Ed, I didn't grow up a socialist but I would say that in 43 years of working in all kinds of places in the society, my experience parallels what you wrote almost exactly. Thanks for writing it.
I too have been trying to get some work done and sometimes these discussions are very seductive. Part of it is a sense of not wanting to lose your "say" in things and at other times it feels important to keep things going. However, listening to a charming new billionaire mayor cut the jobs of people in my community and seeing the rage that lies beneath the surface of people who have given every cent of their earnings into their education, seen them develop a wonderful skill which brings solace to people in their sorrow, happiness in their fatigue and emotional bonding in their times of alienation, only to have this tossed on the slagheap of an economic downturn I say there has to be a better way. Most of my work is volunteer and yet demands a skill that is far beyond the volunteering of other amateurs in the society. But underneath it all I think people are, or see themselves as basically good. If not, then they usually want to see themselves as so. Even Iago termed the contract from God's side a Monstrous lie that made his evil sensible. I've heard so many excuses given about orthodoxies not being followed closely enough when they fail, that I mistrust them all. No one ever says that the problem is that orthodox solutions are too rigid to ever be practical. Instead they just say that they weren't REALLY followed at all and that was the problem. You didn't follow the map well enough so you got lost. There are some physiological maps like Bel Canto, in my field, that have such a record of success that the problem can often seem to be the failure of the individual to "do it right." However, there are many non-Italians who arrive at different solutions that are the opposite of Bel Canto and create universes that are as wonderful and viable as Bel Canto. The messianic solution in voice never fits the whole of human reality. So, as a musician from many years, working in many situations and styles and as a vocal historian of those styles and methods I wonder who we would eliminate as a sacrifice to the ONE answer. Schubert? Verdi? Bel Canto doesn't fit the German very well. It is revealing to hear a Japanese orchestra play Copland or the Vatican chorus sing Handel's Messiah. Copland never conceived of the Japanese tunings of his pentatonic scales in his "American" ballets nor did Handel choose choruses with the super legato of the Italian chant trained chorus in the Vatican. In short, it isn't what they wrote, even though it is interesting and revealing. Like Britten's "Curlew River" English Noh opera. If we only had the ONE answer then we would never have the experience of these wonderful external views. So what does this mean? How can all of this fit into this new 2002 and two world? On the one hand I admire Keith for his practical experiments into choral preservation. I don't believe he will ever make a living at it although I hope to be wrong. I also think that he is in the tradition of people like the great Charles Ives who wrote for nothing and funded himself through his other work. It is the tradition that I follow as well, since my opera company has never and will never make a profit much less a decent salary for upper management. (Neither does any other opera company in America!) I fund it through my own success as a teacher and through some other people's belief's in its worth to the society. I do the same in that I have given over the years at least a million dollars in scholarships, again funded by my teaching, and have had students single-handedly develop International programs in music education for children, develop new works and both record and edit the premieres of many long dead Baroque masterpieces with period instruments in the U.S. But none of us have made money at it. We have spent money instead. One student, who is still considered one of the premier Baroque soloists in America as well as making over fifty exceptional CDs, continually paid for this work by singing small parts like the Sacristan in Tosca, all over the world. His place in the American history of musical performance is assured but he did it without help from the society or the system of capitalism. Rather, he did it in spite of the society, the free market and capitalism; however, once he is gone, they won't hesitate to take credit for his having been a member of their "system." So, my sense of all of this theory is this: Do it yourself. Instead of selling George, Friedman, or anyone else to the country and letting people's lives be ruined by your ideas, do the opposite. Ruin your own. Make a community of people who believe like you and prove your success. That would be science. Truly Empirical. Earlier I said, that these discussions were too much like taking a beginning driver out onto the freeway to learn how to drive. Instead, like Keith, start your own company. Teaching should be for things that are proven and successful. Instead of preaching your theories, or your mentor's theories, get out there and prove them in the marketplace of ideas. If you have a holistic vision of a society, then do it in miniature in a community. On that level you can see where it works and doesn't work. Fund it yourself so that you don't have to kill the kulaks or the professionals as in Russia and Cambodia in an imitation of Procrustes because the society is too diverse for your imagination. Milton Friedman and other economic gurus have been a disaster for the emotional life of the country. What is even more outrageous is that they lie about it. My students go to Denmark, where one of the wives is from, and feel like they are in Heaven while being visitors from Hell. Being good capitalists, they find it all very confusing, as would anyone from Hell upon visiting Heaven. Working many years ago, in the Army Chorus in the White House, seared the patriotism right out of my bones. It took six years of Vietnam lies but when I was done, I no longer got the shiver of patriotic pride when I watched someone kill another human being. It has taken 43 years for me not to believe that America is the "greatest, most prosperous" country in the history of the world. That does not mean that I would support or ever support overt violent action against my home, relatives or nation. Our problems are our own and I am politically active. I do not have sympathy for other families, religions etc. who exploit their own or believe that their "One World" ideology is preferable to diversity. But as for American economic and cultural arrogance, first of all, Egypt was great and prosperous for an 800 year bull market. We go ape over ten years and we've had our major ups and downs for a little over 200. I don't think that we qualify as being in the same league and won't for a while yet. We use immigration by poor, ignorant and desperate people as the proof of our superiority. That alone qualifies American Economists for the "Greatest Walnut Bowls in the History of the World" award (Billboard on Interstate Highway in Missouri). The hype about American Art is just unbelievable. It is so pervasive or I am so stupid that it has taken me four decades to admit it. That was allot more difficult than Vietnam patriotism. So, a real free market answer would go something like this. Start your own company or community and prove empirically your theories. Prove that you have a better product by creating an ideal place with successful children and a peaceful and beautiful environment and lives for your citizens. Frank Lloyd "Right", one of my favorite architects was wonderful for simple things like design but terrible for engineering. His houses fall down. He also designed a city that is unworkable and missed the boat on the future of work. On the other hand his student Antonio Solari may have had the right idea. But we will never know until we try them. It is science that makes the future likely. Anything else is just psychological projection or as we call it back home "wishful thinking." Here's to 2002! Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tom Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: Re: community and money > Hello Harry, > > I've been working on something and have had little time to pay attention to > my email. Nor do I have the time now, or the interest, to get into a > discussion of the views of long-dead economists - Malthus, Ricardo, Henry > George, and the like. I read them in my grad courses in the history of > economic thought and found them interesting at the time, but rather > questionable in terms of their relelvance to present day problems. > > To me, one of the most essential questions that modern democracies must deal > with is the obligations of the nation to its citizens and, of course, the > obligation of citizens to each other. Perhaps these are the same thing, > since the nation is its citizens compounded. What I hold as a matter of > faith is that, in a nation like Canada that can afford it, no citizen should > starve, go unhoused, or be denied education or access to health. This may > reflect my early upbringing in socialist Saskatchewan, but if that is the > case, so be it. I also hold as a matter of faith that most people, given > the opportunity, will not try to bilk the system (well, perhaps a little) > and will try to put in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay if work > is available to them. > > However, I do know as a fact that there are many people who do take > advantage of their position in society. This does include the poor. I know > there are welfare cheats. But it also includes many people who are not > poor. Our parliamentarians voted themselves a hefty raise last year without > having to prove that their productivity would rise commensurately. While I > for one would not want to abolish our Senate, many of its chairs are > occupied by people who did little more than raise money for their political > party, if that, and still do almost nothing for their pay. One of our > Cabinet Ministers has become quite notorious for handing out plum contracts > to his friends. And then, of course, there are corporate executives who > award themselves huge pay increases and severance packages despite the fact > that, like Nortel, their companies are barely staying afloat or going down > the tubes. In my stay in the Calgary oilpatch a couple of decades ago, I > saw many of instances of people taking advantage of their positions simply > because, well, they were important, and being important, they deserved it. > I participated. When we were in the Arctic on a Friday, instead of waiting > for the sched to take us south the following morning, we had a Learjet come > and get us that evening. We were important. We deserved it. > > So, Harry, I don't really think it's economics. It's us. Most of us are > mostly honest most of the time, but many of us are in a position to take > advantage of things, and we do. Ricardo, Malthus and H.George > notwithstanding, the difference between the rich and the poor is that the > latter are really not in a position to take advantage of things and are very > easy to single out and blame when they try to do so. > > Sincerely, > Ed Weick > > > Ed, > > > > I'm not sure that the term ideological applies only to those who oppose > > welfare. It is just as ideological to support widespread welfare. My > > "ideology" supports the entire removal of government welfare by making it > > unnecessary. > > > > Those really hurting can be handled by various charities. > > > > Except that now the really hurting are overwhelmed by positively hordes of > > people demanding welfare. The immediate reason for increasing welfare > rolls > > (apart from a small number of states who have pushed 'workfare' with some > > success) can be linked to a threshold etc. etc. etc. etc. > > >
