NOT A Musician

Actually, this is not something I learned today, but something that has been learned in stronger and stronger terms to the point that my blood pressure may go down by venting.

The common simple definition of a musician is one “who  composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.” This begs the question, “What is music?” I won’t bore you with more definitions, but I would emphasize that my definition excludes much of what is currently “performed”.

Recently, I watched a fantastic documentary, “Before the Music Dies”. It does not pretend to be a scholarly work or the ultimate judgment of music evolution. It was made by a few talented people who love music, but have no connection to the business of music. It validated my opinion about a lot of what is now played on the radio, television and iPods everywhere. Here is the test:

·        List your favorite 10 songs you’ve been singing in the last six months.

·        List all of those from question 1 that do NOT have an accompanying video.

For all those not listed, there is a strong chance that the performer is not what I would classify as a musician. Rather, they are entertainers, performers that act like some perception of what a musician might be. They are actors.

Technology has allowed anyone with a few thousand dollars to create a professional quality music studio to record, edit and publish music. Products like Garage Band, Acid Music Studio, Magix Samplitude and Cakewalk have the ability to do what it took millions of dollars to do just twenty years ago. Then there are the plug-ins. If that A₄ drifting between 430Hz and 450Hz it can be automatically detected recorded at the perfect 440Hz. This allows people who cannot sing or play on pitch sound like disciplined, trained musicians. The plug-ins that work in the studio also work on the concert tour. This may account in part for the small number of performers that play acoustic and sing without a mic.

Modern music has become a commodity. Maybe it always was and only a few talented individuals in the past (Haydn,  Gershwin, Led Zeppelin, Dave Matthews) were good enough to remember. The rest of the songs were composed, sung and forgotten along with their composers. The business of music is to create a brand (Lady GaGa), manufacture a product (Poker Face) and release several purchasable packages of that same product (original, remixes, live performances)  and when sales start dropping introduce a new product to replace it (when was the last time you heard Poker Face?).

The product is put together by people who may have never played in the same room or even the same state. The guitar riff was laid down in LA, someone in Detroit sold the beat and the backup vocals are recorded by studio musicians after the star is done and gone. Writers, composers and performers are often different people. You Were Meant for Me, Jewel’s first hit, was written by Steve Poltz, a prolific song writer who was 45 when he penned it. To be fair, Jewel was present. The two were vacationing in Mexico. Poltz didn’t feel the song would work for him so he offered it to Jewel. I was 45 too when it aired and really liked the song. I even bought the CD. I haven’t played it in 8 years, but it is still on my shelf with hundreds more dusty jewel cases.

Performing still requires a lot of hours in the studio; just not the sound studio. The real work and rehearsal takes place in the dance studio. Generally, a professional choreographer works with the performer to create some brand steps. Their personal trainer makes sure his health (and washboard abs) holds up. The cosmetic “enhancers” (surgeons, estheticians, fashion designers and more) make sure the product is wrapped properly.

I believe real musicians still exist. I discover them all the time. Many of them make sure that new performers will have branded material. Some struggle to introduce music to high school students who felt Chorale was an easy A. But the business of music is controlled by a very few powerful people in a very few powerful companies. They create performers that may act musically. On the other side is the internet where I discover a new musician at least once a week.

When I see a beautiful woman displaying most of herself with perfect curves wearing stilettos, my first impression is not “this is going to be a great musician”. This does not mean that you have to be ugly to be a musician, although many of my favorites look much better on the stereo than they do on the home theater. It is physically impossible to perform some of the stunts in a typical show while singing evenly. Still, I appreciate their agility, sense of rhythm and physical conditioning. Then remember the sound system is there to produce that A₄ at a perfect 440Hz when something migrating toward G₃ being sung by the performer. A similar thing from my history might be Ian Anderson, the famous flautist of Jethro Tull who played a substantial part of the time while balancing and bouncing on one foot. Jimi Hendrix using his teeth to play Hey Joe on his Strat was impressive even with your eyes closed. I consider both to be good performers…and great musicians.

To really match the characters of today from my music history, I would select Tiny Tim. People watched Tiny Tim. It was the way he dressed, the things he said, how he acted that entertained. I don’t know of anyone who would pull out their Tiny Tim cassette today to listen to a once famous musician.

e-Receipts

Who is going to be the first major retailer to allow you to enter the barcode on a receipt and download a file of what was purchased?

My wife and I are constantly digging through the receipts as we do our budget. This is NOT something that’s been procrastinated and done in a flurry of worry, but an effort to categorize what we spend throughout the month. Obviously one cannot just take the receipt from Kroger and say, “Oh, groceries: $83.49” because on that receipt are paper products, greeting cards, shoe strings, cleaning supplies and those kitchen tools that had to be replaced. We also like to be able to substantiate our gut feeling of what we buy regularly. We have a good idea: so much toilet paper every two months, x rolls of paper towels, so many cans of corn, bags of pasta and so on. Wouldn’t it be great to know exactly what our consumption is and manage our purchases?

In a perfect world you would have several columns that would include:

1.  the date of the transaction
2.  the item description
3.  the amount you purchased (in units that are appropriate for the item)
4. the price per unit
5. the amount paid
6. its ANSI classification (at least the major classification)

Most retailers already have this information readily available. When you take your receipt to customer service, they enter the bar code and voilà your purchase details appear in front of them.

Sears has already taken the first step; you can ask for an electronic receipt of the detail which will show up in your email while all you take with you is a piece of paper with the total paid and your source of funds. It’s still a little messy parsing this into Excel, but even I can do it. Amazon allows me to download a file with most of this information (they don’t include the ANSI classification) and this has been a tremendous influence in where I buy things.

I generally buy groceries as Fred Meyer (Kroger), Safeway and Albertson’s. Whichever retailer gets there first will bias my shopping habits in their favor.

The Reactionary Impulse and Scouting

Note: This was triggered as a response to a woman's distressed choice to deny her six year old son membership in the Boy Scouts. I would note that the information she used as the basis of her decision did NOT come from the Boy Scouts of America, but a Boy Scout bashing organization doing all they could to make their web presence appear to be official BSA.

As a parent of four I recognize the agony that comes with teaching our children. At the age of six, I'm sure I made most of the decisions for them still. By the age of 10, I would probably have weighed the alternatives in a decision such as this and allowed them to choose for themselves. By age 16 I tried to be able to assume the role of "adviser" only, but I'm sure there were times I might have leaned very hard. Some of those times choices were made contrary to that advice.

There is no organization that agrees with and reinforces all the values I feel are important. Organizations that I support all teach or do something that is contrary to my values. The other things they do and promote coincide with my opinions and merit my support. And through that support I have had much more influence than I would have through boycott.

There is no organization that doesn't promote some value or cause that I am against. It is abhorrent to me that the public schools still teach the myth of the "empty continents" about the Americas when it is now apparent that European  diseases preceded colonial Europeans by enough years to have decimated up to 100% of the natives present before their "discovery". Even at that, is it OK to take someone’s property if you kill them by pathogens instead of guns? Movies teach my children that the "normal, accepted" level of violence is much higher than data bear out. The rudeness and anti-social behavior (like the "zingers") in TV promote behavior at which I shudder. I have allowed my children the opportunity to make these choices, while acknowledging my responsibility to teach correct principles in my home and the added burden that popular society places on me by portraying my opposition in the media.

I was a Boy Scout of America. I also was an employee in men's retail. One group did not permit the practice of homosexual behavior in its organization. In the other I was constantly persuaded, even pressured to explore sex with other males. Boy Scouts taught me innumerable things. They taught me treat all life and all people with respect. There was never any gay bashing and certainly no gay violence. I have an overwhelming tendency to be heterosexual. I tactfully rebuff the approaches of the men that flirt with me. That does not make me a homophobe. I also rebuff the approaches of women who are not my wife who come on to me. That does not make me a misogynist. My experience is that the men will persevere and even pressure much more than the women. I certainly have never been groped inappropriately by women the way I have been by men.

In the Boy Scout Oath, the word “straight” refers to personal integrity, not sexual preference .The Boy Scouts of America does not extend membership to males who live a gay lifestyle. Any private organization has the right to include whoever it will as its member. The Girl Scouts does not allow males who “live a male lifestyle” into its ranks. That is their right. There are people who will politicize buying Girl Scout Cookies based on that organization’s practices with a male living a female lifestyle. In my opinion, it is their loss as these girls learn much more than sexual identification from scouting.

In Scouting I learned how to repair a faucet, navigate the Boston MTA and gained many other skills of merit. More importantly, I learned how to set a goal and define the tasks to achieve it. I learned to monitor my progress with objective, empirical guidelines. At work I learned the merits of fabric and weave, how color and patterns work and how to select and tailor a suit so it flatters the wearer. I was not “poisoned” by the lack of gay men in Boy Scouts. I was not “poisoned” by the lack of hetero men in retail.

It is your right, even your duty as a parent to guide your child through the learning years. What choices you make for them will influence choices they make later on. I do not discount beneficent ideas and actions a person or organization because they don’t include gay men. When you reject a beneficent experience because of some attribute that earns your “veto”, your parental responsibility to provide the good experiences and education lost is implicit. How will you accomplish that?

 Your son would not be ruined by the lack of exposure to gay men in Scouting. Despite the rules and stories, he will encounter gay men and boys in Scouting and learn to treat them with respect. He will not ever hear derision or taunting of ANY person in Scouting. It simply isn’t tolerated by BSA charters and executives.  He will encounter the same expressions he will in 1^st grade, and I’m guessing you will allow him to go to school.

It is currently fashionable to deride Boy Scouts of America for their policy excluding gay men. What I have learned from this is that many people are willing to ignore the good of something, even forbid it if the organization’s or person’s ideas are different on some subject than their own. I am satisfied that my values in the home were much more influential than those of any group to which they belonged.

These are the subsequent posts in response. I felt I should include them as nobody has responded here:
 

08:44 PM on 04/18/201

by Nick Franco:

Gay is not a lifestyle. -the American Psychological Association. The Scouts -- and you? -- should really catch up with (already outdated) expert medical opinion. 

Me:
“I use the term "lifestyle" to mean any collection attributes or characteristics that can be defined and grouped. I would therefore also refer to a "heterosexual lifestyle", a "promiscuous lifestyle", a "rational lifestyle" and so on. If you are offended by the word "lifestyle" substitute whatever word you are comfortable with, then put forth your point.

As for catching up on the "expert" medical opinion, I've found that the level of expertise is generally decided by how much one agrees with what we want to see as results from any tested hypothesis. I haven't read a single scientific paper yet discussing the subject of sexual preference or sexual orientation that hasn't been countered by another study or criticized as flawed in methodology. The beauty of science is that every "decision" is open to opposing views. This continues until overwhelming evidence has been accumulated. I have no bias either way for sexual preference or orientation (substitute any word you feel comfortable with as being current). I have never judged any group of humans defined by some variable one way or another. I take people one at a time. My judgment so far is that I've encountered very few that I didn't like and admire in some way.

In fine, this forum is not discussing whether homosexual behavior is good or bad (which seems like a silly waste of effort anyway). This discussion is whether the lack of gay men in scouting would bias a person's attitude and negate the beneficial experiences.”

Neither "hetero lifestyle" nor "promiscuous lifestyle" nor "rational lifestyle" are terms used to pathologize/demonize an entire group of people. The so-called "homosexual lifestyle" is. How you personally use the term matters little in comparison to how the term is used in the public discourse.


Nick Franco:
Overwhelming evidence has accumulated that says homosexuality is natural. Period.


My final post on this issue:

Every 112 days I go to the Red Cross and make what is known as a "double red" donation. They actually take two units of red blood cells from me and give me 500 ml of saline to recover the fluid volume lost.

One of the questions I have to answer every time I donate is, "Have you ever had sexual contact with another male, even once?" Sexual contact is then defined as any exchange by any part of the body of bodily fluids. An affirmative answer to that question disqualifies a blood donor. The American Red Cross simply will not take your blood if you are a male homosexual.

Is your position that because the American Red Cross does not admit male homosexual donors that I should choose not to carry their card and participate in the national blood supply? Their reasons are decided upon and enforced by their charter. They do not publish data as why that restriction is in their policies.

Another Perspective on Perspective

In any event or observation we bring to it the sum of our experience and knowledge. We interpret it according to our values which may be totally inappropriate or outside of what we experience. We like to think that we are objective. We abjure that we are not subject to bias and prejudice.

Here is an example of simultaneous misunderstanding:

When the Pilgrims met the Native Americans they found their faces covered with gooey colored muck. The found it frightening and primitive. Even their bodies would be coated in some strange substance that, despite their superior hygiene (they felt the natives were obsessed with bathing and were sure it was the root of their weakness to disease) caused a not always pleasant aroma. Meanwhile they were unsure why the mosquitos and flies didn’t bother these savages as they attacked and ravaged the English. They were sure it was their superior English blood that attracted the pests.

The Native Americans looked on to the Pilgrims as a bunch of incredibly ignorant, primitive people. They didn’t understand how to build a structure that would stand up to basic weather. All of their buildings leaked. Worst of all when they were congested they would take a clean white linen cloth from their pockets, blow their noses into it and then return it to their pocket for safekeeping. Ewww! They tried to teach the English to block one nostril and eject the mucus into the bushes with a forcible exhale through the nose. The Pilgrims found that revolting and just couldn’t do it.

In 2001 the United States began “military operations” (another great euphemism) in Afghanistan. From our perspective we are there to bring democracy to our brothers of the world. We want to save them from the totalitarian fanatics that would wish to subjugate them in religious subservience under the guise of an Islamic state. We absolutely KNOW that these fanatics really don’t represent true Islamic values and that we are justified, even praiseworthy in our goal to liberate them from oppression and allow them to choose their own rulers. I sincerely believe that many of us share this altruistic motive. I would like to.

The Afghans see a bunch of people from thousands of miles away with superior technology killing members of other Afghani tribes. Sometimes, that’s not so bad if it’s a tribe they would be killing themselves if we weren’t there, but still, they would rather do their fighting themselves. If we defeat their foe, they have no honor in it and they are people with a highly developed sense of honor through battle. And they are tenacious. Just ask every other group that has tried to “liberate” them. In the end most of them wish we would just go home and mind our own business. They can then return to the internecine warfare that is their history.

When the American Revolution started there was NOT a consensus for separation from England. It wasn’t even close. The Sons of Liberty had a real problem on their hands. Most of the country saw a bunch of rich hotheads in Massachusetts that were profiting from smuggling with the Indies and were upset that the King kept sending ships and soldiers to stop it. This King even levied taxes on Americans to help pay off the debt of fighting the French and Indian War to protect its colonists. Not many of us are willing to risk our livelihoods and our lives for someone else to get richer or avoid servicing a debt.

Then it happened. After being pelted with ice clods, rocks and rocks encased in snowballs, viciously taunting the British sentries, the soldiers fired into the crowd. Martyrs were made, but it still wasn’t enough. As the English got wind of the colonists stockpiling arms they decided to nip this one in the bud. They were successful in a couple of instances up north, but Lexington and Concord brought “the shot heard ‘round the world.” That was it! Once the British started killing the Kings subjects in the colonies, they became “Americans” and, if the British would kill those Americans, no Americans could stand idly by and wait their turn. It finally became a battle between “us” the Americans and “them” the British from far away across the seas who were meddling in OUR business with their superior technology and wealth.  When lives are taken a brotherhood is extended and people who were “Them” (New Englanders) become “Us” (Americans).

Immediately what had been a mutually beneficial relationship of colonies and mother country became an obvious case of exploitation of brethren by a foreign imperial power.

There may also be another perspective to the war in Afghanistan. We are on the cusp of new age where it is exigent that we develop cleaner energy. We are doing very well in the development of these energy sources from sun, wind, tides and currents. We still face a massive problem of how to transport and store this energy which in the end turns up to be electricity. The obvious use that is common to all of us is transportation. Without transportation we can’t go to the hospital or the grocery store. Even the groceries can’t go to the grocery store. Probably the greatest limiting factor in Native American expansion was the lack of transportation. When this problem was solved with the horse, their influence took off. Our next horse is the electric vehicle.

Today when we need the energy to go somewhere we pull up to a pump and fill up a tank with liquid energy. Our greatest challenge in transportation is to use our cleaner energy (electrons instead of hydrocarbons) in the same way. It’s easy to build a “bottle” to hold liquid energy. The bottle for electrons is called a battery and our progress for the last several decades has not been monumental. In my lifetime we’ve gone from carbon “dry cells”, lead acid “wet cells”, through NiCads, NiMh and now the miracles of lithium ion (LiON). We are pretty certain lithium will be involved in making electron bottles. Where can we find lots of lithium? It just happens that Afghanistan is rich in lithium; incredibly rich. And it is lithium that is cheaper to process into electron bottles. Not only that, but they boast vast reserves of gold and silver which make much better conductors than copper and aluminum.

When Eisenhower left office he gave the first Farewell Address. You can watch part of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9_fyDV7Mnk. In his speech he coins a new term as describing a dire threat to our national security and wealth. He warned of the power of something called “The Military/Industrial Complex”. You can be sure that the huge supra-governments we call multi-national corporations are aware of the reserves of minerals in Afghanistan. A further coincidence is that the same companies who own and manage the energy technology requiring these minerals make things like C-6 explosive, JLTVs and things that go “bang”. These same people control the companies that process corn, wheat, steers and pigs into Cheerios, hamburgers and MREs that feed people who make things go “bang”. This small percentage of people are in a position to acquire even greater wealth as we struggle to control the source of raw materials and then use that control to improve our technology and power.

This is not some silly rant warning of some silly conspiracy by people aiming to control the world. This is not a conscious business plan that includes “dominate Afghanistan” as a project milestone. These people already control the world and we are generally better off because they do.  There are just some things that unleashed capitalism can accomplish with which no other system can compete. These people did not lay out some plan of illuminati to subjugate our wallets. This is just how the system works. It is good and it is evil. It must be fed. The food is energy and the lowest cost for them get it, sadly, is the lives of the people who live where that energy comes from and those who are sent to secure it for the system to continue running.

I don’t think I really agree with that last statement. History has demonstrated that the cost of war to procure wealth ALWAYS exceeds the value of the wealth; at least the total cost overall to society. In the limited attempts to incorporate the wealth in benefitting the local inhabitants it has generally been less expensive to develop the source and easier to coopt the permission and assistance of the people already there. A couple of cases that come to mind are the Alaska Pipeline and some of the attempts of Charles Goodyear to bring benefits of health and education to the natives who could help him develop rubber trees. Examples of the prior logic might be the empires of Greece, Rome and Spain. I wouldn’t want the balance sheet of any of those countries.

The other problem with war as a means of acquisition is that it generally backfires at some point and the aggressor finds himself in the cross-hairs of the world. Imperialism tends to have a limited half-life. Once the citizens discover there is more benefit OUTSIDE the empire than INSIDE, Berlin walls fall, Hadrian’s walls are toppled and Chinese walls become tourist attractions.

America must have a secure energy supply to maintain her economic growth and technological progress. It remains to be seen whether we will pursue that with universal benefits or continuing a zero-sum game.

By the way, when we look at something it seems that every perspective is correct to some degree according to some value system. I pray that we will work to acquire the value system that provides joy to all parties.

We all see things from our own perspective. A great movie that demonstrates this and keeps you riveted at the same time is "Vantage Point".  Give it a watch.

Unintended Contention

I'm sorry to realize that the words I wrote yesterday led some to anger and contention. Some were offended. Some may have inadvertently fomented hard feelings unintentionally through forwards and comments. I apologize for that. It is not my intention to place any kind of burden or judgment on another person. We all have enough challenges in this world that we don't need to find or produce more. Nobody I know would want to injure, abuse or defame anybody else I know. I accept responsibility for my words even though their intention was not to discredit someone else's feelings and sincerely beg your pardon.

Anyone that knows me knows that: 

1.      I like to explore issues that may be controversial 

2.     I will defend positions that I oppose and explore ideas with which I disagree without allowing personal bias to impede my progress

3.     Any specific idea I promote may change drastically as my principles come into conflict with the implementations of that idea

4.     Although I do believe that in the end everything is a degree of good and/or evil we      all have the agency to espouse what we will and be accepted for it as long as it doesn't infringe upon another (Your right to create cancerous air (tobacco smoke) ends where my right to breathe begins)

5.     Many of the points I make are simply observations about which I have formed any judgment at all

6.      I have an incredible track record of being wrong about things

7.     I believe you should decide I am wrong if it makes you happier

I decided long ago that I no longer have the energy or sufficient pride to be offended. I also know that when I am angry I am likely to do and say things I would not if I weren't angry. Since both of these ideas reflect a situation where I am no longer rational, I try to be on guard for their appearance and refrain from action until I am back in control. Many believe that the antonym of rational is irrational. They are probably correct. I believe that the antonym of rational is passionate. I am probably right too. We are, at times, controlled by our passions. It is generally our passions that will make us do something irrational.

At the same time, I am grateful that I am immensely passionate. I come to tears easily (just ask my sisters). I choke up when I see my children excel (I get to do that a lot) . I burn feverishly when I observe injustice. Music can release endorphins at a level cocaine could only aspire to achieve. One of La Rochefoucauld's maxims that I absolutely agree with is (my translation), "Pure logic destroys the soul." I hope I am never completely rational.

We like to think we are rational beings. We are to a degree, but there seems to be a point where our passions overcome our logic. Answer the following silly questions honestly and determine for yourself:

1.     Have you ever kept change that you were not entitled to?

2.     Have you ever nibbled a grape in the produce section before buying or not buying the bunch?

3.     Have you ever found something in your shopping basket at home you didn't pay for and keep it?

4.     Have you ever received more than you paid for from a vending machine?

5.     Have you ever driven faster than the posted speed limit?

6.     Have you ever looked at someone’s outfit and commented to yourself "What was he thinking?"

All of these things are "violations" of the rational behavior we describe as honest, yet I'm sure we consider ourselves to be honest. Ironically the word we would use to justify these technically dishonest tenets is "rationalize".

1.     "It would be more trouble for them for me to go back and return the pennies I got incorrectly."

2.     "They know people test the produce before they buy it so they price it to compensate for the shrinkage from sampling."

3.     "The cashier must have put that in my bag by mistake. It's more trouble for them if I go back and return it."

And so on. Our rationalization is our passion (feelings) overriding our an absolute argument. BTW, I am very gifted in providing rationalization for item number 5.

So much for the secular explanation.

For the Christian discussion I offer a simple observation of Christ in the New Testament. He never responded in kind to the taunts of those around him. He never took offense from the Pharisees and would even accept a dinner invitation from them. He never sought revenge or even justice, but extended mercy even when the perpetrator really "deserved getting his".

We'll take one more step for the Mormons. We like to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and therefore we should be outstanding examples of Christian behavior. I offer this point of doctrine (and covenants) from Section 122:

 7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the ^apit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the ^bdeep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to ^chedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of ^dhell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee^eexperience, and shall be for thy good.

 8 The ^aSon of Man hath ^bdescended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Finally, I would offer that if you disagree with what I've written, or feel I have misinterpreted what I have posited, by all means, respond in the public forum. This is an open discussion, not a personal tirade. I am still teachable, and truly consider everything I read in hopes of learning. Please remember that you are not arguing with me, you are simply stating a position contrary to the words I posted. It only becomes personal when we decide to receive it that way. Again, we choose when we will be offended. I happen to love most people I've met, and have profited most from those who expressed ideas I hadn't considered or had discarded as without value. This is especially true for my family.

Whenever we talk about Religion and Politics, we are discussing highly combustible opinions based on our own interpretation of the events and record we have been exposed to. The problem with the “right” is that they think they are; and want to arrange things so everyone can be “right” too. This imposition is an incredible expression of entitlement. The problem with the “left” is they usually don't know how to explain, define and implement what they think is right. The hesitation to potentially offend someone else leads to inaction which causes all to suffer.

I have yet to find a label with which I am comfortable. I consider myself extraordinarily conservative from the standpoint that I don't believe I have the right to impose my values on anybody else. If you read my words honestly and know me at all you understand I have absolutely no expectations from others or sense of entitlement other than to be blissfully wrong. Views to the contrary would be projection. Anyone who does feel that they should control what other people do because THEY wish to exercise THEIR agency, I refer to simple social contract doctrine (Rousseau is a good place to start, but don't think for a minute that agree with all that he says). The foundation of this is that civilizations must do that which is most beneficial for civilization. In the end, Socrates took the hemlock.

To avoid further contention, I will not email notices to people of my posts. The people who have received emails until now are people whose opinions I value. If you want to read my rants, you may subscribe to my blog, but do so at your own recognizance.

A postscript: If in reading what I have posted the last couple of days you have determined that I must be a liberal, you have completely confused my observations with my values. Even if you have determined that I am not conservative, I would disagree vehemently. What I am not is a reactionary. That is, I do not base my position on taking contrary stance to something else based on who it was that proposed it, passed it and enforces it. This benefits nobody. Almost every law that has been passed has had something beneficial to it. With “Obamacare” I have been able to provide my daughter finishing her PhD with affordable health insurance that has not endangered the solvency of Maria’s employer. Some of the statutes that address illegal immigration have provided greater safety to American citizens, business and even the illegals themselves. My opinion is that this is a good thing, but I am open to rational argument that I may be wrong.

Liberals and Conservatives

One of the majors I completed at BYU was Political Science. I find true politics fascinating and love exploring the philosophy behind how civilizations work. One of the things I learned right away was that the labels political groups are known by are usually given by the opposition and rarely reflect the true principles and values of the group that is labeled. Take the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. A “federation” or “confederation” is a group of independent states that create an alliance for some purposes while maintaining most of their ability to govern themselves. The monikers, though described the opposite situation: Federalists became those favoring a strong central government and a weak confederation while Anti-Federalists really ended up defining themselves as “the opposite of what those guys want”. This is another truism in politics. Very few movements start because a group is FOR something; they start because they are AGAINST something that is already happening.

A case in point may be the Tea Party. You will not find very much detail on how they would want a government to work. They have not outlined the basic principles covered in the preamble to the Constitution. They do not say how they will “promote the general welfare” or "provide for the common defense"; they just say they are AGAINST universal health care and FOR winning the war in Afghanistan. If anything promotes the general welfare it would be access to medical care that made us all healthier. And disease is not just the problem of the carrier. This is another misconception. His or her lot is cast. They will live or die with some help of the care they receive. Their care, though, is to the benefit of those of us that are NOT incubating the illness. Just ask the original people who populated the American continents. If they could have provided health care for the sick people (and pigs) that invaded, we might not have killed so many of them through diseases they had never experienced. The faster and better we care for that person who shares the air, water and earth with us, the lesser our chance of succumbing to their illness. But I divert.

What does a true conservative do? Well they try not to interpret rules, laws and principles with a wide brush of rationalization that satisfies their personal wealth. The American Constitution certainly provides the government with the power to levy and collect revenue through taxes and tariffs. It does not mandate that this will be done by an organization called the Internal Revenue Service, but you must endorse a liberal philosophy to take the argument that because the IRS wasn’t in the Constitution that the organization is unconstitutional.

Our jurisprudence in this country is over all very conservative. Most decisions are made by looking back in litigious history and seeing what we did last time.  This is a great tradition for propagating mistakes made through ignorance or error. I’m thinking here of the many decisions that have denied women compensation for the things men would obviously compensated for. How could anyone who ever had a mother truly believe that women were incapable of understanding politics? Yet we denied them sufferance for centuries. A true conservative might have said, “Wait! Men and Women are very much alike. Conservatively speaking we are both capable of the same things except for a very few biological determinations that require a uterus or a prostate.” But it became a liberal battle to recognize them legally as people; or at least, it was labeled that to provide the spin of dangerous and treacherous nature.

And then, what is wrong with being liberal. I love it when I can liberally reward my family with treats, gifts and experiences that help them be contributing citizens in society. I am even more liberal than that because I spend my time and resources to possibly provide YOUR children with that same opportunity.  God is a liberal. James 1:5 KJV describes him as one “…that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not;” Now a liberal interpretation of this would say, “But he’s talking about wisdom, not money.” Conservatively I respond, “Is your money more valuable than God’s wisdom? What are you going to use it for that is more important than saving someone’s life...someone's mortal and eternal life?”

If, like me, you are LDS the situation becomes clearer. In the book of Mosiah King Benjamin starts his presentation with an act of sacrifice to demonstrate gratitude for the gifts of wise teachers and a just government. This sacrifice was as tax in kind, not in species. And it was just as optional as not paying your contribution for teachers and leaders in today's world. Then he gets more specific reminding them of his example of neither seeking gold nor silver or confining them in dungeons. He goes on to identify other ills of a wicked civilization: slavery, plunder, theft and then very liberally tells them he has governed them in such a way that they would not be laden with heavy taxes. A heavy tax goes to the governor; a gentle tax provides benefit to the governed. Finally the clincher that “when you are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” We’ll skip ahead to Mosiah 4:16 where we are commanded to “succor those in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need [think the person or family on the street corner holding a cardboard sign]; And then for the liberals who excuse themselves through the logic of SEPs (somebody else’s problem) in verse 17 he catches us with “Perhaps thou shalt say; The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand,…” I think this effectively closes the last loophole. My understanding is that our obligation is to “succor”. That does not mean “give him a dollar”, but if you must spend your dollar to give him something that will provide succor, you had better do so as long as you are blessed with dollars.

One of the founding principles of a liberal philosophy is a belief that all men are created equal.  Now, if our actions don't indicate this value, then we don't really believe it, do we. We believe that some of us are born little better than others. Maybe we confuse better with more fortunate.  I have yet to meet a three year old who aspires to one day be addicted to meth and live in the style of the homeless. A great number of the people we see on street corners were altered by events in their lives, like combat in the military, abuse by a parent or health care that stunted their mental and physical development. Certainly they had agency to make some decisions contributing to their dilemma, but that is not my affair. Maybe they chose to respond to their draft notice instead of going to Canada. Maybe they finally hit back. Maybe they saw the liquor in the cabinet, drank it and discovered they are too weak to fight the ills of alcohol.  According to God (or at least goodness and common sense) there exists a person that for some reason cannot live within society's common rules. How do we help them?

I am very conservative with my resources. I try to gain and spend them in a way that will effectively accomplish good in the world. This brings me to my ultimate realization. A “conservative” in today’s parlance does not want to give of their hard-earned (God bequeathed?) resources for the benefit of someone else. Their money is theirs and they are entitled to spend it as they wish. I can’t argue with that. Agency is the central pillar to acquiring wisdom. Liberals are willing to give of their money if it can help make everybody better off generally. They continue to vote for education levees after their children have graduated. They pay their taxes to build roads even after they have lost their ability to drive. They will support law enforcement and justice even if they have nothing to lose.

The conservative agenda generally revolves around topics that are disinformation. What our soldiers are doing in fields all over the world, but especially in Afghanistan is not providing defense. We have little to worry about from most Afghans. At least, not as long as we don’t provoke them enough to  justify the expense to hit us back. So we’ll drop a few hundred dollars on ammunition, a few thousands on guns, a few millions on artillery and billions on the cost of keeping people somewhere they can use it without hurting us. A dollar spent on a bullet cannot be recovered. It is spent once. A dollar spent to put a family back on its feet or educate a child or cure a sick person comes back many times as that individual gains the ability to give back and contribute to society. Some, maybe most, will never achieve that status, but I don’t know how to tell which ones will so I’m better off helping them all. The worst that can happen is that my dollar will be spent NOT shooting at someone else.

I share this little story I received from a dear friend. To me, it describes beautifully the conservative philosophy as I feel it expressed today: