No, not me. Foreclosure proceedings are halted for now.
If you are noticing how late the blog posts are going up, you might guess that things are kind of overwhelming now. Maybe that has made it easier to post about things that are overwhelming. If yesterday was about not being able to help enough cats, I am also not able to help enough people.
When I was coming back from the Ataris' concert, I caught the train at a stop where a lot of homeless people sleep. One man was coughing. About as soon as I wished that I could give him a cough drop, I remembered that I actually had one and gave it to him.
It felt very inadequate, though he did thank me.
I remembered that I was going to be down in that area for two more days the following week, and thought I should bring sandwiches. Both days I made three sandwiches and offered them to people who were around.
The first day I gave them all to the same person, who asked my name so he could pray for me.
The second day they went to different people. Maybe I should have given them all to the first woman, because she said she was starving. I had seen another person from the train, and that's why I took the other two sandwiches over there, but the way she said she was starving stayed with me. It's because it was so dead, like it wasn't something desperate anymore, but just accepted.
On both days, I walked away wanting to cry.
See, you think it's supposed to give you a good feeling. It's not that there are feelings of guilt or shame or anything like that, but there is such a sense of inadequacy and futility. But no! It's like throwing starfish back into the sea; it made a difference to that one! Yes, but I can't stop being helplessly aware of all the other dying starfish.
Today I saw a commercial for Shriner's Children's Hospital right after a commercial for Wounded Warriors, both wanting monthly donations. Sick kids or veterans? Better yet, I have seen similar commercials for St. Jude's Children's Hospital - sick kids versus sick kids would probably be more fair.
My point is just that this system doesn't work. I have said that before. I will say it again. I will add details. But on the most basic level, this doesn't work.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Monday, October 29, 2018
On this National Cat Day
There are multiple days commemorating cats. This one - National Cat Day on October 29th - was created as a way to bring awareness to the number of homeless cats. Of course, our cats all have homes, but there were times when they didn't.
We are pet people. You may already know that. We are neither dog nor cat people, but both. (A few other species have gotten in there from time to time, but it's really mainly a cats and dogs thing.) I have memories of pets we had before I was born, because their places in the collective family love were so strong.
Today is going to be about the cats. I will not name every single cat we have had (though I could), but I will stick with mostly our current clowder of five.
This is not the first time we have had five, but I will say that we have never had more than five of any species - cats or dogs - at one time. (Though since we have had both cats and dogs, there were clearly times when we had more than five animals in the house, and also when we had five dogs of our own we were also doing dog-sitting.)
On our last trip to the vet I was talking to the office manager about how we ended up with so many, at least partially related to knowing a lot of people who run cat sanctuaries. He asked, "Do you have a sanctuary?" "Not officially," I said, feeling embarrassed. At the time, we only had four.
Then Big Boy needed a home. That was fine, but so did another cat. We ended up finding a different home for that one, but then there were another two that needed homes (still do), and we have asked a few people with no luck. Plus, the place we got Big Boy from has about another seventy they need to place.
I love all of our cats, and we will take care of them. I want all of the other cats to have good homes too, though, and we can't take them all.
My overinflated sense of responsibility could be a topic for another day, but today is more about wanting people to do better. With all but one of our current cats, there are holes in their stories. We know where they were found wandering and how long ago, and approximate ages maybe, but not how they got there or why.
We had a boy Cody whom we lost to a fast-growing tumor just about a year ago. Big Boy reminds us so much of him that we can't help but wonder if they are related. There's no way of knowing. A few weeks ago I was walking and saw a tabby near some brambles; our tabby Ashley was hiding in our blackberry bushes for a few weeks before we could start getting close to her. I don't know that it is even that likely that they are really related, or at least closely related, but how many poor cats do there have to be out there?
Human carelessness is a big problem, but there are other problems. Two of the cats that I am worried about are because of a move into assisted living; I can't help but think a lot of seniors would be happier keeping their pets.
I have plenty of scorn for people who claim their animals are emotional support animals when there is clearly no training for being safe in various situations, but I also have some sympathy for wanting to be able to keep an animal with you.
I have heard many people say that you shouldn't have an animal unless you can afford to take care of it, especially in regards to the homeless population. It sounds logical, but should we make it so hard? And if the answer is more people giving pets up, when there are already far too many in need of a home, that can't be the right answer.
I know there are plenty of human problems out there. I am willing to prioritize them over animal problems, but for us to be good, compassionate people we will care about animals too, wild and domesticated. We will want good things for them. I know we can do better.
And if you can make room for another cat or two in your lives, I can probably hook you up. We have connections.
We are pet people. You may already know that. We are neither dog nor cat people, but both. (A few other species have gotten in there from time to time, but it's really mainly a cats and dogs thing.) I have memories of pets we had before I was born, because their places in the collective family love were so strong.
Today is going to be about the cats. I will not name every single cat we have had (though I could), but I will stick with mostly our current clowder of five.
This is not the first time we have had five, but I will say that we have never had more than five of any species - cats or dogs - at one time. (Though since we have had both cats and dogs, there were clearly times when we had more than five animals in the house, and also when we had five dogs of our own we were also doing dog-sitting.)
On our last trip to the vet I was talking to the office manager about how we ended up with so many, at least partially related to knowing a lot of people who run cat sanctuaries. He asked, "Do you have a sanctuary?" "Not officially," I said, feeling embarrassed. At the time, we only had four.
Then Big Boy needed a home. That was fine, but so did another cat. We ended up finding a different home for that one, but then there were another two that needed homes (still do), and we have asked a few people with no luck. Plus, the place we got Big Boy from has about another seventy they need to place.
I love all of our cats, and we will take care of them. I want all of the other cats to have good homes too, though, and we can't take them all.
My overinflated sense of responsibility could be a topic for another day, but today is more about wanting people to do better. With all but one of our current cats, there are holes in their stories. We know where they were found wandering and how long ago, and approximate ages maybe, but not how they got there or why.
We had a boy Cody whom we lost to a fast-growing tumor just about a year ago. Big Boy reminds us so much of him that we can't help but wonder if they are related. There's no way of knowing. A few weeks ago I was walking and saw a tabby near some brambles; our tabby Ashley was hiding in our blackberry bushes for a few weeks before we could start getting close to her. I don't know that it is even that likely that they are really related, or at least closely related, but how many poor cats do there have to be out there?
Human carelessness is a big problem, but there are other problems. Two of the cats that I am worried about are because of a move into assisted living; I can't help but think a lot of seniors would be happier keeping their pets.
I have plenty of scorn for people who claim their animals are emotional support animals when there is clearly no training for being safe in various situations, but I also have some sympathy for wanting to be able to keep an animal with you.
I have heard many people say that you shouldn't have an animal unless you can afford to take care of it, especially in regards to the homeless population. It sounds logical, but should we make it so hard? And if the answer is more people giving pets up, when there are already far too many in need of a home, that can't be the right answer.
I know there are plenty of human problems out there. I am willing to prioritize them over animal problems, but for us to be good, compassionate people we will care about animals too, wild and domesticated. We will want good things for them. I know we can do better.
And if you can make room for another cat or two in your lives, I can probably hook you up. We have connections.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Band Review: The Plastic People of the Universe
I finished reading Vaclav Havel's The Power of the Powerless in July. I wasn't expecting band references.
The Plastic People of the Universe formed in 1968, influenced by both the Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. That old saying about the Velvet Underground only selling X amount of records, but every one who bought one of the records started a band? May actually be true.
However, most of those bands did not end up being illegal. The Plastic People did. The Czech government revoked their license in 1970. As weird as it sounds to think of musicians being licensed in the States, in Czechoslovakia it was a thing. The band continued to exist underground, and dissidents rallied around them.
The band was really just focused on their music, so it seems unfair to focus on that aspect too much. As a reviewer, I should also be focusing on their music, which I don't like that much.
Well, I don't like a lot of it. There are other songs that work for me. (I rather like the title track to Co znamená vésti koně.) I am not a huge fan of experimental rock in general, but I think there are other factors at work here.
I also am not familiar with Czech music or the Czech language in general. I have not listened much to either Frank Zappa or the Velvet Underground. Those things could have provided entry points into the music for me. Sometimes difference is enough for an initial recoil, even though you can still learn to appreciate it later.
Even if I never learn to love their music, I will love their story. Loving music and needing to play it - even in the face of political opposition - that's something I get. I have a sense of their need to play, and why it would inspire others so much that they would take a stand as well.
And I totally see a connection between samizdat and zines. I see why being subversive - whether intentionally or not - necessitates DIY.
The Plastic People of the Universe don't have the tempo and energy of punk, but they are not strangers.
http://plastic-people.cz/
https://www.facebook.com/plasticpeople.cz/
https://www.youtube.com/user/plasticpeoplecz
The Plastic People of the Universe formed in 1968, influenced by both the Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. That old saying about the Velvet Underground only selling X amount of records, but every one who bought one of the records started a band? May actually be true.
However, most of those bands did not end up being illegal. The Plastic People did. The Czech government revoked their license in 1970. As weird as it sounds to think of musicians being licensed in the States, in Czechoslovakia it was a thing. The band continued to exist underground, and dissidents rallied around them.
The band was really just focused on their music, so it seems unfair to focus on that aspect too much. As a reviewer, I should also be focusing on their music, which I don't like that much.
Well, I don't like a lot of it. There are other songs that work for me. (I rather like the title track to Co znamená vésti koně.) I am not a huge fan of experimental rock in general, but I think there are other factors at work here.
I also am not familiar with Czech music or the Czech language in general. I have not listened much to either Frank Zappa or the Velvet Underground. Those things could have provided entry points into the music for me. Sometimes difference is enough for an initial recoil, even though you can still learn to appreciate it later.
Even if I never learn to love their music, I will love their story. Loving music and needing to play it - even in the face of political opposition - that's something I get. I have a sense of their need to play, and why it would inspire others so much that they would take a stand as well.
And I totally see a connection between samizdat and zines. I see why being subversive - whether intentionally or not - necessitates DIY.
The Plastic People of the Universe don't have the tempo and energy of punk, but they are not strangers.
http://plastic-people.cz/
https://www.facebook.com/plasticpeople.cz/
https://www.youtube.com/user/plasticpeoplecz
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Band Review: Dead Now
Dead Now is a new rock band debuting on Brutal Panda records.
I checked them out because Andrew Elstner (formerly of Torche) is in the band, and that is reason enough. (Also, it's a good band name for a review going up the week before Halloween.) Here Elstner joins Bobby Theberge and Derek Schulz, both of Day Old Man.
With that amount of sludge background, it was deliberate on my part to refer to Dead Now as a rock band. There is still some pretty ponderous guitar - the music is heavy - so I don't think sludge fans will be disappointed, but I could also see Black Sabbath fans really enjoying Dead Now. This is heavy rock.
The other thing that strikes me is a subtle humor to band photos. You can't tell from the album art, but having seen just a couple of photos of the band, I sense that they are having fun, while probably not admitting it. Something about that seems right.
Dead Now has a handful of performances coming up in November and December - currently all in Georgia - but recently wrapped up touring with Red Fang.
https://www.facebook.com/DeadNowBand/
https://deadnow.bandcamp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRjasWep6Qz0bQRdGmA9gdg
https://twitter.com/DeadNowDudes
I checked them out because Andrew Elstner (formerly of Torche) is in the band, and that is reason enough. (Also, it's a good band name for a review going up the week before Halloween.) Here Elstner joins Bobby Theberge and Derek Schulz, both of Day Old Man.
With that amount of sludge background, it was deliberate on my part to refer to Dead Now as a rock band. There is still some pretty ponderous guitar - the music is heavy - so I don't think sludge fans will be disappointed, but I could also see Black Sabbath fans really enjoying Dead Now. This is heavy rock.
The other thing that strikes me is a subtle humor to band photos. You can't tell from the album art, but having seen just a couple of photos of the band, I sense that they are having fun, while probably not admitting it. Something about that seems right.
Dead Now has a handful of performances coming up in November and December - currently all in Georgia - but recently wrapped up touring with Red Fang.
https://www.facebook.com/DeadNowBand/
https://deadnow.bandcamp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRjasWep6Qz0bQRdGmA9gdg
https://twitter.com/DeadNowDudes
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Oregon ballot measures, November 2018
In my original conception - which seems silly now - I was going to go through the pros and cons of each ballot measure with great precision and clarity that was just going to be a delight to read.
Then I started looking at them, and it was like "Uh... really... no way... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NO!"
So the short version is just that all of the statewide ballot measures are terrible; please reject them all. The end.
But I will add some detail beyond that.
I was most conflicted on Measure 102, largely due to some good organizations supporting it, and some potential for it to do good.
Measure 102 moves to amend the constitution to allow local bonds for financing housing with nongovernmental entities. Housing is an issue, and I can imagine there being enough desperation to grasp at straws, but I don't believe this is a good straw.
Part of that is Paul Allen's death. I do not doubt the sincerity of the grief and lionizing, but I keep remembering him insisting on an unsecured loan to get an arena built (because he wanted better terms) and him defaulting on that loan (and being pretty petty about it), thus losing the arena to the city, but somehow getting it back through undisclosed terms which probably sucked for Portland. The private sector is really good at crushing hopes of doing some good.
There may be potential for good things here, but I believe there is even more potential for non-governmental entities to soak the government. That will not help homeless people, or anyone else.
I did vote yes on Metro measure 26-199, which is also for affordable housing. I'm not always completely cynical.
The biggest lesson of this year's ballot measures is that the strongly conservative bent may indicate that some groups have been heartened by the 2016 election. That is most disturbing for measures 105 and 106, but I have more to say about 103 and 104.
The two measures are both tax-related. Based on their ads they didn't sound like something I would support anyway, but 103 seemed oddly unnecessary. It's not that sales taxes are never proposed, but Oregonians have been really good at turning them down. We even turned down a tax on business sales because it was phrased as a sales tax in the ads against it, though it was actually a way of trying to prevent large corporations from finding reasons why none of their income counts as profit.
Here's the thing: if we want to improve funding - and we should - there are two much better priorities.
One would be undoing the damage from Don McIntire's original ballot measure 5, from 1990. Yes, there were other measures that were a part of the problem, and enough time has passed that maybe it would take multiple well-crafted measures to get a good solution in place, but the man is dead; let's try and fix his damage.
And granted - regarding my previous mention of a tax on business sales - that campaign showed that businesses will fight really hard to avoid contributing to the state coffers. But their own actions (and Kansas) have shown that catering to business does not create an economic utopia of well-funded public services and living wage jobs. A sales tax on consumers would be progressive, but we had better funding once and we can do it again.
In addition, we need to ditch the kicker.
I understand the reluctance. Any time there is a chance for a little extra cash, it feels like a blessing. The state being required to have a balanced budget sounds like a good idea too. However, forcing the state to try and forecast how much it can bring in and underfunding necessities if it won't be enough is already pretty restrictive. Adding the provision that any time people in the state are doing well enough that there is extra, and then dictating that surplus can't roll over to next year, can't buy anything necessary, can't improve anything - that's begging the state to just lose at everything. (Which will then be blamed on the governor if she is a woman and a Democrat.)
We can do better than that. Instead we are tying the state's hands, and 103 and 104 attempt to add extra ropes.
Reject them. Reject them all.
Then I started looking at them, and it was like "Uh... really... no way... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NO!"
So the short version is just that all of the statewide ballot measures are terrible; please reject them all. The end.
But I will add some detail beyond that.
I was most conflicted on Measure 102, largely due to some good organizations supporting it, and some potential for it to do good.
Measure 102 moves to amend the constitution to allow local bonds for financing housing with nongovernmental entities. Housing is an issue, and I can imagine there being enough desperation to grasp at straws, but I don't believe this is a good straw.
Part of that is Paul Allen's death. I do not doubt the sincerity of the grief and lionizing, but I keep remembering him insisting on an unsecured loan to get an arena built (because he wanted better terms) and him defaulting on that loan (and being pretty petty about it), thus losing the arena to the city, but somehow getting it back through undisclosed terms which probably sucked for Portland. The private sector is really good at crushing hopes of doing some good.
There may be potential for good things here, but I believe there is even more potential for non-governmental entities to soak the government. That will not help homeless people, or anyone else.
I did vote yes on Metro measure 26-199, which is also for affordable housing. I'm not always completely cynical.
The biggest lesson of this year's ballot measures is that the strongly conservative bent may indicate that some groups have been heartened by the 2016 election. That is most disturbing for measures 105 and 106, but I have more to say about 103 and 104.
The two measures are both tax-related. Based on their ads they didn't sound like something I would support anyway, but 103 seemed oddly unnecessary. It's not that sales taxes are never proposed, but Oregonians have been really good at turning them down. We even turned down a tax on business sales because it was phrased as a sales tax in the ads against it, though it was actually a way of trying to prevent large corporations from finding reasons why none of their income counts as profit.
Here's the thing: if we want to improve funding - and we should - there are two much better priorities.
One would be undoing the damage from Don McIntire's original ballot measure 5, from 1990. Yes, there were other measures that were a part of the problem, and enough time has passed that maybe it would take multiple well-crafted measures to get a good solution in place, but the man is dead; let's try and fix his damage.
And granted - regarding my previous mention of a tax on business sales - that campaign showed that businesses will fight really hard to avoid contributing to the state coffers. But their own actions (and Kansas) have shown that catering to business does not create an economic utopia of well-funded public services and living wage jobs. A sales tax on consumers would be progressive, but we had better funding once and we can do it again.
In addition, we need to ditch the kicker.
I understand the reluctance. Any time there is a chance for a little extra cash, it feels like a blessing. The state being required to have a balanced budget sounds like a good idea too. However, forcing the state to try and forecast how much it can bring in and underfunding necessities if it won't be enough is already pretty restrictive. Adding the provision that any time people in the state are doing well enough that there is extra, and then dictating that surplus can't roll over to next year, can't buy anything necessary, can't improve anything - that's begging the state to just lose at everything. (Which will then be blamed on the governor if she is a woman and a Democrat.)
We can do better than that. Instead we are tying the state's hands, and 103 and 104 attempt to add extra ropes.
Reject them. Reject them all.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Knute Buehler: in moderate's clothing
Knute Buehler is running as a moderate. The first ad I saw shocked me, and I wondered if he were running a different ad in the Willamette Valley than in the rest of the state.
It appears to be more of a calculated risk. One of his primary opponents openly bragged about being the first candidate to come out in support of Donald Trump. There are many states where candidates have to be careful to not put down Trump, but apparently even Republican Oregonians didn't like that guy. That probably made running as a moderate more appealing.
It's also really dishonest.
(Note: Buehler has not completely distanced himself from Trump, cheering Trump's pardon of the Hammonds, who slaughtered deer and committed arson on federal land: https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/07/10/knute-buehler-cheers-trumps-pardon-of-eastern-oregon-arsonist-duo-they-are-good-people-not-terrorists/ )
To be fair, on a national level the Republican party has been producing media about Democrats who left - switching to voting Republican - and about persuadable voters who could go either way but end up being swayed by Republicans. However, on looking further into it, a lot of the persuadable voters were actually local Republican leadership, and a lot of the "Why I left" people are stock photos, so perhaps one should not expect that approach to be implemented honestly anyway.
Regardless, there are a few issues that stand out to me.
One is Buehler's stated support for a woman's right to choose, when he is on record fairly recently as wanting to increase abortion restrictions. Elected leaders are free to change their minds. They usually have a story about why they changed though; they can explain why they feel differently.
There is none of that here. I suspect the issue is that he is leaving support for contraceptives on the table while still wanting to restrict abortion. I base that on the vague wording of some answers and on his voting record. Granted, allowing women access to birth control is still better than some Republicans, but the sneakiness is not reassuring. Tim Kaine did better at navigating the ground between personal beliefs and honoring other people's rights and needs. Of course, Kaine is not a Republican.
Buehler is a bit more open on the environment, but that mainly comes down to saying the environment needs to be protected and then criticizing various plans for doing just that. That's the kind of attitude that might lead to a lackluster legislative record.
That is a common thread. Buehler acknowledges the importance of access to health care, but voted against Medicaid expansion, and now makes it a cornerstone of his plans. Again, you can change, but there should be a mea culpa of some kind. Beyond that, there should be some time demonstrating the change before we trust. If he is truly committed to bipartisan reform, perhaps he could demonstrate that as a state representative for a few years and show his sincerity.
I could write similar things on all of his talking points (attacking PERS as the problem with education funding is not even creative), but I want to focus on Buehler's plan to fight homelessness.
Buehler's plan involves curbing fees on developers and turning over state lands - ideas nodding to supply side economics and privatization of federal lands. That's pretty Republican.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-homelessness-housing-gubernatorial-candidates-2018/
The article doesn't mention his interest in sit-lie ordinances, probably because they have been ruled unconstitutional, though with Kavanaugh's confirmation that may mean less. I have heard the ad mentioning "tough love" since the ruling, and I interpret that as what he means. Solving the homeless problem by driving homeless people further into hiding and sheer exhaustion sounds pretty Republican.
Finally, I am not against increasing beds, but I have read that the budget he has allowed for it is only a tenth of the amount that would actually be needed. Underfunding a needed service so you can then claim government is the problem and cut services is pretty traditionally Republican. Thomas Frank wrote a whole book about it, The Wrecking Crew. Mitch McConnell would be proud.
Knute Buehler is a very traditional Republican. If you are conservative, you may very well choose to vote for him. That is your right, but don't do it because of him being moderate, because that is really just him being a shameless liar.
And it is amazing how many people fall for it. When I saw ads blaming Kate Brown for literally everything, regardless of whether there was adequate funding or other resources available, and failing to acknowledge any progress, I was reminded of the glass ceiling's partner, the glass cliff.
I am glad I was not the only one to see that. I shared this from a friend, and am linking to it now for your reading pleasure: https://www.facebook.com/sporktastic/posts/10156872397264074
I endorse Kate Brown for governor.
It appears to be more of a calculated risk. One of his primary opponents openly bragged about being the first candidate to come out in support of Donald Trump. There are many states where candidates have to be careful to not put down Trump, but apparently even Republican Oregonians didn't like that guy. That probably made running as a moderate more appealing.
It's also really dishonest.
(Note: Buehler has not completely distanced himself from Trump, cheering Trump's pardon of the Hammonds, who slaughtered deer and committed arson on federal land: https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/07/10/knute-buehler-cheers-trumps-pardon-of-eastern-oregon-arsonist-duo-they-are-good-people-not-terrorists/ )
To be fair, on a national level the Republican party has been producing media about Democrats who left - switching to voting Republican - and about persuadable voters who could go either way but end up being swayed by Republicans. However, on looking further into it, a lot of the persuadable voters were actually local Republican leadership, and a lot of the "Why I left" people are stock photos, so perhaps one should not expect that approach to be implemented honestly anyway.
Regardless, there are a few issues that stand out to me.
One is Buehler's stated support for a woman's right to choose, when he is on record fairly recently as wanting to increase abortion restrictions. Elected leaders are free to change their minds. They usually have a story about why they changed though; they can explain why they feel differently.
There is none of that here. I suspect the issue is that he is leaving support for contraceptives on the table while still wanting to restrict abortion. I base that on the vague wording of some answers and on his voting record. Granted, allowing women access to birth control is still better than some Republicans, but the sneakiness is not reassuring. Tim Kaine did better at navigating the ground between personal beliefs and honoring other people's rights and needs. Of course, Kaine is not a Republican.
Buehler is a bit more open on the environment, but that mainly comes down to saying the environment needs to be protected and then criticizing various plans for doing just that. That's the kind of attitude that might lead to a lackluster legislative record.
That is a common thread. Buehler acknowledges the importance of access to health care, but voted against Medicaid expansion, and now makes it a cornerstone of his plans. Again, you can change, but there should be a mea culpa of some kind. Beyond that, there should be some time demonstrating the change before we trust. If he is truly committed to bipartisan reform, perhaps he could demonstrate that as a state representative for a few years and show his sincerity.
I could write similar things on all of his talking points (attacking PERS as the problem with education funding is not even creative), but I want to focus on Buehler's plan to fight homelessness.
Buehler's plan involves curbing fees on developers and turning over state lands - ideas nodding to supply side economics and privatization of federal lands. That's pretty Republican.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-homelessness-housing-gubernatorial-candidates-2018/
The article doesn't mention his interest in sit-lie ordinances, probably because they have been ruled unconstitutional, though with Kavanaugh's confirmation that may mean less. I have heard the ad mentioning "tough love" since the ruling, and I interpret that as what he means. Solving the homeless problem by driving homeless people further into hiding and sheer exhaustion sounds pretty Republican.
Finally, I am not against increasing beds, but I have read that the budget he has allowed for it is only a tenth of the amount that would actually be needed. Underfunding a needed service so you can then claim government is the problem and cut services is pretty traditionally Republican. Thomas Frank wrote a whole book about it, The Wrecking Crew. Mitch McConnell would be proud.
Knute Buehler is a very traditional Republican. If you are conservative, you may very well choose to vote for him. That is your right, but don't do it because of him being moderate, because that is really just him being a shameless liar.
And it is amazing how many people fall for it. When I saw ads blaming Kate Brown for literally everything, regardless of whether there was adequate funding or other resources available, and failing to acknowledge any progress, I was reminded of the glass ceiling's partner, the glass cliff.
I am glad I was not the only one to see that. I shared this from a friend, and am linking to it now for your reading pleasure: https://www.facebook.com/sporktastic/posts/10156872397264074
I endorse Kate Brown for governor.
Monday, October 22, 2018
You know enough to vote
You may see a lot in the next few days trying to shame people for not voting and guilt them into voting.
I suppose the mindset behind it is that while it is certainly worse to vote for harmful policies and people than to not vote, the people who didn't vote are more likely to have a conscience that can be worked upon.
I don't even disagree with that, exactly, though I do question the efficacy of shame as a motivator. It could easily just breed resentment instead. Beyond that, it ignores two important factors.
A gigantic factor is voter suppression. Georgia has some shocking examples this year, apparently bent on even teaching neighbor Florida some new voter suppression tricks. That is something that should be fought, and that people are working on. If you get an opportunity to help with that - whether it is giving people rides to polling places, helping people obtain state ID. or petitioning the government on essentially disenfranchising every person on the reservation by disallowing post office boxes for addresses - do it.
Today's post is about another significant issue. There are people who refrain from voting, not due to apathy, but from concern about their ability to make informed choices. They worry that they don't know enough, and want to leave the decision-making to more knowledgeable people.
If this is you, you are gravely overestimating the people who vote.
I admit that often the opportunities for voter education are less than ideal. I am grateful for our situation in Oregon, where we receive a voters guide and can fill out our ballots while looking at the guide before mailing it in. Even with that, time can be an issue for studying things out, it may be hard to predict the outcomes for various options, and you will never really know all of the candidates for some of the lower offices, which are still important.
It is good to know that our choices do make a difference, and to care about making good choices. With all possible compassion and sympathy, I must tell you that there are people voting from malice who have no doubts about whether their knowledge is adequate. Allow me to also reassure you that you can be informed enough.
There will definitely be things going on that you don't know about. When some of the more obscure white supremacist ties were coming out in Trump's campaign, I did not immediately recognize them, though I was reading enough that I learned about most of them before the election. It was only years after his election that I learned that when Bush used the term "compassionate conservative" that it had specific connotations for the religious right.
Although it was possible to know more, those specifics did not change my feelings about either of those two candidates. Yes, things went deeper than I knew, but there was enough in what they said blatantly and in their past history that I knew they were terrible candidates who would be terrible presidents.
There have been times when I have been more reluctant to vote strictly along party lines, but that is not an issue today. Yes, some Republicans still pay lip service to decency, but given the way they are voting, whether they like Trump or not they are going to support his policies, if for no other reason than that it works well for their policies. For some time now, that policy has been to favor corporate greed via stirring up contempt for poor people, people of color, and immigrants, plus getting the people who are less comfortable with open racism by condemning abortion, even though fewer abortions happen under Democratic administrations because of improved access to health care and options for making a life.
Really, that's what it comes down to. It shouldn't be that simplistic, but the more you look, the clearer it becomes. And it will keep becoming clearer because the more Republicans consolidate power, the less they will need to hide. The people who are voting for fascism and authoritarianism aren't worried that they don't know enough. (They should be).
And I still want them to vote. I want everyone to vote. But today is for people of conscience who are letting insecurity hold them back from what is most needed. We need you, and you are enough.
Vote Democrat.
And it can be completely reasonable to listen to others on how to vote. Consider if they are more informed, and if you trust their values.
With the races where there are more unknowns, I look at the endorsements of people whom I do recognize. I don't always follow them, but it fills out the picture.
I get if that does not feel like enough. It may also be questionable if one candidate is running as a moderate. Tomorrow I will post about Oregon's gubernatorial race, and Wednesday we will look at ballot measures.
I know that doesn't help people in other states (and countries), but there are information sources out there. Keep looking.
Be careful about trusting newspapers though. Often even the ones that you expect to be kind of liberal are really more conservative. I'm looking at you, The Oregonian.
I suppose the mindset behind it is that while it is certainly worse to vote for harmful policies and people than to not vote, the people who didn't vote are more likely to have a conscience that can be worked upon.
I don't even disagree with that, exactly, though I do question the efficacy of shame as a motivator. It could easily just breed resentment instead. Beyond that, it ignores two important factors.
A gigantic factor is voter suppression. Georgia has some shocking examples this year, apparently bent on even teaching neighbor Florida some new voter suppression tricks. That is something that should be fought, and that people are working on. If you get an opportunity to help with that - whether it is giving people rides to polling places, helping people obtain state ID. or petitioning the government on essentially disenfranchising every person on the reservation by disallowing post office boxes for addresses - do it.
Today's post is about another significant issue. There are people who refrain from voting, not due to apathy, but from concern about their ability to make informed choices. They worry that they don't know enough, and want to leave the decision-making to more knowledgeable people.
If this is you, you are gravely overestimating the people who vote.
I admit that often the opportunities for voter education are less than ideal. I am grateful for our situation in Oregon, where we receive a voters guide and can fill out our ballots while looking at the guide before mailing it in. Even with that, time can be an issue for studying things out, it may be hard to predict the outcomes for various options, and you will never really know all of the candidates for some of the lower offices, which are still important.
It is good to know that our choices do make a difference, and to care about making good choices. With all possible compassion and sympathy, I must tell you that there are people voting from malice who have no doubts about whether their knowledge is adequate. Allow me to also reassure you that you can be informed enough.
There will definitely be things going on that you don't know about. When some of the more obscure white supremacist ties were coming out in Trump's campaign, I did not immediately recognize them, though I was reading enough that I learned about most of them before the election. It was only years after his election that I learned that when Bush used the term "compassionate conservative" that it had specific connotations for the religious right.
Although it was possible to know more, those specifics did not change my feelings about either of those two candidates. Yes, things went deeper than I knew, but there was enough in what they said blatantly and in their past history that I knew they were terrible candidates who would be terrible presidents.
There have been times when I have been more reluctant to vote strictly along party lines, but that is not an issue today. Yes, some Republicans still pay lip service to decency, but given the way they are voting, whether they like Trump or not they are going to support his policies, if for no other reason than that it works well for their policies. For some time now, that policy has been to favor corporate greed via stirring up contempt for poor people, people of color, and immigrants, plus getting the people who are less comfortable with open racism by condemning abortion, even though fewer abortions happen under Democratic administrations because of improved access to health care and options for making a life.
Really, that's what it comes down to. It shouldn't be that simplistic, but the more you look, the clearer it becomes. And it will keep becoming clearer because the more Republicans consolidate power, the less they will need to hide. The people who are voting for fascism and authoritarianism aren't worried that they don't know enough. (They should be).
And I still want them to vote. I want everyone to vote. But today is for people of conscience who are letting insecurity hold them back from what is most needed. We need you, and you are enough.
Vote Democrat.
And it can be completely reasonable to listen to others on how to vote. Consider if they are more informed, and if you trust their values.
With the races where there are more unknowns, I look at the endorsements of people whom I do recognize. I don't always follow them, but it fills out the picture.
I get if that does not feel like enough. It may also be questionable if one candidate is running as a moderate. Tomorrow I will post about Oregon's gubernatorial race, and Wednesday we will look at ballot measures.
I know that doesn't help people in other states (and countries), but there are information sources out there. Keep looking.
Be careful about trusting newspapers though. Often even the ones that you expect to be kind of liberal are really more conservative. I'm looking at you, The Oregonian.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Band Review: Camille Nelson
Camille Nelson plays guitar and violin beautifully.
I am more aware of it because in listening to her music, I found myself much more moved by the instrumental pieces.
There is nothing wrong with the vocals, but the lyrics seem to fall short. I suspect it is that by simply eliminating words - even with familiar tunes that have well-known words - it sets the instruments free.
Therefore, I like Lead Me Home better than First Words, but on First Words, I love "Reminiscence". To be fair, Lead Me Home is also more spiritually-themed, so the two albums would be different experiences regardless.
Very uplifting.
https://www.camillenelson.com/
https://www.facebook.com/camillenelsonmusic/
https://www.youtube.com/user/CamilleNelson
https://twitter.com/camillenmusic
I am more aware of it because in listening to her music, I found myself much more moved by the instrumental pieces.
There is nothing wrong with the vocals, but the lyrics seem to fall short. I suspect it is that by simply eliminating words - even with familiar tunes that have well-known words - it sets the instruments free.
Therefore, I like Lead Me Home better than First Words, but on First Words, I love "Reminiscence". To be fair, Lead Me Home is also more spiritually-themed, so the two albums would be different experiences regardless.
Very uplifting.
https://www.camillenelson.com/
https://www.facebook.com/camillenelsonmusic/
https://www.youtube.com/user/CamilleNelson
https://twitter.com/camillenmusic
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Band Review: Dre Prada
I was followed by one Twitter account,
https://twitter.com/CEOBigMov, which points to Dre Prada, who has a separate Twitter account, listed with the other links. The CEOBigMov account appears to be more active.
I may not be sure about the Twitter accounts, but I can confirm that Dre Prada is a young rapper from Toronto. It was interesting seeing a video flashing the flag and money, but that meaning a red maple leaf and images of young Queen Elizabeth II.
Unfortunately, that was the most interesting thing about the video. This flavor of hip hop is pretty typical, of the overproduced kind. Voices and instruments sound auto-tuned like a J. G. Wentworth commercial, and it saps all of the energy and authenticity.
I do think that Dre Prada's youth may work in his favor, in that as he matures and gains experience he may want to do something more and find the skills to do so. There are older people (he is listed as 16, though I am not sure how current the profile is) whose output sounds exactly the same.
Nothing terrible, but not memorable either.
https://www.whoisdreprada.com/
https://www.facebook.com/DrePradaBloomin
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNsCPeG3A7d91wNlxOOkaAQ
https://twitter.com/dreprada85
I may not be sure about the Twitter accounts, but I can confirm that Dre Prada is a young rapper from Toronto. It was interesting seeing a video flashing the flag and money, but that meaning a red maple leaf and images of young Queen Elizabeth II.
Unfortunately, that was the most interesting thing about the video. This flavor of hip hop is pretty typical, of the overproduced kind. Voices and instruments sound auto-tuned like a J. G. Wentworth commercial, and it saps all of the energy and authenticity.
I do think that Dre Prada's youth may work in his favor, in that as he matures and gains experience he may want to do something more and find the skills to do so. There are older people (he is listed as 16, though I am not sure how current the profile is) whose output sounds exactly the same.
Nothing terrible, but not memorable either.
https://www.whoisdreprada.com/
https://www.facebook.com/DrePradaBloomin
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNsCPeG3A7d91wNlxOOkaAQ
https://twitter.com/dreprada85
Taking time to think
Building on yesterday's post, speaking differently leads to thinking differently.
After the revolution in Cuba, you were a Communist or you were a "gusano". A worm. You could do a lot of terrible things to a worm. Some examples for school children included grading them down, not letting them go to the bathroom (no matter how desperately they needed to) and allowing other kids to beat them up. That's for school children. When you use words to transform people into "other", it opens the door for abuse.
I believe that if you decide that you will not resort to "libtards" or "snowflakes" as insults for liberals, that is an important step in closing the door. The word "liberal" may still have negative connotations for you, but not relying on easy labels forces you to think more. That matters.
Russia interfered in the last presidential election. That involved spreading false information, but it also involved stoking the fires of bigotry. (To be fair, that was a central part of the candidate's platform.) It has been interesting to see two other areas of Russian interference: vaccines and Star Wars.
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-08-23/russian-trolls-targeted-vaccine-debate-to-sow-division-researchers-say
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-was-targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475
Those were not random choices. People have strong emotions about both of those issues, and can be very passionate about those topics.
Those passions can also work out in specific ways. Much of the negative response to The Last Jedi pertained to the casting of women and people of color (and even a woman of color) in starring roles. You can see that as a nice nod to the reality of a universe where women and people of color do things, or you can feel threatened, see it as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs - another slur, but possibly one that's being replaced by NPC for Non Playing Character) ruining everything, and lash out in racist and misogynistic ways.
Given the current political climate, that is a target area that works better for people drawn to the right. What could be good for people drawn to the left? Enter stirring up controversy about vaccines.
It is an interesting gambit, because it is anti-science which normally veers more right. However, progressives who are against vaccines tend to be easily seduced by purity, which is the kind of thing that can get them to reject a reasonable candidate with normal flaws and be very self-righteous about it. It gets emotional.
That sounds like a criticism, but I value emotion. When people find it useful to talk to me, I know a lot of that is simply that I support feeling the way you feel. The instinct is to comfort grief and silence fears and do away with all of those negative things, but they are real, and they need to be felt. Trying to silence the emotions does more harm than good. It is part of our humanity.
However, no matter how important acknowledging and feeling your emotions is, said emotions are usually not the best basis for making a decision.
A few months ago I read a book, You Are Now Less Dumb, by David McRaney, which focused on bias. Humans have a lot, and that is natural, but you don't have to get stuck in it.
One of the early examples was how you can use a soda vending machine without knowing how it works, and various suppositions you could make about how it works. You could believe there is a small person in the machine, but that is also something you can look up. There are online videos showing how they work. You can buy them for cheap as a business opportunity (I have recently learned via Judge Judy), but you could then take it apart and put it back together. (I'm just trying to not encouraged vandalizing someone else's machine in the pursuit of knowledge.)
So you can find stuff out, and not be mystified or caught up in a myth.
For example, with vaccines, you could research Andrew Wakefield, and why his work has been invalidated. You could research mercury and thimerosal, and you could see how it was removed from the scheduled vaccines in 2002 and it did not cause a sudden plunge in autism diagnoses. Yes, the anti-vaccine movement has responses to that, but it would still help your brain to at least do some research and branch out.
One reason it is safe to sit with your emotions is that they can change so easily, especially as time passes and more information comes. Of course, that is also why they may not lead to the best decisions. Taking that time to learn more and understand more becomes a wonderful thing that you can do for yourself and others.
Next week I will be posting about this election.
After the revolution in Cuba, you were a Communist or you were a "gusano". A worm. You could do a lot of terrible things to a worm. Some examples for school children included grading them down, not letting them go to the bathroom (no matter how desperately they needed to) and allowing other kids to beat them up. That's for school children. When you use words to transform people into "other", it opens the door for abuse.
I believe that if you decide that you will not resort to "libtards" or "snowflakes" as insults for liberals, that is an important step in closing the door. The word "liberal" may still have negative connotations for you, but not relying on easy labels forces you to think more. That matters.
Russia interfered in the last presidential election. That involved spreading false information, but it also involved stoking the fires of bigotry. (To be fair, that was a central part of the candidate's platform.) It has been interesting to see two other areas of Russian interference: vaccines and Star Wars.
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-08-23/russian-trolls-targeted-vaccine-debate-to-sow-division-researchers-say
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-was-targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475
Those were not random choices. People have strong emotions about both of those issues, and can be very passionate about those topics.
Those passions can also work out in specific ways. Much of the negative response to The Last Jedi pertained to the casting of women and people of color (and even a woman of color) in starring roles. You can see that as a nice nod to the reality of a universe where women and people of color do things, or you can feel threatened, see it as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs - another slur, but possibly one that's being replaced by NPC for Non Playing Character) ruining everything, and lash out in racist and misogynistic ways.
Given the current political climate, that is a target area that works better for people drawn to the right. What could be good for people drawn to the left? Enter stirring up controversy about vaccines.
It is an interesting gambit, because it is anti-science which normally veers more right. However, progressives who are against vaccines tend to be easily seduced by purity, which is the kind of thing that can get them to reject a reasonable candidate with normal flaws and be very self-righteous about it. It gets emotional.
That sounds like a criticism, but I value emotion. When people find it useful to talk to me, I know a lot of that is simply that I support feeling the way you feel. The instinct is to comfort grief and silence fears and do away with all of those negative things, but they are real, and they need to be felt. Trying to silence the emotions does more harm than good. It is part of our humanity.
However, no matter how important acknowledging and feeling your emotions is, said emotions are usually not the best basis for making a decision.
A few months ago I read a book, You Are Now Less Dumb, by David McRaney, which focused on bias. Humans have a lot, and that is natural, but you don't have to get stuck in it.
One of the early examples was how you can use a soda vending machine without knowing how it works, and various suppositions you could make about how it works. You could believe there is a small person in the machine, but that is also something you can look up. There are online videos showing how they work. You can buy them for cheap as a business opportunity (I have recently learned via Judge Judy), but you could then take it apart and put it back together. (I'm just trying to not encouraged vandalizing someone else's machine in the pursuit of knowledge.)
So you can find stuff out, and not be mystified or caught up in a myth.
For example, with vaccines, you could research Andrew Wakefield, and why his work has been invalidated. You could research mercury and thimerosal, and you could see how it was removed from the scheduled vaccines in 2002 and it did not cause a sudden plunge in autism diagnoses. Yes, the anti-vaccine movement has responses to that, but it would still help your brain to at least do some research and branch out.
One reason it is safe to sit with your emotions is that they can change so easily, especially as time passes and more information comes. Of course, that is also why they may not lead to the best decisions. Taking that time to learn more and understand more becomes a wonderful thing that you can do for yourself and others.
Next week I will be posting about this election.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Becoming a bad word
I am amazed and disturbed at the ubiquity of "libtard" as an insult.
On the one hand, as much as I know the right hates political correctness (i.e. speaking respectfully), I still know enough conservatives who have relatives with disabilities whom they love, where it should make that suffix unacceptable.
It's almost as if proximity to someone in danger of being marginalized does not automatically confer recognition of existing harmful structures.
There is kind of a separate issue here, where in our patterns of prejudice we can always make exceptions for the ones we like. This can be dangled as a reward: "You're not like those other women." "Of course we don't mean you."
It can also be used as a way of justifying one's alignment: "They're all nice to my child, so they can't be that bad."
But it is all connected.
Having totally bought into being respectful (political correctness), I have a hard time using this word and its variations, but I am going to make myself do it here to make a point.
Mentally retarded. MR. Various abbreviations of that last word. It referred to something intellectual - at least cognitive - but it wasn't used that way. There was a kid with ADHD who got called "Retarda" at my sisters' school, including by the gym teacher. I'm just saying, even if there were valid uses for the label, those were not the most common uses. I'm not sure the intended use was ever that helpful, making it for the best that it has fallen out of favor.
That pattern holds. A phrase will be used that is supposed to mean something, but it isn't being used accurately, and the use spreads as it becomes a tempting catch-all. I have heard "snowflake" justified as something specifically for today's young people, because they are raised with all the obstacles removed and are therefore weak (and apparently they think they are special).
There are problems with the logic of saying that kids that have to worry constantly about school shootings, cyber-bullying and and food insecurity have it too easy, but I can't help but notice that the slightest disagreement draws the term upon people my age and older.
If the point is being able to ignore people who say things that you don't want to hear, painting with a broad brush is perfectly logical.
It's wrong - not merely wrong but reveling in the wrongness and rolling around in it until it is completely absorbed. It's uncharitable, which is odd because a lot of people who think of themselves as religious and good do it. It's ignorant, so I guess it's blissful, but I think that's a false bliss.
And it is being used pretty hard on liberals.
I have to take that seriously. Most of what the president says has been pretty disturbing for anyone who has issues with fascism and authoritarianism anyway, but the comments lately about Democrats being ungovernable, that's a concern. It is more of a concern with government that has set up a process for re-examining citizenship.
History is my thing. I have... not exactly worried, but been aware... that in the direction we are going, academics always end up under attack. For all my reading, I am not really an academic; I have a BA from 22 years ago.
I am wholly liberal. That has not had anything remarkable about it for decades of a fairly normal political process, but that is changing. This is a change that looks similar to a lot of places that have ended in death and re-education camps.
If you don't have liberal values, that is your prerogative. However, if you have any value for democracy and representative government, you had better start respecting other voices.
One potential starting place is how you speak of those with whom you disagree.
On the one hand, as much as I know the right hates political correctness (i.e. speaking respectfully), I still know enough conservatives who have relatives with disabilities whom they love, where it should make that suffix unacceptable.
It's almost as if proximity to someone in danger of being marginalized does not automatically confer recognition of existing harmful structures.
There is kind of a separate issue here, where in our patterns of prejudice we can always make exceptions for the ones we like. This can be dangled as a reward: "You're not like those other women." "Of course we don't mean you."
It can also be used as a way of justifying one's alignment: "They're all nice to my child, so they can't be that bad."
But it is all connected.
Having totally bought into being respectful (political correctness), I have a hard time using this word and its variations, but I am going to make myself do it here to make a point.
Mentally retarded. MR. Various abbreviations of that last word. It referred to something intellectual - at least cognitive - but it wasn't used that way. There was a kid with ADHD who got called "Retarda" at my sisters' school, including by the gym teacher. I'm just saying, even if there were valid uses for the label, those were not the most common uses. I'm not sure the intended use was ever that helpful, making it for the best that it has fallen out of favor.
That pattern holds. A phrase will be used that is supposed to mean something, but it isn't being used accurately, and the use spreads as it becomes a tempting catch-all. I have heard "snowflake" justified as something specifically for today's young people, because they are raised with all the obstacles removed and are therefore weak (and apparently they think they are special).
There are problems with the logic of saying that kids that have to worry constantly about school shootings, cyber-bullying and and food insecurity have it too easy, but I can't help but notice that the slightest disagreement draws the term upon people my age and older.
If the point is being able to ignore people who say things that you don't want to hear, painting with a broad brush is perfectly logical.
It's wrong - not merely wrong but reveling in the wrongness and rolling around in it until it is completely absorbed. It's uncharitable, which is odd because a lot of people who think of themselves as religious and good do it. It's ignorant, so I guess it's blissful, but I think that's a false bliss.
And it is being used pretty hard on liberals.
I have to take that seriously. Most of what the president says has been pretty disturbing for anyone who has issues with fascism and authoritarianism anyway, but the comments lately about Democrats being ungovernable, that's a concern. It is more of a concern with government that has set up a process for re-examining citizenship.
History is my thing. I have... not exactly worried, but been aware... that in the direction we are going, academics always end up under attack. For all my reading, I am not really an academic; I have a BA from 22 years ago.
I am wholly liberal. That has not had anything remarkable about it for decades of a fairly normal political process, but that is changing. This is a change that looks similar to a lot of places that have ended in death and re-education camps.
If you don't have liberal values, that is your prerogative. However, if you have any value for democracy and representative government, you had better start respecting other voices.
One potential starting place is how you speak of those with whom you disagree.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Narrow targets
One of the oddest Twitter conversations I have ever had happened a few months ago. It included me being told "Lesbians are female homosexuals."
I had not realized that definition was in doubt.
We got there because this person was angry that TERF was starting to be used as a slur against lesbians. She had three examples!
If you don't know, TERF is an acronym for Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist, so someone who is all for feminism, except for including transgender women in feminism.
I believe the prejudice is more focused on not accepting women who were assigned male at birth (AMAB and AFAB are other acronyms you will see), like the fear of having someone use a bathroom that does not correspond with what was on their original birth certificate. (This is one of the most common TERF talking points.)
This is far from my specialty. I am not even sure how I ended up in the conversation except that someone must have retweeted something and I thought I could be helpful. I guess that aspect was odd, but also I thought it was odd because - and this is what I replied that led to the explanation - most of the prominent TERFs appear to be straight.
Again, I am not expert here. I got the impression that Germaine Greer (probably the most prominent TERF) is straight, anyway, though I admit to limited interest.
The original context was a thread about infighting between cis women and trans women, apparently from someone refusing to retweet something she found transphobic, which led to someone asking about the term "TERF".
I know that people who fall under that category tend to find the term very offensive, because how dare you label their bigotry? I had also heard that there were people working to turn other queer people against transgender people - knock the T off of the LBG, if you will.
So when someone barged in complaining that TERF was a lesbian slur, my first thought was that misappropriating the term might be one way of sowing discord. By the end of that conversation, I started to think that person might actually be one of the people attempting to sow discord, but I almost always start out assuming good faith.
Still, looking at that profile again, I suspect a troll account built on what they think lesbians are like.
My takeaway at the time was was that as the right works to divide everyone, of course they will pick on the most marginalized. Trans women are already extremely vulnerable. That shouldn't be something that anyone would fall for, but also, speak up for the Jews and the trade unionists and the trans women - it doesn't matter if that is your group.
At this point I can't even say it's because they will come for you. They will, but speaking up is the right thing to do, and that has its own value beyond self-interest. We need people who will do something just because it is kind and just.
But your self-interest should also know that they always expand. That's just how it works. The narrow targets will expand.
I had not realized that definition was in doubt.
We got there because this person was angry that TERF was starting to be used as a slur against lesbians. She had three examples!
If you don't know, TERF is an acronym for Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist, so someone who is all for feminism, except for including transgender women in feminism.
I believe the prejudice is more focused on not accepting women who were assigned male at birth (AMAB and AFAB are other acronyms you will see), like the fear of having someone use a bathroom that does not correspond with what was on their original birth certificate. (This is one of the most common TERF talking points.)
This is far from my specialty. I am not even sure how I ended up in the conversation except that someone must have retweeted something and I thought I could be helpful. I guess that aspect was odd, but also I thought it was odd because - and this is what I replied that led to the explanation - most of the prominent TERFs appear to be straight.
Again, I am not expert here. I got the impression that Germaine Greer (probably the most prominent TERF) is straight, anyway, though I admit to limited interest.
The original context was a thread about infighting between cis women and trans women, apparently from someone refusing to retweet something she found transphobic, which led to someone asking about the term "TERF".
I know that people who fall under that category tend to find the term very offensive, because how dare you label their bigotry? I had also heard that there were people working to turn other queer people against transgender people - knock the T off of the LBG, if you will.
So when someone barged in complaining that TERF was a lesbian slur, my first thought was that misappropriating the term might be one way of sowing discord. By the end of that conversation, I started to think that person might actually be one of the people attempting to sow discord, but I almost always start out assuming good faith.
Still, looking at that profile again, I suspect a troll account built on what they think lesbians are like.
My takeaway at the time was was that as the right works to divide everyone, of course they will pick on the most marginalized. Trans women are already extremely vulnerable. That shouldn't be something that anyone would fall for, but also, speak up for the Jews and the trade unionists and the trans women - it doesn't matter if that is your group.
At this point I can't even say it's because they will come for you. They will, but speaking up is the right thing to do, and that has its own value beyond self-interest. We need people who will do something just because it is kind and just.
But your self-interest should also know that they always expand. That's just how it works. The narrow targets will expand.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Concert Review: Alkaline Trio
The album is great. I especially love and relate to the title track.
One of the great things about the band is their constant development and growth, which is not hurt by them doing other projects. For this album, I don't think morbidity is quite the right word, nor gothic, and it's not necessarily completely supernatural, but there are all of these dark themes that come out beautifully.
I remember when I first reviewed them four years ago I was pleasantly surprised by their early punk sound. Here they are still very melodic, but there are reminders of punk, perhaps this time in a little more Misfits way. (Actually, I may be wrong on this, but it suddenly occurred to me recently that "This Addiction" can go well with "Don't Open Til Doomsday/Hell Night".)
I also feel like I hear more Daniel Andriano on this one - not just singing more, though he is - but where I hear echoes of his solo project, The Emergency Room.
Everyone sounded and looked good. Singer Matt Skiba especially (I think) is looking younger or healthier or something.
What becomes painful about this review is that the concert became a horrible experience for me. That was not the band's fault, but I need to get it out.
There was some moshing going on at the show. That was not really my problem, but it was related.
It started a few rows back from center stage. I noticed this one idiot with a stupid mustache and a Hawaiian shirt first, but there started being more people joining in. I especially noticed one fairly short man that they kept hitting into.
Another guy who was in the group did apologize, and the second band - together PANGEA - thanked them for resolving it on their own. I was not sure that they deserved the credit; it was not long after that I saw the short guy take a hit to the back of the head that didn't look good.
Security kept looking, but they only really did anything when someone was crowd-surfing. To be fair, someone dropped on their head would cause a lot of problems, but it's not the only thing that can be a problem.
Anyway, I was distracted by that. Moshing is only fun if you want to do it. It is also hard to control. The only venue I have seen really handle it well was the Haunt. Their small size helped a lot for that, but also they are not even in business anymore. (There were cool things about them, but the location was terrible.)
So it distracted me, but it was also not anywhere near me. I started out as just aware.
I suppose the first sign that I was in a bad location was during soundcheck. I was in the second row of people from the barrier, stage right (house left). There was a mic right there, but based on what the tester was saying, it was Matt's mic. It's nothing against Matt, but I never get tired of watching Daniel play, and it would have been cool to be in front of him. It was still a good location. That was my problem.
Shortly after they came on stage, I felt this huge shove.
My previous experience during AFI was mainly with people shoving for the sake of shoving and then moving on. I thought this was that it was, which may have left me more unprepared. He actually wanted my spot and he won. I resisted but ended up behind him, and was lucky to still be on my feet.
There was a guy who played a thug on the last season of Once Upon A Time, Sandy Robson. He was clearly supposed to be Wreck-It Ralph, but his IMDB credits just call him "Perp". Anyway, this guy looked like that, and he was built like an ox, except with a less intelligent expression on his face.
I objected, but he completely ignored me, taking out his phone and filming and putting his arms up and posing and loving his position in the second row of people. There had been a cute girl in front of me, and I did see him steady her at one point, but after all, he could easily see over her. (He would have been easily able to see over me as well.)
I'm just going to tell you now that I was only there for four songs.
I had various thoughts about things I could do. I envied the shoulders spikes on the jacket of the woman a little to my left. I thought about knocking away his phone, unlatching his watch, or pouring the half water bottle I had left over him. I thought about shivs, too, but I didn't have one, and I wouldn't really do that, though the thought was surprisingly attractive.
I was willing to believe that maybe that was his special song, but then they played "Mercy Me"; that's my song. At this point I punched him. That was in the shoulder, from the back. He looked around, and I told him he had to move, that was my spot. He looked mildly surprised, and then turned back around.
The thing is, I am capable of fighting harder and dirtier, but I don't know that I can justify it for a position at a concert. Also, based on his solidity, the effort I would have had to expend to have any impact was likely to get me thrown out instead of him.
It ruined the concert for me and I left. I'm not proud of that.
I would just never do that to someone. Where I come from, if you want to be up front you come early and you commit. That means not taking breaks between acts for the bathroom or more water, but holding on to your spot. Well, not him. He took out a person a foot shorter than him. He must be very proud.
The thing is, I really needed that night. It is hard to arrange time away from my care giving responsibilities; that was my time! I had been wanting to see them for at least four years. I wrote that review in 2014 because their tour was not coming here, and it was at least a way of hoping that they would come. It was because I kept looking to see if they were touring again yet that I saw that Daniel was touring with Matt Pryor. That's how much I wanted to be there. That I needed it so much, and that I wanted it so much, made everything that much worse.
And it totally drove home the value of respite time, because I was not at my best the next day. There is this mental energy that you need to keep someone with dementia engaged, where you have to gauge where they are and what will work, and I did not have it. I was drained instead of replenished, and I don't know when my next chance will come.
I have thought of things I could do differently. My only chance was a long shot, but if I'd grabbed the barrier and kicked back, that might have worked. I would have had to have realized what he was doing right away, and been really quick, and I don't know that it would have worked. I will not say that he wanted the spot more than I did, but he was certainly a worse person in ways that were helpful.
And it's disappointing. So that's how it goes? Getting what you want is a result of how awful you are willing to be? To which I'm afraid the answer is, "Oh good! You do understand!" but I remain disappointed. I have the political climate and my mother's health as areas for feeling powerless. A concert should be a place to feel good.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Concert Review: together PANGEA
Honestly, a lot of that relates to the keyboardist/guitarist who slid around with amazingly smooth dance moves. He reminded me of Napoleon Dynamite, except that his T-shirt said "Megadeath" instead of "Vote for Pedro".
But the music was pretty good too.
I hear elements of Seattle grunge - more on "Why" than on any other track - but it is not grunge. My favorite songs were probably "Badillac" and "Friend of Nothing", so those could be good starting places.
together PANGEA is currently finishing up a tour with Sharp Shock and Alkaline Trio, with a handful of dates left.
http://togetherpangea.com/
https://www.facebook.com/togetherpangea/
https://www.youtube.com/user/togetherPANGEA
https://twitter.com/TogetherPangea
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Concert Review: Sharp Shock
I loved Sharp Shock.
I was pretty sure I would. I had never heard of them before I looked up the openers for Alkaline Trio, but I was able to check them out a little before the show and they sounded really good. I thought they sounded good starting out, and then the second track I heard was "Superficial" and I knew they were awesome.
(For that one it may be the bass line that puts me over the edge, but I like the overall message too.)
Anyway, I went in with high expectations that were then exceeded.
The band bursts with punk speed and energy. One great thing about punk songs being short is that you can fit a lot of them into even only a half hour set. I think they played everything I could have wanted. That definitely included "Dancing All Night" and "Infatuation".
When singer Davey Warsop first addressed the crowd, his Birmingham accent immediately make me think of Oi!, but the band's origins are a bit more complicated than that. Regardless of birthplaces, Sharp Shock is currently operating out of Los Angeles.
As much as I appreciate the sheer fun of them, I also need to point out their general decency. The things that make punk work also easily go along with obnoxious to possibly worse behavior. The band hints at that connection with songs like "Bad Lad" and "The Reds", but they stay above it, going out of their way to speak against racism, sexism, and other bigotry.
They were a great start to the night, and I am glad to have found them.
Sharp Shock currently has about another week on the road with together PANGEA and Alkaline Trio, and will be playing the Surf City Blitz in Huntington Beach on October 27th. That is going to have some good bands, and Sharp Shock is one of them.
http://www.sharpshockband.com/
https://www.facebook.com/sharpshockband
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC303JPAPUKkeqZh8AIbgKOg/featured
https://twitter.com/sharpshock
Tuesday, October 09, 2018
Thanos was wrong
Yes, this is about Avengers: Infinity War.
Again, there will be spoilers, but it came out in April so I like to think we're good.
It is a reasonable follow-up to writing about the aspects of each individual mattering in Ant-Man and the Wasp. There is a huge body count in Infinity War. It's almost like a DC film, except there aren't piles of dead bodies at the end, just something like ashes floating away.
Even more to the point, you see a real impact from the loss of those lives as well.
Many people were torn up by the death of Peter Parker. He got more words in - possibly because he felt it coming, possibly because he can talk a lot, quickly - and he said them to Tony, who had previously shown guilt about getting Peter into dangerous situations, and who had started the movie talking to Pepper about having a child.
(Also, somehow in the impossible to detect pattern of the destruction, everyone else on the planet's surface had gone, except for Nebula, a cyborg stranger to Tony, leaving him terribly alone.)
The fadings happening in Wakanda stuck with me more: Rhodey looking for Sam and just missing him, Bucky and Cap's eyes meeting just before, and T'Challe reaching out to help Okoye. I was sure he was going to see her go, which would have been one kind of tragedy, but then the one who faded was him.
Beyond that, you could see how the randomness was leading to immediate complications. Back in New York, a plane was going down, and if the former occupants of the crashed car weren't going to feel the impact, that doesn't mean that similar accidents would not have casualties.
(And yes, I assume it will all be undone, even rolled back to save the Asgardians from the beginning. Dr. Strange saw the one plan that worked, and he still handed his stone over to Thanos. Obviously it will all be fine. No arguments.)
From that immediate awful aftermath, I can see the chaos extending far beyond that.
Part of that is that in some of my readings about authoritarian regimes, I have seen that once you expel the foreigners, the economy goes stagnant and there isn't enough food. That can also happen when you nationalize markets. When you target people who are more educated and have more money, that is not a guaranteed combination, but it tends to get rid of at least a few doctors and people with good skills to have (some dead, some escaping). That causes problems. It causes suffering.
Thanos could defend his plan of ending suffering by reducing the universal population in half all he wants, but it caused immediate suffering with a promise of more suffering in store.
It doesn't make sense to get all worked up over a movie adapted from comic books, especially when I believe the next installment will resolve everything. However, much like there being a large contingent of people declaring that Killmonger was right in response to Black Panther (my thoughts on that), there has also been a contingent declaring that Thanos had a point.
And sure, that's mainly a subreddit where you shouldn't expect too much from the inhabitants, but yes, there are a lot of people who with infinite power would still see more point in eliminating people than increasing resources or improving the distribution thereof.
People reference Malthus a lot in relation to this. He was not twisted in that manner (he could be faulted for an understandable lack of vision), but Malthus' writings have been used in some really twisted arguments about why sometimes you want to let people suffer and die. Really, he just wanted people to wait longer to have kids, which has several advantages.
Infinity War was a pretty good movie in general. Given the size of the cast it was impressive in what it managed to balance, and the fun it managed to have despite some serious and painful situations.
It also gives us something worth thinking about. That isn't so much whether or not individuals have worth; the film comes down pretty clearly on the side of that. It is worth thinking about how hard some people fight to avoid accepting that.
Remember, the problem with #alllivesmatter isn't that it's not true; it's that it misses the point of specific lives being counted as less. Truly believing in the value of each life requires examining the structures that endanger lives, which are sometimes very specific. It's a deflect when the opposite is needed.
The damage of lost lives is never merely collateral.
Again, there will be spoilers, but it came out in April so I like to think we're good.
It is a reasonable follow-up to writing about the aspects of each individual mattering in Ant-Man and the Wasp. There is a huge body count in Infinity War. It's almost like a DC film, except there aren't piles of dead bodies at the end, just something like ashes floating away.
Even more to the point, you see a real impact from the loss of those lives as well.
Many people were torn up by the death of Peter Parker. He got more words in - possibly because he felt it coming, possibly because he can talk a lot, quickly - and he said them to Tony, who had previously shown guilt about getting Peter into dangerous situations, and who had started the movie talking to Pepper about having a child.
(Also, somehow in the impossible to detect pattern of the destruction, everyone else on the planet's surface had gone, except for Nebula, a cyborg stranger to Tony, leaving him terribly alone.)
The fadings happening in Wakanda stuck with me more: Rhodey looking for Sam and just missing him, Bucky and Cap's eyes meeting just before, and T'Challe reaching out to help Okoye. I was sure he was going to see her go, which would have been one kind of tragedy, but then the one who faded was him.
Beyond that, you could see how the randomness was leading to immediate complications. Back in New York, a plane was going down, and if the former occupants of the crashed car weren't going to feel the impact, that doesn't mean that similar accidents would not have casualties.
(And yes, I assume it will all be undone, even rolled back to save the Asgardians from the beginning. Dr. Strange saw the one plan that worked, and he still handed his stone over to Thanos. Obviously it will all be fine. No arguments.)
From that immediate awful aftermath, I can see the chaos extending far beyond that.
Part of that is that in some of my readings about authoritarian regimes, I have seen that once you expel the foreigners, the economy goes stagnant and there isn't enough food. That can also happen when you nationalize markets. When you target people who are more educated and have more money, that is not a guaranteed combination, but it tends to get rid of at least a few doctors and people with good skills to have (some dead, some escaping). That causes problems. It causes suffering.
Thanos could defend his plan of ending suffering by reducing the universal population in half all he wants, but it caused immediate suffering with a promise of more suffering in store.
It doesn't make sense to get all worked up over a movie adapted from comic books, especially when I believe the next installment will resolve everything. However, much like there being a large contingent of people declaring that Killmonger was right in response to Black Panther (my thoughts on that), there has also been a contingent declaring that Thanos had a point.
And sure, that's mainly a subreddit where you shouldn't expect too much from the inhabitants, but yes, there are a lot of people who with infinite power would still see more point in eliminating people than increasing resources or improving the distribution thereof.
People reference Malthus a lot in relation to this. He was not twisted in that manner (he could be faulted for an understandable lack of vision), but Malthus' writings have been used in some really twisted arguments about why sometimes you want to let people suffer and die. Really, he just wanted people to wait longer to have kids, which has several advantages.
Infinity War was a pretty good movie in general. Given the size of the cast it was impressive in what it managed to balance, and the fun it managed to have despite some serious and painful situations.
It also gives us something worth thinking about. That isn't so much whether or not individuals have worth; the film comes down pretty clearly on the side of that. It is worth thinking about how hard some people fight to avoid accepting that.
Remember, the problem with #alllivesmatter isn't that it's not true; it's that it misses the point of specific lives being counted as less. Truly believing in the value of each life requires examining the structures that endanger lives, which are sometimes very specific. It's a deflect when the opposite is needed.
The damage of lost lives is never merely collateral.
Monday, October 08, 2018
Thoughts on Ant-Man and the Wasp
I adored Ant-Man and the Wasp.
It worked on several different levels for me.
The following text contains spoilers. The movie also came out July 6th, so I hope we're good.
The sheer charm of Paul Rudd was one factor, along with the the room that the script gave him to be a goofy and endearing father. It would be easy to get a crush on him from this film alone.
I liked the way they played with size. Stan Lee once said that a weakness in the original Ant-Man comics was that they didn't do enough sight gags to take advantage of how the shrinking. There were some great contrasts here, with some pretty clever gags. Having Scott stuck at an odd size and getting around it by posing as a child, having two people of mismatched sizes stuck in the same closet, and many pieces with buildings and vehicles changing sizes (plus one large Hello Kitty Pez dispenser) was both cool and fun.
What I ended up liking most was the caring. Every person mattered. That included cold-hearted criminals and mostly competent but somewhat insecure government agents. (Yeah, getting actors like Walton Goggins and Randall Park doesn't hurt.)
It included a very messed up villain. Ghost caused a lot of problems, and was willing to do worse. The visual effects they used to convey her being out of phase were effective, but you were also able to feel empathy for all of the loss and for the constant pain.
It would have been easy to let her character go, and it could have happened in multiple ways. She could have been taken out by other characters as they attempted to defend themselves or protect Janet. She could have gotten to Janet, started the energy absorption, and have it backfire horribly, killing her that way. She could also have had a redemptive arc, where she decided that costing someone else's life and someone else's parent was not worth it, and let herself fade away.
I really wasn't expecting her to just be okay, to be healed, and to have someone standing by her, even when arrest was likely. She was around people who understood that she mattered too, though. That's what made the difference.
Finally, I really loved the scale. No, that's not about the size jokes.
I think I remember Gail Simone once saying that she would rather read a story about someone trying to save a dog than save the world. Those big whole world stories can get exhausting, and a bit repetitive. So for me, much of the emotion came down to Hope. Hope's desperation to see her mother again, her hope that it could be possible, and fear of losing that hope again. I needed them to be reunited.
That's not that the big world movies can't have emotional impact, or even that I won't write about that tomorrow, but this was a really good film.
But for all of the many things that Ant-Man and the Wasp did right, the one that stays with me most is that lives mattered. Even ants getting eaten by sea gulls mattered (even if you laughed at Scott's cry of "Murderers!"). And when you care about life, you try and preserve it.
It worked on several different levels for me.
The following text contains spoilers. The movie also came out July 6th, so I hope we're good.
The sheer charm of Paul Rudd was one factor, along with the the room that the script gave him to be a goofy and endearing father. It would be easy to get a crush on him from this film alone.
I liked the way they played with size. Stan Lee once said that a weakness in the original Ant-Man comics was that they didn't do enough sight gags to take advantage of how the shrinking. There were some great contrasts here, with some pretty clever gags. Having Scott stuck at an odd size and getting around it by posing as a child, having two people of mismatched sizes stuck in the same closet, and many pieces with buildings and vehicles changing sizes (plus one large Hello Kitty Pez dispenser) was both cool and fun.
What I ended up liking most was the caring. Every person mattered. That included cold-hearted criminals and mostly competent but somewhat insecure government agents. (Yeah, getting actors like Walton Goggins and Randall Park doesn't hurt.)
It included a very messed up villain. Ghost caused a lot of problems, and was willing to do worse. The visual effects they used to convey her being out of phase were effective, but you were also able to feel empathy for all of the loss and for the constant pain.
It would have been easy to let her character go, and it could have happened in multiple ways. She could have been taken out by other characters as they attempted to defend themselves or protect Janet. She could have gotten to Janet, started the energy absorption, and have it backfire horribly, killing her that way. She could also have had a redemptive arc, where she decided that costing someone else's life and someone else's parent was not worth it, and let herself fade away.
I really wasn't expecting her to just be okay, to be healed, and to have someone standing by her, even when arrest was likely. She was around people who understood that she mattered too, though. That's what made the difference.
Finally, I really loved the scale. No, that's not about the size jokes.
I think I remember Gail Simone once saying that she would rather read a story about someone trying to save a dog than save the world. Those big whole world stories can get exhausting, and a bit repetitive. So for me, much of the emotion came down to Hope. Hope's desperation to see her mother again, her hope that it could be possible, and fear of losing that hope again. I needed them to be reunited.
That's not that the big world movies can't have emotional impact, or even that I won't write about that tomorrow, but this was a really good film.
But for all of the many things that Ant-Man and the Wasp did right, the one that stays with me most is that lives mattered. Even ants getting eaten by sea gulls mattered (even if you laughed at Scott's cry of "Murderers!"). And when you care about life, you try and preserve it.
Friday, October 05, 2018
Band Review: Nothing
Having just seen Johnny Marr two weeks ago (review posted one week ago), I have been reminded of jangle, and of how downbeat it can sound.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that Nothing - an alternative band from Philadelphia - was inspired by The Smiths. They may not have been, but there is some similarity in how downbeat the treble-y guitars manage to sound. I think what is more important to note, however, is that they sound a lot less depressing than they look. I am not speaking about the physical appearance of the band.
Artwork for their 2018 album, Dance on the Blacktop, is disconcerting. It's subtle, but ever so creepy. Videos tend to be really downbeat as well, though "Blue Line Baby" is also beautiful.
I wouldn't have expected that just from the music. The songs are low key, and it would make sense if some people like to listen to them while sad, but you don't have to be sad to enjoy them and listening does not specifically make you sad. The videos can be pretty creepy, though, and I wouldn't necessarily have expected that if not for the album art.
(I guess the name should have tipped me off. "Nothing" must imply at least some existential angst.)
So don't be caught off guard, but don't hesitate to check them out either. Especially if you have been missing those Sheffield bands from the 80s, Nothing could be a very good fit.
I checked them out on the recommendation of Frank Iero, and he does know his stuff.
https://bandofnothing.com/
https://www.facebook.com/BANDOFNOTHING/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHVPhO-aRf57XFYQOpZKSGg
https://twitter.com/BandofNOTHING
I would not be at all surprised to learn that Nothing - an alternative band from Philadelphia - was inspired by The Smiths. They may not have been, but there is some similarity in how downbeat the treble-y guitars manage to sound. I think what is more important to note, however, is that they sound a lot less depressing than they look. I am not speaking about the physical appearance of the band.
Artwork for their 2018 album, Dance on the Blacktop, is disconcerting. It's subtle, but ever so creepy. Videos tend to be really downbeat as well, though "Blue Line Baby" is also beautiful.
I wouldn't have expected that just from the music. The songs are low key, and it would make sense if some people like to listen to them while sad, but you don't have to be sad to enjoy them and listening does not specifically make you sad. The videos can be pretty creepy, though, and I wouldn't necessarily have expected that if not for the album art.
(I guess the name should have tipped me off. "Nothing" must imply at least some existential angst.)
So don't be caught off guard, but don't hesitate to check them out either. Especially if you have been missing those Sheffield bands from the 80s, Nothing could be a very good fit.
I checked them out on the recommendation of Frank Iero, and he does know his stuff.
https://bandofnothing.com/
https://www.facebook.com/BANDOFNOTHING/
| https://nothing.bandcamp.com/ |
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHVPhO-aRf57XFYQOpZKSGg
https://twitter.com/BandofNOTHING
Thursday, October 04, 2018
Band Review: S A Reyners
S A Reyners is a singer-songwriter from Wellington, New Zealand.
Most of the tracks have a pop cheeriness, but with an off-beat, lo-fi quality that does not sound like many other artists. It is not at all surprising that he has expressed admiration for Kate Bush, though he does not sound like her.
The songs do sound kind of similar to each other, but "Wanted For Ages" is probably the most interesting, which has kind of a hint of menace running through it..
https://www.facebook.com/sareyners/
https://sareyners.bandcamp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK4z6elyxEQmtyaonakuLqA
https://twitter.com/sareyners
Most of the tracks have a pop cheeriness, but with an off-beat, lo-fi quality that does not sound like many other artists. It is not at all surprising that he has expressed admiration for Kate Bush, though he does not sound like her.
The songs do sound kind of similar to each other, but "Wanted For Ages" is probably the most interesting, which has kind of a hint of menace running through it..
https://www.facebook.com/sareyners/
https://sareyners.bandcamp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK4z6elyxEQmtyaonakuLqA
https://twitter.com/sareyners
Wednesday, October 03, 2018
Kavanugh, Thomas, and Graham
There is one main memory that has stuck with me from the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. I know a lot more about everything that was going on now than I did then, and it does bring up a lot more similarities. For example, I only learned later that there were other complainants that they decided they didn't have time to hear. Now we know that other people have come forward, even if we are not going to hear from them. See, information technology has improved!
FYI... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146
Not that I expect it to affect Jeff Flake's vote.
No, the strongest memory I have from when Anita Hill was testifying was that regardless of all the attempts to paint her as a liar, it was not that they didn't believe her. They didn't want to be bothered with her.
That doesn't feel that different today.
Yesterday I may have seemed hard on Republicans, what with the references to racism and corruption that were absolutely accurate but could sound biased. I hope any concerns about that will consider the potential ramifications of Kavanuagh on the court voting that state charges for crimes that were pardoned on the federal level constitute double jeopardy. Given the context of the current administration, that comes really close to putting the president above the law. It would not be automatic, but there are reasons to believe both that this president would abuse it and that the court as he desires it would support it.
(Really, there are a lot of ways in which Kavanaugh resembles Bork more than Thomas.)
As much as that should raise concerns and give lawmakers pause, Republican senators are pushing this through. It was okay to hold Merrick Garland off until after the election, which was a much longer time period. Here there is a rush. Yes, I am sure they will be happy to overturn Roe v Wade, but the hurry is for Gamble.
Not only that, but were any of you a little taken aback by Lindsey Graham's tantrum about the "most unethical sham"? I was. I mean, I know he's been in politics long enough to see worse ones, and I don't expect him to have any integrity, but it still seemed a little out of nowhere.
It wasn't. It happened after questions were starting to zero in around the July 1st entry in the calendar.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-is-pressed-key-july-entry-his-calendar-only-point/?utm_term=.9ff97a01ebe2
It is frustrating to see people hear "no contemporaneous evidence" and repeat "NO EVIDENCE", but look, there appears to be some contemporaneous evidence too. Instead of stepping back and thinking maybe we could find someone better for this lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, tantrum time. This is the kind of corruption that enables treason. There will be no apologies for saying that.
These posts have all pretty much been about the political and not the personal. I have things to say about that, but I think I will have more to say if I wait a couple of weeks. I am willing to wait. It's not a wait to be less angry; just to have more information. I will still be plenty angry.
For now I will leave this here:
https://www.theroot.com/revisiting-anita-hill-on-racism-stereotypes-and-respe-1829447283
FYI... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146
Not that I expect it to affect Jeff Flake's vote.
No, the strongest memory I have from when Anita Hill was testifying was that regardless of all the attempts to paint her as a liar, it was not that they didn't believe her. They didn't want to be bothered with her.
That doesn't feel that different today.
Yesterday I may have seemed hard on Republicans, what with the references to racism and corruption that were absolutely accurate but could sound biased. I hope any concerns about that will consider the potential ramifications of Kavanuagh on the court voting that state charges for crimes that were pardoned on the federal level constitute double jeopardy. Given the context of the current administration, that comes really close to putting the president above the law. It would not be automatic, but there are reasons to believe both that this president would abuse it and that the court as he desires it would support it.
(Really, there are a lot of ways in which Kavanaugh resembles Bork more than Thomas.)
As much as that should raise concerns and give lawmakers pause, Republican senators are pushing this through. It was okay to hold Merrick Garland off until after the election, which was a much longer time period. Here there is a rush. Yes, I am sure they will be happy to overturn Roe v Wade, but the hurry is for Gamble.
Not only that, but were any of you a little taken aback by Lindsey Graham's tantrum about the "most unethical sham"? I was. I mean, I know he's been in politics long enough to see worse ones, and I don't expect him to have any integrity, but it still seemed a little out of nowhere.
It wasn't. It happened after questions were starting to zero in around the July 1st entry in the calendar.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-is-pressed-key-july-entry-his-calendar-only-point/?utm_term=.9ff97a01ebe2
It is frustrating to see people hear "no contemporaneous evidence" and repeat "NO EVIDENCE", but look, there appears to be some contemporaneous evidence too. Instead of stepping back and thinking maybe we could find someone better for this lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, tantrum time. This is the kind of corruption that enables treason. There will be no apologies for saying that.
These posts have all pretty much been about the political and not the personal. I have things to say about that, but I think I will have more to say if I wait a couple of weeks. I am willing to wait. It's not a wait to be less angry; just to have more information. I will still be plenty angry.
For now I will leave this here:
https://www.theroot.com/revisiting-anita-hill-on-racism-stereotypes-and-respe-1829447283
Tuesday, October 02, 2018
Déjà vu all over again
Some people have drawn comparisons between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and those of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Those comparisons tend to focus on the nature of the accusations and the conduct of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but there is another important correlation that has been largely missed: like Kavanaugh, Thomas was not a particularly impressive appointee.
Thomas was not a great scholar. Other than the Anita Hill's testimony, Thomas is best known for hardly ever asking questions or dissenting in interesting ways, but just being a solid but not distinctive conservative vote.
(Scalia often sounded nonsensical, but he made much more of an impression.)
Thomas's lack of contribution was to be expected. His service previous to the appointment was not really distinguished. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is not an unreasonable place to look for candidates (his predecessor there was Robert Bork, who was also nominated, though not appointed), but Thomas had served there less than two years.
That could again be a situation where you wonder why this person, and then why not just let him go once the harassment allegations arose, but Thomas presented a crucial combination of traits for the Republicans of the time: in addition to being reliably conservative, he was Black.
That sounds cynical (especially given Thomas's antipathy to Affirmative Action), but there were considerations. The appointment was due to the retirement of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black man on the Supreme Court. Returning the court to its prior all-white state would have been viewed as a step backward. As important as white supremacy was to the Republican party even then, they were still going for quiet dog whistles and plausible deniability of their racism at the time. Bush really needed a Black man.
Bush also wanted that reliable conservative vote. While there would have been good Black candidates who leaned liberal, that would not have moved the court in the manner that Bush wanted and needed. Most intelligent and legally experienced Black people were well aware of what the dog whistles meant and were not okay with them; finding someone who was meant searching through the dregs. Thomas didn't have much competition.
With Kennedy being white and pretty conservative (yes, sometimes a swing vote), that should leave a pretty big pool open for potential replacements, where they could have done much better than Kavanaugh. However, there is something that Trump wants that Kavanaugh seems best able to provide.
Gamble vs United States is pending. It could be heard this month. It has the potential to decide that a federal pardon would make state prosecution fall under double jeopardy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/
This would be a real gift to a corrupt president who has expressed a lot of interest in his ability to pardon (including speculating on pardoning himself). It would undo a lot of work done by Mueller on investigating Russia's interference and corruption in the 2016 election. Many of the crimes being established would still be eligible for state prosecution even in the event of a federal pardon under current law. So far.
In other words, if you like this administration and want to be able to see them continue unfettered, this may seem like a good deal. It is still not great for the Constitution, or for the rule of law meaning anything. Because of that, there are a lot of potential distinguished candidates for the Supreme Court who would not look favorably on such a resolution.
Kavanaugh seems like the best bet for the ruling Trump wants. That says a lot about him. Once again, to find the policy you want (in the body that is supposed to be non-partisan) involves rummaging around in the dregs.
Sure, it is hard not to see certain similarities between Trump and Kavanaugh, where you would expect a sympathy to exist between them. They have a similar tenuous hold on their composure. They claim credit for things that were given to them, though Kavanaugh tends credit hard work more, as opposed to Trump's superior genes and genius. (Like, I can see where Kavanaugh might not believe that his prep school attendance and his grandfather affected his getting into Yale, but does he really believe he was first in his class?) Neither man does anything with his personal conduct to contradict the many accusations of sexual abuse against them.
Sure, they could get along famously, but that's not what this is about. Trump and the people around him think Kavanaugh will be useful. They're not even wrong, but it's a problem if you want to hold on to the republic.
We are not doing a good job of keeping it.
Thomas was not a great scholar. Other than the Anita Hill's testimony, Thomas is best known for hardly ever asking questions or dissenting in interesting ways, but just being a solid but not distinctive conservative vote.
(Scalia often sounded nonsensical, but he made much more of an impression.)
Thomas's lack of contribution was to be expected. His service previous to the appointment was not really distinguished. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is not an unreasonable place to look for candidates (his predecessor there was Robert Bork, who was also nominated, though not appointed), but Thomas had served there less than two years.
That could again be a situation where you wonder why this person, and then why not just let him go once the harassment allegations arose, but Thomas presented a crucial combination of traits for the Republicans of the time: in addition to being reliably conservative, he was Black.
That sounds cynical (especially given Thomas's antipathy to Affirmative Action), but there were considerations. The appointment was due to the retirement of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black man on the Supreme Court. Returning the court to its prior all-white state would have been viewed as a step backward. As important as white supremacy was to the Republican party even then, they were still going for quiet dog whistles and plausible deniability of their racism at the time. Bush really needed a Black man.
Bush also wanted that reliable conservative vote. While there would have been good Black candidates who leaned liberal, that would not have moved the court in the manner that Bush wanted and needed. Most intelligent and legally experienced Black people were well aware of what the dog whistles meant and were not okay with them; finding someone who was meant searching through the dregs. Thomas didn't have much competition.
With Kennedy being white and pretty conservative (yes, sometimes a swing vote), that should leave a pretty big pool open for potential replacements, where they could have done much better than Kavanaugh. However, there is something that Trump wants that Kavanaugh seems best able to provide.
Gamble vs United States is pending. It could be heard this month. It has the potential to decide that a federal pardon would make state prosecution fall under double jeopardy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/
This would be a real gift to a corrupt president who has expressed a lot of interest in his ability to pardon (including speculating on pardoning himself). It would undo a lot of work done by Mueller on investigating Russia's interference and corruption in the 2016 election. Many of the crimes being established would still be eligible for state prosecution even in the event of a federal pardon under current law. So far.
In other words, if you like this administration and want to be able to see them continue unfettered, this may seem like a good deal. It is still not great for the Constitution, or for the rule of law meaning anything. Because of that, there are a lot of potential distinguished candidates for the Supreme Court who would not look favorably on such a resolution.
Kavanaugh seems like the best bet for the ruling Trump wants. That says a lot about him. Once again, to find the policy you want (in the body that is supposed to be non-partisan) involves rummaging around in the dregs.
Sure, it is hard not to see certain similarities between Trump and Kavanaugh, where you would expect a sympathy to exist between them. They have a similar tenuous hold on their composure. They claim credit for things that were given to them, though Kavanaugh tends credit hard work more, as opposed to Trump's superior genes and genius. (Like, I can see where Kavanaugh might not believe that his prep school attendance and his grandfather affected his getting into Yale, but does he really believe he was first in his class?) Neither man does anything with his personal conduct to contradict the many accusations of sexual abuse against them.
Sure, they could get along famously, but that's not what this is about. Trump and the people around him think Kavanaugh will be useful. They're not even wrong, but it's a problem if you want to hold on to the republic.
We are not doing a good job of keeping it.
Monday, October 01, 2018
Non-rapey reasons against confirming Kavanaugh
While I do have feelings about the assault allegations against Kavanaugh, there are plenty of other reasons to not appoint him to the Supreme Court. I want to quickly go over those first, because they make it clear that he is not a great selection. That makes a lot of the indignation on Kavanaugh's behalf even more stupefying. Let's go over that aspect before we get into the rest.
1. Kavanaugh's a liar.
Yes, he did lie during this interview, even about very minor things like watching Dr. Ford's testimony.
That raises a separate point of interest in that it kind of paints him as a habitual liar, doing so instinctively even in the absence of a clear benefit. However, I am more concerned with false answers given to the Senate Judiciary Committee in previous years as he was considered for other appointments.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html
The motivation for those lies was pretty clear - personal advancement - so that raises ethical questions. Beyond that, the lies were covering dishonest behavior that was politically-motivated and related to lower-court nominees. Granted, for the Republicans partisan dishonesty is probably part of what makes Kavanaugh most attractive, but still it should be possible and desirable to find someone cleaner.
2. Mysterious debt
One thing about a known liar - whether habitual or just sometimes when they are in a crunch - is that you can't trust other statements, even relatively probable ones.
That $200,000 debt having been accrued through season ticket purchases for friends and suddenly paid back right before confirmation hearings is not a probable story.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/new-strike-against-kavanaugh-season-tickets/565022/
The origin seems more likely to be gambling; the resolution seems more likely to be favors. Those are assumptions, but as conditions that could indicate Kavanaugh is compromised and has a weakness that could be easily exploited for further compromising, that makes him look like a terrible candidate.
Even if you can't find someone above reproach, you can find someone less obviously below reproach. You can also often clear up bad appearances through investigation. This is not being delved into enough.
3. Temperament
We probably would not have seen so much of Kavanaugh's lack of fit temperament without sexual assault allegations against him. Having seen it, it should not be ignored. It's not just that he avoided answering direct questions, had difficulty controlling his anger, and only really seemed comfortable talking when praising himself and his achievements (there were a few more lies in there, by the way), but also his inability to be deferential even to US senators.
I have seen some people justify his rudeness to Sen. Feinstein by calling her a liar; sure I can say, "No, that's him", but it goes beyond that. Senator Klobuchar expressed empathy as she asked about his drinking; he still avoided the question and threw it back at her. That was completely unprofessional.
His lack of respect was most evident with women, but even with his interaction with Patrick Leahy - interrupting, argumentative, evasive - isn't the Supreme Court supposed to have some dignity?
Yes, I realize Senator Leahy is a Democrat, but still, they are at least supposed to pretend to be non-partisan.
I know the conservative argument is that Democrats are just being obstructionist. I promise you it was not because everyone liked Neil Gorsuch so much that there were no comparable allegations about him.
I don't know who else was on the short list for this seat. They could have all been terrible, but that is more of a problem with the list. Regardless, the first allegations (I think we are at five complainants now) came while he was still on the short list, making an already terrible candidate look much worse.
It kind of makes you wonder why him, and why the rush.
Or maybe you already know, but I am still going to write about it tomorrow.
1. Kavanaugh's a liar.
Yes, he did lie during this interview, even about very minor things like watching Dr. Ford's testimony.
That raises a separate point of interest in that it kind of paints him as a habitual liar, doing so instinctively even in the absence of a clear benefit. However, I am more concerned with false answers given to the Senate Judiciary Committee in previous years as he was considered for other appointments.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html
The motivation for those lies was pretty clear - personal advancement - so that raises ethical questions. Beyond that, the lies were covering dishonest behavior that was politically-motivated and related to lower-court nominees. Granted, for the Republicans partisan dishonesty is probably part of what makes Kavanaugh most attractive, but still it should be possible and desirable to find someone cleaner.
2. Mysterious debt
One thing about a known liar - whether habitual or just sometimes when they are in a crunch - is that you can't trust other statements, even relatively probable ones.
That $200,000 debt having been accrued through season ticket purchases for friends and suddenly paid back right before confirmation hearings is not a probable story.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/new-strike-against-kavanaugh-season-tickets/565022/
The origin seems more likely to be gambling; the resolution seems more likely to be favors. Those are assumptions, but as conditions that could indicate Kavanaugh is compromised and has a weakness that could be easily exploited for further compromising, that makes him look like a terrible candidate.
Even if you can't find someone above reproach, you can find someone less obviously below reproach. You can also often clear up bad appearances through investigation. This is not being delved into enough.
3. Temperament
We probably would not have seen so much of Kavanaugh's lack of fit temperament without sexual assault allegations against him. Having seen it, it should not be ignored. It's not just that he avoided answering direct questions, had difficulty controlling his anger, and only really seemed comfortable talking when praising himself and his achievements (there were a few more lies in there, by the way), but also his inability to be deferential even to US senators.
I have seen some people justify his rudeness to Sen. Feinstein by calling her a liar; sure I can say, "No, that's him", but it goes beyond that. Senator Klobuchar expressed empathy as she asked about his drinking; he still avoided the question and threw it back at her. That was completely unprofessional.
His lack of respect was most evident with women, but even with his interaction with Patrick Leahy - interrupting, argumentative, evasive - isn't the Supreme Court supposed to have some dignity?
Yes, I realize Senator Leahy is a Democrat, but still, they are at least supposed to pretend to be non-partisan.
I know the conservative argument is that Democrats are just being obstructionist. I promise you it was not because everyone liked Neil Gorsuch so much that there were no comparable allegations about him.
I don't know who else was on the short list for this seat. They could have all been terrible, but that is more of a problem with the list. Regardless, the first allegations (I think we are at five complainants now) came while he was still on the short list, making an already terrible candidate look much worse.
It kind of makes you wonder why him, and why the rush.
Or maybe you already know, but I am still going to write about it tomorrow.