Music Diaries: Stage Fright

In September of 2011 I made a promise to the band that played my wedding. As the members are all Microsoft employees, it is a tradition that they play our annual Christmas party which is known as the Holiday Wine and Cheese. The name refers to the original party back in the days of DOS and 5¼ floppy disks when it was literally a wine and cheese shindig. These days it is of course a three day bacchanal resplendent in tales of our market exploits drenched in flagons of ale and the blood of our enemies. But I digress.

One of the cool things about the band is that they allow other musicians to come and rehearse new songs with them that they then play at the party. The promise I made to them last year was that I would be one of those guest musicians in 2012. Little did I know then that the earth would not be depopulated my Mayan gods by now, so it appears I have to honor my promise.

Since my motto is Cur deficiat semel cum multis faciam which means roughly, "why screw up once when you can screw up a bunch of times", I will be playing not one but three songs with the band next week.

The first of these is one of my favorite songs of all time and so I asked to play on it. Here is what it is supposed to sound like:

 

 

 

The 4:00 minute mark of that video is still one of the coolest things I've seen in a music video this side of Tool. The second song is one I suggested to the band:

 

 



 

 

That of course is Jack White fronting the Raconteurs. Awesome band, and unlike his old band The White Stripes, one that doesn't owe me a concert. Side note: the Stripes canceled a date in Fargo because Meg White had a bad case of can't play the drums anxiety. The group broke up before they could make the date up. If they ever play a reunion show, that show better be in Fargo, Jack White.

 

The last song in my trio is one that I was only asked to play on last week so I haven't had much time to prepare:

 

 



 

Now, for the bombshell you never saw coming: I'm actually playing the acoustic parts on this song. Mind. Blown. You're welcome.



Facebook and Politics

I've noticed somthing about Facebook that I think illustrates the way people think in light of their politics. It's election season, and that means a lot of Facebook statuses talking about it. I have friends -- both real friends and the Facebook kind -- on both ends of the political spectrum. Which means that, by definition, my friends and I all don't agree on politics.

But I've noticed that when it comes to Facebook friends, who they plan to vote for informs how they react to others' politics. There's been a solid uptick in statuses lately that hew to some variant of the following: "I can't wait for this election to be over. Some people spend way too much time on Facebook talking about their candidate. Does anyone really think they're going to change anyone's mind in regards to how they vote? Can we all just agree to stop talking about politics and stick to posts about kids, gardens, vacations, and things like that? You know -- important things?"

I've seen some version of that post by four different poeple in the last month and half, by my recollection. That in itself isn't all that interesting. What's interesting is that, based on other posts they've either made, liked, or commented on, it's pretty clear who exactly they'll be voting for in November. In every case I think it is safe to say they'll be pulling the lever for the status quo. Which is fine, of course. Everyone who is eligible to vote has a right to cast the vote for whomever they wish -- even if they're completely wrong.

No, what makes this interesting is not who they're voting for, but rather their preferred reaction to reading -- or presumably becoming aware of the gist of, since I don't think there's a law that says you have to read everything a Facebook friend posts -- political statements that don't gibe with their own views. Let's take a look at the options available to a Facebook user.

When you see that someone has posted a status or link on Facebook that you don't agree with and/or don't want to read, you can:

(A) Read it anyway; since if they're your friend and took the time to post something the least you can do is take the time to read it.

(B) Skip over it and look for more posts about waterskiing cats and lists of reasons why music today sucks.

(C) Wonder why you were ever Facebook friends with that person in the first place and unfriend them.

(D) Attempt to influence what other people feel comfortable posting on Facebook by calling for moratoriums on certain subjects.


Now, I don't think anyone in history has ever chosen option (A), and that's okay. Option (B) is what I usually do, though there are times I will read it if it looks like a useful link (i.e. not say, the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. I may be an occasionally incredulous reader of Salon, Slate, and the Huffington Post in an effort to keep my horizons broadened, but I'm not crazy). And I will admit there are times when option (C) is sorely tempting.

At no time have I ever seen option (D) taken by a conservative friend though, and I think that's telling. There's a certain air to liberalism that seems to imbue adherents with the feeling that their cause is so just, their ideology so pure and self-evidently right, that it's only natural to try and shut other points of view down. We see it on a large scale when there are concerted efforts by leftwing groups to get Rush Limbaugh off the air. We see it when companies don't have the right viewpoint. And we see it at perhaps its most repugnant point when people don't vote the way people of their ethnic group are expected.

Back on Facebook, this tendency to argue that politics should just be left out of the sphere of acceptable topics is undercut by a simple search of the authors' timelines. In my personal experience, it's not hard to find examples of those same people liking and commenting on statuses and links from people who share their leanings. And hey, that's fine. But it's pretty disingenuous to turn around and play the "can't we just talk about kittehs?" card.

I talked about liberals being imbued with a feeling earlier, and I think that inadvertently got to the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals feel. They see inequality in the world and think, that's not fair. If people would just work together and sacrifice, we could get rid of hunger/poverty/homelessness/want/need/lack of iPhones for all. The problem is that that deep feeling is always steeped in the same foundation: but not me.

Occupy protesters marched around (then later, when they got tired, camped) shouting out poorly metered slogans about all sorts of injustices: the war in Afghanistan, Wall Street, the bottoming housing market, the inability of people with masters degrees in puppetry to find work. Among the homeless, the criminals and the people with nothing better to do were a lot of people who were spending a lot of time complaining that they wanted more and other people had it and why doesn't somebody make them give it to us? Take a look at this vignette from Occupy Wall Street that aired on the Daily Show. Watch the whole thing, as it's both funny and enlightening. But pay close attention to the 4:15 mark, when a man goes to great lengths to espouse the idea that everyone should have access to all the goodies life has to offer. Private property is evidently wrong because it deprives people of access to "the goods of life". Not his iPad though, because that's his. As he says, "I'm more against private property than personal property." In other words, "my stuff is mine, but other people's stuff should be made available to everyone".

That's not to say that convervatives don't feel, and it certainly shouldn't be taken as gospel that conservatives don't care about the poor or the homeless or the hungry. We just don't think government is the best way to address it, and that in that capacity to which government involvement is necessary, the goal should be to reduce the number of people dependent on aid. Instead, we seem intent on seeing how far the balance between those dependent on government handouts and those expected to pay for them can tilt until the whole thing collapses. The eminent sage Homer Simpson once declared that alcohol was "the cause of -- and solution to -- all of life's problems. Right and Left split that dichotomy when it comes to statism. The Right sees government as the cause, the Left as the solution.

So, to any Facebook friends who might be reading this, let me say, no.

No, I won't stop writing about politics, or posting statuses that make clear in no uncertain terms that I think our current president is far, far worse than George W. Bush on his worst day -- and W. doesn't exactly stand next to Reagan in my personal pantheon.

No, I won't stop posting links that point out all the ugly, horrible, racist things that liberals say and do. Precisely because your side regards it as self-evident that conservatives are racist by definition, as though proclaiming your support for Obama magically cloaks you from racism charges while simultaneously calling Stacey Dash an Uncle Tom (and far, far worse).

No, I won't stop posting links to malfeasence on the part of a press that frets over funding for Big Bird but can't quite bring itself to dig into Benghazi, Eric Holder, or the deliberate attempt to destroy a functioning energy base (coal and oil) for one that doesn't work no matter how much money we flush down the toilet.

If that means we can't be Facebook friends, I understand. I'll just have to figure out a way to overcome the loss of hearing about kids I've never met and cats I don't like (seriously, I don't see the upside to cats). I'll have to muddle through without your invitations to install Facebook apps that invariably infect my computer with viruses. Some of you I would genuinely miss, so I hope you don't dismiss me. But as for others, I'll take solace in the fact that I'll have one less "friend" telling me what is and is not acceptable to post.

Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask Mitt Romney

1. What specific measures will you take to restore small business owner confidence in the economy?

2. What steps will you enact to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? (NOTE: "no measures are off the table" does not count as an answer.)

3. How can the process of becoming a U.S. citizen be made easier for those immigrants who want to do it legally?

4. Will you sign a bill into law that makes warrantless wiretapping illegal?

5. What specific agencies would you work to eliminate from the federal government?

6. Would you support across-the-board actual cuts to the federal budget (i.e., no outlays excluded)? (NOTE: reductions in increases to budgets do not count.)

7. Would you sign a bill abolishing the current tax code and replacing it with a flat tax?

8. Would you sign a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a."Obamacare"), and if so, what specific measures would you endorse to combat rising healthcare costs?

9. What specific actions will you take to increase transparency in the federal government?

10. Will you pledge to never sign any bill that increases the debt ceiling?

Also see: Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask President Obama

Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask President Obama

1. Would you sign a bill into law that sought to criminalize offensive religious speech?
   


2. Would you support across-the-board actual cuts to the federal budget (i.e., no outlays excluded)? (NOTE: reductions in increases to budgets do not count.)
   


3. What percentage of incomes above $250,000 would you consider to be a tax rate at which those individuals are "paying their fair share"?
   


4. What would you say to people who remember your statement, "If I don't fix this in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition"?
   


5. Considering the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world and is one of the only countries that taxes corporations on foreign revenue, what would you do to improve the American business climate?
   


6. If sanctions fail, what concrete steps would you take to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
   


7. When the number of people on welfare rolls increases, do you see this as a success for the program, or a failure?
   


8. Considering the CBO is projecting an 8% annual increase in healthcare costs between now and 2022, what specific steps will you endorse to reverse this trend and cut costs?
   


9. What countries in the Middle East do you see as American allies and how will you utilize those alliances to combat Islamist extremism?
   


10. Why is the prison at Guantanamo Bay still open?
    

Coming on Monday: Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask Mitt Romney

Horace Is Home

We're still getting settled into the new house in Horace, ND, but we're having a great time doing it. We've finished up most of the outdoor projects just in time for the weather to start cooling off. All that's left is a little bit of weeding and trimming. The indoor projects are another matter.

In the meantime, the leaves are starting to turn so I thought it was the perfect time to take some pictures...

A view from the driveway

Brink Drive

A view of the dining room. You might notice a familiar couple on the wall...

The lounge area

A view from next to the shed

The backyard

A few of our beautiful trees

Trees along the grassy area on the west side of the house

View from the northeast corner of the property

Grove along the north side of the property

MJ's room is the first one we've finished redecorating. She designed the whole thing.
Instead of a traditional closet, she has a wall of cabinets and drawers.
 

Another view of MJ's room

A view of my playroom. Needs some redecorating...

The living room. We're still in the middle of decorating.

My other playroom. Tbe green will be going eventually.

An Instructive Juxtaposition

The Obama administration's views toward free speech with regards to religion seem to be predicated on how violent the proponents of a given religion are willing to get. This is vividly illustrated with a couple of headlines from the end of the week: State Department spending $70G on Pakistan ads denouncing anti-Islam film

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video. In the ad, Obama is seen talking about America's tradition of religious tolerance and Clinton is seen saying that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the video that contains vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. "We absolutely reject its content and message," Clinton says in the advertisement.

This, on top of earlier outing the filmmaker and an American Embassy's initial response and defense of an apologetic tweet shows an administration incredibly sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Compare that with a piece of "art" that offends another well-known religion: WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.

Maybe if Christians attacked the gallery where the piece was being shown en masse and killed some people along the way the White House would pay attention. No, that isn't a call to violence. But it is an idea that is being promoted by an administration that bends over backwards to apologize for free speech while ignoring the concerns of the "bitter clingers" to a religion that has done more to earn the moniker "religion of peace" than Islam. For the record, I don't think the administration should publicly denounce either the anti-Islamic film or the "Piss Christ" piece. But it has invested a lot of time and money in bowing and scraping to Islam in order to promote the idea that the United States respects all religions. If that's true, then be consistent. Right now, the message is that the U.S. will respect any religion that is willing to burn and kill.

Define "Everybody"

President Obama was quoted as saying, "If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone." I was wondering, does "everyone" include:

The "bitter clingers" of the midwest?

The non-union plant workers of Delphi?

The voters who don't vote for the right guy?

The shops who don't support the right right candidate?

The donors who don't write the correct name on the pay line?

The states that know how to manage their finances?

The followers of any religion or just the ones that get violent?