Heartache With Hard Work

Back from Hanover after a wonderful Thanksgiving trip. It’s my favorite holiday, mostly because the entire premise is that you get to hang out with your friends all day, relax, cook way too much food, and then stuff yourself for the rest of the evening. This year we attended a big potluck. Our contributions were sweet potatoes (you absolutely have to use real maple syrup to get the appropriate type of sweetness), cranberries (cooked with brown sugar, ginger, and lemon), pesto gnocchi, an African peanut soup with red peppers, and my friend’s delicious vegetarian stuffing. It was a grand old time.

It’s now reaching that point of the year when time gets precious, though. I’ve got final papers to write, for one thing. And I’ve got to start putting together my end-of-the-year albums list. Which means combing through the hundreds that have already been posted to find out what I missed. And it also means I really have to get around to actually writing reviews for the major contenders that I’ve failed to cover so far (The Gaslight Anthem and Marching Band, to name a couple). As of right now, I’d have to say I’m finding 2008 to be a bit disappointing, especially compared to the ridiculous amount of good music that’s come out in the past few years. Still, there’s a lot that I haven’t heard so I need to get cracking…

Right now, though, I’ll look a little furhter ahead and post a teaser for a forthcoming 2009 record from the shimmery shoegazers Asobi Seksu.

Me and Mary – Asobi Seksu

This picks up right where 2006’s stunning Citrus left off. It hits you with a wave of sound like any good shoegaze should, but it takes you dancing and swirling around corners at breakneck speed in a way that a million My Bloody Valentine retreads could never even imagine. While their past record was driven by soaring waves of fuzzed-out guitar, this one features a bit more detail. The patterns of sound change regularly, and it offers a more complex background to play against singer Yuki Chikudate’s stunning voice.

So I posted a song a few hours ago that described how it felt to realize that you weren’t going to be able to see the people you love for Thanksgiving.

Well, here’s what I feel like now:

Everything With You – The Pains of Being Pure at Heart

It’s what happens when your heart hits escape velocity. Hanover, here I come…

Ipso Facto – Iris Leu

Iris Leu makes music that’s halfway between the electronic waves of Loquat and the gentle piano-pop of Vienna Teng. But far more danceable than either.

It’s not the sort of music you use to burnish your indie credentials, but it’s precisely the sort of thing you listen to on a dreary Tuesday, when it’s becoming clear that your crazy plan of somehow finding moderately affordable last-minute tickets to fly you across the country for Thanksgiving with your girlfriend is not going to pan out. In short, it’s something to cheer you up, but which will also avoid insulting your feelings with an artificial cheeriness.

“Ipso Facto” is from her upcoming record Hushaboo, which is due out in early 2009. In the meantime you can pick up her debut EP here.

Gays in the Military – Chris Rock

Action on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is likely to be delayed until 2010, if recent reports are to be believed. This is disheartening. I didn’t exactly expect Obama to get this done on January 20, but a full year or more seems like a long time to wait for something with clear benefits (reducing discrimination as well as helping to deal with ever-growing troop shortages) and no real risks.

Matthew Berger offers two arguments in favor of the delay: one of which I (mostly) agree with, and another which I find deeply troubling. The former is simply that “a change in the military rules would not go down smoothly.” This is obvious. Even the best ideas will provoke backlash and the fact that Bill Clinton’s early failures were attributed in part to pushing this exact issue has to provoke some concern.

I do disagree with Berger a bit, insofar as he emphasizes the effect this would have on Obama’s political capital and the way it would “distract from the economic crisis.” I really think this overestimates the power of this issue in a broad cultural sense. It’s a sign of just how far we’ve come that if the Republicans wanted to start a broad fight on this, they would lose and lose badly. Even more, Obama himself could very easily leave the terrain to surrogatese while he kept his attention on bigger issues.

The real risk, in my mind, is within the military. While repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has broad support with the military at large, a decent portion of the brass is still not convinced. The danger of being perceived as “forcing” this issue early is that it could interfere with Obam’s broad efforts to build a base of support within the military. This is especially important given that he will step into office having to preside over the (relatively) quick withdrawal from Iraq as well as undertake potentially unpopular decisions in Afghanistan. In such a context, one could make a reasonable case for taking the time to build a consensus (or at least the appearance of one) before actually doing anything. The idea is not so much that you will persuade everyone (though perhaps some can be swayed), but that you don’t create the impression of a new, “untested” commander-in-chief immediately pushing people around and stepping on toes.

Now, in one sense this is a clear case of “justice delayed is justice denied” and it’s not really my place as a straight civilian to tell people when they deserve to achieve full rights. That said, if Obama is truly committed to getting this done (which I feel confident that he is), I don’t think a year’s delay will be the worst thing in the world, even if it’s for frustrating reasons.

Berger’s other argument goes as follows:

the LGBT community is at a period of weakness, coming off losses in California and Florida on propositions to outlaw gay marriage. By focusing initially on an issue prominent in the LGBT community, Obama would be essentially ignoring the message he received from two states that helped get him elected, which supported a Democratic candidate but did not back steps forward in gay rights. A repeal now would be perceived as an appeal to a liberal base at a time when he should be reaching out to moderates, including religious moderates for whom gay issues remain a touchy subject.

I find it difficult to believe that Obama will be guided by such ideas, but if I’m wrong, that would be truly depressing. The idea that the “message” from California was that gay rights issues are toxic runs completely counter to the facts. Remember how Obama won a sweeping victory in California despite Prop 8? Have you noticed the intense public backlash following it’s narrow victory? Did you notice how, despite losing, the marriage equality side gained 10 points on the previous California initiative in less than a decade? The tide of history is clear on this one.

Beyond that, the idea that gay marriage and gays in the military are inextricably linked by their “gayness” is silly, and betrays an antiquated notion of the role that these issues will play in the future. “Gay” is no longer a toxic political term. Indeed, the new “compromise” position on gay marriage – full civil unions – was considered a non-starter not that long ago. While marriage retains a strong hold on a (dwindling) majority of the electorate, the broad notion that gay issues are inevitably damaging has lost all credibility. In fact, allowing gays to openly serve in the military is only the most obvious example.

To wit: Berger writes that Obama “should be reaching out to moderates.” This seems reasonable. So wouldn’t it be great if he could push a tremendously popular measure supported by three-quarters of the country, not to mention 64 percent of Republicans?

I sincerely hope that this idea is merely concern trolling on Berger’s behalf and not anything embraced by the Obama administration. There are some potentially acceptible reasons for waiting on this – simply trying to create distance from LGBTs is not one of them.

Via Kevin Drum, I wasted 10 minutes that should have been spent doing actual work taking this civics test from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. I got 32 of 33 right, and the one I missed was really stupid. So I guess I’m relatively aware on these things – not surprising given that I’m in a Ph.D. program in politics – but the whole thing feels a little fishy to me.

Some of the questions are reasonable (branches of government, who gets to declare war, etc.), some are a little silly in practical terms but deal with the Western “canon” to a sufficient degree that I don’t have a problem with them (the role of the Anti-Federalists, questions about the linkages between Plato and Aquinas, Puritan history), but some are a little troubling.

See #25: “Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as…” Am I the only one who isn’t enthusiastic about the idea that an ideological concept like “free enterprise” being treated as synonymous with capitalism? And then there’s #27: “Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because…” Or #31: “International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?” (hint: the correct answer is “an increase in productivity”) Now, I’m pretty supportive of trade – definitely more than many of my liberal cohorts – but not so confident that I don’t feel a little discomfort at the unquestioned premise built into these questions. “Free markets” are imaginary, purely hypothetical. In practice, the question is about what kind of freedom, and to what degree. Surely such factors cannot simply be ignored. Even worse, suppose we do ultimately judge that “free trade” as a concept is on balance positive, even with the relevant caveats (my position). Even so, isn’t it a little troubling that free market boosterism is considered a valid test of our civic identity? Surely those who think differently are no less legitimately “civic” simply by virtue of holding those opinions.

Finally, there’s #30: “Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?” This seems to completely elide the possibility that there could be a gap between the correct response and the likely response.

All in all, tests like this don’t matter much. Railing against subtle bias here may amount to tilting at windmills. Still, this stuff deserves to be aired, I think, for what it says about how we conceive of our collective national identity.

Is there anything more pointless than endlessly checking the updated results of the Minnesota recount? Not likely, and yet I continue to do it. For one thing, there’s no real way to tell if what appear to be trends (“Franken is gaining,” “small countries seem to be going for Coleman,” etc.) are actually trends or if they’re just statistical noise. Even more, the massively ramped up challenges from both sides mean that the numbers we’re getting aren’t really all that close to accurate anyways. In fact, I find this explanation most convincing: “These challenges are merely designed to give the press and the voters the feeling that candidate X is ahead, so if the canvassing board ultimately rejects the bogus challenges, X’s supporter’s will feel robbed and will gladly donate money for subsequent court battles.”

All of which means that even when the “recount” is done, it won’t be over because they’ll have to go through each of these challenged ballots one by one. And then when that’s done, it’ll probably be super close, meaning whoever loses will almost certainly file some new complaints. So really, it’s an impossibly tangled mess and there’s no point in speculating. We’ll just have to wait to find out.

That said, it’s still interesting to watch. And I have to admit that Minnesota’s got a pretty impressive system (it certainly puts Flordia circa 2000 to shame). It’s pretty awesome to think that, for all the flaws and stupid elements of our electoral system, something like this can happen with nothing more than a few lawsuits and some harsh words. It’s also fascinating to think about an election this size that really could come down to a margin of 20 or 30 votes. It’s a reminder that while all the good reasons to vote are more about civic duties than they are about actually expecting to personally affect the outcome, it is always possible.

Finally, it’s very interesting to look at some of these challenged ballots. You can even vote on whether you would allow them. If it does come down to one vote, I wonder how the guy (I’m going to assume it was a guy) who voted for Lizard People will feel about it.

Sometimes our country is truly depressing. For example, this story from the New York Times:

Justice Patricia M. DiMango, of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, spoke of sleepless nights while contemplating a sentence. That sentence could keep Ms. Santiago, 30, in prison for up to 17 years longer than her husband, Cesar Rodriguez, 30, Nixzmary’s stepfather, who delivered the fatal beating and was sentenced in April by Justice L. Priscilla Hall to 26 1/3 to 29 years.
Justice DiMango said that Ms. Santiago, who was convicted of manslaughter and two counts of assault but acquitted of murder, had ignored her lawful obligation as a parent to try to save the dying child. But the wide gap between the sentences raised questions about whether Ms. Santiago shouldered an extra burden as she faced judge and jury: the duty to be a good mother.

As far as I can tell, the facts of the case are as follows: the father beat the child to death. The mother was present and did nothing to stop it, and even failed to do anything once it was over. The police only arrived because a neighbor called 911.

Now, that is tremendously sad for all the obvious reasons. It’s only magnified when some of the supplemental information comes out: her miscarriage right before the death, her own abusive relationship with the father. A reasonable person might look at those facts and recognize a troubled mind, someone surely in need of help, perhaps someone deserving of punishment. But how can anyone say that she, who merely witnessed but did not act, should receive a more harsh punishment than the man who actually killed the child?

Apparently, in America, that question is not so simple as it might seem. It’s a stark reminder that differences in social perception of gender are deeply ingrained, not to mention deeply embedded in supposedly neutral systems like the law. In this case Nixzaliz Santiago is being punished for failing to comport with an idealized motherhood. That she herself was terrorized by her husband is given no weight. And the failure of motherhood in this instance makes her equally (in fact more) culpable.

One of the jurors even makes this explicit, saying ““I was deliberating between ‘Is there intent or not?’ I came to the conclusion that there was intent, in the form of her lack of action.” She refuses to accept that a “real” mother could simply stand by and allow this to happen, and so looks for motives. The cultural imagination can picture a fallen mother, one who kills her child. And it can, of course, include space for the virtuous mother who intervenes. But no other space exists; nowhere in the equation is the possibility that she simply feared to act. Our collective social understanding of motherhood forces the choice into only these two paths. Which means if she let it happen, she must have wanted it, and thus deserves every bit of punishment.

None of which is to say that she deserves no fault. The evidence seems to suggest that she provided encouragement for the general pattern of beatings – though there doesn’t seem to be any proof that in this instance she did anything other than let it happen. And I do firmly believe that anyone, simply by virtue of being human and certainly in their role as a parent, ought to step in and prevent such things from happening.

But this case appears to reside right at the center of the sad intersection of restrictive gender norms and the over reliance on an approach to criminal justice that emphasizes punishment over treatment and rehabilitation. And when the two meet, the punishment that may be unleashed is extraordinary.

Alexandria – Caithlin De Marrais
Voicemail – Caithlin De Marrais

What happens if one of the finest records of the year is released but no one writes about it? This is something being tested right now, with virtually zero discussion of the debut solo record from Caithlin De Marrais (formerly of Rainer Maria). It’s baffling because Rainer Maria were at least a moderately well-known band in the indie/emo circles. And it’s especially confusing because My Magic City is almost certainly better than any of their many fine albums.

Where Rainer Maria was overwrought, emotional, and loud (in a good way, most of the time) on this record Caithlin sings in a dusky voice over introspective, organic music. The maturity of sound and perspective hinted at by the later Rainer Maria records is now here in full force. Often, maturity can be a code-word for dull, but that is definitely not the case here.

Instead, it is an openness to ambiguity, a gentle tension. It allows for a sense of warmth that is impossible in records with a less sophisticated emotional core. The songs on this record breathe like living beings. They move at their own pace, and reveal themselves slowly.

Given this, it should come as no surprise that this record was recorded spontaneously – often being invented or changed on the spot. Even more, they were recorded in old churches, cottages, apartments. Such projects often collapse into a disorganized mess, but when they work…oh, when they work the result is something magical. If you can catch the moment of invention on tape, there is this indescribable looseness, this feeling of newness etched into the air.

Within the first few seconds of the record, on the bittersweet “Voicemail” you can already sense that something special is at work here. Caithlin’s voice begins hushed, as if scared of rising too far beyond the light brushwork of the drums. As the song continues you can almost sense her and the band exploring the space around them – delving into corners, probing at the limits. It’s followed by “Outer Space is Still Sexy” which weaves together the youthful dreams of time machines and the distance of space with an older, world-weary desire for escape. There’s no narrative per se, only a series of images, fleeting but powerful.

All of which brings me back to that word: magic. The great power of this record is the way it imbues the most simple, mundane moments with just a touch of magic. The point is not to create fantastical stories or overpowering emotions, but rather to tread lightly, to focus in on the spaces in between. See, for example, the many repetitions of: “Hold tight, we’ll be alright. Love is on our side” in “The Cottage.” This line is delivered with a tiredness, a sense of quiet sadness, but also with determination. It’s not a rallying call or a belief in love that shatters world – it’s the simple recognition of how people drag themselves through tough times without succumbing to the pain and sadness.

But perhaps the finest example is “Alexandria” – absolutely brimming with the gentle pathos of everyday life on the road, the confusion, the fights, the aches and pains. Living for the dream that you might hear that song that you poured all your heart into on some late-night radio station. It’s everything great that was never quite possible on all those Rainer Maria records: simple humanity and shared laughter.

One final song deserving special mention is “Carefully,” which seems to be about the sense of absolute wonderment experienced by a new parent. Particularly the feeling of terror at realizing how someone now depends on you utterly and completely. It’s a small microcosm for the whole album: a dawning awareness of the simple joys to be found in the world.

All of which brings me back to my original question: why is this wonderful album not being talked about by everyone? C’mon people, this one has album of the year potential. Stream the whole album here and then buy yourself a copy.

Me and Bobby McGee – Janis Joplin

So, after all the counting, it turns out that Alaska has (narrowly) decided to send Stevens packing. A couple thoughts on this.

To start, you’d have to imagine that there’s virtually zero chance of holding onto this seat after 2014. Because of the fundamentally conservative nature of Alaska, some folks have commented that Begich is likely to tilt pretty far toward the center – maybe even to the right. This may very well be true, but given the circumstances I’m not really sure that makes sense.

I think that means two things. First, Begich really ought to be operating on the Janis Joplin principle: freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. My impression is that Begich is not particularly moderate. If that’s the case, I see no reason why he shouldn’t simply go after what he really cares about and damn the torpedoes of electoral consequences. Second, it’s a dead end to try and turn “centrist Dem” into an ideological match for the people in Alaska. After all, why would you vote for that when you can simply pick the Republican and get someone closer to your values? The extraordinary circumstances of this election are unlikely to be duplicated. Which means Begich needs to appeal to people in a different way. I think there’s a chance (albeit a relatively small one) that if he comes across as genuine, motivated, and committed that might be enough to get people on his side – even if they disagree on some of “the issues.” Cultivating that impression, though, is pretty difficult if you’re obviously pandering.

Threading the needle might be tough, but an approach that taps into some of the libertarian individual freedom focus while pushing hard on issues like global warming where Begich could be a leader might be a recipe for having a chance in six years.

As for Stevens, Matt Yglesias is disgusted at the send-off he’s being given by the Senate: “It’s sickening to watch. For all the cynicism that unfolds on the Hill, every once in a while members really do put political expedience aside and just do what they think is right. Unfortunately, what they think is right is to lavish praise on their good friend the senator/crook Ted Stevens.”

Me, I don’t really see the problem. The guy has served in the Senate for decades – almost as long as Alaska has been a state. It’s his entire life – and he has worked side by side with these people for just about as long as any of them have held office. Is it really surprising that you’ll start to feel some sort of human connection to people in that context? Applauding him for the enormous influence he’s held over the years is not the same thing as lending support to his illegal actions. Think about what would happen if a close friend was revealed to have stolen $100,000 from the charity where he works. Or if a family member (or, say, a US Senator) was in a car accident under mysterious circumstances that resulted in a death. Or countless other instances where people you have developed strong bonds with act in ways you find reprehensible. You’d obviously reject what they did, but I’d hope that you wouldn’t treat that as an excuse for absolutely severing all ties.

Stevens didn’t murder anyone. He didn’t sell people into slavery. He didn’t beat up puppies. He took bribes, and that should rightly be punished and absolutely disqualify him from holding public office. But it’s hardly a reason to utterly shun his entire existence. You can remain a right-thinking individual, committed to upholding moral principles, while at the same time retaining sympathy for the offender.

To expect the Senate to kick Stevens to the curb without a word is frankly ridiculous. In the same way that you don’t speak ill of the dead at the funeral, you let this moment be hagiographic, full aware that the larger arc of history will remember all the bad stuff. It’s the human response, and I would be a little bit embarrassed for them if they didn’t show at least a little bit of it.

Out of Gas – Modest Mouse

So gas prices are way down. Good news, right? Well, yes and no. I mean, it’s good news for consumers facing rising costs and stagnant wages. Still, there’s little reason to think that the overall trend in gas production has changed, which means that current low prices are very bad if the remove the incitement for getting something serious done.

It does open up some interesting opportunities. A gas tax, for instance. You could play around with exactly how it gets added but given that people were paying a buck or two more just a few months ago, there’s no time like now to avoid the political firestorm that would normally accompany some changes on that front.

Some environmental folks are talking down the idea. Grist for example points out that price signals won’t be sufficient to really do much about global warming. Which is fair enough, but isn’t really the point. Even accounting for this, the advantages of a gas tax are manifold:

First, price signals do help to reduce consumption. Not by as much as you’d expect, but it does have an effect. This is particularly true when people can’t hold out hope for a long term price reduction. People often underestimate the role that habit plays in all this. People won’t just change their driving patterns overnight – even if the price changes radically. But a long term and apparently permanent increase will inculcate new perceptions of the role that personal transportation plays in peoples’ lives. That’s the danger of the current decline. It won’t last, but people will remember it for years and hold out hope that prices will eventually come back down – and thus decide that it’s not really worth changing their habits.

Second, they produce revenue which can get recycled in all kinds of useful ways. It can be directed at social programs in an effort to mitigate any regressive effects of the tax. It can be focused on funding new leapfrogging energy technologies. My personal favorite idea is to institute pay-at-the-pump auto insurance in the form of a gas tax. It smoothes out both the regressive function of a gas tax and of insurance, ensures universal auto coverage, and helps limit consumption.

Third, the point of a gas tax is to provide a price signal to keep people from shrugging off the very real problem of future oil production. Peak oil may be overstated at times, but there’s no denying that production can’t keep up with current rates of consumption, and the long term economic effects could be disastrous. That’s why we can’t afford for people to get all excited about currently declining gas prices and think that the issue is resolved. We need a lot of lead-time on both the supply and demand side to keep this from turning out badly. A gas tax can help promote that.