Songwriter's Workshop

The Warren United Methodist Church hosted a songwriter's workshop on Saturday, Oct. 22, 2011, and I thought I should tell you about it.

In a nutshell, it would appear that everyone in attendance had a blast.  Two fellows from the Bristol UMC came, and one woman from the Tilton UMC.  It was promoted mostly through the NH-VT Methodist district, as "Songwriting from a Christian perspective," but everybody was invited.  We were hoping to get 5 or 6 people to come, but it worked out to be a good-sized group overall, giving everyone plenty of opportunity to get a word in and play several of their own songs.

Also there were three very good songwriters I invited to participate in a roundtable discussion.  There was Jim Tyrrell, from Campton, NH, who is one of those rare local musicians who's actually making music for a living.  He has several CDs out and has toured extensively.  We've played in a couple of bands together, and I have immense respect for him.  He talked a lot about a website he's a member of called Songfight.  It's a tool for exercising your "writing muscles," and he played a couple of songs he wrote for them.  Basically, they give the group a title and everyone has to write a song on that theme.  My personal favorite was "God Hates Penguins."

Sky King was also there, who is a very good friend and one of the best natural songwriters I've ever known.  He actually does have considerable knowledge and background in the nuts and bolts of music, but his songs feel so natural that you might be tempted to think of them as old, traditional songs.  "The Carpenter's Song" stood out for me.

Tod Moses rounded out the group.  Tod is from Thetford, VT but is originally from Ohio and spent about 20 years in Nashville on the edges of a big-time music career.  He learned the craft of songwriting from the pros and writes brilliant stuff himself.  His band, That Band, recently released its first CD and he's about to release his latest solo effort.

With such an A-list of writers, I began to worry that the others would feel intimidated.  I needn't have worried, as it only whetted their appetite to show their own work.  John Moore played us several songs that were very good indeed, and has a music ministry with his wife.  Some of his songs had a very classical feel to them, with very strong melodies.  Kathy Smith, the woman from Tilton, played us songs she'd written back in the 70's when she was still quite young.  It was like peeking into someone's diary; very personal and very moving.

We started in the morning with a basic class, led by me, on music and composition.  This made for a lot of give and take and made us all think about the process a little deeper.  Lunch was provided by the Green House, and it was delicious!  Thanks very much to Cheryl and Gary for the outstanding pizza.  The roundtable was after lunch, and we had some good home cooking for supper. 

The only unfortunate thing of the whole day was that nobody from town came for the pot luck supper.  It seems we were up against a supper and concert at the Wentworth church.  These things happen, I suppose, and I'm told it was a very good show.  But by the time we were done with our evening meal we were all pretty worn out, so we opted out of our own show.  This was sad, because we had held back Bob and Sue Moulton, and then nobody got to hear them play.  We'll have to correct that sometime very soon.

All in all, we had a great time, made some new friends, learned some good stuff, and are hungry to repeat the event sometime in the future.  Hopefully, we'll get the word out a little better and get a few more people involved.  It was a good experiment, and worthy of repeating.

Romney? Really?

Mitt Romney was accused in the news recently - I saw it in a guest editorial credited to the Concord Monitor in the Nashua Telegraph - of influencing Nevada's decision to change the date of their caucus to before the NH primary.  Actually, 'members of his staff' are accused.  The Romney campaign was allegedly contacted, and offered no comment so far.

I have heard it suggested that Romney, and the Republican leadership, would like to get the nominating process over with as soon as possible.  Some say no, because a protracted battle keeps it in the headlines, and therefore on people's minds.  This is possibly why Huckabee and McCain went down to the last gun fired in '08.  But the party leadership never liked McCain anyway, so they didn't mind hanging him out to dry a little while anyway.

I believe they are clearly behind Romney, and want very badly for him to be the last man standing.  He has consistently polled around 25%, usually between 20 and 30, since the '08 exit polls started handicapping the '12 race.  They know his real support will never be more than that, and they fear like death anyone stepping out of the pack and getting the rest on their bandwagon.  I don't honestly think they're worried about Cain, because he doesn't have the organization or experience to go the distance. 

But if Bachman, or Perry, or Santorum start to get traction, they could blow the rest of the second tier out of the water.  Anyone who coalesces the wandering 75% will run over Romney like a truck.  At one of the debates, somebody - maybe even Romney - said that anyone on the stage would make a better president than Obama.  I would take that a step further; anyone ELSE up there would make a better one than Romney.  Well, maybe not Huntsman.  He's Romney in a cheaper suit.

Let's face facts; is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who honestly believes that President Mitt Romney would actually change anything?  The Republican party leadership knows it is, and always will be, the minority party, and they believe they can best hold power by holding the ship of state on a steady course.  Just don't rock the boat.  Obamacare?  Well, yeah, it's bad, but it's there now.  Nothing we can do . . . since we're willing to do nothing.

Barack Obama has learned the harsh lesson that George W. Bush learned; the best way to make enemies in politics is do something.  That's the one thing I actually like about Obama; he's actually trying to do something.  I think he's got a long-term vision for the country and he's busy every day trying to lock it in.  Even he would rather see Mitt Romney than Bachman, Perry, Santorum, or Cain.  They would actually, probably, do something, and then he'd have to start over.

Here's what I'm seeing through the haze; Romney wins, then dithers for four years trying to please everybody and winds up pleasing nobody.  But he's the incumbent, so no Tea Party candidate can get the nomination.  They'll raise one hell of a stink and get it all over Romney, but he'll be the nominee again.  Obama comes back, gets nominated again, and goes on to his second term a la Grover Cleveland.  At this point, unless a miracle happens, it looks like Romney's got the nomination.  Then, unless unemployment somehow drops back to seven or eight percent, he's going to be President.  And we're set up for The Resurrection in '16.

I have a suggestion; if Romney gets the nomination . . . let Obama win.  Tea partiers, stay home on election day.  Prove once and for all that the Republican party cannot win without us.  I'm not saying I recommend this, but it's going to be in the back of my mind until things shake out.

Tea, Occupancy, and A Seat at the Table

Been watching the whole political morass with great interest.  Also been tempted a hundred times to say my peace here, but I'd probably be repeating myself.  Things are heating up, though, so thought I'd throw down and see if it stuck.

I've been watching with some interest the coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York and elsewhere.  I've also noticed a very basic similarity to the Tea Party movement, of which I consider myself a part.  You have to look past the peripheral things, though.  That includes most of the coverage.  Media from both sides of the political spectrum paint the OWS people as left-wing Socialists; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to djinn up fear, and NPR to rally their own.  The same groups were painting all the Teabaggers as right-wingers, because they called for smaller government, lower taxes, and the Koch brothers were paying Sarah Palin big bucks to go talk to them.

But I think both movements go much deeper than this.  I think the core was revealed on Fox News the other night when they were panning the OWS crowd.  There were signs saying all kinds of different things, but the thing that caught my eye was a modified American flag, with corporate logos in place of the stars.  To me, that said it all, and that flag could just as easily have been waved at a Tea Party rally.

From the right, the Democrats seem to bend the knee mostly to labor unions and minorities.  From the left, the Republicans do the same to big business.  And to a great extent, both views are correct.  Not that there's anything wrong with labor unions, minorities, or big businesses.  Most of us work for somebody else; labor unions made it possible for the average person to do that work for a fair wage; and advocacy for minorities has gone a long way toward leveling the playing field in the most diverse culture in history.  These are all good things, and I don't think the average Democrat or Republican would disagree.

I can't help but think about how much things have changed in my own lifetime.  I can remember state Governors standing in front of their constituents promising, "Segregation now, segregation forever!"  I can also remember every three years or so the entire automobile industry being closed down by strikes, as well as airlines, etc. etc. etc.  Unemployment was always 10% and was always going to be.  Both sides won so many victories that all those things have changed.

So the Democrats present themselves as the party of minorities and the working man, but honestly, do their programs really mean progress for those groups?  When the same things have stopped having results decades ago?  Now, it's not about getting the worker a fair wage and benefits, it's about increasing Union membership.  And the Union workers make far more than anybody else, and the industries that are heavily unionized are priced out of any hope of being able to compete.  And as far as minorities go, the main argument seems to be whether or not illegal immigration is actually illegal or not.  If you think it is, then you're a racist?

It seems that anyone who gets power gets right to work abusing it.  Big business has re-written the Golden Rule to read; "He who has the gold makes the rules."  Unions have themselves become big businesses.  And if you're not a member of a minority, you're not supposed to have any rights at all.  They prop up the government from both sides and hog all the seats at the table where the decisions are made.

That is the commonality between the Tea Party and those who Occupy Wall Street; they, WE, want a seat at the table.  We want REAL solutions to all those problems, not just solutions that pad the advantages that a few already have.  We don't want to fear and hate the other side, we want to help them.  We want the Conservative Republicans to explain to the African-American and Hispanic communities how supply-side economics are advantageous to them, too.  And the Liberal Democrats should explain to the CEOs how fairness and honesty would benefit their bottom line.  It's actually true, you know.

It's not the government that needs to compromise as much as it is the Tea Partiers and the Wall Street Occupiers.  We should all get together and recognize the common ground we share.  Then, maybe, just maybe, we could get the politicians AND the media to shut the hell up and listen to US for a change.