The View From Here: Security

Let's get right down to brass tacks; security is an illusion.

Let me point out that the purpose of this series is NOT to discuss the fine details of things like "security," in which I give my opinions on things like having to take off your shoes at an airport.  What I'm trying to do here is to take a few very basic things; peace, prosperity, equality, freedom, and security; discuss what they actually are, and give a brief overview of how both the left and the right side of the American political aisle propose to give us those things.

These are basic things that everybody wants, or maybe, should want.  At the same time, the world is full of people who say that war is good for the economy, or that a good, small war is much better than a bad, big war that our side might lose.  There are still people in the world who believe, for whatever reason, that one group of people is inherently better.  And we might be surprised to learn that most of us are in such a group, whether we realize it or not.

Security, what it is, is tied with each of the other four things in such a way that security itself could be called irrelevant.  To be secure, one needs to be: Not involved in conflict, especially if the other party is as strong or stronger than you; prosperous, in possession of sufficient material wealth; equal to everyone else (at least!); and unencumbered, able to move and act without fear.  That is the essence of security; lack of fear.  Security is why we buy insurance, have savings accounts and 401K's, join Triple-A, get married, read how-to books, check our oil, and so forth.  It's why we prefer to buy meat that's been USDA-approved.  Or not eat meat at all!

Security is about managing the future!  It involves steps we take to try and ensure that things will be at least as good as they are now, or will improve.  Every day we don't shove the boss' teeth down his throat insures we have a job tomorrow.  Every time we pass on one more slice of pizza insures that we are taking better care of our health.  Or, we take the slice, because it makes us feel good and temporarily aswages some fear or other.  My belly's full and I can taste mozzerella, so the world is in its orbit and I have nothing to worry about.

Politicians of all stripe use these fears, if not directly against us, surely for their own benefit.  For their own security, in order to keep their jobs, or advance into someone else's.  They tell us that if we follow them we will be at peace, more prosperous, the playing field will be level, and we will be free.  Everybody will win.  Except for the bad people, of course.  After all, if there were no bad people, there'd be no insecurity, right?  That's a necessary part of the formula; the demonization of someone.

This is very easy, really.  Everybody's done something wrong.  As I've pointed out before, I believe that there is a base human nature, and it is skewed to the side considered evil.  Selfish.  Insecure.  Fearful.  A deep psychological need to surround ourselves with safety.  The only thing that overrides this is something even deeper that is built in by the original manufacturer, that can through act of will overcome even this basic automatic default position; love.

Love is what makes a mother step into harm's way in defense of their child.  It's what made people join the Army after 9/11.  It's what makes people take from their paycheck and give to the United Way.  It sometimes gets us sucked into scams, but love tells us that we, the stupid, are less to blame than they, the scammers.  They're the bad guys, we were just trying to help.

"Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."  - I Corinthians, 13:4-7, NIV.

Security is the reason that people give their lives to Jesus Christ.  Or follow the teaching of Buddah, or Mohammed, or Krishna, or whatever.  We're looking for something that can assure our future beyond this life.  We are looking for a working definition of love, so that we can love freely without fear.  Security, and guidance.  We lock these things in along with things, in and out of religious behavior and belief, that assure our security - and comfort - in this life.  It is also the reason we, as Americans and/or other citizens of democratic republics, vote.  And when we get deeper in the knowledge of how our political systems work, either become more involved in them or leave them completely out of frustration.

So, in a couple of nutshells, what the left offers is, under their rule, everybody will be equal under the law and get everything they ever need.  And the right promises that everyone will have an opportunity to better themselves, and nobody will come beat us up and take away our stuff.  Does that sound about right?  And the implication is that voting for the other side will lead to oppression and starvation for people we should care about.  Or, the country will be weak and die.

How these things are all accomplished is, of course, very complicated.  Which side you pick probably depends on where you personally place the most importance.  Democrats are either The Only People Who Care, or a bunch of weak pussies.  Republicans are either The Only Hope For Growth, or a bunch of mean, rotten bastards.  Sometimes, it's put in these terms; If you want a job, vote Republican.  If you want unemployment compensation, vote Democrat.

Now, think about it for a minute; which of those represents security?  If you have a job, what guarantee do you have that you'll get to keep it?  Twenty years ago, Kodak employees thought they had the most secure jobs on the planet.  On the other hand, the Republican devotion to low corporate taxes and no regulation in the 1920's led directly to the Great Depression and 25% unemployment.  As the bumper sticker says; "Keep working; millions on welfare are depending on you."

This is not a series on religion.  If it were, I would go into a long explanation about how giving your life to Jesus Christ will free you from fear, etc. etc. etc.  Instead, it's a series on politics, and why, in spite of everything I know, I regularly vote Republican.  For one thing, you can say what you want about President Obama's economic policies, how many jobs he's created, blah blah blah.  We can sit here and throw statistics back and forth forever and not prove anything.  It comes back to Ronald Reagan's question; Are you better off than you were four years ago?

I haven't been able to find it, but I'll swear I once heard Nancy Pelosi say, after the crash of 2008, that, after 25 years of prosperity, the housing bubble bursting finally proved that Reagan was wrong.  Not that the 25 years of prosperity proved anything, of course.  That sounds similar to a couple friends of mine who love going on about how rotten Conservatives are.  One of them looked me right in the eye one day and insisted that the economy did not improve during the Reagan administration.  At that point, I knew there was no more point in my participating in their discussions.

Both sides need to come together.  And by "both sides," I mean the average voters on both sides.  We need to demand equality under the law, access to everything we need, and opportunity to grow, all at the same time.  Not a liberal utopia, not a conservative utopia, but for the needs of the people to be met.  What we, the people, want is a seat at the table.  Alongside all the rich and powerful people and special interest groups.

Unfortunately, "Occupy Wall Street" has devolved into a series of ever-more-arcane symbolic gestures.  And the wealthy have tried their best to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with varying degrees of success.  I sincerely believe that both of these movements came from the grass roots, and that they both want the same basic thing; a seat at the table.  We have concerns, and we want the government to listen to them and act on them.  We also want to have more power in the decision making process than those who would use these issues for their own gain.

The big corporations, the labor unions, the minorities, all have to be made to understand that we care about them and are their customers.  We want GM to survive and grow, not only because of employment figures, but because we want cars.  We want our neighbors to have it as good as we do, and to have it as good or better ourselves.  Or at least to have the chance, if we have the ambition and cleverness.  And to be able to succeed and grow even if we're not bloodthirsty cutthroats.

I did find one quote by Nancy Pelosi that I did like very much.  I can't find it again, but it said something to the effect that she hopes for a world where an artist or musician can do what they do without having to worry about losing their day job.  Personally, as a musician who's played for the better part of four decades, I don't mind having a day job to support my family.  I was at least wise enough to marry someone who appreciates my art and supports me, as I do her in hers. 

But I know exactly what Ms. Pelosi means, and I think that creativity should be encouraged.  It makes the world better for everyone.  And I'm not just talking about the arts.  The creativity of Karl Benz and Henry Ford led to the automobile industry, for good or ill.  Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite.  A republican watching a democrat trying to squelch big business is most puzzled by the latter referring to themself as "progressive."

I look at the two parties and think; which is closer?  This brings me back to another basic belief; that simple works better.  Conservative principles make for simpler governments.  Fewer beurocracies, fewer regulations.  Have you ever been stopped for speeding and thought; "Shouldn't this cop be out busting real criminals?"  Not that I'm against speed limits on our highways, but the point is that law enforcement means all the law.  And the more laws you have, the more law enforcement people you need.  People that could be doing something useful instead.

It's also a basic belief that things that need to be done are almost always better done through the private sector.  For instance, yes, universal health care insurance is a wonderful ideal.  It reminds me of a trip Lynn and I made in '95 to Canada.  We were sitting in the hotel room one evening and got watching a debate by the leaders of the five biggest parties, focussed on their health care system.  Each and every party leader, from the most conservative to the most liberal, promised outright to spend less money on the system than the other.  Let me tell you, if I were sitting in a Montreal emergency room, I would be comforted by the knowledge that I was about to be treated by the lowest bidder.  Yes, that's a gross oversimplification, and I know Canadians who are perfectly happy with their health care system.  But the point stands; I'll bet they'd like our choices better, if they could afford them.  As P. J. O'Rourke once said, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free."

Putting something on the open market inevitably leads to the lowering of price and the raising of capability.  Look at the computer you're reading this on!  Yeah, maybe it's made cheaper, but with the pace of development, you're probably going to replace it in a few years anyway.  And the next one will be cheaper to buy and do more.

I guess the point becomes that the companies making these ever-improving disposable things need to also think about the environment the used-up ones get tossed into.  And so forth.  And that is why regulation is also a good thing.  If everybody has to meet the same criteria, the playing field is more level.  Take all the regulations off car manufacturers and cars would very quickly get cheaper.  They'd also be more dangerous and dirty.  It's a balance between law and liberty.

So, yes, we want big evil fat-cats to continue to provide the things and services we so dearly love.  And, we want them to not take undue advantage of us while providing them.  Sounds simple, but HUMAN NATURE drives them, through insecurity, to squeeze that which needs not be squoze.  We need to push back, on our behalf and on the behalf of those who do not yet have a seat at the table.

It would be possible to just blindly pick one side over the other and let things settle into a semi-comfortable normalcy.  It's what most people seem to be doing.  This whole blog is about breaking away from that.  It is born out of the frustration of hearing slogans thrown around.  It's about trying to be smarter than most politicians think we are.  It's about standing up and asking the questions that they don't want to answer.  It's about looking beyond left and right and getting what we all really want.

I'm going to finish up with a link to a Bruce Cockburn song that's a particular favorite of mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybkiiAKMOY&feature=related

And, another P. J. O'Rourke quote to chew on:  One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license.

Anyway, that's the view from here.  Pax.

The View From Here: Freedom

Freedom may very well be the most dangerous thing in the world.  It's probably also the most desired thing in humanity, with the possible exception of sex.

The very concept of government and law could be described as the management of freedom.  If you think about it, the complete absence of laws and governments would lead to a very messy world.  What do you think would happen if everyone got used to the idea of no laws against things like robbery, murder, and so on.

Looking at freedom in the extreme gives some insight into human nature, which then leads to the interesting dichotomy between the world views of liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives tend to hold to Judeo-Christian beliefs that human nature is normally sinful, and yet profess to allow freedoms that liberals would restrict.  Liberals, on the other hand, lean toward the idea that human nature is normally benign, and yet insist on restricting the behavior and especially the business practices of the most successful members of society.

There is, of course, a third possibility; that there is no empirical Human Nature, and we're all just ourselves.  And yet, so much of philosophy and religion is based on the inherant goodness or badness of us all that it's quite possibly true, one way or the other.  Personally, my observations suggest that, while human nature seems to run strongly to the low side, it is possible for one to elevate one's self through the application of the will.  And long-term study of Judeo-Christian scriptures would back this conclusion.  Which means, we're bad, but we can choose to be good.

Which brings us back around to; what if there were no laws?  What if we could do anything we want with no repercussions?  Do you think that everybody would suddenly search for ways to help their fellow man?  Do you think everyone would automatically be more accepting of everyone else?  Would rich people become more generous in sharing their largesse with those less fortunate?  Would crime end?  Would war cease?  Are these dumb questions?

So will the "people are basically good" believers reading this actually consider changing their minds, or is that also a dumb question?

Law is all about the restriction of freedom.  Speed limits keep drivers from going faster than they can handle a car.  And because just about everybody gets to use the roads, it's easier to set one limit for everybody, and then restrict the privilege of driving to those who can pass a basic competency test.  Laws against murder keep those with anger issues from killing people they get mad at, but allow the government to kill those people as an added incentive not to kill for those who might insist on going ahead.

This manipulation, this system of incentives and punishments, is where law and government get more nuanced.  Let's say, for instance, that we had a government that thought that the country was too dependent on petroleum products.  They might start setting up a series of incentives that would discourage people from certain behaviors and purchases with an eye toward lowering petroleum use.  They might follow a foreign policy that would put us at odds with oil producing nations, and then curtail domestic production forcing us to become all the more dependent on those same countries.  This would raise the price of petroleum products like gasoline dramatically.

At the same time, they might throw as much money as they could get their hands on at alternative energy sources, probably wasting a lot of it but hopefully coming up with something that would wind up being a useful alternative for the nation's energy needs.  The downside would be that these things would also badly slam the economy, possibly even in the long term.  The upside would be that it would lessen the amount of power the petroleum industry would have over the country.  Not that any government would actually do that . . .

It's kind of like the debate over slavery.  The owning of slaves, and the submission to slavery, were probably seen at the time as economic necessities.  The very founder of the nation of Israel, Jacob, was a slave for fourteen years in exchange for his two wives and a stake from which he built his own fortune.  As noted in the picture above, slavery is talked about quite a lot in the Bible.  Personally, I see nothing in any of it suggesting that God likes slavery, but it was a reality of the times in which the Bible was written.

The Bible offers advice to those who are slaves, and those who own them.  At the same time, it is loaded with words about defending the oppressed and freeing those in bondage.  So to say that the Bible "approves" of slavery is to prove you've never really read it, just taken a few passages out of context.

On the other side is a picture of two men who are probably gay.  The caption opens up a common misconception about the Bible, and Christianity.  What the Bible says, which is intended to reveal to humanity the mind of God, is that God does hate the act of homosexuality, while loving the practicioner.  My own personal experience has borne this out.  Indeed, the Bible is clear that this is the case with any kind of sin.  Some Christians feel otherwise, proving that people really are faulty.

This brings us back to the difference between liberal and conservative political philosophies.  Modern American liberalism, especially in the extreme, chooses to allow and even endorse behaviors that traditional Judeo-Christian mores view as "sinful," such as homosexuality, extramarital sex, drug use, and so forth, all in the name of freedom.  Social conservatives would pass laws restricting these behaviors, and so liberals paint them as restrictive and even fascist.

Conservatives, on the other hand, allow business a much freer hand.  The wealthy are seen as "job creators" and encouraged to do even more.  The downside of this is that they tend to abuse the power their money and influence grant them.  It's human nature, I suppose.

The reason I lean more to the conservative side is that the economy is better.  Simple as that.  Conservatives also tend to be far more open to religion.  Many liberals make no bones about their view that religion is, as Mao once said, "the opiate of the masses."  Or was it Lenin?  Whatever.  Conservativism also seems to be a fairly fluid thing.  For instance, it's highly doubtful that you'd get any conservative Republicans to sign on to the reinstatement of slavery, which was something that Democrats were happy to allow to continue back in 1860.  And it was Republicans that put the Civil Rights act of 1964 over the top.

As I've said before, the main reason I'm a conservative is that it leads to smaller government and a better economy.  There are a lot of things that liberals want that I want, too, but I believe that smaller government and a better economy lead to them, too.  All the basic things this series has been about; peace, prosperity, equality, freedom; are found through conservative government.  And instead of being achieved through government intervention and managed by government agencies, they happen because of the action of the citizenry.

You see, freedom is dangerous.  Freedom, as defined and managed through the Constitution, allows for things that many people don't like.  It allows people to have sex with people that other people think we shouldn't.  It allows someone to produce a product that many people want and are willing to pay for, therefore allowing them to become wealthy.  We, the people, have to become involved in the ongoing process of fine-tuning our system of laws and governance to counteract expressions of human nature that benefit a few to the expense of the many.  And we have to do it in ways that do not overly restrict the freedom that we all want.

It would probably be easier to put a government in place and simply take our hands off the wheel, allowing those people in government to make all these decisions for us.  Then, we just have to hope that they're more capable of making those decisions than we ourselves are.

Rod the Mod

Can't really say why, but one of my guilty pleasures the last few months has been to dig into the back catalog of Rod Stewart.  Not the newer stuff, but going back to the early days of his career with The Faces.  Frankly, I have no use for most anything he's done since breaking up with them; the odd song here and there, but don't have any Rod in my collection newer than 1973.

Looking back now, it's amazing how quickly things moved in the 1960's in popular music, especially in the latter half of the decade.  At the same time that the Beatles and the Rollings Stones were conquering first Britian and then the US, Rod Stewart was banging around a succession of semi-professional folk and blues groups.  During that time, between 1964 and 1967, the Yardbirds went through three guitarists that would go on to profoundly influence every level of rock and roll; Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, and Jimmy Page.

Beck left the Yardbirds in '66 and formed the Jeff Beck Group.  They needed a lead singer and the finger pointed to Rod Stewart.  It was probably Beck's commercial pinnacle, but only the beginning for Stewart.  After two albums the group broke up.  At the same time another influential British band, the Small Faces, was losing its leading light, guitarist/vocalist Steve Marriott.  Stewart and Ron Wood, who switched from bass to guitar, joined Marriott's old rhythm section and the name was changed to just The Faces.  At the same time, Rod signed a solo record deal with another company; he, with Mercury, and the Faces on Warner Brothers.

And so began a barrage of Rod Stewart-led albums that are still enjoyable today.  His solo debut came out first, "An Old Raincoat Won't Ever Let You Down," known in America simply as "The Rod Stewart Album."  This is probably the weakest piece of the collection, but gave a good indicator of what to expect.  His folk and blues roots were placed front and center, and the arrangements featured the ragged-but-real Faces backing, along with a gaggle of others including Keith Emerson.

To be frank, it's a pretty weak effort, especially considering what was to follow.  Having recently dug this out from the dusty stacks I was getting to the point of wondering how the hell this guy ever got signed.  Then came "Handbags and Gladrags."  Awesome song, with a light but interesting arrangement featuring Ian McLagan's distinctive piano and a sweet little chamber orchestra.  A true pearl, tucked deep within a fairly tired oyster.

His next album, "Gasoline Alley," was a better version of the same idea; rootsy acoustic songs mixed with energetic stripped-down rock.  More good songs, less dross.  Things came together even better with "Every Picture Tells A Story," followed by "Never a Dull Moment."  Personally, I consider Dull Moment his finest work ever.  Both albums, and in fact all his albums, were an interesting collection of originals and covers, the covers ranging from old folk songs to contemporary rockers, made his own by his unique voice and the sloppy-but-happy backing by the Faces.

The Small Faces had evolved as an R&B-cum-psychedelic band that got far more attention in the UK than in the States.  Marriott left to form Humble Pie, and his replacement by Stewart and Wood dramatically changed the direction of the band.  They became one of those bands that defined the rock'n'roll lifestyle of the late '60's and early '70's as a rolling party.  The sound was loose, but listening now the arrangements were pretty sophisticated.  They must have actually practiced, although it often sounded like they just showed up and kicked into it.  That's called, makin' it look easy.  Seeing video of these guys on YouTube shows that they were not a bunch of hacks, but were actually very good musicians.  I would be most interested in talking with a good drummer about Kenny Jones' style, which is very different from a lot of others of the era.

The inevitable comparison is between the Faces and the Rolling Stones.  The artistic and inspirational relationship between the two bands is not unlike that between the Grateful Dead and the New Riders of the Purple Sage.  Definitely similar, but in the grand pecking order the Stones outrank the Faces.

Unlike Rod's solo albums, those of the Faces started right out producing good, worthy stuff.  Of their four studio albums, the third, "A Nod is as Good as a Wink . . . to a Blind Horse" is my favorite.  And the last one, "Ooh La La" might be the weakest, but even that's pretty good.  Stewart shared lead vocal duties with bassist Ronnie Lane.  For myself, it's hard to listen to Lane without imagining how Stewart would have done the same tune.  The one exception is a song from "A Nod," titled "Debris."  A very nice little ballad that Lane does very well.

It was an incredibly creative, and productive, arrangement, but eventually the success of Stewart's solo career took its toll on the band.  It would be comparable to having Mick Jagger solo albums coming out at the same time as Rolling Stones albums.  The Faces were really trying to be a band, but half of their live sets came from Stewart albums on which they were mere backing musicians.  So that was the public's perception; that even the Faces albums were Stewart, backed by the others.  Egos being what they are, a parting of the ways was inevitble.

Guitarist Ron Wood, as the world knows, replaced Mick Taylor as the Rolling Stones' lead guitarist.  Drummer Kenny Jones replaced Keith Moon in The Who, which didn't work out quite so well.  Ronnie Lane did some solo albums as well as a collaboration with Pete Townshend, which I've never heard.  He passed away in the '90's of multiple sclerosis.  Pianist Ian McLagan went on to be a go-to studio musician.

And Rod Stewart went on to become Rod Stewart.  After the Faces, he put together a proper backing band of tight professionals and spent the next few albums trying to recapture the loose feel of his older stuff.  There's some pretty good stuff, but anyone who counts "Hot Legs" and "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" on his resume has questionable taste, imho.  Some of his choices strike me as a bit odd.  I mean, "Unplugged . . . and Seated," really?  Who gives a rat's ass if he's freakin' seated?!?

And he certainly doesn't have what could be called a pretty voice.  He gives people an excuse to say they like Kim Carnes.  You know, "Bette Davis Eyes"?  Or am I thinking of Bonnie Tyler, of "Total Eclipe of the Heart" fame?  And . . . who cares?  Personally, I liked "Forever Young," but not much else.  And the idea of him singing old standards on his American Songbook series?  Yeah, they're great tunes, but with Rod Stewart singing them?  Hey, we've got songs made famous by Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald and Nat "King" Cole.  Who do we want to hear sing them now?  Yeah, right.

So anyway, there's my thoughts on some very good recordings that are worth your attention.