Putin

The autocratic leader of Russia is a family murderer.  If the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice, then his own grandchildren will one day spit on his grave and change their last names in disgust. 

Don’t call him a “strongman”.  Like all bullies, he is utterly weak.  He isn’t fighting other people - rather he is fighting the pathetic, paralyzing, life-sucking weakness that grips his gasping heart with an iron fist.  So to prove himself, he kills children.  He takes, he takes, he takes, because he has everything and yet it is NOTHING.  Other people are simply collateral damage in his sociopathic rage against his own loneliness, isolation, and emptiness.

If there is an afterlife, should we wish him eternal damnation?  No.  There is no revenge without rehabilitation.  Like all murderers, he should have to live every single life that he has taken.  He should experience the vibrant, unique culture of each individual, each family, each circle of friends.  And he should experience its violent end by the hand of cold disregard.  He should spend thousands of years living through joys, sorrows, and abrupt endings, over and over and over for eons, until he sees his life and legacy with unflinching objectivity. 

Then finally, at one moment, all the lives would be lived, and he would see, not only the consequences of the current repugnant, spineless slime inside of him, but he would also see the beauty of life and of love.  And that utter lack of esteem, for himself and for others, would transform and grow into a beautiful garden of experiences - planting flowers, cooking a meal with family, sharing stories with true friends, delighting in the joyful laugh of a toddler, caring for someone who needs it, feeling loved….and he would become truly good - not through the force of violence, but through the force of awareness.

But until then, if it ever happens, the world must deal with a sociopathic, existential threat to all we value.  

Enid Wears A Mask

There's an article in the NY Times today about Enid, OK.  

We could have been having responsible conversations about public health over the last two years. For instance, when a government elected by the people, decides to impose, or not impose, a mask mandate - it should be because they are weighing different freedoms against each other. There is the freedom to wear, or not wear, what you want on your face. And there's the freedom to go out in public areas and not have to breathe everyone else's unmitigated exhaust during a deadly pandemic. Both of these freedoms exist, but we have to weigh them carefully. Before vaccines were widely available, I supported the mandates because I thought they led to greater freedom. But I wasn't glib about it - I take any public mandate pretty seriously as a drastic step.

Anyway, this is the responsible way to talk about these issues. When we differ, it's most often about balance. But idealogues don't like this. It's just not sexy enough to fight about balance - even though we certainly can and should have strong feelings about the proper balancing of different freedoms. No, idealogues - like Enid's Wade Burleson - have to believe that masks don't really work to help slow the spread of this disease. They don't want governmet mandates on vaccines (something I'm not sure about personally), but that's not strong enough, so they have to believe that folks who've had Covid already, and others, shouldn't even get vaccines. They cherry-pick through the dozens and dozens of studies to find the one or two that are more ambiguous. They cherry-pick through thousands of experts to find the few who disagree with the consensus.

Imagine going to 100 doctors, with a pain in your side, and 97 doctors say it's appendicitis, but 3 aren't so sure - and, coincidentally, those 3 are all anti-surgery in principle - so would you say "doctors disagree"? Or would you get your appendix out??

Why turn to this technique of misreprentation? Of breezing past the legitimate issue to use illegitimate means to "strengthen" one's argument? One of my many theories is that religious thinking colors all this. In conservative religion, one tends to decide what one thinks first, and then go hunting through theology and Scripture to find proof-texts. Then, because you have to believe the Bible is written in one voice, you read all the other texts that seem to be in conflict through the lense of your "proof-text".

To be fair, we all do this. We feel something strongly first, and then create reasons to justify our feelings after the fact. But conservative religion does this on steroids. Why? Because religion is an almost infinitely flexible post-hoc reasoning system. To his credit, Wade argues for more women leadership in the Southern Baptist Church. But if you read him arguing with more conservative Baptists, he interprets their anti-woman-leader clobber verses through the lens of his pro-woman-leader theology, and other Scriptures, that support his feelings on the matter. But he doesn't afford this extensive hermaneutic technique to our gay friends and family. Although he probably does extend it to rich people - "let's talk about what all the Scriptures about rich people REALLY mean.....it's not what it simply says...."

If you like something in the Bible - that's what it plainly says! If you don't - ah, it's obviously symbolic. If something good happens, it was thanks to God. If something bad happens, he moves in mysterious ways. And if we selectively interpret Scripture and religion to create post-hoc reasons, why not do the same with scientific studies and expert opinion? Then anything in the world can be interpreted into exactly what we want it to be.

I am not anti-religion, we need vehicles through which to explore our deep thoughts and feelings about this existence we share, but I am pretty anti-conservative, overly-literalistic religion. I think it can indulge our most dangerous tendencies - to privilege our ignorance over another's education, to justify our inclinations, and to condemn another's, by appealing to religious authority.....which might just be our personal feelings in search of a justification.

I hope we can do better.

A Short Note On The New Song "Chin Up High" by Noonish Moon

About a week after my accident in early July, Wolfgang was attending an outdoor camp, so we would get up early to help him get ready. I would usually go back to bed for a bit afterwards, but some morning in the middle of the week I went to the piano and started working on a little tune. I remember Susan asking me, "Are you working on a song?" - and I said, "I think so." It was a baby step back to things I liked to do.

I started working on it a bit more, and I didn't like it that much at first - but after tinkering quite a bit, I got the melody to a point I liked. The triplet in the third measure made it work, along with the chord progression towards the end. It was slightly more straightforward than my usual style, but it had one slight twist in it that I've always wanted to do. Almost every song is in a key - it has a main note or chord that it returns to, and this one is definitely in a key as well - but this tune never returns to the "tonic" (main note/chord). I love it when songs do that. They can be really simple songs, but that little twist can make the tune interesting. The tune "Magnet and Steel" by Walter Egan does this - as does "Teenage Dream" by Katy Perry (I think, I need to relisten). I think Nathan Siler pointed this out to me? Anyhow, there is an unsettled energy to a song that never resolves.

I added lyrics. I imagined peaceful, strong, determined protesters standing up for justice. I imagined people working to make the world a more equitable place for all. I imagined their hard work in the face of forces that are more interested in maintaining the status quo. It became a song of encouragement and conviction - even though that was about the opposite of how I was feeling. But that's how things work sometimes right? Brian Wilson wrote songs about surfing, but he didn't surf. Leroy Anderson wrote "Sleighride" in July. Music goes deep, to a different place from our current reality, and hopefully brings things to the surface. We hope that works of imagination and craft, on all levels, help to create the manifestation of actual, concrete change for the better. We'll hope anyway.

Authority And Power Trump Good.

A common refrain over the last four years has been, "I just don't see how Christians can follow someone like Trump. It completely contradicts what they believe about Jesus."

While I agree with the sentiments about Jesus - the current president is the opposite of the Sermon on the Mount - I'd offer that conservative Christians are actually acting based precisely on how they believe. I am certainly not speaking about all conservative Christians, but many for sure.

Christians who interpret the Bible literally have been taught to respect the authority of "God". Because of this authority, they justify God drowning (almost) the entire population of the Earth with a great flood - men, women, children, babies, animals, etc. They've been taught to justify God ordering the Israelites to brutally kill adults and children in Jericho (Joshua 6) or commanding the murder of Amalekite adults and children in 1 Samuel 15. God made them, so He can do whatever He wants with them, right? They sinned (forget about the good they've done), so they deserve violent death, right? There are many other examples as well through Scripture.

Why would Christians either create justifications for God reportedly doing these things, or simply defer to his authority? Because it's in their interest. They can keep their "keep out of Hell" card, or believe there is a strongman somewhere in the universe, or believe they have a spiritual parent to take care of them. And they can keep the authority of the Bible which comforts them - something seemingly concrete to lean on. So when something good is attributed to God, then they praise God as good. When something bad is attributed, it becomes "we can't understand with our limited human morality. We must respect God's authority."

Obviously any God would almost certainly be beyond our complete understanding, but we are talking about an inconsistent application of credit here (and a systematic way to justify evil). If God is beyond, then we can't attribute good or evil. Only power. If God is within our ability to morally understand, then we must use that sense of morality (often called "natural law" for Christians) consistently. This is one reason why many Christians see the Bible as a human attempt to understand God, rather than as a perfect revelation from God. Our human nature, in all its glory and horror, is revealed therein.

So when an authority - our current president perhaps - is perceived to be acting in the interest of conservative Christians, many are quite willing to do the same moral maneuvering they've always done for God. It's in their interest, they think, and it's nothing new.

Ancedote Are More Salient Than Data

It is quite possible that you may know someone whose life was saved by not wearing a seat belt. Perhaps they were thrown clear in an accident and walked away.

However in the vast majority of instances, wearing a seatbelt will save your life.

The saying is that anecdotes are more salient than data. In other words, singular stories capture our imaginations better than vast quantities of stories compiled together. So don't make your decisions based on that one story you heard (anecdote). Look at the vast quantity of compiled stories (data) and make a decision that puts the odds more in your favor.

Wear your seatbelt. 

I just had a conversation with someone about immigration. We were not talking about the big metal fence, or even the best way to secure the border. We were simply discussing the fact that crime rates among immigrants, legal and illegal, are lower than crime rates among natives. (Obviously not counting immigration-related crimes here. We're talking about serious crimes).

This means that the per-capita crime rate falls when immigration happens. This is because, frankly, more future crime victims are entering the country than perpetrators. I hate thinking about it that way, but it's true. Therefore, when immigration happens, natives are safer.

But this fellow's uncle was in a car accident with "an illegal". So that's all that matters. And this fellow doesn't come across as a completely unfeeling, blind Trumpie. But seeing it this was does confirm his broader way of seeing things.

And anecdotes are more salient than data.

Ten Reasons Why We Must Use Ranked Choice Voting To Elect Our Leaders

Hello all!   Please read my piece on this over at:

https://medium.com/@stevenstarkmusic/ten-reasons-why-we-must-use-ranked-choice-voting-to-elect-our-leaders-5d5d5514434


Thanks so much!

Here is the Spring Tomato and Pepper List for 2017

I am happy to offer seven different varieties of tomatoes for sale this year.   After growing about 30 different kinds over the last few years, these seven really stand out in terms of production, taste and vigor.

 All plants are organically raised and cost $3 a piece.  I am planting on February 15 and they will be available in early April.   Please email me at stevenstarkmusic@gmail.com  if you’d like to place an order, and I’ll plant some seeds for you! 

Kellog’s Breakfast

This producer of large orange tomatoes performed very well over the course of the season.   I didn’t really even have it in a great spot, so I’m excited to place it in a sunnier location this year to see if it does even better.  The fruits were very smooth in their flavor - perhaps a tad bit subtle, though more sun may change that, and always sweet and delicious.       

Carbon

Wow, this plant did so well last year.   The fruit production was constant and continued all the way into the Fall.  It also seemed to do well in the heat compared to other nearby plants.  Nice, big, sweet fruits with a darker coloration.  

Cherokee Purple

Similar to Carbon but with a thinner skin, this famous heirloom variety was absolutely delicious in 2016.  

Dwarf Sweet Sue

This is my all-around favorite tomato plant right now.  The medium-small yellow globes are the prettiest fruits I have grown, and the flavor is excellent - very sweet with a bit of a tang.  The foliage features thick, potato leaves that hold up well into the Fall.  Also, being bred from dwarf tomato plants, it doesn't grow quite as quickly as other varieties, so it works very well in smaller spaces.  I’m pretty sure I’ll grow this one every year.

Sungold

This is truly the “gold” standard in cherry tomatoes.   The thin skin and sweetness will cause a flavor explosion when you pop one or two of these into your mouth.


Eva Purple Ball

This wonderful heirloom produces a ton of smaller pink fruits.  They are tasty and the plant remained very healthy late into the season.   If you’re looking for yield, this one will come on strong in the mid-season and keep producing until late.

 Stump Of The World

When I got a really good one of these fruits, nothing was tastier in the garden.  There was liquid sunshine running through these large pink tomatoes.   And it yielded constantly throughout the season. 


And Peppers!

I am offering three kinds of peppers this year, because I really only had three that performed really well.   I definitely have a few new ones I’m looking forward to trying this season!


Early Jalapeño

This plant produces an abundance of small jalapenos. By Fall, they are usually falling off the plant because of their huge numbers. I’ve also noticed that they seem to get hotter and hotter as the season progresses.  I can’t keep up. 


Emerald Giant

This plant was fantastic this year producing lots of nice, blocky sweet peppers.  If you like green peppers, these are amazing.  If you’re like me and you prefer your peppers fully ripe, then wait for them to turn red - delicious!   It’s definitely been a winner in my garden.


Lipstick Peppers

These smaller, red peppers are sweet.  I don’t think I ever cooked them or cut them up.  I just picked them and ate them, tossing the stems out in the yard. 

Pull For The New Pilot?

I've read a lot of folks say that we need to root for Trump now. He's the pilot of the plane, whether you like him or not. Stuff like that.

I'll root for him if he does good things. If he appoints smart, thoughtful people to positions of authority. If he places tremendous value on science and our climate. If he is inclusive in his actions, words and attitudes towards all our citizens. If he actively promotes the American values of freedom of speech, press and religion. If he is properly wary of autocratic regimes throughout the world. If he keeps his business interests separate from his administration. If he values women's rights. If he represents America in a civil way domestically and internationally. If he seeks to subdue the ever-present danger of violence and the easy proliferation of weapons throughout our country. If he seeks to help middle and working class folks who are having trouble finding a new way in a world of free trade and automation.

If he doesn't do these things....if rather he seeks to suppress women's rights, marry his business interests with his administration, further marginalize the vulnerable, say uncivil things, appoint people who value ideology over science, act like a weak-minded bully and empower the worst among us, embarrass America internationally with his tendency to be unprepared, further enrich the entrenched wealthy and turn his back on the working poor, admire and ally with autocrats, persecute his political foes.....etc. etc.

If he does these things instead, then I hope he fails spectacularly. And I hope that we will learn to never let such a person even come close to being president again. I just hope that folks don't get hurt in the process. I really, really, really hope that folks don't get hurt.

David Brooks, who has earned a lot more of my respect through this cycle, rightly pointed out that civility and decency, a couple of the many things that Trump lacks, are not just nice things to have when you can get them. They are foundational qualities for our union. We can't get far without them.
 

So should we root for Trump? That's up to him. And it doesn't look good at all so far.

Immigration in 2016

Some thoughts in the context of listening to interviews where folks express their fears and prejudices concerning immigration. I differ with them, but I want to try to give them just the slightest bit of a sympathetic thought:

I believe in diversity as an inherently good thing, and immigration is part of the life blood of our country. However sometimes liberals have failed to adequately acknowledge that when thinking about immigration policy, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot allow certain American values to be diminished. Among those values are freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion (or the lack thereof). If immigrants do not accept these ideals, then perhaps we should not welcome them to America in great quantities. I believe in the free exchange of ideas, and I believe that exposure to American values can change the minds of those who are unaccustomed to them, but we must maintain a balance when seeking to preserve and expand those ideals.

Now I believe the vast majority of immigrants do believe in those ideals whole-heartedly, which is a big reason they want to come to America, but in our discourse sometimes liberals can go too far when combatting what they perceive (rightly, I believe) to be lots of xenophobia and racism here at home. We must acknowledge that certain American ideals are paramount and must be strongly supported by our populace to thrive.

Perhaps a SMALL part of the current Republican candidate's appeal to some has been brought about by the failure of many liberals to be properly nuanced about immigration policy. I should be clear that I support continued immigration as a moral duty and as a good thing, and even a necessary thing, for our country, but there are complexities involved.

The great irony in all this however, is that the greatest current threat to the American ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion is the very person whom those fearing immigration are turning to - this year's Republican nominee. He has continually threatened people for speaking ill of him. He has threatened protesters with violence. He has lashed out at the press when they say anything negative about him, calling them "disgusting" and filing meaningless but costly lawsuits. He has suggested a religious litmus test for entry into the United States, which renders second class status to any current resident of that religion.

And I barely mention his lack of respect for the equal personhood of women, his endorsement of sexual assault, and his dangerous flirtation with challenging America's 240 year old tradition of the peaceful transfer of power after elections.

This guy is the threat to American values. He does not serve American ideals.

How Unmitigated Capitalism Distorts Markets

Sometime folks of my political persuasion wonder why, at times, the populist sentiment in the country seems to favor economic policies that do not help much of the populace.   There are many reasons for it, I am sure, but I believe that one reason is the belief in a “just world”.   This is the idea that everything happens for a reason and that people generally get what they deserve.   It makes sense to believe this if one is economically successful - a doctor, a financially successful business owner or one who has inherited wealth would have it in their interest to believe that they are being justly rewarded.


But why do so many of the working poor believe this?   Perhaps one reason is that believing in a just world is comforting.  Sure, I may not have the economic security that I would like, despite working two jobs, but I’d rather believe that I deserve this than that I am being cheated by the system in some way.   If I believe I deserve it, then I may not have economic security, but I have existential security.  I believe that there is a general order that is operating things correctly.  The alternative is to believe that the current state of affairs is simply made by people just like me - and that is frightening.  It’s easier to believe that things are the way they are because generally people deserve their lot in life.

The great irony here is that the view of “personal responsibility” - that I completely deserve my lot in life through my own actions - is actually an attempt to jettison personal responsibility for the way the world itself actually is.   As long as a minimum of security is met (no one is super hungry perhaps?) it’s easier to believe everything is how it should be already.  Surely things can’t really be super wrong….can they?

One way a person might justify this way of thinking, believing in a just world, in particular how it relates to economic results, is by believing in markets.   If I have a skill or a good to sell, then the principle of supply and demand should control my success.   If I am “unskilled”, then I offer less to society and can’t expect much in return.

This makes some sense.  Obviously a person who invents a great new technology or goes through the enormous amount of hoops to become a doctor should receive economic rewards that are greater than a person who has a high school degree and just wants to work for a living (although surely there is nothing wrong with that!).  I don’t think there is much of anyone these days that believes in equal outcomes in the economy, despite the rhetoric on the right.

But what if markets are not operating in an untouchable vacuum?  What if certain policies affect markets and distort them?   What then happens to the “just world” view?

Capitalism is a pretty darn good system.  By using money, a useful (but complete) fiction, we can spread goods and services across the economy, facilitating trade and investment.   Money is just dead useful that way.   A bartering system creates massive inefficiencies - can you imagine having to construct an elaborate series of trades just to obtain what you need everyday? 

So money is a fantastic idea.  It’s nothing but paper, or blips on a screen more likely these days, but it greases the wheels of the actual trade of goods and services.

But there is a fatal flaw in the system. 

If I make a product and sell it, or work, and accumulate capital (money) but I don't spend it on other goods and services - in other words, if I save - then what happens?   Everyone else in the system of exchange has less money to facilitate trade.  The baker who wants a hat can’t buy a hat - she doesn’t have the money.  And perhaps she works hard and makes excellent bread, but someone else in the chain, who wants bread, doesn’t have the money, because I didn’t spend my money.   A depressing effect begins to occur.   Saving stifles trade.  Keynes called this “the paradox of thrift.”    Financial wealth, which is created through saving, leads directly to financial poverty elsewhere in the system.

But wait! Most people who save do not put the money under the mattress, of course.  They invest it.  And this is great in many ways. They don’t want to spend right now, so they put money somewhere - the bank, stock market, etc. - and someone else ends up with the money who can spend it - on building a business, for instance.

So everything is great, right?  Not really.

The investor isn’t giving away money here.  He wants a return. He’s not trying to facilitate trade, rather he wants more money - so all the money that he invested must quantitatively grow, pulling even more capital away from other parts of the economy.   

But isn’t that money also invested?   Sort of.

When money continues to creep into fewer and fewer hands, which as you can see is an essential aspect of the way capitalism works, then the velocity of money (speed of spending) utilized on real goods and services tends to be depressed.  Imagine I buy a stock instead of spending my money on a tangible good.  I now own a stock and that money sits in someone else’s hands, the person who sold me the stock.  Then she buys a stock and the money goes to someone else’s hands, etc. etc.     The money is being traded back and forth in different savings vehicles.  The cash is sitting temporally in brokerage firms.  Yes, a lot of the money raised in stock sales is sometimes used to buy real goods and services for a company, but once again - returns are expected!   And those returns end up being traded around in savings vehicles which slows down the purchase of real goods and services in the economy. 


So when capitalism is working the way it’s designed to work, there is an upward gravity of money which has a depressing effect on the trade of real goods and services.  And this is when fiscal failures start to happen.

What is a fiscal failure?   It’s a point in the economy where something is needed, and there are people and resources ready to make it happen, but there is simply not enough money present.  But remember, money is a fiction.   The philosopher Alan Watts once made the point that saying we don’t have enough money is like saying builders don’t have enough inches to measure with, so they can’t build.  Today, some economists use the example that saying we don’t have enough money is like saying the NBA doesn’t have enough points to put on the board for the next game.  In other words, money is fiction.  But it’s the way our economy works, and when it becomes lop-sided in one part of the system, through certain policy decisions, then there is trouble.  It’s a (fiscal) failure of the system.

Say a school needs to be rebuilt.  And say there are two dozen construction workers who are unemployed.  And say there are plenty of actual resources - food, gas, building materials, etc. - in the economy for the potential workers to work with and for them to buy with their potential income.  And yet the job is not happening and the construction workers are idle, and the resources are sitting on shelves.  There is zero reason for this in terms of actual resources.  This is a fiscal failure.  It’s a failure of money!   A legitimate market is there, but through a lack of financial resources - NOT real resources (that is key) - we have a distortion to that market and it doesn’t function well.

Then what happens to other workers in the economy when multiples fiscal failure lead to fewer jobs?   The market for labor is depressed, and wages tend to go down.   Not necessarily because workers are “unskilled” and unneeded, but because they are under-valued due to market distortions caused by fiscal failures.   And because employers are having to pay less for labor, the upward gravity of capital is heightened and it creates a negative feedback loop.

So the progression is like this -  The upward gravity of capital leads to fiscal failures, which lead to market distortions, which lead to heightened inequality, which leads to more upward gravity of capital, etc.

How do we fix this?  It seems a fatal flaw in capitalism that will eventually disrupt markets completely.

Luckily there are ways to mitigate for the upward gravity of capital. 

One - a progressive tax system.  As one takes more financial resources for oneself through income, we tax that income progressively higher.

Two - We try to keep a steady rate of modest inflation in the economy, which somewhat punishes a lack of spending.  If your savings are losing value, then spending becomes more attractive.  The opposite is deflation, which tends to cripple spending.

Three - We create a minimum wage.

What else we should do:

We should raise taxes on the higher income brackets.   Remember, every person pays the same taxes on income - a lawyer earning $250,000 a year pays the same amount of taxes on her first $10,000 as a checker at Wal-Mart.  But she pays more on the amounts earned over certain thresholds.

We should raise the capital gains tax.  This is so low it’s silly.  We tax invested capital at a lower rate than labor much of the time.  The idea is that if I give you money to buy a taxi cab, I get taxed 15% on all the income.  But If I buy a taxi cab myself and drive it, I am possibly taxed much higher. 

We should get rid of the upper limit on payroll taxes (Socials Security, Medicare, etc. taxes).   A worker at McDonald’s pays a higher percentage of his income to payroll taxes than the wealthy lawyer, because one doesn’t pay payroll taxes on income over a certain amount.  This is unjust.

We should raise the minimum wage.  It should be done slowly, to mitigate for sudden shocks, but it should be done steadily.   Putting more money in the hands of spenders - and those making close to minimum wage cannot afford to save much - will increase the velocity of money in the economy.


Note that none of these issues are presented specifically in moral terms.  They are presented as economic necessities to create a capitalism that rewards hard work and creativity and that does not distort markets to the detriment of the working and middle classes.

As evidence for the points presented here, look at the Great Depression and the Great Recession.   Were either of these terrible periods of extreme economic hardship because of a problem with actual resources?  Was there a massive famine?  Did we run out of energy?  No.  It was the direct result of out of control savings vehicles increasing the upward gravity of capital, decreasing investment in the production of actual goods and resources, and eventually leading to the distortion of markets through massive fiscal failures. 

Capitalism simply must be regulated well in order for it to serve markets.  Or else markets will end up the slave to capital, and working families will suffer.   To regulate capitalism is not “anti-capitalist”, rather it is an essential aspect of preserving the innovation, hard work and freedom that quality capitalism can enhance.

Two Premieres on Tuesday, May 17!

I am thrilled that next Tuesday evening, May 17, I have the privilege of hearing two incredible orchestras premier my pieces.

At around 7:15, Belle Isle Middle School will premier Classical Rag - it's a light-hearted, jazz-oriented piece. It's my first foray into this style and definitely not my last. In fact, I think working on this piece is going to inform all my future attempts. And the kids are absolutely NAILING it! They are so good. I can't believe it's an 8th grade orchestra. They can swing, baby! Thanks to Jeremy Scott!

Then, sometime around 8:00-8:30, the Edmond Memorial High School Philharmonic will premier Wovensong No. 2 "Dust Storm". It's a longer piece drawing inspiration from the Dust Bowl and how our predecessors dealt with this terrible time. It's a tribute to the power of nature and our responsibilities to care for each other and the natural world. And once again, the young men and women playing this piece are so in tune, and so vibrant in their playing. It's phenomenal! The choir sat in and listened to them play it yesterday, and it was truly inspiring to see how well they responded to the efforts of their musical colleagues. Thanks to David Koehn

I submit that there is NOTHING more essential in education than music and arts education. In these young orchestral players, I see personal discipline, the ability to work together and support each other, and the raw appreciation of beauty that is surely the very point of life. The quality of their education hinges on developing these qualities and carrying them forward past their graduation.
My personal heroes are the music directors, but to all who support student development in this way, I salute you in these challenging times. Let's all work together to make sure that no one takes away these vital opportunities from our kids ever again.

Are Free Markets "Natural"? What Does That Even Mean?

The term “free market” has always made me feel very strange.  I suppose the reason is that, for many people, the word “free” implies a lack of regulation.  And yet without regulations, a good market cannot even exist.

There is this idea that a free market is something natural and that rules encumber the natural “invisible hand” of that market.   While I think there is some truth to the law of supply and demand, I would argue that what is “natural” encompasses a wide range of behaviors that we do not associate with desirable markets.

Stealing is a natural behavior, unfortunately.  Creating monopolies by using power to crush competition is natural.  Working together in symbiotic ways is also natural.

Most of us find monopolies and theft as unacceptable types of markets.   And they are markets.  If a person threatens my life unless I give him my car, then I have just made an exchange.  We don’t have to see it as legitimate, but it is a market exchange.  If Wal-Mart can undercut every other business because of their preexisting infrastructure advantages, this is still certainly a type of market even if we find it undesirable.

Most of us have decided that outlawing theft and outlawing monopolistic business practices are parts of a healthy market.  A market is, by definition, a system of exchange, and we choose what type of market we want to have by the rules we choose.

So what market rules are good and what rules are not?  Why do we choose to create certain markets?

I would argue that a desirable market is based on merit, morality and economic benefit. The merit comes from rules that reward creativity and hard work.  The morality comes from a safety net that provides basic human rights for folks regardless of their situation and makes sure economic rewards are not too lop-sided.  And the economic benefit comes from rules which stimulate economic growth and technological advancement.

Patents are a great example of a rule which forms a part of a desirable market.  First of all, they are complete fiction.  There is nothing inherently “natural” about saying that only a certain person can use an invention of some type for several years. Perhaps it would be more natural for everyone to market a new invention as quickly as possible in order to make money.  So why do we have patents?  Because we think the inventor deserves a reward for her invention (merit), and we think that those rewards will stimulate others to invent, creating economic growth  (economic benefit).

How about rules breaking up monopolies?  Once again, complete fiction.  But we have decided that competition is good for economic benefit and morality, so we break up big companies.

What about compound interest?  Talk about fiction!  There is nothing natural about increasing someone’s money when it sits around in a savings account of some kind.   Yet we use those returns in various ways to stimulate the allocation of resources (economic benefit.)

And of course the biggest fiction of all - capital.  There is nothing natural about someone giving someone else a piece of paper, or blips on a computer screen, having other people do the work, and then the original person receiving more money (while possibly doing very little).   And yet it tends to make our investment of real resources (materials, labor, planning, etc.) fairly efficient throughout the economy (economic benefit).

So a good market is something that is created through rules.  By its nature, that’s what it is.  Even on a simple level of bartering, there are invented rules which make it work to satisfy the conditions of merit, morality and economic benefit.

So what about the word “free” often placed in front of market?   Personally, I think it’s somewhat irrelevant, perhaps even a bit of an oxymoron.  “Free” implies choice and “market” implies rules which often restrict choices - at least in the short-term.  However a quality market, with rules to support merit, morality and economic viability, can create greater personal freedom, a greater amount of choice in the long-term, for people.

 Most people agree that patents, however “natural” they are, are a good idea for our economy.  However sometimes people will argue that a minimum wage or a progressive income tax is unnatural, encumbering the “free market.”   The truth is that these ideas are no more or less natural than a patent.  They should be judged according to merit, morality and economic benefit as we create desirable markets.

Here is one argument for a minimum wage, progressive taxation and other associated policies being an essential part of a good market:

Capitalism is designed to isolate financial wealth into fewer and fewer hands. That's what happens when it is working properly. If I have excess capital, then I either hide it under the mattress (which hurts the economy - I am not re-spending the money so I am depressing trade) or I invest it. Sure, that investment is sometimes spent elsewhere creating income elsewhere in the short-term, but I expect a return on my investment. So eventually more financial resources are isolated into my hands as I make a profit. In the aggregate economy this has a depressing effect on economic transactions, because financial assets begin to drift away from those who spend the most quickly - the working and middle classes - and they accumulate in the hands of the rich.

So there is an upward gravity of capital in our system that is destructive to the velocity of money. We can mitigate for this by keeping a decent tax rate on hoarded wealth (particularly the estate tax, keeping investment income taxed at the same rate as earned income and a progressive tax rate), maintaining a healthy minimum wage, planning quality deficit spending from the federal government to maintain a decent level of income, infrastructure, and inflation (which devalues hoarded financial wealth) and a variety of other ways etc.

And yet, once again, these rules are often called “anti-free market”.  But these rules seek to serve the same purpose as patents and antitrust legislation - to enhance merit, morality and economic benefit - so they are not inherently any different.

So “free market” is an unhelpful term.  The real question is - what rules best enhance merit, morality and economic viability?  That’s the standard by which we have created invented rules such as patents, compound interest, antitrust rules, laws preventing theft, etc. etc.  And other rules, such as minimum wages, environmental standards, progressive taxation, etc. have the same goals and should be judged along the same lines. Let’s not pretend that certain rules are “free” or “natural” and others are not.  These terms are poorly defined in the context of markets.  Rather, let’s judge all rules according to merit, morality and economic benefit.

Tomato Plant Sale 2016!

I am pleased to announce ten tomato varieties for sale in 2016!

Each organically grown seedling will be ready around the middle of March to the first of April.  Each is an open-pollinated variety - meaning you can save seeds and they will produce the same variety when planted.  The exception is Sungold, which is a hybrid and will most likely not produce the same tomato if seeds are saved.   But they are so tasty, so who cares?

I am asking $5 per plant.  I personally think that’s a bit expensive, but it’s because the proceeds (after buying a bag of potting soil) will be donated to The Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma.    Just send me an email at sestark19@gmail.com, and let me know what you want.  I may also have some pepper varieties - different sizes of bell, jalapenos, banana and habanero types.  Ask if interested!


Yellow/Orange Tomatoes

Sungold - Delicious cherry tomatoes.  These are the “gold” standard - a wonderful mix of sweet and tangy.

Azoychka - I am excited to try this one.  It’s a yellow tomato with great reviews, and it matures earlier than most.

Dwarf Sweet Sue - This was my best producer last year.  The “Dwarf” refers to the plant size, which is supposed to be smaller than most.  Mine got pretty big though…..The medium/small tomatoes were deliciously sweet, with a bit of zing to them.  And they tend to be beautiful fruits without blemishes.   It produced all right in the summer and then went crazy in September and October.


Red/Pink Tomatoes

Brandywine OTV (Off The Vine)  - This red variety of Brandywine is supposed to set fruit in heat better than other strains.  And it features the amazing flavor of the most famous name in heirloom tomatoes.

Traveler 76 - The University of Arkansas bred this pink tomato in the 70’s for heat resistance.  I am looking forward to trying it!


Purple/Dark  Tomatoes

Black Cherry  - After reading the reviews of this one, I was very intrigued.  Delicious, dark cherry tomatoes.  Probably huge vines.

Black Krim - This was my all-around favorite last year.  The fruits were beautiful, and, despite my over-watering, they were delicious with a fruity/slightly salty flavor.

Cherokee Purple - This is another candidate for the most famous name in heirloom tomatoes.   I recently read a list of “must plant” tomatoes, written by users on the website tomatovile.com,  and this was by far the most referenced variety.


Multicolor Tomatoes

Tiger Tom - a smaller, striped tomato.  Zingy.  I hope it’s a bit early, being small.

Big Rainbow - A big multi-colored tomato.  It should come on pretty late in the season.  The pictures of this one are of big yellow fruits with orange and red streaks.

Letter to James Lankford

Dear Mr. Lankford,                                              December 4, 2015


I recently heard your comments criticizing "high" government spending and tying it to high levels of unemployment.  I wish I had the information on when and where you delivered this speech.  I heard it on the radio within the last couple of weeks.

Your comments concerned me, because they didn’t seem to reflect a good knowledge of how our economy works.  It is fairly nonsensical to tie unemployment directly to spending of any kind.  Whoever is doing the spending, - be it government, corporation or individual - that entity is directly creating income for another person.

In short, every cent that is spent is received as income by someone else.   Saying that spending is decreasing jobs is like saying that pushing the accelerator on your car makes it slow down.

One can have political opinions about what the government should spend on - roads?  education?  war? healthcare? - but one cannot say that spending is causing unemployment, since the exact opposite is the case.  In fact, we have a word for what happens when spending decreases in our country too much - recession.

One argument I read is that too much government spending may “crowd out” the private sector.  But this is nonsensical when accompanied by complaints of high unemployment.  If that percentage is too high, then there are workers to be had by whoever would like to spend to hire them.  The government is certainly not “hoarding” all available workers. 

The other argument is that businesses are too nervous to hire because of “high” government spending.   This is also nonsense, as businesses tend to spend according to their current level of business (spending on their products by others) and projections about future levels of business.    If the government decreased spending, unemployment would rise and businesses would certainly not gather more confidence, or more business, from this.

I urge you not to dress up political arguments about government spending as economic arguments.

However, I congratulate you on seeking out redundancies in government spending - your so-called “Federal Fumbles” list. Unnecessary spending is a wasted opportunity, which should be redirected towards a more worthy cause.  But I ask that you please remember that the problem is not necessarily the spending - rather, it’s what we spend our money on.   And that is true of the private sector as well.

All spending, public and private, is someone else’s income.


Thanks for your time!

Steven Stark
OKC
sestark19@gmail.com

Living With The Tension

The older I get, the less I seek resolution and the more I seek to live sustainably with the tension.

There are many examples of this in my life.  My neighbor, a wonderful man of 68 years, passed away suddenly earlier this week.  On the one hand, it is so unfair.  He was fit, energetic, kind, fun, and - having just retired - ready for more adventures with his friends and family.  But on the other hand, he lived life very fully and had a lot of great years and experiences.  On the one hand I am angry, feeling that he and his family were short-changed.  But on the other hand, his 68 years were wonderful.  My father passed away at a much younger age, when he was 55.  He didn’t get to meet his grandchildren.  That is unfair.  But others have passed away after only 30 years of life.  15 years of life.  A month of life.

As opposed to my younger thinking, I no longer think there is a clear resolution to be found here.  I can be angry and grateful at the same time.   That is OK.  Perhaps even good.

There are other questions in life that don’t have clear resolutions.  My Sunday morning discussion group has dealt with the question “How much is too much?” in regards to possessions and wealth.   (Ha, this makes us sound like we are all rich - a relative term, I suppose).   When do possessions and financial wealth work for owners and society?  When do they perpetuate injustice towards neighbors and isolate those who have them?  Is there a certain line, contextual to a culture, where this difference becomes apparent?   I don’t know for sure.

I can’t have resolution on this.  And perhaps this is good. Living with this tension may help me maintain awareness towards myself and others.  I can’t find a perfect solution, but I can be open to my role in injustice, while also living life.

 If I ignored the tension, then I would be living a fantasy, decreasing the depth of my life by isolating myself.  If I found some “solution”, then perhaps I would also stop thinking about economic injustice, thinking I had resolved the issue. Rather, I think this tension requires tending - frequent check-ins concerning balance and how we and our neighbors are doing.  

None of this is to suggest that we shouldn’t seek conflict resolution when possible.  Some conflicts may be resolved and moved firmly into the past.  But others are never going to be completely fixed and forgotten.  And again, perhaps that can be a good thing if our goal is to increase awareness. I suppose I see “resolution” more as creating a life where the conflict can fit into my days without dominating them.  Too much resolution seeking could lead me to distraction from life.

I have read that in Hindu thinking, the goal is not to overcome emotion.  Rather the goal is to nurture an underlying flow of serenity that acts as a baseline during our emotional experiences.  In other words, don’t look to rid yourself of anger or sadness. Experience them fully, but seek to live with them as partners - to walk the razor’s edge of salvation, where an underlying, even sneaky, serenity may help you navigate your experiences.  Tend the serenity. Relax the tightness in your chest.  Breathe.  Live with the tension through awareness, not through stress.

As the book title says - “Wherever you go, there you are.”  In this life, we’ll never be conflict free.   So live with the tension.

Concert May 14!

I am very, very excited about the Edmond North High School Orchestra concert May 14, 2015 at 7:00PM!   

The Symphony Orchestra will be performing my piece Wovensong No. 1 “An Arduous Path”.  Edmond North has four orchestras, and I am telling you, this group sounds like a university orchestra - easily!

Another one of their excellent ensembles will join me in a performance of my song “Lazarus” which is featured on my 2008 album “A is for Airplanes, B is for Baseball, C is for Cats...”   I wrote an arrangement for the string players, and I can’t wait to play with them.

I am pasting the program notes below.  I hope to see some of you there!  For those who cannot attend, I hope we will have some audio/video to post as well.

The concert is at the Edmond North High School auditorium and begins at 7:00PM.  I should also mention that the performance is under the direction of orchestra wizard Peter Markes, Oklahoma's 2013-2014 Teacher of the Year, with bass extraordinaire Jeff Ketch.

Wovensong No. 1 “An Arduous Path” Program Notes

Weaving is a way of producing fabric by interlacing two distinct materials.  The longitudinal threads are called the warp, and the lateral threads are called the weft.   A Wovensong is a form featuring two distinct melodic ideas which are woven together in different ways as the piece progresses.   The form is not unlike a Sonata-Allegro form (the traditional first movement of a symphony), but the structure of the Wovensong is more centered on melodic material than key relationship.  In fact, it is desirable in a Wovensong to end the piece in a different key from the beginning to signify variation and linear progression.  Recognition is brought about by the repetition and development of familiar melodies.   The use of the word “song” in the form title also signifies a focus on melodic material. 

“Wovensong: An Arduous Path” begins with a soft Introduction followed by a pointed, minor-key theme (the Warp) presented in unison by all the strings.  After a period of development, a major-key, lilting theme (the Weft) takes over.   The Weave section features material from the Introduction, the Weft, and the Warp; beginning in a reflective mood and then spinning out aggressively towards the end.  

Lazarus Program Notes

The lyrics to “Lazarus” describe three miracles from three different religious traditions (I have often thought that I should have named this song “Three Miracles”!).   The first is the Buddhist miracle of the discovery of the 14th Dalai Lama, who is said, among other things, to have pointed towards the city of Lhasa, the traditional home of the Dalai Lama, as a very young child and announced that he would be going there soon.

The second miracle is from the Daoist tradition.   A carver wants to make a bell stand out of wood.  Rather than carving one himself, he walks through the forest and eventually finds one that nature has already created. 

The third miracle is the story of Lazarus, from the Christian tradition, who is said to have been raised from the dead by Jesus.

I realize that it took longer to read these notes than it would to read the lyrics of the song!       

The music goes back and forth between the keys of G Major and E Major to create variation, while the melody only changes subtly.    The arrangement for the Chamber Orchestra was great fun to write - I could not be more excited to perform with them!

Love and Hate

I have played many, many weddings over the years (I really enjoy it). A universal theme in the officiators' comments has been that love is not just an emotion, it is an action.

Sometime I wonder - can hate work the same way? It is an open question in my mind. 

I realize that many who oppose same-sex marriage probably feel that they are trying to help same-sex families get away from a lifestyle that violates "God's laws". However surely they must see that from the other side, their actions are hateful, because same-sex families are being asked to give up their intimate relationships on the basis of someone's personal religious doctrine that does not correspond to a wider science-based, ethics-based reasoning.

In short, bills aimed at prohibiting same-sex marriage (like HB 1599 and 1125 proposed in Oklahoma) make life harder for many families out there. Can "hate" be an action, even if it does not correlate with a feeling of hatred?

Summit Middle School Orchestra To Premiere “The Swashbuckling Suite.”

This Friday, May 9 the Summit Middle School Orchestra under the direction of Angie Allen will debut a new string piece by Oklahoma City composer Steven Stark.  The title of the work is “The Swashbuckling Suite”.  The students will be playing several movements from the work including “The Sea of Adventure” and “Parry and Thrust.”

“The work is pirate-themed and is actually still ‘under construction’.  I am still working on the final movement, but we decided it would be a rewarding experience to go ahead and play a few of the movements this year,” said Stark.  “I could not be more excited to work with Angie and the excellent students at Summit.   Hearing them play this piece is about as fun as it gets!”

"Because it is more modern music, I think it is more interesting,” said Mei Zhang, an 8th grade violinist at Summit.  “Since the composer is alive, we can really portray what he wants us to."

"Because we are going to be the first ones to play the music, it is going to be a very rare experience.  Most people don't get to do that, “ said 8th grade cello player, Jessica Fan.

"Steven has written an exciting and beautiful piece, and the students have really enjoyed learning this music,” said Allen.   “It has been both a challenging and rewarding experience."

Steven Stark lives and works in Oklahoma City.  He has written many pieces for middle school and high school string orchestras.  He also recently composed the score to the documentary “Where Did the Horny Toad Go?”  As a cellist and guitarist he has toured with the Starlight Mints and the Lovely Sparrows.  As a session musician he has played on recordings by Graham Colton, Avril Lavigne, David Hodges, Student Film, Tyson Meade, Bronze Radio Return and many others.  He was a member of the seminal OKC rock band The Fellowship Students, and has released several solo albums.   He can be contacted at www.stevenstarkmusic.com. 

The concert is at the Santa Fe High School auditorium and will begin at 7:00PM.  In addition to the premiere, the 6th, 7th and 8th grade orchestras will play works by J.S. Bach, Mark Williams and Soon Hee Newbold among others.

A New Job this First Day of April!

I am pleased to announce that I have accepted a position as Government Liaison for the Christian Science church!   My first step is to organize a lawsuit against the federal government for requiring the health insurance offered by Christian Scientist-owned businesses to cover doctors.   Private business owners who are members of the church are happy to provide insurance which covers prayer treatments, but doctors violate their beliefs.

I am also doing a little part-time work for some Jehovah's Witness business owners.  They want to offer their employees insurance that does not cover blood transfusions.  Medical treatment is OK, but remember that we should all "abstain from blood" as prescribed by Acts 15.  

I know that all business owners could simply opt out of providing coverage and instead pay a fee which is smaller than current insurance costs, and I realize that no person is ever being required to make use of a medical service (the government is just trying to make sure the option is available in their coverage) but this is a question of religious liberty folks!

After we wrap up these cases, I  hope to start my own lobbying firm.  We hope to introduce a new Line Item Taxation Amendment which will allow all Americans to simply choose which programs their tax dollars will fund.  Who needs compromise in the legislative process?   Who even needs a democratic republic anymore?  Let's do it directly.  Don't agree with paying for a road, a military plane or environmental regulations?  Then opt out!   

Our next project is the Line Item Law Amendment which will allow citizens to only follow the laws which they want to follow.  There are people arrested for drunk driving every day who don't think there is anything wrong with it!   Why should they have to obey a law with which they disagree?

Working together as a community to create civilization should never even hint at stepping on the toes of whatever an individual feels like doing at any given moment.   Let's work together to make this happen!  

If you feel like it!