EMAILS SOMETIMES GET ME MOTIVATED TO BLOG

I have to admit here that much of the following was expressed in the proceeding blog, but I think it bares repeating. This blog was inspired by a couple of emails forwarded to me recently by my friend, Greg, in Kansas City. I met him while I was working in the KC area about six years ago as a safety consultant. He was a foreman for a roofing company client of mine, so I got to associate with him on just about a weekly basis, and I got to know him as a very earnest individual on the road to enlightenment. When I first met him, he had recently become more religious, and I think his faith had begun to prompt him to consider other facets of life beyond religion. So, during by safety inspections of his job sites, we would often talk for a little while on subjects apart from safety issues. He admitted that it was relatively uneducated and it was often difficult for him to read and get his mind around some things that he read. He had a lot of questions on various topics including religion and recent events and, having apparently developed some respect for my opinions would ask me my thoughts about the subjects. He was often conflicted about politics. Because of his recent turn to God, he had become more concerned about social issues and generally expressed socially conservative thoughts. However, his family background and voting pattern had been exclusively for democrats. He had grown to believe like my father, the old tired dogma that the democrats were for the working man and the republicans were for the rich man. We had number of chats on politics and I tried to help him see that the Democrat Party had evolved from the so called “working man party” to a collection of special interest groups and that the old-guard-leadership of conservative democrats had been replaced largely by liberals with proclivities towards socialism. I cannot say that I was able to make much headway initially. Old prejudices are often hard to overcome and when our conversations would head down the same tracks and he would voice his frustration with what society was becoming and what our government was doing, I often had to make the same arguments: that liberal politicians and federal judges—mainly democrats—were pushing liberal and socialist agendas that he obviously opposed and that he needed to recognize that he and others like him were voting against their conscience when they keep voting for democrats, that leadership of that party was not governing in their interest. I was never sure if my admonishments were doing him any good and I do not know how he has voted since then.

After I moved to Salt Lake we kept in contact—we have exchanged emails regularly, and, occasionally, he has called me to ask me to explain something or get my opinion on something. The emails are often forwards with religious content and occasionally with social or political content that he thinks I will appreciate. It appears from the content of the socially and politically charged emails I have gotten as of late that he is taking a more conservative stand on social, even political issues, and may be recognizing who is representing him in government. The first email he sent me, that inspired this blog, was about Speaker of the House, Pelosi, and her desire to tax “windfall retirement income.”

My response was the following:

Yes, it's not bad enough that Congress meddling in sub prime loans (mishandling Freddie Mac and Fannie May and coercing lending institutions to give bad loans, and funding ACORN to blackmail banks and falsify elections) caused the recent economic collapse and most Americans to lose 1/2 of their retirement--I lost half of my 401K--now they want to steal what is left. We now have a majority in both houses and a White House that thinks the same way Pelosi does. They are a despicable bunch. I've never been so disgusted with American political leadership. We've always had these types in government, but they were almost always in the minority. Now the nuts are running the asylum, and it's the American electorate's fault. We have to pay attention and vote these crazies out as soon as possible or even darker days are ahead of us.

I later received another email from my friend, Greg, with a rather long attachment about a Tennessee high school sporting event where a school official allegedly stood and apologized to the people in the stands for not being able to do the usual prayer and playing of the National Anthem to honor God and Country that they were accustomed to. The official went on to lament that, though he could not, by federal court dictate, express anything publicly that might be construed as religious, but that he was free to express any politically correct policy, such as promote condom use to students, no matter who might be offended. I am not sure that the origin of the email was legitimate—things like this are often fabricated and get sent around a lot—I have not checked it with Snopes. However, the reason it is believable is because it is not far from the truth in this day and age in America and will surely be the case in short order. The gist of the email got me motivated and I responded to him with some of the following, and as I wrote my thoughts down I decided add some additional thoughts and make it the subject for this blog:

Again, we have had anti religious zealots around since the birth of the United States, because our Constitution largely allows American citizens the freedom to express their beliefs as they wish, acknowledging that free agency is God's gift to man. However, though they have always been in the small minority in our nation's past, this group has grown, because of the freedom they enjoy to preach and spread their anti religion (primarily anti-Christian), and they have influenced many of the majority of religious Americans (primarily liberals or progressives) over the past 60 years or so to believe the Constitution says something that it clearly does not. Again we need to see and understand that we in the electorate have allowed this to come to pass. We have allowed the faithless to gain the highest positions in the land and they will surely lead us to destruction, if we let them continue. Obama made a very astute analogy the other day in a press conference when he compared the US economy to a big battle ship, that it took time to reverse course, intimating that the turn had to be very wide. This can be said about the state of religious faith in America as well. We have drifted way of course and it will take some serious time, and possibly dire circumstances to humble the majority enough, to turn this ship of faith around.

Again, we have had anti religious zealots around since the birth of the United States, because our Constitution largely allows American citizens the freedom to express their beliefs as they wish, acknowledging that free agency is God's gift to man. However, though they have always been in the small minority in our nation's past, this group has grown, because of the freedom they enjoy to preach and spread their anti religion (primarily anti-Christian), and they have influenced many of the majority of religious Americans (primarily liberals or progressives) over the past 60 years or so to believe the Constitution says something that it clearly does not. Again we need to see and understand that we in the electorate have allowed this to come to pass. We have allowed the faithless to gain the highest positions in the land and they will surely lead us to destruction, if we let them continue. Obama made a very astute analogy the other day in a press conference when he compared the US economy to a big battle ship, that it took time to reverse course, intimating that the turn had to be very wide. This can be said about the state of religious faith in America as well. We have drifted way of course and it will take some serious time, and possibly dire circumstances to humble the majority enough, to turn this ship of faith around.

Having brought up the economy, I might express here again that what Obama and Congress are doing and plan to do on the economy mirrors almost exactly what was done by FDR and the Democrat majority in the 30s and 40s. Hoover, a progressive Republican, much like Bush (liberal on spending), had the great stock market crash of 1929 during his presidency. His response was to raise taxes and try to spend the way out. It was ineffective. Franklin Roosevelt then came to power with a new Democrat majority in both houses and did the same as Hoover, but more so. He tried everything he could think of but what should have been a short recession was turned into the Great Depression, which lasted until almost the end of World War II. In fact, the war is what finally brought America out of it. With the war came employment for everyone--even women who were never in the workforce in such great numbers before. When the war ended, the whole world needed what America--virtually untouched by the ravages of war that the rest of the world suffered--could make and sell to them. The stock market finally regained its prior level in the early 50s. Like it was last year, the stock market in 1929 was overvalued due to unprecedented growth and prosperity during the (roaring) 20s and needed to drop to right itself, which it would do as it had done on prior occasions. Property values were inflated and many banks had made faulty loans and investments without real security. When the Crash happened, there was a panic that influenced government to try to control it--just like it did last year. Clearly, that approach did not work well and it is very likely that it will not work well again.

A free economy must ebb and flow and right itself when it gets too inflated. If you remember the 70s and the recession then, with inflation in the double digits and interest rates for home loans as high as 19%, and Jimmy Carter trying to manage the economy with governmental price controls, you can see that we have been on this precipice before. However, Reagan's approach was to cut taxes and do away with price controls and the economy righted itself, leading to continued economic growth that continued over 25 years. It should be clear to anyone who thinks about it that when you tax something it becomes more expensive to buy or consume, whether it is food, clothing, housing, energy, or entertainment and diversions. When something is more expensive, there are fewer people who can afford to buy or consume it. When farmers, manufacturers, and merchandisers are unable to sell as much of their product, they are unable to make as much profit. Loss of profit, of course, will eventually translate to a need for cutting costs, including cutting jobs and payroll and, if they are a large enough to do so, possibly moving their businesses to states or countries with less tax stress for business. If businesses have to reduce their number of employees to keep more of their profits, or even to stay in business, the numbers of unemployed Americans go up, creating more "need" for government spending, in the form of unemployment benefits and government welfare. No economy can grow to its potential if government overly taxes it or tries to unduly control it.

The area where our local, state, and federal governments can really help the economy is where it has not done a very good job: Policing Criminal Behavior in the Business Place. We have laws on the books against graft and theft, but many times the perpetrators of these crimes in business and government--and it is generally when these two entities are combined or conspire to steal from the public that they go unpunished or ignored. It has become clear that, during the last decade quasi-government lending institutions (Freddie and Fannie)and community groups (ACORN, for one), funded by Congress and being over-sighted by Congressional committees, have repeatedly falsified records and stolen profits and coerced and blackmailed lending institutions to give faulty loans to borrowers, including illegal aliens who did not have to prove their identity, who have no serious hope of repaying them. When the Bush administration's commerce department suspected that things were getting too loose and asked for tighter oversight by Congress, they were told by powerful ranking members of the banking committee (mainly democrats, like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd) told them to fly a kite, that there was nothing wrong with those institutions. Instead of prosecuting the CEOs of these institutions who clearly cooked the books and got away with millions in bonuses before leaving their posts before the recent "economic crisis" they are allowed to skate or even become an economic advisor to President Obama like Franklin Raines, the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. So far, not only has not one of these corrupt members of Congress or the aforementioned institutions been brought up on criminal charges, but they have been allowed to become the chairmen of their committees and to keep their ill-gotten gains. The party in control of the federal government at this time, though they have routinely scathed their opposing party for alleged corruption and misgovernment over the past decade, has been loath to police their own--William Jefferson, the democrat congressman from Louisiana who ordered government relief troops to take him to his flooded residence, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, to retrieve a hundred thousand dollars in bribe money hidden in his refrigerator did not suffer any reprisals from his party had to be ousted from office by losing his bid for reelection to a republican. Instead, they continue to muddy the water around their own culpability and shower blame on capitalism and big business, while agreeing to bailout failing companies and institutions which should have been allowed or required to file chapter 11 bankruptcies, requiring renegotiation of supplier and labor union contracts, or selling off assets. These actions do nothing but support the status quo of corruption and will, at best cost us and future Americans quadrillions of dollars for many decades, even if we see the proverbial light in the next elections and seriously try to change course to a more conservative social and fiscal direction. My fear is that we might have to scrap what we have and start over again. If that becomes the case, we will need a more moral and faith-based society, willing to make sacrifice and do the right things.

May God Bless Us! And my all my friends come to see the light!

Why To Vote Democrat

It has been a good little while since I was able to find time to post a blog, but I recently got an inspiration and made this time.

I get emails from conservative friends on a daily basis with attachments, some funny, expressing frustration with our government and the direction our country is heading. I recently got one entitled "Why I Voted Democrat" which was funny and from the "perspective" of a democrat voter who, if they have any conservative notions, are completely unconnected with the obvious results of their voting habits. This is an extremely frustrating thing for me. I have friends and family he routinely pull the lever for the democrats, because they "feel", like my father did throughout his life--he grew up with FDR propaganda during the Great Depression--that the "Republicans are for the rich man and the Democrats are for the working man". I should say here that I do not hold Republican politicians blameless. It seems as though most of the republican office holders are more worried about sustaining their place at the public feed trough than doing the right thing. In recent years, most of them have been willing accomplices in allowing government to run roughshod over the tax payers and the Constitution. But I have to say that the Democrats in office are the worst culprits and the the most deserving of our conservative ire and disdain.

You may have seen the following before. It is basically the attachment from my friend, but I thought, in some respects, it was not harsh enough for my taste, so I added to it and edited it to reflect my own opinions more closely. In this format, the ideas are no longer expressed sarcastically from a first person perspective, but only a little sarcastically from a second person perspective.

So, if you are a compulsive democrat voter, please read and reflect. Maybe there is hope.

You Voted Democrat:

You voted Democrat because you obviously love the fact that you (the collective public) will eventually be able to "marry" whatever you want. You might eventually decide to marry my horse (maybe even two horses, if they are both consenting adults).
note: The term marriage used to mean combining dissimilar things that work together, like "lyrics and melody", so horse and human really makes more sense than two men or two women if you want to play around with the meaning of words.

You voted Democrat because you obviously believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

You voted Democrat because you obviously believe the government will do a better job of spending the money you (and I) earn than I would.

You voted Democrat because you obviously believe freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it, except of course Christians.

You voted Democrat because it is obvious that when we pull out of Iraq we can trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

You voted Democrat because you (and I) are way too irresponsible to own a gun, and you know that the local police are all we need to protect you (and me) from murderers and thieves.

You voted Democrat because you obviously believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if we don't start driving Priuses, and embrace government cap and trade policies and there there is no way you can be convinced that "cap and trade" is a nothing more than a big new tax scheme.

You voted Democrat because obviously hope to have a great new government controlled socialist health insurance plan like Canada, France, The UK and Cuba. And, you think the wealthy from those countries (Cuban government leaders excepted)come here to the States to get health care because they just want to see how bad our system is.

You voted Democrat because you obviously not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies, so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and all animals and terrorists are kept comfortable.

You voted Democrat because you obviously believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit. You also believe that the congressional leaders (who were primarily democrats, like Barney Frank) who bullied banks to give untold numbers of loans to risky borrowers for political interest and subsidized quasi-governmental lending institutions, like "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac", in their illegal and corrupt policies, should be able to skate free and be completely in charge of banking oversight.

You voted Democrat because you obviously believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

And, you voted Democrat because your head is so firmly planted in such a dark and snug place that it is unlikely that you will ever have another point of view.

Odds and Ends of MY Busy Life.

Note: I deleted a portion of the this blog in reference to my recording projects. My later Blog, "Music, Music, and More Music" largely covered the same stuff, so I copied and pasted the material that was below and made revisions that reflect better the current situation.

I have not been able to get back to my blogs for a while. I've been busy with rehearsals for the Smokey Joe's Cafe production that will happen from March 27 through April 4 of 2009 and work. The show, from the standpoint of cast, is coming along Okay. The other cast members are very capable, and I have been able to avoid too much dancing and scary choreography. It has allowed me to focus on my strength: singing Rock and Roll and Rhythm and Blue. It also allowed me to spend more time learning the lyrics and vocal parts on the group numbers. However, as of last night, the band has not been fielded in entirety. We have two keyboardists, a drummer and a bass player who also plays sax. We still need a good lead guitarist and a good sax player, or maybe another bassist to free up the bassist we have to cover the sax--the sax is real important to the sound of a lot of the tunes. I play guitar as a solo on one tune and help color the instumental background with my blues harp on another song. We are supposed to start rehearsing the show with the band next week. I'll try to get curtain times for those readers of this blog who live in the Salt Lake area and think they would like to see the beast do his thing in the flesh. They should let me know if the plan to come, so that I can look for them.

I also sent out an email last week to try and garner some interest in helping fund the casting of my sculpture of Christ, which I have been trying to get done, with hopes of having it displayed at the new Oquirrh Mountain Temple. I plan on donating it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I do not have the cash at the moment to cover the molds and casting process to make it a more appealing donation. And, with the economy as it is, it does not look good for that project. Needless to say, my plan for a sculpting business on the side has taken a back seat to other projects, until I can generate more income. The old adage that "it takes money to make money" is unfortunately true. But, we soldier on.

On the subject of enlarging my income in a time of need, I received an email yesterday from a safety consultant friend in Topeka, asking if I would be interested in making a trip back to Topeka to teach an OSHA 10-hour class in Spanish for one of his clients sometime in the next couple of weeks. I responded that I would be indeed be interested if the logistics worked out and the remuneration was enough. They did and it was, so we made arrangements for me to fly back there next weekend (3/14/09)and teach the class on the following Monday. The money for that will be good and it will give me a chance to visit with family and friends. I will likely blog about it when I get back.

SAMUEL LONGHORNE CLEMENS

I haven't added to my Prophiles of American Leadership segments for a while, so I thought it would be a nice change of pace for me to indulge myself and return to a historical vignette of an American to whom I give credit for leading in the world of literature. So, here are my thoughts on...

SAMUEL LONGHORNE CLEMENS

Though I watched a lot of television as a young boy, where I caught old movies as well as old and current programs produced for television, I also read a lot. I tended to read adventure stories—Edgar Rice Burroughs was my favorite—but, I also read many of the classics of literature before I got into high school. Before being required to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in high school, I had already read it twice, along with its companion, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. I have reread them both several times since, to my children, to expose them to great literature and story-telling, and for my own enjoyment. In my opinion, which I share with many others, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is likely the Great American Novel and no one has been his equal in producing colloquial speech on the printed page. Of course there have been other great American novels since—To Kill A Mockingbird and Gone With The Wind—and some extremely important and popular ones before—Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Last Of The Mohicans—but, Mark Twain’s story about the coming of age of a disadvantaged, troubled youth, struggling with his conscience in a time when America was doing the same, was a masterpiece of writing that put America on the literary map of the English-speaking world. All of the serious novelists of the 19th century in the English language had been from Great Britain, like Sir Walter Scott, Jane Austen, and Charles Dickens. But Samuel Clemens, under the name, Mark Twain, became the Father of American Literature, and showed the American authors who followed after him how to do it well.




Samuel Longhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)
(November 30, 1835-April 21, 1910)

Samuel Langhorne Clemens was born in Florida Missouri twenty-five years before the start of the American Civil War to John Marshall and Jane Lampton Clemens. Clemens spent much of his boyhood in his Hannibal, Missouri, home along the Mississippi River. Samuel’s father died when Samuel was 11 years of age, which allowed for his mother, who was a free thinker and defender of the down-trodden and lover of animals, to have great influence on his personality and character. After his father’s death, Samuel took work as a typesetter and a contributing writer of humorous sketches for his older brother, Orion’s, newspaper. At the age of 18, Clemens traveled east and worked as a printer in Saint Louis, Cincinnati, Philadelphia and New York, and educated himself at the local libraries. By age 22, Clemens decided that he would return to The Mississippi River and pursue his childhood fancy, to be a river boat pilot. Clemens plied that trade from 1857 to 1861, from which he chose his pseudonym, Mark Twain, referring to the call of the leadsman on the river boat, measuring two fathoms depth in the river. At the start of the Civil War, Clemens and some friends joined a volunteer group for the Confederacy, but the group disbanded after a couple of weeks and decided to travel with his brother to Nevada where his brother was filling an appointment as secretary to the territorial governor. While in Nevada, he tried silver mining with little success, but in 1862, he began a career as a newspaper journalist and veered off shortly thereafter to humorous literary pieces, including the short story, The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County. This piece was picked up and republished by other newspapers across the country, and much to Samuel’s surprise, brought him national notoriety and helped launch his career as America’s premiere novelist and humorist.

Clemens’ Later novels included: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Prince and the Pauper, and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. His writings, whether fiction or nonfiction, were largely vehicles through which he criticized society’s ills and poked fun at hypocrisy. Huckleberry Finn and Pod’s Head Smith criticized the evils of racism and slavery, while The Prince and the Pauper and A Connecticut Yankee were commentaries on the injustices of monarchies and the socially privileged.

Clemens was highly critical of hypocrisy wherever he saw it. In The Gilded Age, he skewers American politicians and what he saw as a corrupted system of government in his day, which allowed “knaves” to govern at the cost of “fools”, and embraced a misguided, unthinking patriotism. Clemens seems to have shared religious notions with Thomas Jefferson, a believer in God, but suspicious of organized religion at large. In some lesser known writings, such as A Penn Warmed up in Hell and Letters from the Earth, he pokes fun at organized religion and “Christians” in particular, for a penchant to live their religion once per week or less, and a general sense of unchristian superiority and an inability to be charitable and tolerant.

Clemens was friends with and admired by many noted Americans of his time, including Ulysses S. Grant. But, he also enjoyed celebrity in Europe as well. His friends and admirers abroad included fellow greats of English literature, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, Lewis Carrol, and Alfred Tenny. His celebrity was due to his great talent as a writer and his ability to criticize, even ridicule, society and humanity, shedding light on their blemishes; and do so with disarming humor. He became, to some in his time, a voice of reason and conscience in troubled times. Much of his cynicism may have come from the many personal tragedies in his own life. His father passing at an early age and the accidental death of his younger brother, Henry, in a river boat explosion—Samuel had talked his younger brother into following him into the riverboat life—surely effected his general outlook. His later years also provided further unhappy moments: He had several financial setbacks due to business dealings with people whom he trusted too much and only had one of four of his children survive him in death. His wife, Olivia, died 1902 and his health, which had not been good for many years, declined through next eight years until his death.

Though Clemens may have suffered significant tragedy, hardship and disappointment during his life, he had a strong spirit of self achievement and social conscience. He overcame stumbling blocks placed before him by trying new things and taking chances on his abilities. His various careers prior to his final career gave him insight and experience to draw from to let his fertile imagination create characters and stories that will surely entertain and inspire readers, young and old, for centuries to come. His talent and persistence made him the first great American Novelist of international acclaim. He was the first great American humorist appreciated abroad—he was presented with a Doctor of Letters degree from Oxford University in 1907. And, he may have been the foremost popular moralist of his time. He led the way for many aspiring American writers who tried to emulate his great talent for telling a story and presenting a moral message, but few have approached the height of his achievement. In usual humor he stated the before his death:
I came in with Halley’s Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It might be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t go out with Halley’s Comet. The Almighty has said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.’

Samuel Longhorne Clemens’ was prayer was apparently answered: He died April 10, 1910, one day after Halley’s Comet making its closest approach to the Earth.

THE BEARDED MAN RETURNETH

Well, the beard is making a comeback. I was recently asked by the drummer I work with on my recordings—Glenn sidelines as an actor and director for stage productions—to audition for a part in the Lehi Arts Commission’s production of “Smokey Joe’s Café.” If you are not familiar with this Broadway Production, it is a collection of live performances of 50s and 60s acclaimed songwriters, Leiber and Stoller. They penned such classic Rock & Roll songs as: Jailhouse Rock, Treat Me Nice, Little Egypt, Youngblood, I’m A Woman, Trouble, Searchin’ On Broadway, Saved… well, you get the picture. There are about 40 songs in the show, featuring 5 men and 4 women singing and dancing, with an onstage backup band of around 6 or seven pieces. The musical has no real storyline or dialog apart from the lyrics in the songs. If you have seen the Broadway version, either live or on DVD, you will appreciate the task ahead for this community theater group.

If you are able to see our production, you may well appreciate the challenge placed before me: all of the other singers are in their mid twenties or younger. OUCH! Why, you might ask yourself, would they want ME on board? And, you might also ask yourself again, why I, a guy knocking on 60’s door and who couldn't’t dance his way out of anything, including a rather large paper sack, let myself be talked into exposing myself to sure embarrassment and open ridicule? The answer is: I have no earthly idea! The truth is: I like to perform, or at least sing. The idea of broadening my horizons is, perhaps, a possibility as well. When I said I would come to the audition, I had no idea, really, of what I was getting into.

A while back, not long after moving to Utah, my friend, Dave, who also plays bass and sings with me, asked me to take a part in the same organization's production of “The Sound of Music”. They needed some one to play the Admiral who comes to the Von Trapp home to give Captain Von Trapp his orders to report to the German navy—this character does not appear in the movie version. I had just a few lines and I did not have to sing or dance—a piece of cake. I would get a chance to spend some time again with Dave, my old performing partner, after many years apart. Although I only had to deliver a few lines in a German accent—the accent was brilliant, of course—I had a hard time remembering my lines. I guess it was nerves, or maybe the onset of Alzheimer's. In every performance, except the last one, I would give a variation of my lines, giving the general idea. I got a little closer to perfect each performance, until the last one when I "nailed it". The only problem was my microphone failed me and no one in the audience heard my triumph.

It had been a long while since I had done any “acting.” I had done a play when I was in my teens and had been roped into doing a couple of church “road shows”. When I first came to Utah to live, back in the 70s, I got a non-speaking part in a European movie production set in 19th century Utah about a Mormon convert from Iceland who settled near Spanish Fork—my Icelandic and German language talents precluded me from a speaking part. But I had "the look" they liked and they used me most every day they shot on location in Utah. It was great fun and I decided I would give it a try again. I auditioned for a Church film about Josepfh Smith and the Lost Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, and though the casting director told me I did really well, that she was putting me at the top of her list, we moved to California before they started filming. I later saw the film and am sure they didn't miss out on too much by my move away. The opportunity came again after moving to Tennessee. I got a part in a CBS made-for-TV-movie called "The Conviction of Katie Dodd". It starred Victoria Hammil, of "Hill Street Blues" fame, and Kevin Dobson, of "Knots Landing" and "Kojak" fame. I played a friend of Kevin Dobson’s character. Again, it was fun. A while later, I was given a small non-speaking appearances on a CBS pilot for a series to star country singer Lorrie Morgan as a Nashville police detective captain who night-lighted as a country singer—it is amazing what kind of money gets spent for ludicrous ideas in the television industry. About that same time, our Franklin Stake (geographical church organization or unit) decide to do a big show featuring each ward (smaller church units or congregations within the stake) doing 20 to 30 minute vignettes of their choice of Broadway Shows. Our ward chose “Fiddler on the Roof”. I had always thought that I could play the "Tevye" character well, so I auditioned for the part and got it. As it turned out, only two wards out of nine were able to put shows together, but we performed them and were pleased with the results. My wife, Karen, played the oldest daughter—I was already looking a lot older than she was by this time. A few months later, I was asked by the Stake Relief Society (a women's organization within our church) to reprise the role in costume for a presentation on "relationships", I think, singing a few of the numbers from "Fiddler" with my wife in the "Golde" role. I really enjoyed it, but the opportunities to pursue acting dried up and we eventually moved to Kansas.

So, it had been more than fifteen years since I had exposed myself to
“acting” and the little part in “The Sound of Music” got my juices flowing again. Though that stage appearance was anything but glorious, I decided I would try it again, especially if an opportunity came up to do the Tevye part. I passed on auditioning for “Oklahoma” when it came up, because I was obviously too old for anything other than smaller roles and there were no Tevye-type parts, but when Glenn told me about "Smokey Joe’s Café" and that it was just singing a bunch of songs that Elvis and the Coasters had made famous, I thought “this might be fun" and it would give me an opportunity to see if I could do a stage that would not be too difficult. After all, I cut my teeth on such musical material and had played and sung my own stuff in nightclubs for most of my life. How hard could it be?

Well, it could be very hard, especially if dancing comes into the equation. My afore-mentioned inability to dance kept me from taking a part in a local production of a dinner-mystery-musical-farce about a year ago. When it became apparent that there would be some dancing involved in the “Smokey” production, I began to be reticent. When I watched the DVD of the Broadway version, I almost started to cry. However, Glenn promised me that I would not be expected to do much real dancing, just moving around to the music. We’ll see about that. I was the first man to be cast and the only man to be cast after the initially-scheduled auditions and Glenn was thinking that, if they could not find four more guys who had quality voices in a reasonable hurry, they would have to cancel the show. I began to breathe a little easier. Maybe I had been too hasty and this was God's way of protecting me from having a heart attack. Then I get a call later in the week from Glen and he says he has the guys and the show can go on. Imagine my added horror when I found out that all of the other singers in the cast were less than half my age. And, they looked like they could dance too. It was at our first rehearsal that I suggested that we could interject some hilarious comedy relief into the performance by having me perform in a wheelchair, with a girl in a nurse costume pushing me around the stage for the dance routines, while I snapped my fingers and sang with a straight face. The laughter my suggestion elicited was as far as the hilarity and the idea went.

So, I am somewhat conflicted about this opportunity. "The show must go on", as they say, and trooper that I am, I agreed to do it, but if they were to tell me they had a younger and spryer fellow to take my part, I might do a tripple somersalt like Little Egypt. It could and should be fun though, if the audience can suspend reality enough to imagine me at least 30 years younger, and if I am able to remember the lyrics to the songs, AND I don’t trip and fall into their laps, AND they don’t make disparaging comments or cat calls, if I don’t do the former and do do the latter.

Oh yes, I almost forgot about the return of my beard and the reason for this blog. When I auditioned for the musical, Glenn and his assistant asked me if I would mind growing the beard back—you see, he has seen me both ways. When I enthusiastically said “YES", they added that they might want to color it for the performances.

HISTORY IN THE MAKING or HISTORY REAPEATING ITSELF

Well, history was made yesterday. The first African-American was inaugurated as President of the United States of America. Let me say here that I loath the politically correct term “African American” to describe people who have distinguishable Negro blood and are citizens of the United States of America. Not all people who live on the African continent or are descended from ancestors who lived there are of Negro blood. I know people who are extremely Caucasian in appearance, who hale from South Africa and whose antecedents there go back for many generations. For the most part, my ancestors were Europeans—our genealogy claims lines through most of the royal courts—with a smattering of indigenous American blood through the Sac and Fox tribes. Note that I did not use the silly and inaccurate term “Native American”. Anyone born in America is a Native American; black, white, red, brown or yellow—Sorry, Rev, no rhymes here. But I digress…

Yesterday, Barak Hussein Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. I did not vote for President Obama. I would have liked to vote for the first “black” man to hold the office of President, but I disliked Obama’s policies, for being too liberal, and I was extremely suspicious of his numerous past associations with radicals. It was, however, cool to see a major milestone passed in American race relations. I doubt that it will mean much to some people, both black and white, because they have so much invested in their race-based hatred and mistrust. I honestly did not care for the Republican party’s nominee this time around either. He, like Obama, had bought into the man-made-climate change hysteria and was unwilling to embrace a logical energy policy, was not very reassuring on tax cutting, and joined in enthusiastically on the government financial bail-outs for Wall Street and the banking and automotive industries. Only my fear of a weakened American war on terror under an Obama and the assured reign (or perhaps rain) of more liberal federal judges made me enthusiastically vote for McCain. But, Obama won. He is my President, and I wish him well. He won the election and he deserves a chance to fail and, perhaps, learn from mistakes. I suspect that the liberal media, the Hollywood loonies, and the angry left cut him a lot of slack for a very long time, because he is their man and they really want him to succeed. I too want success for our country and I will support him when he makes the right choices, however, I will surely moan and complain and say “I told you so” when and if he does fail. I liked President Bush very much for his desire and willingness to take on our country's enemies and do the hard lifting and take hateful and ignorant criticism leveled at him by the liberal media, Hollywood nuts and the liberal fascists without complaint. I also praise him for two pretty conservative Supreme Court nominations. I moaned and complained, of course, when he let spending get out of hand; tried too hard to appease the likes of Kennedy, Reed, Shumer, and Pelosi; and decided that Wall Street and the loan institutions needed to be bailed out with tax-payer money, but I believe he was a good and honorable man who did his best in very trying times, just not a Ronald Reagan conservative.

History tells me to have great doubts.

Much like today, FDR replaced an economically liberal Republican President Herbert Hoover and continued some of his more liberal initiatives and randomly tried to come up with even more liberal solutions to the country’s economic ills. His efforts actually stalled a recovery from the world-wide Great Depression in the United States, making it worse, while Europe, with a more hands-off conservative approach, was digging itself back to prosperity. If not for World War II and the need for American labor products abroad during the war, we would have suffered even longer. For an education on this subject you might like to read the following books: “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes; “1920: The Year of the Six Presidents” by David Pietrusza; and “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” by Jonah Goldberg. The fact is the scenario we find ourselves in is scarily similar. As FDR did, I can easily visualize Obama trying to fix the economy by one wrong-headed liberal program after another.

Ronald Reagan’s approach to fixing economic woes was to get government out of the way. The problem we have at the moment is that government was too much involved. They had oversight of banking and loan institutions, but they neglected, or chose not, to do their duties in that regard. As I stated in an earlier blog, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started the ball rolling for our current housing and banking woes, while congress, especially the democrats had their hands all over it. Reagan would have let the institutions fail or go into bankruptcy. Like the airline industry did, the auto industry would have come back leaner and stronger, and our banks and lending institutions would have eventually come back, though some would have failed. The economy would have righted itself in a shorter time than it likely will with all of our government’s assistance. The pain would have been acute but relatively short. Under big government intervention, the pain will likely be long-term and chronic. I wish President Obama well, but I expect that I need to get use to disappointment.

The Ghosts of Christmas Cards Past

Every Christmas we try to be creative with our Christmas Cards/letters that we send out. If you have received one of our cards over the years, you may wait in anticipation of the next "Mundy Family Christmas Card", wondering if it will be as good, or at least as interesting as "last year's". Also, if you've just recently gotten on our mailing/emailing list, you may wonder what you've been missing in the past. So, I had Karen scrounge around and find representatives of past Christmases that I might share with you on this blog site. We started trying to do humorous cards when the kids were younger, more than ten years ago, I think. I honestly can't remember if we were able to pull it off each year, but I think we did. However, we were not able to come up with one from each year. But, we found a bunch and so I am including them below in order of the year they were presented from earliest to most recent, with some explanation. You can click on the images to enlarge them for better viewing.

Last year, Christmas, 2007, was fun to try to get all of us in the picture again, plus Mom Preece and Connie, the new additions to our household. Celebrity mug shots that we had seen around that time, of Mel Gibson and others were the inspiration for this one and I eventually came up with a workable and humorous caption. The individual mug shots turned out pretty good, with Tyler's photo shop work putting in the background. The monikers were mostly funny too.

















Christmas 2006 has to be my favorite so far and it set the bar pretty high. I actually had the idea of a Super Hero based card for a couple of years, but either wasn't able to get the other family members to think seriously--right word?--about it, or I wasn't exactly sure weather to do it in costume or go the comics drawing route. It finally made sense to me to do the drawings and I asked Tyler to do the drawings--most of my kids, Karen or myself could have done respectable jobs, but Tyler liked the idea and ran with it, doing a great job. To elaborate on the joke, I insisted on having written discriptions of our character--super powers, or lack there of, weakness, etc. I think most everyone came up with their own super hero identities with some suggestions of my own and I did the bulk of the writing giving edtting power to the family members. This of course made the card a bigger deal than the others thus far and since, but it made it more entertaining and memorable.























Christmas 2005 was a particularly creative one, I thought. It consists of sculptured busts of all of our family members which I had done the year prior--I was just getting back in to sculpture after almost 37 years--with Santa hats we purchased for the occasion and a caption refering to Christmas busting out all over. Clever, if I do say so.
















Christmas 2004 was one of our better ones. The theme, of course, is "Movie Characters" and the heading, "Merry Christmas, Coming To A Location Near You". The fun part, we thought, would be for our friends to guess which film character we were presenting. The harder ones were Jesse as "Ash" )Bruce Campbell's character from the "Living Dead" movies)and Heidi as "Laura Croft, Tomb Raider". Ingrid, of course, is "Marilyn Monroe";Tyler is "James Bond" (Connery's); Dylan is Harry What's-his-name; Karen is Mary What's-her-name; and I am Tevye, from "Fiddler".















Christmas 2003 was our nod to the Brady Bunch opening. Karen wrote some lyrics to be sung to the Brady Bunch song. Cute, if nothing else. Tyler was actually serving in a church mission in Chile at the time, so we opted for the different frames idea. Note: The sculpture is one Tyler did earlier of Weezer (Tyler's favorite band)front man, Rivers Cuomo--we were short one family member to fill all of the frames.















I think Christmas, 2002, was a year when we knew we would not have everyone around near Christmas, so we took an early picture in a park. We had no "Big Idea" for a card but we thought that if we put thought baloons with our individual Christmas wishes, it would be humorous. You be the judge.















Christmas, 2000, found us during our stay in Kansas and we chose to do the card based on our "Old West" picture of our family taken at "Worlds of Fun", in Kansas City. The caption, "Have a Merry Christmas, or Else", seemed appropriate.















Christmas 1999 was our year to do a motorcycle-related card. My brother had a bike and Jesse owned the small one that Dylan is sitting on and he later bought one of the bigger bikes from his cousin, Tommy, and sold the smaller one to tyler. The other bikes belonged to friends from work. The card was mildy cute and the Happy Hogidays caption was good, if not hilarious.















Christmas 1998 was also a good one and a popular one with card receivers. We paid homage to my love for the "Blues" and used the mental image of the Mundys as the BLUES BROTHERS BAND, with black suits and black pork-pie hats with the Caption "It'll Be A Blue Christmas Without You."















Christmas 1997, I think, was our first Christmas after moving back to my hometown of Topeka, Kansas, fro Nashville, TN. I think Karen and I thought it would be cute, since we were now living in the countrified farming and ranching state of Kansas, to do a card based on the famous painting, "American Gothic". We found a bunch of pitchforks, threw on our overhauls, scouted out a farm near our home and went to ask if we could take a picture in their yard. The people weren't at home, so we went for it any way. It was funny to learn later that people who received our card thought we had actually moved on to a farm.















I think that 1990 was the first Christmas card we did, where we tried to be creative. "The Simpsons" was ver popular at the time, so I drew us as the Simsonesque Mundys. This was before Dylan was born and we had two "Barts" to make our family fit. I thought it was a fun Card. I had to put my old mole--I had it removed a few years back--and a heavier beard on Homer and a dot on the end of Marge's nose and non-bufant big hair to identify her as Karen--that freckle is no longer there these days, which makes me wonder...





Anyway, this card got the tradition started. We'll try to keep it up. I don't know what our kids plan to do as they go their separate ways, but I don't suppose the apples will fall to far away from the tree.