Morning in America

In my classes, all of my students for the first time feel free to share their feelings about politics. They're all saying the same thing-- it feels like morning in America, but for real this time. I've heard stories the last few days about reoccurring nightmares of terrorist attacks and nuclear war.... That even the bluest of blue skies has a certain overcast to it. And why should the sky seem blue? We're reminded constantly that we're in an "unending war" or at best a "long war"-- one that it seems we have no chance to win. How can we win a war when we haven't even defined what winning would look like? And everyday we hear "terror, terror, terror" and I realize now that each time I hear that word something perceptibly tightens inside me. And people just want it to end. "The people" see that "the people" all over the world just want peace. A few nut jobs at the top and at the right of the international spectrum want war, but THEY are the crazy ones, not the rest of us! And after this election it's a little easier to see that. And the dark in the sky got a little lighter. And America feels a little bit of hope for the first time in 12 years.

Constitution? We don't need no stinkin constitution

Thank you "crooks and Liars" for posting this!
Keith Olbermann is one of the only real journalists left. CLICK THE PICTURE to see his take on Habeus Corpus.

Or cut and paste this:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olbermann-HabeusCorpus.mov

Jesus camp anyone?

I think I'll stick to chocolate jesus.

School Shootings

Well, I hate to blog on such a topic, but events will happen....

So I have several mixed and jumbled thoughts about this-- I'll try to organize them as best as I can.

Firstly, as to the Pennsylvania executions, why the Amish? A while back, I got to spend a bit of time with some folks in an Amish community-- they welcomed me into their homes and shared their music with me... Truly, these are the most innocent and decent folks I can think of. They lack the bad Karma that we all create with our violent culture-- and still they must suffer this tragedy.... And so this attack has saddened me more than any other in my memory.

Given that, I offer this up as a second course: I often say that I'm a conservative forced by circumstance to play the role of a liberal, and yet I suppose I'm now a true liberal. And as the definition of a liberal is: "a person so fair-minded that they refuse to take their own side in an argument," I've taken this opportunity to question my beliefs. Namely, my belief that capital punishment is wrong and that it is as horrible an act of murder as any act it is intended to punish-- no in fact it's worse, because it is carried out with the cool self righteousness and calculated self justification of a popular tool of political gain.

I've never understood the popularity of capital punishment. Not until now.

There are no valid "reasons" for CP that have stood up to the test of evidence. Far from a deterrent, it is pretty consistently statistically linked to a rise in murder and in crime in general.

During the Newt Gingrich revolution the major point was that it cost the tax payer less than incarceration-- proven even back then to be a fallacy--
(and since no one believes me when I say this here ya go:
A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)

"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)

Swiftly lifted from: http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

Anyway, to sum, there is no "reason" reason for capital punishment-- only a FEELING-- and that feeling logically is summed up like this: there are some things for which murder is a just response.

It has always been easy for me to point out the irony of this statement-- that ALL MURDERERS ALWAYS FEEL JUSTIFIED IN THEIR ACTIONS. There are very few broken pieces on this planet that sit around twirling their mustaches wondering what they can do in the name of evil that day. All people who do bad things think they are doing them for just reasons.

Anyway, the argument for CP then is always that it isn't about LOGIC, its about the FEELING that it would be cruel to take the possibility of a revenge murder away from victims. And of course, that I couldn't understand because I've never been a victim.

Well, for the first time, I find myself FEELING that if this guy hadn't killed himself, then he deserves to be brutally killed.

(But then another even more reptilian part answers: "no, death is too good for this guy-- too easy." In fact, I really resent that he killed himself. Such a cowardly way out....)

But for the first time I understand-- I intuit how easy it is to just say: a fuck the bastard-- hang em. It's so easy and it feels so good....

Finally, where's the big government response? I feel more personally attacked by this then by 911-- so where's my "war on violence as an appropriate response?" Because that's what I feel attacked by-- our cultural instinct to respond to any provocation with force. I'll bet we'll find out that whatever this guy was thinking-- he wasn't some monster. He was a decent family guy who was good to his wife and kids but he was infected with this idea that's very ordinary in our culture-- that violence is a justifiable response-- a JUST response even....

We go to movies and we're supposed to cheer when the bad guys get killed-- the more brutally the better. And people tell me all the time that Bush was right to bomb people and take revenge for 911, nevermind that the people who did it all died, and nevermind that justice was never even an issue: quoth Rumsfeld " we don't have enough evidence to convict, but we have enough evidence to bomb." So how are we supposed to argue when some fucked up guy thinks he's got to go kill some little girls for some messed up thing in his head? Hell, grab your gun buddy, it's the American way!

That is the fucked up shit we need a war on. We're makin' real bad Karma baby, real bad.

Chocolate Jesus

Quote of the Day:

Heard on my local NPR station this morning: "We will now suspend our regular schedule of "intelligent talk" to bring you the President's speech."

THIS JUST IN

Millions of 20-somethings spat out their morning coffee this week as composed anchor men and women announced in stony seriousness that Saddam Housein had declared in court: "I will crush your heads." The imprisoned ex-all-powerful-dictator, in apparent effor to prove he's "still got it" extended his forefinger and thumb in a menacing gesture known all too well to fans of Saturday Night Live.

According to witnesses Saddam, held up his hand, squinted and repeated in a sqeeky voice: "I will crush your head, and yours, and you too! Ha ha ha! 'Aaaaa noo not my head!' Yes you tooo!"

Saddam expert Nassredin Hodja, a witness, said of the defendant's tactics: "it was really weird."

In Washington, a triumphant Donald Rumsfeld announced "we've found them, we've found the weapons of mass destruction!!!!!" Officials used a projector to show these rare satelite photos proving once and for all that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction.

Others believe Saddam's tactic to have been a successful attempt to attack the homeland. 2o-something Jerald Snatch recounted his memories of the fateful event: "Yeah, I was just doing the crossword puzzle, and my girlfriend listens to NPR or some shit, and then I couldn't believe what they were saying: 'I will crush your head!' Next thing I knew there was coffee coming out my nose. And that was my last clean shirt."

There are still no numbers reflecting the economic damage done by this week's staggering drycleaning bills.

Oh, my dear little bloggy blog...

I so rarely feed you these days....

Pity.

Pity.

And so much to write too! But just so busy!

So first off, here's news in my world:

Just finished another run of Reagan's Children stuff. I think it went really well and I got a really bad picture of me in Time Out, which is cool. Tonight I'm singing in Milwaukee in another new work Karl Jenkins' Armed Man. I'm very excited about that! And on top of that, I start teaching again this week and I'm really excited about that!! And I just got a new beer (Fat Tire) and a biodynamic port ("Bouteille Call" the coolest name for a wine ever!) to try, and I'm excited about that!!!

So basically that's got me thinking...

Life is good. It's good on all fronts.

And now, this is the tiniest thing, but it's still there:

BUT

It's just this thininess of always wanting more, wanting this dream of something that can't exist...
or can it....
and if I make those perfect circumstances exist, will I want...

just a little


More.

In other news, today's listening:

Audra Mcdonald's Seven Deadly Sins. Very interesting pieces composed for the singer. If you want some tunes, look here. When you click on the link, it will be on the 1st hour installment. I could do without the bits of Audra explaining the pieces, but she IS charming. I'm still not convinced that she belongs on the Met stage.... The word is that she will be featured in a leading role at what used to be the benchmark opera house of the world. It is an interesting attempt to bring opera to a wider audience but I'm afraid a misguided one but I'll try to keep an open mind-- We'll see....

Wow. 4 opera clips.

So, I considered myself an actor long before I started singing, and it was as an actor that I came to be a singer. I was already getting paid to do straight theater when I went to my first opera. At that point, I hated musical theater, and I expected opera to be even worse. I hated that it was all mugging, and the movements lacked any purpose and there wasn't really any acting at all....

My first opera was a choir (which I was not in) field trip, and I only went because I had crushes on half of the girls in the choir.

I was blown away.

Not because of the music, which I didn't really get, but because of the acting-- real acting!

Later, when reading "writings in restaurants" I discovered that the guy who many consider the most important modern acting teacher agrees with me. As I read more, I learned that David Mammet writes over and over again that he finds the acting in opera today consistently better than acting on film or on broadway. This is because what most opera singers do is direct and simple and there is a reverence for the script and for the text. The good ones don't mug or try to show off their acting they just f@ckin' do the thing!

SATAN! I'll start with the most accessible one: Yep, this is Sam Ramey playing satan. Opera was often the Marilyn Manson of it's day. In this piece Satan mocks god, and even gives him an obscene gesture! How do you think this went over in ultra catholic Italy?




OTELLO. Next most accessible-- Placido Domingo is just plain exciting. English subtitles.


Old School PUNK ROCK! This clip is vintage punk rock to me from the costumes to the irony, raw emotion and open mockery of the audience. The clip is a play within a play-- the commedia dell'arte stock plot mocking the cuckold husband. The actors are husband and wife performing a show as husband and wife. In both cases, the husband has just discovered that the wife is having an affair. the actor no longer finds the show so funny, but the audience doesn't get that he's gone off script, "bravo!" The wife keeps trying to return to the show as if nothing happened.



OPERA REVOLUTION. For hundreds of years it has been opera that led the way. The two major revolutions in acting technique in the 20th century were led by opera singers. The first was Feodor Chalyapin, who was the father of what became known as the "Stanislavski Method" after the man who wrote down Chalyapin's teaching. The second was lead by Maria Callas. In the early 40s, Callas brought renewed realism and even vulgarity to the stage. Legends abound about the real-life touches she brought to scenes such as taking off her shoes after a party-- revolutionary at the time. Her controversial performances were to inspire a revolution in acting that would eventually reach Broadway in the late 40s and Hollywood in 1951 with Marlin Brando.

Though she was known for "dominating" an audience, here she brings simplicity and honesty to what was a "dead" repertory at the time:

THE REAGANS ARE COMING! THE REAGANS ARE COMING!

September 8th and 9th at 10:30 at night, and Sunday the 10th at 9:30PM. I'll be singing the role of Michael Reagan (! yep that one) in a cabaret featuring excerpts from a new opera called Reagan's Children. The picture above is from the premier of the show a few months back. I just got the recording from the premier and it sounds pretty good. Take a listen to the Michael Reagan aria: Meditation.

Webeyoo!

You know how when you're on vacation you work more than when you're "at work?" Right. Well I guess I'm not really on vacation at all, I just have a different work schedule.I just updated my singing web page. Because I find most actor/singer web pages to be really silly, I resisted certain design elements for a long time. But in the end, I decided that my page needed to look more "professional."

So I think this page looks more professional, but I've still managed to avoid some of the design elements (as well as some of the technology elements) that I hate most. The page is more definitely more "dramatic." Also, there are certain expectations of what a "classical singer" should be, and I've tried to "brand" the page a little more "classical" or "opera singer."

Take a look and tell me what you think. Did everything render well on your browser/OS? If the page looks like butt on your computer, I'd really like to know!

I have discovered the meaning of life and it is....

The quilt.

I have it on good hearsay that the creator of the universe really, really likes a good quilt. So much so that he created this little ball of quiltin' materials we call "Earth" just to add to his collection.

The Mysteries of Life Explained AT LAST:

When he created two of each animal, he had one of two things in mind-- 1. food for quilters. 2. Keep the quilter population down to prevent disease and famine.

Sharks were invented because the creator of the universe hates soggy quilts.

As for humans, he had one thing in mind-- makin' babies, and makin' quilts. In fact, my sources say that the reason for human frailty at the beginning and end of life is to provide an incentive for quilt making. Human suffering, to provoke comfort quilts.

All the rest of us here are just an elaborate support structure for the chosen ones.

Was Ronald Reagan right when he claimed that god created aids? If so, why would god do something like that...? hmm....

Old song do again

More of the same-- with more to come-- this bit moved to the front page from comments....

I recently read an article in some Music Journal about this (I'll try to remember which one.) It was a poorly designed "experiment" but their findings we're interesting none the less. Some Mid-west University Choral group made 2 recordings-- one where the singers sang with a good singer's formant response and the other with the singers formant taken out in the "choral technique" taught at their school. Then they did a survey and asked which people liked better. "Overall" (their methodology was deeply flawed) 55% or so of participants preferred the "choral" example. However when they broke down their findings:

Listeners with no musical training slightly preferred the "operatic" example.

Listeners with Instrumental training strongly preferred the "operatic" example. The more musical training they had, the more they favored the "operatic example."

Only Listeners that were trained in the "choral tradition" of that school (the vast majority of survey participants-- hence the flaw) strongly preferred the "choral" example. And the more choral experience they had the more they favored this example.

This would seem to suggest that the "choral" sound is a learned preference... and quite an "acquired taste."

Old song new again

On my new project: (this post is about getting some things straight in me cluttered head.)

So, I've rounded up a sextet of singers to get together and sing through some music, and I have to say, I couldn't be more excited. To start with, the singers are some of the best singers I've worked with, and they all have absolutely bee you tee ful solo voices.

More importantly, I've wanted to do this for a long time, "I've got artistic vision up the butt" and for the first time, I get to be as experimental as I want to be.

Firstly, I've really come to believe that while sometimes someone needs to call shots to get work done, centralized decision making in art crushes full artistic subtlety and color. So the most wildly experimental thing that we're going to do is allow all of us to be ourselves and make all of our decisions artistic and otherwise democratic. My feeling is that by encouraging and accepting everyones input we can make ourselves a truly unique group. And so completely democratic approach will be our guiding principle.

A second idea that flows from the first was one of the principles that helped me pick the singers. In addition to being great operatic voices, all of the voices in the group have something in common. I've noticed all of these singers "tuning formants" to achieve vocal colors. The overtones in a voice help determine the color of the voice. One way to categorize singers is by saying that they have "consonant formants" or "dissonant formants." "A singer with "consonant formants" will "tune" the overtones in the voice to enhance the fundamental pitch: so if they are singing a C3, they might have strong overtones at C4, C5 E6 and G6. A "dissonant voice" on the other hand would sing a C3, but tune the overtones to C#4, C#5 E6 F6 and F#6. Obviously, a dissonant voice has a lot of very obvious clanky ring to the voice that makes it very distinctive, while a Consonant voice generally sounds prettier, warmer and more pure and the ring sounds "blended in" to the to one seemless vocal tone. However there is a third group. Many of the greatest singers on record (Hans Hotter, Domingo and Nilssen are good examples) instinctively "tune" their formants to achieve different colors and effects. This is something else that our sextet has in common: though they generally tune on the consonant side, I've heard them change tuning to achieve effect.

Applied to ensemble singing the implications are obvious. If I'm standing next to a singer, and we are singing exactly the same pitch, and have exactly the same vowel sound we're still going to sound like crap if my strongest overtones are on a C# and his is on a C. If you're a singer you know exactly the feeling I'm talking about-- you can actually feel the overtones in your voices fighting with each other.

So, too often, especially in the midwest, "Choral blend" has come to mean taking all the overtones and hence all the color out of the voices. What you get is "in-tune," yes, but to me, utterly bland, each voice losing it's beauty-- the musical equal to the borg.

Instrumentalists talk about the same thing. In some symphonies, each member of a horn section is required to play the same horn, and with the same style. While in others, members play with their own uniqueness-- their own choice of instrument and style, each member taking turns giving their unique color to a phrase, while the others "shadow" to enhance that player's sound and let his color shine through. So in a way, I want to try to use a traditionally instrumental technique to a vocal ensemble.

With the voices that I've assembled I think we will instinctively achieve this-- beautiful blend and intonation-- chords that "pop" and rich beautiful, three-dimensional and unique vocal sounds.

Thurston, That's not apple juice!

For those of you who have ever been to Lake Geneva Wisconsin, I'm sure you're familiar with the old tales of "Thurston," the zany sea monster the locals just love to hate. FOR RARE ACTION FOOTAGE OF HOT THURSTON ACTION, CLICK HERE

Not content with your run-o-the-mill sea-monsterin', Thurston has a penchant for light hearted gags that have kept lake Geneva chuckling for over a century now. Some locals can even remember back to the early 20th century when "T" dressed up as John F Kennedy and attended a swank LG party. When he came, he brought 13 hookers, but when it was time to go home, there were only 12 left! The next morning, party goers overheard Col. George Williams himself chuckle: "Thurston, that's not my bath towel, that's a dead hooker, now how am I supposed to get dry!" Thurston's knack for clever costuming and hookers has left others wondering if it was really the ex president who spoke those famous words, "ich bin ein Berliner," or if there could have been a certain sea monster behind the humorous blunder.

New visitors to lake Geneva may wonder about the many "lake boats" that never seem to move. (Such as those pictured here.) Residents say that these "lake boats" are actually large scale fishing tackle, designed in hopes of catching a glimpse of Thurston in some real authentic sea-monsterin'.

Finally, if you're lucky enough to get a first hand glimpse of Thurston, just take my word for it: if he offer's you a cup of apple juice, and it's warm, and tastes like sea water, do NOT drink it.

still more vintage footage of Thurston, is that a cup of apple juice?

Research

So I was doing some research, obviously, and found this...

FORM ELVIS!

Has Fowltron met his match?

Can the world handle this much chicken?

Coming to a computer near you....

Laptop Lambshmop!

Check out the new Eurotech Zypad. One step closer to that iSkin implant I've been waiting for....

Office Space Wouldn't Take Me

We had office space. The movie about the life draining suck-jobs that my generation got stuck with: waiting tables and the big cube florescent light bath. I had a few of those jobs. 6 bosses. 2 of them were named Kenney and Denney. MS excel melted my face off all day long. One time, My Big boss, the boss of all my bosses came up to my office (at least I had a private office...) and said: (and this is gods honest truth)

BB: "Look at what Denney did with this spread sheet, this is good."
Me: "erm, actually, I uh... I did that."
BB: (not hearing me) "yeah, Denney, he does good work, try to do it like that from now on."
BB: "And Friday is "jean day," do you know what that means?"
Me: (stunned by the obviousness of the thing) "it means I can wear jeans?"
BB: (slow and inarticulate, again not hearing me) " It means you get to wear jeans... it you want to."

What frightens me is that we (talking 'bout my generation) may be the lucky ones. With all the ultra-crap life sucking cubical jobs going over seas, what work will future generations hate doing?

Whole generations of kids coming of age in fast food and Walmart?

Maybe this MSI video gives an idea... is it any surprise it's so angry? EDITED FOR A BETTER VERSION OF THE VIDEO

Innocent When We Dream

Speaking of the conflict between our public and private selves....

I'm getting near done with the novel I've been writing for a couple of years now. Though I'm taking a brief break from writing, the novel is now fully conceptualized and mapped out and it's about 300 pages right now-- I still have a couple of important scenes to write, including the climax, but those are already fully imagined in my noggin. But basically, I expect to have a draft to burden willing friends and loved ones with by the end of the year (if I can get a break from singing work....) And, I'm really enjoying writing it- or rather, watching it write itself at this point. For a long time, I wasn't entirely happy with how the initial idea was playing out as it grew in complexity-- then quite suddenly, everything just fell into place, so that almost every word is a reflection of the 1 deep theme. I like my characters. They surprise me. But most of all, I feel like I wish someone else would write this story, because I'm really excited about reading it.

When I started this book, it was a sort of Zen Meta-technique to free my singing from the burden of self criticism. Like a straw man for the inner bully: "hey me, look over there-- that piece of garbage really sucks!"

But now, I think I might try to get it published.

Which brings back the conflict. Basically, I satirize just about everything in crass fashion. So I'm wondering about the consequences of having my name on it.

Is it different because it's fiction? There are a lot of people who put their names on controversial works of art....

And what about what I say on this blog? Where is the line of acceptability for public discourse? Our society's unquestionable "givens", Emotion, Sex, the inner machinations of human instinct? I once heard a famous singing coach explain the subtext of an art song to a class by explaining that "I think we all have rape fantasies, that's what a lot of music is, a metaphor for rape fantasy."

What about the "just plain weird?"

Now believe me, it was completely a-sexual, but last night I had this dream ( I blame this on the video for "Danger! High Voltage!".... All I can remember is this: I discovered I could tell the future with my penis, and I was really envious of Ted Danson, because his penis was a better, erm, divining rod than mine.

Just remember what Tom Waits says:

"We're innocent when we dream, when we dream we're innocent..."

Jack White is the man

The punk rock formula: Energy + simplicity= awesome.

Heard it last night and knew immediately it was a JW song-- but I thought it was a new Raconteurs song. Looked it up. really cool video to boot.

This song is sure to be a big hit.
Edited to add:
I;m a huge dork. Yeah, it's going to be a big hit, in 2004. In England. Apparently this song came out in 2003, and I just never heard it until last night. But I'm not alone, it wasn't added to youtube until this spring. And I guess Detroit rockers "electric six" deny the involvement of Jack White with their band, which is classic Jack White. From what I understand, Both parties, Jack and Electeic 6 deny even knowing who the others are "Jack White, who's he?"

Blog identity crisis

I think that more people are going to be experiencing this....

A conflict between their public person and private and how that plays out on the internet. A friend recently felt the consequences of this conflict, and it's made me ask a lot of questions. I've always wanted my blog to be an extension of who I really am-- no border between the private and public, and even professionally I've always felt free to speak my mind. Lately, however, I've started writing several things, and then stopped because I'm not sure what some future prospective employer might think-- what if they aren't above judging me unfairly?

In the meantime, I've been publishing on a VERY anonymous public blog that to my knowledge, (thank you site meter) I'm the only one to ever have seen the page. I think because of some of the content, blogger has chosen not to list it.... so what's the point of that. And as for blogger not listing it, I just don't get it-- it really isn't much worse than the "monkey sex" thing on this blog-- the obscenity is purely philosophical, and yet it's not included in the blogger directory or the "next blog" list. Oddly, if I just wrote a pornographic sex blog it would have had 700 hits by now! Go figure.

what to do what to do.

won over

I admit it. I've been won over by the Student Prince. Who care's about the plot, and that the jokes aren't funny, the show is just plain cute, The music is fun fun fun. What else do you need in a little musical. The chorus is awesome. THis should turn out to be a great show!

And easy.

Quick note on politics

Ok, so I've always tried desperately to to avoid talking politics on this blog. I used to have a political blog, and it just stopped being interesting to me.

However, in the post below, I got on a slightly political tangent, and now I think I need to clarify my political position, so here it is:

I consider myself to be a sort of conservative, but I feel the modern "conservative movement" has been nothing less than a national disaster.

1. The "religious conservatives" in the movement are radicals. They wish to rewrite American history and American law to build a fundamentalist state. It seems quite the opposite of "conservative" to make such radical changes.... Furthermore, it is far from libertarian and anti-governmental to have such government involvement in religion.

2. The Republicans have created the most aggressive redistribution of wealth in human history-- in the upward direction. Far from capitalism, the economic platform of the Republican party is Corporate Mercantilism, (better known as fascism, though that word is now defined as "not the US.") Capitalism is the absence of government involvemnt, corporations and monopoly. The Republican party favors a strong concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and the government construction of strong corporations and monopolies as an instrument of stability and security. This is not capitalism and it is not conservative.

My earnestly conservative opinion would favor returning to a more capitalist model, getting the government out of peoples lives, eliminate deficit spending and avoid non-humanitarian "nation building" which is almost always simple exploitation. Here is a Libertarian party idea (VERY CONSERVATIVE!) that I love: Replace welfare and all non-education social programs with a $10,000/ year check for life for every citizen. This includes ending corporate welfare, right down to tax payer subsidies of the business costs. Corporations make bigger demands on our infrastructure, pollute more, use more resources and create fewer jobs than small business. If they were forced to pay the true costs of their business, they wouldn't be able to compete with small localized economies. Returning to a more capitalist model would create more jobs, keep wealth local, reduce tax payer burden, keep prices lower and clean up the environment in one shot. On the personal side, it would encourage people to act more responsibly and save their government checks or at least spend them wisely.

So in some ways I'm quite conservative. At the same time, I'm not an unseeing ideologue: For example, I believe in increasing education spending, as it's an important investment in our nations future. And though the conservative in me likes a strong military as a deterrent, our current military spending is mostly a wealth redistribution scheme- giving tax payer money to corporations with little practical return. How much firepower do we need to deter other nations from an unprovoked attack? Enough to destroy the whole world 100 times? 1000? What the heck? I think once you reach the whole "destroy the world 100 times over" line, there isn't a country on the planet that would attack us without there being a reason worth dying for. From that point, the best defense is a foreign policy that doesn't give people a cause to die for-- and right now we're losing on that point!

So current movement conservatives make me into a radical... but who are the real radicals? And that's where I stand.

The Alpha Male: just an idiot?

You know I fancy myself a philos'pher. I think about things.

So, I've been thinking about how monkeys have a lot of sex.

Now, stick with me, because this is something I spend A LOT of time thinking about, and let me tell you it's amazing how much sex monkeys have. Amazing.

So maybe you don't know this, or maybe you just spend less time thinking about monkey sex than I do, but Bonobos, the type of apes most closely related to us humans, are dirty, dirty funky-love-rocket rollickin' primates. In fact, it seems they are "obsessed with fornication!" as the likes of Pat Robertson might put it.

And we're not just talking your manual-approved "'peg A' in 'slot B'" stuff, we're talkin' all types of sex--no lists here folks, because you people have imaginations, but bonobos seem fond of just about every kind of "jungle boogie" that the most imaginative and unrestrained of us humans can think of and then some.

Got it? Monkey sex. lots of it. I think I got that point across pretty well, so I'm going to leave it for a little bit, but don't go anywhere, we'll soon get back around to Bonobo-bangin' and that's a promise.

So something that really annoys me is when I meet some earnestly cool, smart, philosophical dude, and, because it's clear that I spend some time thinking about things too (mostly monkey sex) they decide to inform me about their own great "philosophy of strength." This is usually a mesh of Nietzsche and Darwin... some Herman Hesse novel from college and whatever they read last all thrown together. The history of western thought, they inform me, is all a grand tribute to the Ubermensch that the dude obviously represents. Through my college days, I often heard this type declaring himself an "Alpha Male," for his "ability and willingness to conquer and dominate, while others will only follow."

To me, this Alpha Male philosophy is a just a complex justification for a selfish, nationalistic, ethnocentric world view. Historically, this "philosophy" of "social Darwinism" was based on an illiterate misreading of the writings of Herbert Spencer popularized by a Calvinist preacher with a political axe to grind. If you want to get into the history of it check out the wiki page on Social Darwinism. However, it's unnecessary for further exploration of our topic at hand:

Monkey Sex.

A misreading or no, the basic expression of this "philosophy" is Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applied to humans and human systems--both as a governing philosophy and as a personal philosophy. On the social end this "philosophy" was and is a justification for the violent European expansionism and world domination: "by wiping out the weak, we were doing nature's work and making the human race stronger!" I've heard plenty of Alphas say. Of course, many Social Darwinists have believed (and many still do) that this European conquest was proof of the superiority of the "white race."

Today, this "philosophy" has had a tremendous rebirth with the "conservative movement," a movement far from being conservative. Strangely, it's newfound popularity is due to its necessity as a binding agent between the two waring factions of the modern American "Republican Party:" the pro-corporate mercantilists and the religious fundamentalists. Though Wacko Religious leaders refuse to admit evolution in the biology classroom, they see Darwin as some extension of "Gawds Own Justice" on the street:

"Nature's remedies against vice are terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and tendency of things. Nature has set upon him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness."

-- William Graham Sumner, propenent of Social Darwinism, Arian superiority, "free trade" and overall idiot.

Newt Gingrich: Monkey or just monkey-brained?

More recently, Newt Gingrich used to regularly invoke this idea in his "contract with America" stump speech, saying that in the old days there used "hammer and anvil which would fall on the unwed mothers (and apparently other vagrants of society, though Newt really seemed to have a thing for unwed mothers...)" the goal of the republican revolution in his view was to destroy the social safety net and "bring back the hammer and anvil."

As a personal philosophy, it works the same way: by "kicking ass and taking names" and being the Uberdude, you fulfill your natural destiny and make the race stronger or some such nonsense. And since it is "human nature" to try to dominate, it's better to be the wolf than the sheep....

Now, I don't know anything about any of that, but I DO know about monkeys. And sex. And let me tell ya, ya just can't keep the lil' buggers out of the nookie jar!

That is, at least when you're talking about the smartest and most human-like of the super-monkeys called Apes, the Bonobos. The Common Chimpanzee on the other hand, would rather spend their time in the sort of aggressive behavior engaged in by the likes of English Soccer fans, but the Bonobo follows the dictum of the 60 hipster: "make love, not war, man."

And that's what's so interesting about monkey sex, or at least bonobo Sex: they make love not war. Researchers say it's now clear that they actually use 'doin' it' as a way of building community and resolving conflict! And from what modern mathematics and evolution theory tell us, it was jism that acted as their social cohesion and supplied their darwinian "fitness." And it was likely the same behavior that paved the way for modern man: the intellectual marvel of an animal that created the pet rock and "Goonies."

Truly remarkable.

For more about that you can start here: http://williamcalvin.com/teaching/bonobo.htm.

See, here's the truth about humans; dude, we're like really, really wimpy animals. Tony Soprano, naked in the woods V a Grizzly Bear: ain't even going to be close. But, put the Grizzly against Tony and a bunch of his burley mob buddies and you got a hit "reality" series.

Anyway, it clearly isn't aggressive dominance that led us to the top of the food chain.

Modern "game theory" has explained that the "fittest" often refers to the party "fittest for cooperation." Models repeatedly show that the old axiom "the nice guy finishes last" just ain't so! In fact, it seems that aggressors usually end up losing first! For a primer on modern game theory, check out the great book: The Universe and the Tea Cup. Or just go play a multiplayer online strategy game like "Wesnoth:" as a mater of basic survival, everyone teams up on the most aggressive players first.

So here's the problem, its not that there isn't social evolution, the problem is in thinking that the World Wrestling Federation represents the apex of human achievement: it's conflating "fitness" with aggression. Evolution is simply nature's problem solving method--it certainly effects humans and human societies and even human ideas. And there are certainly lessons we can take from evolution and apply its problem solving method to our own lives and to our societies.

Darwin's lesson for our lives is not to look out for #1, it's to look out for everyone, and even the whole planet. Evolution's mission for the individual is not to step on others in our scramble to the top, it's to become your own fullest most unique solution to the problem of living-- to fully take advantage of your unique perspective and place in the world. The pragmatic individual will make sure their lifestyle is consistent with an informed view of natural selection, and will be true to their own diversity and kind and compassionate to their fellow beings. The pragmatic individual will understand that nature will prune the aggressors and be kind to those leading a sustainable equitable lifestyle, and they will use that math to their advantage. They will make a little more like the bonobo and a little less like the common chimpanzee.

The Alpha Male mentality and the corresponding modern "conservative" movement is historically, mathematically and scientifically uninformed to start with. But more importantly, it's bad as a pragmatic matter.

It's no way to build a society, and an even worse way to build a life.

CONGRATULATIONS

Congratulations to my dear friends on their kick-ass wedding this weekend. Not much more to say than have fun in the Aloha State.

I on the other hand will be spending this week in the Rather Frazzled State.

Looking to do some major cleaning and reorganizing of the blog... I've decided to keep the blog front page but also make a page of cleaned up essays and entertainments and informations and so on.... Just an effort to make my thoughts a little more organized and accessible.

The problem is figuring out how to do it....

holy crap!

I never thought move on and the christian coalition would agree on anything, but I guess the pigs are flying home with the cows today!

Both groups are going to post an add together against the pending internet control bill. And this when I had just given up hope that the internet would remain the free and beautiful thing it is today. I just can't imagine not seeing homestar anymore because it would cost to much for all of those big files to run.... or to search for a recipe and only be able to access those annoying bland recipes from kraft food that require a bunch of terrible brand name corn products.... I had assumed with republicans controlling congress that the end of the internet as anything other than a corporate advertising tool was imminent...

And do I really have the christian coalition to thank for hope?

Armed Man a Success

The U.S. premier was quite a success, everything I heard from the audience was positive. As for my opinion, I think the work is a great in someways, but not necessarily a great work of art... gah, gotta go, more later...

no time no time...

Dress rehearsal tomorrow for "the Armed Man!"

I am quite excited, the music that I know has already grown on me quite a bit, and I'm excited to hear the parts I'm not in. Saturday will be the US premier of the new work. In the way of advertisement, take a listen at a small part of the European premier: "better is peace than always war" I especially like the end of this movement.