My opinion? Madison Was Right.

My pal Suzanne Roberts reminded me of the practical genius of U.S. co-founder, James Madison.  There is so much behind Madison, as well as his mate Dolly Madison, that escapes contemporary society, and at the very least contemporary politicians, long at the leash of special interests, PACs and Lobbyists. I recommend looking in on James Madison’s thoughts at your first convenience.

There’s nothing like a little perspective, especially as we contemporary citizens seem to reinvent the wheel ad infinitum…

• Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
  • “Political Observations” (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

Coming of Age

I believe one of the most overlooked aspects of human development and aging—at least over a single life span—is the peer, socio-economic, and trivial realities of those within a similar age bracket. I have observed this played out in more than one crash-and-burn marriage, where the two partners are of enough an age difference to not understand each others cultural references. Though this may not be surprising with the cliche of older male younger female marriages, I have observed the very same thing happening where the male is the younger. I would guess the cut off would be a decade in age difference. Though this is hardly a realistic prognostication of how a marriage will work out, for me it plays into a larger thought: political leadership, specifically but leadership in general.

At this point in time, the current sitting President of the United States is 50 and a few months years old. Doing the math, this signifies that his formative years begin in the 1960s, a period of nearly insane optimism, creative development, violent social movements and the beginning of the calcification of the two extreme poles of (so-called) liberal and conservative view points.  By contrast, Mitt Romney is 14 years older, Newt Gingrich is 18 years older. Both of these men came of age in the 1950s, a time of nearly insane witch hunts by McCarthy and Company, and when, (according to author Bill Bryson) between 1946 and 1962, the United States of America detonated just over 1000 nuclear warheads (testing, by golly), “including some 300 in the open air, hurling numberless tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere…” And that was just the U.S. Many more “tests” were conducted by (then) the USSR, China, Britain, and France.

In addition, the good old 1950s cast an evil eye on teenagers, artists, communists, animators, cartoonists, musicians, poets, and generally anything having (even remotely) to do with sex or challenging 1950′s Christian doctrine (which apparently can have a revised, personally expedient interpretation, often quite different from the ancient text statements attributed to Jesus Christ).

These contrasts couldn’t be more apparent when extended to the two houses of Congress, where the same age related disconnect is still in play.

Seemingly all parties are in some sort of vague agreement about the economy, though the fingers of blame point in wildly around the circumference. Older folks (in government) seem to almost unanimously blame liberal thinking, a direct by-product of 1950s indoctrination of their youth. Younger folks blame the establishment, and the rich, a direct by-product of the 1960s indoctrination. Of course, both of these positions have a handful outside the percentage, but if you look closely, I believe it plays out.

The absolute irony, for me, is that the 1950s “ideal”the much vaunted and often worshiped idea of a “Donna Reed’s Kitchen” was largely created by unprecedented liberal government programs from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last sitting president to have enjoyed a near monarchy, which is likely why so much was accomplished during his reign. (Another irony!) F.D.R’s programs ultimately created middle class wealth the likes of which the entire world had ever seen. Again, from Bryson: “…by 1955 the typical American teenager had as much disposable income as the average family of four had enjoyed fifteen years earlier. Collectively they were worth $10 billion a year to the national balance sheet.”

These teenagers, now presidential candidates, apparently missed the reality of FDR’s “meddling”. They thought (and think) their good fortune came exclusively from the bristling free market economy of the period, a complete disconnect with the number of factories making hardware for military use (world-wide armament industries), and the reality of massive public works systems (the entire U.S. Interstate system, for example) paid for by tax dollars. (Europe did similar investment, albeit with U.S. coin, a.k.a. the Marshall Plan, but in Europe—they built out public transportation. Who’s laughing now?)

And about those tax dollars. The top bracket in 1954, those making over $200,000 a year, was 91%. That is correct, 91%. The top bracket has been dropping, for the most part, ever since, placing a year over year increased burden on that astonishing middle class, and those offspring hoping to maintain or improve upon it. Before you gasp at that 91% top bracket leaving the rich destitute, know that the average family income in 1954 was $4167. Which left those making $200K or more, after taxes, with many, many times the income of the average family. By way of getting my head around this, after decades of inflation, that 1954 average of $4167 equates to $35K per year in 2011. Additionally, $200K in 1954 would be $1,683,427 in 2011. The top bracket of income over $379,000 per year in the current U.S. Tax code pays 35%. And for final reference, put back in 1954 dollars, that $379K would be $45K, or over ten times more than the average family income.

I believe we, as human beings, make decisions and take positions almost completely from our experience—and our greed. There isn’t anything in our recorded history to suggest otherwise, from cave paintings in France to the eons long parade of financial and political scandals.  Again, pure irony that we constantly devolve into such counter productive aspects of human behavior.  On an extremely grand scale, Brian Swimme, co author of the public television documentary “Journey of the Universe” is widely quoted for this statement about the culmination of human scientific knowledge within the history of everything:

“This is the greatest discovery of the scientific enterprise: You take hydrogen gas, and you leave it alone, and it turns into rose bushes, giraffes, and humans.”

Of course, you could also look at singer songwriter Joni Mitchell, who nailed it more simply with “…we are star dust, we are golden” in 1969.  But I digress.

I believe the common experience of a given age group deeply influences the decision-making of that age group. It is ironic, and a bit disturbing (to me), especially in a national election year that many of the primary players have their reality at a time and place (the 1950s) so completely submerged in justification and rationalization that it took years to recover—and maybe we never did: the armaments industry (total world spending on military expenses in 2009 was $1.531 trillion USD), man-made environmental disasters, world-wide poverty, human rights, freedom of expression, the separation of church and state… the list is endless. (Ever had a really good look at an open pit mine? I cringe every time I pick up my treasured smarty pants phone, laden with metals extracted in this manner.)

As for the 1960s,  the decade surely brought its own issues, many of them more easy to define, but I have to believe there was more of a call to action, and an organized dissatisfaction and questioning of the Status Quo. I believe that sometimes the status quo can provide the simplest path, but it is rarely the most providential, or the one that yields the widest benefits for mankind as a whole.

There is nothing wrong with the statement/challenge: “prove it.” In fact, I think most politicians should have a line by line bibliography of each of their statements, supplied to our apparently ignorant, and apparently easily manipulated population.  Oh, the joys of apathy.

Finders, Keepers…

…Losers, Weepers.

(This is the return volley toward my previous post about Optimism.)

I have been thinking about this decades-old elementary playground chant for a couple of weeks. Though I know nothing about the actual, factually demonstrated ethics of Liberty Mutual Insurance, Inc., I personally find their”responsibility project” television advertising campaign thought provoking and uplifting, and a good primer for this essay.

In my personal experience, there is always hope.  I don’t believe I am alone in this:

 “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.”

- Abraham Lincoln

 “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

- Thomas Jefferson

 “I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest.  I do not judge the universe.”

- Dalai Lama

I have often quoted George Santayana‘s seminal “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it” within my blog entries. Because humanity is enduring yet another worldwide round of challenging times, I believe it important if not critical to realize the world has almost always been enduring challenging times. Think about it. Throughout our species’ time on this planet, wars (along with natural disasters) have resulted in the deaths of untold millions of individuals.

And, in retrospect, I muse aloud:  just because I “find” something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that something is “mine” or that I have some sort of cosmic right to “keep” it. Expanding the concept, just because another nation has vast resources that my nation deems capitalistically important, doesn’t give my nation the right to those resources, by might, subterfuge or any other means, and no matter what spin is put upon the justification.

I fear this is where many of the very wealthy lose perspective. Just because they find themselves in with one of the more controlling seats for the entire world’s economy doesn’t mean the world is actually theirs to control!  In stark contrast, as well as historically relevant, the native populations of North America really didn’t understand the European concept of “ownership.”

Long before the first European settlers came to America, Indians had developed an advanced economy. Indian tribes traded extensively with each other, and many had some form of money. None, however, had any institution like the “land title” of the Europeans. They had no tradition of “alienating”, or relinquishing all rights, to land. Many thought that this showed Indian social development to be more primitive that that of the Europeans. But the Native Americans had developed sophisticated legal systems that incorporated treaties, elaborated rights and specified ways to resolve disputes.

A great many treasures of art and oral literature have been passed down from prehistory. Indian cultures and religions were enmeshed with nature, for they felt themselves entwined with the universe. Mother Earth and Father Sky were more than mere expressions; they represented the Indians’ very being. Land, a part of the universe, belonged to all, particularly the tribe. Individual land ownership did not exist, since all were entitled to the fruits of nature. Users’ rights were protected and specified in various traditions, but there was no such things as land “ownership”. Generally, individuals could clear as much land as needed for farming; this land would remain in a family’s possession as long as they continued to use it. Once it was abandoned, anyone else could cultivate it.

Indians readily understood and entered into treaties concerning rights to land use, but the idea of land sales was alien to them—and it is likely that, because of difficulties in translation of each others’ languages, neither the natives nor the settlers understood this vital difference, at first.

When President Franklin Pierce offered to buy the lands of Chief Seattle’s tribe, his response illustrated how abhorrent the idea of giving up land was to his people:

• The great — and good, I believe — White Chief sends us word that he wants to buy land. But he will reserve us enough that we can live comfortably. This seems generous, since the red man no longer has rights he need respect…

• So your offer seems fair, and I think my people will accept it and go to the reservation you offer them. We will live apart, and in peace…. It matters little where we pass the rest of our days. They are not many. The Indians’ night will be dark. No bright star shines on his horizons. The wind is sad. Fate hunts the red man down. Wherever he goes, he will hear the approaching steps of his destroyer, and prepare to die, like the wounded doe who hears the step of the hunter…

• We will consider your offer. When we have decided, we will let you know. Should we accept, I here and now make this condition: we will never be denied to visit, at any time, the graves of our fathers and our friends.

• Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every hillside, every valley, every clearing and wood, is holy in the memory and experience of my people. Even those unspeaking stones along the shore are loud with events and memories in the life of my people. The ground beneath your feet responds more lovingly to our steps than yours, because it is the ashes of our grandfathers. Our bare feet know the kindred touch. The earth is rich with the lives of our kin.

In his speech, Seattle accepts the inevitability of the plans of “the Great White Chief”. But, nevertheless, he asserts his people’s moral right to walk on the land whenever they wish, forever. This, of course, is not compatible with the Europeans’ concept of “private property” in land.

European colonists played “finders, keepers” on a scale unparalleled in human history. Caucasian North Americans are primarily descendants of this practice, one we still enjoy today—along with all the municipal, state and federal taxation levied upon the concept of “property.” And, within this concept of property (both in early Europe and in worldwide colonization since) rose the practice of fiat currencies and several centuries of debt-based financial expansion.  In fact, the economic health of humanity across this entire planet is tied to debt… or “the value of a promise to pay back a loan with interest.”

(If you haven’t yet taken 48 minutes to view Pierre Gagnon’s seminal “Money as Debt” presentation, I suggest you strongly consider it.)

To me, the irony of the “finders, keepers” perspective comes from how our species derives a true, deep and satisfying happiness.  Surely, a high level of mental health and balance cannot occur while other members of humanity are undergoing suffering due to economic disparity, and the resulting greed-based violence that takes place as individuals and groups attempt to “take by force” economic prosperity from those they believe have it.  In retrospect, our first-world obsession with ownership— with having “things” that are ours alone, may not be the best model for long term success as a species.

Here in Vermont, many residents felt the full blow of unfortunate circumstance during the unprecedented quantity of rain associated with 2011′s hurricane / tropical Storm Irene. I have marveled at how much community effort has taken place, and continues to take place on behalf of those affected. Volunteers from all over the state, and many from outside the state and from Canada have worked to clean up the devastation. This is the message, again: we are capable of helping out. For the most part, this type of generosity has taken place for ages, where individuals and communities are compelled to help in the wake of unexpected natural disaster, or—as highlighted by the Sept 11th violence—unnatural disaster.

I believe we are each born with an innate sense of wanting to help (and do the right thing) wherever possible.  I also believe we get the crap kicked out of this innate sense by life experiences that often seem predominately “out to get us.”  (This would be the “losers, weepers” reality.)

There isn’t a doubt in my mind that pessimism (as opposed to practical preparation) gives evil a significant toe hold in the course of human and historic events.

In an attempt to continue to define an ongoing rant of mine (the constant, tasteless barrage of “no news is good news” from most media channels), I beg anyone who will listen to actively choose optimism, even if it seems imprudent at first to do so. And you should spread the word to others to do the same.

“Luck favors the prepared” is a saying that effectively exists within every human language on earth.  It is one of many human observations that ring true.   So are, I believe, the concepts of optimism and hope.

We will always be the recipients of a reality stemming from our own historical choices as a species. Though the great masses of us really have no practically-connected direct choice,  the choices of those in leadership positions have defined and will define where, what and who we are right now.

There are many voices who have loudly stated that we cannot reverse the state we are in, and we now need to adapt to the oncoming changes in world environments, world economy, and world politics.

I think this perspective might be accurate, but it is also a non starter for cheer-leading those ideas to not only reverse—but vastly improve—the state we’re in.

I have the privilege of knowing and having known so many brilliant men and women, individuals capable of not only conceiving of astonishing development possibilities, but with the expertise and technical ability to fulfill those concepts, making them as real and as plain as your fingers.  Knowing these folks, I personally believe nothing is impossible (with the vain and singular exception of having the ability to snap my fingers and suddenly have the outward appearance of George Clooney’s better-looking older brother.)

I ask that you think about “finders, keepers” and how you live your own life through your own decision making.   Are the decisions you make really for the common good of the largest number of people likely to be affected by the decision?

Attempting Optimism

For a mind bending, and thoroughly challenging experience, take in Frontline’s “Top Secret America” documentary.  After this, take in Frontline’s (very long) “God In America.”

Admitting my current state of personal oxidation, I do remember the 1970s hick hit, “Hee Haw.”  Every week, the Nashville based comedy show would commence… and one of the regular bits was a weekly re-engineered joke sequence with a musical refrain: “Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me.”

• Gloom, despair and agony on me-e!
• Deep dark depression, excessive misery-y!
• If it weren’t for bad luck I’d have no luck at all!
• Gloom, despair and agony on me-e-e!”

An extremely powerful article, by former G.O.P House Staffer Mike Lofgren, was the last straw for me. At least temporarily.

What happened to us?

At this tenth anniversary of the epoch changing events of September 11th, 2001, I reflect that it actually wasn’t that horrific event that began my 15 year and growing disillusionment with “the way things are.”  It was actually 1.) when Bill Clinton couldn’t muster the personal integrity to tell the truth about his wayward libido and then tell everyone else to butt out, it was a personal matter and 2.) the licentious manner in which the G.O.P. pushed everything out of proportion, taking the collective eye OFF the important affairs of government, mainly, what the hell was Greenspan doing by experimenting with “exotic” financial instruments that ultimately contributed to the worldwide financial meltdown we’re still swimming in right now.

The end of the 1990′s parade of turpitude… from the celebration of misogynist, gun-toting, drug dealing rap artists and pro athletes to the questionable election of George Bush as President set me up on a quest to emigrate…but Canada and Iceland (and many other desirable nations) require a small, quarter million USD investment to show good faith in why you wish to be there.  It’s apparently difficult to prove asylum if you are from the largest purported bastion of freedom and democracy on the planet.

My spouse called me away from my development work to look at the unfolding unreality of September 11th.  The famous balk by President Bush during his press-event reading lesson to children was carried nearly live.  Actually, I don’t know that many other U.S. Presidents would have done any differently.  How could anyone parse such an event?  There was no basis.  Unlike many more nasty parts of the planet, the Balkans, Georgia, Israel and Palestine, the U.S. simply is not experienced when violence, on such a massive scale, is brought into our own sense of self security.  Like so many other citizens, not just U.S., but worldwide, the planet seemed to shift on its axis, and the surrealism described very well in Mike Lofgren’s article (above) started to unfold.

Personally, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit being swept up in a “crush ‘em” type of fervor, the same way a sport team player would likely feel if the opposing team took a cheap, unwarranted shot at an important player on my team.  My friend Sandy chastised me, and rightly so, for this position.  She said that the nation would not recover from an ill-informed, extended war in Iraq.  Prescient indeed.  I remember so clearly the genuine look of concern on her face… she was visible upset, and I…along with the vast majority of our fellow citizens should also have been.

And so,  in we go, just like the highly romanticized Disney film “Pocahontas”.

Dwight D. Eisenhower would be crying until he was dry, if alive today:

“We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this preeminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.” – Dwight Eisenhower, farewell address to the nation.

Are we so devoid of imagination, so devoid of creativity, so devoid of CULTURE that our simple response to anything is to lock it up and beat or bomb the crap out of it?  When did we lose such complete touch with the living, breathing, life on earth?  Really?  Is there really no way to make things better without force?

The major culprits, I believe are 1.) interpretation and 2.) manipulation.  These two seemingly innocent words are responsible for allowing sad, insecure, ignorant, and subsequently shallow individuals to rise to terrific public prominence and stay there as long as they breath.

And once dangling from those lofty perches, information is again “interpreted” after which another round of “manipulation” begins.  There are lots of players involved, most self-serving, and apathetic to the bigger picture.

And, admittedly, how different am I?  My pal Kip has been volunteering (a lot) to assist the clean up of flood damaged homes and businesses from the torrential Vermont flooding from hurricane/tropical storm Irene.  Kip is walking the walk, and actually not much talk about it. It is an opportunity to serve, which I am guiltily not taking advantage of.

In Lofgren’s article, he mentions the thread of Ayn Rand within a certain aspect of G.O.P. fanaticism.  I have read “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” a few times, as well as a couple of books of essays.  It’s hard not to be attracted, if one has any sense of rugged individualism, to Rand’s concept of “objectivism“.  However, Lofgren points out with accuracy, that you can’t follow Rand and follow Evangelical Fundamentalism at the same time… Rand was a fervent atheist!

Back to the topic of a need to serve, what put the holes in my objectivism sail, is that you simply can’t roll with “survival of the fittest” in any concept of modern society.  All parts of any society need to be working, and happy to be working, in order for new ideas to develop, be vetted and if worthy, adopted…for PROGRESS to occur.  And, like my previous blog entry, if only 1% of the population can afford to purchase the output of society, there won’t be any growth, period.

And this is where service comes in.  At some point, service becomes a component of “enlightened self interest” a key component to contributing to a greater, wider good, that will in turn, be of value to the participating individual.

Alexis de Tocqueville toured early America, way before the Civil War, and wrote about it in his voluminous “Democracy in America”.  Here’s a great excerpt:

“Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.”

So, two hundred years ago, the “unity” was the fact that the majority of what was perceived as “the nation” was white, and Christian.  Again, Lofgren, touches on this in his explanation for his leaving nearly thirty years as a G.O.P. staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The reality IS:  we are not all white, and we’re not all Christian.  And for the record, we never were, at least by census.  The number of native people living in North America at the time of European colonization, and subsequent importation of slaves is hard to pin down, but commonly held scholarly opinion suggests there were millions.  Millions!

And so, my optimism of late has suffered a few body blows.  It gets resuscitated from time to time by unexpected acts of kindness and selflessness, little events that renew my faith in the species, but I can’t help feeling that ol’ Henry Kissinger is right.  And Mike Lofgren is right.  We’re at a point where we, as a species, have to remove the thumb from our lower exit point, and say “enough”.  And vote.  And vote not from political ads, but after diligent research and discussion.  And, go visit a neighbor.  Listen a lot. Find commonality.  Find community.

One of the aspects of humanity that I still cling to, is that most individuals really want to do the right thing, they really do.  And this is still something to be optimistic about.

Bread & Circus, 2011

“Roman politicians devised a plan in 140 B.C. to win the votes of the poor: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses“, would be the most effective way to rise to power.”

In 2011, many historical events have taken place, not the least of which is the overthrow of three (count ‘em three) dictatorships in Northern Africa, and another tipping (Syria.)  My friend Suzanne Roberts (check out her blog) stated the discrepancy between Libya’s family dictatorship and the common people, and that populations everywhere (i.e., the very wealthy) might want to draw some conclusions from what happens when vast numbers of people feel they are not being treated equitably.

I have danced around and made many explorations toward the nature of wealth in many places in these blog entries.  I believe the reality is really quite simple.  If those who are in a position to do so are not contributing a fair amount (taxes) toward the good of society, at some point, society at large turns on those individuals.  This is being proven now, and one of the most incendiary reasons for the recent state of overthrowing has been the cost of food… especially when most of those Arab Spring nations’ citizens earn very, very little annually.

And so what about U.S. citizens?  Consider Zachary Roth’s report on Yahoo News this past February.   The apparent inability of the very wealthy to understand that to create wealth, one needs a large amount of people purchasing goods and services you either own or have invested in, is astonishing.  And this plays back into one of my pet peeves: those who are in the position to make decisions for the rest of us (hear me, Congress?!?) rarely look beyond the time frame of their own life spans.  I’ve mentioned it before, and I’ll do it again and again. 

Get a clue, folks:  The future requires selfLESSness, and more than a modicum of common sense.  You can’t get blood from a stone, and if you don’t have a population that is growing its middle class economy… i.e., regular folks earning more and able to BUY stuff, then your entire economy goes down the toilet. 

One has to wonder, just how much wool can be pulled over voters eyes in the coming months… just how much “bread and circus” will take place in order to appease and forward some genuinely sinister agendas.  The idea of “trickle down” has been a naughty joke for decades, hence the poster here from thirty years ago.

Author Gore Vidal has often commented that the United States has but one political party, “The Property Party.” If this were widely accepted, would we keep throwing up leaders that, for the most part (and according to billionaire Warren Buffet) simply wish to coddle up to those with staggering amounts of dough… instead of doing the right thing for the future of our nation, and perhaps more.  Surely, we’ve learned enough by now.  I, for one, would like to see some progress.  Wouldn’t you?

 

Say Anything

One of the most impressive aspects in the history of the human species is the level of personal commitment—and simultaneous self delusion—certain individuals (and their handlers/promoters/funders/fans) will try achieve to reach a position of power/wealth/status.  I am equally astounded by the fact that “statements that resonate” and other boffo sound bytes uttered by individuals in the hunt for election, promotion, or simple face time in an increasing competitive media market rarely are completely true, in fact, to that individual’s personal history of decision making—or personal history. I won’t pick a fight with any specific group or person, but if you compare ANY public person with their own public record of statements, behavior and personal performance, you’ll grasp the bigger picture—and the unfortunate divide between words and deeds—immediately.

 Okay, I retract the first part of the previous sentence. Look at the last few weeks of Governor Rick Perry’s statements, and then look very carefully at his actual history of his decision making. (Sorry, Governor Perry, but you are my current poster child for the “Say Anything” documentary project, should it materialize.)

My pal Rusty Dewees and me speak of this often…that success in “entertainment”—an overarching heading that has also included political theater ever since Gutenberg fired up his press—requires a certain mastery of media distribution channels; and this manifests itself in a myriad of intriguing behaviors. Some celebrities handle their fame with astonishing balance and deftness, which results in a kind of perceptible truce between intrusive media probes and orderly releases of both private and public information. Others, well, not so well. And, it’s completely predictable that the later gets most of the attention. (Google: “no news is good news.”)

What does it take (in our current era of accelerated apathy, growing historical/cultural ignorance, and rising intolerance—with anything that might take a bit of effort to solve) to get elected to public office? Or get the job? Or convince your neighbor that their party entertainment of after midnight interior shot gun testing might not be appropriate within village limits? It takes a gift for telling people what they want to hear. And, it takes an ability to believe in those vocalized utterances by the utterer, even if it flies in the face of practical reason, and everything the utterer has stood for.

Does effective leadership require that the leader simply fulfill a “focus-group-inspired” ideal… or should a better nature of leadership be inspired, individual, and well, LEADING?

The fleeting nature of success in surfing the waves of public acceptance requires, one would think, a stable surf board (platform). But in fact, the more successful platform of late is one that shape shifts into the requirements of the day. Meeting a group of factory workers requires one type of spin. Meeting a group of diverse college students another. What’s a career politician/actor/business tycoon “celebrity” to do? Apparently, it is to say anything it takes to get the crowd in a supportive stance.

Paying homage to this concept, I have created a little list of meandering sound bytes that could be effective toward motivating (manipulating?) a substantial majority of citizens… in any country, but specifically, mine:

 “I believe in Our Country and the proven potential of its people.”

 “I believe that life begins at conception, and that all life is sacred.”

 “I believe each individual has the right over the health of their body.”

 “Raising taxes is not an option.”

 “An unfair tax, which favors the extremely wealthy, can no longer be tolerated by a dwindling middle class.”

 “The liberal majority can no longer dictate policy to the rest of us.”

 “We can no longer tolerate ignorance. Education must return to the fundamentals that built America.”

“Government will never be the solution, it will always be in the way of progress.”

 “A government by and for the people, should always take decisive action when its citizens are subject to economic circumstances beyond their control.”

 “I believe my track record points to the strength of my leadership abilities, and my capacity to bring ideas that seem far apart into a path of convergence, and create policy we can enact in a bipartisan fashion and be proud of as a nation.”

 “There is no negotiating with the obvious enemies of Our Way of Life. These enemies must be removed, for the common good of humanity, even if some parts of humankind are unable to conceive of these obvious reasons.”

 “The ‘truth’ is what very few folks wish to hear. The ‘truth’ is that our world is currently out of balance, with the vast majority of wealth distributed to a microscopically small group of individuals, who collectively do not seem very interested in spreading out that wealth for the betterment of humanity. That’s the real ‘truth’ and I don’t see any need to sugar coat it for ratings.”

 “History has shown us that only by coming together, and realizing policies that benefit the vast majority of citizens, will our society progress. Special interest legislation serves only special interests. The majority of citizens, who, by the way, sit at or near the political center, need to realize this, and organize to get appropriate results out of their representatives and senators, or vote ‘em out.”

 “If you choose me, you’ll be choosing from one of your own extended family…a candidate who believes in the raw potential of America and who believes the American century is far from over, and in fact, is just beginning. You have the power to help me help you make not only a future you can believe in, but one we all deserve.”

 “The power of Faith in America is ongoing. It doesn’t matter how we practice it, or what matter of church, faith or religion we identify ourselves. This is one Nation, under God, and indivisible. It is my solemn pledge to keep us moving forward on this path, as a beacon of hope to the rest of our tiny planet, as a place where we discuss, often disagreeing… but in complete and total agreement that our Freedom is sacred, and that the freedom to speak one’s heart without fear of reprisal is the most important of all. It is my commitment as a citizen, and if elected, my commitment to you… and may God Bless the United States of America.”

Now, I ask, did none of these statements touch any chord with you, the reader? I mean this without cynicism, even if this exercise may seem completely cynical. The point I am trying to make is, there are many things we simply want to hear from candidates/celebrities/business leaders. And we need to aggressively research those statements to see if the person who utters them is the true person we want to throw up as leader, or is simply becoming a Shakespearean cliché from As You Like It:

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.”

Chaff from the Rumour Mill

Okay U.S. citizens… I spelled “rumor” in a Continental fashion.  The meaning is the same.

¹ru·mor  noun \ˈrü-mər\

Definition of RUMOR

1 : talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source

2 : a statement or report current without known authority for its truth

3 archaic : talk or report of a notable person or event

4 : a soft low indistinct sound : murmur

With the stock market heaving and lurching like it both ate too much and consumed too many alcoholic beverages, I began to think about the power of rumor, and how it has been used so successfully in human history to create group think and group belief that has little or no actual bearing on discernible or definable fact.  An “unnamed source” states that a nation’s banks are not fiscally sound… this is picked up by any number of in-line pundits across multiple media channels, and the market reacts.  Seems simple, and crass and more than a little ironic.  The irony, subjectively speaking, is that in this day and age, to blindly follow a line of thought without ANY research, which by the way can occur nearly instantaneously on any smart phone, that any news item isn’t thoroughly vetted by person receiving the news.  What happened to good old fashion cynicism, I ask?

For instance, the current spate of “Tea Party” manipulated Republicans in the United States clearly yell that any Federal tax “increase” is completely unacceptable.  What increase?  For heaven’s sake, it would be a repeal of the ridiculous tax BREAKS given to a certain demographic by the Cheney / Bush administration and Congressional allies, NOT an increase!  As a matter of fact, the extremely wealthy have paid less ever year, percentage wise in taxes, since the Reagan era began systematically taking apart middle class wealth in the early 1980s.

Furthermore, the percentage of Corporate Tax vs. national GDP has been in decline for decades.  With industries returns and assets being so significant, how is it possible that no one, individually or wealthy seems to be rising to the occasion?

A good friend of mine hipped me to a recent (08-15-2011) Charlie Rose interview with Warren Buffet.  The interview was an addition to Buffet’s New York Times Op Ed piece, “Stop Coddling the Super Rich.”

Here’s an excerpt:

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

And yet, the “rumor” mill grinds away, from ignorant Tea Partiers and their faux fundamentalists who delight in pulling the wool over eyes everywhere.  Again, folks, for the record, it is NOT a tax increase that will surely help ease things, it is a roll back of the Cheney Bush tax rebates!

Years ago, I remember having a personal chat with a good customer of mine, a member of the North East Kingdom Community Church, a group of devout Christians who chose to live, sadly, in rural Island Pond Vermont.  The group’s successes, innovating in whole foods, organically created soaps and more were a sore spot with the locals, who by and large were not worldly in any way shape or mean.  Consequently, the “rumor” was that this group of individuals “beat” their children.  And the rumor was false, particularly if you move to the dictionary definition or at least the commonly held visual description of “beating”.

Here’s a link, from the Church’s perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHBX3QGRGow

The reality was, that a local rumor, largely based on economic and, to some point, intellectual jealousy, resulted in an escalation right up the chain to a massive raid by the State of Vermont.  This unfortunate event has been well covered in court documents, that support the Church’s position and their civil liberties.  For me, this was the most startling revelation of how poisonous a rumor could be.

The rush to judgement is such an easy human trait.  It is so much easier to go about ill-informed and seem knowledgeable, which of course helps perpetuate half-truths and complete lies alike.  (Historically, I have personally been hugely guilty of prejudging based on second or third hand information, something I have been on a personal quest to change for the past twenty-five years. )

With so MUCH information so READILY at hand, on just about any topic you could dream up, there remains no excuse to take anything at face value.  We have to remember that editors in every single media channel… broadcast, web, print, mobile, have one goal in mind… that THEIR company’s soundbite will be the one forwarded, almost indefinitely, which directly relates to their advertising REVENUE.  Kind of a skewed bit of reality, which is why the general public so rarely hears about all the good things so many individuals and organizations are achieving, every single day.

“No news is good news. ” stated Ludovic Halevy.

Surely, with our entire planet reeling from the unparalleled greed—of not just the folks who perpetuated, but those who blindly followed into untenable, completely illogical fiscal situations—an immediate and focused shift to identifying “WHAT IS RIGHT” and “WHAT IS TRUE (or at least provable by more than one mouthpiece)” would be a most welcome approach.

You’d think at this point in human development, that the mean indulgence of rumors and hearsay would be long discounted for what they are… marginal entertainment.

 

The Fulcrum—and the Loudness of Evil

My pal Kip dropped what he said was an old “media term:”

“If it bleeds, it leads.”

Being a rather naive individual, I’d never heard this, although it is a much paired down version of “no news is good news.”  I have been ruminating on this really aberrant behavior we have as a society, which is to amp up the volume on all things dark and abhorrent.  Violence, war, famine, plagues, natural disasters, man-made disasters… bleak, bleak and more bleak.  Where’s the beef?  As a society, are we simply incapable of compartmentalizing the awful stuff and keeping it in perspective?  Really?

My dear friend Henry told me some years ago that he thought the solution (to the human condition in general, but to individuals specifically) was to adopt a constant attitude of “pathological optimism.”  He didn’t believe that threats of any type should be ignored, but rather looked at from a wider perspective.  I have come to believe Henry is quite right about this.  If you look at the threat charging and all you can see is the threat, you may not see what’s actually chasing the threat and causingthe threat to come your way.

Perspective is difficult at best.  I use a term I call “altituding.”  It’s not a real word, of course, but it does describe how I attempt to view challenges of all types.  For example, we (meaning my immediate family) would not be considered wealthy by any local or regional measure.  But, indeed we are.  In fact, statistically, we’re in the top 3% of “haves” on Earth.  So, though I am challenged by the monthly fiscal nut… the amount we owe for our comfort, by “altituding” I realize that we have so very, very much in comparison.  Even if fate bestows more employment body blows to us, we’re still going to be way better off. We could lose everything we have—in a material vein—and STILL be way better off.  We have had the privilege of being educated and to live in one of the most benign regions (temperature, rainfall and lack of rampant societal ills) that exists.

My former administrative supervisor, David, referred to this as “the genetic lottery.”  I believe he is correct.  Which brings me first to the “Fulcrum” aspect of progress…

I created this diagram on a whim a few weeks ago, in a vain attempt at illustrating the power of choice to one of my sons.  In Malcolm Gladwell’s fascinating “The Tipping Point,” there is a series of very powerful arguments presented as to why change happens and how critical mass accumulates via social conduits.  Gladwell’s ultimate premise is that word of mouth, either directly (or indirectly, via social media channels) has a lot of power…and those who have found the way to access and harness it can affect change.  This change can be for the common good, or the common “un-good.”

Perspective is a fickle beast.  On a very personal note, there is a lot about the current U.S.’s “Tea Party” Movement I find attractive.  However, what stops me is the symphony of carabiners I hear strapping on—from those folks who believe in nothing fundamental about the Libertarian roots of this movement—but appreciate the free press coverage and flash-in-the-pan media spotlight that alignment with the T.P. provides.  Again, perspective.

Ronald Reagan wanted the U.S. to return to something he believed actually existed, the nostalgic illusion of the world during his heyday as a popular actor.  Many of us can buy into “White Christmas,” “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” or “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  The problem lies in the reality that during this time period, many ethnic groups were being violently abused, and rural poverty was astonishing.  But I digress.

For the moment, ride with me and think of “the fulcrum” as “choice.” If each of us had the choice, wouldn’t we want to tackle the bad stuff and celebrate the good? Are we really all that infatuated with the “dark side?”

• Luke: “Vader… Is the dark side stronger?“
• Yoda: “No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.“
• Luke: “But how am I to know the good side from the bad?“
• Yoda: “You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.“

It’s hard to do the right thing.  World religions describe this thoroughly within texts.  “The devil made me do it” was a popular statement at one point.  (What’s more popular of late is some sort of excuse based on being under the influence of chemistry: alcohol, weed, cocaine, acid, meth amphetamines, etc., etc., etc.  This has also always astonished me, as it surely took a decision to GET under the influence, and where does responsibility fall for that one?)

Doing the right thing often requires extreme strength of character, usually along with a healthy dose of self sacrifice.  Staying true to one’s stated convictions fall into the same boat.  If one talks the talk, there better be walking the walk.  And here is where we fall apart, so readily.

And the cameras roll.

If contemporary media channels played down the “Congressman Weiners” of this world, and played up the police officer who made the time and took the interest in helping the folks within the beat, would there be a positive effect?  I am intrigued by the concept of “Cheerleader”.  Not the rah rah, pom pom pleated skirts and varsity sweater aspect, but the fired up Evangelist aspect.  If media channels really put the effort into promoting the good things so many every day people were involved in, it could have a “viral” effect.

One of the leaders of our Vermont Food Bank threw down the challenge recently, stating we have more than enough resources, food and fiscal, to end world hunger.  What we seem to lack is the will.

World hunger.  Too big?  Like contemplating the U.S. Federal Deficit?  I don’t believe so.  Like most things in human history, it is a situation simply requiring initiative.

Where’s your fulcrum at?

Media Moguls, Perpetual War (for Perpetual Peace) and the Library of Congress

Yes, it is a long title.  As of this week, Rupert Murdoch has, in an astonishing rare set of circumstances, not had his way.  Yet.

I guess, at this point, I am again astounded by the prescience of James Bond film plot writers to come up with the fanciful idea for “Tomorrow Never Dies;”  the preposterous notion that one, all-powerful media mogul has the tools to influence—and thereby change public opinion.  NewsCorp, Murdoch’s worldwide conglomerate also owns Fox networks here in the U.S., which include the “fair and balanced” Fox News 24 hour variety show.  Former ABC Mid East journalist Barry Dunsmore had this to say:

“Murdoch’s legacy will be defined by his quest for power- and his apparent willingness to do anything to achieve it. This ruthlessness permeates Murdoch’s corporate culture, wherever he operates. Here in America, FOX News shows little regard for facts and consistently gives hours of air time and amplification to the most extreme voices. Fox News pseudo-populism makes huge profits but has degraded cable television news – if not all news media – and has contributed greatly to the poisonous partisanship that has infected the American political system. It’s therefore notable that this week some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have called for investigations into what Murdoch’s people may have been up to – in this country.“

In the James Bond film version, the “Rupert Murdoch” character wreaks havoc and builds up a body count in order to further his expansion into media domination.  In a very real sense, Murdoch may have done the same thing, by tacitly assisting the Bush-Cheney Administration with favorable reporting.  “Reporting” that helped to move public opinion to either condone—or at least not question—our involvement in Iraq, and subsequent spoke operations throughout the region.

U.S. armed force veteran Brian Turner sat for an interview with NPR this morning that summed up the vagueness and the reality of how “perpetual war” there hasn’t brought about the type of cultural stability the same way (ironically) that the British Empire did in the early 20th century.  (The interview is about 7 minutes long and recommended.)  Turner remarked about a single entity… a bookstore opened by the British during that time, which introduced the region to classical literature, and importantly poets.  Turner stated that the bookstore was still in operation, nearly 9 decades on.  And this brings me to my final point: the value of the human experience, individual and collective.  I can think of no other U.S. Government institution I am more proud of than the U.S. Library of Congress.

Begun over 200 years ago, this unparalleled assemblage of knowledge, culture and history is a world treasure.  To directly quote (i.e., cut & paste) WikiPedia:

“The collections of the Library of Congress include more than 32 million cataloged books and other print materials in 470 languages; more than 61 million manuscripts; the largest rare book collection in North America, including the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, a Gutenberg Bible (one of only four perfect vellum copies known to exist);^[10] over 1 million US government publications; 1 million issues of world newspapers spanning the past three centuries; 33,000 bound newspaper volumes; 500,000 microfilm reels; over 6,000 comic book^[11] titles; films; 5.3 million maps; 6 million works of sheet music; 3 million sound recordings; more than 14.7 million prints and photographic images including fine and popular art pieces and architectural drawings;^[12] the Betts Stradivarius; and the Cassavetti Stradivarius.

The Library developed a system of book classification called Library of Congress Classification (LCC), which is used by most US research and university libraries, although most public libraries continue to use the Dewey decimal system^{[citation needed]}.

The Library serves as a legal repository for copyright protection and copyright registration, and as the base for the United States Copyright Office. Regardless of whether they register their copyright, all publishers are required to submit two complete copies of their published works to the Library if requested—this requirement is known as mandatory deposit.^[13] Parties wishing not to publish, need only submit one copy of their work. Nearly 22,000 new items published in the U.S. arrive every business day at the Library. Contrary to popular belief, however, the Library does not retain all of these works in its permanent collection, although it does add an average of 10,000 items per day. Rejected items are used in trades with other libraries around the world, distributed to federal agencies, or donated to schools, communities, and other organizations within the United States.^[14] As is true of many similar libraries, the Library of Congress retains copies of every publication in the English language that is deemed significant.

The Library of Congress states that its collection fills about 838 miles (1,349 km) of bookshelves,^[15] while the British Library reports about 625 kilometres (388 mi) of shelves.^[16] The Library of Congress holds about 147 million items with 33 million books against approximately 150 million items with 25 million books for the British Library.^[15][16]

The Library makes millions of digital objects, comprising tens of petabytes, available at its American Memory site. American Memory is a source for public domain image resources, as well as audio, video, and archived Web content. Nearly all of the lists of holdings, the catalogs of the library, can be consulted directly on its web site. Librarians all over the world consult these catalogs, through the Web or through other media better suited to their needs, when they need to catalog for their collection a book published in the United States. They use the Library of Congress Control Number to make sure of the exact identity of the book.

The Library of Congress also provides an online archive of the proceedings of the U.S. Congress at THOMAS, including bill text, Congressional Record text, bill summary and status, the Congressional Record Index, and the United States Constitution.

The Library also administers the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, a talking and braille library program provided to more than 766,000 Americans.”

This page was last modified on 10 July 2011 at 00:35. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

One of the most adventurous projects archived by the LOC is the “Story Corp” series:

“To date, StoryCorps has recorded more than 30,000 interviews among more than 60,000 Americans in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and several American territories.“

This growing collection of individuals sharing their personal histories of joy and sorrow is astonishing.  No other effort shows, to such a high degree, how much alike our struggles are.  We are individuals, but as members of a species and ultimately the conservators of the planet we inhabit, I think we’d do well to listen to a half dozen or so Story Corps interviews each day, or at least each week.

In this age of instantaneous communication (I Skype® video chat with a pal in Perth, Australia in *real-time*) I often get overwhelmed if not temporarily deluded by the waves of competing noise, all posing as “information.”  The real information is that which actually informs us to the point of considering our own behavior, our own treatment of others, and our own perspective.  Crass manipulation for personal gain is not new to humanity.  It falls under the “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” heading.  What we as individuals can do is to support efforts like Story Corps and those individuals like Brian Turner, who are doing their level best to observe and preserve for current and future generations.

Caring for each other, caring for our collective future, making decisions that will positively contribute to a better world—not just our own posh livelihoods—surely, this must be the closest path to what we’re meant for as individuals, regardless of whether we’ve been created or have evolved.

On Deaf Ears

Vincent Van Gogh has, by now, achieved world wide celeb status, even though he expired via a self inflicted gun shot wound in 1890.  (I often use Van Gogh metaphorically on how long it takes one to be dead before the artistic and cultural contributions are fully acknowledged by society.)  I have had the privilege of knowing so many individuals who have and continue to contribute, but remain largely anonymous to the larger consciousness… even in their own back yards.  Perhaps it takes peers to expire before the real stuff is recognized by following generations.  Perhaps it takes an inspired media icon to lead the herd.  Perhaps it takes a catastrophe of sorts to lead to the revelation of individual value.  Whatever it has taken historically to bring a person’s contributions into view, ignorance of the person’s contributions, particularly whilst the person is living, takes it toll.

There are many an example of this.  Conan O’Brien, featured speaker at this month’s Dartmouth College graduation ceremonies had this to say (about honorary Doctorate recipient George H.W. Bush) to the graduating and assembled masses:

“Before I begin, I must point out that behind me sits a highly admired President of the United States and decorated war hero while I, a cable television talk show host, has been chosen to stand here and impart wisdom. I pray I never witness a more damning example of what is wrong with America today.”

What it takes to be recognized (by others, not an awards gala) is increasingly difficult, to say the least.  In my own back yard, there are many folks who diligently go about their daily lives, contributing—over, and over and over again.  No fanfare, not much of anything.  Just contributing.  Here are just a few:

Aldo Mazza

Aldo has been a close friend of mine for over 25 years.  He walked into a music store start up I founded with a former high school upper class man Bill Shafer, called Advance Music, in Burlington Vermont.   I knew at once we’d be great friends, and took Aldo out to dinner.  Aldo is a percussionist, drummer, and all around musician.  He has performed with the great and near great (lots of names you’d recognize like Celine Dion, Chris DeBurgh and many others) as well as being a prime mover in a well-known Canadian ensemble, Repécussion.  Radio, television, recordings, Aldo has done them all—for years.  Seventeen years ago, Aldo was sitting at our kitchen table, and exclaimed he wanted to develop an educational platform… one where he would assemble a constantly changing group of his peers to teach, live and share with participants.  At that moment, Aldo, along with Jolan Kovacs-Mazza (life partner via marriage and Doctorate from McGill) and me laid the foundations for the KoSA International Percussion Workshop, Drum Camp and Festival.  As of this summer, the event will be in its 16th year.  In addition, the KoSA “method” has been expanded, with Aldo bringing this particularly humanist approach to learning to Europe, Australia, Cuba and China, as well as ongoing events in North America.

The man deserves a medal.  Or at the very least, a whopping grant from one of the many beneficent organizations who claim to be sponsoring relevance in society.  Further more, in Montréal, where Aldo and Jolan live, he is mostly overlooked.

Many other musical experience camps and events have sprouted since 1995, and many have borrowed liberally from Aldo’s concepts.  At the end of the day, Aldo, like so many in his position, shrugs it off.  He knows what he is trying to do, and he remains dedicated to the pursuit of ongoing development.

Daniel Harvey

Dan Harvey is from West Rutland, Vermont.  You need to be specific, because he’ll correct you if you say “Rutland”.  Dan Harvey is a University of Vermont (UVM) grad who now serves UVM as Chief of Staff for the Vice President of Research.  He does this job very well.  What most people here in Vermont (and within the regional broadcast community) do not remember, is that Dan was also a critical employee for Vermont’s only Public Television network, VPT (originally Vermont ETV for “Educational Television).  For twenty years, Dan worked through the ranks of production to become the organization’s General Manager and Vice President of Production.  During this time period, VPT developed an extremely deep collection of documentaries and short form magazine programming that celebrated, highlighted and informed the region about its history, its potential and its engaging, talented and eclectic residents.  Before UVM sports were on the radar, Dan figured out a way to be the broadcaster of record for men’s and women’s sports, including playoff games.  Not only did this mean finding the funding for the broadcast staff, air time and so on and so forth, but also a control truck.  No mean feat.  The content that Dan was ultimately responsible for is still brought out ever year during fund-raising for VPT (a PBS affiliate) because those many programs are so cherished by viewers, they bring in the largest membership numbers.  (An important disclosure here:  I am a huge fan of Daniel Harvey, in no small part because of his belief in my own abilities as a composer has led to over a dozen Emmy nominations and five Emmy Awards.)

I don’t believe Dan has ever been formally recognized for his broad contribution to the fabric of what media is in Northern New England.  Sure, there are many outlets now, print and web, but what Dan achieved still stands as pretty remarkable, given the skeletal budgets and political/organizational realities he had to deal with.  I salute him, and wish others in the greater broadcast and creative community would do the same.

James Robertson

Jamie is, in my candid opinion, one of a very short list of truly inspired geniuses.  He is one of my closest friends, and like Aldo Mazza, walked into my music store one day and we’ve been solving world problems ever since.  Jamie has been a significant technical contributor to epoch changing technologies, such as the legendary Synclavier (the most intense and expensive electronic music studio system ever built), the LinnDrum 9000, the Izotope ANR-B, products from Frontier Design Group and many, many more to numerous to mention.  He is listed on patents.  He is also an exceptional musician and composer in his own right, though he is pathologically humble about this part of his contribution.  Jamie is one of the most decent people I know, particularly in the rarefied worlds of electronics engineering he lives in.  He is concerned for fairness, for politeness, for clarity and makes it a daily practice.  He has to be really, really nudged into acknowledging the vast contributions toward the recording arts, theme park design, museum experiences and more.  He also deserves a medal.  But it would have to be made from a printed circuit board with platinum traces, I think.  He also shrugs it off, and moves through the world largely anonymously, enjoying adventures with legal life partner, Standolyn.

Henry Huston, Jr.

Henry, though he always says I am crazy, made it possible for us to pay for our first child.  Henry purchased Advance Music (an owner and a half ago) and installed health insurance, just in time.  It may not seem like much, but as this child is now healthy and 21 years of age, I think jurors would admit it mattered.  Henry’s trajectory has been as pixelated and colorful as a pointillist masterwork.  In all his time, though (also a patented inventor, a father, step father, and much more) Henry’s ongoing contributions toward the societal side of technical development, as well as his considerable communication skills, fly unseen above the clouds.  Henry, historically has found himself ahead of the curve of cognizance again and again.  In online retailing. In online banking.  In product development.  He is a thinker, a deeply philosophical individual who can exhibit spontaneous combustion into gales of honest laughter when hit with a delectable piece of irony.  Henry is a survivor of catastrophes, and diligent practitioner of the values of meditation.  He is generous, but honest and deserves a trophy.  Something sized like first place in a tractor pull, or a NASCAR race.

Peter Jones

Peter Jones is a commercial lender for a large, northeast U.S. regional bank.  (The fact that I have what I consider a close friendship with a professional banker amazes me daily.)  Peter is an avid outdoorsman, a devoted father and husband.  He has also donated his time to be the chair of our local school board, at a time when his own abilities toward a calm, reasoned approach have been critical.  He is a member of Rotary, and a regular feature at many a community event.  Peter’s success in his field can largely be attributed to his candid honesty in appraising a given situation, but I believe has more to do with his capacity to listen and his own curiosity about, not only his potential customers, but life in general.  He continues to contribute directly toward a notable portion of Vermont’s economy, but also keeps a low profile.  His experience is considerable, and his scope is far wider than he would admit.  His understanding and empathy defies the clock-wise, spiraling stereotype of a raging capitalist and lands squarely in the practical center of “getting things done.”  He is willing to embrace the ideas of others, and when they make sense, is their staunchest supporter.  If there is an alternative to the “Green Jacket” for the Masters, Peter Jones should have one on his coat rack.

Caro Thompson, Sandy Paritz, Kip Ross, Paul Dietz, Rusty DeWees, Andrea Robertson, Lane Gibson, Michael Couture, David Geer, Andre Maquera, Harl Hoffman, Suzanne Roberts, Rick and Beth White, Dr. John Julian, Brad Limoge… these are but short handful of dozens of individuals I could list—not including my extended family of very capable, broadly contributing relatives.  (I am dead certain, that every reader of this could make their own substantial list.)  At every turn, I try to do my personal best to recognize them, and remind them of their importance—not just to my life—but to the world in general.

In a previous blog, I mention “a life well lived.”  The most egregious oversight we make as a society is not to recognize and celebrate the contributions of those who make them, every day.

When I was young, I craved being recognized by those whom I respected, and craved the mentoring they might provide.  As my own path progressed, eventually, I have been allowed into certain peer groups, and into many groups far loftier than I would have imaged as a teenager.  I owe a lot of individuals for my life and livelihood.  And because of this, I vowed very early to always recognize contributions as I simply don’t think enough do.

We, as individuals, always have the opportunity to express admiration and support for another person’s efforts, and there is simply no reason to wait until the eulogy to do so.