Songs For Wayward Days

Besides being a political polemicist, I am also a singer-songwriter. Recently I combined these two passions in a 3-song EP called "Songs For Wayward Days." You can hear clips for two of these songs on my music web site.

Some people have asked me to clarify some of the ideas and references in the songs, so I thought my blog would be a good place to do so. I also hope this creates some cross traffic between the two sites. The lyrics for the songs can be found on the "lyrics" page of my music web site.

By the way, the reason you see no entries here in my political blog for July or August is because I have been crazy busy workin' on this EP trying to get it out during these intense political times--and before the election.

The lyrics for "A Man For No Season" come from a passionate hatred for Bush and Co. No mystery there. The title references the 1966 Oscar-winning film, "A Man For All Seasons," based on the play written by Robert Bolt. Here's a description of the play/film I found on the web:

"A Man for All Seasons dramatizes the conflict between King Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More. It depicts the confrontation between church and state, theology and politics, absolute power and individual freedom. Throughout the play Sir Thomas More's eloquence and endurance, his purity, saintliness and tenacity in the face of ever-growing threats to his beliefs and family, earn him status as one of modern drama's greatest tragic heroes."

If you haven't seen the film or play, More loses his head, literally, for the trumped-up charge of treason. More argues that he would lose the basis of himself, his soul, if he were to bend to the King's "protestant" will. In reality, More was a bit of a fanatic -- but maybe not so much for the time. As in the film, the real More, a devout Catholic, was killed because he, as former Chancellor to Henry, was an embarrassment and impediment to this increasingly protestant king. More was one of many casualties of the reformation. It seems to me that More is presented in the film as an ideal statesman: a man for all seasons. His tragic flaw is that he would not bend on his morals, would not "change his mind," even to save his life.

Bush seems to me to be the opposite of the More character--a man for no season--in that he is a rather dim bulb who cannot express himself well at all, lacks any kind of curiosity or integrity, seems to wear his piety when it suits him, is guilty of "real treason," and would easily change his mind about things he professes are important to him if it meant more power (the Richard Rich character is a good analog). With respect to the latter, his fundamentalism seems inconvenient at best when, for example, he services the wealthy and mistreats the poor through myriad lies. With respect to the "real treason" of the song, I feel the senseless war on Iraq has put the US in greater danger with respect to fanatical Jihadists, as has the crying wolf for political gain by raising the terror threat levels whenever a boost in the polls is wanted (see "Terror Wa(nings) as Political Hay" below). Moreover, Bush has gone out of his way to protect the Saudis rather than protect Americans. He has lied to congress (an impeachable offense) and caused the deaths of many US soldiers and countless innocent Iraqis for no good reason (an obvious sin for a real Christian). Getting soldiers killed, obviously, is no way to "support our troops."

Another theme of the song comes from how another slogan--"United We Stand"--has been co-opted by the right. Anyone who has seen the film "Outfoxed" and heard Fox's Bill O'Reilly after 9/11 rave that he would report anyone to the FBI who expressed views that were not "united" with Bush's--I think they will be sympathetic to how I hear this jingoistic slogan (or "chauvinist" in the broad use of the term). It is actually a superb example of "political correctness," another term which has unfortunately been co-opted by the right and used against liberals. Thank god we are divided, for (as the songs says) we would indeed fall if we were united behind Bush and Co. For too long after 9/11, it was politically incorrect to say anything doubting the President's response, even when this response included the nonsensical attack of Iraq and its very secular leader, Saddam--an infidel hated by Al Qaeda.

"How Low and Why" stems from my desire to write a song that recognized the horror and BIG CRIME of the Vietnam war, where millions of people were murdered--and I wanted to put it up there on the top of the US's list of crimes, with slavery and the slaughter of aboriginal Americans. I wanted to write something that at least suggests that the war should be categorized historically in this way, and maybe to remind us that some of our BIG CRIMES are in the near past--and should create a context to consider and judge our current crimes.

It seems to me that we Americans should be aware of this BIG CRIME much like Germans are aware of the Holocaust, and we are not. Far from it. If the Germans adopted a preemptive attack doctrine like the "the Bush doctrine," my guess is many would connect such a doctrine to WWII and the BIG CRIMES Germany committed before and during that war. Why isn't such a connection between the Bush doctrine and the war in Vietnam, our BIG CRIME of murderous aggression, being made by many, and being voiced loudly and often?

If we were not so embedded in a murderous, aggressive, opportunistic, anti-historical, Forrest-Gump, simplistic-dualist-type ideology (archaic splitting á la Klein), someone like Bush--someone who is embedded in this ideology while effectively and cynically manipulating it--would not hold so much appeal for so many Americans. Obvious stuff, really, but I think important--especially in the context of a Bush presidency and the right-wing "silent majority" of the Vietnam war era finding its voice over the last few decades (see Lewis Lapham's "Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history").

I am pleased with the bridge in "How Low and Why"--where I try to emphasize that much of what makes America great was initially only offered to "men who were white." Again, not rocket science, but in the context of pop tunes and our current dominant ideology, I think it could be effective in some small way … if anyone hears it.

Just as I don't think Germans should simply hate Germany because of Nazism and the Holocaust, I don't think awareness of the crimes of US history should lead to such a simple conclusion about the US for Americans, or anyone else. Just as German history obviously holds very much to be proud of--for example, a large role in the mostly admirable current of Western thought we call the Enlightenment, which provides the philosophical foundation for many of the institutions conscientious liberals hold dear--US history obviously holds much for Americans to be proud of, and for non-Americans to admire … and that includes my European friends who too often reduce the US to a culture where the likes of W is taken seriously, even admired by millions, "elected," and followed. Obviously, there is much more to the US than that, and such reductions only reproduces the type of simplistic and reductive thinking of those admiring millions who helped put him into power.

The lyrics for "Warrior Kin" are among my favorites of the lyrics I have written. Some personal and family history will help to see why. I am an Air Force Academy graduate ('87), and I come from a long line of Academy graduates: my grandfather (Navy, '26), father (Navy, '55), and brother (Air Force, '85). But I am the only one who has not looked down the barrel of a gun controlled by someone who might want to kill me.

My dad is a retired Major General who flew intercept missions over Iceland during the late '50s, which was the one of the scariest times of the cold war. Big Bear bombers have big-ass guns on them made for pointing at much smaller intercept planes. The line "cold war flames" is a reference to all of the killing that went on during the cold war to save people from "communism" (dead, but somehow saved)--especially Vietnam, where many of my father's classmates fought and died. "A MAD policy" refers to "Mutually Assured Destruction," which is still the policy if we are attacked with nukes by Russia. Of course, the sanity of Bush's plan for "cute nukes" makes the cold war and MAD seem sane. Don't you think it should be a requirement that a president be able to pronounce "nuclear" before he sets the policy for nuclear weapons?

My brother (who was actually born in 1962--poetic license) fought in Iraq recently. During the first Gulf War he was flying B-52s carrying nukes, so his services were not needed then (thank god). He also flew F15s over northern Iraq between the wars. Since the Iraqis would fire on him during those missions, it probably felt like a continuation of the war to him--as it was in many ways. He flew A10s during the recent intense fighting, air support for the front lines. He saw more than his share of action: "you saw so much...." My grandfather's story is a long and good one. You can read about his heroics here. May he rest in peace.

The song references actual family members, but the mentioning of birth years has more to do with generations. I see my grandfather's generation as the generation who fought in WWII. My father's fought in Vietnam. My brother's and mine in Iraq and Panama ("Just Cause"). When I watched another Oscar-winning film recently--a documentary called "Hearts and Minds"--I was reminded how consistent the American, hawkish, right-wing ideology has been with respect to these generations of the "warring century." If you haven't seen this amazing film, please do. You will see how Nixon's "silent majority" has found its voice in the right-wing politics and media of our "wayward days" (again, see Lewis Lapham's "Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history"). It's hard to imagine a song or a blog post having much impact on the right-wing media leviathan. Hopefully something will.