The United States needs a new constitution. We have the oldest constitution on earth (and it's not even close), and while some might see that as something to celebrate, I see it as a big part of the reason why our nation and our government is increasingly useless and ineffective.
In Part I of this series we looked at changes to the First Amendment that I would like to see occur. In Part II, we're gonna dive headlong into the Second Amendment. This actually won't take long because my idea for how to fix the second amendment is pretty simple.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's ignore the fact that the Second Amendment is so strangely worded (I mean, it was written by 18th century British people, after all). To fully understand what they meant, it's helpful to add some implied modifiers, remove some commas, and reword things a bit: "Since an efficient militia is necessary to the security of a state, the citizens have the right to own and carry guns."
Second Amendment Background
I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince you that the Second Amendment never meant what it's typically interpreted to mean. I'll simply say there are very good and convincing arguments that it was never about individual rights, but always and only about the need for state militias. This was an era when there was no permanent, professional U.S. military. States were expected to protect themselves from Indians or anyone else. Since states and towns frequently couldn't afford to arm their militias, men joining a militia were expected to provide their own guns. This remained true for many decades after the founding the of the country. It was only in the first part of the 19th century that permanent, federally-funded, professional standing armies began to be formed. In the 1780s, the same people who insisted on the Second Amendment thought that such standing armies were the tools of tyrants.
So it really never had anything to do with your personal, individual right to have a gun. But none of that really matters for my purposes here, because I frankly don't care what the Supreme Court has said or what you think the amendment means.
Nor does it matter what I think it means, because in our imaginary constitutional convention, we're gonna abolish the Second Amendment altogether. If there's no Second Amendment, then there can be no disagreement about what it means!
Taking Away Your Guns
Gun rights activists often accuse liberals of wanting to "take away your guns." As an independent liberal, I plead guilty as charged. I totally want to take away your guns. If I was King Byron of the Kingdom of America, I would absolutely ban all guns forever for all time for any reason. And I'd put your ass in jail if you were caught with one.
But I recognize that not everyone agrees that guns should be outlawed across the board. So that's actually NOT the reason I want to get rid of the Second Amendment. After all, this is a democracy and I'm just one person.
I want to get rid of the Second Amendment because it's fucking asinine for a nation to have the right to own guns enshrined in its very constitution. It's no wonder this country is so obsessed with firearms that we have almost half of all the firearms on earth and literally have more than one gun per person. When it's included in our basic Bill of Rights, its not hard to figure out why we've developed a gun-obsessed culture. Only two other countries on earth have gun ownership in their constitution - Mexico and Guatemala. Now there's two countries you want to be aligned with.
Abolishing the Second Amendment would get rid of any constitutional arguments for gun regulation. Local, state, and federal governments could regulate guns within reason, and there'd be no appealing to the constitutionality of the laws. Just like you can't make a constitutional argument about whether it's okay to pass speed limit laws, you wouldn't be able to make a constitutional argument about a town, city, or state that wanted to limit guns in whatever way its elected officials saw fit. It would also allow the federal government to develop standards and regulations - like blanket assault weapons bans or high capacity magazine bans or whatever.
Don't like your town or state's gun laws? Elect new leaders! But you don't get to cry about constitutionality.
CONCLUSION
I hate guns and I want to take away your guns. But since I don't get to make that call, I think we should abolish the Second Amendment in order to allow the government to sensibly regulate guns without appeals to a constitutional right that someone thinks they should have.
In our next article, we're going to move away from the Bill of Rights and talk about terms limits on federal offices.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Wednesday, May 01, 2019
A New United States Constitution, Part I
In recent years, a number of people and groups from across the political spectrum have called for amendments to the constitution on a variety of topics. This is nothing new. There have always been calls for amendments to the constitution. Sometimes (though not often), they even get passed.
But I think it's time for a whole new constitution. I mean completely rewriting our constitution to reflect the modern issues affecting 21st century America. I've been thinking along these lines for several years now. We need to call a constitutional convention.
Trying to fit 21st century problems into an 18th century legal document is a bit like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't work, and if you force it, it's all stupid-looking and probably won't last very long.
Our constitution is hopelessly outdated. But we treat it as though it's just one very, very small level below sacred scripture. Like the Bible, we treat the constitution as somehow inviolate and sacrosanct, the final and inerrant Word of the Founding Fathers, who themselves are frequently treated as mini-Christs. I've written about this before. It's the Doctrine of Constitutional Infallibility, and it's deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
The Constitution was written in the 18th century, addressing 18th century problems that were unique to a small, rural, coastal nation that was just starting out. It's woefully inadequate to address the issues of a massive country that is the world's largest economy and superpower.
But I'm really not here to convince you we need a new constitution. I actually want to talk about what a new constitution would look like.
Now, I'm no political philosopher. I'm not a lawyer, a legal expert, or trained in constitutional law. And I'm not pretending to be. But I do have some ideas for a few changes we need to make. In this series of articles, I intend to outline a number of proposals that I think would make for a better constitution and, subsequently, a better society to live in.
In Part I, we're going to look at the First Amendment.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of Speech
Everybody loves the First Amendment, right? Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. It's all hunky-dory, cum-ba-ya, American Pie stuff.
But there has long been one acknowledged problem with freedom of speech in particular: it protects hate speech too. As recently as 2017, in an unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming that hate speech is constitutionally-protected, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
My question is this: Has anyone ever stopped to ask if this is ACTUALLY true? Is there some philosophical, legal, or social reason why we can't outlaw hate speech while still having freedom of every other kind of speech?
The first change we need to make in our new constitutional convention is to rewrite the First Amendment to specifically and categorically ban hate speech and, especially, hate groups, including the rights of those groups to assemble.
The typical argument against this is that it would create some sort of slippery slope - that if we started banning offensive speech, then we might somehow slide slowly and surely into tyranny. Justice Anthony Kennedy made this point in the same 2017 case mentioned above:
I'm also not talking about what you do or say in private. I'm not suggesting that if you use the n-word in your own home, someone should be able to report you to authorities and have you fined. I'm not even saying that if you go out in public and call someone the n-word, you should be able to be fined for that.
I'm talking more specifically about hate groups that seek to spread a message of intolerance and hatred towards other people. Think of white nationalists/supremacists, certain Christian, Muslim, and Jewish separatist groups, Neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. Basically, any group recognized as a hate group by reputable organizations that track such things.
Is there any reason on earth why freedom of speech has to mean these sorts of groups can exist? Why would banning their right to meet, march, protest, advertise, put up signs, hand out pamphlets, have a website, or use social media mean that somehow our society was going to devolve into tyranny? That's abject nonsense.
And it's proven by the fact that numerous other democratic, industrialized nations have such bans on hate speech and hate groups and somehow they've managed to not descend into chaos. In Germany, for instance, Nazism is illegal. You can't wear a swastika, you can't promote Nazi ideology, and you can't even deny the Holocaust. Yet, magically, Germany is still a free democracy! Furthermore, virtually every country in Europe, plus a bunch of others around the world, ban hate speech outright. Guess what? Their citizens are still free!
It's part of the Doctrine of Constitutional Infallibility that somehow you can't have freedom of speech and also ban hate groups and hate speech. It's American mythology. It's an American lie.
We already ban some forms of speech. Walk into a crowded theater and yell "ACTIVE SHOOTER!" if you'd like to test those bans. Slander and libel laws are also examples of how speech is limited in this country. Outlawing hate speech and hate groups would go a long way towards solving some of the problems in this country, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest it would lead us into a loss of our free democratic principles.
Separation of Church and State
Freedom of religion is also enshrined in the First Amendment, and legal precedent based on that freedom has led to the notion of separation of church and state. That phrase, however, is not actually in the constitution or the text of the First Amendment. I think it would be beneficial to alter the wording of the religion clause to specifically note that there is a firm and unbreachable divide between church and state, between government and religion.
Government can not touch religion (unless it's a hate group or doing other illegal things) and religion can not touch government (meaning you can't legislate your religious beliefs).
I would also like to see a clause expressly forbidding churches from having any sort of involvement whatsoever in politics, including especially political lobbying. Religious political lobbying has had an enormously detrimental effect on American society in the last 40 years, and should be completely outlawed. Religious groups don't pay taxes. They therefore should have absolutely no right to directly influence public policy through lobbyists.
CONCLUSION
Thoughts? Opinions? Agree or disagree? Would you change anything else in the First Amendment?
In Part II, we'll look at changes I'd like to see to the Second Amendment. That should be a fun discussion.
But I think it's time for a whole new constitution. I mean completely rewriting our constitution to reflect the modern issues affecting 21st century America. I've been thinking along these lines for several years now. We need to call a constitutional convention.
Trying to fit 21st century problems into an 18th century legal document is a bit like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't work, and if you force it, it's all stupid-looking and probably won't last very long.
Our constitution is hopelessly outdated. But we treat it as though it's just one very, very small level below sacred scripture. Like the Bible, we treat the constitution as somehow inviolate and sacrosanct, the final and inerrant Word of the Founding Fathers, who themselves are frequently treated as mini-Christs. I've written about this before. It's the Doctrine of Constitutional Infallibility, and it's deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
The Constitution was written in the 18th century, addressing 18th century problems that were unique to a small, rural, coastal nation that was just starting out. It's woefully inadequate to address the issues of a massive country that is the world's largest economy and superpower.
But I'm really not here to convince you we need a new constitution. I actually want to talk about what a new constitution would look like.
Now, I'm no political philosopher. I'm not a lawyer, a legal expert, or trained in constitutional law. And I'm not pretending to be. But I do have some ideas for a few changes we need to make. In this series of articles, I intend to outline a number of proposals that I think would make for a better constitution and, subsequently, a better society to live in.
In Part I, we're going to look at the First Amendment.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of Speech
Everybody loves the First Amendment, right? Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. It's all hunky-dory, cum-ba-ya, American Pie stuff.
But there has long been one acknowledged problem with freedom of speech in particular: it protects hate speech too. As recently as 2017, in an unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming that hate speech is constitutionally-protected, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
[The notion that the government can restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend ... strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech ... is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."Most people agree: in order to have freedom of speech, you have to allow people to say offensive stuff too.
My question is this: Has anyone ever stopped to ask if this is ACTUALLY true? Is there some philosophical, legal, or social reason why we can't outlaw hate speech while still having freedom of every other kind of speech?
The first change we need to make in our new constitutional convention is to rewrite the First Amendment to specifically and categorically ban hate speech and, especially, hate groups, including the rights of those groups to assemble.
The typical argument against this is that it would create some sort of slippery slope - that if we started banning offensive speech, then we might somehow slide slowly and surely into tyranny. Justice Anthony Kennedy made this point in the same 2017 case mentioned above:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.I'm not suggesting that we ban "offensive" speech. Instead, I'm specifically talking about speech that is intentionally and specifically used for the purpose of spreading hatred against other people or groups of people.
I'm also not talking about what you do or say in private. I'm not suggesting that if you use the n-word in your own home, someone should be able to report you to authorities and have you fined. I'm not even saying that if you go out in public and call someone the n-word, you should be able to be fined for that.
I'm talking more specifically about hate groups that seek to spread a message of intolerance and hatred towards other people. Think of white nationalists/supremacists, certain Christian, Muslim, and Jewish separatist groups, Neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. Basically, any group recognized as a hate group by reputable organizations that track such things.
Is there any reason on earth why freedom of speech has to mean these sorts of groups can exist? Why would banning their right to meet, march, protest, advertise, put up signs, hand out pamphlets, have a website, or use social media mean that somehow our society was going to devolve into tyranny? That's abject nonsense.
And it's proven by the fact that numerous other democratic, industrialized nations have such bans on hate speech and hate groups and somehow they've managed to not descend into chaos. In Germany, for instance, Nazism is illegal. You can't wear a swastika, you can't promote Nazi ideology, and you can't even deny the Holocaust. Yet, magically, Germany is still a free democracy! Furthermore, virtually every country in Europe, plus a bunch of others around the world, ban hate speech outright. Guess what? Their citizens are still free!
It's part of the Doctrine of Constitutional Infallibility that somehow you can't have freedom of speech and also ban hate groups and hate speech. It's American mythology. It's an American lie.
We already ban some forms of speech. Walk into a crowded theater and yell "ACTIVE SHOOTER!" if you'd like to test those bans. Slander and libel laws are also examples of how speech is limited in this country. Outlawing hate speech and hate groups would go a long way towards solving some of the problems in this country, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest it would lead us into a loss of our free democratic principles.
Separation of Church and State
Freedom of religion is also enshrined in the First Amendment, and legal precedent based on that freedom has led to the notion of separation of church and state. That phrase, however, is not actually in the constitution or the text of the First Amendment. I think it would be beneficial to alter the wording of the religion clause to specifically note that there is a firm and unbreachable divide between church and state, between government and religion.
Government can not touch religion (unless it's a hate group or doing other illegal things) and religion can not touch government (meaning you can't legislate your religious beliefs).
I would also like to see a clause expressly forbidding churches from having any sort of involvement whatsoever in politics, including especially political lobbying. Religious political lobbying has had an enormously detrimental effect on American society in the last 40 years, and should be completely outlawed. Religious groups don't pay taxes. They therefore should have absolutely no right to directly influence public policy through lobbyists.
CONCLUSION
Thoughts? Opinions? Agree or disagree? Would you change anything else in the First Amendment?
In Part II, we'll look at changes I'd like to see to the Second Amendment. That should be a fun discussion.
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Notes from the Cave
I've had a few days off of work and it's a good thing because I've been sick with sinus crap. It started as primarily a fever and body aches over the weekend and now it's morphed into straight sinus issues. I'm pretty annoyed about the whole thing, honestly.
I was supposed to have breakfast with my parents and my aunt and uncle this morning, and I ended up sleeping right through my alarm because I was up really, really late because I couldn't fall back to sleep after waking up at 230 in the morning with a stomach ache.
On the plus side, I got my birthday presents this week. I only asked for Amazon gift cards for my birthday, so I was able to go on a big shopping spree and clear out some of my wish list, which consists largely of instruments and accessories. I got a banjo, a mandolin, and another harmonica, along with a tuner, some straps and extra strings, stands for the instruments, and a sheet music stand for my violin playing. Now I just have to learn how to play all this new stuff. I'm already planning my first song - a multi-track recording of Oh Susanna, with piano, guitar, banjo, mandolin, harmonica, and fiddle, alternating the melody line among the various instruments. We'll see how that goes.
In any case, Nile River Studios is really beginning to shape up. The only major thing I have left to get is a decent drum set. I have no plans currently to buy a bass guitar, although that might change in the future, just depending on how much recording I decide to do. I've got a MIDI controller I can use to play bass lines so it seems kind of silly to get a bass guitar that I'm otherwise not all that interested in playing for its own sake. All the other things I've bought are instruments I actually want to play as an end in themselves, whether or not I ever record anything with them.
I recently finished recording my latest piano piece which was actually a composition by Erik Satie, one of the French Impressionist musicians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I haven't traditionally played much music of this style, but this one is a particularly pretty piece.
I've cut back the number of new songs I'm learning at any given time on the piano, simply because I'm needing more time for playing my other instruments these days. I'm currently only working on 3 new songs, down from the 5 that I've traditionally done in the past. As I've been adding more and more songs to my permanent repertoire, I also need more time to play those songs during my practice sessions to keep them sharp.
Additionally, I MIGHT have a new writing opportunity coming. You all know I wrote a podcast series for Wondery last fall. That all turned out really well and was a great professional writing experience. A few weeks ago, I contacted another podcast company and asked if they were in need of any writers. I ended up talking to one of their producers and sent some writing samples. We're currently working out the details of me maybe writing for one of their shows. So that's all still up in the air, but it looks like a real possibility. So with the potential ahead for more writing work, I figured I should keep my piano practice time as short as possible - I just won't have 3 hours a day if I'm working on a writing project.
Obviously, I'll keep you all abreast (lol, I said "breast") of how that all goes.
I was supposed to have breakfast with my parents and my aunt and uncle this morning, and I ended up sleeping right through my alarm because I was up really, really late because I couldn't fall back to sleep after waking up at 230 in the morning with a stomach ache.
On the plus side, I got my birthday presents this week. I only asked for Amazon gift cards for my birthday, so I was able to go on a big shopping spree and clear out some of my wish list, which consists largely of instruments and accessories. I got a banjo, a mandolin, and another harmonica, along with a tuner, some straps and extra strings, stands for the instruments, and a sheet music stand for my violin playing. Now I just have to learn how to play all this new stuff. I'm already planning my first song - a multi-track recording of Oh Susanna, with piano, guitar, banjo, mandolin, harmonica, and fiddle, alternating the melody line among the various instruments. We'll see how that goes.
In any case, Nile River Studios is really beginning to shape up. The only major thing I have left to get is a decent drum set. I have no plans currently to buy a bass guitar, although that might change in the future, just depending on how much recording I decide to do. I've got a MIDI controller I can use to play bass lines so it seems kind of silly to get a bass guitar that I'm otherwise not all that interested in playing for its own sake. All the other things I've bought are instruments I actually want to play as an end in themselves, whether or not I ever record anything with them.
I recently finished recording my latest piano piece which was actually a composition by Erik Satie, one of the French Impressionist musicians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I haven't traditionally played much music of this style, but this one is a particularly pretty piece.
I've cut back the number of new songs I'm learning at any given time on the piano, simply because I'm needing more time for playing my other instruments these days. I'm currently only working on 3 new songs, down from the 5 that I've traditionally done in the past. As I've been adding more and more songs to my permanent repertoire, I also need more time to play those songs during my practice sessions to keep them sharp.
Additionally, I MIGHT have a new writing opportunity coming. You all know I wrote a podcast series for Wondery last fall. That all turned out really well and was a great professional writing experience. A few weeks ago, I contacted another podcast company and asked if they were in need of any writers. I ended up talking to one of their producers and sent some writing samples. We're currently working out the details of me maybe writing for one of their shows. So that's all still up in the air, but it looks like a real possibility. So with the potential ahead for more writing work, I figured I should keep my piano practice time as short as possible - I just won't have 3 hours a day if I'm working on a writing project.
Obviously, I'll keep you all abreast (lol, I said "breast") of how that all goes.
Monday, November 19, 2018
American History Tellers Podcast
So I've gotten the opportunity to write a series for a podcast company called Wondery.
I'll be honest: before this opportunity came up, I'd never listened to a podcast before. I actually recorded a podcast once, but I never heard the finished product. (That was when I was working for a friend's English language learning company as the resident writing expert and we did a podcast for the website on English writing tips.)
Anyhoo, I am finishing up a series of scripts for a Wondery podcast called American History Tellers.
This podcast tells stories of American history in a sort of documentary format, including lots of sound effects and re-enactments of historical events. I keep telling people it's sort of like a history documentary you'd see on TV, except it's for audio. It's also similar to an audio book - although unlike printed books, it's actually written for listening.
The series I'm writing is on the history of party politics in the United States. It starts in the 1790s and goes up through the present day. It's a 6-part series. Each episode is about 40-45 minutes.
Please understand, I'm writing the script for the series, I'm not narrating it. It's narrated by a podcaster named Lindsay Graham (no, not the douchey senator from South Carolina). It's not in the format of a lot of podcasts where you hear a couple of people talking back and forth or doing an interview. It's a narrative podcast - you're basically listening to a story. It's immersive in style, attempting to put you as the listener right down into the action as it takes place.
For anyone who doesn't know how podcasts work, it's free. You just listen. There are commercials, like on TV. There are a number of ways to listen. You can go to the Wondery website and stream the shows from your computer. You can listen through smart devices like the Amazon echo (I read somewhere that you can just ask Alexa to play American History Tellers and she'll take care of it for you). You can subscribe to it on whatever app you use to listen to podcasts...Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, NPR-One, etc.
The first episode drops on Wednesday, November 21, 2018. That's the day before Thanksgiving. The remainder drop each Wednesday thereafter. Of course, you can listen anytime, even if it's a year from now.
I would be really, really happy if you listened. I'd be even happier if you'd leave a review saying how much you loved it.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
The 10 Best Songs of Willie Nelson
So, in years past, I've done various "10 Best" posts about music. Today, I decided it was time to do another one. It took me approximately 2.73 seconds to determine whose catalog to feature.
While intently studying this list for future reference, please keep in mind that I have given exactly zero consideration to whether a song is famous or well-known. These songs are the Willie Nelson songs that I think are his best, regardless of whether you ever heard Paw-Paw play them. Also, I have limited this list to Willie's solo efforts - which means I'm ignoring several hundred duets he's done.
***
10. I Gotta Get Drunk
The title pretty much says it all. Willie recorded this song in 1970 for his Both Sides Now album. If you like Willie, and you like to drink, I highly recommend this song while drinking. Or when sober.
9. Sad Songs and Waltzes
This classic is from 1973's Shotgun Willie album. After 15 years in Nashville and 15 prior albums, it was his first really successful effort. It was the album that really set him on the path to super-stardom. When you listen to his albums chronologically, you can definitely hear a change on this one. As the title implies, this is a sad song in 3/4 time about a broken-hearted singer who tells his ex not to worry about becoming famous in a country music song, because no one's currently buying sad songs or waltzes anyway.
8. When I've Sung My Last Hillbilly Song
From what I've read, this was literally Willie's first song. He was working as a DJ in Texas in the mid-50s when he recorded it on a reel-to-reel tape at the radio station. He later added a few more verses and included it on a boxed set in the early 2000s. The song is about a country singer contemplating the end of his life and career. Very ironic to listen to now, knowing it's his earliest recording and he's now 65 years older and there can't possibly be many more songs left.
(Couldn't find a YouTube version of the 2000's version of this song...only the original version from the 50s, which is really, really low quality...if you've got a streaming service, look it up there.)
7. Red Headed Stranger
This is the title track to Willie's signature album. The Red Headed Stranger album made Willie one of the biggest names in country music in 1975 upon its release. It's biggest single was Blue Eyes Cryin' in the Rain. It's actually a concept album, telling the story of a cowboy who kills his wife and her lover and then flees and attempts to put his life back together. The title song was written in the 50s by a duo of professional songwriters. Willie built his album around it 20 years later. The song tells the story of a cowboy whose wife has died (on Willie's album, it's explained in other songs that he actually killed her for cheating on him). While still in mourning, he goes ahead and shoots a prostitute who dares to lay a hand on his dead wife's horse. It's pretty violent and non-PC to be honest. But this is 'merican country music, so that makes it okay.
6. Help Me Make it Through the Night
This song was written by Kris Kristofferson and Willie recorded it twice. The most famous version of the song is by a female country singer named Sammi Smith. Willie first recorded it in 1972 on his The Willie Way album. He then recorded it again in 1979 for his Willie Nelson Sings Kristofferson album. It's that second version that I'm referencing here. Just a perfectly written and perfectly sung country music song.
5. My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys
It's really hard to put this song at #5, because I freaking LOVE this song. But that just goes to show you how good Willie is. This is another song that was written by someone else, but Willie made it famous. This is probably the earliest Willie song that I can actually remember. I recall my mother playing this song when I was a kid. It made me want to be a cowboy.
4. It's Not Supposed to be That Way
This song comes from 1974's Phases and Stages album. It was the album that came after Shotgun Willie and before Red Headed Stranger. Like Red Headed Stranger, it's a concept album, telling the story of a break-up. The front side of the record tells the woman's story, and the back side tells the man's story. It's Not Supposed to be That Way is part of the man's story and it's just a really freaking good country music song. Love it. It's Willie at his best.
3. Healing Hands of Time
Basically, the top five could probably be in any order, depending on the day. Healing Hands of Time is an absolutely incredible Willie Nelson song. It was released on his third album in 1965, Country Willie: His Own Songs. With a great little acoustic riff that backs up the song, this is one I can just listen to over and over again.
2. Are You Sure
How did Country Willie: His Own Songs not make Willie Nelson famous? Both this song and the last one are from that album. Neither was released as a single at the time. And yet they just have some kind of magic about them that I can't really put into words. When either of these songs comes on, everybody has to shut up to let me listen and sing.
1. Angel Flying Too Close to the Ground
This is Willie's signature song in The World of B. Scott Christmas. It's a song that he wrote and recorded for the movie Honeysuckle Rose in 1981. He also starred in the movie. It's a live recording, taken straight from the film. He also recorded a version in the studio, but that version was only included on compilation albums and it's not the one I'm referring to here. The Honeysuckle Rose version is the one you need to listen to. This song never fails to give me chills and it's absolutely one of my favorite songs of all time.
***
EXTRA SPECIAL BONUS!
Of course no normal person could come up with just ten songs on a Willie Nelson best songs list, so here's a bonus song that could probably go just about anywhere in the list above.
The Pilgrim: Chapter 33
This is another song written by Kris Kristofferson and included on the Willie Nelson Sings Kristofferson album. I guess Kristofferson probably recorded it at some point too, but I've never heard his version. Willie's version is excellent. It's a song that reminds me a bit of myself. It's a self-reflective song of a person who (presumably) has just turned 33 and is looking at his life and who he is.
He's a poet, he's a picker
He's a prophet, he's a pusherHe's a pilgrim and a preacher, and a problem when he's stonedHe's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction,Taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Musings of a Saturday Night
Hello old friends.
Lately, I'm into candles. No, not newfangled electrical candles. Real life, honest-to-god drippy wax candles.
I'm trying to get my ambiance going up in here.
Yes, I have a miniature chiminea and a goddamn Buddha.
I know, I know. Some of you don't like the GD word. Seriously, grow up. It's 2018.
Have I mentioned that I've been in a materialistic phase lately? This might require a bit of explanation. I've never been a materialistic person. Oh, I mean I have as much shit as the next average white middle class dude, but I've never been one to constantly buy stuff for myself. I have shirts in the closet that I've been wearing for 15 years. I've had the same work shoes for the hospital since about 2011. We still have dishes in the cabinet that we got when we got married...21 years ago.
But since the spring, I've been increasingly wanting to buy shit. Of course, it's not the typical shit that average people like you would buy...it's stuff like old man hats and musical instruments and old vinyl records and wax candles.
Speaking of musical instruments, I learned to play the harmonica this summer. It was cheap, so that was my first musical instrument. Of course, as you well know, I already play piano, guitar, and drums. But I haven't learned a new instrument since college. For whatever reason, this year I decided I needed to learn new instruments. So I started with the harmonica. It was actually easier than I expected, although I suspect my background and general knowledge of music theory, scales, and chords, etc., helped a lot. Also, I kinda have a knack for musical instruments.
Of course I've still been playing tons of piano. I just completed songs by Dvorak and Liszt and have started new pieces by Beethoven and Schumann. I'm also learning a really beautiful piece by a concert pianist and composer named Nobuyuki Tsujii. He's actually blind, which makes his playing ability all the more amazing. The piece in question is an elegy dedicated to the victims of the 2011 tsunami that killed thousands in Japan. ANYWAY, it's a gorgeous song. I highly recommend you Google it, OR wait until I post myself playing it on YouTube. :)
Didn't know I had a YouTube channel? It's okay. You can follow me here.
Do you play the piano? Do you know anyone who does? If so, you can buy my original compositions and arrangements here. (You can also listen to them there as well.)
Okay, enough self-promotion that won't work.
I think I've decided to leave the Democratic Party. Oh, I mean, I'll still frickin' vote for Democrats, and I have no plans to actually update my registration, but I think I'm going to start self-identifying as an Independent liberal. The truth is, I've always been an independently-minded person. That's been true since childhood, and has in many ways defined my adulthood. I used to feel like it was more true of religion than politics, but now I'm beginning to see that it's true of politics as well. The reaction of the Democratic Party as a whole to the Trump Era has really alienated me. Their uncompromising focus on identity politics to the exclusion of practically all else has really put a bad taste in my mouth.
I realize much of what I'm experiencing has been horribly skewed by the broken lens of social media. These apps show you what they think you want to see, based on what you are most likely to click or or otherwise interact with. The result is that you see only what Twitter (or Facebook, or whatever other app you use) wants you to see.
I've really started thinking that maybe it's time to get off social media completely. I deleted my Facebook page over a year ago, but I am still active on Twitter and Instagram. I'm not sure, at this point, that either app really enriches my life. The fakeness of Instagram is almost too much to bear, while Twitter is just nonstop political activism. I'm just getting to the point where I'm totally over it. I can't quite make myself stop, though. It's sort of like a drug.
Well, this post has turned to crap. I had much higher hopes for it when I started. Now I'm just kind of over it.
So, bye Felicia.
Lately, I'm into candles. No, not newfangled electrical candles. Real life, honest-to-god drippy wax candles.
I'm trying to get my ambiance going up in here.
Yes, I have a miniature chiminea and a goddamn Buddha.
I know, I know. Some of you don't like the GD word. Seriously, grow up. It's 2018.
Have I mentioned that I've been in a materialistic phase lately? This might require a bit of explanation. I've never been a materialistic person. Oh, I mean I have as much shit as the next average white middle class dude, but I've never been one to constantly buy stuff for myself. I have shirts in the closet that I've been wearing for 15 years. I've had the same work shoes for the hospital since about 2011. We still have dishes in the cabinet that we got when we got married...21 years ago.
But since the spring, I've been increasingly wanting to buy shit. Of course, it's not the typical shit that average people like you would buy...it's stuff like old man hats and musical instruments and old vinyl records and wax candles.
Speaking of musical instruments, I learned to play the harmonica this summer. It was cheap, so that was my first musical instrument. Of course, as you well know, I already play piano, guitar, and drums. But I haven't learned a new instrument since college. For whatever reason, this year I decided I needed to learn new instruments. So I started with the harmonica. It was actually easier than I expected, although I suspect my background and general knowledge of music theory, scales, and chords, etc., helped a lot. Also, I kinda have a knack for musical instruments.
Of course I've still been playing tons of piano. I just completed songs by Dvorak and Liszt and have started new pieces by Beethoven and Schumann. I'm also learning a really beautiful piece by a concert pianist and composer named Nobuyuki Tsujii. He's actually blind, which makes his playing ability all the more amazing. The piece in question is an elegy dedicated to the victims of the 2011 tsunami that killed thousands in Japan. ANYWAY, it's a gorgeous song. I highly recommend you Google it, OR wait until I post myself playing it on YouTube. :)
Didn't know I had a YouTube channel? It's okay. You can follow me here.
Do you play the piano? Do you know anyone who does? If so, you can buy my original compositions and arrangements here. (You can also listen to them there as well.)
Okay, enough self-promotion that won't work.
I think I've decided to leave the Democratic Party. Oh, I mean, I'll still frickin' vote for Democrats, and I have no plans to actually update my registration, but I think I'm going to start self-identifying as an Independent liberal. The truth is, I've always been an independently-minded person. That's been true since childhood, and has in many ways defined my adulthood. I used to feel like it was more true of religion than politics, but now I'm beginning to see that it's true of politics as well. The reaction of the Democratic Party as a whole to the Trump Era has really alienated me. Their uncompromising focus on identity politics to the exclusion of practically all else has really put a bad taste in my mouth.
I realize much of what I'm experiencing has been horribly skewed by the broken lens of social media. These apps show you what they think you want to see, based on what you are most likely to click or or otherwise interact with. The result is that you see only what Twitter (or Facebook, or whatever other app you use) wants you to see.
I've really started thinking that maybe it's time to get off social media completely. I deleted my Facebook page over a year ago, but I am still active on Twitter and Instagram. I'm not sure, at this point, that either app really enriches my life. The fakeness of Instagram is almost too much to bear, while Twitter is just nonstop political activism. I'm just getting to the point where I'm totally over it. I can't quite make myself stop, though. It's sort of like a drug.
Well, this post has turned to crap. I had much higher hopes for it when I started. Now I'm just kind of over it.
So, bye Felicia.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
My Thoughts on Roseanne Barr
I think Roseanne Barr is legitimately mentally disturbed. I don't know if she could actually be diagnosed with something from the DSM-5 or whatever, but there is something definitely not right about her. It's not just that she's a quack conspiracy theorist and right-winger, although that's a big part of it. But just the way she clearly can't think straight or make sensible decisions like well-adjusted members of society. Her latest thing is that her racist comments on Twitter weren't about Ambien (her first excuse), and weren't caused by ignorance about Valerie Jarrett's race (her second excuse), and weren't caused by her ignorance about the fact that comparing a black person to an ape is considered racist (her third excuse), but rather about how Planet of the Apes was about anti-Semitism and Iran is anti-Semitic.
Now, Valerie Jarrett is an African-American who was born in Iran to American parents. They moved home when she was 5. She is not Muslim. She is not Iranian. She was an advisor to Obama, but not on his dealings with Iran.
But apparently Roseanne is now claiming that she was tying Jarrett to Obama and Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear situation by using Planet of the Apes, which - according to her - is about anti-Semitism, and Iran is anti-Semitic and therefore Obama (and Jarrett, by association) is guilty of aiding anti-Semites.
It's an absurd and convoluted argument, particularly given that Planet of the Apes is not, and never was, about anti-Semitism. It was about racism in the 1960s, with the Apes representing white people who oppressed blacks. The sideways reference to the old racist taunt about black people being apes was an intentional aspect of the story line, attempting to turn it on its head. As anyone who has ever watched The Twilight Zone knows, racism was something Rod Serling worked into many of his stories and teleplays. He also wrote Planet of the Apes.
But apparently only "low IQ" people failed to understand that her tweet was aimed at the Iran regime. Just to keep everyone clear, here's the original tweet: "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj." If you don't understand how this tweet is about the Iran regime, consider yourself "low IQ."
It might also be worth noting that Roseanne admitted right after the original tweet, during her initial string of apologies, that the tweet was a "bad joke" about Jarrett's looks and was "indefensible."
I don't know if it's age-related, or years of pot-smoking, or what, but Roseanne seems like she is mentally unstable to me. She's always been edgy, of course. Her comedy has always had a touch of raunchiness and been thoroughly unapologetic, but she has gone off the deep end in recent years. The irony, of course, is that conservatives used to hate her. They seem to have forgotten the controversy she caused when she "sang" the national anthem before a baseball game, intentionally brutalizing it, before grabbing her crotch and spitting as the crowd booed. Now the same assholes who are boycotting the NFL over black players kneeling during the anthem to protest racism are treating anthem-degrader Roseanne like a hero. But no one ever accused the right wing of consistency.
Now, Valerie Jarrett is an African-American who was born in Iran to American parents. They moved home when she was 5. She is not Muslim. She is not Iranian. She was an advisor to Obama, but not on his dealings with Iran.
But apparently Roseanne is now claiming that she was tying Jarrett to Obama and Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear situation by using Planet of the Apes, which - according to her - is about anti-Semitism, and Iran is anti-Semitic and therefore Obama (and Jarrett, by association) is guilty of aiding anti-Semites.
It's an absurd and convoluted argument, particularly given that Planet of the Apes is not, and never was, about anti-Semitism. It was about racism in the 1960s, with the Apes representing white people who oppressed blacks. The sideways reference to the old racist taunt about black people being apes was an intentional aspect of the story line, attempting to turn it on its head. As anyone who has ever watched The Twilight Zone knows, racism was something Rod Serling worked into many of his stories and teleplays. He also wrote Planet of the Apes.
But apparently only "low IQ" people failed to understand that her tweet was aimed at the Iran regime. Just to keep everyone clear, here's the original tweet: "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj." If you don't understand how this tweet is about the Iran regime, consider yourself "low IQ."
It might also be worth noting that Roseanne admitted right after the original tweet, during her initial string of apologies, that the tweet was a "bad joke" about Jarrett's looks and was "indefensible."
I don't know if it's age-related, or years of pot-smoking, or what, but Roseanne seems like she is mentally unstable to me. She's always been edgy, of course. Her comedy has always had a touch of raunchiness and been thoroughly unapologetic, but she has gone off the deep end in recent years. The irony, of course, is that conservatives used to hate her. They seem to have forgotten the controversy she caused when she "sang" the national anthem before a baseball game, intentionally brutalizing it, before grabbing her crotch and spitting as the crowd booed. Now the same assholes who are boycotting the NFL over black players kneeling during the anthem to protest racism are treating anthem-degrader Roseanne like a hero. But no one ever accused the right wing of consistency.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Notes from the Cave
It's hot as hell and the air conditioning in my car is broken. I'm learning to live like it's the 1960s and air conditioning in cars isn't a thing. It's fun rolling down the road with the windows all the way down, although I worry about getting a pebble in the eye or something when I'm on the Interstate.
Thankfully, unlike the 1960s, the buildings and homes I go into after being in my car are always air conditioned, so at least I can cool off afterwards. But I've started carrying my scrub shirt to work (wearing only a T-shirt) and putting it on after I get there so that there are no visible sweat circles across my back and sides. I cannot IMAGINE what it must have been like when air conditioning didn't exist in cars OR buildings. Can you imagine going to work in a suit and tie (because that's what EVERYONE wore to work back then) AND not having air conditioning, either in your car OR your office? We are seriously spoiled these days, and you learn just how spoiled when your AC goes bad.
My piano playing is going really well. I recently read an old book from the 1940s about piano playing for the "amateur" and it has really inspired me to make some positive changes in my practice. I had felt like I was "plateauing" in my playing and this book has helped me to get out of that. I've started working to retain pieces after I finish them, and am even thinking about doing a "recital" on Instagram Live (not that I expect dozens of people to sit there and watch me play for however long, but I want to do it for myself).
In college, I was a music major until my Junior year, when I switched my major and minor. The main reason I did this was because I had gotten burned out with practicing and I was terrified of giving an hour-long senior recital. That's what you do in music instead of a senior thesis. My last semester of piano instruction was the first semester of Junior year, and I got an "Incomplete" for my grade that semester because I had basically stopped practicing. That Incomplete is still on my permanent record. I've always appreciated Mr. Tilford giving me that instead of an F, which is what I deserved.
I still have the sheet music for at least three pieces that I was supposed to be learning that semester. The first is a difficult Impromptu by Schubert that I made virtually no headway on that semester. I completed it earlier this year, although it wasn't as perfect as I would have liked. The second is a well-known Rondo by Mozart that I had made some progress on in college but never came close to finishing (Melanie actually remembers me practicing this song way back when). The third is a Prelude by Bach. All of these pieces still have my instructor's chicken scratch all over them.
Although that Incomplete will remain on my permanent record, it has been important to me to finally "complete" the work I was supposed to learn during that last semester of my formal piano instruction. Once I've completed the Bach piece (which is almost done), I will be able to consider that class completed, even if it took me 22 years.
This is also why I want to do a recital on Instagram - a way of feeling like I have finally finished my abandoned degree in music. There was only one class I needed, plus a recital (and three more semesters of instruction), to finish that music degree. Obviously I'm not going to take the class. But by completing the recital, I'll feel like I've come pretty damn close to finishing what I abandoned in 1995.
Here is that second piece I mentioned. It's the Rondo in D Major by Mozart.
Thankfully, unlike the 1960s, the buildings and homes I go into after being in my car are always air conditioned, so at least I can cool off afterwards. But I've started carrying my scrub shirt to work (wearing only a T-shirt) and putting it on after I get there so that there are no visible sweat circles across my back and sides. I cannot IMAGINE what it must have been like when air conditioning didn't exist in cars OR buildings. Can you imagine going to work in a suit and tie (because that's what EVERYONE wore to work back then) AND not having air conditioning, either in your car OR your office? We are seriously spoiled these days, and you learn just how spoiled when your AC goes bad.
My piano playing is going really well. I recently read an old book from the 1940s about piano playing for the "amateur" and it has really inspired me to make some positive changes in my practice. I had felt like I was "plateauing" in my playing and this book has helped me to get out of that. I've started working to retain pieces after I finish them, and am even thinking about doing a "recital" on Instagram Live (not that I expect dozens of people to sit there and watch me play for however long, but I want to do it for myself).
In college, I was a music major until my Junior year, when I switched my major and minor. The main reason I did this was because I had gotten burned out with practicing and I was terrified of giving an hour-long senior recital. That's what you do in music instead of a senior thesis. My last semester of piano instruction was the first semester of Junior year, and I got an "Incomplete" for my grade that semester because I had basically stopped practicing. That Incomplete is still on my permanent record. I've always appreciated Mr. Tilford giving me that instead of an F, which is what I deserved.
I still have the sheet music for at least three pieces that I was supposed to be learning that semester. The first is a difficult Impromptu by Schubert that I made virtually no headway on that semester. I completed it earlier this year, although it wasn't as perfect as I would have liked. The second is a well-known Rondo by Mozart that I had made some progress on in college but never came close to finishing (Melanie actually remembers me practicing this song way back when). The third is a Prelude by Bach. All of these pieces still have my instructor's chicken scratch all over them.
Although that Incomplete will remain on my permanent record, it has been important to me to finally "complete" the work I was supposed to learn during that last semester of my formal piano instruction. Once I've completed the Bach piece (which is almost done), I will be able to consider that class completed, even if it took me 22 years.
This is also why I want to do a recital on Instagram - a way of feeling like I have finally finished my abandoned degree in music. There was only one class I needed, plus a recital (and three more semesters of instruction), to finish that music degree. Obviously I'm not going to take the class. But by completing the recital, I'll feel like I've come pretty damn close to finishing what I abandoned in 1995.
Here is that second piece I mentioned. It's the Rondo in D Major by Mozart.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
A Poem for World Poetry Day
In 1999, UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) declared March 21 to be World Poetry Day. I never heard of it until this year.
But I thought it was odd because I had planned on posting a poem today. Just another case of my latent 6th sense, I guess.
Anyway, I planned to post a poem today because we got about 4 inches of snow last night to usher in the first day of spring. There was a lot of talk about this, naturally, on social media and it instantly reminded me of a poem I had written in 2004 after it snowed that year on the first day of spring as well.
March of 2004 was a few months after my wife and I had split up and right around the same time that we were filing for divorce. I was living alone in a cheap apartment in Richmond, Kentucky, with no family nearby, alienated from most of my friends, and feeling pretty sorry for myself. I was also writing a lot of poetry.
The first day of spring was a Saturday that year, so I was doing what I always did on the weekends: hanging out by myself in my apartment and hoping something would be on one of the 3 channels I got with my rabbit ears on the TV. I remember watching the snowflakes fall outside the sliding glass door in my family room and thinking about how totally appropriate it was that this year, of all years, it would snow on the first day of spring - the first day of what is supposed to be an end to the deadness of winter and a rebirth of lush, green life. It seemed so significant to what I had been going through and what was certain to continue for the foreseeable future.
It's not the best poem I ever wrote, but it's one of the most poignant and meaningful for me personally. So I offer it here for World Poetry Day, 14 years to the day after I wrote it, and in another year where it snowed on the first day of spring.
But I thought it was odd because I had planned on posting a poem today. Just another case of my latent 6th sense, I guess.
Anyway, I planned to post a poem today because we got about 4 inches of snow last night to usher in the first day of spring. There was a lot of talk about this, naturally, on social media and it instantly reminded me of a poem I had written in 2004 after it snowed that year on the first day of spring as well.
March of 2004 was a few months after my wife and I had split up and right around the same time that we were filing for divorce. I was living alone in a cheap apartment in Richmond, Kentucky, with no family nearby, alienated from most of my friends, and feeling pretty sorry for myself. I was also writing a lot of poetry.
The first day of spring was a Saturday that year, so I was doing what I always did on the weekends: hanging out by myself in my apartment and hoping something would be on one of the 3 channels I got with my rabbit ears on the TV. I remember watching the snowflakes fall outside the sliding glass door in my family room and thinking about how totally appropriate it was that this year, of all years, it would snow on the first day of spring - the first day of what is supposed to be an end to the deadness of winter and a rebirth of lush, green life. It seemed so significant to what I had been going through and what was certain to continue for the foreseeable future.
It's not the best poem I ever wrote, but it's one of the most poignant and meaningful for me personally. So I offer it here for World Poetry Day, 14 years to the day after I wrote it, and in another year where it snowed on the first day of spring.
spring snow
it snowed this year
on the first
day
of
spring.
not much, just
a light dusting that
didn’t
even
stick.
but it reminded me,
painfully, of the
long
cold
winter
i’ve just endured,
and how it is
not
over
yet.
Friday, February 02, 2018
Notes from the Cave
I'm not sure if my blog really has a point anymore. 2018 marks the 12th year I've been doing this and I'm feeling more and more like it's run its course. I mean, do people still blog? It's so 2008, right?
Whether I continue to maintain the blog or not, I've decided to end my annual reading list and Serene Musings Book of the Year. Does anyone really care what books I read last year? Or how many? Or which one was my favorite?
How about I just tell you I read 24 books last year, and if I'd chosen a book of the year, it would have been a competition between Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari, the classic The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman about the start of World War One, and The Dome, by Stephen King. Sapiens probably would've won.
Last year, I also started an annual "Completed Piano Pieces," list, but again, I think I'll spare you and not make that a tradition. For what it's worth, I am continuing to play 2-3 hours per day, 4-5 days per week, and completed 18 pieces last year, including several of my own compositions (it's one thing to write them, but then you have to learn how to play the damn things).
One of my biggest accomplishments last year was re-learning (after 25 years) all three movements of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. I had learned this originally in high school, and used to play it in college as a way to impress women and scare up some tail (not really), and had always thought of it as my "signature song" - the one I was most proud of being able to play. I officially marked it completed in December, although I'm still working on making it cleaner. If you're interested, you can watch me play the third movement below. As usual, let me qualify the performance by telling you up front there are some wonky notes here and there. Also, near the end, my camera tipped over and I had to stop and fix it. Oops! It's also important to remember that I'm playing on a 600-dollar digital keyboard that has a limited touch and dynamic range, so don't expect freaking Alfred Brendel. (I know, I know, no one knows who the hell that is. He's a famous concert pianist and especially well-known for his Beethoven recordings.)
I've still got it in my head to publish a book of my own piano arrangements of well-known old-time songs - things like Home on the Range, America the Beautiful, My Old Kentucky Home, etc. I've arranged 10 so far, but have a few more on my list. I'm not actually positive that I've got the software I'll need to effectively get the pieces into the self-publishing platform that I use at Amazon, so I may end up not being able to do it.
As you may have noticed in the video above, I'm wearing a brace on my right forearm. I've started having to wear it at work too. I've jokingly been telling people I've been training for my third triathlon. (Did you realize "triathlon" had no second "A" in it?? It's not "tri-ath-a-lon" but "tri-ath-lon." I'll be damned).
Anyway, it's not really a triathlon injury - it's a repetitive motion injury from piano playing. For the first year after I started playing again, I was doing scale exercises (the so-called Hanon exercises) that involved playing continuous, high velocity scales and arpeggios for 30-40 minutes. It was fantastic for helping me to re-learn finger dexterity and whatnot, but whenever I would do them, I'd develop tension in my right forearm - almost like a shin splint, like a muscle tightening up. Stopping and resting for a minute, and stretching my arm out, would usually help ease the tension, and it would go away completely once I finished my warm-up and started practicing and playing my regular songs.
When I started to notice I was having pain in the same spot while lifting heavy digital x-ray cassettes at work, I decided maybe I should quit doing the Hanon exercises (I had gotten to the point by then where I was probably ready to retire from them anyway). So I quit doing the exercises in November, but I'm still having the pain in my forearm. It doesn't really hurt when I play, but when I'm done my arm feels tight around the elbow, particularly when I extend my arm. The brace helps with the pain, but I'm concerned that it hasn't gotten better yet. I mean, it's obviously tendinitis, but how long does that last? (Why do we spell it "tendon" when it's just a tendon, but "tendinitis" when it's tendinitis? Shouldn't it be "tendonitis"?)
I haven't posted on Twitter in almost 3 weeks and as far as I know, no one has noticed. That always makes you feel nice, especially considering I typically post multiple times per day. I decided I needed a break from social media, but I'm so pathetic and needy that I keep checking it to see if anyone has mentioned me being gone. No one has said a word. Guess I'll just kill myself.
(I'm just kidding, don't everyone start panicking. And yes, you're right, suicide is no laughing matter.)
(Why do we add a "K" to panic when writing it as a present participle, e.g. "panicking"? English is dumb.)
Have I carried on long enough yet?
I got a real live record player for Christmas. I've always been dismissive of those "purists" who only want to hear music on vinyl - could you be a little less pretentious please? But over the last few years as I've gotten more and more into old music (70s and earlier), I've started wanting to listen to some of my favorite stuff on vinyl. Also, there are some old albums (Christmas albums in particular) that are long, long out of print, and I'd like to have the songs on them, and the only way to get them is to buy old vinyl records. So I got a turntable.
The problem is, I don't actually have any records yet. Anybody got any vinyl they want to give/sell/loan me?
Okay, you're off the hook. I'll stop now.
Whether I continue to maintain the blog or not, I've decided to end my annual reading list and Serene Musings Book of the Year. Does anyone really care what books I read last year? Or how many? Or which one was my favorite?
How about I just tell you I read 24 books last year, and if I'd chosen a book of the year, it would have been a competition between Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari, the classic The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman about the start of World War One, and The Dome, by Stephen King. Sapiens probably would've won.
Last year, I also started an annual "Completed Piano Pieces," list, but again, I think I'll spare you and not make that a tradition. For what it's worth, I am continuing to play 2-3 hours per day, 4-5 days per week, and completed 18 pieces last year, including several of my own compositions (it's one thing to write them, but then you have to learn how to play the damn things).
One of my biggest accomplishments last year was re-learning (after 25 years) all three movements of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. I had learned this originally in high school, and used to play it in college as a way to impress women and scare up some tail (not really), and had always thought of it as my "signature song" - the one I was most proud of being able to play. I officially marked it completed in December, although I'm still working on making it cleaner. If you're interested, you can watch me play the third movement below. As usual, let me qualify the performance by telling you up front there are some wonky notes here and there. Also, near the end, my camera tipped over and I had to stop and fix it. Oops! It's also important to remember that I'm playing on a 600-dollar digital keyboard that has a limited touch and dynamic range, so don't expect freaking Alfred Brendel. (I know, I know, no one knows who the hell that is. He's a famous concert pianist and especially well-known for his Beethoven recordings.)
I've still got it in my head to publish a book of my own piano arrangements of well-known old-time songs - things like Home on the Range, America the Beautiful, My Old Kentucky Home, etc. I've arranged 10 so far, but have a few more on my list. I'm not actually positive that I've got the software I'll need to effectively get the pieces into the self-publishing platform that I use at Amazon, so I may end up not being able to do it.
As you may have noticed in the video above, I'm wearing a brace on my right forearm. I've started having to wear it at work too. I've jokingly been telling people I've been training for my third triathlon. (Did you realize "triathlon" had no second "A" in it?? It's not "tri-ath-a-lon" but "tri-ath-lon." I'll be damned).
Anyway, it's not really a triathlon injury - it's a repetitive motion injury from piano playing. For the first year after I started playing again, I was doing scale exercises (the so-called Hanon exercises) that involved playing continuous, high velocity scales and arpeggios for 30-40 minutes. It was fantastic for helping me to re-learn finger dexterity and whatnot, but whenever I would do them, I'd develop tension in my right forearm - almost like a shin splint, like a muscle tightening up. Stopping and resting for a minute, and stretching my arm out, would usually help ease the tension, and it would go away completely once I finished my warm-up and started practicing and playing my regular songs.
When I started to notice I was having pain in the same spot while lifting heavy digital x-ray cassettes at work, I decided maybe I should quit doing the Hanon exercises (I had gotten to the point by then where I was probably ready to retire from them anyway). So I quit doing the exercises in November, but I'm still having the pain in my forearm. It doesn't really hurt when I play, but when I'm done my arm feels tight around the elbow, particularly when I extend my arm. The brace helps with the pain, but I'm concerned that it hasn't gotten better yet. I mean, it's obviously tendinitis, but how long does that last? (Why do we spell it "tendon" when it's just a tendon, but "tendinitis" when it's tendinitis? Shouldn't it be "tendonitis"?)
I haven't posted on Twitter in almost 3 weeks and as far as I know, no one has noticed. That always makes you feel nice, especially considering I typically post multiple times per day. I decided I needed a break from social media, but I'm so pathetic and needy that I keep checking it to see if anyone has mentioned me being gone. No one has said a word. Guess I'll just kill myself.
(I'm just kidding, don't everyone start panicking. And yes, you're right, suicide is no laughing matter.)
(Why do we add a "K" to panic when writing it as a present participle, e.g. "panicking"? English is dumb.)
Have I carried on long enough yet?
I got a real live record player for Christmas. I've always been dismissive of those "purists" who only want to hear music on vinyl - could you be a little less pretentious please? But over the last few years as I've gotten more and more into old music (70s and earlier), I've started wanting to listen to some of my favorite stuff on vinyl. Also, there are some old albums (Christmas albums in particular) that are long, long out of print, and I'd like to have the songs on them, and the only way to get them is to buy old vinyl records. So I got a turntable.
The problem is, I don't actually have any records yet. Anybody got any vinyl they want to give/sell/loan me?
Okay, you're off the hook. I'll stop now.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Turning In My Feminist Card
About 9 months ago, I wrote a blog post detailing why I consider myself a feminist. It was a way of explaining a new profile picture I had posted of myself:
I won't repeat the points I made in that post - click the link above if you're curious.
I have not changed my mind about any of the points I made in that post.
Still, I have decided to turn in my feminist card. What I mean by that is that I have decided to stop using the word "feminist" to describe myself and my opinions.
When I first posted that picture in February, I got some blow-back (primarily from male friends), who told me that feminism is not really about equal rights, but rather about wanting to dominate men or blame men for all their problems. I acknowledged that form of feminism and argued that those kinds of feminists represent a loud minority rather than the mainstream of people who believe in equality and women's rights.
Like everything else in that post, I still believe that.
However, at this point in time, those kinds of feminists - let's call them radical feminists - are dominating the conversation. They are the only voices being heard in the mainstream media and on social media. Right now, "the feminist movement" is firmly in their hands (much the same way that the GOP is firmly in the hands of the far right).
All I seem to hear these days is a constant barrage against white males (it's always "white males" or "white men") and how awful they are. They're power hungry, they're racist, they're sexual predators, they're insensitive, they're self-absorbed, they're know-it-alls, they constantly "man-splain" and talk down to women.
Here are some of the tweets I've read lately:
"I'm ready for the all-female reboot of America."
"I think a lot of misogyny, homophobia, and racism is related to patriarchy." (In other words, men are to blame not just for misogyny, BUT ALSO homophobia and racism. Women are innocent, or at best have been poisoned by the evil patriarchy.)
t makes them stupid because they don't have all the information necessary."
"Things to leave behind in 2017: Straight white men."
"You can't be sexist towards men. Sexism is based on OPPRESSION. You can be rude/inconsiderate towards men but you cannot be sexist."
"White men haven't voted Democrat in decades. Stop interviewing them, stop stalking their votes."
"Please believe that all cisgender men, no matter their feminist commitments, are capable of harming women. They’ve been socialized into a rape culture predicated on anti-Blackness, white supremacy, heterosexism, and sexism, and have not done the work of unlearning." (FYI: "Cisgender" is a made-up word that means "straight.")
I could go on and on, of course, but that's already more than enough.
As if their views aren't bad enough, it's made even worse by the fact that the instant a white man responds with anything that sounds even remotely defensive, he is immediately branded as a perfect example of precisely what the man-hater in question was talking about to begin with. They create these scenarios where the only possible response is agreement - disagreement automatically means you're poisoned by, or an example of, the patriarchy.
It's reminiscent of people I used to argue with over JFK assassination conspiracies. If you argued against a conspiracy/multiple shooters, no matter how much evidence you presented, you were automatically a dupe. Because after all, the government controls all the evidence, so they only let you see what they want you to see.
I don't want to be associated with those people. I don't want to have anything to do with people who think that there's still one group in the U.S. that it's okay to openly discriminate against. Replace "white men" or "patriarchy" above with, say, "black people," or "Asians," or "Jews" and listen to what it sounds like.
I don't want to be lumped in with people who think that females are perfect just the way they are, while males need to make some major changes - and those changes, of course, basically involve men acting more like women. Notice how no one ever suggests that women need to "get in touch with their masculine side." Masculinity is bad; femininity is good. I believe men are good as men and women are good as women. I believe men and women both need to treat the opposite sex with respect and dignity. Full stop. I also believe in the apparently radical idea that men (white or otherwise) don't deserve to be lumped together and characterized by their worst members.
So for now I'm turning in my feminist card. I still believe in equality and women's rights at all levels of society and government and religion - that won't ever change. But until the feminist movement stops being dominated by man-haters and man-bashing, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
I won't repeat the points I made in that post - click the link above if you're curious.
I have not changed my mind about any of the points I made in that post.
Still, I have decided to turn in my feminist card. What I mean by that is that I have decided to stop using the word "feminist" to describe myself and my opinions.
When I first posted that picture in February, I got some blow-back (primarily from male friends), who told me that feminism is not really about equal rights, but rather about wanting to dominate men or blame men for all their problems. I acknowledged that form of feminism and argued that those kinds of feminists represent a loud minority rather than the mainstream of people who believe in equality and women's rights.
Like everything else in that post, I still believe that.
However, at this point in time, those kinds of feminists - let's call them radical feminists - are dominating the conversation. They are the only voices being heard in the mainstream media and on social media. Right now, "the feminist movement" is firmly in their hands (much the same way that the GOP is firmly in the hands of the far right).
All I seem to hear these days is a constant barrage against white males (it's always "white males" or "white men") and how awful they are. They're power hungry, they're racist, they're sexual predators, they're insensitive, they're self-absorbed, they're know-it-alls, they constantly "man-splain" and talk down to women.
Here are some of the tweets I've read lately:
"I'm ready for the all-female reboot of America."
"I think a lot of misogyny, homophobia, and racism is related to patriarchy." (In other words, men are to blame not just for misogyny, BUT ALSO homophobia and racism. Women are innocent, or at best have been poisoned by the evil patriarchy.)
t makes them stupid because they don't have all the information necessary."
"Things to leave behind in 2017: Straight white men."
"You can't be sexist towards men. Sexism is based on OPPRESSION. You can be rude/inconsiderate towards men but you cannot be sexist."
"White men haven't voted Democrat in decades. Stop interviewing them, stop stalking their votes."
"Please believe that all cisgender men, no matter their feminist commitments, are capable of harming women. They’ve been socialized into a rape culture predicated on anti-Blackness, white supremacy, heterosexism, and sexism, and have not done the work of unlearning." (FYI: "Cisgender" is a made-up word that means "straight.")
I could go on and on, of course, but that's already more than enough.
As if their views aren't bad enough, it's made even worse by the fact that the instant a white man responds with anything that sounds even remotely defensive, he is immediately branded as a perfect example of precisely what the man-hater in question was talking about to begin with. They create these scenarios where the only possible response is agreement - disagreement automatically means you're poisoned by, or an example of, the patriarchy.
It's reminiscent of people I used to argue with over JFK assassination conspiracies. If you argued against a conspiracy/multiple shooters, no matter how much evidence you presented, you were automatically a dupe. Because after all, the government controls all the evidence, so they only let you see what they want you to see.
I don't want to be associated with those people. I don't want to have anything to do with people who think that there's still one group in the U.S. that it's okay to openly discriminate against. Replace "white men" or "patriarchy" above with, say, "black people," or "Asians," or "Jews" and listen to what it sounds like.
I don't want to be lumped in with people who think that females are perfect just the way they are, while males need to make some major changes - and those changes, of course, basically involve men acting more like women. Notice how no one ever suggests that women need to "get in touch with their masculine side." Masculinity is bad; femininity is good. I believe men are good as men and women are good as women. I believe men and women both need to treat the opposite sex with respect and dignity. Full stop. I also believe in the apparently radical idea that men (white or otherwise) don't deserve to be lumped together and characterized by their worst members.
So for now I'm turning in my feminist card. I still believe in equality and women's rights at all levels of society and government and religion - that won't ever change. But until the feminist movement stops being dominated by man-haters and man-bashing, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Uncovering Jesus's Radical Message, Part 2: Love for Enemies
Consider this teaching from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5:43-44 and Luke 6:27: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy,' but I tell you, 'Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.'"
Let's plug that into modern America:
Let's plug that into modern America:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love America and hate terrorists,' but I tell you, 'Love terrorists and pray for ISIS and al-Qaeda.'"
Or how about this:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your country and hate North Korea,' but I tell you, 'Love Kim Jong Un and pray for North Korea.'"
Or plug in your own best friend together with that person at work who you can't stand. Or that guy from high school who was cruel to you. Or that old boss who treated you badly. Or that politician or celebrity you just despise.
I saw a post on Twitter recently that I really liked. It went something like this:
Jesus says there are two kinds of people:
Our neighbors, whom we are to love.
Our enemies, whom we are to love.
It's pretty simple, but radical and even subversive.
And hard to do.
How many Americans, after all, feel love for Kim Jong Un? How many victims feel love for their oppressors?
Being a follower of Christ isn't easy. If it is, I'd argue you're not following Christ.
Or how about this:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your country and hate North Korea,' but I tell you, 'Love Kim Jong Un and pray for North Korea.'"
Or plug in your own best friend together with that person at work who you can't stand. Or that guy from high school who was cruel to you. Or that old boss who treated you badly. Or that politician or celebrity you just despise.
I saw a post on Twitter recently that I really liked. It went something like this:
Jesus says there are two kinds of people:
Our neighbors, whom we are to love.
Our enemies, whom we are to love.
It's pretty simple, but radical and even subversive.
And hard to do.
How many Americans, after all, feel love for Kim Jong Un? How many victims feel love for their oppressors?
Being a follower of Christ isn't easy. If it is, I'd argue you're not following Christ.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Some Random Commentary on Beatles Songs
I've been listening, for the first time in a while, to my Beatles collection, and since my brain never stops running, I've thought of numerous things I want to say about some of these songs, but have no one to say them to. So they're going here, on my blog.
Basically, my blog is my only friend.
Please Please Me (1963)
1. I Saw Her Standing There: This is one of my favorite "early" Beatles songs, a great rock n' roll number sung by Paul that holds up well over time. In addition to the original Beatles recording, Elton John did a live duet of this song at Madison Square Garden with John Lennon in 1974 which is pretty good too. (Listen to the Elton John/John Lennon version here.)
2. Boys: Ringo generally sang one song per album, but they're almost always among the best tunes on the record. Like "I Saw Her Standing There," "Boys" is a rollicking, upbeat rock n' roll song that also still holds up really well. Ringo's vocals are perfect.
3. Love Me Do: This was the Beatles' first single (recorded and released several months before the album) and it's only okay, but it's noteworthy because Ringo doesn't play drums on it. When they went into the studio to record this song and "P.S. I Love You," the record company wanted to use one of their session drummers, a guy named Andy White. So Ringo just plays tambourine on the song.
4. Twist and Shout: This is my favorite early Beatles song, edging out several others. I've liked this song since it was featured in its entirety in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. John's famously scratchy vocal track was apparently unplanned, as it was the last song they recorded on the album, and after a week of nonstop rehearsing and recording, he was losing his voice.
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
1. If I Fell: About halfway through this song, there is a noticeable spot where Paul is singing background vocals, and his voice breaks and he cuts off mid-note. I'm not sure if it was always noticeable and they just left it in, or if maybe it only became apparent after the original song was remastered and digitized, thus removing tape hiss and other stuff that may have masked the sound. But if you listen for it, it's pretty funny. It's at about the 1:45 mark on the phrase "was in vain."
Beatles For Sale (1964)
1. No Reply: This song is basically about a guy whose girlfriend has dumped him and made it clear she's not interested, so now he's stalking her.
Help (1965)
1. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away: John Lennon is clearly attempting to channel Bob Dylan in this one. He even sounds like Dylan in the vocals.
Rubber Soul (1965)
1. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown): So let me get this straight: the singer goes home with a girl expecting to get laid. She leads him on and then refuses to put out. After she leaves for work the next morning, he burns her house down. Gotcha.
2. Nowhere Man: One of my all-time favorite Beatles songs. It's also the first song written by the Beatles that did NOT have anything to do with girls or romantic relationships in some way, shape, or form.
3. In My Life: Another song in my top 10. This is a great little tune where Ringo's drumming is just perfect and really fills out the song well.
4. Run for Your Life: Literally a song where the narrator threatens to kill his girlfriend if she cheats on him.
Revolver (1966)
1. Doctor Robert: On the surface, this song appears to be about the singer's favorite doctor. Apparently it's actually about a drug dealer. In any case, it's literally one of the dumbest songs in the Beatles' catalogue.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
1. Within You Without You: This is one of several songs written by George Harrison with heavy Indian influence, and I've always thought it stuck out like a sore thumb on this otherwise masterpiece of an album. It's not that the song isn't good - it's fine, although a bit boring, in my opinion - but it just doesn't fit on this album. It would have made better thematic sense on either Revolver or the White Album.
2. A Day in the Life: The Best Beatles' Song of All Time. In my opinion. In the remastered version, you can hear one of the engineers counting off measures at the end during the big orchestral finale.
The Beatles (the White Album) (1968)
1. Wild Honey Pie: This double album has several songs on it that qualify as "dumb bullshit" and this is one of them.
2. The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill: Yoko Ono has a solo on this song, and her voice sounds like the voice of a little girl who can't sing.
3. Happiness is a Warm Gun: So much greatness and awfulness side by side on this album. Absolutely love this song.
4. Piggies: George Harrison at his worst, by far.
5. Rocky Raccoon: Paul McCartney at his worst.
6. Julia: John Lennon at the top of his game. This is a beautiful ballad to John's mother, who died when he was a teenager. I love the vulnerability of the opening line: "Half of what I say is meaningless. But I say it just to reach you, Julia."
7. Yer Blues: Another of my absolute favorites. The Beatles were so diverse in the styles they could play. This song is straight-up hard rock blues and for a band that did very little of this style of music, they pull it off amazingly.
8. Savoy Truffle: Another really bad George Harrison effort. How does the guy who wrote "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" - on the SAME ALBUM, no less - also write and record "Savoy Truffle" and "Piggies"? I just don't get it.
9. Revolution 9: This isn't a song. It's 8 minutes of noise and recorded nonsense. The worst "song" in the Beatles' catalogue. By far.
Abbey Road (1969)
1. Maxwell's Silver Hammer: I really wish I could've been a fly on the wall when Paul brought this one in for the band to hear. It's literally about a serial killer who murders people (including the judge who's sentencing him to prison) by bashing them over the head with a silver hammer. It comes complete with hammer-on-nail sound effects during the chorus. They were definitely straining for material by this point. Still a fun little song.
2. Octopus's Garden: Oh Ringo. The only song he wrote that the Beatles' recorded and it sounds like a Wiggles song. Still, like all songs Ringo sings, it's a good one.
3. I Want You (She's So Heavy): Like a lot of the songs on this album, this is only half a song. But because they needed to fill the space on the A side of the record, they extended it out by repeating the coda over and over and over again. It would be a great song at 3:45. At 7:47 it's a bit much.
4. Mean Mr. Mustard: At one point, the lyrics of this song reference the Queen of England. Isn't it weird to think the same exact monarch referenced in this song is STILL on the throne? It always gives me a strange sense of continuity with the past. Queen Elizabeth is the constant.
5. Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End: The Beatles at their best. This medley runs a close second to "A Day in the Life" for best Beatles' tune.
Past Masters (a compilation of all Beatles' songs released as singles and not found on albums)
1. Long Tall Sally: This is another in the same group with "Twist and Shout" and "I Saw Her Standing There." Just a great classic rock n' roll tune.
2. Don't Let Me Down: I love this song. It's the best one from their "Let It Be" sessions, but was left off the album and released only as a single. It was one of the songs they performed during their famous "roof top" performance in 1969 - their last public performance together.
Basically, my blog is my only friend.
Please Please Me (1963)
1. I Saw Her Standing There: This is one of my favorite "early" Beatles songs, a great rock n' roll number sung by Paul that holds up well over time. In addition to the original Beatles recording, Elton John did a live duet of this song at Madison Square Garden with John Lennon in 1974 which is pretty good too. (Listen to the Elton John/John Lennon version here.)
2. Boys: Ringo generally sang one song per album, but they're almost always among the best tunes on the record. Like "I Saw Her Standing There," "Boys" is a rollicking, upbeat rock n' roll song that also still holds up really well. Ringo's vocals are perfect.
3. Love Me Do: This was the Beatles' first single (recorded and released several months before the album) and it's only okay, but it's noteworthy because Ringo doesn't play drums on it. When they went into the studio to record this song and "P.S. I Love You," the record company wanted to use one of their session drummers, a guy named Andy White. So Ringo just plays tambourine on the song.
4. Twist and Shout: This is my favorite early Beatles song, edging out several others. I've liked this song since it was featured in its entirety in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. John's famously scratchy vocal track was apparently unplanned, as it was the last song they recorded on the album, and after a week of nonstop rehearsing and recording, he was losing his voice.
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
1. If I Fell: About halfway through this song, there is a noticeable spot where Paul is singing background vocals, and his voice breaks and he cuts off mid-note. I'm not sure if it was always noticeable and they just left it in, or if maybe it only became apparent after the original song was remastered and digitized, thus removing tape hiss and other stuff that may have masked the sound. But if you listen for it, it's pretty funny. It's at about the 1:45 mark on the phrase "was in vain."
Beatles For Sale (1964)
1. No Reply: This song is basically about a guy whose girlfriend has dumped him and made it clear she's not interested, so now he's stalking her.
Help (1965)
1. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away: John Lennon is clearly attempting to channel Bob Dylan in this one. He even sounds like Dylan in the vocals.
Rubber Soul (1965)
1. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown): So let me get this straight: the singer goes home with a girl expecting to get laid. She leads him on and then refuses to put out. After she leaves for work the next morning, he burns her house down. Gotcha.
2. Nowhere Man: One of my all-time favorite Beatles songs. It's also the first song written by the Beatles that did NOT have anything to do with girls or romantic relationships in some way, shape, or form.
3. In My Life: Another song in my top 10. This is a great little tune where Ringo's drumming is just perfect and really fills out the song well.
4. Run for Your Life: Literally a song where the narrator threatens to kill his girlfriend if she cheats on him.
Revolver (1966)
1. Doctor Robert: On the surface, this song appears to be about the singer's favorite doctor. Apparently it's actually about a drug dealer. In any case, it's literally one of the dumbest songs in the Beatles' catalogue.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
1. Within You Without You: This is one of several songs written by George Harrison with heavy Indian influence, and I've always thought it stuck out like a sore thumb on this otherwise masterpiece of an album. It's not that the song isn't good - it's fine, although a bit boring, in my opinion - but it just doesn't fit on this album. It would have made better thematic sense on either Revolver or the White Album.
2. A Day in the Life: The Best Beatles' Song of All Time. In my opinion. In the remastered version, you can hear one of the engineers counting off measures at the end during the big orchestral finale.
The Beatles (the White Album) (1968)
1. Wild Honey Pie: This double album has several songs on it that qualify as "dumb bullshit" and this is one of them.
2. The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill: Yoko Ono has a solo on this song, and her voice sounds like the voice of a little girl who can't sing.
3. Happiness is a Warm Gun: So much greatness and awfulness side by side on this album. Absolutely love this song.
4. Piggies: George Harrison at his worst, by far.
5. Rocky Raccoon: Paul McCartney at his worst.
6. Julia: John Lennon at the top of his game. This is a beautiful ballad to John's mother, who died when he was a teenager. I love the vulnerability of the opening line: "Half of what I say is meaningless. But I say it just to reach you, Julia."
7. Yer Blues: Another of my absolute favorites. The Beatles were so diverse in the styles they could play. This song is straight-up hard rock blues and for a band that did very little of this style of music, they pull it off amazingly.
8. Savoy Truffle: Another really bad George Harrison effort. How does the guy who wrote "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" - on the SAME ALBUM, no less - also write and record "Savoy Truffle" and "Piggies"? I just don't get it.
9. Revolution 9: This isn't a song. It's 8 minutes of noise and recorded nonsense. The worst "song" in the Beatles' catalogue. By far.
Abbey Road (1969)
1. Maxwell's Silver Hammer: I really wish I could've been a fly on the wall when Paul brought this one in for the band to hear. It's literally about a serial killer who murders people (including the judge who's sentencing him to prison) by bashing them over the head with a silver hammer. It comes complete with hammer-on-nail sound effects during the chorus. They were definitely straining for material by this point. Still a fun little song.
2. Octopus's Garden: Oh Ringo. The only song he wrote that the Beatles' recorded and it sounds like a Wiggles song. Still, like all songs Ringo sings, it's a good one.
3. I Want You (She's So Heavy): Like a lot of the songs on this album, this is only half a song. But because they needed to fill the space on the A side of the record, they extended it out by repeating the coda over and over and over again. It would be a great song at 3:45. At 7:47 it's a bit much.
4. Mean Mr. Mustard: At one point, the lyrics of this song reference the Queen of England. Isn't it weird to think the same exact monarch referenced in this song is STILL on the throne? It always gives me a strange sense of continuity with the past. Queen Elizabeth is the constant.
5. Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End: The Beatles at their best. This medley runs a close second to "A Day in the Life" for best Beatles' tune.
Past Masters (a compilation of all Beatles' songs released as singles and not found on albums)
1. Long Tall Sally: This is another in the same group with "Twist and Shout" and "I Saw Her Standing There." Just a great classic rock n' roll tune.
2. Don't Let Me Down: I love this song. It's the best one from their "Let It Be" sessions, but was left off the album and released only as a single. It was one of the songs they performed during their famous "roof top" performance in 1969 - their last public performance together.
Sunday, October 08, 2017
Uncovering Jesus's Radical Message: The Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector
It's been a while since I've written about Christianity, but I'm reading a book right now by a Jewish scholar about understanding the Jewish context in which Jesus lived and worked, and I've been inspired. This might be the first in a series of posts about uncovering the radical message of Jesus, or it may be a one-off thing. We'll see.
The Gospel of Luke preserves a parable of Jesus known as the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector. It goes like this:
The 21st century moral of the story is this: don't be a condescending hypocrite; humble yourself, confess your sins, and be forgiven. Full stop.
That was the 1st century moral of the story too, except for the "full stop" part. We've lost today the radical and even potentially offensive edge of the story that would have been fully appreciated by 1st century Jewish listeners.
In Jesus's day, pharisees weren't bad guys. They weren't regarded as self-righteous hypocrites. They were, in fact, well-respected and highly regarded religious leaders and scholars who represented the largest and most mainstream Jewish religious group. Think of them today like Roman Catholics in the northeast or Southern Baptists in the south.
But even that analogy isn't good enough, because today we are so accustomed to religious leaders who are corrupt or evil or perverts or whatever. We've all heard numerous accounts of pastors and priests and televangelists getting caught with strippers or prostitutes, putting hits out on people, laundering money, or molesting children. A bad priest? Big deal. A corrupt televangelist? Duh.
But in the 1st century, Jews wouldn't have had that sort of cynical view of their religious leaders. They didn't, after all, have 24-hour news stations, social media, whistle-blowers, or investigative reporters. Like Americans of an earlier, more innocent generation, Jews of the 1st century would have put their religious leaders on a special, almost untouchable pedestal at the pinnacle of society.
So in this parable, think of the pharisee not so much as an average religious leader, but think of him as someone like Mother Theresa or Billy Graham - a virtually universally-respected religious leader that no one would dream of criticizing.
As for tax collectors, they weren't just guys who collected taxes and so therefore were looked down upon by society - they weren't, in other words, just agents of the IRS doing their unpleasant, but necessary, jobs. And they weren't looked down upon because they sometimes stole from people by taking more taxes than they should have, as is commonly assumed (I have an old "study Bible" which makes this argument in the accompanying commentary). Instead, they were looked down on because they were local Jews collaborating with a foreign power (Rome) that occupied and oppressed the Jews, taking hard-earned Jewish money and sending it to support the Roman emperor and his regime - and getting rich in the process, while everyone else suffered.
In 21st century America, it's hard to find a modern parallel for this. We aren't occupied by a foreign power, after all. Instead, imagine that Germany won World War II and took over and occupied the United States. In that scenario, imagine an English-speaking American - perhaps your neighbor - born and raised under Old Glory, now working with the Nazis collecting a huge war reparation tax from people, taking a cut of it, then sending the rest to Berlin to support Hitler and his regime of world domination.
You'd probably hate the guy, right? He's not only robbing you for the benefit of the Nazis - which is bad enough - but he's also a traitor and a betrayer and a collaborator with an evil foreign oppressor. Screw that guy!
Now you may be a little closer to understanding how Jesus's 1st century listeners would have responded to a story about a native Jewish tax collector working for Rome.
So let's plug our two analogies into the parable and read it again:
This is how that parable would have sounded to and struck a 1st century Jewish listener. Preposterous. Offensive. Outrageous. But also challenging in the extreme. Challenging because it asks you to take a totally different perspective, to completely change your way of thinking. In the kingdom of heaven, well-respected religious leaders are not necessarily the winners, and people like Nazi collaborators are not necessarily the losers. Instead, it's the humble and repentant that inherit the kingdom of God, regardless of their past or their background or what good they think they've done.
Jesus's rural and largely uneducated Galilean listeners would have likely found the parable preposterous because it turned the world on its head, but they would also have undoubtedly liked it's message. Many Galileans, after all, tended to look down on the urban Jerusalem ruling elite - represented by the pharisee in the parable. Think of how many people in modern rural America look down on suburbanites and "the big city."
Still, it's not hard to see why Jesus made enemies and pissed people off - especially in Jerusalem, which is where he was eventually arrested and executed. A lot of people loved his subversive message, but some - especially those who stood to lose by his vision of the world - didn't care for it at all. It's no wonder they thought he was a rabble-rouser and wanted to get rid of him. He threatened the status quo by giving the oppressed Jewish people hope and by undermining the powers that be - both the political and religious powers that be, represented by Rome, its governors, and its legions, and by Jewish religious leaders who were seen as traitorous collaborators with those Roman overlords.
And before you condemn all those "Jews" who rejected Jesus, it's important to keep in mind that if Jesus were to come around today, preaching a challenging and subversive message like the one above, most Christians would reject him too. (I would argue most Christians HAVE rejected him, accepting in his place a watered-down, domesticated shadow that they find comforting and not at all subversive... but that's for another blog.)
The Gospel of Luke preserves a parable of Jesus known as the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector. It goes like this:
Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other.To modern Christian ears, this parable is both familiar and totally not radical. We know pharisees, after all, were self-righteous hypocrites that Jesus was constantly bickering with, while tax collectors were common symbols of "sinners" who received the gift of forgiveness from Jesus (in addition to this parable, recall the story of the tax collector Zaccheus [the "wee little man" of children's song] and the tax collector Levi who became the disciple Matthew). So it comes as no surprise that the pharisee in this story is a hypocrite who extols his own virtues while the humble tax collector admits his sin and receives Jesus's grace.
The 21st century moral of the story is this: don't be a condescending hypocrite; humble yourself, confess your sins, and be forgiven. Full stop.
That was the 1st century moral of the story too, except for the "full stop" part. We've lost today the radical and even potentially offensive edge of the story that would have been fully appreciated by 1st century Jewish listeners.
In Jesus's day, pharisees weren't bad guys. They weren't regarded as self-righteous hypocrites. They were, in fact, well-respected and highly regarded religious leaders and scholars who represented the largest and most mainstream Jewish religious group. Think of them today like Roman Catholics in the northeast or Southern Baptists in the south.
But even that analogy isn't good enough, because today we are so accustomed to religious leaders who are corrupt or evil or perverts or whatever. We've all heard numerous accounts of pastors and priests and televangelists getting caught with strippers or prostitutes, putting hits out on people, laundering money, or molesting children. A bad priest? Big deal. A corrupt televangelist? Duh.
But in the 1st century, Jews wouldn't have had that sort of cynical view of their religious leaders. They didn't, after all, have 24-hour news stations, social media, whistle-blowers, or investigative reporters. Like Americans of an earlier, more innocent generation, Jews of the 1st century would have put their religious leaders on a special, almost untouchable pedestal at the pinnacle of society.
So in this parable, think of the pharisee not so much as an average religious leader, but think of him as someone like Mother Theresa or Billy Graham - a virtually universally-respected religious leader that no one would dream of criticizing.
As for tax collectors, they weren't just guys who collected taxes and so therefore were looked down upon by society - they weren't, in other words, just agents of the IRS doing their unpleasant, but necessary, jobs. And they weren't looked down upon because they sometimes stole from people by taking more taxes than they should have, as is commonly assumed (I have an old "study Bible" which makes this argument in the accompanying commentary). Instead, they were looked down on because they were local Jews collaborating with a foreign power (Rome) that occupied and oppressed the Jews, taking hard-earned Jewish money and sending it to support the Roman emperor and his regime - and getting rich in the process, while everyone else suffered.
In 21st century America, it's hard to find a modern parallel for this. We aren't occupied by a foreign power, after all. Instead, imagine that Germany won World War II and took over and occupied the United States. In that scenario, imagine an English-speaking American - perhaps your neighbor - born and raised under Old Glory, now working with the Nazis collecting a huge war reparation tax from people, taking a cut of it, then sending the rest to Berlin to support Hitler and his regime of world domination.
You'd probably hate the guy, right? He's not only robbing you for the benefit of the Nazis - which is bad enough - but he's also a traitor and a betrayer and a collaborator with an evil foreign oppressor. Screw that guy!
Now you may be a little closer to understanding how Jesus's 1st century listeners would have responded to a story about a native Jewish tax collector working for Rome.
So let's plug our two analogies into the parable and read it again:
Two people went up to the church to pray, one was Mother Theresa and the other an American-born tax collector for the Nazi overlords. Mother Theresa, standing in front of the cross, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, drunks, cheaters, or even like this tax collector. I've won thousands of souls to Christ; I give millions of dollars to the poor.’ But the tax collector, standing at the back of the church, would not even look up at the cross, but fell to his knees with his face in his hands, crying ‘God, please forgive me for the terrible things I've done!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than Mother Theresa.How does the parable strike you now? There may be a number of reactions. You might think it's preposterous to describe Mother Theresa this way. You might even find it offensive. Mother Theresa wasn't a self-righteous jerk! She was a humble servant of Christ who brought people together and served the poor with humility! How dare you! Further, while you might grudgingly appreciate the tax collector's apology, you won't soon forget the thousands of dollars he took from you, which helped him build that huge house in the fancy neighborhood, bought him that Ferrari, and otherwise went to Hitler's treasury in Berlin so that the Nazis could continue their conquest of the civilized world. Meanwhile, you couldn't pay your bills because of the heavy tax burden, the bank subsequently foreclosed on your house, and you're now living with your family of 5 in a 1-bedroom apartment. Maybe if he sells everything he owns and personally repays you, THEN you might feel a little better. Otherwise, screw him!
This is how that parable would have sounded to and struck a 1st century Jewish listener. Preposterous. Offensive. Outrageous. But also challenging in the extreme. Challenging because it asks you to take a totally different perspective, to completely change your way of thinking. In the kingdom of heaven, well-respected religious leaders are not necessarily the winners, and people like Nazi collaborators are not necessarily the losers. Instead, it's the humble and repentant that inherit the kingdom of God, regardless of their past or their background or what good they think they've done.
Jesus's rural and largely uneducated Galilean listeners would have likely found the parable preposterous because it turned the world on its head, but they would also have undoubtedly liked it's message. Many Galileans, after all, tended to look down on the urban Jerusalem ruling elite - represented by the pharisee in the parable. Think of how many people in modern rural America look down on suburbanites and "the big city."
Still, it's not hard to see why Jesus made enemies and pissed people off - especially in Jerusalem, which is where he was eventually arrested and executed. A lot of people loved his subversive message, but some - especially those who stood to lose by his vision of the world - didn't care for it at all. It's no wonder they thought he was a rabble-rouser and wanted to get rid of him. He threatened the status quo by giving the oppressed Jewish people hope and by undermining the powers that be - both the political and religious powers that be, represented by Rome, its governors, and its legions, and by Jewish religious leaders who were seen as traitorous collaborators with those Roman overlords.
And before you condemn all those "Jews" who rejected Jesus, it's important to keep in mind that if Jesus were to come around today, preaching a challenging and subversive message like the one above, most Christians would reject him too. (I would argue most Christians HAVE rejected him, accepting in his place a watered-down, domesticated shadow that they find comforting and not at all subversive... but that's for another blog.)
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Notes from the Cave - Current Events Edition
The NFL:
I hate football. I particularly despise the NFL. I think it is a bloated, money-ruined organization that appeals to the lowest common denominator in humanity. That doesn't mean I think every NFL fan is a scumbag - my Mom is a huge NFL fan, after all, and I think my Mom is pretty awesome. But I still hate the NFL.
I don't give a damn whether an NFL player kneels during the National Anthem. I don't give a damn what anyone does during the National Anthem, whether they stand, sit, kneel, or fall to the floor and convulse. I also don't care what their reason is for whatever they choose to do - whether they are sitting because they're too butt-ass lazy to get up, or because they hate America, or because they're deaf and don't realize the National Anthem is playing. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people DO, in fact, care what other people do during the National Anthem.
A co-worker this week roped me into a conversation about this, expressing the opinion that if NFL players can't be bothered to stand, they should move to another country. I told her I thought that was a stupid opinion and she didn't like that very much. It's stupid because you're suggesting someone should literally immigrate to another country if they won't stand at attention in front of a colorful piece of cloth while a song is played. Honestly, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Whether you approve of kneeling during the anthem or not, and whether you agree that there is racial injustice in this country or not, these guys believe their IS racial injustice in this country, and they are using their platform in the NFL to highlight that injustice by not standing during the National Anthem. Maybe you think they should do it a different way. What way would be appropriate, I wonder? When they march in the streets, you call them thugs and gangs of hoodlums, after all. The reality is, you'd rather they just shut right up.
History shows that mainstream society virtually never supports protests, regardless of subject or form. Majority opinion is always that protesters are basically in the wrong. In time, however, majority opinion frequently changes. A Gallup poll in 1966 showed that something like 63% of Americans had a negative view of Martin Luther King, Jr., and his protests. Today, that number is now 4%. A majority of Americans in the '60s also disapproved of sit-ins and freedom riders. Now those people are regarded as heroes.
I'm not saying Colin Kaepernick (sp?) or anyone else in the NFL is going to be regarded as a hero in the future. I'm just saying that protests are always unpopular ... until they aren't. And yes, BLACK protests are typically even more unpopular than most. White society doesn't like being reminded that black people don't have the same opportunities or advantages as white people.
The Pledge of Allegiance:
This isn't, specifically, in the news right now, but I did see a report that KISS recently stopped their concert to lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance - which is clearly intended to be a political statement about patriotism and whatever.
I think the Pledge of Allegiance is sinister in the extreme. It's straight out of some Orwellian nightmare: the sort of thing they'd do in North Korea. I realize most Americans don't think much of it and consider it no more than an act of benign patriotism. But if you actually think about what the Pledge of Allegiance is, and what it stands for, it's pretty disturbing.
In the past, there has been controversy over the pledge because of the words "under God." I couldn't care less about that part of it - although it's worth noting that "under God" wasn't even IN the pledge until added by presidential proclamation in the 1950s, during the Red Scare over atheistic communism.
In any case, I think standing at attention before a colorful piece of cloth, with your hand over your heart, chanting a pledge of allegiance to a government and a nation state, is positively ridiculous. Again, it's like something out of an Orwell novel. Whatever happened to rugged American individualism? I don't know about you, but I believe in being a good citizen of the world and of my country, being a good steward of the earth, and treating others with love and respect, but I don't pledge loyalty to anything but my family and myself. I certainly don't pledge loyalty to a broken country that does more things wrong than it does right. Even if it did EVERYTHING right, I wouldn't be comfortable standing and ritually chanting a pledge of allegiance to it. Most adults aren't often in situations where they are expected to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but anytime I do find myself in such a situation, I don't participate.
Idolatry:
I believe that this whole controversy over the NFL and the National Anthem is an example of widespread American idolatry.
Idolatry is typically a term we expect to hear at church when reading the Old Testament. The Hebrews building a golden calf and worshipping it and all that crap.
In this country, the way we treat the flag is nothing short of idolatry, in every sense of the Biblical term. The earliest generations of Christians, in fact, would be HORRIFIED at our traditions in regards to the flag. They literally went to their deaths rather than do the equivalent of pledging allegiance to the flag or standing with their hats off and hands over their heart during the National Anthem.
In their society, it consisted of showing proper respect for the emperor, who, like the flag, was the embodiment of the state, its laws, and its ideals. They refused to do that and were subsequently persecuted, tortured, and sometimes executed. Why did they refuse to do it? Because it represented idolatry. To them, no one and nothing deserved that sort of obedience other than God.
Today's equivalent is the flag and the National Anthem - representing the state, its laws, and its ideals. Standing at attention before the flag and chanting a pledge of allegiance to the state, or listening to the National Anthem, is literally like a religious ritual - a secular rite that everyone is expected to take part in.
You may not agree that there is anything idolatrous in showing respect for the flag or chanting a pledge of allegiance to the state with your hand over your heart. But the earliest Christians would disagree with you. You, in fact, are on the side of the people who persecuted the early Christians for being "bad Romans." I'm sure those people also wondered aloud why Christians "didn't just leave if they hate it so much."
Gun Control:
Every few years, the record for the largest mass shooting in U.S. history is broken. Previously, it was Virginia Tech, in 2007. Then it was Orlando, in 2016. Now it's Las Vegas, in 2017. The record has literally been broken 3 times in 10 years. 6 of the 10 largest mass shooting in U.S. history have occurred in that same time frame.
If you think we don't need more laws to address this, you are an asshole. In fact, you're not just an asshole, you are a 10 out of 10 on the asshole range. Yes, I mean you.
Las Vegas is not going to change anything. And the reason why is because so many people - assholes - are profoundly emotionally connected to their belief in the "right to bear arms." They have gulped down the NRA kool-aid and they have been suckered into believing the gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And they've elected leaders who agree with them.
I read a report saying that a country music guitarist, who performed shortly before the shooting in Las Vegas, has come out saying that while he used to be a big 2nd Amendment guy, Las Vegas has changed his mind. You know what? Glad you changed your mind, but you're still an asshole. Know why? Because if it takes experiencing a mass shooting in real life before you have enough empathy and basic human decency to support sensible gun control legislation, you might be an asshole!
I'm glad he's changed his mind, and I'm glad he's using his platform to advertise his change of mind, but he's still an asshole. Instead of being a 10 on the asshole scale, he's maybe moved up to an 8. Short of becoming a full-fledged gun control advocate, however, he will remain an asshole in my book.
As far as I'm concerned, you had a free pass on your views on gun control ... right up until Sandy Hook in 2012. That was the mass shooting where 20 school children were slaughtered at school by a previously law-abiding citizen with legally-obtained guns. If 20 dead school children didn't change your mind, guess what? You're a fucking asshole.
Skyline Chili:
The black bean and rice 3-way at Skyline is significantly better than the original Skyline 3-way. The reason why is because the original Skyline 3-way is just spaghetti with cheese and a funny-tasting, cinnamon-flavored, diarrhea-colored and -textured meat sauce that Skyline mistakenly believes is "chili."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)