest version of their “impressions” poll. You know, the one where they ask people what words they would use to describe a person. For Obama, the top three words these days are ‘intelligent,’ ‘good,’ and ‘socialist.’ It’s the trifecta, really.

But the really interesting thing is comparing results since last September. ‘Socialist’ is up 14 points (from 6 to 20). ‘Inexperienced’ is down FORTY-TWO points. Conversely, ‘change’ is down 26 points. ‘Trying’ now makes the top 10, while ‘charismatic’ has been knocked out.

Turns out that the economy collapsing and 100 days of being president rather significantly changes what people think is important in his character. Shocking, I know.

The sample size on this is quite small, and it doesn’t really mean a whole lot. But as a snapshot of the zeitgeist it’s somewhat interesting.

Tenuousness – Andrew Bird
Unfolding Fans – Andrew Bird

Andrew Bird is one of those artists that I always feel a bit disappointed in myself for not liking more. He does good (often excellent work). Every now and then one of his songs hits me just right and the brilliance that everyone else can see so easily shines through for me, too. But overall, it just doesn’t quite do it for me.

Part of the problem is that I generally have a hard time getting into this type of music. The brooding, intricately crafted stuff. I can appreciate it, but it leaves me feeling cold a lot of the time. Same reason I just can’t seem to “get” Grizzly Bear. Or Radiohead for that matter.

Still, as I said, every one of his records has a few tracks that break through that problem. And Noble Beast is no exception. This time around, it’s mostly the more atmospheric stuff that really gets me. Some of the interludes, for example, make me wonder what magic he could work if he ever did an album full of this kind of stuff.

Of the full-length songs, I love the quirky gait of “Oh No,” and “Tenuousness” features some excellent guitar work and superb whistling. “Natural Disasters” is the most traditionally pretty song he’s had in a while. And then there’s “The Privateers” which has a little bit more energy than the rest of the record.

The end result is a record I’ll listen to occasionally, and would happily recommend, but which is never going to be a personal favorite.

Talking Points Memo links to this comment from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway:

Can you imagine any of Obama’s nominees being treated the way that Sarah Palin and her family were treated by the media? It’s “interesting,” as they say in Washington. Gender and class ended up being a huge obstacle for one person, and they’re likely to be a huge boost to this person that Barack Obama selects.

I absolutely can imagine how a Supreme Court nominee would be treated if she said the following:

COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
PALIN: Well, let’s see. There’s –of course –in the great history of America there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are–those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know–going through the history of America, there would be others but–
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well, I could think of–of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Yep, it probably wouldn’t go over very well.

Which invites the larger question of whether Souter’s replacement should be a woman, or gay, or Hispanic, etc.

I’m not going to waste your going through all the arguments about why the idea of a “most qualified candidate” is a myth. Suffice to say that there’s no objective ranking of potential options. There are probably thousands of people who would make perfectly credible Justices. Which means when people insist on making it the “most qualified” person, what they really mean is: “I’m going to accuse you of identity politics if you don’t pick a white guy.”

All that’s true, but what I’m more interested in is actually making an identity politics argument for re-conceptualizing what counts as a ‘qualification’ for the job.

Right now, the two real deciding factors are 1) ideology and 2) the certainty with which the political bases can judge ideology. Harriet Miers got tossed aside not because of the preposterous nepotism her nomination implied but rather because right-wing groups didn’t feel sure enough of her position on abortion – i.e. – they didn’t want “another Souter.”

But there’s no reason why that’s good practice. Judges serve life-terms so there’s no guarantee, given the vagaries of political change, that the composition of the court will reflect the actual present-day will of the country.

There is, however, a very reasonable case to be made that the Court would be better off the closer it hewed to the actual demographic composition of the country. It’s absolutely ludicrous that the single most prominent court case is intimately and completely related to women’s bodies and gender equality, and there have been a grand total of two women to EVER serve on the Court. Gender doesn’t necessarily produce x, y, or z position, but a court full of men is going to have a harder time feeling empathy for experiences that fall outside their personal lived experience.

Really, letting the court continue as a institution steeped in whiteness and masculinity does nothing but reinforce the notion that to be white and male is the ‘natural’ state of things, that whiteness isn’t an identity. It implies that Justices are actually brains in a vat, with no lived experience and no perspectives that have been shaped by their own particular cultural location.

Which is not to say that identity guarantees any particular position. Comparing Thomas and Souteron desegregation, for example, makes that clear. But a court filled with people who were forged in the midst of a legacy of various inequalities is far less likely to truly reflect the positions of a country that looks very different from it.

I’m not saying race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. should be a dreaded litmus test. But there are a LOT of qualified people out there. In a perfect world, we could simply find the person with the objectively finest legal mind and call it good. But in the real world where people live in bodies, coming from a different background offers valuable perspective that ought to be considered a legitimate qualification for the job.

Put together a short list that features a bunch of folks who aren’t white men. That doesn’t have to be the final determinant, but it ought to at least be a factor. It’s the right thing to do.

State of the Union – David Ford

It won’t have escaped your notice that posting around here is quite a bit less regular than it once was. The sheer number of posts hasn’t changed much but they tend to come in bursts these days. It’s largely a function of a grad-student week. Monday-Wednesday I’m sufficiently busy that I can’t really justify to myself spending time writing stuff for the blog. Which leaves four days at best where I may or may not write stuff. That’s not likely to change, but I figured it was worth making that explicit.

It also won’t have escaped your notice that I don’t write about music nearly as much as I once did. So it goes… I’m not going to stop or anything, but the pace probably won’t pick up too much either. Things I will try to do in an effort to remedy this include 1) committing to writing one full-length review of an album per week and 2) being more willing to post short-and-sweet reviews of tracks without feeling obliged to discuss the whole record.

Finally, I’m going to write a more short political stuff over the course of the whole week. I can knock that stuff out in 5 minutes and will feel a lot less guilty than if I was spending an hour or two on an album review. I regularly have like 15 tabs open of stuff I think it might be interesting to comment on but haven’t wanted to overload things here. So I tend to let them sit for weeks until I finally close them. Well, no more. It’s not going to be five posts a day or anything, but I’ll probably actually post on those sorts of things a bit more often.

If the political stuff isn’t your thing…well, sorry. But it’s my blog and I’m going to write about what I’m interested in. The music stuff will tend to be from Thursday-Saturday if you just want to stop by on those days.

For everyone, leave a comment if you get a chance. What would you like to hear about? Is the blog jumping off the rails and getting totally lame? Was it ever cool in the first place?