Pruning Shears

Two of the more loaded words in contemporary politics are independence and freedom. Despite their similarities in meaning they get used in very different ways. Independence is used in a more national sense, which might be natural because of its prominence in what is arguably our founding document. It doesn’t seem like it is possible to disparage independence in our discourse. Even a word like patriotism, while generally well regarded, has qualifications. Independence is all good though, so anything you can attach to it is improved by the association.

This has played out for years now with the much-invoked phrase “energy independence.” The latest calls for it began in the wake of 9/11 as a way to argue for policies that would remove our need to import oil from abroad. It made sense on the face of it: We send our money to oil-rich states, states that in some cases fund groups hostile to America. Buy from them and you’re funding the terrorists, went the argument. (This is simply a description of what leaders put out for public consumption, not an endorsement of it.)

The initial prescriptions for energy independence were relatively full, or at least fuller than they would become. An increase in domestic production was the favored proposal, but was supplemented with calls to encourage conservation and discourage consumption. As late as the spring of 2008 it was possible for a conservative in good standing like Charles Krauthammer to call for a heavy tax on gasoline. But by that fall Michael Steele made the infamous call to drill baby drill, and from then on it was all about resource extraction.

The curiously elusive goal of energy independence is now being pursued through fracking, or so its proponents claim. There is lots of natural gas just waiting to be forced up to the surface of the earth, we are told. In fact, the Barnett Shale in Texas has enough reserves to supply Texas for the next 200 years. There’s also enough nationwide to supply America for the next 200 years. And 200 years for China! And India! The world! It’s the fossil fuel equivalent of Ulysses Everett McGill’s geographical oddity.

Of course, abundance does not mean independence - at least not long term. That only happens if we take some additional steps. For instance, any resource vital enough to merit a policy of independence is too precious to export. We should flat out ban the removal of any item that receives such an important designation. Selling it to foreigners is downright seditious, isn’t it? Doesn’t doing so hinder our quest for energy independence? We should be keeping it all here. Yet the industry is doing just the opposite - pushing for new ways to get it out of the country. Why does the oil and gas industry hate America?¹

Similarly, we should create a substantial strategic reserve of any such resource. If natural gas truly is so important to America’s future then it is reckless to deprive ourselves of a great store of it in case of emergency. And of course there’s Krauthammer’s price floor proposal. We should just set a minimum price on it and levy whatever tax is necessary to reach that level.

The fact that none of the people making all the noise about energy independence are taking such a comprehensive view on the issue can only be explained a few ways, none of them flattering. Have they not thought the issue through? Are they uninterested in thinking about it beyond empty slogans? Or is the noble-sounding “energy independence” really just a cynical euphemism for catering to a favored political constituency? Those who trumpet energy independence should be expected to either address these issues or lose credibility.

From a citizen’s perspective, the current vision of energy independence might be a bit of a mixed blessing. What price should we be willing to pay to achieve this? Aside from the environmental impact of ongoing fossil fuel dependence(!), what good does it do the average person to give preferential treatment to wildly profitable industries?² Or ones that cripple the democratic process? If you trade rule by a tyrannical king for rule by soulless plutocrats how much have you really gained? This might be a kind of independence we would be better off without.

Freedom, unlike independence, drags a little bit of freight behind it. Over the past few years it has become a rallying cry of the right, invoked in absurd ways (Fox link!) to decry just about anything conservatives don’t like. That has made it something of an object of ridicule on the left; this link should give you a decent look at whatever the outrage du jour is in the fever swamps.

The debasing of the word freedom is a shame, because it can be very useful to liberals in some cases - like energy. Energy independence may not be all it’s cracked up to be, but energy freedom could be very appealing. The idea of individuals enjoying energy freedom could draw primarily on distributed generating capacity. Household generation of electricity through wind and solar energy, aside from the environmental impact of ramping up the use of renewables(!), promises huge benefits.

The main one is reducing dependence on the grid. Our model has always worked on centralized generation, and the obvious flaw with that approach is that it has a single point of failure. If the power plant, and all the pieces connecting it to your house, are not up and running, you’ve got no electricity. The ability to supplement the grid with local generating capacity would not just save money, it would give families a form of backup - maybe compromised or lower scale but still usable - during outages.

That might be a modest convenience when a spring thunderstorm downs a line, but it could be much more than that in the aftermath of a major event. What if in the wake of a Katrina or Sandy people in the affected areas had some electricity during daylight hours? It’s not as good as being fully operational, but it could be the difference between remaining at home and being a refugee.

(A hurricane obviously might rip off solar panels or crash turbines, but any generating capacity retained is better than none. And maybe these local generators could be engineered with redundancy and durability in mind for just such an occasion.)

People who enjoy energy freedom, as opposed to energy independence, would see direct benefits. Instead of a long, convoluted and dubious process that somehow ends up enriching industry executives more than anyone else, we would see direct monetary benefits to ourselves. It would also serve the very national security that energy independence types love to trumpet: An electrical grid with distributed generation is far more robust than a centralized one - and incidentally is far better able to recover from the occasional whoopsie. We’ve had empty talk about energy independence for decades. It’s time for some substantive action on energy freedom.

1. See how patriotic I am?
(Back)

2. By the way, shouldn’t the production of such a vital resource be done by the state and not private companies?
(Back)

Last year I worked on a series of posts¹ with a loose collection of bloggers, mostly from Corrente. The general theme was arguing against the “diversity of tactics” approach being introduced at numerous Occupy encampments, Occupy Oakland in particular. During this process one of our co-authors - jaspergregory - referenced “The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America” by Richard J. Ellis as providing a good examination of authoritarian impulses among progressives since roughly the 1830s.

I put the book in my queue and am just now getting to it (I work slowly, what can I say). Having gone about a third of the way through I’d say it’s a good read but not a must read. On the plus side, I think liberals benefit from taking an unflinching look at the intolerance that has sometimes come from their own side. This does not mean paying attention to manufactured outrage on the right, incidentally.

On the other hand, Ellis seems to have started from a contrarian impulse. In his introduction he describes his reaction on reading a liberal author’s book on right wing authoritarianism. In Ellis’ view such a book needed to be balanced by a similar one, by and for the left. As his book proceeds he sometimes shoehorns his history into his thesis, and sometimes the poor fit shows.

For instance, Ellis’ examples show exactly the kind of false equivalence liberals point out in MSM “both sides do it” narratives. Right wing authoritarians have at times in American history prospered greatly. When the environment is friendly, and it has been friendly numerous times, there seems to be no limit to how far a right wing authoritarian can go.

The same is not true for liberals. Left wing authoritarians either marginalize themselves or are marginalized by political leadership. They do not ascend to power the way right wing authoritarians can. On the right you can point to Senator Joe McCarthy. On the left is George Pickett, who is not even the most famous George Pickett. See the difference?

Another weakness in Ellis’ argument is his rather expansive definition of words like authoritarian. In writing about Walt Whitman and his spiritual descendants, he repeatedly uses authoritarian terms to describe their longing for a charismaic leader to help bring the world they envision. That doesn’t strike me as authoritarian though. It seems more messianic or prophetic, a way for a nonreligious movement to articulate a sort of mystical or transcendent vision. That doesn’t seem especially authoritarian though, and Ellis’ book is least persuasive to me when he reaches like that.

What is really fascinating (and surprisingly relevant) is Ellis’ coverage of utiopian communities that began to form in the late nineteenth century. Inspired in part by proto-science fiction like Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, these communities withdrew from the larger society in an effort to construct the one they envisioned. While the only separatist type impulses these days seem to be on the right, their governance had striking similarities to Occupy - including its weaknesses. (I will include short clips here and longer excerpts in footnotes):²

These colonies were typically hyperdemocratic: “democracy with the lid off,” in the words of one colony leader. Unlike in religious colonies where the leader could single-handedly expel dissenters, expulsion in these secular egalitarian colonies often required a near-unanimous vote of the general assembly. Within the general assembly, moreover, any man in the colony could speak for any amount of time on whatever issue.

The near-unanimous vote of the general assembly resembles the consensus model used by Occupy. As our group noted last year, a consensus model eventually works to the advantage of those with the most time. Getting 90% approval might represent the overwhelming view of the majority, but it might also might represent 90% of the handful left after an extended and frustrating filibuster.

When a tiny minority can block change like that, popular ideas and general sentiment cannot be codified; something like a formal commitment to nonviolence remains ever out of reach even if the vast majority approve. When substantive action is ruled out, it becomes all about personalities:³

For instance, an attempt to write a constitution that would remedy some of the evident weaknesses in the colony’s political structure foundered after getting bogged down in interminable arguments over details. The untempered egalitarianism of the General Assembly not only made collective decision making difficult, but it also tended to inflame personal jealousies and factional rivalries.

In California’s Llano del Rio Colony this led to an extreme enforcement of loyalty under the charismatic leader George Pickett:⁴

Pickett responded to this challenge to his authority by having the organizers of the opposition movement expelled from the colony. He justified his actions by arguing that “there should be NO MINORITY in such an organization or enterprise as the colony, for the reason that IT ITSELF IS THE MINORITY” within the capitalist system. The threat posed by the external enemy required a “solid phalanx” and the “utmost loyalty” within the colony. Disloyalty in such critical times could not be tolerated; indeed it was treasonable since it threatened the future existence of the colony.

Which seems quite similar to the “comrade” language that was especially popular at Occupy Oakland. This line between voluntary solidarity and enforced unanimity is something both Occupy and the utopian colonies struggled with. Ellis writes this about the demise of Llano, but it too has more contemporary echoes:⁵

Embedded in the ideal of a perfect unity is an invitation for one person to speak for all without considering their opinions or preferences. Recognizing that interests and values inevitably and legitimately clash is necessary to protect against the charismatic or authoritarian leader. Cooperation and harmonious relations are always nice, but they are worth precious little if they come at the expense of democracy and dissent.

Finally, a more general note. Idealism can be dangerous when it causes people to compare the world they wish to come with the current one. Frustration, impatience and even despair over the difference can cause a jaded outlook and corrosive cynicism to creep in; abstract celebrations of the working class sour into denunciations of the crass and vulgar people who actually comprise it; the striving to create alternate political models makes it tempting to write off and boycott existing political structures as hopelessly corrupt. Perhaps most importantly of all, an overly ideological outlook makes it easy to demonize others:⁶

The often rancorous character of debate in the Llano General Assembly must be put down in part to a worldview that made no allowance for legitimate conflict. Since Llano had eliminated conflict between rival interests, disagreements must reflect bad faith, sinister intent, or plain ignorance. Civility and respect become difficult when one construes opponents in terms of betrayal or benightedness. Put positively, recognition that different groups and individuals have interests can be a profoundly democratic and even egalitarian idea. In following the elusive grail of natural harmony and innate goodness, colonists subverted their own egalitarian and democratic ends.

Simply maintaining a belief in the existence of legitimate conflict, and making allowance for it even in the midst of a heated debate, is a very liberal sensibility. It’s worth claiming as our own and holding onto, even (especially) when it is most tempting to discard it.

1. In chronological order:

• Diversity of tactics - and uniformity of outcomes
• Concerning violence advocates and the Black Bloc in Occupy
• Concerning violence advocates and nailing jello to walls
• Opacity and creeping exclusion at Occupy
• Provocateur tactics and the subversion of Occupy
• How disorganization is damaging Occupy
• Keeping 1 percent values out of a 99 percent movement

2. Page 68:

Robert Hine, in his study of California’s utopian colonies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, found that the colonies’ egalitarian political arrangements, although constructed upon assumptions of altruism and harmony, often worked to exacerbate conflict. These colonies were typically hyperdemocratic: “democracy with the lid off,” in the words of one colony leader. Unlike in religious colonies where the leader could single-handedly expel dissenters, expulsion in these secular egalitarian colonies often required a near-unanimous vote of the general assembly. Within the general assembly, moreover, any man in the colony could speak for any amount of time on whatever issue. “The minute books of Icaria and Kaweah and the newspapers of Llano and Altruria,” reported Hine, “related interminable sessions airing personal disputes, questioning minor administrative decisions, or seeking individual dispensations.” The inability of the general assembly to come to closure and make decisions meant either the colony rapidly unraveled, as in the case of Altruria, or, as at Kaweah, de facto power gradually devolved to the board of trustees as the executive body of the company.

3. Page 70:

Having been incorporated, Llano was required by state law to have a board of directors, but the ultimate source of legislative power resided in the assembled members of the colony. The General Assembly was thoroughly egalitarian but not particularly well-suited for resolving disagreements or even reaching decisions. For instance, an attempt to write a constitution that would remedy some of the evident weaknesses in the colony’s political structure foundered after getting bogged down in interminable arguments over details. The untempered egalitarianism of the General Assembly not only made collective decision making difficult, but it also tended to inflame personal jealousies and factional rivalries. The General Assembly, as one member later recalled, was “democracy rampant, belligerent, unrestricted,…an inquisition, a mental pillory, a madhouse of meddlesomeness…, a jumble of passions and idealism - and all in deadly earnest….It became a [monster] which threatened to destroy the colony.”

4. Page 71:

The key to Llano’s longevity was one man, George Pickett. Llano was a dying, desperately poor colony until Pickett assumed almost complete control over the colony’s policies in 1920. For the next two decades, Conkin reports, “everything in Llano revolved around the personality and politics of this one man.” People either reviled or loved the charismatic Pickett; “he was either an inspired and self-sacrificing leader or an unfair dictator.” The constitution consisted of only a brief and vague declaration of principles about cooperation, economic justice, and collective ownership. Its silence on questions of political organization left Pickett free to centralize political authority in the hands of the general manager (himself). Moreover, since the means of production were owned by the colony, Pickett controlled the important power of assigning workers to their jobs. Although Llano maintained democratic forms, it became for all practical purposes “a one-party affair” run by Pickett.

Pickett’s authoritarian rule was always justified by appeals to harmony, cooperation, and economic justice for the poor and oppressed. Those who periodically challenged his leadership were denounced for disrupting the harmony of the colony or condemned for lacking the spirit of cooperation. Pickett’s hostility to competition and his identification with the weak take on a more sinister hue when one reflects upon his political authoritarianism. As Conkin explains, “He welcomed all disciples, and was happiest with children or with docile old folks. He would never tolerate those who challenged his power or defied his will. Pickett tended to view all the colonists as children, and himself as the great protector.”

In 1932 a few younger, more rebellious colonists led an attempt to reestablish democracy in Llano. They tried to restore the general assembly and pushed for publication of the colony’s financial reports, free speech, and a secret ballot. Pickett responded to this challenge to his authority by having the organizers of the opposition movement expelled from the colony. He justified his actions by arguing that “there should be NO MINORITY in such an organization or enterprise as the colony, for the reason that IT ITSELF IS THE MINORITY” within the capitalist system. The threat posed by the external enemy required a “solid phalanx” and the “utmost loyalty” within the colony. Disloyalty in such critical times could not be tolerated; indeed it was treasonable since it threatened the future existence of the colony.

5. Page 72:

Llano was the last of the cooperative colonies that owed their inspiration to the utopian vision of Bellamy and other writers of the late nineteenth century. And a telling end point it is. For in Llano one sees in dramatic relief the authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent that may be justified in the name of harmony. The authoritarian, even dictatorial, leadership at Llano was not inevitable, of course, but nor was it a freakish, chance occurrence. The colony’s authoritarianism, Like Bellamy’s, stemmed from an exaggerated aversion to clashing interests and values, and from making a virtual fetish out of cooperation and harmony. Embedded in the ideal of a perfect unity is an invitation for one person to speak for all without considering their opinions or preferences. Recognizing that interests and values inevitably and legitimately clash is necessary to protect against the charismatic or authoritarian leader. Cooperation and harmonious relations are always nice, but they are worth precious little if they come at the expense of democracy and dissent.

6. Page 70:

The often rancorous character of debate in the Llano General Assembly must be put down in part to a worldview that made no allowance for legitimate conflict. Since Llano had eliminated conflict between rival interests, disagreements must reflect bad faith, sinister intent, or plain ignorance. Civility and respect become difficult when one construes opponents in terms of betrayal or benightedness. Put positively, recognition that different groups and individuals have interests can be a profoundly democratic and even egalitarian idea. In following the elusive grail of natural harmony and innate goodness, colonists subverted their own egalitarian and democratic ends.

Last summer I wrote about the Sierra Club’s Water Sentinels program for testing water. Our town’s anti-fracking activists have been using it at their homes for a while now, but around the time of my post we also began free monthly water testing for the community. We are careful to emphasize several caveats, though. The most important is that the testing is not comprehensive or EPA certified; it is not meant to be a substitute for a certified test. It measures a handful of items and is only meant to give a basic idea of water quality. Similarly, the testing would almost certainly not be admissible in a court of law; anyone with an eye on future court cases should go with an EPA certified lab.

That said, the tests are a good way to look for changes. If, say, your chlorine level is stable for six straight months and then suddenly triples, something might be up. Prior snapshots are among the crucial missing pieces in assessing the impact of fracking. At the moment there are few institutional incentives - private or public - to establish baselines prior to fracking. Industry players certainly have nothing to gain. They have gotten their favored legislation passed and are moving right along. The best result they could get would be to continue at their existing pace.¹

As for the state, it is failing miserably. There are several possible reasons for that. It could be that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is woefully understaffed and simply not up to the task. It could be that decades of conservative rhetoric on how faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats are strangling free enterprise with regulations has had its intended effect: regulators are now too timid to be useful. It could be the pernicious (and logical) outcome of an erstwhile conservative project on term limits. It could just be the revolving door, aka cognitive regulatory capture.

The actual reasons don’t matter though; all that matters for citizens is that there is zero support for the kind of preliminary investigation that is a crucial prerequisite for connecting any environmental hazard with fracking. As it is, industry can simply claim the current environment is unchanged. Your water was always like that; prove us wrong.

Colorado is grappling with that very issue right now. Reporting on a proposed water testing rule aimed at discovering spills, Bruce Finley writes: “Unless such spills are near wellheads…state regulators would lack before-and-after data that could be used to assess damage to try to hold companies accountable.” While no testing at all is bad, testing at a handful of spots (selected by whom?) might be even worse if it gives the public a false sense of security. Better that people know they are completely in the dark than to be fooled into thinking an ineffectual agency is adequately monitoring the situation when it isn’t. (See here for additional reporting by Finley on before-and-after issues.)

This is the context for community water testing: essentially acting as the ODNR Volunteer Auxiliary, attempting as best we can to put together a “before” picture for residents. This past Sunday we had a steady stream of people showing up, thanks in part to a couple of larger media outlets unexpectedly picking up our press releases. (My camera did not like the lighting; it offered two options - no flash and dim, or completely washed out with flash.)

Samples were numbered and measured in order:

The results were recorded on a simple half-sheet printout with a carbon copy beneath (we are not a high tech operation). Residents got one copy, our group the other. Those who get the testing done regularly can use the papers to track changes, and our group is using them to slowly build a database. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than waiting for the state to take an interest in our community.

As it turns out, the community aspect is becoming important. In a semi-rural are like ours it can be difficult to get the word out. One of the people who showed up was surprised we’d been testing as long as we have because he’d only learned of it earlier in the week. In a place where there is no community center or regularly scheduled events that bring lots of people together, how do you publicize something? One way, as we are learning, is to keep active consistently over time. We test on the first Sunday of the month, and that message is slowly starting to make its way out.

Having people gather breaks up isolation. Many who are worried about fracking often feel alone because they don’t know anyone who feels similarly. This is particularly true in places where landmen have been pushing leases. Neighborhoods can - and have - become bitterly divided between those who have signed and those who haven’t. Those who haven’t might be preventing operations (and money) from flowing. Where fracking has started, those who haven’t leased often feel great resentment at having communal hazards and quality of life degradation² visited on them against their will. One under-appreciated impact of fracking is the way it rips at the fabric of a community.

People in the middle of a situation like that might think they are the only ones going through it. Community water testing has provided a way to say to everyone who shows up: you are not alone. There are others who feel the same way you do, and who are going through the same thing you are. Come for the water testing, stay for the fellowship. While we don’t know what will ultimately happen with the former, the latter is already creating benefits.

1. Drillers sometimes do provide people with water tests, but the measure of whether those tests are a baseline comes when potential fracking impacts on water supplies are brought up. What we are seeing right now is a lot of hand waving at the initial test along with comments to the effect that the earth is a complicated place and who can say what might have caused that water to become flammable anyway? Rule of thumb: if there is no way for a testing regime to establish a link to subsequent activity, it is not a legitimate baseline.
(Back)

2. Fracking makes a hell of a racket, and sound waves are not forbidden from leaving the property from which they are made. Fracking also requires a great deal of heavy truck traffic, but the wear and tear it creates on roads does not have to be compensated for by the companies that cause it. As the saying goes, privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
(Back)

Introduction

If you dig these songs please consider buying them. Most can be had for less than a buck.

Links will be live for one week. If you hold the copyright on one and would like it removed, please let me know and I’ll comply. You heartless, small-minded, ungenerous b******.

Here are my favorite songs this year from my RSS feeds. I use Sharp Reader as my aggregator but it requires the .NET framework, which older computers may not have. Feed Reader doesn’t need it and is good too. See the “Free MP3 sites” part of my blogroll for my current feed list.

Most weeks I burn as many new songs as I can fit onto a rewritable CD and give it a thorough listen (usually five times), so in that spirit I keep the list under the same limit. In a way 80 minutes is arbitrary, but it’s also respectful of listeners to show some restraint. If you fall in love with my taste in music drop me a line and I’ll get you the rest of the songs I considered but didn’t have room for.

On the reckoning of time

I age songs by release date, not recording date. Until I get my grubby little hands on it, it doesn’t exist as far as I’m concerned. When it first makes it out to the public it is new, no matter how long it may have been gathering dust somewhere.

Recommended albums

In addition to the ones mentioned in the list here are the albums in 2012 I enjoyed front to back:

Tender Trap - Ten Songs About Girls

Howl Griff - Fragile Diamond. Both this and Ten Songs will probably get pigeonholed as some kind of neo-Twee revival or something. What they really are, though, is first rate pop albums. I can always make room for one of those in my collection.

Rush¹ - Clockwork Angels. After Roll the Bones I basically gave up hope for Rush, though I kept buying their albums. (They provided the soundtrack for my youth, and the pull of nostalgia is strong.) Clockwork Angels is a pretty amazing return to form, though. It has a few Spinal Tap moments, but they are mercifully brief; aside from those missteps the music is stronger than it’s been for a long time. And “Headlong Flight” has Alex Lifeson’s best guitar solo in about thirty years.

Teen - In Limbo. A little slice of lo-fi heaven.

The Finks. I don’t know if they offer their music for sale anywhere, or if they just periodically throw songs onto Soundcloud. Whatever, it’s great stuff and definitely worth a listen.

Best Reissue

James Yorkston & the Athletes - Moving Up Country (10th Anniversary Edition). I know Dreamin’ Wild by Donnie And Joe Emerson is the sentimental choice for many due to its remarkable journey (and earnest rawness), but Moving Up Country sounds like the work of a fully formed artist. Adding “The Lang Toun” to the first disc (it was originally left off for space) and the various demos on the second are a real treat as well. Also: “Cheating The Game” is the best song ever written.

Honorable Mention

I usually reserve an Honorable Mention spot for a longer song. Most years there’s at least one 7+ minute song that I like quite a bit, but since I try to get lots of different artists on the list I don’t want a single tune to crowd out several other candidates. When a longer song really blows me away (like “Bushels” by Frog Eyes in 2007) I’ll make room, but overall I prefer to keep my selections under five minutes or so. This year there was no such song, so instead I went with:

22. “Borrowed Skin” - The Grates (Buy)
From Secret Rituals (highly recommended). I don’t trust this pick because it’s too squarely in my wheelhouse. I absolutely love pop rock. Lound guitars and good hooks are catnip to me, so the thought that I might be overrating it made me keep it off the list. Wow do I love it though.

The List

(And yes as proof of concept I burned them on to a CD using Winamp.)

21. “Let It Go” - Cherri Bomb (Buy)
The latest reincarnation of The Runaways, and a fine one.

20. “Don’t Save Me” - Haim (Buy)
Haim seemed to get quite a bit of buzz at the end of the year, and it’s easy to see why. The synth pop vibe and cool delivery make a nice contrast with the urgency of the lyrics.

19. “Who You Waiting On” - Lucero (Buy)
From Women & Work (recommended). “Give me a chance instead, baby” is a timeless theme in music, and Lucero does it justice here.

18. “Throughout This Night” - Cara Mitchell (Twitter)
Mitchell has a striking voice, and she does a nice job of letting simple, unadorned melodies show it off. Hear more on her Have You Ever Wondered EP.

17. “Killing Time is Murder” - Whitehorse (Buy)
A good, stomping beat and colorful stream of consciousness lyrics.

16. “Valentine” - Charli XCX (Home page)
Releasing a song called “Valentine” on February 14th has gimmick written all over it. But what do you know - it’s a straight up excellent song.

15. “Wake Up (Saxaphone By Willie B)” - Big K.R.I.T. (Home page)
From 4Eva N A Day (2012 Album of the Year). A hypnotic groove.

14. “Homerun” - 1-O.A.K. (Twitter)
Includes some nice reflections on not always getting what you want.

13. “If You Were Mine” - The Cornshed Sisters (Twitter)
From Tell Tales, which does not appear to be available digitally but is recommended if you can find it. Some of the loveliest vocals you will hear this year.

12. “Word Vomit” - Angel Haze (Twitter)
Takes a sample from “Meet the Frownies” by Twin Sister (possible inspiration) and uses it as the jumping off point for some absolutely crazy rhymes.

11. (2012 Guiltiest Pleasure) “Waste My Body” - Tesla Boy (Twitter)
They sound about one step up from boy band status, but I couldn’t get enough of this one. The keyboard transition that starts at 2:53 is 2012’s Best Second in Music.

10. “Peter Sellers” - Stella Ella Ola (Twitter)
A good old fashioned garage band romp.

09. “Shorty (prod. Jazzy Joyce)” - Nina B (Twitter)
From the Titles Are Played Out mixtape (recommended). Raw desire, laid bare.

08. “Rainin’ Inside” - The Trishas (Buy)
The guitar in this song is absolutely killer.

07. “Marathon” - The Ready Stance (Buy)
From Damndest (recommended), this year’s proof that rock and roll is not dead.

06. “New Bodies” - Bernice (Buy)
Murky and weird and strange, and alluring.

05. “King Kong” - Luu Breeze (Download mixtape) (Twitter)
The best beats in hip hop are the best beats in music. Also has possibly my favorite line of lyrics in 2012: “Growing up I wasn’t put together right / couple screws loose.”

04. “orion’s belt (feat. riff raff)” - kitty pryde (Twitter)
Off of haha im sorry (recommended). At the EP link she writes “oh btw heres a mediafire link if u wanna do it the FREE WAY idk lol i hate payin for thngs 2,” which is funny, generous and self-consciously teenager-y. It’s also a good idea of what you can expect from “orion’s belt.” There’s already been a lot of chatter about her over what she means for rap of feminism or God knows what else. (No links; Google it if you want.)

All that has tended to obscure something about her EP: it contains absolutely phenomenal hooks. The last song is a bit of a novelty, but the other four are crazy catchy. Sure those four are short - just over ten minutes combined. Who knows if her vibe will wear well over an entire album, or if she’s even got another listenable song in her. Here’s what I can say though: She’s produced ten phenomenal minutes of music, which is roughly ten minutes more than the vast majority of artists. Even if we never hear from her again she’ll deserve to be remembered for that.

03. “Choice Notes” - Alex Winston (Buy)
From King Con (recommended). This is probably the most straightforward pop song on her album (and her best hook). King Con is worth checking out because in addition to her tasty hooks she also has a slightly twisted sensibility. Songs like “Run Rumspringa” and “Sister Wife” are slightly off-kilter in the good way.

02. “Refill” - Elle Varner (Buy)
It’s funny: this was on both her official release Perfectly Imperfect (recommended) and her mixtape Conversational Lush from earlier in the year, but I think the mixtape is a lot better than the for sale CD. Of the songs not on both, Conversational Lush has quite a few more high quality songs (“WTF,” “Do You Want To,” “Runaway,” “Go,” “Ghosts,” “EV,” “32 Flavors”) than the CD does (“Sound Proof Room,” “Damn Good Friends”). But buy the CD to support the artist, OK? Just put the mix tape plus those other two on the playlist.

Anyway, “Refill” is the best song on either album. Do you want to know what makes subtext work? When it isn’t obvious. You have to be able to fully enjoy the text without the subtext intruding and causing dissonance. The raunchy subtext on “Refill” works, and works well.

01. “Never Again” - Nook & Cranny (Buy)
I think it’s the jaunty fiddle that puts this one over the top.

1. Fuck you.
(Back)

The massacre in Newtown has once again opened up the discussion of firearms in America. We are getting the usual dumbassery about how this is a punishment from God or the fault of video games (which apparently are unavailable outside of the US) and the usual preemptive whining about how this is not the time to talk about firearm legislation because it would politicize the issue. This is the same spirit in which we refrained from discussing terrorism after 9/11 for fear of politicizing that issue.

It appears that the gun nuts are feeling a little defensive though. Unlike with previous gun massacres, this one has been accompanied by a real push on the role of our abysmal mental health care system. It’s actually a great point: we’ve basically outsourced mental health care to our prisons, with predictably disastrous results. We need to do a much better job of investing in mental health care, removing the shame that surrounds it, and making sure it is available to anyone who needs it.

That doesn’t mean it’s an either/or situation though. We can both improve mental health care and implement sensible policies to reduce gun violence. One obstacle to the latter is a certain air of resignation and fatalism (“I’m fresh out of ideas. Anybody?”) which - surprise! - is a stone’s throw from demands for a comprehensive legislative strategy for implementation. Because that is the only way to discuss any issue, and it also explains the absence of war, abortion, finance, inequality and gender policies from our national dialogue.

One of the emerging ideas is to treat gun violence as a public health issue much like we have with tobacco. Highlight the grisly costs of our gun worship, educate the public on the most hazardous aspects of the issue, and do everything we can to get people to think about it.

These suggestions are missing an absolutely crucial component, though: stigma. The public health campaign against smoking pushed information on the hazards of smoking into the public arena, but it also pushed back against the activity itself. Advertising for it was increasingly restricted, the glamorization of it by Hollywood was denounced, the areas where it was permitted narrowed, and in general the unmistakable message was: this is bad; don’t do it.

That’s what we need to do with firearms, because our gun culture has glamorized them for far too long. Any discussion of guns as a cultural marker usually begins as though we were still a late 18th century agrarian land recently liberated from a royal tyrant. That is not the world we live in, to put it mildly. The vast arsenals and enormous firepower of assault weapons bears no resemblance to the “to arms, men! Redcoats at the town square!” imagery of a musket-carrying citizen soldier often invoked when gun legislation is contemplated.

To say that these mass killings are unrepresentative of the gun owning public is as persuasive as the “few bad apples” argument after Abu Ghraib. In both cases they are produced by a systemic failure that goes all the way up the line. They are not freak aberrations, but the inevitable results of a terribly broken system.

It’s time to stop defending the violent gun culture or hedging arguments. It’s possible that there is some magical country where all the guns are kept safe, are never purchased illegally, and are always used for recreational purposes or self defense. We do not live in that country. We live in a country where 31,347 people were killed by guns in 2009 (the last year official numbers are available), where our thinking about firearms is based on mythology and not reality, and where the gun lobby and spineless officials block even the mildest reforms.

If we really are going to try to change all that with a public health campaign, stigmatizing gun ownership needs to be a part of it. And guess what? No political roadmap is needed. It can be done for handguns in urban areas and for semiautomatic weapons outside them. It’s something anyone can do, anywhere. Those who defend the status quo have blood on their hands, and we should say so plainly when the issue comes up. (For those concerned about telling people mean things see here.)

In some alternate reality maybe there’s an America where gun policy does not come at such an unconscionably murderous price. That’s not America circa 2012, though. When faced with the enormous damage of tobacco use, anti-smoking advocates didn’t mince words. They didn’t say, hey - a little smoking is probably fine; you probably won’t get lung cancer if you just have a couple a day. Faced with a public health catastrophe, they took an unambiguous stance. It’s time we did the same.