Some Piano Pieces I'm Working On

Here a few piano pieces I'm currently working on-"The Pineapple Rag" and "March Majestic" are both by Scott Joplin (the brain behind "The Entertainer" and "The Maple Leaf Rag") and "Traumerei (Dreaming)" is from Kinderszenen (Scenes from Childhood) by Robert Schumann.


Powered by Podbean.com

Ignorance & Voting

How many Iraqis were on the hijacked planes on 9/11? That was the question posed by my LITERATURE professor today to prove how dangerous it is that ignorant people have the right to vote in this country-the thinking being that we're at war in Iraq because of said ignorant people voting for the President who took us in there. He also expressed the opinion that voter ignorance is okay when it comes to the really complex stuff (he mentioned national health care) but terrible when it comes to something as clear cut as the issue of war in Iraq. First off, just to make sure I understand correctly: according to him, people have no responsibility to be knowledgeable about their own medical care-a decision which will directly influence their lives-but are responsible for understanding the intricacies of the CIA and matters of national security? Secondly, why are we talking about this in a LITERATURE class?

OK, I respond to this ignorant question with a question of my own: who in the Bush Administration-name one official, if you can-argued that there were actual Iraqis present in the September 11th hijackings. You can't, because there WEREN'T ANY. The Administration argument for war was not that Iraq citizens themselves committed acts of terror, but that the Iraqi regime supported, aided, harbored, and funded terrorists from OTHER countries. Whether or not you consider this argument morally valid, you must consider that it seems at least logical. Building a straw man only makes YOU look like you don't have anything valuable to say.

This argument isn't that hard of a concept to understand. We even have a legal precedent for it right here in the United States-the concept of aiding and abetting. Picture a situation: I am a landlord who rents an apartment out to Ted Bundy. I hardly ever see Ted-he pays his rent to me once a month, on time, and that's about the extent of our interaction. I am just as shocked as the rest of the world when he turns out to be an evil serial murderer. The law does not hold me responsible for his heinous acts, because they have nothing to do with me.

On the other hand, if Ted Bundy is my roomate, and I witness him loading crowbars and guns in a bag once a week before leaving for several hours, and I help him dispose of a body or clothing from a murder, then the law considers me an accomplice to the crime. Even though I did not commit the murder myself, I assisted Ted in his commission of it (in legal parlance, I aided and abetted Ted), therefore the law considers me at least partly legally responsible for the crime. Countless people are prosecuted for aiding and abetting the commission of crimes other than murder (think getaway car drivers), and in fact it's quite a regular occurrence.

The other fallacy of the "How many Iraqis hijacked planes on 9/11" question is what it seems to imply. The hijackers were, in fact, ALL from Saudi Arabia, a country which has promised the United States to crack down on terrorists living within its borders. Iraq, on the other hand, made no such promise-and in fact categorically REFUSED to do anything to help the U.S. combat terrorism. Additionally, Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, which is fishy at best.

I guess my Lit professor believes we should have gone to war against Saudi Arabia-the country which is helping us-and left the country who hated us alone, simply because the terrorists happened to come out of Saudi Arabia. Presumably, he would also feel okay about sending Ted Bundy's landlord to jail, and letting someone who helped him hide a body go free. There are many valid reasons to oppose war in Iraq, such as the fact that some of our intelligence was faulty, the fact that the war was being run by people who could not tie their own shoes, and the fact that what is practical is not always what is, morally speaking, the "right thing to do". The fact that no Iraqis were actually on the 9/11 planes is not on the list.

I wholeheartedly agree that people who have no idea what the issues are should not vote-I just don't believe that the fact of someone disagreeing with your point of view makes them ignorant and you intelligent. The first people I'd crack down on are the "How many Iraqis were on the 9/11 planes?" people, followed closely by people who tie up debate time in town hall meetings by demanding to see Barack Obama's birth certificate. I hate ignorance as much as anybody else-I just don't preach against ignorance while in the context of making ignorant comments.

The Purpose of My Existence

I've been amazed over the last week with some of the things I've read for class--Lord Tennyson's "Ulysses", the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Marianne Moore's "Paper Nautilus", Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, etc. and I have learned something I think is pretty amazing.

I've learned that the purpose of my existence lies in what I become--not what I am. My values only benefit me by means of their results. I don't strive to have charity for others solely for the benefit that it gives THEM, but because of what it helps ME to become.

I've learned that the purpose of my existence lies in what I achieve--the point of my life is to grow, develop and reach the highest level of existence that I am capable of. Anything less is an immoral waste.

I've learned that the purpose of life is to BE, to CREATE, to ACT, and to DO. Benjamin Franklin was just a printer who was terrible at math-until he decided that the limits on him were of his own making and decided to BECOME the man we revere--inventor, diplomat, and statesman.

I've learned that by accepting the "limitations" we think we have, we stand in the way of our own potential to grow.

I've learned that our best is enough--if it's really our best.

I've learned to give my sincere best with everything I do--I refuse to give up until I'm sure I'm beaten.

You can too.

Rationalism vs. Faith: A Necessary Choice?

Recently I've been reading Ayn Rand's literary monument to her Objectivist philosophy, the novel Atlas Shrugged. For those unfamiliar with the novel, it is set in a sort of anti-utopian (dystopian?) United States that has essentially been taken over by socialism/collectivism and the idea that need justifies taking from the productive and re-distributing to those who only consume. Ultimately, the "producers"-artists, composers, innovators in every field from science and medicine to law, philosophy, and industry,-decide to "strike"; to abandon the society that exploits them and to withhold their gifts from mankind. The novel expands upon Rand's belief that the purpose of man is achievement, the goal of his life should be to pursue self interest, and that there is no God except human "competence" and reason.

So the question that's been on my mind is: Why are success and faith considered to be mutually exclusive? Who decided that you could not be both dedicated and pious? Rand's novel condemns the "mystics" who judge the rationalists by a philosophy that rationalism does not subscribe to, but it seems to me she commits the same fallacy in judging religion according to the tenets of rationalism.

I believe that the true answer to this question is that not only is it possible to be both rational and faithful, but that it is imperative and essential that we do so. Consider Rand's unbridled capitalist heroes-what is the purpose of their existence? They pursue their "rational self interest" and the virtue of making money, but to what end? They achieve maximum control and power over their own existences, but it serves nothing. They become like a powerful machine that has no purpose, or a spring that is kept compressed under pressure-they achieve so much greatness, but none of it goes anywhere or is used for anything. What's the point of being "the motor of the world" (as the book described them), if there's nothing left to move because they cannot conceive of a higher purpose than their own desires?

I believe-in fact, I know intuitively-that there has to be more to life than simple pursuit of our own happiness. The work and glory of God is our immortality and eternal life (Genesis 1:39), but that's only half of the equation. Throughout the ages, men of God have taught that His intention is not simply to allow us to achieve all the freedom and power that He has, but to obtain a knowledge of what we should do with that energy.

There is not a single member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency-men who I consider to be modern day revelators-who was unsuccessful in his professional life before being called. The current group includes: a nationally renowned heart surgeon, several former university presidents, a successful businessman, an attorney who was chief justice on the Utah Supreme Court and who was considered by Ronald Reagan for a seat on the US Supreme Court, a publisher, a nuclear physicist, and men from numerous other areas of expertise. They are some of the most knowledgeable men in their fields. This, however, has not limited their spiritual development. On the contrary, they have not sacrificed their eternal happiness for their temporal success-rather, their pursuit of temporal knowledge, far from diminishing their spiritual capacity, has only increased their spiritual knowledge. People who understand this principle become the most spiritually fulfilled people on Earth-not in spite of their quest for achievement, but because of it.

These men have obviously found that religious belief and belief in the human potential for achievement are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact two sides of the same coin. They have spent their lives aspiring to the pursuit of knowledge and success-not only in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense-and they understand that all blessings come from God, and that His gifts are not purposeless, nor are they intended only to make us rich or successful in this life only. God wants us to succeed-to act and to create are the purposes for which we were created-but not so that in the final sum, we will have unlimited wasted power which was not expended for the benefit of His children, ourselves included. The tragedy of Man in a collectivist society is that he has desires to build, create, and lift, but is robbed of the resources to do so. The tragedy of Man in a completely Objectivist society is that he attains a great degree of energy and potential which he proceeds to squander because his blind self absorption prevents him from knowing what to do with it.

We should not spend our lives either in the mindless pursuit of wealth for its own sake, nor should we fail to attain our true potential for success and happiness; rather, we should engage in building, supporting, and lifting each other and dedicating ourselves to proving our gratitude to God in the only way we can express it fully-by applying the gifts which He has given us toward the purposes which He has ordained for them; not merely our own momentary happiness or purposeless gratification, but the pursuit of immortality and eternal life of all of His children, including ourselves.