Writing

I enjoy writing. It serves some undefinable yearning inside of me to capture the essence of what I am thinking and feeling. I also enjoy country music for the very same reason. A well-written song conveys meaning and understanding about our human condition that touches our hearts and transcends the mere words. This morning I read the article in the New York Times that follows and thought it would be nice to provide it to others who may read this with the same interest and enjoyment that I received.

May 22, 2008, 10:29 pm
The Ear of the Beholder
By Rosanne Cash

I have a friend who has two grown children. She is estranged from her son, who has many egregious complaints about my friend, and vivid tales of childhood neglect and various other appalling maternal offenses. Her daughter, on the other hand, assures my heartbroken friend that the son has an overactive imagination combined with a need to blame everyone else for his own problems and that in fact, the stories of her failings as a parent never occurred. Who owns the truth?
In my own life, there was a Hollywood movie made about my family: my father’s drug addiction, the spectacular dissolution of my parents’ marriage, the genesis of the romantic relationship between my father and stepmother, my birth and the birth of my sisters, and my father’s rise to fame. This was all covered in less than two hours. If you went through this film with a fine-toothed fact-checker, you would emerge safely on the side of a non-litigious wide release.
But is it the truth? Not mine. Certainly not my mother’s, and to some degree, not even my father’s. It’s a pastiche, an impression. An amalgamation of facts strung together, even as a poetic narrative, is not necessarily the same thing as the truth.
In my last column, I wrote about the songwriting workshop I used to teach, and how some students were so attached to the facts that it hindered the quality of their writing. I encouraged them to use poetic license, and give up the facts if they had to, to improve their lyrics. One comment sent in by a reader struck me:
…for those of us interested in becoming more honest with ourselves as we mature, I think it is more important to put away our creative fictions and cut to the soul of the matter when writing. Just because you are more interested in “rhyme scheme errors” than the integrity of the relationship between fact and expression, you shouldn’t extinguish the passion for honesty that lives within your younger, more intuitive students.
— Posted by Geoff Baker
Ouch. I have spent a lifetime in the service of creative fiction, as well as non-fiction ornamented by fiction, so let me elaborate even further. The “truth” (or “honesty”) and the “facts” are not necessarily the same, they are not necessarily equal and one often requires the suspension of the other. This may not be the case in higher math or on Wall Street (or, actually, it may work there as well, but I’m clueless about that) but it is an immutable “truth” in art and music that facts are not necessarily the best indicators of the deepest human experience.
The table where you found the suicide note, the cup of coffee that turned cold because you were distracted in a painful reverie staring out the old wavy-glass window at the rain dripping off the eaves, the seashell left in the coat pocket from the last time you were at that favorite spot at the ocean, when it all came clear that you were at the right place with the wrong man, the letters, the photos, the marbles and jewels — all these physical, material, real-world artifacts carry poetic weight and should be used liberally in songwriting. These are the facts that convey truth to me.
The exact words he said, who was right or wrong, whether he relapsed on the 7th or the 10th, why exactly she does what she does, the depth and weight and timbre of the feelings, whether Love Heals Everything — these aren’t facts, these are ever-changing blobs of emotional mercury, and when you are working in rhyme, it can be much more powerful and resonant to write about the shards of the coffee cup than about the feeling that caused him to throw it across the room. You are better off moving the furniture than you are directly analyzing the furniture maker. This is to say nothing of the fact that the lyrical content of songs is by definition wholly entwined with melody, rhythm, tone and possibly a backbeat, and these carry their own authority.
Recently, I wrote a song with Kris Kristofferson and Elvis Costello. It was a wild idea I had while I was lying around recovering from surgery this past winter. They are both friends — I’ve known Kris since my childhood — and Elvis and I had just written a song together by email. (He called it “Song With Rose” as a working title, and when it came time to record it on his new record, “Momofuku,” he kept the eponymous title, which delighted me). I asked them separately if they would be interested in recording together, the three of us, and they were both game.
We started talking about this in February. We found that the only day in a six-month window when the three of us would be in New York at the same time, without obligations, was April 5th. I booked the studio, not knowing what we would do. As the date got closer, I started to get a little nervous and thought maybe my initial idea of recording old songs of ours together might not have the fresh energy and originality I was looking for. Elvis and John Leventhal, my husband and frequent collaborator and producer, kept mentioning that they hoped we could write something together that day, but that also made me anxious. It seemed too much pressure for one day.
I had a song that was incomplete, but a great idea, that I had started writing when I was halfway through recording “Black Cadillac.” It never really worked, and last year John picked it up again, streamlined it musically and suggested some lyric changes — actually lyric deletions, as he thought it was too wordy. I pared the first verse down to this:
You want love
But it’s never deep enough
You want life
But it’s never long enough
You want peace
Like it’s something you can buy
You want time
But you’re content to watch it fly
I loved the song, but it was still incomplete and didn’t seem to have a home. John thought this would be a great song to write with the gents, and so I sent the first verse by e-mail to Elvis and to Kris (by way of his wife, Lisa, as Kris doesn’t do e-mail), to see if they would be interested in finishing it with us.
Elvis responded immediately, and within a couple days had e-mailed back a second verse, and some ideas for bridges. I loved his verse (“You want imagination but you cannot pretend…”), and we began a dialogue about where it should go. Nothing from Kris, who was touring in Europe.
We waited.
On April 4th, the day before the session, Lisa sent an e-mail saying, “Here are his thoughts so far…” and a verse from Kris that raised the hair on the back of my head and brought instant tears to my eyes. I sent it to Elvis, fingers shaking, and he wrote back within minutes, his excitement and exclamation points jumping off the screen. It was perfect.
It all came together seamlessly the next day, in a way that I’ve seldom experienced in 30 years of recording. It was like alchemy. It was eight hours of magic (and I never use that word). Elvis tinkered with his verses a bit, we divided up the vocal parts and the three of us stood in a circle with the three musicians — John, Zev Katz and Joe Bonadio — and recorded the song. It still doesn’t have a proper title, or a home, but it is a thing of beauty. (Regarding the title, I suggested “Free Will,” Kris suggested “Faith and Free Will,” and Elvis was concerned that anything with “free will” would remind people of a movie about a whale; so right now we’re calling it “April 5th,” because that’s when we recorded it.) A few people who have heard it have said that even though the lyrics are uplifting, even elegiac, the song makes them cry, and they are not sure why. I had the same experience, and I’m not sure why, either. There are no “facts” in these lyrics, no literal references to our lives, beyond our combined assimilated experience and unstated values.
We are so deeply limited by language, and so ennobled by it. Songs are the attempt to convey what is under and behind language, and so it is counter-productive, if not counter-intuitive, to clutch at exactitudes of circumstance that retreat further in meaning the more desperate we become to quantify them.
My friend Joe Henry says that songwriting is not about self-expression (ewwww), but about discovery. I am of entirely the same mind, which is why I recoil against the attempt to categorize “personal” songs of mine as diary pages and why I resist that niggling insistence on the facts. Self-expression without craft is for toddlers. Real artistic accomplishment requires a suspension of certitude. E.L. Doctorow said that “writing is an exploration. You start from nothing and learn as you go.” He may not have been referring specifically to songwriting, but it applies. Great songwriting is not a poor man’s poetry, or a distant cousin to “real” writing. It requires the same discipline and craft. Bright flashes of inspiration can initiate it, but it cannot be completed that way. (That is not to say that all songwriting is important and good, just as not all fiction is important or good. I don’t think anyone would put “Like a Rolling Stone” or my dad’s “Big River” (a truly great piece of American poetry wedded to a wicked, swampy backbeat) in the same category as The Archies’ “Sugar, Sugar” (it is what it is).
But in the space where truth and fact diverge, a larger question arises: if the facts don’t lead us to meaning, what does? Perhaps a willingness to live with questions, not answers, and the confidence to ascribe meaning where we find it, with our own instincts as guide. I should approach my writing as if I am meeting someone for the first time, and have no idea what he will say or what kind of mood he is in. If you already know entirely what you want to say, and want to document an “honest” rehash of what happened and why, then I still maintain that you are better off taking up jurisprudence.
I appreciate my readers’ instinct to protect my songwriting students and their attempts to stay honest, but in songwriting, as in painting, photo-realism is only one style; it is not the litmus test for everything else. In many great songs a larger, universal modicum of truth is revealed and resonates on a personal level with the listener, even when the facts make no sense at all. Sometimes especially when the facts make no sense at all. And, if everything goes well, you can also dance to it.

Memorial Day Tribute; Let's Talk About Now

If the country ever needed an abject lesson in why our founding fathers created the separation between government and religion, church and state, let's talk about now. Why is it that the mere mention of the name Jeremiah Wright causes one to shudder about the implication of a national leader being influenced by such a person. Ditto John Hagee. Ditto Rod Parsley. The reason is simple; not one of us who thinks a specific way about religion wants to be told by anyone else, imbued with the authority of government, how and what to think. Particularly when and if the consensus among most people is that the proponent of the information, or at least part of the message being conveyed, is crazy. The present religious controversies over the three men above serve to highlight the wisdom and ingenuity of our founding fathers. Among various religious groups there are subtle, and less than subtle, differences. One or the other of the over-the-top declarations by these three men without the protection and guarantees of the First Amendment could literally be the mantra of the next president forming the shape of the soul of our country. The fact that other, less radical, religious beliefs are no less offensive to peoples or other faiths, and no faith, is the beauty and purpose of the lesson and the very reason the First Amendment exists.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

We owe these three men, all popular ministers, a hearty thank-you for the reminder during this Memorial Day weekend as to why our nation is so great.

Basic Conservative Thought

For several years I have struggled to understand the conservative movement in America. While many at this moment in time are sounding the death bell of this movement, it appears necessary to stand back and just think about the very nature of the impulse that causes people to be (or claim to be) conservative. In its main form, conservative thought centers around the role of government in our lives. Its adherents say that we are joined together by the unique writings of the U.S. Constitution and the sum and essence of the principles of that document describe and limit the function of the government, no more and no less. In trying to understand I have reduced the distinction between conservatives and non-conservatives in basic terms. This simplistic reduction says that from the conservative viewpoint, government should stay out of our lives. The government has no right or duty to assist, say, impoverished citizens. The government has no responsibility to bail out farmers whose crops fail. Activist judges do not have the right to divine some "living" meaning within the Constitution that permits a woman to choose between the life or death of her unborn child. The economic market place should be free from regulations so that the basic principles of supply and demand reign free and unfettered. Because that Constitution gives us the right to "keep and bear arms" we can keep a pistol under our pillow or tucked away in a holster somewhere on our person without fearing that the government will take it away or punish us. We can say and do what we want, subject of course, to the requirement that our actions or words don't interfere with the rights of other citizens to do likewise.
The examples given above summarize the slanted nature that the conservative implusle takes in form whereas there are whole areas of governmental involvement that are routinely ignored or exploited by those claiming to be conservative. The people who espouse such views call themselves "neo-conservatives" whereas I think the title 'pseudo-conservative" is so much more appropriate. In this analysis, I contend that a basic conservative principle is the responsibility to accept being held accountable when one's own actions harm another, a principle that is steadfastly ignored by those who espouse so-called conservative values.

As a final thought, one can have some fun planning a campaign for public office. I can imagine such a campaign in which the candidate sets forth an agenda exploiting the basic impulse of conservative thought; "There are too many laws and too many people running our affairs that tell us how to run our lives. If elected I promise to not do a damn thing."

"He Shoots. He Scores . . ."

Score one for John McCain this week in his presidential quest. As nearly every presidential candidate has noted, this campaign is about change. Which candidate will stand and be counted for the change that really matters? For years, people on welfare had served as convenient whipping boys for what was claimed to be wrong about our society. The criticism was that a segment of our society (hint; they generally have a darker skin color than the rest of us) was buying Cadillacs and living well while we hard working white people (for example, voters in West Virginia) paid through the nose for it by supporting these good for nothings on welfare. Remember Reagan's Welfare Queen? Bill Clinton firmly entrenched himself in the center of American politics in the mid-1990s by stealing the Republican's thunder on this issue and reforming welfare policies and practices. But wait, there is more. The largest form of welfare that exists in our land is the billions of dollars that are passed on each year to farmers, many of whom are in the top one percent income bracket. Congress just this week passed a new farm bill continuing this massive giveaway of our hard earned tax dollars and, perhaps, no issue symbolizes more than this gigantic largesse the need for a change in our political goals.

Sounds like just the ticket for Obama, right? Sorry, but Obama voted for the bill and, in my opinion, he has some mighty explaining to do to justify that vote. McCain voted against it saying "it would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it.”

Score One for John McCain.

"Throwing the Baby Out . . ."

On its face, the massive deregulatory policy of the current administration can be considered to be a laudable goal. The thinking is that a free market tends to find its own level of 'comfort' free from governmental restrictions and that this level of comfort will be reached by the give and take of principles that are inherent in our capitalist society. Consider, as an example, the concept of price. If a particular commodity is over-priced, sales fall. The market for that particular commodity must adjust itself by one or more mechanisms. The price can be lowered, or production can be decreased. Alternatively, demand for the commodity can be generated by advertising, model improvement, etc. The give and take of the market place, free of governmental intervention, is the ideal. Were it that simple.

I spent my professional career(s) in one way or another interacting with the pharmaceutical industry. In so doing, I was forced out of necessity to develop an understanding of the relationship between the Food and Drug Administration and the industry. As a trial lawyer, there were many times that my questioning of potential jurors during the voir dire process revealed a basic misunderstanding of the nature of FDA/drug industry interaction that needed to be addressed as part of my trial proofs. The essence of this misunderstanding is the notion that the FDA adequately served to protect the public's interest regarding the safety of the industry's products. People believe that the FDA itself tested drugs for safety. It doesn't. People also believed that because a drug was approved by the FDA it meant that the drug was safe. It doesn't. I can cite chapter and verse in support of these statements regarding the inadequacy of the FDA, but to do so would be beyond the scope of this particular writing. I raise these issues only to point out that long before any deregulatory efforts by various Republican administrations, the basic inadequacy of the FDA had already established a de facto deregulatory status.

The point of all this is to express alarm at the probable outcome of a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Recently that court granted immunity to makers of medical devices on the basic premise that FDA approval means that the product is safe. Safety has become a term of art. If one, seventy (70) or a thousand (1000) people die from a drug reaction, the drug is still safe because safety depends upon a definition that weighs the benefit of the drug to the greater good as opposed to the few who die from its use. The case currently before the court will extend that same protection to drug manufacturers much in the manner that Michigan legislation has established. Since 1995 Michigan has declared that any drug approved by the FDA is, as a matter of law, safe.

I have often used the term "psuedo-conservative" when it comes to addressing the neo-conservative ideas that attempt to bring the country back to basic constitutional values. The question must be asked; Is it not a basic conservative principle that one should be held accountable for one's own actions or misdeeds? As an example, there is a basic lack of Republican forgiveness for the little guy out there who stuck his neck out to invest in real estate and is now faced with potential foreclsoure because of changes in market conditions. The Bear-Sterns-types can be forgiven but the individual is expected to have demonstrated more responsible behavior and is, thus, left to fend on his own as best he can. But I digress. Going back to our constitution I find in the Seventh Amendment the right to trial by jury for civil redress. It is this fundamental right that the potential Supreme Court decision will destroy for the citizens of America when they are killed or damaged by a drug. Shouldn't drug makers be held accountable for unnecessary deaths or injuries when caused by their drugs? What constitutional principle justifies giving an industry blanket amnesty most particularly when the past actions of that industry have revealed a consistent pattern of deceit, fraud and misbehavior that if found among the street people of Detroit would result in long prison sentences?

Responses to "Change"

There have been some responses to my recent blog on "Change." Each of them presents a nuance worthy of consideration when it comes to selecting the next president of the United States. What I think is most refreshing is the nature of this consideration can take place in the absence of derogatory comments (e.g. 'flaming liberals') or negativity (e.g. the appeasement comment of He who would Be King which seems to be in the very nature of the man) which has characterized our political structure for the past sixteen years.

Dennis D writes "Darn those facts--I hate it when disillusionment sets in. The only good thing, given enough time the inconvenient truths do come out, eventually on all candidates. Then who do we turn to. Today I saw a clip of Obama saying he would abandon the missile shield, convince the Russians to take the nuclear missiles off "hair-trigger" status (I can agree with that)--and work for a nuclear free world. And he calls McCain' foreign policy naive."

John K writes "McCain, the best of the very, very bad options we have. Love Obama speaking of bi-partisianship. Look at his voting record. The only time he crosses the aisle is to leave the building.

"The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not represent the rights of citizens. Attorneys can represent, not the Court. I do not want a court that takes it upon itself to create rights. The Supreme Court needs to protect rights. Let the legislature make law, not the court. Let the court protect the rights of the people by striking down laws that violate the protections granted by the Constitution."

Vern M says "Hi Tom, say isn't corporate America where every cent and dollar we have in our pockets/banks/pensions comes from?..........V."

Change

A lot has been written during this presidential primary season about change. Obama's major theme is "Yes We can," and reiterates the idea that American politics, mired for so long in bitter divisiveness, can change for the better. However, there is another kind of change that has been successfully vetted by those who seek to gain higher office. The question is what happens when politicians suddenly perceive they are on the wrong side of an issue? John Kerry was vilified by the right during the 2004 election cycle because of the changes he made on certain issues. President Bush offered the following at the time. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." The term "flip flopper" came into our lexicon embodying the notion that politicians will say and do anything it takes to win an election, principles and conviction be damned.

Now we have John McCain whose attractiveness as a potential president is his strength of character. For years he has carefully cultivated his image as a man who would stand up for his principles and beliefs, often in the face of intense pressure from his fellow Republicans. Up until very recently, the hope I felt about McCain was that because he was a decent and honest man, he would do the right thing when the chips fell and that his statements and actions would be based upon principles. When he spoke last week about continuing Bush's policy on appointing hard line judges to the federal judiciary I became concerned. This concern was fostered by my belief that the U.S. Supreme Court has shifted so far to the right that it no longer adequately represents the interests of the citizens of the United States, but instead serves as a shill for corporate America. My concern led me to do some research on McCain's current campaign pledges. Steven Benen in The Carpet Bagger Report, April 16, 2008 has summarized the flip flopping of McCain on issues of portent during this campaign:
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

* McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. [Note" Last week he reversed himself again saying that the troops would be out by 2013.]

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

What seems obvious to me is that the proponent of the Straight Talk Express is just another politician who will say and do anything for votes. I find myself feeling sad about this situation for, as an independent, I truly admired the guy and seriously considered voting for him. There are several possible explanations for what is happening to him. Either he is not the man of principle he appeared and claimed to be, he is getting bad advice from his staff, or the rigors of a presidency campaign are too much for him. I strongly suspect that it is a combination of all three factors.

"