Sometimes, in my rural setting on the leading edge of the 21st century, I delude myself into thinking that this country has achieved equality. That assessment is incorrect.
As a conservative I am often blamed for that inequality. I'm sorry, but I cannot confess to that crime. I do not wish for anyone to have, or to be, less than I am.
So maybe the crime I am being blamed of is not one of commission; of holding other people back, of oppressing others, whoever they might be, whatever the reasons for our inequality might be. Maybe it's a crime of omission; of not using my superior position to help raise others up to at least my level.
In the political realm, this debate inevitably comes down to one of economics. Some people have more than other people. There are those who have a simple formula for equality:
1) Take everything of value and put it in a big pile.
2) Divide the total value by the number of people.
3) Distribute everything equally.
If it were this simple, I'd be all for it. I have reason to believe that I'd come out ahead on the deal. There are a lot of people who, when offered this option, think; "Hell, yeah! Sign me up!" And there are those horrified by the very thought, because they would come away with a lot, lot less.
I'm pulling this figure out of my sleep-deprived memory, but it seems to me I heard somewhere recently that the gross national product, the value of everything in the United States of America, is something like 14 trillion dollars. Let's be generous and round that up to 15 trillion. That's, 15,000,000,000,000; fifteen followed by twelve zeroes. And there's 300 million people, roughly. That's 300,000,000; three followed by eight zeroes.
For the purposes of this demonstration, the accuracy of those figures doesn't matter. The point is that I'm trying to figure out how much the above formula would get everybody. You could just as easily say that the GNP is X and the population is Y. If you could convert everything of value in the country to cash, the above figures tell us that we would each come away with $50,000. That's 50K for me, 50K more for my wife, and for each of my four kids, and for you, and so on down the line. There it is. Your cut. We're equal now.
And therein lies the subtle problem. We come back to the question of human nature. For some, it's more money than they've ever seen in one place in their life! Yeah, I told you this was a good idea!! You can get a damn nice car for a lot less than that. Put up in a fine hotel. Ring up room service and order us some champagne, darlin'. And how 'bout a little blow f'ya nose?
Other people would look at that paltry pile of cash, that small shoebox full of fives, and think; "What the flyin' heck am I supposed to do with this little bit?" Once they accepted the reality of it, they would start opening their eyes and ears. Pretty soon they would be drawn to our first contestant. Oh, you're looking for a car? I can make a car. Champagne? No problem. Cocaine? Let me get back to you on that.
Pretty soon one group of people would have nothing, and the other would have it all. So the only way the grand formula for equality could work is if you keep on doing it. As soon as one person was down to nothing you blow the whistle, collect it all back up, and do it again. We'll continue to do everything communally. We could call it . . . Communism! Nah, too harsh. How about Socialism? Sounds more social.
It wouldn't take long for the smarter people on all sides to decide that this sucked. After all, who would be in charge of collection and distribution? What's their cut? How do we know they're honest? And how can I tuck a little away in case I don't get what I'm expecting? For that matter, how do I get in on being a collector and distributor?
It can't be that simple, and it will never really be that way. Some people go into politics so they can nudge the country and the world in that direction, but it's a basically flawed ideal that will never see full fruition. For one thing, there's too many people pulling in the opposite direction. Let's cut out all the collection and distribution, and get down to brass tacks; you want something, I can get it for you. Capitalism!
Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." So far, he's right, and it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.
Some say that economic inequality comes down to racism. This belief is how I manage the occasional delusion I describe in my opening paragraph. This country has set into law the illegality of discrimination, for reasons of race, of gender, and it's working on extending this for reasons of sexual orientation. And most people in the country, at least in the first two cases, agree with this. Racism and sexism are heinous. It's ridiculous, and cruel, to think that any race is inherently superior to another. And why shouldn't a woman make as much as a man for doing the same job?
A lot of people think that we have a long way to go in this area, but in my lifetime we've already come a very long way indeed. You tell a 21st-century schoolkid about Jim Crow laws, and they're shocked. Shocked! That the country they're growing up in could have ever had such laws on their books. Sounds like aparthied, or Naziism. And then when you tell them about slavery . . .
As I sit and write this, it's a little after three o'clock in the morning. I just woke up from a dream that shook me to my core. It won't let me go back to sleep, and I felt compelled to come downstairs and write this. I've been thinking for the last week about what I want to say on the subject of equality, but that dream blew it all away.
I am writing this "The View From Here" series of essays because these are the basic values I grew up with, and still hold to. I believe they are basic values that just about any intelligent person strives for. I think anyone in possession of both a heart and a mind wants these things for themself and everybody else. The political disagreements we have are more about how these things can be achieved. As a young man, I thought liberal political leanings could achieve them. Over the years, I have come to feel differently, and I'm writing these pieces to explain how that change took place.
Gone are the days when a man could stand on a busy streetcorner and espouse the belief that white people are better than black people. He'd be lynched! But in my own lifetime, that was not only possible, it was widely accepted as the truth. He'd have surely had his detractors, but he'd have also drawn a crowd of like-minded people. Go ahead and try it now, but be sure to notify the police in advance that you're doing performance art.
Anyway, in that dream I'm in a big high school or some similar kind of building, along with a large bunch of teenage kids of various races and backgrounds. I don't know why we're there, but there's the kids, and a small group of adults, of which I'm one. I'm wandering around the mostly empty halls when I come across a trail of blood droplets. I follow it, and soon discover a young black man who is obviously the source. I quickly decide that he's on his way to get help, so I turn and go the other way.
I have three such encounters; trail of blood, hurt black kid, turn and leave; before I realize what I'm doing. In each instance, the kids turns and glances at me. No expression, and they try to stand a little straighter and look like nothing's wrong. They say nothing, I say nothing. They keep going, I turn to leave. I know that they are going to be with their own kind. With people they trust, who they expect will do whatever they see fit to help them. And I am doing the same.
I might be better equipped to help that young man, those young men. I think now the logical thing would have been to follow them until they got to where they were going and offer my assistance. They should have medical attention, and I should find out who harmed them and do something about it. But I would have been one unarmed white man among a group of angry black kids. My instincts told me that my odds of success were limited, and that my safety could be compromised.
And so I went to be with my people and report this. Maybe my instinct was to assemble a group of benificent white people to go, as a group, to offer assistance. The problem with that is, in the time it took to do it, the injured boys would be able to tell their stories to their trusted group. When we showed up, we would fit the broad description of the people who inflicted the harm in the first place. Our group might have even included some of those people. We would go as a group to ensure our safety from a reaction our own appearance would have incited.
That's when I woke up. Not when that all happened, but when I realized that's where my chosen path was leading. And yet, I couldn't bring myself to turn back around and keep following the injured boys. And so . . . I woke up.
I had an experience once when I was living in Sacramento, California that has never left me. I was rooming with my pastor, who was another young white guy, in a mostly-black development. Nice enough neighborhood, and the rent was cheap. Relatively new buildings, nice lawns, and I don't think Sacramento has what you could really call slums. Then again, I'm a country boy. I wouldn't know a slum if I lived in it.
It was a nice day and I was sitting out on the lawn next to the sidewalk, writing in my journal with my new set of felt-tipped calligraphy pens. Things written with calligraphy pens look cool. So do bow ties and fezzes, but I digress. A young black kid, maybe 10 or 12, came by and asked what I was doing, and I told him. He sat down and watched for a moment, then asked if he could see my pen. I hand it to him. He looks it over, then drives the point into the cement sidewalk and grinds it to a frayed end. Then he jumps up and runs away. "Hey!" I yell after him.
Then he looked back, and he stopped. I think he expected me to jump up and chase him, all mad an everything, but I didn't. I told him he could have another one, and a piece of paper to draw on, if he promised not to wreck it. To be honest, I don't remember if he took me up on my offer, or if he just left. That was 1985. That kid's probably around 40 now, and I often wonder about him. I wonder if he graduated high school, if he stayed out of trouble, if he's married and has kids of his own. I wonder if he told his mom about what he did, and the crazy white dude who offered him another pen to wreck. Or if he even had a mom and dad. I wonder if he remembers me. I hope he's okay.
You could probably follow me for a few days and find clues that would convince you that I'm a racist, but I don't think I am. I certainly don't want to be, and I think that is important. I'm certainly not going to spend all my time worrying about every word I say and step I take and sweat whether or not it offends you. And yet the fact remains that I have chosen to be where I am. I could probably live cheaper in a different place, in a poorer neighborhood. But to me it's worth the extra money to live someplace I'm more comfortable. Around people who are more like me.
It's worth the mortgage and the property taxes and the heating bills, and so I have to find the best job I can in order to be able to afford them. And I have to work hard and try and advance my position in order to make more money. And I have to buy and maintain a car so I can get to a better job, that will pay me enough to get the car. And then there's things I like to do in my spare time, like play music and type ridiculous things on a computer.
Maybe it would be better if I went to a poorer neighborhood and did these things. It might be good for those people to get used to somebody different like me, and see me do the things I'm doing. If more of them did these things, their neighborhood wouldn't be as poor. Or, they could move. On the down side, my family and I would not be as safe or comfortable. But I still wonder, in my heart of hearts, if I'm wrong for not going. I'm not trying to justify the choices I've made. On the contrary, I seriously wonder if they're the right ones.
I want everybody to be equal. I think just about everybody wants that, but they want it without wanting it to cost them anything. Give 'til it hurts? Just how hurt are we talking, here? The Haves will never support a system that benefits the Have Nots at their expense. They will not allow it. They will group together and use their power to keep it from happening. And if you Had, you would, too. Be honest, now. Because if you really Would do it, then you Can do it, but you're Not doing it, are you? Think about that.
Is this racism? Is this economic oppression? Some think it is. And some conservatives say that the poor are poor because they choose to be. That's pretty harsh . . . but just for a minute why don't we consider the possibility that it might just be true? I'll grant you, it might be more fair if we could, one time, go to a base figure that everybody has. I still think the inevitable outcome would be a world greatly resembling the world we live in today.
Part of the political discourse I hear this year is about how those who Have need to be punished for it. After all, if they have, they must have stolen it. In a lot of cases, that's probably true. But which cases? If you know, and can prove it, aren't there courts? And if you can't, then do we just punish everybody who Has? Is it even possible for an honest person to achieve wealth? I like to think it is, but having never been wealthy, I guess I wouldn't know. And, maybe I'm not honest. How would you know?
Still, to a lot of the world, I am wealthy. I'm a white American male, one of the dominant demographics on the planet. I have more opportunities than any other group of people, economically, spiritually . . . sexually . . . Our neighborhoods have more banks, churches, and hookers than any other. Even our poor are richer than most other people's. Okay, maybe not all that's entirely true, but I came out of the womb with certain advantages, let's face it. I have majority status, in a wealthy country, and a penis. Who could ask for anything more?
But what if I had none of those things? Is Donald Trump bad, but Condoleeza Rice good? Or is Condi bad because she worked for a conservative administration? The point is, both are quite well off. And both worked hard to achieve it. Trump's "unfair advantage" was having a dad who made a small fortune in real estate. But Trump, through hard work and ingenuity, turned that small fortune into a very, very large one. As for Condi, she started literally as a poor black child and rose to head Stanford University, advise Presidents Reagan and Bush 1, and eventually served as Bush Jr.'s Secretary of State, after which she became a best-selling author. At the peak of her career she was, literally, the most powerful woman in the world.
And nobody handed her a thing. Yes, there are actually some people I've heard state she had an "unfair advantage" by being a black woman. She may have actually gotten something from Affirmative Action, and maybe even some liberal soft-heartedness from some people above her on the socio-economic ladder, but that could only get you so far. Her success is the direct result of her applying her intelligence and work ethic. Just like Trump.
So, no, things aren't equal. The playing field is not level. But hating those who are doing better gets us nothing. Yeah, sometimes I've expressed a certain dislike for some of the rich, but because they're assholes. They'd be assholes if they were poor, they just couldn't afford to express it with quite so much vigor. It's a personal dislike, not a socio-political one. I think I wrote a piece about this, too.
The reason I lean conservative is not in spite of my desire for everyone to be equal, but because of it. Less government intervention over our lives allows each person more opportunity to advance themselves. Maybe we come into this world with certain advantages or disadvantages, but what we do with them is up to us. Maybe that's why conservatism is so hard to sell. It doesn't come with a secret toy surprise. It comes with no guarantees, no safety net. I would agree that there should be a safety net, but it should be carefully monitored against abuse by the lazy. This is best done, I believe, on the most local level possible. That's conservative, too.
The reason conservatism and small government are hard ideas to sell is because it's a system that rewards hard work and ingenuity, and punishes sloth. Not out of a desire to punish, but simply by the fact that you don't get what you don't earn. It's a lot closer to raw, ungoverned life. You cannot, by rule of law, create equality. Human nature will not allow it. The people who now use capitalism for selfish gain will simply switch position and use communalism for selfish gain.
The important question is; what will you do? Will you strive for selfish gain? Or will you take some of what you've gained, and assist others? Will you run to your own comfort zone before offering a hand? Or worse, will you go there and barricade it against "those people?" Or will you reach out and offer grace, without asking who needs to be punished?
Golda Meir, a woman who survived the holocaust to become the Premier of Israel, once said something to the effect that there would be war with the Palestinians as long as they hated the Jews more than they loved their own children.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Neil Peart and Grace
And on that list are several drummers; Terry Bozzio, Ringo Starr, Michael Shrieve, Carter Beauford . . . and a gentleman from Canada who, if I were forced to pare my favorite musicians' list to what I thought were the best three or four, I would simply have to include; Neil Peart.
One point I would like to raise, that there has been a lot of debate about over the years, and I have to admit I do not have the definitive answer for. It's about the pronunciation of his last name. Most people I know pronounce it PERt, like the shampoo. "And for breakfast she makes coffee that tastes like cham . . . poo," as Tom Lehrer once wrote. Sorry, ehem . . . Anyway, and some people have said PEARt, like the fruit. But in a radio interview about 1981 or so, during the promotional time for Rush's "Moving Pictures" album, the members of the band pronounced it PEErt, with the long E sound. I swear to God, that's how I remember it and have always pronounced it myself ever since. If I ever find out definitively that I'm wrong, I will happily change that, as I have the utmost respect for the man.
I know that, if I ever got the chance to meet him, which is highly unlikely, I would be completely speechless. Which would probably be fine with him. He has a reputation for being very shy around strangers, and frankly, I have nothing he needs. Certainly not my adulation, because he could get that anywhere. He might be pleased, slightly, to know that I fully intend to purchase the new album when it comes out, which I do.
The point of this is a public letter he recently put on his own blog, the link to which I will place here:
http://guitarsquid.com/newsletter/squidpick/neil-peart-qcant-resist-spilling-a-littleq-about-the-recording-process-behind-rushs-new-album-clockwork-angels/134/
This hooks you up with not only Mr. Peart's page, but also gives you a link to an excellent guitar-oriented site called Guitar Squid. I get their weekly newsletter, and click on more of its links than from any other newsletter I get.
In the letter he talks about the six months that have passed since his last missive, including details about his life, a recap of his family's Christmas, some background on the upcoming Rush album, and a little discussion of his spiritual beliefs. He reveals himself, certainly not for the first time, as a Pagan. He even makes a few mildly snarky remarks about Christianity.
To be honest, this didn't really surprise me. And, I know that as a friend and/or admirer, I'm not supposed to care what anyone's personal beliefs are. I should allow the same freedom of choice and expression that I reserve for myself, and this is certainly not unreasonable. It makes me feel good, in fact, that many of my friends have let me know that they appreciate that I don't shove a bible down their throats, even though everybody knows that I'm a Christian.
That pleases me, because I want everybody to know that I'm a Christian. But I also want to have friends. And I am very pleased that I have awesome friends. I could make a short list - certain to be shorter than my list of favorite musicians - of people who will read this, and I'd bet you're all my personal friends. I appreciate each of you, respect each of you, and - dare I say it? - love each of you.
And that creates a problem. Especially considering my age, because I am becoming increasingly aware of my own mortality. I know that I have fewer days before me than behind. That in itself is not a problem, because I believe in the immortality of the human soul. And, I also believe that, as a believer in Jesus Christ, I will spend that immortality with Him.
But what I've learned in twenty-eight years as a Christian includes the knowledge that nobody who's not one will have that privilege. And that saddens me. I will miss you who are non-Christians. And, I will miss Neil Peart. But that's his choice, and yours, and I won't infringe on it. No matter how much I might want to, even if I could. Which I can't.
In a way, I understand Mr. Peart's position. In his letter he comments on Charlemagne and the invocation of the US's Founding Fathers as examples of Christian hypocrisy, and he makes a good point. Christians are imperfect, and I have to count myself among them in that as well. That's one big reason why I'm a Christian; because I want to be a better person. The only reference Mr. Peart makes to Jesus Himself concerns his agreement with the shortest verse in the bible; Jesus wept.
What I would suggest, to him and to you, is that you not look at Christians, but at Christ. We Christians are admittedly faulty, flawed, prone to being considerably less than perfect, just like . . . well . . . everybody else. And I don't believe in Christ because I'm scared to believe in anything else, or because I'm just too stupid.
I'm a Christian because for my first 28 years I looked deeply into the world, life, and as wide a variety of philosophies and religions as I could find. And by March 14, 1984, it was clear that there was an obvious choice. And in the 28 years that have followed, I have tried to keep my eyes, ears, and mind open. And Christ, His Holy Spirit, and His bible, have never left me wanting for a more satisfactory answer. I looked at all the options and decided of my own free will to hand my entire life over to Jesus Christ. And I have never, not once, regretted it. I go to church because I want to. And if I ever don't want to, I'll stop.
I must admit, I do not know precisely what heaven is. But I do know where. It's here, with me, in me, all the time, every day. It's not some pie-in-the-sky grand prize I'm waiting the rest of my life to see and hope I haven't lost my ticket for. I'm already there. There are many times I have felt like I'm looking through a window at the world. That I'm safe, in a place that can never be breached, safe from all harm, for all time. Not because I deserve it, or that I've worked hard enough and followed the rules tightly enough to earn it, but because Jesus loves me and gave it to me, expecting nothing in return.
What I want most of all, for the people I admire, for the people I love, is for you to be in here, too. The door is open, and there's a window nearby through which you can look in. What you see will undoubtably be as confusing for you as it was for me when I was looking in from the outside. That's because in here, we're still human and behave too often like humans. Watching us for an example instead of Christ would be a big mistake.
Anyway, that's up to you. You know what I believe, and if you want to know more, just ask.
Recently a couple of people that I work with, who play off each other like a well-oiled comedy duo, started riffing on Christians and how closed-minded and bigotted "those people" are in general, mostly in regards to something that some politician or other had recently said. I admit, I got rather heated about it all. I stepped into the middle of the workroom floor and very loudly stated that I am a Christian. Then, I asked everybody if that was what they thought I thought. Because if they all thought that what these two comedians were saying in any way represented me, or any Christian that I personally knew, then they were mistaken. I didn't jump on them for saying it. In fact, I reminded everybody that it's a free country, and everybody has the right here to say and believe anything they want. But if that's what they thought of me, I reserved the right to dispute it.
Not surprisingly, nobody said anything at the time, and we all went back to work. Over the course of the day, most of the crew came up and assured me that they didn't believe that of me. Some of them even made it a point to tell me that they, too, were Christians. Of the two comedians, one apologized, and one never said a word.
I'm not mad at these two. In fact, I count them as friends, and one of them may be reading this. I just wish that they could see what I see, from where I see it. And the same for Neil Peart. Because if they let the bad things that Christians have done keep them on that side of the window, that would be a crying shame.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Comment on "Prosperity"
A very good friend of mine, John McLaughlin, had a very extensive comment that wouldn't fit in the comment section, so I'm posting it. Thanks, John:
----------
Rick,
My response to your latest blog was too long to publish on your page so here it is:
OK, a lot to comment on in your recent article about money…
Now I was in total agreement with what you said up until “Capitalism doesn't even really require money” when I had to chime in, as I am chiming in right now. Capitalism, by definition, or by my understanding of its intricate workings, requires capital. Capital is wealth, in some form, but most commonly a physical type of wealth which means assets such as found in the asset section of a balance sheet. This would exclude non-tangible things of value such as non-property type information, skills, love, etc. (otherwise communism would require capitalism to function in a physical world, and I would think we are trying to exclude that economic system here).
Barter is an attempt to make a good deal in order to exchange one asset for another of higher value, thus creating profit during the transaction. Often it is not a creation of profit that occurs though; it may just as easily be a reduction in a loss. Though it is a type of financial transaction, not all financial transactions require a capitalistic system to be performed, as those who toiled at jobs in the Soviet Union would attest. Anyone who trades labor for anything is a laborer, not a capitalist. If you were to trade someone else’s labor for something, and pay them less than you were paid for their labor, then capitalism has occurred.
An easy way for me to think of what capitalism is would be that it is the accumulation of temporarily unused assets. I have a collection of guitars. Let’s assume something untrue for a moment for my explanation to work. Let’s assume they are appreciating in value. Since I have more of them than I can play at one time, I have accumulated capital. My capital would be the ones that I am not playing at the moment. Perhaps I have band mates who are playing them and we are generating revenue with those instruments. In that case they would be defined as “working capital.” Let’s assume further than I pay each of them 17 cents per hour to play (I use this amount because this is exactly what my friend who is serving time in Florida on a felony conviction gets paid per hour. I think they wouldn’t pay at all except that it would be defined as slavery.) In this scenario I am a capitalist.
If instead of paying the guys 17 cents per hour we all split evenly the money we made from our gigs, then instead of being capitalists we would be socialists/communists, assuming the owner gave only one of us the money and that person divided it up. If the person receiving the money pocketed a portion (without divulging the true income to the band members) then divided the rest up, is that person a capitalist or a corrupt socialist? Therein lies the socialists’ definition of capitalism as corrupt.
The Star Trek concept is wonderful and it is derived from the assumption that “Game Theory” will eventually lead to an evolution in social and economic systems. Go to Wikipedia and look this one up ‘cause it is very informative. I first heard about it from a mathematician and close friend of mine who I shared a house with in Costa Rica. His most salient points had to do with Cooperative and Non-cooperative games as applied to societies. Star Trek requires the cooperative game as the operative one. Whether or not capitalism is an immoral version of socialism isn’t the real important point (immorality is a value judgment based on a pre-defined set of moral values, and since we are all individuals we will never agree 100% on what is right or wrong, except in those cases where we allow someone else to set our own standards for us: a topic for another long winded discussion). The important point is that mathematically a non-cooperative, competition based system is less efficient than a cooperative system.
It is the desire to get something for nothing or for far less than the typical required effort which defines greed. Greed is a failure of human nature, not of an economic system. Capitalism works better for the greedy, thus it is their preferred system. It will remain the dominant economic system until human nature changes and greed vanishes or becomes taboo. At that point some type of cooperative system will emerge (“will” shows my optimism, though I know it isn’t going to happen in my lifetime).
So why am I a libertarian (or quasi-libertarian) when I know that capitalism is flawed? It is because the larger the government is, and the more government employees, the more opportunities for corruption. Human nature being what it is I prefer the honest corruption of a capitalist to the dishonest corruption of socialism. Keep the assets and power away from the government and let society and the individual have more control. What I need from the government is protection of my property rights, ONLY. Let me defend myself if someone wants to kill me. That’s a pretty good incentive for me to not anger anyone. But what about murderous maniacs? We don’t live in a tribal society so I don’t have much concern about that. The occasional sociopath can’t be stopped from doing bad deeds any easier by the government than he would be stopped by a free society.
John
----------
Rick,
My response to your latest blog was too long to publish on your page so here it is:
OK, a lot to comment on in your recent article about money…
Now I was in total agreement with what you said up until “Capitalism doesn't even really require money” when I had to chime in, as I am chiming in right now. Capitalism, by definition, or by my understanding of its intricate workings, requires capital. Capital is wealth, in some form, but most commonly a physical type of wealth which means assets such as found in the asset section of a balance sheet. This would exclude non-tangible things of value such as non-property type information, skills, love, etc. (otherwise communism would require capitalism to function in a physical world, and I would think we are trying to exclude that economic system here).
Barter is an attempt to make a good deal in order to exchange one asset for another of higher value, thus creating profit during the transaction. Often it is not a creation of profit that occurs though; it may just as easily be a reduction in a loss. Though it is a type of financial transaction, not all financial transactions require a capitalistic system to be performed, as those who toiled at jobs in the Soviet Union would attest. Anyone who trades labor for anything is a laborer, not a capitalist. If you were to trade someone else’s labor for something, and pay them less than you were paid for their labor, then capitalism has occurred.
An easy way for me to think of what capitalism is would be that it is the accumulation of temporarily unused assets. I have a collection of guitars. Let’s assume something untrue for a moment for my explanation to work. Let’s assume they are appreciating in value. Since I have more of them than I can play at one time, I have accumulated capital. My capital would be the ones that I am not playing at the moment. Perhaps I have band mates who are playing them and we are generating revenue with those instruments. In that case they would be defined as “working capital.” Let’s assume further than I pay each of them 17 cents per hour to play (I use this amount because this is exactly what my friend who is serving time in Florida on a felony conviction gets paid per hour. I think they wouldn’t pay at all except that it would be defined as slavery.) In this scenario I am a capitalist.
If instead of paying the guys 17 cents per hour we all split evenly the money we made from our gigs, then instead of being capitalists we would be socialists/communists, assuming the owner gave only one of us the money and that person divided it up. If the person receiving the money pocketed a portion (without divulging the true income to the band members) then divided the rest up, is that person a capitalist or a corrupt socialist? Therein lies the socialists’ definition of capitalism as corrupt.
The Star Trek concept is wonderful and it is derived from the assumption that “Game Theory” will eventually lead to an evolution in social and economic systems. Go to Wikipedia and look this one up ‘cause it is very informative. I first heard about it from a mathematician and close friend of mine who I shared a house with in Costa Rica. His most salient points had to do with Cooperative and Non-cooperative games as applied to societies. Star Trek requires the cooperative game as the operative one. Whether or not capitalism is an immoral version of socialism isn’t the real important point (immorality is a value judgment based on a pre-defined set of moral values, and since we are all individuals we will never agree 100% on what is right or wrong, except in those cases where we allow someone else to set our own standards for us: a topic for another long winded discussion). The important point is that mathematically a non-cooperative, competition based system is less efficient than a cooperative system.
It is the desire to get something for nothing or for far less than the typical required effort which defines greed. Greed is a failure of human nature, not of an economic system. Capitalism works better for the greedy, thus it is their preferred system. It will remain the dominant economic system until human nature changes and greed vanishes or becomes taboo. At that point some type of cooperative system will emerge (“will” shows my optimism, though I know it isn’t going to happen in my lifetime).
So why am I a libertarian (or quasi-libertarian) when I know that capitalism is flawed? It is because the larger the government is, and the more government employees, the more opportunities for corruption. Human nature being what it is I prefer the honest corruption of a capitalist to the dishonest corruption of socialism. Keep the assets and power away from the government and let society and the individual have more control. What I need from the government is protection of my property rights, ONLY. Let me defend myself if someone wants to kill me. That’s a pretty good incentive for me to not anger anyone. But what about murderous maniacs? We don’t live in a tribal society so I don’t have much concern about that. The occasional sociopath can’t be stopped from doing bad deeds any easier by the government than he would be stopped by a free society.
John
Friday, January 13, 2012
The View From Here: Prosperity
Just about any form of spirituality cautions us to be careful of prosperity. Humility is encouraged, poverty is a virtue, prosperity leads to temptation. That's a gross oversimplification, but there's a grain of truth behind it. To approach it from the Christian perspective, because that's the one I'm most familiar with, we all the time hear that the Bible says, "Money is the root of all evil." The actual quote, in 1 Timothy 6:10, says "THE LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil."
Money is just a tool, like a hammer or a guitar pick or an AK-47. The tool isn't evil, but its operator can be. And some tools lead to temptations that can hurt people. Hypothetical situation; an angry looking man is walked straight toward you, a nasty look in his eye. Would you rather he was carrying the AK-47, or a five dollar bill? And no whining about paper cuts!
What the Apostle Paul is saying in his letter to Timothy is that, when money itself becomes the goal, you're off the rails. We want prosperity because it makes our lives more comfortable, and usually makes it easier to do the things we wish to do. When the work the tool is needed for is done, the tool gets put away until the next time its needed.
So there. It's okay to prosper. Just keep your head. Now, what's that got to do with politics?
Have you ever heard the phrase, "zero sum game?" That's an economic concept that suggests that there's only so much. If Bill Gates has fifty billion dollars, somebody else doesn't have that much. If that were true, then there'd be the same number of dollars in the country as there were when George Washington took office. The problem with making more dollars out of thin air is that they become less valuable. But it's still not a zero sum game, because there's more of value than there was back then. Back when five dollars would buy an AK-47, they didn't exist. So it's okay to print more money, as long as more stuff of value is being made also.
Another faulty political concept is that, in every financial transaction, there's a winner and a loser. Isn't that a cheery thought? For instance, you buy a car. Either you, or the dealer, is getting ripped off. But why is that? Does the car not meet your expectations? Does the dealer refuse to honor the warranty if something goes wrong with it? Yeah, that sometimes happens, but you still have a recourse, in court if necessary. So did the dealer get ripped off, and you're the evil profiteer? Then how did he get that nice big building and all those salesmen? And for that matter, all those cars to sell?
Think about all the transactions that you participate in. You get stuff to make lunch with. Gas for your car. Maybe you work in retail and sell these things to others. Or maybe you help manufacture things that other people buy. And the company you work for pays you to do it. Or you work for yourself, providing a product or service for a fee. Are you evil because you charge enough to cover your overhead and keep some for yourself? Are you more evil if lots of people buy things from you, and you make a lot of money? Are you robbing all those people?
Again, money is a tool. Some people can use their tools to manipulate or hurt, but that's not inherent in the process. Capitalism doesn't even really require money; it can involve barter. I play guitar. I could write you a song, or perform for you, in exchange for food, heating oil, or whatever else you've got that I need. Money is just a widely-accepted medium for determining value. Let's say I charge you $150 to perform. For that, I could get maybe 50 gallons of heating oil, or groceries for my family for a few days, or part of a car payment. The promise of regular payments gets me a car. Whatever the medium for assigning value, what's to say who the winner and/or loser is in any of these transactions?
Like it or not, capitalism works. It's probably the original economic system. It's the simplest; I have something you want, you give me something I want in return. A transaction between two parties. It's not without its problems, though. If one person is cleverer than the other, and suffers from that love-of-money thing, then a situation arises in which there can be a winner and a loser. A-a-a-nd here comes the loser, bearing an AK-47. I'll, er, be right back. Good luck.
I happen to be a big Star Trek fan, in all its various forms. It envisions, not only the technological advances that could come about in the next three or four hundred years, but the utopian society we will be living in. One with no money. One in which everybody will be able to do what they are passionate about, and will be given the materials to do so. The assumption is, for every guitar player, there will be people who love to make guitars, to cut, store, and provide wood, to grow and harvest the wood, to make the strings and other parts, and so forth. It's a very cool concept, and actually has the potential to work if everybody is on board.
But this raises another very basic, and very important question; what about human nature? One could argue at length about whether or not human nature is basically good or evil. It raises an interesting dichotomy at the core of political thought. Liberal, progressive, secular, humanistic concepts are supposed to be about freedom and equality, based on the concept that human nature is good. But countries that have this basic concept as a template tend to be the most restrictive. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that human nature is essentially evil. And yet conservative, Christian, individualistic, capitalistic political thought focusses on freedom from restriction, especially in the area of business.
Which brings us to another basic truth; conservativism and capitalism are thought to be bad because they allow corrupt people the freedom to behave, uh, corruptly. Nice, restrictive socialism keeps them from acquiring all that tempting money and allows them to find their basic, good, nature. In the Star Trek universe, Bill Gates would be a happy, humble computer repairman. He could creatively innovate for a publicly-owned company that would give its products away to people whose burning urges led them into all sorts of endeavors that computers could help them with. Like blogging. Or designing peaceful uses for AK-47s.
Yeah, right.
Anyway, you can think or believe what you wish, but this is part of why I'm a conservative. Prosperity, for myself and for the country as a whole, is easier with a free-market economy. But people, I believe, are basically flawed and need a certain amount of oversight by the government to curb their worst instincts, so I'm not a libertarian.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
A Triumph of Ambition
Well, the New Hampshire Primary was yesterday, as I write this, and I wanted to share my thoughts on it. I have to say, the final outcome was pretty much as expected, what with Romney winning and all.
As you may have gathered if you’re read anything here recently, I’m not that big on Mitt Romney. It’s not so much about what he stands for, as who. It’s clear that he’s owned, body and soul, by a small group of very powerful people. The kind of people who provide what they call Super-PACs for hatchet work, for instance. It’s not that I object so much to Mitt’s ideas, it’s that I don’t think he’ll do anything that his Masters don’t want him to do.
That brings us to the crux of the biscuit; the Tea Party. You do know that TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already, right? To me, it means a little more than that. Not only are taxes already too high and too often wasted, it means that I’m sick of the Powerful People having everything their way.
And this vaunted New Conservatism is the most insidious thing of all. Big Business gets the freedom to rip off anybody they want, and to solace the “victims of unfairness,” endless expensive band-aids are applied to the real problems without there ever being a real solution. Jeez, I sound like a liberal!
But it’s been my complaint about conservatives for decades; if it’s the way to go, then it’s the way to go for everybody. So why don’t any Republicans go to Harlem and the barrios and explain how it works to their benefit? If they could go and explain it, liberalism would cease to exist! Because, maybe, deep in their hearts, they really don’t care about “those people”? And you wonder why the perception of the Republican party is that it’s for white males only?
Anyway, I digress. The Tea Party is for people who remember what Lincoln described; government by, for, and of the people. And so there’s Romney, who represents in many ways the worst impulses of the Republican party, and then there’s everybody else.
It’s not really a surprise that Ron Paul came in a strong second. He is, in a way, one of the fathers of the whole Tea Party movement. (So is Ross Perot, but we don't like to admit that.) Even if you disagree with some, or most, of his ideas, he’s a compelling force. His positions are long-held and well thought out. I think a lot of it is that he has more faith in basic human nature than I do, but that’s a debate for another time. One thing nobody doubts is that, if he’s elected, the special interest groups of all stripes can go take a flying leap off a rolling donut. He will do as he sees as being best, and that’s that.
He’s a funny guy, because I really think he knows he’s never going to be President. He’s 76 years old, fer cryin’ out loud! His whole thing is to educate the voter, and he’s very good at it. I’ve learned a lot from listening to him, even though I didn’t vote for him. I listened to his concession speech last night, and the line that really got me was when he said, “I didn’t know all you people were out there.”
That leaves the other four major candidates; Santorum, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Perry. There are subtle differences in their ideas, but on the whole I think the Tea Party movement would happy support any one of them. The problem is, there isn’t one of them, there’s four. And as long as there’s four, then Mitt Romney stays the frontrunner. Romney’s real support is about 20-25% of the Republican voters, mostly The Party Faithful. The Four Horsemen of the Tea-pocalypse have a lot more taken all together. But they’re not all together. Their personal ambitions have overrun their ideals.
And each of the four are still viable! Santorum came very close in Iowa and essentially tied for fourth in NH. Gingrich was briefly the frontrunner, and is leading with his Southern roots going into the Southern states. Huntsman did as well as he could hope for in NH, so he’s hanging in there. And Perry’s got a ton of money and is another Southerner.
The image that keeps getting referenced at this point is one of a circular firing squad. It’s one that will probably leave Romney the last man standing. Ron Paul will run until the convention, no matter what, but I don’t honestly think he’ll ever get enough backing to ever be more than second. Pretty soon, second place will be last place. The other four will continue to pat themselves on the back every time one of them finishes third, but third is nowhere. If nobody but Romney ever finishes first, then he’ll win.
What I’d like to see the other four do is get together in one room and put all their cards on the table. So far, they’ve each followed their ambition to become President. It will be the end of them all if they continue. They each need to look deep inside and think about why they went into politics in the first place.
I would direct your attention to an Eddie Murphy movie called “The Distinguished Gentleman.” It concerns a con man who decided to run for Congress, because a congressman with the same name as him has just died. Going in as a scammer, he winds up reformed and serving his constituents.
The truth, of course, is that it usually goes the other way around, more like it’s described in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.” Mr. Smith – Jimmy Stewart – finds that the Senator he’s always admired has sold his soul, piece by piece, to special interests until he’s as corrupt as they are. And all in the name of compromise.
Now, I’m sure that Mitt Romney doesn’t think of himself as corrupt. He thinks he’s using those backers of his to get in there and really do some good for people. For the little guy. And he can keep doing good for them, as long as he’s careful not to offend anybody. And the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies aren’t really manipulating prices and access to their products and limiting competition to fatten their own bottom line. They’re honest merchants, just trying to make a buck.
Yeah, we the real little people would probably be better off with Santorum, or Perry, or Gingrich, or Huntsman. Well, maybe not Huntsman. But if they would all put their pride and ambition aside for a season and pick one for the other three to back, then maybe that one would have a chance of getting the nomination. I don’t care which, and I don’t care how. Draw straws. Go by alphabetical order. Play a round of poker, have a foot race, a brawl, anything! Just pick one! One, and only one. And the other three come out with strong endorsements, stump appearances, and hand over their staff rolodexes. And they'd better be quick about it, because the train is leaving the station. They might survive South Carolina, but if they wait until after Florida, then they might as well all tie for eleventh place. None of them will have a chance.
I just had this image of Rick Perry with a black eye, saying, “Yeah, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided to support Rick Santorum.” With Gingrich sitting in a chair rubbing his shin, and Huntsman wearing a bandage on his nose. Santorum would stand up, one tooth missing, and grin at the audience.
And Mitt Romney would soil himself.
As you may have gathered if you’re read anything here recently, I’m not that big on Mitt Romney. It’s not so much about what he stands for, as who. It’s clear that he’s owned, body and soul, by a small group of very powerful people. The kind of people who provide what they call Super-PACs for hatchet work, for instance. It’s not that I object so much to Mitt’s ideas, it’s that I don’t think he’ll do anything that his Masters don’t want him to do.
That brings us to the crux of the biscuit; the Tea Party. You do know that TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already, right? To me, it means a little more than that. Not only are taxes already too high and too often wasted, it means that I’m sick of the Powerful People having everything their way.
And this vaunted New Conservatism is the most insidious thing of all. Big Business gets the freedom to rip off anybody they want, and to solace the “victims of unfairness,” endless expensive band-aids are applied to the real problems without there ever being a real solution. Jeez, I sound like a liberal!
But it’s been my complaint about conservatives for decades; if it’s the way to go, then it’s the way to go for everybody. So why don’t any Republicans go to Harlem and the barrios and explain how it works to their benefit? If they could go and explain it, liberalism would cease to exist! Because, maybe, deep in their hearts, they really don’t care about “those people”? And you wonder why the perception of the Republican party is that it’s for white males only?
Anyway, I digress. The Tea Party is for people who remember what Lincoln described; government by, for, and of the people. And so there’s Romney, who represents in many ways the worst impulses of the Republican party, and then there’s everybody else.
It’s not really a surprise that Ron Paul came in a strong second. He is, in a way, one of the fathers of the whole Tea Party movement. (So is Ross Perot, but we don't like to admit that.) Even if you disagree with some, or most, of his ideas, he’s a compelling force. His positions are long-held and well thought out. I think a lot of it is that he has more faith in basic human nature than I do, but that’s a debate for another time. One thing nobody doubts is that, if he’s elected, the special interest groups of all stripes can go take a flying leap off a rolling donut. He will do as he sees as being best, and that’s that.
He’s a funny guy, because I really think he knows he’s never going to be President. He’s 76 years old, fer cryin’ out loud! His whole thing is to educate the voter, and he’s very good at it. I’ve learned a lot from listening to him, even though I didn’t vote for him. I listened to his concession speech last night, and the line that really got me was when he said, “I didn’t know all you people were out there.”
That leaves the other four major candidates; Santorum, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Perry. There are subtle differences in their ideas, but on the whole I think the Tea Party movement would happy support any one of them. The problem is, there isn’t one of them, there’s four. And as long as there’s four, then Mitt Romney stays the frontrunner. Romney’s real support is about 20-25% of the Republican voters, mostly The Party Faithful. The Four Horsemen of the Tea-pocalypse have a lot more taken all together. But they’re not all together. Their personal ambitions have overrun their ideals.
And each of the four are still viable! Santorum came very close in Iowa and essentially tied for fourth in NH. Gingrich was briefly the frontrunner, and is leading with his Southern roots going into the Southern states. Huntsman did as well as he could hope for in NH, so he’s hanging in there. And Perry’s got a ton of money and is another Southerner.
The image that keeps getting referenced at this point is one of a circular firing squad. It’s one that will probably leave Romney the last man standing. Ron Paul will run until the convention, no matter what, but I don’t honestly think he’ll ever get enough backing to ever be more than second. Pretty soon, second place will be last place. The other four will continue to pat themselves on the back every time one of them finishes third, but third is nowhere. If nobody but Romney ever finishes first, then he’ll win.
What I’d like to see the other four do is get together in one room and put all their cards on the table. So far, they’ve each followed their ambition to become President. It will be the end of them all if they continue. They each need to look deep inside and think about why they went into politics in the first place.
I would direct your attention to an Eddie Murphy movie called “The Distinguished Gentleman.” It concerns a con man who decided to run for Congress, because a congressman with the same name as him has just died. Going in as a scammer, he winds up reformed and serving his constituents.
The truth, of course, is that it usually goes the other way around, more like it’s described in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.” Mr. Smith – Jimmy Stewart – finds that the Senator he’s always admired has sold his soul, piece by piece, to special interests until he’s as corrupt as they are. And all in the name of compromise.
Now, I’m sure that Mitt Romney doesn’t think of himself as corrupt. He thinks he’s using those backers of his to get in there and really do some good for people. For the little guy. And he can keep doing good for them, as long as he’s careful not to offend anybody. And the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies aren’t really manipulating prices and access to their products and limiting competition to fatten their own bottom line. They’re honest merchants, just trying to make a buck.
Yeah, we the real little people would probably be better off with Santorum, or Perry, or Gingrich, or Huntsman. Well, maybe not Huntsman. But if they would all put their pride and ambition aside for a season and pick one for the other three to back, then maybe that one would have a chance of getting the nomination. I don’t care which, and I don’t care how. Draw straws. Go by alphabetical order. Play a round of poker, have a foot race, a brawl, anything! Just pick one! One, and only one. And the other three come out with strong endorsements, stump appearances, and hand over their staff rolodexes. And they'd better be quick about it, because the train is leaving the station. They might survive South Carolina, but if they wait until after Florida, then they might as well all tie for eleventh place. None of them will have a chance.
I just had this image of Rick Perry with a black eye, saying, “Yeah, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided to support Rick Santorum.” With Gingrich sitting in a chair rubbing his shin, and Huntsman wearing a bandage on his nose. Santorum would stand up, one tooth missing, and grin at the audience.
And Mitt Romney would soil himself.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The View From Here: Peace
Peace is one of those things that everyone wants. Well, not everyone, of course, but regular people do. And the constant refrain that I'm always hearing is that peace is more than just the absence of war. But the absence of war is a large part of peace, especially from the political point of view.
I have to admit, I hold a certain admiration for people who absolutely reject violence for any reason. You've kind of got to admire anyone willing to put everything on the line to take a stand. Their argument is that the world would be a better place if everybody renounced violence and war and simply refused to do it. That's a wonderful sentiment.
The trouble is, absolutely everybody has got to sign on. All it would take would be for one guy to decide he liked that idea and he could go around robbing and killing everybody else, and never have to worry about any violent repercussions. The non-violent of the world would have the choice of wringing their hands and hoping he decided to stop, or just accepting that they were no longer safe.
That's why I can't vote for Ron Paul. I don't think his foreign policy ideas are born out of a devotion to non-violence. They seem to be coming from his core libertarianism, in which everybody has the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't bother anyone else. I get the impression he believes that, for instance, if we don't stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, they won't bother us. One hell of a gamble, if you ask me.
There happen to be people in this world who, for whatever reason, are bent on harming others. It wasn't my idea, I'm just reporting what seems obvious to me. They might be sick, mentally unstable, fearful, hateful, whatever, they're going to do it if we don't strap them down and heavily medicate them. The people that flew a couple of airliners into the World Trade Center could have stayed home and hoped that Ron Paul won the next election, but they didn't. They were as devoted to what they thought was right as the people squatting on the quad at Dartmouth College, swearing that they'll never swat another mosquito and wishing George W. Bush had died at birth.
The point is, sometimes a small war is better than a big one. In fact, I would think it usually is. If a person, or a group of people, is bent on harming you, you owe it to yourself to stand up to them. Not out of hatred. Just because somebody's got to make them stop. And if you have the wherewithall to make them stop, then you should do it. If it takes killing them, then I guess you've got to kill them. It will keep them from killing you and other people as well.
It seemed to me that this was the motivation for the US going into Afghanistan and Iraq. There were people there that had made it clear they wished us harm, and were going to work to fulfill their wishes. We had to make them stop. Is there reason to believe that oil companies or Haliburton or other rich and powerful people had a stake in it? Probably, but it still needed to be done. I've heard George W. Bush compared to Hitler and Stalin, but never to Neville Chamberlain.
I believe that peace, political peace between nations, comes from strength. The United States is in a unique position in the history of the world. We are a country that, despite all the potential for corruption, is still at its core run by its populace. As such, we look at the other peoples of the world as people. We basically wish them well, as long as they don't screw with us. For such a country to actually have the strength to enforce its will is a good thing for everybody else. Historically, our enemies wind up our friends, with all the benefits. If they're smart enough to take advantage of that, then being attacked by us could well be the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan and Iraq.
The sad but simple fact is, peace is something that has to be built out of broken pieces.
I have to admit, I hold a certain admiration for people who absolutely reject violence for any reason. You've kind of got to admire anyone willing to put everything on the line to take a stand. Their argument is that the world would be a better place if everybody renounced violence and war and simply refused to do it. That's a wonderful sentiment.
The trouble is, absolutely everybody has got to sign on. All it would take would be for one guy to decide he liked that idea and he could go around robbing and killing everybody else, and never have to worry about any violent repercussions. The non-violent of the world would have the choice of wringing their hands and hoping he decided to stop, or just accepting that they were no longer safe.
That's why I can't vote for Ron Paul. I don't think his foreign policy ideas are born out of a devotion to non-violence. They seem to be coming from his core libertarianism, in which everybody has the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't bother anyone else. I get the impression he believes that, for instance, if we don't stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, they won't bother us. One hell of a gamble, if you ask me.
There happen to be people in this world who, for whatever reason, are bent on harming others. It wasn't my idea, I'm just reporting what seems obvious to me. They might be sick, mentally unstable, fearful, hateful, whatever, they're going to do it if we don't strap them down and heavily medicate them. The people that flew a couple of airliners into the World Trade Center could have stayed home and hoped that Ron Paul won the next election, but they didn't. They were as devoted to what they thought was right as the people squatting on the quad at Dartmouth College, swearing that they'll never swat another mosquito and wishing George W. Bush had died at birth.
The point is, sometimes a small war is better than a big one. In fact, I would think it usually is. If a person, or a group of people, is bent on harming you, you owe it to yourself to stand up to them. Not out of hatred. Just because somebody's got to make them stop. And if you have the wherewithall to make them stop, then you should do it. If it takes killing them, then I guess you've got to kill them. It will keep them from killing you and other people as well.
It seemed to me that this was the motivation for the US going into Afghanistan and Iraq. There were people there that had made it clear they wished us harm, and were going to work to fulfill their wishes. We had to make them stop. Is there reason to believe that oil companies or Haliburton or other rich and powerful people had a stake in it? Probably, but it still needed to be done. I've heard George W. Bush compared to Hitler and Stalin, but never to Neville Chamberlain.
I believe that peace, political peace between nations, comes from strength. The United States is in a unique position in the history of the world. We are a country that, despite all the potential for corruption, is still at its core run by its populace. As such, we look at the other peoples of the world as people. We basically wish them well, as long as they don't screw with us. For such a country to actually have the strength to enforce its will is a good thing for everybody else. Historically, our enemies wind up our friends, with all the benefits. If they're smart enough to take advantage of that, then being attacked by us could well be the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan and Iraq.
The sad but simple fact is, peace is something that has to be built out of broken pieces.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Two old albums
Recently, I've been listening to a pair of albums that were released within a few months of each other. When they first came out, almost 40 years ago now, I had mixed feelings about them. Now, listening to them again after many years, they have become two of my favorites. And the most surprising thing, especially considering the two artists, is the deep similarities between them.
Cat Stevens was coming off a creative and commercial highpoint. His previous two albums, "Tea for the Tillerman" and "Teaser and the Firecat" would each eventually go triple platinum. Most of the songs people remember him for, "Wild World," "Peace Train," "Moonshadow," etc., came from those two albums.
This album, released in the fall of 1972, went quickly to number 1 and stayed there for three weeks, but then slipped just as rapidly down. I was one of the people that put it up there, and I was one of the people that was somewhat disappointed with what I heard. The songs were more experimental, the performances more strident and emotional than we were used to from the man who sang "Morning Has Broken."
And yet, something about the album kept me coming back. At the time I didn't like it as much as its predecessors, but I kept on getting it out and playing it. It was as if I knew there was something there that I was missing. The first song, "Sitting," was the only single from the album that made the top 40. That song, I liked immediately and have been frustrated for 40 years because I've never been able to do a servicable version of it on acoustic guitar. The second tune, "Boy with the Moon and Star," was a very pretty little ballad. After that, it got a little too heavy, too murky for my taste.
Listening to it now, I can't believe I didn't see how good the songs were. There's not a clunker on the whole album. The first two songs sound just as good as they ever did. The songwriting is more mature and consistent than much of "Tea" and "Teaser." I cannot figure out now why "Can't Keep It In" failed as a single; it's a great song.
The one I keep coming back to now is deep in the second side (for those of you who remember vinyl record albums; you know, those big black CD's?). It's called, "The House of Freezing Steel," and as many times as I've heard it I have no stinkin' idea what it's about. I'm amazed that Metallica has never thought of doing a cover of it. Whoa! Great idea!! Don't tell Metallica, I'm going to try and get that done myself!
"Silent Sunlight" is a beautiful ballad, of the type that Stevens is noted for. "18th Avenue" is a multi-layered experiment that meshes three distinct movements into a relatively short song. "O Caritas" is mostly in Greek, but you won't care; it's passionate and exotic and seals the deal with a last verse that translates the idea into English so you can enjoy it more fully. It's the sort of album that is deep and thick and keeps pulling you in. It's got catchy melodies that you'll hum for hours. Songs that will get stuck in your head, and you won't mind a bit.
And the other album, in its own way, is just as good, and just as startling.
This one came out in 1973. Most of it was written during the American tour in support of "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars." Sorry, I just had to type that all out. It's a great title. And, it was a great album, and the first one that really broke David Bowie commercially. If anything, this follow-up was even better. It was more rounded, more mature as a piece of songcraft, and yet more schizophrenic. It's a roller-coaster ride between hard rock and pre-war show tunes and hits many of the buttons in between.
My very good friend, John McLaughlin, turned me on to this album when it came out, and did so again last summer when he gave me a new copy of it. When it came out, one had to be careful in declaring themself a Bowie fan. It made a statement. His image overshadowed his music, which is unfortunate, because his music has always been, if not great, at least interesting. But liking Bowie had the sad consequence of saying something about you. You either rode with it, or suffered from it.
The two dominant players on Aladdin Sane are guitarist Mick Ronson and pianist Mike Garson. Ronson was Bowie's main creative collaborator at the time, having come up with him from obscurity. He was the kind of guitar player that every garage musician in the neighborhood wanted in their band. He was no Hendrix or Clapton, but he sure could make smoke come out of the speakers. He had exactly one sound, but it was a good one. And, he had imagination enough that he could keep up with anything Bowie could throw at him. Garson was already a seasoned session man and would spend the next couple of years in Bowie's band before going on to a rich, full career in and out of the studio.
The two together added a creative tension to the album as it swung back and forth between them. Songs like "Watch That Man," "Panic in Detroit," and "Jean Genie" belonged body and soul to Ronson. Garson ruled in songs like "Time" and "Lady Grinning Soul," jazzy tunes that sounded like they should have been sung by Liza Minnelli and Joel MacRae straight out of "Cabaret." His tour de force was the title tune, with the most manic, maniacal piano solo ever recorded. Worth the price of admission all by itself.
If anything, the two were at their best on songs in which they found common ground. "The Prettiest Star" is very piano-centric, and yet Ronson adds guitar work that take it to a whole new level. And their version of the Stones' "Let's Spend the Night Together" is a classic. I recently read a review of the album that panned that tune, but I strongly disagree. Garson takes the main riffs, freeing Ronson to spit fire all over it.
It's a dark, happy album; an exercise in sophisticated disconnectedness. Spastic nihilism with a kickin' backbeat. The album has been called inconsistent, but I think it is very consistent.
And that brings out the chief similarity between these two albums. They both see a world that is going to hell in a handbasket. The difference is in their reaction to it. Stevens looks deep inside, looking for some meaning and a way to make things better. He hopes there's a way it can all be made to make sense. Bowie sees it as being out of control, but refuses to give in to despair. Instead, he strikes up the band and has another drink or anything else to make himself feel better for a moment.
Here's a challenge that I'm thinking of trying my own hand at. I think these two albums are complimentary enough that they could be merged onto one CD. I would be interested in seeing what order anyone reading this would put the songs in. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to put my own song order out there for your examination.
Anyway, I'm hoping this will give you a reason to check these two albums out. I think you'll be glad you did. They are both very worthwhile.
Cat Stevens was coming off a creative and commercial highpoint. His previous two albums, "Tea for the Tillerman" and "Teaser and the Firecat" would each eventually go triple platinum. Most of the songs people remember him for, "Wild World," "Peace Train," "Moonshadow," etc., came from those two albums.
This album, released in the fall of 1972, went quickly to number 1 and stayed there for three weeks, but then slipped just as rapidly down. I was one of the people that put it up there, and I was one of the people that was somewhat disappointed with what I heard. The songs were more experimental, the performances more strident and emotional than we were used to from the man who sang "Morning Has Broken."
And yet, something about the album kept me coming back. At the time I didn't like it as much as its predecessors, but I kept on getting it out and playing it. It was as if I knew there was something there that I was missing. The first song, "Sitting," was the only single from the album that made the top 40. That song, I liked immediately and have been frustrated for 40 years because I've never been able to do a servicable version of it on acoustic guitar. The second tune, "Boy with the Moon and Star," was a very pretty little ballad. After that, it got a little too heavy, too murky for my taste.
Listening to it now, I can't believe I didn't see how good the songs were. There's not a clunker on the whole album. The first two songs sound just as good as they ever did. The songwriting is more mature and consistent than much of "Tea" and "Teaser." I cannot figure out now why "Can't Keep It In" failed as a single; it's a great song.
The one I keep coming back to now is deep in the second side (for those of you who remember vinyl record albums; you know, those big black CD's?). It's called, "The House of Freezing Steel," and as many times as I've heard it I have no stinkin' idea what it's about. I'm amazed that Metallica has never thought of doing a cover of it. Whoa! Great idea!! Don't tell Metallica, I'm going to try and get that done myself!
"Silent Sunlight" is a beautiful ballad, of the type that Stevens is noted for. "18th Avenue" is a multi-layered experiment that meshes three distinct movements into a relatively short song. "O Caritas" is mostly in Greek, but you won't care; it's passionate and exotic and seals the deal with a last verse that translates the idea into English so you can enjoy it more fully. It's the sort of album that is deep and thick and keeps pulling you in. It's got catchy melodies that you'll hum for hours. Songs that will get stuck in your head, and you won't mind a bit.
And the other album, in its own way, is just as good, and just as startling.
This one came out in 1973. Most of it was written during the American tour in support of "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars." Sorry, I just had to type that all out. It's a great title. And, it was a great album, and the first one that really broke David Bowie commercially. If anything, this follow-up was even better. It was more rounded, more mature as a piece of songcraft, and yet more schizophrenic. It's a roller-coaster ride between hard rock and pre-war show tunes and hits many of the buttons in between.
My very good friend, John McLaughlin, turned me on to this album when it came out, and did so again last summer when he gave me a new copy of it. When it came out, one had to be careful in declaring themself a Bowie fan. It made a statement. His image overshadowed his music, which is unfortunate, because his music has always been, if not great, at least interesting. But liking Bowie had the sad consequence of saying something about you. You either rode with it, or suffered from it.
The two dominant players on Aladdin Sane are guitarist Mick Ronson and pianist Mike Garson. Ronson was Bowie's main creative collaborator at the time, having come up with him from obscurity. He was the kind of guitar player that every garage musician in the neighborhood wanted in their band. He was no Hendrix or Clapton, but he sure could make smoke come out of the speakers. He had exactly one sound, but it was a good one. And, he had imagination enough that he could keep up with anything Bowie could throw at him. Garson was already a seasoned session man and would spend the next couple of years in Bowie's band before going on to a rich, full career in and out of the studio.
The two together added a creative tension to the album as it swung back and forth between them. Songs like "Watch That Man," "Panic in Detroit," and "Jean Genie" belonged body and soul to Ronson. Garson ruled in songs like "Time" and "Lady Grinning Soul," jazzy tunes that sounded like they should have been sung by Liza Minnelli and Joel MacRae straight out of "Cabaret." His tour de force was the title tune, with the most manic, maniacal piano solo ever recorded. Worth the price of admission all by itself.
If anything, the two were at their best on songs in which they found common ground. "The Prettiest Star" is very piano-centric, and yet Ronson adds guitar work that take it to a whole new level. And their version of the Stones' "Let's Spend the Night Together" is a classic. I recently read a review of the album that panned that tune, but I strongly disagree. Garson takes the main riffs, freeing Ronson to spit fire all over it.
It's a dark, happy album; an exercise in sophisticated disconnectedness. Spastic nihilism with a kickin' backbeat. The album has been called inconsistent, but I think it is very consistent.
And that brings out the chief similarity between these two albums. They both see a world that is going to hell in a handbasket. The difference is in their reaction to it. Stevens looks deep inside, looking for some meaning and a way to make things better. He hopes there's a way it can all be made to make sense. Bowie sees it as being out of control, but refuses to give in to despair. Instead, he strikes up the band and has another drink or anything else to make himself feel better for a moment.
Here's a challenge that I'm thinking of trying my own hand at. I think these two albums are complimentary enough that they could be merged onto one CD. I would be interested in seeing what order anyone reading this would put the songs in. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to put my own song order out there for your examination.
Anyway, I'm hoping this will give you a reason to check these two albums out. I think you'll be glad you did. They are both very worthwhile.
Friday, December 23, 2011
The View From Here: Introduction, pt. 2
Part 2 is a quick review of my track record of voting in the NH Primary. One of the coolest things about being from, and living in, New Hampshire - especially if you're a political junky - is the first-in-the-nation primary. It is ground-zero politics at its very best. People vying to become the most powerful person on the planet have to go into little coffee shops and stand on street corners and eat rubber chicken in hotel ballrooms with average people like . . . well, me! It don't get no better than that.
The first election I have a clear memory of was 1964. My parents were both life-long Democrats, and Dad was very proud of the fact that his first vote was for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am one of that group of people who remember where they were when they heard that President Kennedy was assassinated. The very idea of anyone voting for Barry Goldwater in '64 was . . . just weird! I found out later that my father-in-law's first vote was for Goldwater.
In '68, both my parents wrote in Johnson for the primary, and voted for Humphrey in the general election. '72 was a different kettle of fish. I don't honestly remember who my folks backed in the primary, but they both went for Nixon in the general election . . . and I actively campaigned for McGovern. That made for some interesting dinner conversations.
The first NH primary I ever voted in was 1976. It was an exciting year, especially if you were a Democrat, because they could have nominated Bugs Bunny and he'd have stood a good chance against Gerald Ford. Remember that this was the election after Watergate. I took a long, close look at the entire field. I really liked Frank Church and Morris Udall, but in the end went with Jimmy Carter. You have my sincerest apologies. It won't happen again, I promise.
By 1980 I was so disgusted with both parties that I didn't vote in the primary, and went with whoever was the Libertarian in the general election. I don't even remember the guy's name. Ed something, I think. Also, I can now tell a secret I was sworn to never reveal to my father. He was so disgusted with Carter that he voted for Reagan. But the real secret is that my mother voted for John Anderson, the Republican who ran as a third-party candidate.
In 1984 I was living in Sacramento, California and had to watch the NH primary from afar. I really liked Gary Hart, but agreed that he needed to quit when the whole sex scandal thing came out. I'm sorry, scum shouldn't be President. By the time of the California primary, it was all decided. And, by that time, I was a Christian and was viewing things from a new perspective. To my amazement, I found myself voting for Ronald Reagan in the general election.
By '88 I was back in NH and jumped into the primary process with a vengence. I changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, where it has remained ever since. I looked long and hard at the field from both parties, as there would be no incumbent on the ticket. Believe it or not, I seriously considered voting for Jesse Jackson, but the Republican field held more fascination for me. By this time, I was a believer in supply-side economics.
I wound up with a short list of three candidates; Pat Robertson, who most of my Christian friends wound up voting for; Pierre "Pete" DuPont, a former governor of Delaware who had some very cool ideas but couldn't get any traction; and Jack Kemp, who quite literally wrote the book on conservative economics. I voted for Kemp, but by the general election came to really believe that the best man for the job was George H. W. Bush. And, I think he was an excellent President.
1992 was very frustrating. I really liked Bush as President. Plus, after Desert Storm he looked like a shoo-in, so all the major Democrats like Mario Cuomo bowed out. But then Pat Buchanan reared his ugly head. I don't care, I don't like the man, never did, never will. Everybody blames Ross Perot for the end of Bush, but I blame Buchanan. I believe he, more than anyone else, gave us Bill Clinton.
The Republicans put out a weak field for '96 in my view. My wife and I both wound up voting for Allen Keyes. In my case, it was as much for the statement it made as a belief he'd make a good president. Held my nose and voted for Bob Dole in the general election, and was pleased to also be able to finally cast a vote for Jack Kemp, even if it was for VP. Backed Keyes again in 2000, and happily supported Bush, Jr. in the general election. Again, as his father had, he won me over slowly as the year went by.
In '04 I missed a chance to vote in the primary for the first time in a long time, as Bush had the incumbent's chance of the nomination and no Democrat impressed me enough to jump over. I thought 2008 was another very weak field, and I went for Rudy Giuliani. I did vote for McCain in the general election, but more because I thought Obama would be as bad as he is than any belief that McCain would be much better.
This year, I'm still up in the air. I'm probably 50% ready to vote for Gingrich, but may write in Herman Cain or Condi Rice at the last minute. This is, I'm sorry, the weakest field in years. Maybe in my lifetime. There is absolutely nobody running that I really like. If Romney gets the nod, I may stay home for the first time in my life. We need a leader with a vision, and Gingrich may be the closest thing we have. Which, to my thinking, is a damned sad state of affairs.
Then again, times like this are what makes leaders like Reagan look so good. Let's hope there's one in training right now, gettting ready for 2020.
So now you know a lot of my history. Boring, pointless, but don't forget where you come from. And, if you're actually interested enough to have read this far, you might be surprised to learn that my values haven't changed a whole lot, even if my politics have. At any rate, the introduction is over.
The first election I have a clear memory of was 1964. My parents were both life-long Democrats, and Dad was very proud of the fact that his first vote was for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am one of that group of people who remember where they were when they heard that President Kennedy was assassinated. The very idea of anyone voting for Barry Goldwater in '64 was . . . just weird! I found out later that my father-in-law's first vote was for Goldwater.
In '68, both my parents wrote in Johnson for the primary, and voted for Humphrey in the general election. '72 was a different kettle of fish. I don't honestly remember who my folks backed in the primary, but they both went for Nixon in the general election . . . and I actively campaigned for McGovern. That made for some interesting dinner conversations.
The first NH primary I ever voted in was 1976. It was an exciting year, especially if you were a Democrat, because they could have nominated Bugs Bunny and he'd have stood a good chance against Gerald Ford. Remember that this was the election after Watergate. I took a long, close look at the entire field. I really liked Frank Church and Morris Udall, but in the end went with Jimmy Carter. You have my sincerest apologies. It won't happen again, I promise.
By 1980 I was so disgusted with both parties that I didn't vote in the primary, and went with whoever was the Libertarian in the general election. I don't even remember the guy's name. Ed something, I think. Also, I can now tell a secret I was sworn to never reveal to my father. He was so disgusted with Carter that he voted for Reagan. But the real secret is that my mother voted for John Anderson, the Republican who ran as a third-party candidate.
In 1984 I was living in Sacramento, California and had to watch the NH primary from afar. I really liked Gary Hart, but agreed that he needed to quit when the whole sex scandal thing came out. I'm sorry, scum shouldn't be President. By the time of the California primary, it was all decided. And, by that time, I was a Christian and was viewing things from a new perspective. To my amazement, I found myself voting for Ronald Reagan in the general election.
By '88 I was back in NH and jumped into the primary process with a vengence. I changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, where it has remained ever since. I looked long and hard at the field from both parties, as there would be no incumbent on the ticket. Believe it or not, I seriously considered voting for Jesse Jackson, but the Republican field held more fascination for me. By this time, I was a believer in supply-side economics.
I wound up with a short list of three candidates; Pat Robertson, who most of my Christian friends wound up voting for; Pierre "Pete" DuPont, a former governor of Delaware who had some very cool ideas but couldn't get any traction; and Jack Kemp, who quite literally wrote the book on conservative economics. I voted for Kemp, but by the general election came to really believe that the best man for the job was George H. W. Bush. And, I think he was an excellent President.
1992 was very frustrating. I really liked Bush as President. Plus, after Desert Storm he looked like a shoo-in, so all the major Democrats like Mario Cuomo bowed out. But then Pat Buchanan reared his ugly head. I don't care, I don't like the man, never did, never will. Everybody blames Ross Perot for the end of Bush, but I blame Buchanan. I believe he, more than anyone else, gave us Bill Clinton.
The Republicans put out a weak field for '96 in my view. My wife and I both wound up voting for Allen Keyes. In my case, it was as much for the statement it made as a belief he'd make a good president. Held my nose and voted for Bob Dole in the general election, and was pleased to also be able to finally cast a vote for Jack Kemp, even if it was for VP. Backed Keyes again in 2000, and happily supported Bush, Jr. in the general election. Again, as his father had, he won me over slowly as the year went by.
In '04 I missed a chance to vote in the primary for the first time in a long time, as Bush had the incumbent's chance of the nomination and no Democrat impressed me enough to jump over. I thought 2008 was another very weak field, and I went for Rudy Giuliani. I did vote for McCain in the general election, but more because I thought Obama would be as bad as he is than any belief that McCain would be much better.
This year, I'm still up in the air. I'm probably 50% ready to vote for Gingrich, but may write in Herman Cain or Condi Rice at the last minute. This is, I'm sorry, the weakest field in years. Maybe in my lifetime. There is absolutely nobody running that I really like. If Romney gets the nod, I may stay home for the first time in my life. We need a leader with a vision, and Gingrich may be the closest thing we have. Which, to my thinking, is a damned sad state of affairs.
Then again, times like this are what makes leaders like Reagan look so good. Let's hope there's one in training right now, gettting ready for 2020.
So now you know a lot of my history. Boring, pointless, but don't forget where you come from. And, if you're actually interested enough to have read this far, you might be surprised to learn that my values haven't changed a whole lot, even if my politics have. At any rate, the introduction is over.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The View From Here: Introduction, pt. 1
This is the first part of something I've been thinking about writing for a long time. It's a series of pieces on my basic political philosophy. The reason for it is that many times I find that people are confused by my arguments. They want to pigeonhole me as something, and I profess a belief or stand on an issue that goes against what they think I am.
In a nutshell, I believe there are certain basic things that everybody wants, whether they're conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, red or blue, old, young, or whatever. These things are:
Peace
Prosperity
Equality
Freedom
Security
Liberals and Conservatives, and so on blah blah blah, all want these for themselves and promise them for society as a whole. The disagreements come from differing views on how to achieve them. I plan to write a piece about each of these things, and what I think it will take to achieve them on a political level. But politics is only a small part of life, and to really understand why I believe what I believe, you have to understand the ground on which I stand to get the view I see from here.
I was about eight years old when I learned that my parents had me baptized at the United Protestant Church in Dorchester, NH. This made me curious as to what that meant. Not that we ever went to church very often, but my mother had an interest and occasionally, sporadically, we went. Thinking back, I learned more about Roman armor than about God, but like I said we didn't go very often. My father had a much more skeptical view of religion, but did not completely dismiss it. He just wasn't scared to ask questions about it that might make a true believer uncomfortable.
So I started asking my friends whose families went to church what they knew about Christianity. And, I have to admit, I wasn't overly impressed with what they had to say. It seemed to me a bit simplistic. So I began looking at other religions and systems of beliefs. By the time I joined the Navy at 17, I was somewhere between Buddhist, Athiest, and Communist. From there I explored the realm of the supernatural through yoga, meditation, astrology, and drugs. Followed a lot of gurus, didn't get much in the way of results.
In my late twenties I read a novel that made quite an impression on me. I don't remember the name of the book or the author, but it was about a young woman who was on a similar quest to mine. She hooked up with a spirit who guided her on her spiritual quest. She ran afoul of some other spiritist/magical types, and was surprised and pleased to learn that her spirit guide could successfully defend her against them.
I had experienced limited communication with various spirits by this time, and was a firm believer in the existence of supernatural beings. One of my major goals was to have a positive influence on the world, and I knew that any effort on my behalf in this direction would put me on the wrong side of some powerful people. So I knew I needed to hook up with as powerful a spirit as possible if I was going to be able to do any good.
You see, when I began my search I already had a goal in life. I wanted to be President. I had a number of other sub-goals, like rock star and/or race car driver/designer, or maybe journalism, but these would lead into a political career and eventually the Presidency. Hey, if you're gonna dream, might as well dream big.
After a while, like when I got to about 20 or so, I realized that Presidents come and go, but artists are forever. It is arguable that Elvis or the Beatles had more influence on the world than Richard Nixon or John Kennedy. After all, the most a President could serve was eight years, but Elvis is still capable of a hit, and he's been dead for more than thirty years. So I started playing guitar and writing music.
But I needed to have the right message, and that led me through the world of philosophy and religion, and up to the point of seeking out a powerful spirit guide. If possible, the most powerful one of all.
And I found him! In a most surprising place as well. By this time I was 28 and going to college in Sacramento, California. I met up with a few people who professed to be born-again Christians, and found them quite amusing. One in particular, a Davis California native named Rick Nixon (perfect guy to meet when you're a political junkie) was a classmate in a Theater Arts class. Our class went on a field trip to San Francisco to see Shakespeare's "A Midsummer's Night Dream." We got there early, so he and I went off to get some lunch. When we got it, he bowed his head to pray, and I thought, "Oh, boy."
I was merciless, challenging ever preconception he might have had and exposing my own prejudices. And he was not able to answer all my challenges. But neither did I shake his faith. What he stood on was simple; he knew Jesus Christ, and nothing I could say or do could take that away.
So I started looking into Christianity from a new perspective, and found myself being challenged. It was not, as I had surmised in the third grade, a simplistic bunch of rules. It was a personal relationship with an entity known as Jesus Christ. If what I read was true, this was that 'most powerful spirit' I had been looking for. Only one problem; he was unwilling to simply be a guide and help me with my mission. If I was going to have a relationship with him, he would have to be in charge.
It made me think about what I'd learned about the supernatural. The spirits I sought connection with lived on a plane that I could not access. I had been convinced that I was the one in control, but they were moving and acting outside of my knowledge. It was entirely possible that they were manipulating me, and letting me believe what I wanted to believe. At least Jesus was being honest; his way, or the highway. If I was going to be with him, he would be the boss.
At this point, I had a choice. I could walk away, knowing that if I ever came up against him I was guaranteed to lose. Or, I could give up everything I had ever wanted and follow him. It was a choice that was no choice at all. I asked him to take over my life. And he did.
And it's not exactly been easy. I'm now 56, which means twice the age I was when I made my decision. And the main thing I know is that I still have a lot to learn, and a long way to go. My job here on this planet is to be the best example of a Christian that I can be, and I am sorry to say I've been a damned poor excuse for one too many times. But there's nothing else worth doing in this life. I'd rather be a simple, unknown, working class Christian than a rock star, a race car driver, or the President.
So anyway, this is my perspective on life. Any system of government is only as good as the people living in it. To make the country, and the world, a better place, I have to be a better person. For that, I need enough power to overcome my worst impulses, and enough wisdom to know the way to go. Who better to give control of my life to than God himself?
It comes down to this; God created everything and everybody, and loves his creation without reservation. So, he is all-knowing and completely trustworthy. Jesus Christ is the physical embodiment of God, and lived a human life to reveal himself to humanity. The Bible is the most complete and trustworthy expression of his mind, written by a long line of people who he inspired and led. And I trust this because I am, for lack of a better term, possessed by and in communication with the spirit - commonly known as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost - of God.
And no, he doesn't operate me like some invisible puppeteer. He doesn't do that with anybody, and never has. Which is why there is so much evil in the world, because he doesn't go where he's not invited. The significance of this to my political beliefs is that I prefer a political structure that allows me to act on God's behalf to affect the world in a positive way, along with other Christians.
And one other thing; every religion, Christian and otherwise, has built into it a concept of heaven; a perfect place, where it is possible to live a perfect life. This heaven usually includes the things I named above; peace, prosperity, equality, freedom, and security. Every nation on earth has been an attempt at creating something close to that heaven. It is my belief, as an amateur student of history, that 21st-century America is the closest there's ever been to that heaven. With all its flaws, all the corruption, all the uncertainty, have there really ever been a people as blessed as the average American?
So this series, The View From Here, will be my ideas on how this country is like, and can be more like, a perfect place where a loving God leads His people in His perfect will. Hope you like.
In a nutshell, I believe there are certain basic things that everybody wants, whether they're conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, red or blue, old, young, or whatever. These things are:
Peace
Prosperity
Equality
Freedom
Security
Liberals and Conservatives, and so on blah blah blah, all want these for themselves and promise them for society as a whole. The disagreements come from differing views on how to achieve them. I plan to write a piece about each of these things, and what I think it will take to achieve them on a political level. But politics is only a small part of life, and to really understand why I believe what I believe, you have to understand the ground on which I stand to get the view I see from here.
I was about eight years old when I learned that my parents had me baptized at the United Protestant Church in Dorchester, NH. This made me curious as to what that meant. Not that we ever went to church very often, but my mother had an interest and occasionally, sporadically, we went. Thinking back, I learned more about Roman armor than about God, but like I said we didn't go very often. My father had a much more skeptical view of religion, but did not completely dismiss it. He just wasn't scared to ask questions about it that might make a true believer uncomfortable.
So I started asking my friends whose families went to church what they knew about Christianity. And, I have to admit, I wasn't overly impressed with what they had to say. It seemed to me a bit simplistic. So I began looking at other religions and systems of beliefs. By the time I joined the Navy at 17, I was somewhere between Buddhist, Athiest, and Communist. From there I explored the realm of the supernatural through yoga, meditation, astrology, and drugs. Followed a lot of gurus, didn't get much in the way of results.
In my late twenties I read a novel that made quite an impression on me. I don't remember the name of the book or the author, but it was about a young woman who was on a similar quest to mine. She hooked up with a spirit who guided her on her spiritual quest. She ran afoul of some other spiritist/magical types, and was surprised and pleased to learn that her spirit guide could successfully defend her against them.
I had experienced limited communication with various spirits by this time, and was a firm believer in the existence of supernatural beings. One of my major goals was to have a positive influence on the world, and I knew that any effort on my behalf in this direction would put me on the wrong side of some powerful people. So I knew I needed to hook up with as powerful a spirit as possible if I was going to be able to do any good.
You see, when I began my search I already had a goal in life. I wanted to be President. I had a number of other sub-goals, like rock star and/or race car driver/designer, or maybe journalism, but these would lead into a political career and eventually the Presidency. Hey, if you're gonna dream, might as well dream big.
After a while, like when I got to about 20 or so, I realized that Presidents come and go, but artists are forever. It is arguable that Elvis or the Beatles had more influence on the world than Richard Nixon or John Kennedy. After all, the most a President could serve was eight years, but Elvis is still capable of a hit, and he's been dead for more than thirty years. So I started playing guitar and writing music.
But I needed to have the right message, and that led me through the world of philosophy and religion, and up to the point of seeking out a powerful spirit guide. If possible, the most powerful one of all.
And I found him! In a most surprising place as well. By this time I was 28 and going to college in Sacramento, California. I met up with a few people who professed to be born-again Christians, and found them quite amusing. One in particular, a Davis California native named Rick Nixon (perfect guy to meet when you're a political junkie) was a classmate in a Theater Arts class. Our class went on a field trip to San Francisco to see Shakespeare's "A Midsummer's Night Dream." We got there early, so he and I went off to get some lunch. When we got it, he bowed his head to pray, and I thought, "Oh, boy."
I was merciless, challenging ever preconception he might have had and exposing my own prejudices. And he was not able to answer all my challenges. But neither did I shake his faith. What he stood on was simple; he knew Jesus Christ, and nothing I could say or do could take that away.
So I started looking into Christianity from a new perspective, and found myself being challenged. It was not, as I had surmised in the third grade, a simplistic bunch of rules. It was a personal relationship with an entity known as Jesus Christ. If what I read was true, this was that 'most powerful spirit' I had been looking for. Only one problem; he was unwilling to simply be a guide and help me with my mission. If I was going to have a relationship with him, he would have to be in charge.
It made me think about what I'd learned about the supernatural. The spirits I sought connection with lived on a plane that I could not access. I had been convinced that I was the one in control, but they were moving and acting outside of my knowledge. It was entirely possible that they were manipulating me, and letting me believe what I wanted to believe. At least Jesus was being honest; his way, or the highway. If I was going to be with him, he would be the boss.
At this point, I had a choice. I could walk away, knowing that if I ever came up against him I was guaranteed to lose. Or, I could give up everything I had ever wanted and follow him. It was a choice that was no choice at all. I asked him to take over my life. And he did.
And it's not exactly been easy. I'm now 56, which means twice the age I was when I made my decision. And the main thing I know is that I still have a lot to learn, and a long way to go. My job here on this planet is to be the best example of a Christian that I can be, and I am sorry to say I've been a damned poor excuse for one too many times. But there's nothing else worth doing in this life. I'd rather be a simple, unknown, working class Christian than a rock star, a race car driver, or the President.
So anyway, this is my perspective on life. Any system of government is only as good as the people living in it. To make the country, and the world, a better place, I have to be a better person. For that, I need enough power to overcome my worst impulses, and enough wisdom to know the way to go. Who better to give control of my life to than God himself?
It comes down to this; God created everything and everybody, and loves his creation without reservation. So, he is all-knowing and completely trustworthy. Jesus Christ is the physical embodiment of God, and lived a human life to reveal himself to humanity. The Bible is the most complete and trustworthy expression of his mind, written by a long line of people who he inspired and led. And I trust this because I am, for lack of a better term, possessed by and in communication with the spirit - commonly known as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost - of God.
And no, he doesn't operate me like some invisible puppeteer. He doesn't do that with anybody, and never has. Which is why there is so much evil in the world, because he doesn't go where he's not invited. The significance of this to my political beliefs is that I prefer a political structure that allows me to act on God's behalf to affect the world in a positive way, along with other Christians.
And one other thing; every religion, Christian and otherwise, has built into it a concept of heaven; a perfect place, where it is possible to live a perfect life. This heaven usually includes the things I named above; peace, prosperity, equality, freedom, and security. Every nation on earth has been an attempt at creating something close to that heaven. It is my belief, as an amateur student of history, that 21st-century America is the closest there's ever been to that heaven. With all its flaws, all the corruption, all the uncertainty, have there really ever been a people as blessed as the average American?
So this series, The View From Here, will be my ideas on how this country is like, and can be more like, a perfect place where a loving God leads His people in His perfect will. Hope you like.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Rick's Quadrennial NH Primary Voter's Guide
Hi. This being the second time I've done this, so I guess we might as well go ahead and call it a tradition. I'm planning on writing something soon about my own personal political philosophy, but I've kinda been doing that right along. What this is about, is me trying to figure out who I'm going to vote for in the NH Primary. A quick disclosure; I'm registered as an Independent, and would have no problem with taking a Democratic ballot if someone on it sufficiently moved me. But since I lean conservative, I'm going to do my usual and take a Republican one.
I've also been giving serious thought about setting up a group of categories and tying them to a ten-point system. That would make me vote for the person with the highest score, which might or might not be a good thing to do. Maybe I can work that out for 2016. Consider yourself warned. In the meantime, I'll toss around the prototype version.
MITT ROMNEY
I've already written about him, so go back and look it up. Don't be lazy, now. I don't actually think he'd make a bad president, he just wouldn't make a particularly good one. He's running on the hope that the Un-Mitt-of-the-month will keep rotating and he'll outlast them.
Remember that points system? The two most important catagories, to my way of thinking, are Competence and Ideas. In the first, I'd have to give him 8 out of 10. He's probably one of the smartest, most capable candidates in the whole race. But on ideas, I'd have to give him probably 3, and that's being generous. His big plan for the future of the country is, "No, really, I AM a conservative." That is, unless he gets the nomination, then he'll be whatever else anyone wants.
He said in a recent debate that his plan will create 11.5 million jobs. He never did say which jobs, or where they'd be, or how much they'd pay. I earnestly believe he was just making up a number. The way to create jobs, as any Conservative will tell you, is a combination of tax cuts and easement of regulation. This will stimulate business and there come the jobs. But there's a lot of things that need to be done, and a lot of the Obama agenda that needs to be dismantled, and I just don't believe he'll do it.
I think he's the one Obama wants to run against. He's the one Barack will have the best chance of beating, and if he loses, there's a good chance he can make a comeback in '16, saying "See, he didn't do anything, I'm the one with the vision."
NEWT GINGRICH
The Un-Mitt of the month, and maybe the last one. Again, competence 8. He could walk in the door and do the job well, without question. He's very smart, very articulate, and a total policy wonk who knows what he thinks and how to explain it to the people in fly-over country. He's flawed, but doesn't waste a lot of time backpedalling away from it. Yeah, he's screwed up a few times, but if the choices become him and Obama, who ya gonna pick?
On the other side, I give him a 4 on ideas. Once again, not a guy for big sweeping changes. He is more likely to dismantle Obamacare, though. Obama's campaign will be all about character, and it will have to be, because he has to keep his real ideas secret and Newt doesn't.
RON PAUL
I believe the Republican party ignores this man at its own peril. It would be wise to focus the bright light on him and his ideas, and air them out for the public. I think many of his supporters, if not most, back him because the party hates him without really knowing what he stands for.
First of all, he's a Libertarian, and a former Presidental candidate for the Libertarian party. Libertarianism looks good on paper, but in reality it's borderline anarchy. It's fine, if you feel comfortable blindly trusting big business. One thing for sure, the economy will boom, until one or two of them decide they can make a big killing by kicking off another depression. Remember, a super-friendly business climate was what led the Harding-Coolidge boom years into the crash 1929. And also remember that every sudden downturn manages to somehow benefit a small handful of people. Just like the people who are going to cash in long-term on the bursting of the housing bubble.
Secondly, his foreign policy strongly resembles that of John Foster Dulles, Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of State. His concept was called "Fortress America." He thought we should pull completely out of Europe, Asia and Africa and concentrate on North and South America. Let the Commies and whoever take over their half, we'll handle our half.
I know there are subtle differences, but that's essentially what Paul is suggesting. Let the Taliban and Al Queida and whoever have Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever. That's what will happen if we pull everybody out and "stop playing the world's policeman." If you're cool with that, vote Paul.
Points? Oh, yeah. 7 for competence, but minus two because he'll never get anything through congress. And 7 for ideas, because at least he's got some. But again, minus two, same reason.
RICK PERRY
I wish I could make a TV ad for Rick Perry. I'd have him sitting at a big desk, talking on the phone. Then looking in a file folder. Then talking with a staffer that comes dashing in. Another phone call, along with a quick but steady glance at a computer monitor on the desk. All the while, a voice-over is reading from the US Constitution regarding the duties of the President. It would end with something like;
"Okay, he's not the smoothest on TV." And then, tying in to ads he's already running; "We've already got someone like that. This is the part that guy's not good at."
He's desperate, and he's throwing out anything that pops into his head in hopes something will stick. It's not a good sign. If he were to behave like that as President, it would be bad for the whole country. Especially considering that some of his ideas are totally bananas. I actually like the idea of a part-time congress, but what congressman will vote for it?
I would give him a 6, maybe 7, for competence, because he's already running a very big state and apparently doing a pretty solid job. And another 6 for ideas, because again, he's actually got some. I have no doubt he'd take Obamacare apart as quick as he can, and bend heaven and earth to cut taxes and ease regs.
But that's not enough!
MICHELLE BACHMAN
Another former Un-Mitt fave. A few months ago she was a shoo-in to take the Iowa caucus. Now, she's third or fourth. She's toast. Rolling Stone ran a savage piece on her right after the Iowa straw poll she won a couple months back, and it's worth a read. Not that I buy most of it, because Rolling Stone is aimed directly at the most sold-out corners of the left. The piece was not there to convince any Republicans, it was there to scare people who would never vote for her in a million years into thinking she had an outside chance. And she may have, back then, but it's gone.
She's Sarah Palin light. She's a conservative true believer, all the way. But now, with the pressure on, her cracks are showing. I'm finding it instructive to see how some of these people are acting on the roller coaster. Her "Hey! Me! Me!" act is one of the most distasteful. 3 for competence, because I think she'd be in way over her head in the oval office. But 5 for ideas. Might be a good VP choice, and the on-the-job training would be good for her. Definitely better on TV than Dan Quayle.
RICK SANTORUM
Why is this guy still here? He was a good Senator, but lost his seat in the '06 purge. Another guy who could use the VP experience. He's one of the few left that hasn't had a turn being the Un-Mitt of the hour. His official nickname should be, "oh, him." Competence, 5 (maybe), ideas, probably 6. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance. Sorry, but losing a senate seat does not qualify you for the White House.
JOHN HUNTSMAN
The answer to the musical question, "Does Mitt have a younger brother?" Or maybe, "Whatever happened to Tim Pawlenty?" Mitt in a cheaper suit. Same moderate credentials, less credibility. Governor of Utah. If him, why not a governor of Alaska? Competence, 4; ideas, 2.
PEOPLE I WISH WOULD RUN
There are a few people I would seriously consider voting for if I knew anybody else that would, too. See if any of these names ring any chimes for you:
Herman Cain
That's right. I was on the verge of voting for him, and still might. Not that I think he's the most capable man in the world to do the job, but because of the message he'd send. I'd vote for him for that message, and if he won the whole ball of wax I wouldn't have a problem with it. Competence, 6, ideas, 6.
Then we come to the sexual harrassment charges. If they're true, all bets are off; he would deserve to not only be eliminated from consideration for President, he'd deserve to be strung up by his vital parts. But if not, then he's proof of how easy it is for lies to destroy somebody. In the media, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty." I think it's telling that, now that he's out, all that seems to have gone away. Funny, huh?
I would agree that the 9-9-9 plan has holes, but at least it's an idea. He's another one I'd like to do an ad for, and it would be mostly like the one I'd do for Perry. I think he could do the job, and do it pretty well.
Sarah Palin
Yeah, I know, but I believe she'd actually do the job quite well. I think it would have been better for her to remain in the governor's mansion in Juneau, but oh, well.
Condoleeza Rice
Who? Are you serious? Most definitely, pilgrim. Brilliant person. Read her book, or any number of books about her. Check out a book I found in a dollar store called "Hillary and Condi." Back in '05, pundit and former Clinton staffer Dick Morris wrote a book about what he thought was going to be the '08 race. He gives a lot of background on Condi, and I'm sold. I was anyway. She's very accomplished, cool as a cucumber under pressure, and is three steps ahead of everybody. She also seems to have to ability to see things from more possible angles than anyone out there. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
Her record as the head of Stanford University is most telling. She took it over when it was deeply in debt. When she left eight years later, they were well into their biggest expansion ever AND had $14 million in the bank. Also, she has an interesting attitude toward affirmative action. She's for it as far as taking someone on, but against it in regards to tenure. That means, being a minority or a woman can get you a job, but you advance completely on merit. A good, pragmatic solution, and one I agree with.
On the whole, it's a pretty uninspiring field considering how much is at stake and how easy it should be to beat Obama. Oh, yes, before I forget . . .
BARACK OBAMA
His name will also be on the ballot. Not on the Republican primary ballot, but definitely on the one in the fall of '12. He should be considered in all this.
You've probably gotten the impression that I'm not going to vote for him. My wife, who happens to be very well informed and quite brilliant, disagrees with my assessment of him, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt. She thinks, for the most part, that he's just in over his head and doesn't really know what he's doing.
As mentioned, I disagree. I look at Obamacare, the national debt, the bowing to other world leaders, the fire sale to China, and I see the groundwork being laid for a unified world government. In that world, our debt would be shared with China and everybody else. We would be one of the movers and shakers in that world, but not the biggest one. I think he sees it as inevitable, and he's betting everything on it.
I think he has a vision, and is building for the long haul. It's something to think about. I know some of you reading this would be cool with that.
I have to say, his election makes me proud of my country. Having lived for 56 years, I've seen a lot of changes, and it truly blesses me that we could elect an African-American. But I knew at the time he was a far-leftie, and he's done nothing to prove me wrong. His ideas are fatally flawed, and he's a lousy president, just like I knew he'd be. If he wins re-election, he'll have to do it with fear. Either he has no ideas, or his ideas are so extreme he doesn't dare say them out loud.
If it's the former, then I'd have to give him a 2/2. If the latter, 8/0. I can't wait to read the book he writes after he returns to civilian life.
I've also been giving serious thought about setting up a group of categories and tying them to a ten-point system. That would make me vote for the person with the highest score, which might or might not be a good thing to do. Maybe I can work that out for 2016. Consider yourself warned. In the meantime, I'll toss around the prototype version.
MITT ROMNEY
I've already written about him, so go back and look it up. Don't be lazy, now. I don't actually think he'd make a bad president, he just wouldn't make a particularly good one. He's running on the hope that the Un-Mitt-of-the-month will keep rotating and he'll outlast them.
Remember that points system? The two most important catagories, to my way of thinking, are Competence and Ideas. In the first, I'd have to give him 8 out of 10. He's probably one of the smartest, most capable candidates in the whole race. But on ideas, I'd have to give him probably 3, and that's being generous. His big plan for the future of the country is, "No, really, I AM a conservative." That is, unless he gets the nomination, then he'll be whatever else anyone wants.
He said in a recent debate that his plan will create 11.5 million jobs. He never did say which jobs, or where they'd be, or how much they'd pay. I earnestly believe he was just making up a number. The way to create jobs, as any Conservative will tell you, is a combination of tax cuts and easement of regulation. This will stimulate business and there come the jobs. But there's a lot of things that need to be done, and a lot of the Obama agenda that needs to be dismantled, and I just don't believe he'll do it.
I think he's the one Obama wants to run against. He's the one Barack will have the best chance of beating, and if he loses, there's a good chance he can make a comeback in '16, saying "See, he didn't do anything, I'm the one with the vision."
NEWT GINGRICH
The Un-Mitt of the month, and maybe the last one. Again, competence 8. He could walk in the door and do the job well, without question. He's very smart, very articulate, and a total policy wonk who knows what he thinks and how to explain it to the people in fly-over country. He's flawed, but doesn't waste a lot of time backpedalling away from it. Yeah, he's screwed up a few times, but if the choices become him and Obama, who ya gonna pick?
On the other side, I give him a 4 on ideas. Once again, not a guy for big sweeping changes. He is more likely to dismantle Obamacare, though. Obama's campaign will be all about character, and it will have to be, because he has to keep his real ideas secret and Newt doesn't.
RON PAUL
I believe the Republican party ignores this man at its own peril. It would be wise to focus the bright light on him and his ideas, and air them out for the public. I think many of his supporters, if not most, back him because the party hates him without really knowing what he stands for.
First of all, he's a Libertarian, and a former Presidental candidate for the Libertarian party. Libertarianism looks good on paper, but in reality it's borderline anarchy. It's fine, if you feel comfortable blindly trusting big business. One thing for sure, the economy will boom, until one or two of them decide they can make a big killing by kicking off another depression. Remember, a super-friendly business climate was what led the Harding-Coolidge boom years into the crash 1929. And also remember that every sudden downturn manages to somehow benefit a small handful of people. Just like the people who are going to cash in long-term on the bursting of the housing bubble.
Secondly, his foreign policy strongly resembles that of John Foster Dulles, Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of State. His concept was called "Fortress America." He thought we should pull completely out of Europe, Asia and Africa and concentrate on North and South America. Let the Commies and whoever take over their half, we'll handle our half.
I know there are subtle differences, but that's essentially what Paul is suggesting. Let the Taliban and Al Queida and whoever have Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever. That's what will happen if we pull everybody out and "stop playing the world's policeman." If you're cool with that, vote Paul.
Points? Oh, yeah. 7 for competence, but minus two because he'll never get anything through congress. And 7 for ideas, because at least he's got some. But again, minus two, same reason.
RICK PERRY
I wish I could make a TV ad for Rick Perry. I'd have him sitting at a big desk, talking on the phone. Then looking in a file folder. Then talking with a staffer that comes dashing in. Another phone call, along with a quick but steady glance at a computer monitor on the desk. All the while, a voice-over is reading from the US Constitution regarding the duties of the President. It would end with something like;
"Okay, he's not the smoothest on TV." And then, tying in to ads he's already running; "We've already got someone like that. This is the part that guy's not good at."
He's desperate, and he's throwing out anything that pops into his head in hopes something will stick. It's not a good sign. If he were to behave like that as President, it would be bad for the whole country. Especially considering that some of his ideas are totally bananas. I actually like the idea of a part-time congress, but what congressman will vote for it?
I would give him a 6, maybe 7, for competence, because he's already running a very big state and apparently doing a pretty solid job. And another 6 for ideas, because again, he's actually got some. I have no doubt he'd take Obamacare apart as quick as he can, and bend heaven and earth to cut taxes and ease regs.
But that's not enough!
MICHELLE BACHMAN
Another former Un-Mitt fave. A few months ago she was a shoo-in to take the Iowa caucus. Now, she's third or fourth. She's toast. Rolling Stone ran a savage piece on her right after the Iowa straw poll she won a couple months back, and it's worth a read. Not that I buy most of it, because Rolling Stone is aimed directly at the most sold-out corners of the left. The piece was not there to convince any Republicans, it was there to scare people who would never vote for her in a million years into thinking she had an outside chance. And she may have, back then, but it's gone.
She's Sarah Palin light. She's a conservative true believer, all the way. But now, with the pressure on, her cracks are showing. I'm finding it instructive to see how some of these people are acting on the roller coaster. Her "Hey! Me! Me!" act is one of the most distasteful. 3 for competence, because I think she'd be in way over her head in the oval office. But 5 for ideas. Might be a good VP choice, and the on-the-job training would be good for her. Definitely better on TV than Dan Quayle.
RICK SANTORUM
Why is this guy still here? He was a good Senator, but lost his seat in the '06 purge. Another guy who could use the VP experience. He's one of the few left that hasn't had a turn being the Un-Mitt of the hour. His official nickname should be, "oh, him." Competence, 5 (maybe), ideas, probably 6. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance. Sorry, but losing a senate seat does not qualify you for the White House.
JOHN HUNTSMAN
The answer to the musical question, "Does Mitt have a younger brother?" Or maybe, "Whatever happened to Tim Pawlenty?" Mitt in a cheaper suit. Same moderate credentials, less credibility. Governor of Utah. If him, why not a governor of Alaska? Competence, 4; ideas, 2.
PEOPLE I WISH WOULD RUN
There are a few people I would seriously consider voting for if I knew anybody else that would, too. See if any of these names ring any chimes for you:
Herman Cain
That's right. I was on the verge of voting for him, and still might. Not that I think he's the most capable man in the world to do the job, but because of the message he'd send. I'd vote for him for that message, and if he won the whole ball of wax I wouldn't have a problem with it. Competence, 6, ideas, 6.
Then we come to the sexual harrassment charges. If they're true, all bets are off; he would deserve to not only be eliminated from consideration for President, he'd deserve to be strung up by his vital parts. But if not, then he's proof of how easy it is for lies to destroy somebody. In the media, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty." I think it's telling that, now that he's out, all that seems to have gone away. Funny, huh?
I would agree that the 9-9-9 plan has holes, but at least it's an idea. He's another one I'd like to do an ad for, and it would be mostly like the one I'd do for Perry. I think he could do the job, and do it pretty well.
Sarah Palin
Yeah, I know, but I believe she'd actually do the job quite well. I think it would have been better for her to remain in the governor's mansion in Juneau, but oh, well.
Condoleeza Rice
Who? Are you serious? Most definitely, pilgrim. Brilliant person. Read her book, or any number of books about her. Check out a book I found in a dollar store called "Hillary and Condi." Back in '05, pundit and former Clinton staffer Dick Morris wrote a book about what he thought was going to be the '08 race. He gives a lot of background on Condi, and I'm sold. I was anyway. She's very accomplished, cool as a cucumber under pressure, and is three steps ahead of everybody. She also seems to have to ability to see things from more possible angles than anyone out there. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
Her record as the head of Stanford University is most telling. She took it over when it was deeply in debt. When she left eight years later, they were well into their biggest expansion ever AND had $14 million in the bank. Also, she has an interesting attitude toward affirmative action. She's for it as far as taking someone on, but against it in regards to tenure. That means, being a minority or a woman can get you a job, but you advance completely on merit. A good, pragmatic solution, and one I agree with.
On the whole, it's a pretty uninspiring field considering how much is at stake and how easy it should be to beat Obama. Oh, yes, before I forget . . .
BARACK OBAMA
His name will also be on the ballot. Not on the Republican primary ballot, but definitely on the one in the fall of '12. He should be considered in all this.
You've probably gotten the impression that I'm not going to vote for him. My wife, who happens to be very well informed and quite brilliant, disagrees with my assessment of him, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt. She thinks, for the most part, that he's just in over his head and doesn't really know what he's doing.
As mentioned, I disagree. I look at Obamacare, the national debt, the bowing to other world leaders, the fire sale to China, and I see the groundwork being laid for a unified world government. In that world, our debt would be shared with China and everybody else. We would be one of the movers and shakers in that world, but not the biggest one. I think he sees it as inevitable, and he's betting everything on it.
I think he has a vision, and is building for the long haul. It's something to think about. I know some of you reading this would be cool with that.
I have to say, his election makes me proud of my country. Having lived for 56 years, I've seen a lot of changes, and it truly blesses me that we could elect an African-American. But I knew at the time he was a far-leftie, and he's done nothing to prove me wrong. His ideas are fatally flawed, and he's a lousy president, just like I knew he'd be. If he wins re-election, he'll have to do it with fear. Either he has no ideas, or his ideas are so extreme he doesn't dare say them out loud.
If it's the former, then I'd have to give him a 2/2. If the latter, 8/0. I can't wait to read the book he writes after he returns to civilian life.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Songwriting Analysis: Tools and Materials
In a nutshell, you use the materials you have to do the best job you can.
Writing a song is a lot like building a bridge, in certain ways. Songwriters, especially modern ones who tend not to know so much about music theory, tend to write for the tools they have handy. Guitar players write songs that they can play with relative ease in relation to their skills. So do piano players, trumpet players, flautists, etc.
For guitar players who like to play close to the nut with lots of open strings, the chords most likely to appear in their songs are G, C, D, Am, and Em. We've pretty much summed up the history of Country and Piedmont Blues right there. If they're electric guitarists who are rockers and like to use a lot of barre chords, the most prominent keys to write in are E and A. It's notable that both Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn, who had big hands with long fingers, liked to play Fender Stratocasters (which have a longer, 25.5 inch scale) and played close to the nut (where the frets are further apart) and consequently wrote a lot of songs in the key of E. This meant they didn't have to squish those big fingers together up on the fifth fret where the key of A was more accessable. Their limitations and preferences dictated their writing style, or at least affected it.
It's the same for players of other instruments. It's the reason that you don't hear many trumpets in bluegrass, or banjoes in be-bop. Banjoes, mandolins, and guitars are tuned to play in keys like E, A, G, C, and D. Trumpets and other horns are more comfortable in Bb, F, Eb and stuff like that. I guess that explains why Miles Davis and John Coltrane never jammed with Bill Monroe and Earl Scruggs. Shame, that.
I have been listening a lot in recent months to how piano players write their songs. Billy Joel, Elton John, Leon Russell, Jerry Lee Lewis, Barry Manilow, Bruce Hornsby, and all of it being brought back home again with my recent acquisition of Harry Nilsson's All-Time Greatest Hits. As a songwriting guitar player, I have found it very educational to play a lot of other people's songs, and some of the stuff I have the most fun with is songs by piano players. I just love trying to figure out how to do an interesting version of a Billy Joel or Elton John song on the guitar. (I guess I'd better learn a Manilow tune, because now somebody's bound to ask.)
The histories of the keyboard and the Western system of writing music are closely intertwined, to the point that both are rooted in the key of C. On a piano, organ, or synthesizer keyboard the white keys are a C major scale. To play in any other key, you have to use black keys. The same with the musical staff; all the lines and spaces are notes in the C major scale, and to write any other notes requires the use of sharps and/or flats.
So the most common keys, especially for any modern pianist who doesn't have a lot of training in music theory, are C and Am, both of which can all be done on just the white keys. After that, the key of F (or Dm) is widely used, because this only requires replacing the B with a Bb. And, the key of G (or Em), in which the F is replaced by F#. Then, it's the keys of Bb (or Gm) which has two flats, and D (or Bm) which has two sharps. The physical limitations of the instrument dictate its use.
Furthermore, any piece that involves horns will use the keys with flats instead of sharps, because most horns are tuned to Bb or Eb. Throwing in a flute limits the choices further, because the flute it tuned to C. So if you've got a piece written for piano, trumpet, alto sax, and flute, you have to be very careful because the four instruments are tuned to be most comfortable in C, Bb, Eb, and C again respectively. Driving you crazy yet? Then don't throw in a guitar! (And if you do, make sure he brings a capo.)
What, for me, makes piano songs most interesting is how easy it is to use secondary and tertiary chords. For those of you to whom that is confusing, it means simply this; think of chords as colors. In the visual world, the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. All the other colors are mixtures of those. Purple is made from red and blue. Orange, red and yellow. Green is yellow and blue. That means that purple, orange and green are secondary colors. Colors made of a mix of a primary and a secondary would be tertiary; quite literally, the third level. (Go ahead and Google "Teriary colors" for some cool stuff.)
Musical chords are the same way. The primary chords in any key are the root, the fourth, and the fifth. So, in the key of C, your main chords are C, F, and G. Each chord is made up of three notes; the root, third, and fifth notes. So the F chord is made up of an F, an A, and a C. These are actually the 4, 6, and 1 notes in the C major scale. A secondary chord off the F would use any two of those three notes. So instead of the F chord, you could substitute Dm (D, F, A) or Am (A, C, E). Bdim and C would be tertiary chords of F, using one note from the F chord, and could be used to replace an F chord in a chord progression. Got it?
What makes piano writing so cool is how easily these secondary (and tertiary) chords are accessed. If you're holding your fingers to make a chord, all you have to do (at least in the key of C) is to hold your hand in that same position and move it to a different place on the keyboard. Move up one key from a C chord and you're making a Dm. One more, an Em. Cool, eh? Where it gets difficult is when you play in keys that require sharps or flats, because then you have to adjust at least one of the three fingers to move from a white key to a black key, or vice versa.
Simply put, the physical limitations dictate its use.
If you liked this, and want me to ramble on some more about basic music theory and songwriting, it would be my pleasure. Thinking about writing this piece kept me up half the night anyway, so it's good to have a place to stick it. So, if you like this and want more, just say; "Rick . . . stick it!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)