I have some issues with you people

Some old friends are apparently avid supporters of Ben Carson’s candidacy for the presidency. They are devout, conservative Christians, perfectly nice people, but who clearly have a blind spot where this man is concerned. As far as I can tell, they want us to vote for him because he’s a virtuous man who can “bring this country back to God.”

I have some questions for them.

What does that mean, “bring this country back to God”? What kinds of policies do you expect him to enact in order to do that? How would those policies square with the pluralistic country we live in? Or would that become United States policy, to privilege Christianity over other faiths (or non-faith)?

Is the God you hope he will bring the country back to the God he worships as a Pentecostal? Or is there some other mutually agreed upon version you’re hoping for? Do you understand that there are different versions of even the Christian God in this country? Do you understand that there are versions of God that lie outside what you consider the “Judeo-Christian tradiiton”?[1]

Do you think that if we elect a devout Christian to the office that the nation’s problems will resolve themselves? Do you think that a Congress would naturally fall in line with this person’s policies?  Or will God simply intervene in our affairs?

What do you think Ben Carson’s policies actually are? How much do you understand about his take on the issues.[2] Is it possible that his understanding of some of these could be simplistic and based on erroneous information, or worse, magical thinking? Are the issues he lists enough to run a country, or are there other problems facing this nation which he does not address? How important are those problems?

Do you think that “bringing the country back to God” is the President’s job? Do you think that if we elect a devout man to the office that God’s protection will return to the United States? What do you mean by the phrase “God’s protection”? Is this different from sports figures thanking God for their victory?[3]

What, exactly, is it that you hope that will change about our country through divine intervention? Have you considered that your vision of a virtuous life and a virtuous nation might not be universal, i.e., that others have different ideas about what is virtuous and godly? Have you considered that these changes might be unwelcome in other people’s lives? How will that work absent change in legislation and policy?

Have you been praying for this country to achieve the results you hope Ben Carson will effect if elected? Has your church? How long have you been doing so?[4] If so, then why do you think those results haven’t already occurred? What do you think God has been telling you all this time in response to your prayers?

——————
[1] Do you understand that when you say “Judeo-Christian,” everything you associate with that term indicates that you actually mean “Christian”?

[2] Have you compared his issues page to other candidates? Trump’s? Sanders’? Clinton’s?  Does his list of issues seem more or less comprehensive to you than the others?

[3] Have you read Mark Twain’s War Prayer?

[4] Has it been since Jan 20, 2009? Why is that, do you think?

In which the Tea Party outdoes its own self

No one has ever accused the Tea Party of being intellectual giants. In fact, most of them would deny the accusation themselves.

But David Brat, the rabid weasel who ran against and defeated rabid weasel Eric Cantor because—incredibly—Cantor was not rabid-weaselly enough for Virginia voters, has set a new standard. After President Obama’s State of the Union address, Brat took to the airwaves to object:

“He’s using the Christian tradition and trying to bring about compassion by bonking Republicans over the head with the Bible,” Brat said. “It’s almost a comedy routine on what compassion and love is. He’s mocking his enemies in order to compel a larger federal state using the tradition of love.”

“Our side, the conservative side, needs to reeducate its people that we own the entire tradition,” Brat said. “If you lose the moral argument, you lose the policy argument every time, so we need to reclaim the moral argument, where we’re so strong.”

(full story here)

To which the world replied:

I mean… It’s just that…

I can’t even.

Sam Cat’s Colors

Once upon a time, I had a kindergarten teacher ask me to do a lesson on colors.  So I wrote a book.  As one does.

Today I found all the photos while looking for images of our Successive Approximation of the sunflowers for William Blake’s Inn (to illustrate the process in Lichtenbergianism) and thought it would be fun to show them off.

The original used a pad of canvas panels and tempera paint for the brilliance of the colors; my inspiration was my Maine Coon Sam.  I forget how I bound the pages; it may have just been clips on the edge.

—click to embiggen and see Sam in his full glory—

Here’s the book:

[slideshow_deploy id=’4989′]

The presentation was simple: I’d read a page and at the ellipses would pause to let the kindergarteners guess which color was next.  The book also promoted the idea of imagination—and the attendant alternate realities—as a very good thing.  Finally, there’s the subtle vocabulary lesson of superlatives used by Sam Cat. All in all, a successful lesson I think.

Uncivilized discourse

I have to vent.

On Facebook this morning, a now-unfriended person paste-posted an image of what looks like a newspaper article outlining the deeply nefarious “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.  Even if I hadn’t read “Rules”—which I have—this artifact didn’t pass the too-outrageous-to-be-true test.

So I commented that it wasn’t true, linking to the Wikipedia article on “Rules” and the Snopes article debunking the artifact.  (I also uploaded the graphic to the left; this is now my standard response to these idiocies.)

Another commenter then commented on the original, “Good to know, may I repost?” AFTER I HAD ALREADY DEBUNKED IT—but this is not my first time observing a rightwing nutjob’s blindness to the facts right in front of him.

Here’s why I’m seething: the next time this exchange percolated through my newsfeed, the original poster HAD DELETED ALL MY LINKS, leaving only my comment that it wasn’t true. He then commented, “To all my liberal friends—gotcha!”

WTF, dude.  “Gotcha?”  You posted a lie, I discredited it as a lie, and you have concealed that.  You have not deleted the post, you have not acknowledged that you slipped up and allowed your rabid weasel-brain to get the better of you, you have deliberately spread a lie as the truth.  Son of a bitch.

This person—it almost goes without saying—a fine, upstanding Christian in this town.

As the article says, “The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control.  It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.”

Quick rant

So this was on a friend’s feed today on Facebook:

I have a thought experiment here.  Let’s say that you go out on the playground and there’s this one kid who has a stick and he’s whacking the other kids in the face.

1. Do you

a) bemoan the lack of discipline in his home
b) take the stick away from him

2. Do you

a) take everyone back to class and ask them to bow their heads
b) take the stick away from him

3. Do you

a) give the other kids sticks and tell them to whack him in the face too
b) take the stick away from him

Such a dilemma, isn’t it?

Finally, someone listens to me

In yesterday’s post, I talked about my long-term admiration of Dmitri Shostakovich, and in passing referenced an earlier post about Luciano Berio’s Sinfonia.

I mentioned that my favorite version was the world premiere recording with the Swingle Singers and the New York Philharmonic, conducted by the epitome of 60s cool, Leonard Bernstein, but that it was out of print.

For at least ten years now I have raged as to why anything goes out of print these days, especially music. It’s all electronic files now anyway, right?  Why was RCA or CBS or Melodiya or Deutsche Grammophon not taking advantage of this to re-release every freaking thing in their vaults??

Well, inspired by my recollection of Sinfonia and its unavailability I went looking again, and look what I found:

http://www.amazon.com/Berio-Sinfonia-Concerto-Two-Pianos

Finally!  I’d like to point out to SONY/CBS Masterworks that I’m available as a consultant, in case they need other ideas on which to capitalize.

(Of course, I’m not so forward thinking that I didn’t at first order the actual physical CD instead of downloading the MP3.  I went back and canceled the CD and did the download—cheaper, for one thing—but part of me still wants that CD on hand.)

An anniversary

Today is the anniversary of the premiere of Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 15, Op. 141, in 1972.

Two years previously, I had returned from Governor’s Honors hungry for more: more art, more theatre, more music, more literature.  In Newnan at the time, the most immediate source of a lot of what I wanted was to be found at the Carnegie Library downtown. I’m sure the librarians there were thrilled to see a young patron digging into the more refined corners of the collection with such hunger and avidity; I know as a librarian I would have been.

The Carnegie had a small, weirdly eclectic record collection of classical music—about which I’ve written before—and one of the records I discovered was Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 4, a work which puzzles many critics but which I found to be a complete planet of musical ideas.  Since I was simultaneously reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time, the symphony became cinematically linked to the landscapes of Middle-Earth in my mind.[1]

You know how it is when you’re young: like a freshly hatched duckling you imprint on your first experiences, so that Eugene Ormandy’s interpretation of that work remains for me the standard against which all others must be matched.  I moved on to the composer’s 5th Symphony, his most famous, and then I started collecting the man’s works on my own.  He remains one of my favorites.

So you can imagine my excitement when it was reported in my senior year in high school—how?  How did I learn things like this back before the internet?—that he had written a fifteenth symphony, that it had been premiered in Moscow, conducted by the composer’s son Maksim, and that it had been recorded!  I began a waiting game until it was released here in the U.S.

By the time the recording came out, I was at the University of Georgia in my freshman year.  There was a record store on North Lumpkin St., and I checked it religiously until one day, there it was. I wrote my check—I’m telling you, I’m old—and scurried back to the dorm.

Back in the day, O my younglings, music came in these sizable cardboard sleeves with enough room on the back for a great deal of information.  The basis of my knowledge of music history comes largely from those liner notes, as we ancient ones called them.  The liner notes of Shostakovich’s Fifteenth seemed to indicate that the piece was a great puzzle to listeners and to critics.  What was the deal with the William Tell quote in the first movement?  The liner notes couldn’t pin that one down, almost suggesting that it was tacky (as did other critics at the time).  And then the quote from “Siegfried’s Funeral March” from Götterdämmerung in the final movement—was he resigned to his “fate”?

This inability to pin down the “meaning” of Shostakovich’s intent was in turn puzzling to me.  It’s like the reputation of the Fifth, with its final movement of triumphant joy.  At least, “triumphant joy” was the phrase used to describe that last movement, but from my very first encounter with the piece I found that hard t0 believe.  That was not joyful music; it was angry, furious, destructive music.  Why did anyone believe it was “joyful”?

In 1979, after Shostakovich’s death in 1975, Testimony was published.  It purported to be a book-length interview with Solomon Volkov and was immediately assailed by the Soviet authorities as bogus; the jury is still out as to its authenticity and there are strong arguments on either side.  Nevertheless, in it the composer says:

I discovered to my astonishment that the man who considers himself its greatest interpreter [the conductor Yevgeny Mravinsky] does not understand my music.  He says that I wanted to write exultant finales for my Fifth and Seventh Symphonies but I couldn’t manage it.  It never occurred to this man that I never thought about any exultant finales, for what exultation could there be?  I think that it is clear to everyone what happens in the Fifth.  The rejoicing is forced, created under threat, as in Boris Godunov.  It’s as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, “Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing,” and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, “Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing.”

What kind of apotheosis is that?  You have to be a complete oaf not to hear that.[2]

Precisely.

Shostakovich’s relationship with the authorities—Stalin in particular—was always precarious.  His Fourth Symphony, my favorite, was pulled from rehearsal shortly before its premiere in 1936 after Stalin was offended by the composer’s opera Lady Macbeth of Mzensk . An editorial entitled “Muddle Instead of Music” appeared in the papers, condemning such modernist garbage.  The opera company closed the production and Shostakovich pulled his new symphony, which did not have its premiere until 1962.  His Fifth Symphony is subtitled “A Soviet Artist’s Reply to Just Criticism.” He kept his bags packed by the front door in case the secret police showed up to disappear him into the gulag; it had happened to others.

So with my first listening to Shostakovich’s new symphony, I heard him saying things that were pretty clear.  The William Tell quote?  The famous rhythm, of two sixteenths and an eighth, is also Shostakovich’s signature rhythm.  He relies on it constantly.  The triteness of the quote?  Shostakovich’s assessment of his own output: “This is what I have produced because of the regime under which I have struggled. Screw you guys.”  (The opening theme of the first movement is the same rhythm and indeed the same intervals as the Rossini.)

The other movements are shot through with references to his past compositions, culminating with that Wagner “fate” motif in the last movement.  There the massive passacaglia harks back to his Seventh Symphony (almost an inverted version of it, in fact), and the whole thing ends as the structure evaporates into fragmentary quotes of the symphony’s main themes, the percussion toys ratcheting out a clockwork reminder of his Fourth, his grandest failed experiment, the path not taken because he was forced from it.

Dmitri Shostakovich was a deeply unhappy, depressed, and grim man—and who can blame him?  He survived when others didn’t, and he kept his artistic integrity even while knuckling under to the despotic regimes of the USSR.  As his life came to a close—he had cancer as well as heart problems—he limned his misery in his final large work.

I raise my glass to him.

—————

[1] It is a tribute to Howard Shore’s genius that his score for the movies surpassed that linkage in my mind. As if Howard Shore’s genius needs a tribute from me.

[2] Shostakovich, D. D., & Volkov, S. (1979). Testimony: The memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. New York: Harper & Row.

So about those brave patriot rancher dudes…

You have probably looked askance at the crew occupying a bird sanctuary in Oregon and wondered who the hell those guys are and what the hell they want. You are not alone.

Ammon Bundy, son of welfare cheat Cliven Bundy, sums it up for us:

“We’re going to be freeing these lands up, and getting ranchers back to ranching, getting the loggers back to logging, getting the miners back to mining where they could do it under the protection of the people and not be afraid of this tyranny that’s been set upon them.”

What are they yammering on about?

The basis of their argument is that the Constitution, in Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 states:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

…which they have interpreted to mean that the United States government cannot therefore actually “own” any land belonging to a state and so all that public land they’ve been grazing/logging/mining on needs to be “freed” from the control of the United States. (Many of these people are part of the III% movement, i.e., it only took 3% of the population of the colonies—according to them—to free us from Britain. Such patriot, much liberty.)

Here’s why they’re full of shit.

You may dimly recall that after winning independence, the thirteen former colonies had their eye on the land to the northwest of their boundary (hence, the Northwest Territories), but there were some disagreements on how it was to be added to the United States, or whether it could be added, and all that stuff. Much of the property was already in dispute between the bigwig states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia,[1] and so a radical idea was proposed: everybody give up all your claims and cede the land to the United States, aka the federal government.[2]

This was the famous Northwest Ordinance , a brilliant piece of legislation passed in 1787 and a document that is, as far as I’m concerned, should be considered part of the Constitution itself. The deal was that Congress would set up rules about how that territory—and all future territories ::cough Manifest Destiny cough::—would be administered, packaged, sold off, and finally admitted as states to the United States.

In other words, all land not already part of a state was land belonging to the United States.

Let’s take a moment to ignore the fact that this property was already occupied when we got here. Even as we fast forward through the timeline, ignore the fact that the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cessions were of land that didn’t actually belong to the people from whom we bought/wrested it.

So, ignoring all that, as we added those vast swaths of territory[3] to our purview, Congress kept doing its job of drawing boundaries and selling off the land as they could.[4]

Oops—almost missed that there, didn’t you? The III% crowd certainly has.

All land belonged to the United States. It was sold off as they went. That which was not sold remained in the possession of the United States, even after the territory became a state. That’s part of the deal of becoming a state. Strange, but true. About 47% of western lands is still public lands.[5]

So the III% shibboleth that the United States is constitutionally prohibited from owning land is bullshit in every way, both de jure and de facto. (See Update below.)

Most of the western territories remain public because no one wanted to buy it, back when we were selling it. (Or letting people homestead it.) In the last 100 years, of course, we’ve begun to take a more custodial view of those lands. (Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt [R-Really?]!)[6]

Which brings us to grazing rights. For 150 years, public lands were absolutely public. You could homestead a ranch, which gave you a certain amount of property, and then you just let your cattle roam as far as they could go to survive. Total freedom—no tyranny here nosirree!

If you are familiar with my oeuvre, you know that the Tragedy of the Commons is a recurring motif. We have in our present circumstance a perfect example.

As pointed out in this tidy summary at The Wildlife News, by the 1930s the grazing lands were a disaster. Introduced by a Colorado congressman, a rancher (!), the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was designed to “stop injury to the public lands by preventing over-grazing and soil deterioration; to provide for orderly use, improvement and development; to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the Public Range and for other purposes.”

The U.S. Grazing Service—and its successor, the Bureau of Land Management[7]—instituted grazing fees to help control overgrazing of the public lands. It’s that simple. It’s not tyrannical overreach (thanks, Obama!), and no one has “taken away” any rancher’s lands. It’s a sometimes complicated contractual agreement into which ranchers/loggers/miners enter with the United States, but the bottom line is that it is simply that: a contract.

Further, the fees charged by the BLM—by the United States—are far below market rate. The United States will charge you $1.35 for per AUM (the amount of land needed to support a cow and her calf for a month); the market rate out west, i.e., what a private land owner will charge you, is $20.10/AUM.

So when the Bundys whine about tyrannical government, remember that they’re whining about a 93% discount in what they’re charged to use our land, and that discount is provided by you, the taxpayer.[8] Cliven Bundy and his sons are welfare queens.

Or when they proudly proclaim they’re holed up in a remote bird sanctuary to free these lands up, to get ranchers back to ranching, loggers logging, and miners mining, remember that the whole reason the BLM exists is that unrestrained use of public land was a disaster—the idea that present-day corporations and welfare queens would be better at land use now than they were 100 years ago is risible.[9]

The irony is that if they got their way and the United States divested itself of the land, the Bundys couldn’t afford to buy it. Speculators and corporations would snatch it up and would charge the boys full market rate. And how do you think it would work if Cliven Bundy chose not to honor his contract with those people?

So you will pardon me if I mock these mighty patriots holed up in a bird sanctuary, fighting against a tyrannical government that exists only in their imagination—an evil entity which, for the rest of us, is simply the United States. The U.S. Us.

Update: Further insight at RawStory. [back]

—————
[1] Georgia once claimed all the land west of the colony, first all the way to the Pacific, and then more modestly to the Mississippi. Part of the deal of joining the United States was giving up those claims. (Virginia was not about to allow that cracker state to supersede it in empire building.)

[2] The conservative nutjobs have done an effective job of making “federal government” into a bad word, a shibboleth that gives them tingles down their legs as they imagine it hiding in their closet or under their bed. I will therefore use “the United States” instead to remind these yahoos that what they’re talking about is our country.

[3] Oh, all right. Huge tracts of land. There, are you happy?

[4] For a hugely interesting and entertaining look at the process, see Mark Stein’s How the States Got Their Shapes

[5] This Salon article is a great overview of the issue.

[6] Let’s see you wrangle punctuation like that, bucko!

[7] Yes, the same BLM that manages the Playa where Burning Man takes place.

[8] FiveThirtyEightPolitics has a very good article about it.

[9] The Salon article points out that even if the United States wanted to devolve the property onto the states, the cash-strapped—and need I add, deep Republican red—states would be loath to accept the gift. They couldn’t afford it.  Talk about a welfare state!

More Blindness

Merciful heavens.  It’s time once again to rant here on my blog rather than on a Facebook friend’s post.  This time, it’s not the friend who posted the insanity—it’s one of her associates. My friend was telling about being in the Rose Bowl Parade crowd while the skywriter was bashing Donald Trump over their heads.

Her point in posting was to note that everyone around her essentially agreed with the skywriter, which was enough for her squirrelly friends to pile on.  One of the comments was as follows:

If Trump was in office…
#1 We’d have jobs back
#2 No more outsourcing
#3 Sanctions strengthened
#4 Veterans taken care of
#5 Hostages in Iran back
#6 The 1% will be taxed
#7 No teleprompter speeches
#8 No lobbyist & SuperPac control
#9 We would stop submitting to other countries that we give handout after handout to with nothing in return
#10 The border would work more efficiently & end a lot of modern day Mexican slavery

What floors me about these people is their seeming refusal to do any real thinking about their candidate or their country.  Let’s look at the results, shall we?

If Trump was in office… Subjunctive voice, dearie.  “If Trump were in office…” is your lead.  Always use the subjunctive when the issue is contrary to actual reality.

We’d have jobs back.  How, exactly?  In what areas of the economy?  Would the unemployment rate be lower than it is now?  No details on this, because Trump hasn’t given us any.  “All those jobs that got lost to Mexico, to China?  I’ll bring them back.”  Perhaps he’ll use his Ring of Power.

No more outsourcingLike Trump does? (Also.  And also too.)

Sanctions strengthened.  Against whom?  And why?  I imagine this commenter is talking about Iran, which is of a piece with the ideology of Trump supporters: why use a carrot when you can use a really big stick?  It’s much better to hit the other guy instead of negotiating, right? It’s very important to these people that we be the biggest badass in the world.

Veterans taken care of.  How, exactly?  What would President Trump do that his predecessors haven’t?  And how exactly would President Trump convince a Tea Party Congress to spend that money (since unfortunately most of his supporters are also going to vote for the most rabid, brain-damaged weasels on the down-ballot)?  Other than that, great goal.

Hostages in Iran back.  I had to stop and think what hostages this person is concerned about.  Hostages?  A quick websearch shows that there are four Americans imprisoned in Iran at the moment, and that the recent negotiations did not include the fate of these people.  Naturally, the rabid weasel faction seized on this as evidence of the Obama administration’s fecklessness.  Could it be that the main goal of the treaty was hard enough to get without loading it down with additional challenges, and that perhaps the prisoners’ fate is being dealt with by other ongoing negotiations?  Nah, it’s because Obummer is a traitor—the only possible explanation.  What Trump would do instead?  Use his Ring of Power, I guess.

The 1% will be taxed.  This is astonishing, because the rabid weasel faction usually will die on the hill of “less tax/smaller government,” but somehow the whole income inequality thing and how it contributes to the downward pressures on the income of the middle class appears to have made it into their brains.  More power to them, but I’d suggest that they take a look at Bernie Sanders if they want to see that happen.  (Although, again, they’ll vote for a Tea Party Congress and completely doom our government to a death spiral.)

No teleprompter speeches.  Jebus on Melba Toast.  What is it with the weasels and TelePrompter?  Do they honestly believe that only weaklings (i.e., incapable of using Rings of Power to bully the world) use this handy device to keep their public address on track?  Do they not understand that everyone on the teevee uses a TelePrompter?  Do they honestly believe that Trump simply speaks from his heart (or other part of his anatomy)?  And when he does, do they really think that’s the kind of thing we want to hear from our President?  (Spoiler alert: yes.  Yes they do.)

No lobbyist & SuperPac control.  Cool story, bro.  Actually, what are they talking about here?  No outside money in the Donald’s campaign because he’s paying for it himself?  Or no outside money influencing our legislation?  If it’s the first, it clearly has not occurred to them that if he’s rich enough not to be beholden to special interests, he’s rich enough not to be beholden to the voters either.  If it’s the latter, good luck with that.  What’s he going to do, issue an executive order???  (Spoiler alert: it’s OK if the Fearless Leader does it.   With his Ring of Power.  Which that feckless Obummer is too weak to use.)

We would stop submitting to other countries that we give handout after handout to with nothing in return.  Ah, “submission.”  As if the U.S. has submitted to any other country in the last 100 years.  “Handout.”  You would think, listening to the weasels, that for some reason our country is shoveling your tax dollars right out the door to those ungrateful furriners.  This of course has nothing to do with reality.

The border would work more efficiently & end a lot of modern day Mexican slavery.  The commenter’s concern over the working conditions of our immigrant laborers is touching.  Would they, I wonder, agree to laws which a) punish with jail time anyone who hires undocumented workers; and/or b) require the minimum wage to be paid to all such workers, and taxes collected from same?  Because if we successfully drive the Brown Peril out of our country—with Rings of POWER!!—it’s going to be their children’s asses cleaning hotels and picking lettuce.

So here, in 1000 words, I have given more thought to the realities of the Trump candidacy and potential presidency than any of his supporters have.  Have mercy.

Why didn’t I post any of this under the comment?  Because none of the facts have any impact on weasels.  They really do believe in the Green Lantern/Ring of Power theory of governance.  Actual facts are trifling details which can be blown away with a blast from any Leader worthy enough to wield the Ring of Power.  Trying to show them the details only makes them gnaw at the cage more ferociously.

BONUS: The millionaire who paid for the skywriting is also the owner of anybodybuttrump.us.  Buttrump.  Heh heh…