Boy Sopranos

This is kind of a prequel to a piece on the history of Kansas that I’m working on. It addresses one of my pet peeves regarding ‘70’s rock.

The 1970’s gets a bad rap as far as popular music goes.  The Beatles had broken up, a bunch of people like Jimi, Janis, and Jim Morrison had died, other people like Clapton, Dylan, and the Stones started putting out albums that made you forget how great they were in the ‘60’s.  And then there was Disco.

But if you look beyond that, there was a lot of great music produced between 1970 and 1979. You had the singer-songwriter movement, James Taylor, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens and the like, that came from the folk-rock thing. You had Southern Rock; everything from Skynyrd to Marshall Tucker to Charlie Daniels to the Allman Brothers. Heavy Metal started breaking out with Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Zeppelin, etc. Punk came around later in the decade. And then there was my personal favorite, Progressive Rock.

One phenomena within all that to come to prominence was what I refer to as “Boy Sopranos;” men who could sing way, way up there. You could trace it back to the Doo-Wop groups, and even Southern Gospel, with men who were either high tenors or sang falsetto. The sound of Frankie Valli of the Four Seasons still makes my teeth itch and my hair hurt. But I think the two that brought this to rock ‘n’ roll were Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin and Jon Anderson of Yes.

Hiring Robert Plant was an easily justified call. Jimmy Page was building a new band from the ashes of the Yardbirds, he wanted somebody that sounded different, and Plant had not only a unique voice but a powerful stage presence. I have to say that, in spite of liking the music, I didn’t care much for him as a singer. As his voice has matured, however, I like him better now.

As for Jon Anderson, he was one of the founders of Yes. And although the occasional reviewer accuses him of singing falsetto, he does NOT! That’s his actual voice, and in his sixties it still has that much range and sounds that good. As a singer, he is definitely a unique specimen. The problem comes when you consider the two people who have tried to replace him at various points in the band’s career. In a nutshell, neither has been up to the task. The questions stands; why didn’t they just hire a girl?

I think that’s a valid question for all the group that employ boy sopranos; why not just get a girl? It’s not like there aren’t any women who like rock, and even very hard rock. And many of them can also play an instrument. It’s an especially valid question when a long-standing group loses its lead singer. Yes and Kansas spring immediately to mind.

There are two probable reasons for this. One is that, to varying degrees, a lot of rockers are misogynists. They just don’t want women around, period. When you’re in a band, you’ve kind of got to be friends with the rest of the group. You have to ride with them on a bus or plane, go to dinner, rehearse, perform, and it tends to be a boy’s club. They’re not comfortable hanging around with women in that context.

The other reason is, you have to ride with them on a bus or plane, go to dinner, rehearse, perform . . . check into hotels, maybe even share a room . . . How many bands have been busted up by sexual tension? How many bands with women and men together have involved romance? Yeah, grown-ups should be able to establish parameters and honor them, but we’re talking about rock ‘n’ rollers here. Young, healthy, creative people jammed full of fresh hormones.

This proved to be a problem with Heart, in spite of the fact that the Wilson sisters are the primaries of the band. But a relationship with their lead guitarist, and then its end, cost them the services of a very good player. Pat Benatar solved the problem by marrying the man who was her lead guitarist and primary songwriting partner, and last I knew they were still together. Janis Joplin just slept with everybody. That’s not true, but it’s the impression you get.

One of the most interesting examples is the group No Doubt.  Gwen Stefani, the lead singer, had an intimate relationship with the bass player.  In the process of recording their next album the relationship went south.  Gwen directed her energy into her songwriting, and the bass player had to put up with her showing up in the studio with her bringing new songs about how much of a bastard he was.  But he hung in there, and the album turned out to be their first hit; "Tragic Kingdom."

But to get back to the original point; do you really like the sound of Geddy Lee’s voice? Especially in the early days? Or Dennis DeYoung? Or Steve Perry, if you’re honest with yourself? Or any of a hundred others?

Personally, the most annoying thing about boy sopranos, aside from the fact that many of them just don’t sound good, is that normal human beings who happen to be male can’t cover their songs. I mean, what’s easier to play than “Dust In The Wind?” But who can SING the damned thing?!? Not me, that’s for sure. And every now and then someone will ask me if we do any Zep or Journey. Lessee, I’ll need a pair of vise grips and a couple of rubber bands . . . And don’t get me started on AC-DC!

Oh, all right, Steve Perry’s not that bad. In fact, he’s actually pretty good. And Dennis DeYoung . . . well, he’s all right, I guess. Steve Walsh of Kansas is VERY good. And Geddy Lee’s gotten a lot better. And Zep is so good, I don’t care how many times Plant goes “Aaaiii! Aaaiii! Aaaiii!” And Jon Anderson, well, he’s just unbelievable! And none of the others really lasted that long. The guy they got in GTR, that’s one album, I can take it as long as Howe and Hackett keep playing. New England (The Final Countdo-o-own) didn’t last long, along with all the other proto-hair-band dudes that sounded like ladies.

And in the final analysis, at least none of them were David Lee Roth.

The View From Here: Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The View From Here: Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rod the Mod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The View From Here: Equality

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.

Neil Peart and Grace

I have a short list of favorite musicians; not necessarily best, because I'm sure there are better musicians in the Classical and Jazz worlds that I'm not familiar with, and whose music I might not appreciate as much; but favorite, because they combine a high level of skill with the ability to make music that moves me deeply.  This list includes Rick Wakeman, Steve Howe, Jon Anderson, Phil Keaggy, Carlos Santana, Jaco Pastorius, Pete Townshend, Robben Ford, Sonny Landreth, Miles Davis, The Edge . . . all right, it's a long list.

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.

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

The View From Here: Prosperity

The object of this particular series is to discuss some basic things that pretty much everybody wants, and the different ways that various political systems offer us to acquire them.  We've looked at peace.  Now, it's time for 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.

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.

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.

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.