Gina Harris's Blog, page 153

Band Review: Chainflower

I have been listening to Chainflower all week, but I still don't feel like I have a grip on them.
Part of this is that they are hard to place among the other bands I have listened to. When pressed they say they are alternative rock, but they have a harder edge than is common among alternative bands, still without going over into metal. Lead singer Erika Renee has been compared to Siouxsie Sioux, and that sounds like it could be right.
The other issue is that there isn't a lot of material available. There are four songs via Spotify, and two videos, with one being just a very short trailer. I see no upcoming shows.
This may be a result of the band's composition. The members have all worked in other bands, which could limit the time available for this one.
This is especially true of Kelly Wheeler, whose many projects include Jane's Addiction, PsiCom, SexTapes, and Ultraject. In fact, it was Erika's response to Ultraject's search for a new singer that led to the formation of Chainflower. With her distinctive voice, you can imagine how it could lead to a change in direction.
Despite the lack of resources, it should be pretty easy to tell if you will like this band. The best start would probably be to listen to "The Fever". This song does a good job of displaying their assets and abilities.
Then, if you do like it, it looks like the Twitter account is the most frequently updated, and following there would be a good start.
http://chainflowermusic.com/
https://www.facebook.com/Chainflowermusic/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTbcH2VuZVrQIFeVxDm_DfA
https://twitter.com/ChainflowerLA

Fighting on the internet - "We basically believe the same"

This last fight happened over e-mail. My opponent (let's call him 3, for the third fight) was someone I actually saw socially, so everything about it was worse.
One sister was in an email thread about economic inequality, and looking for backup. It might have started with the family that Wad was so horrible about, but I know we brought in different articles about adjunct professors too, because they have economically horrible positions, despite higher education.
The thing about 3 is he is really proud of himself (a characteristic he shares with Wad, and it might not be a coincidence). 3 had some obstacles that he overcame, which is great, and he does know a lot of stuff, which is also great. Putting those together, he also always knows what other people should do, which is not as great.
3 started picking apart the life choices of one of the professors: she shouldn't have had a child, she shouldn't have chosen that field, there must be other opportunities in her area. Now, bear in mind it wasn't that she chose a specialty where she couldn't find employment; because she was working in her field. She wasn't making enough to live, but even from only that discussion we saw that was not unique to her. (3 had looked around at what people earned before he chose his college major.)
I tried to point out the logical fallacies of this, and by now it was just the two of us. Not everyone has the mental aptitude to be engineers, and if everyone were engineers there would be many unemployed ones. We do need college professors, especially if we cite education as the key to success. Wal-mart needs employees, and they make a lot of money through those employees. Somehow, though, we seem to have decided that just because someone fills a needed role doesn't mean they should receive a living wage, even if the employer is taking in a lot of money. Those employees then needing to take second and third jobs exhausts them and reduces the jobs available for others, but that's fine because it's capitalism.
I honestly don't remember how many times we went back and forth, with him constantly jumping to new arguments, but yes, this is a liberal doing that, even if I normally only face that with conservatives. It was no less exhausting with a liberal. Actually, it was worse to have this person I had thought of as a friend being just as bad as Wad.
I do remember that when he ran out of arguments he finished with "Well what would you do about it?" By this time there had been conversation about education and income inequality and how this harsh judging of individuals lets these bad situations continue. For every few sentences he had flippantly sent to me, I had sent him paragraphs and links. And then he asks how I'll fix it, which is just a dick move. I was worn down, and this is where it gets bad. My only defense is that I really wanted him to see my point, because this matters.
As the person who always makes good choices and is careful with his money and always knows what other people should do, he can sometimes create stress in those around him who don't have the same balance of investments and savings. After all, if they happen to make thousands of dollars less, that is only because they foolishly did not become engineers. Anyway, I tried to give him some examples of the stress he creates with someone we both know.
What I wanted was for him to just consider the fact that other people are experiencing life differently than him and that he can be pretty cold about it. What actually happened is that he got greatly offended and sulky until the other person was asking him what was wrong, and then I got in big trouble. I don't know that he was being intentionally manipulative, but the things that he complained about were not actually things that I said.
I have never been able to feel the same way about 3. It was harder after that to see his need to have a nickname for everyone, or his need to comment on the looks of everyone, as clever and cute the way he sees it.
Before I knew 3 was vain and thoughtless, but I thought of him as basically harmless. Now I can easily see him supporting policies that will harm the poor because he will see it as a way of providing an incentive for good choices. Also, the aftermath of that did really strain some relationships, so I feel that he harmed me. Even now that things are mostly resolved, when people ask about me not liking him, the answer given is how stubborn I am.
To some extent this makes sense. If you spend time with 3, part of that is accepting that he is vain and needs a lot of attention. Spending time with me often involves me shrugging a lot of stuff off, because a lot of things don't matter to me. So, I was the one being out of line by that reasoning, but it does not make me like him more.
Actually, those last few paragraphs don't really relate to the overall topic; it was just nice for me to get that out. The part that is important goes back to this post's title, and was something he said during the exchange: "I think we basically believe the same things."
No! We vote the same way. It is not the same thing.
Believing that we shouldn't destroy the environment, and believing things that scientists say, is not revolutionary. It's common sense.
Believing in gay rights is fine, but if you still snicker at lesbians or transgender people, but only behind their backs, this is not a sign of moral superiority. Yes, I can see why you might think that, but that's only because the bar has been set so remarkably low.
There is a lot that can be said about political party shifts and why people might think one way, and I know I will get to blogging about this election, and so we can worry about it then. I think I need to write about books for a while first. We'll get there.
For now I would want the appropriate conclusion to be referring to Wheaton's Law -
"Don't be a dick" - and letting it go at that. The problem is that it appears to be really easy to not know when you are one. It can be easy to miss.

Fighting on the internet - facts and focus

I went back and found the article that was involved in the next dispute:
https://rewire.news/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/
Perhaps one thing I should reiterate is that I only post a small percentage of the articles I read. If there is a good point but wrapped up with other inferior points, or if it is poorly written, or accurate but not really that new, I don't bother posting.
In this case, I have seen the false arguments mentioned here come up often. They generally weren't being used effectively, so I never spent a lot of time on them, but this article did a great job of sorting things out, putting in context, and clarifying, making it very valuable.
This was not appreciated by one of my libertarian friends. It was the same one who left the gun argument after I invoked the commerce clause. He does come up a lot on gun issues, but he is even more dependable on abortion, taking the tack that people who don't believe in it should not have to pay for other people to get it.
Actually, while a line item tax apportionment where your money only went to causes you supported could have some interesting results, but it is wildly impractical. I am not an anarchist quite yet.
What stood out to me more from that discussion was how much he jumped around. Sanger was evil in her pursuit of abortions - no, she only grudgingly admitted support for abortions when it might be necessary to save the life of the mother. It says it right there.
At first it was difficult to tell if he had not read the article or thought it was lies, but it could have been a combination of both. As it is, even the National Right to Life Center admits that Planned Parenthood only started providing abortions in the 70s, specifically opposing abortion in a 1963 pamphlet. Margaret Sanger died in 1966, but her point all along was about preventing the pregnancy in the first place. Doing that effectively should to a lot to prevent abortion.
The points in the article are pretty solid (which is exactly why I liked it) so he started pulling out more random things. Every time he argued something I made an appropriate counterpoint and he changed the subject.
This is a tactic that I have noticed many times. I had thought it was a symptom of how conservative radio and television doesn't delve very deep into issues. They throw out a bunch of points in succession. They don't explore deeply, and frankly a lot of the points wouldn't hold up if they did, but there is an echo chamber going on where emotionally it feels like "Yeah! That's right!"
That makes sense for a lot of what I've noticed, and for some scientific explanations I have seen for why that would be attractive. However, I recently saw a comment where a conservative called this a common liberal tactic, and my story for tomorrow has a liberal engaging in this way.
Clearly some things are not dependent on party affiliations, and that is probably only partially because of the limitations of the parties with a lot more of it being due to how humans are. Still, better things are possible. I have seen people learn from each other. I have seen people be patient with complex points. I have seen people disagree on some issues and make peace with the disagreement.
There are some things that I think are important here, and this is why it matters to me that all of these people are from church.
Theoretically we believe the same things, but Wad should be able to have a lot more compassion. In a different memorable conflict that we'd had, he was judging the choices of a family that was struggling financially. The father had sought further job training and they had moved in with the mother-in-law to save money and to help her with help problems. Even though those sound like smart moves, to him everything they were doing was stupid and it was their own fault they were poor. Employers who underpaid and messed with schedules were not the issue at all. So forget all of Christ's admonitions to help the poor, because they brought it on themselves. So Wad insulting people who had been pretty forbearing with him follows naturally. Obviously we had to be wrong; we disagreed with him.
For this incident, the other guy wasn't as bad, but the tendency to jump around, never acknowledging the issues with your own accuracy, feels dishonest to me. We believe in honesty. Pouncing on blurbs that support your position without caring that they are false and easily disproved does not go along with valuing knowledge or honesty.
The other thing that I'd like to point out is that I don't jump in other people's mentions to argue what they post, and I know people who post some pretty stupid stuff. If I take the time to post something, I made a considered choice. If you try and argue it I will feel compelled to argue back, even though it is often exhausting not just for the bulk of half-truths and manipulations for also for the sheer disrespect that seems to naturally flow with it.
Sometimes I think I should just delete the person, rather than fight the uphill battle that will not change their minds. My commitment to people and to honesty makes that hard to do. I may have to incorporate a response where I say that the constant abandonment of failed arguments to take up new ones is hard to take seriously. I don't know. When I start blogging about the election, I will probably get to find out.
Anyway, one more argument tomorrow. For now, two old links.
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2014/08/colbert-zepps-and-park-one-more-time.html
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2015/07/knowing-how-to-help.html

Fighting on the internet - three stories

I know a lot of people. Because I spent so much time in singles wards, where people come and go quickly, I know a lot of people from church, many of whom I met before I was on social media. We got along fine and politics didn't come up much, but when we later became connected through Facebook it was not surprising to learn that they were conservative.
I initially thought I would only share three stories, but I keep remembering more. What seems worth mentioning going in is that except for the story I will tell Wednesday, this will all be guys from church who I always got along fine with in person. If  it sounds like there was some chauvinism or some privilege that made me more frustrating for them, that is not impossible.
Mainly, I hope to highlight some trends in how we handle disagreements where it can be worth making some changes, especially in an election year.
I am going to use some code names for privacy, and because in this first story there are two people who not only have the same first name, but their last names start with the same letter. Initials would be useless.
The first thing I want to address is personal insults and disrespect. I think we can have blinders on about our behavior. I base this on one thread about guns. One person argued that the 2nd Amendment leaves no room for the government in regulating gun ownership. I established that the commerce clause does allow the possibility of regulating gun sales, so running background checks or having waiting periods can be a legitimate thing that the government does. That person dropped out of the discussion, but another one felt a need to tell me what anti-gun nuts don't understand.
Now, that phrasing (and that is how he said it) implies ignorance on my part, and even some mental health issues - albeit lightly - with the use of "nuts". I only mention this because after I countered his mansplanation, he went on to say that these were the baby steps to the government coming and seizing all guns, an idea which I said I thought seemed paranoid and ignorant. I specifically said the idea, not him, but then he got really huffy at my insulting him and unfriended me, without a trace of irony.
I tell this story to explain that "Wad" may not have realized how horrible he was being.
This time the article I posted was about a white man patrolling Black neighborhoods in an open carry state, and how when the residents would ask for help they would be reprimanded by the police because this clearly targeted harassment and intimidation was legal, though there is video evidence that a Black man trying open carry will be treated differently.
This started a spirited exchange with Wad and myself which was mainly around racism and police brutality, but he was angry because talking about these things made the police look bad. (No, there being reasons to talk is what makes them look bad.)
Now, in the past Wad had been condescending on many occasions, and I had even called him out on it, but it did surprise me when what he threw at me was that "Oh, you read one article on the internet and now you have walked a million miles in the black man's shoes."
Okay, he might not know about the college classes I have taken and the books I have read, but he should at least know that I have read multiple articles because he has argued against so many of them.
At that point, my sister summoned an African American friend of ours, whom we call our brother so I will call him "Bro". Bro may be well acquainted with the harder side of life, but he is also really articulate and his default setting is very polite. Bro started engaging with Wad, and while he was doing a great job on refuting, it didn't matter to Wad. He was probably just getting more irritated, based on how it went.
Finally Bro asked Wad honestly, if Bro showed up in his neighborhood with a gun, would he make it out of there alive? Would the police question him or kill him?
That was a reasonable question, and the answer seems pretty obvious, but Wad was not giving up any ground. His response: "Are you even allowed to carry a gun?"
Okay, Bro has done time. It wasn't a violent offense, and he was over-sentenced for something a white man probably wouldn't have even been charged for. I don't think it would be appropriate to get into that, and to be fair, Wad probably does not know the details. They don't matter in this case. It was so below the belt.
Bro's status doesn't invalidate anything that Bro said. It doesn't change the point that someone who looked like Bro with no criminal record would be treated the same. It doesn't change the unfairness of the double standard that the original article was addressing.
I unfriended Wad. I had thought about it many times when he had been insulting to me, or said horribly judgmental things about people in other articles highlighting economic inequality. I didn't, because we had gotten along okay once, and I try and hold on to that. My default is to like people, and I am very loyal. That's what made this the final blow, because of my loyalty and protectiveness toward Bro. It was a line too far.
It is probably worth noting that of the people that will be mentioned this week, Wad is the worst, at least based on his business dealings. He can be kind of bullying and really stress out business partners, and then be very proud of himself for how smart he is. It makes sense that his online behavior was the most offensive. It's okay that he's gone.
Tomorrow's exchange will be more civil, but still quite frustrating.

Concert Review: Iggy Pop

I was at Iggy Pop Tuesday night.
The only reason this happened is that my sister Maria created a Perfect Playlist and NRK used it, winning a set of tickets that she couldn't use, but my friend and I could. Thank you Maria and KNRK, 94/7 Alternative Portland!
The first thing I'm going to say is that he didn't play any of my three favorite songs. For the record, those are "Candy", "Living On The Edge Of The Night" (neither of which was really expected), and "Real Wild Child", which I really thought he would play and that I would be interested to see it.
Not hearing it ended up feeling more appropriate. There was so much from the new album, Post Pop Depression, that it almost felt like doing something so predictable and old would be wrong.
(I am also very susceptible to Pop singing in French, which he does beautifully, but that was not a part of the concert and that was fine.)
His rich history was represented as well. We especially appreciated what felt like a tribute to David Bowie in the inclusion of "Tonight" and "Little China Girl". Pop started the show with an energizing version of "Lust For Life", ended with a version of "Success" that was so rousing it was almost not possible to believe the music was really ending, and for the conclusion of the first set, "Little China Girl" was paired with "The Passenger".
I was pretty sure "The Passenger" would come. The set design gave the impression of a highway with a stripe down the middle, and there were lights running horizontally that invoked a speedway. As colors and timing changed, that was not how they always looked, but that opening impression of going for a ride stayed with me.
Even with that expectation, I had no way of predicting how powerful "The Passenger" would be when it came. That pairing, where it came together with "Little China Girl" and we were all on our feet, would have been a perfect finale. Then he came back, and instead of a short encore they played a full other set that touched new heights and depths. I can't accurately tell you how the timing went, but I believe they played for two hours, with only a very short break.
They in this case included a support band that were all dressed like young Elvis, which felt right (especially given Josh Homme's hips). They included Dean Fertita, Matt Helders, Matt Sweeny, Troy Van Leeuwen, and most famously Josh Homme, who collaborated with Pop on writing the Post Pop Depression album. There is a lot of talent and skill there, but it was almost impossible to take eyes off of Pop.
I'm sure he feels age (Pop will be 69 on April 21st), but his stamina appears to be unfailing, his voice remains strong, and he still dances in the way that he always has. If he has let some of the wilder behaviors go, he still let the crowd bear him up several times. At the same time I know that's dangerous, I feel like his confidence is well-founded.
Truthfully, Pop's banter as he set up the songs was often a bit awkward, and truthfully it didn't matter. As he would have ask for the lights to be turned up so he could see us, he would wave at different parts of the audience, including sections that were really close together. It felt like he didn't want anyone left out, and it was amazingly sweet.
And then he would just rock.
The concert was a great experience, and I hope I have conveyed at least something of that. I also want to recommend checking out NPR's All Songs Considered with Pop and Homme, as it is interesting and has some good insight into the album.
http://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2016/03/11/469795427/all-songs-1-iggy-pop-josh-homme-talk-post-pop-depression
http://iggypop.com/
https://www.facebook.com/iggypop/?fref=ts
https://www.youtube.com/user/IggyPopOfficial
https://twitter.com/iggypop

Concert Review: Noveller

I unexpectedly got a chance to go see Iggy Pop. Excited to do a live music review again, I searched for the opening act and found this:
"Noveller is the solo project of Brooklyn-based guitarist and filmmaker Sarah Lipstate. Handling the electric guitar as her muse, Lipstate summons a sonic palette so rich as to challenge the listener to conceive of how it’s housed in a single instrument manipulated by a solitary performer."
Oh dear.
I was able to do some pre-listening. The description doesn't mention "ambient" or shoegaze" but that's what I was thinking. That was actually my ray of hope, because while listening to M83 at home was grating, I didn't mind them so much live.
Indeed, during the show was better than at home. Lipstate uses a Spartan setup. There is some equipment, but mainly she plays her guitar under a single light, with her long black hair swaying back and forth with her.
I could easily imagine her as the hot bass player in an otherwise male band, but that is an objectifying thing, so surely being out there doing her own thing is better. Still, shouldn't music be musical?
At her best the numbers sound like whale songs; at worst like tinnitus.
My friend and I listened at the show. We discussed Noveller and it wasn't even all snark. However, we also got bored and talked about other things, including how we while we don't really like jazz we are willing to believe that we are just missing something and not appreciating it enough. (Also that we believe that Prince knows enough to get jazz, which seems random but it was germane to the discussion.)
It is also possible to not like some music and to feel pretty comfortable with that dislike.
http://www.sarahlipstate.com/
https://www.facebook.com/novellermusic
https://noveller.bandcamp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyPdWreMMsRd9xtChbhn9yQ
https://twitter.com/sarahlipstate

Tech leaps

I am slow to buy new technology. I'm not really a Luddite, but I am not an early adopter at all.
It is partly that I want to use things up. When we moved here in 1978, one of the things we brought with us was an upright freezer that was built like a tank. It lasted thirty years. I really resented when the small, modern one that replaced it only lasted seven. It couldn't even make it to ten.
(I have written about this tendency to wring the last drops out of something before replacing it: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2009/12/requiem-for-mouse.html)
One reason some people could legitimately replace something that is still working is because of new features. I get that. The other side of that is that when you really put off upgrading, seeing the new technology is amazing.
We recently replaced our 18 year old television. It was Cathode Ray Tube technology. Getting it out of the entertainment center and into the car was difficult and laborious because it was so heavy. The new flat screen is pleasingly light.
I had some trouble working out the inputs, because it was not recognizing the DVD player, even though it seemed to be hooked up correctly. Well, that's because this TV has a kind of spongy square on the back with a slot for a DVD. I thought our old TV/VCR combo was spiffy!
(For the DVD player, because it hooks up through the AV connection, that's the correct input to select.)
I also replaced the phone. I did get a new cell phone (which I still do not have data for), but that's not what I mean. We still use a landline, and a phone that has a cord connecting to that landline, but the caller ID was becoming hard to read. (The phone wasn't quite as old as the CRT TV, but it was getting there.)
Well, would you believe it? In addition to displaying the caller in large, easy to read letters, this phone also announces who is calling! The pronunciation tends to be a little off (Mistry, Grenpass), but still, this is so much easier for my mother! We no longer need to go to the phone to decide to reject the caller!
See, I may seem like a cranky (and cheap) old person, stubbornly clinging to the past, but I'm not above being excited about this stuff.
Now get off of my lawn.

The rainbow

In the process of journal writing I did a review of the books from the long reading list, and one of them appeared a bit differently to me.
for colored girls who have considered suicide/when the rainbow is enuf by Ntozake Shange
When I first read it, I knew I wasn't getting it enough. It is a choreopoem, so with the book you can get the words, and an idea of the actions and how it looks, but it just isn't the same. I accepted that.
When I went over Thirteen Reasons Why, I mentioned that it did not seem real to me that she would commit suicide. Her alienation felt real, but not that reaction to it. It was somewhat the same with this.
None of the stories felt like suicides to me. Of course, in the play they don't die. They have considered it, but ultimately are following their own rainbows, continuing to live. For having "suicide" in the title, it did not seem to be that much about it.
I still believe it is realistic. Based on things that other Black women have said, it appears that the pressures that come from institutional racism, and internalized racism, and misogyny and misogynoir, that appears to be enough to get them to where they at least think of it. It's horrible but it's reality. Perhaps because it is so common in that way, it could remain unstated in the play. It is the underlying truth, and subtext.
It is a completely reasonable interpretation to say that what saves each of these women is that they find their own path - their rainbow - and by choosing to follow it they are able to go on. That is perfectly reasonable, but I had another thought.
I think I had the thought because of the slash in the title, as if there were two different titles and two different parts. I think that figured into it.
Each women is a color. There are Ladies in Red, Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow, Purple, and Brown. Together they make a rainbow. And what occurred to me thinking about the book two years after I read it: maybe they were enough.
At times the other women do stand in for the voices of criticism that are faced, but also they commiserate and support and understand. Maybe that rainbow is enough.
If we will care for each other and help each other, instead of piling on because we don't want to feel weak, or closing off because we are afraid, maybe we can be enough for each other.

Poetry Corner

Being in the middle of screenwriting (and worrying about money), I thought I would just post this poem I wrote, which seems appropriate.
Daily Bread
Elisha, to the widow’s criesFound what last store she had leftAnd made the oil multiplyFlowing over to pot and cruse and vaseEach full container set asideUntil she could repay her debtI am more like she of Zarephath.
In a lean and hungry timeTaking in Elijah as her guest.Oil multiplied again, and meal, But only day by day.Never empty, never overflowing, Until the famine went away.
I’d like to see Heaven’s windows open, Spill out in plenty over me,See the fruits of years of toilBlossom with great rapidity.But I might find, were that the caseThat sloth would grow from too much ease.Perhaps I’d think the glory mine,And spend less time on bended knee.
Enough for a day is still enough. Not rich, I am still loved and fedAlways knowing, I need TheeAnd always granted daily bread.
- Gina Harris

Band Review: Something Like Kites

Something Like Kites has been pretty annoying for me.
I can't blame him. It was his team that followed me. I don't think this was so much an official street team as a self-appointed one, but I put him on the review list and found myself followed by lots of other devoted young girls. Something Like Kites does have a sizeable following, plus a picture of him with Ed Sheeran which I think gives an idea of the demographic. I eventually stopped following his followers back, and then started unfollowing due to the retweets.
I am not unused to fans retweeting the bands they love, or even bands retweeting fan praise. I am also not unused to bands tweeting about working for your dreams and believing in yourself; I have nothing against positive messages.
My annoyance was two-fold. One is that the devotion of the girls seemed a little more cult-like, as if they were working for him rather than zealously appreciating him (a fine line to be sure). The other part, though, was that his quotes seemed to go beyond the normal positivity to the power of positive thinking evangelism where only you can hold yourself back and no one else should be able to stop you.
That sounds fine, but there is a harsh side to that where if you haven't made your dream come true, what's your problem? In reality, there can be very good reasons where structural obstacles require more than the enthusiasm of the person trying to get past them, where responsibilities to other people can legitimately take away from your available energy, and where a refusal to acknowledge said reality opens you up for catastrophic disappointment and low self-esteem.
(Also, I think it's weird when he says he's here to make your dreams come true. Really? Working for your own dreams and encouraging the dreams of others I can see, but you're making theirs come true too?)
These complaints would seem to be separate from the music, but I believe that shallow confidence is exactly why I find the music so cloying. And there's so much of it! Releasing two albums in 2014 might make sense if you had a lot to say, but if the second album sounds that much like the first one, this time could have been better spent in reading books, taking lessons, or doing some kind of humanitarian service.
I was thinking that, and then it occurred to me that fans of Owl City would probably like him. He does list Owl City as an influence, so it's valid. If you like Owl City, you should check out Something Like Kites.
http://www.somethinglikekites.com/
https://www.facebook.com/somethinglikekites
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTfyyHj6YKKEfi_pKG3Gh2w
https://twitter.com/SmthnglikeKites