Ed. Interesting article from Rabbi Daniel Lapin that touches on our ongoing discussion of poverty but from a Jewish perspective.
Toward Tradition Rabbi Daniel Lapin
Heading an organization whose entire purpose is to promote friendship and mutual respect between Jews and Christians, egregious assaults on this friendship really bother me. As I reported last week, it gives me little pleasure to admit that most of these assaults come from my side of the fence. Well, here we go again.
In Bellevue, Washington, just a few miles from my home, a Jewish Reform temple has been upsetting its neighbors by insisting on hosting an encampment of homeless people on its property. Fearful neighbors in this upper middle class enclave of young families point to countless offenses, ranging from assault and relieving in public to drug possession, perpetrated by this group of homeless during their earlier sojourn on the grounds of a church in a neighboring city.
Last Thursday, forced to adjudicate between neighbors’ unhappiness and the fervent do-goodism of the temple, the city of Bellevue imposed a time limit of 60 days on the encampment—far less time than the temple requested. The city also imposed a limit on how many homeless the temple grounds could accommodate, based on the number of toilets and showers available.
On Monday the temple filed a lawsuit against the city in King County Superior Court claiming that the city violated the temple’s religious freedom. I have already debated this matter on the radio with senior rabbi, James Mirel, who happens to be a really decent guy and a thoroughly nice person. He claims that the limits imposed by the city are unacceptable because “The whole idea of reaching out to the poor and needy is part of our Jewish tradition.”
On the air I pointed out to Rabbi Mirel that very few of the temple’s leadership and members live within the quarter-mile radius of the temple that experience tells us will be deleteriously impacted by the presence of a crowd of indigent squatters. This meant that others would bear the burden of the temple’s pick-and-choose piety.
I use that phrase because most Reform temples reject much of Jewish tradition. For instance, they usually ignore the obligation to live within walking distance of their temple, as the Sabbath laws dictate.
I felt that a family that had worked hard, scrimping and saving in order to be able to afford a home in that locale shouldn’t have their quality of life destroyed by the local Jewish temple. Especially since the temple was doing something that zoning laws would prohibit any of them from doing—namely allowing campers with a history of anti-social behavior to hang-out on the front lawn.
Needless to say, the neighbors have protested mightily. They have obtained over 60 pages of sheriff’s reports of hundreds of run-ins with the law that these campers have had during their previous stays at houses of worship in King County. I have seen these reports and they make for shocking reading.
During our radio debate, Rabbi Mirel assured listeners that security guards had been engaged to supervise the harmless homeless. Although I regard the rabbi as a friend, I couldn’t resist showing him that one of those very security guards had been arrested at the encampment for distributing illegal narcotics. This is not very reassuring for the young mother living next to the temple who called me, sick with worry about her children’s safety.
One of the most astounding aspects of this entire affair is that almost nobody is speaking up for the rights of the homeowners in the area. Since when in America do the rights of the homeless trump those of the homeowners?
Indeed, is there a right of the homeless to be anywhere other than in homeless shelters? There is an almost insufferable aura of sanctimoniousness and self-righteousness about these so-called tent cities. Politicians race for the television cameras to demonstrate their compassion. Do Americans who have practiced self-discipline and moral restraint in order to be able to purchase a home, forfeit their rights to compassion?
My right to my property’s value is protected from my neighbor’s zealous efforts to help the homeless by housing 50 of them on his lawn next to the newly installed porta-potties. Why should my rights be any more vulnerable if my neighbor happens to be a house of worship? Why is someone, who is often at least partially complicit in his homeless status, more important than a homeowner?
Why do some people feel they owe more compassion to the homeless than to their very own middle class neighbors?
All these questions are really only one question—why does the culture loathe those who have achieved a little financial success?
The answer is because the culture has rejected the Abrahamitic model of Judeo- Christian values which promotes work, achievement, private property, and yes, charity to the deserving. Instead, our left-leaning culture has adopted the socialistic thinking of the Tower of Babel.
In that worldview, scorning the civilized norms of society confers virtue; the homeless vagrant becomes a hero. To the mandarins of modern Marxism, wealth is evidence of malfeasance. Utopian believing bureaucrats hate private property wanting us all out of our cars and into mass transit and regard all property owners as nuisances who buy absolution for the sin of achievement with ever higher taxes.
To my shame, far too many Jews have fallen for the failed promises of socialism instead of for the rapturous embrace of the Torah as a blindingly incandescent source of truth. Not surprisingly they then disappoint and baffle the many Christians who do see the values of the Ten Commandments as central to our society.
There’s a popular myth in American culture that goes something like this: if you expend “x” amount of effort towards achieving your goals and ambitions, you can reasonably expect a “y” result.
“The answer is because the culture has rejected the Abrahamitic model of Judeo- Christian values which promotes work, achievement, private property, and yes, charity to the deserving.”
Let me tell you something: I had spent 18 years studying classical piano, attended one of the most prestigious musical conservatories in the country, won a national piano competition and had numerous contacts in the music industry. After all was said and done, all this effort was almost completely useless in being able to provide an income sufficient to be considered “poor”. So after banging my head against a brick wall for some time I said “Forget this” and went into software development. So great, after a few years, I have a job that (to me) is pretty low stress: I have no annoying public to deal with, I sit in a cushy office and have a new Mercedes in the garage. So, I’m not complaining, and I actually consider myself fortunate, but I’m not sure I get it.
My point is: there is not a linear relationship between effort and honesty with how much one has or does not have. We need to remember that before we insist that the poor are necessarily less intelligent, less hard working or less honest. Recall also that we live in a society where rap stars are paid millions while hard-working teachers eat Ramen noodles.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Note 1 People Vote with their dollars
There is no principle of Judaeo-Christian ethics which guarantees everybody the right to get paid a comfortable wage for doing what they enjoy the most. There is also no principle of life that states that you are free to choose any project without calculating the probability of success before you start it. If everyone were assured a comfortable living doing what they loved best everyone would be full time gardeners, musicians, gourmet cooks, painters, etc. There probably would not be anyone to work on sewer systems, waste disposal, metallurgy, deep-ocean fishing, and many other very important and necessary tasks that involve somewhat distasteful or disagre0able work.
In a free society, people vote with their dollars. More people are interested in country music than classical music. More people are interested in pop songs than classical music. This has been the case all the way through the 20th and 21st century. It isn’t something recent. It is possible that we could change these facts if we changed the educational system, however, given the state of the culture and the extent of its degradation it would take a revolution. By the way, I also studied classical piano, but just as a child, and I did not progress as far as you did, even at 12 years old I knew that the number of professional pianists who could make a living in the U.S. was about 30 max. I didn’t have the talent anyway.
Missourian, you might find this article by conservative Catholic artist Michael O’Brien enlightening. I’m not sure if you were attempting to denigrate my intelligence for having embarked on a difficult career path, but that’s how it came across: keep in mind that if everyone did as I did, there would be no musicians, no artists, no filmmakers … and I think we need the arts. I’m glad not everyone decides to sell out but that some push through to the end, despite the odds.
Nevertheless, I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is more to the equation as to who is poor or not than simply whether the person has made an effort or not, or whether the person is honest or even gifted. In my case, it was the issue of being in a low-demand field in a supply-and-demand economy. Even here, this factor is not a constant. Specializations come and go. In tech, I’ve seen some of the old-timers who have been cornered into a niche for years end up jobless for not keeping ahead of new technologies.
As long as we consider *any* government assistance (which I never used, by the way, perhaps only because I had very generous parents while in school) to be coddling shiftless slackers or call it “Marxism” or “socialism”, we’re not acting in truth and are placing labels on individuals that are not warranted. I’m not suggesting that the government subsidize the efforts of those who choose to pick up obscure job skills for their entire lives. However, misfortune falls on the best of us, and the whimsical demands of a free market society can render us obsolete very quickly. While the answer is not solely in the hands of government, I think it has the responsibility to soften the blows to the lives affected by its own intrinsic qualities.
What does this mean in practice? Well, medicine is a highly paid field … it’s highly specialized and there is a great need. We don’t want a nation full of physicians, however. Encouraging other endeavors (such as the arts) through some funding is not an evil if the alternative is no arts, or arts that are created only by those who can afford to create it. Do we want to become more technologically advanced? Great, but we will sometimes need to assist to transition workers once their factory closes because some machine can make widgets for half the cost or with better features. I don’t see these concepts as rewarding sloth or encouraging waste: it’s the fair and just thing to do.
Missourian, you might find this article by conservative Catholic artist Michael O’Brien enlightening. I’m not sure if you were attempting to denigrate my intelligence for having embarked on a difficult career path, but that’s how it came across: keep in mind that if everyone did as I did, there would be no musicians, no artists, no filmmakers … and I think we need the arts. I’m glad not everyone decides to sell out but that some push through to the end, despite the odds.
Nevertheless, you missed my point: there is more to the equation as to who is poor or not than simply whether the person has made an effort or not, or whether the person is honest or even gifted. In my case, it was the issue of being in a low-demand field in a supply-and-demand economy. Even here, this factor is not a constant. Specializations come and go. In tech, I’ve seen some of the old-timers who have been cornered into a niche for years end up jobless for not keeping ahead of new technologies.
As long as we consider *any* government assistance (which I never used, by the way, perhaps only because I had very generous parents while in school) to be coddling shiftless slackers or call it “Marxism” or “socialism”, we’re placing a label on individuals which is truly unwarranted.
JamesK writes: “I had spent 18 years studying classical piano, attended one of the most prestigious musical conservatories in the country, won a national piano competition and had numerous contacts in the music industry. After all was said and done, all this effort was almost completely useless in being able to provide an income sufficient to be considered ‘poor’.”
To some extent this is a result of what some call the “winner take all” society. It’s an effect of the commercialization of mass culture.
One hundred years ago, someone like you would have been a local treasure. You would have had a career performing locally or even regionally. You would have been one of the main sources of entertainment, and the people in your city would have been eternally grateful that you lived among them.
But now — let me be rudely blunt — why should I pay to watch you perform when I can see Horowitz on DVD? Why should I listen to you on the radio when I can hear the greatest pianists in the world on radio? Why should I pay $14 for your CD when I can buy Glenn Gould or Sviatoslav Richter for $15?
See what I mean? It’s not your fault. In fact, you may even be as good as these other guys, or better. But there’s only so much room at the top.
That’s the down side. But there is an up side too. You know what it’s like to achieve mastery of an instrument. You know what it’s like when, even for just a moment, everything comes together, and you, the instrument, and the music, all blend into greatness. That’s something that many dream about but few experience. I myself studied piano when I was younger, but it was clear from the start that I was a marginal talent. You at least tasted greatness, and no one can take that from you.
Note 4 The Point? I thought you loved music for its own sake, apparently not.
Music is always there to enjoy and share. It appears that your complaint is that you didn’t find a position in music that allowed you to do what you like best AND that paid a salary you found adequate. Are you suggesting that voluntarily choosing a line of work that results in poverty is somehow noble and tragic and that it should be supported by the rest of us? I certainly hope not.
Did you want to be a full-time professional concert pianist? Society just doesn’t support very many of them. Did you want to teach at the university level? More openings available. Did you want to teach in a high school? Openings probably readily available. Did you want to take students privately? Probably could attract a goodly number of students. A good friend of mine is a very fine classical musician and he supports himself comfortably as a professional musician. He gives lessons and serves as a paid professoinal music director for several churches. Why do you think you can adopt some dramatic posture of the suffering artist? You left music and started programming, giving you an income and weekends in which to persue music, which you love just for the HECK of it, not the money it brings in, I am sure.
Happily, we live in a free society and for the most part people are not required to part with their money involuntarily. You just couldn’t get enough people to VOLUNTARILY part with the money that you wanted to support your favored form of activity. So you blame society, it is full of philistines and ain’t that tragic.
I personally agree. Everybody SHOULD like and support classical music. It is what I like. What I like is most important and everyone should respect it and give it first priority. However, there are people out there that like other types of music (not just rap) and they want to spend their money on the kind of music they like. Drat that freedom of choice. There is nothing Marxist abouty your comments unless you suggest that we should use the power of government to find money so that you can have the kind of music career you want. This violates the old freedom of choice principle and makes you a musical Marxist.
It may sadden you to realize that I am both an underappreciated gourmet chef and an underappreciated hybrid rose gardener. Try as I might, I have not be able to find someone to pay me the money I would like doing these tasks. SIGH, I am forced to practice law, however, I look forward to the day when I may be able to retire to my garden and my kitchen and shred the law books. If society had the values that I think it should have, appreciators of the natural beauty of roses, like myself would not have to finance their activities from their own money in their spare time. There would be a nationally sponsored tax to support me through a Department for the Development of the Hybrid Tea Rose.
No my friend, I don’t think you love music for its own sake, I think you love JamesK for his own sake.That’s O.K. People who don’t like themselves are not very pleasant to be around. I love Missourian for her own sake. In fact, I just can’t get over her! I just don’t adopt a tragic, suffering artist pose because I can’t spend all my time in my garden with someone else picking up the tab.
Note 6 Life on this planet is competition
JamesK writes
In my case, it was the issue of being in a low-demand field in a supply-and-demand economy.
Missourian replies:
Will Durant spent a life time studying world history. Near the end of his career he wrote some essays about what he learned in this persuit. One of his observations is that “history is about competition.” Societies are always in competition. Societies that manage change well thrive. Societies that don’t manage change well fail and disappear.
Observe nature for about 6 seconds. Notice that gorgeous leopard chasing down the Thompson gazelle? Notice the bird eating the worm? Notice the two stallions fighting for dominance? Competition, my dear JamesK, competition.
So it is in a free society. People offering services compete with each other for jobs and pay. There just weren’t enough people who VOLUNTARILY chose to pay for your services as a pianist or they weren’t willing to pay enough to suit you.
Why should someone who choose a field that was in high demand PAY for you to choose a field that is in low demand?
As an object of pity, you don’t rank very high on my list.
On the one hand, a competitive supply-and-demand economy is a good thing: money and success are great motivators and are probably the reason for numerous advances in medicine, technology and even the arts. People should generally be entitled to make as much money as they can, so long as it’s done without trampling on others in the process. The beauty is also that in this country, you can start with next to nothing and make it to the top: I think it’s grand that an African-American woman who grew up in the poorest part of the South is now the most powerful and wealthiest woman in the entertainment industry.
Still, there’s an element of luck to all of this, and no one gets to the top without some help. Thinking back over my schooling and job switch, I had a great deal of financial and emotional support. I had friends with companies who allowed me to work for them and agreed to being that first “job reference”. I had parents who sent checks to New York when I ran out of money for food and patiently listened to me complain about this or that while in college. I also had the fortunate timing to get into the tech industry right before doors started closing on it. My transition was relatively easy, but I know of many students in my field who’ve had to move back in with their parents (their poor parents!).
So I really did work hard to get where I am, but it would be dishonest of me to insist that I got there entirely of my own accord. I needed help to be able to contribute back to society. Many gave me something for nothing. Not everyone is blessed with these resources, however. To the extent that government assists people in providing for themselves, government aid is a good thing. If this means welfare money in return for community work or job training, then it’s a good idea. This isn’t collectivism.
Note 7 The Point? JamesK
If the point is that we should be grateful for our blessings and give back to others, we are in agreement.
If the point is that the life is not perfectly fair, we are in agreement.
You still are looking at things in a materialistic way. I know people who make modest amounts of money but they are doing what they love and they have great joy and satisfaction in their lives. Money isn’t everything, it is far less than everything.
Lastly, I still would like to emphasize that the only alternative to free markets is some form of socialism. The phrase “free markets” means that people get to spend their money on what they want to spend their money on. Naturally not everyone will spend their money the RIGHT WAY. The RIGHT WAY is the way I DO IT. Society SHOULD PUT ME IN CHARGE and everybody would do things the RIGHT WAY. I would be a perfect Commissar of Culture. We need to immediately spend more money on the cultivation of hybrid tea roses. My favorite rose, Jardin de Bagatelle, should be planted everywhere.
Mozart, Beethoven and Bach were successful
All three of these musical geniuses were successful in their day. They had recognition and they could earn a living. Hadyn was was also successful as was Handel. Duke Ellington was successful, he obtained financial and critical acclaim in his lifetime. Shakespeare made a living at his craft and his plays were frequently performed.
Guess if you are good enough, people want to pay for what you produce.
#9
I like Lady Di’s and Arizona Sunsets.
Missourian does the term Lysenkonism mean anything to you?
When made Commisar of Culture will you become conviced that tea roses can be grown all year and demand that thousands of seedlings be planted in the snow?
#10 Bach was more than a musician. To many theologians he’s referred to as the fifth evangelist.
Mssiourian,
Bach was a church organist originally. He later was taken into the service of several nobles, most notably Prince Leopold. He then moved on to be a church cantor, with duties at the two biggest churchs in Leipzig. He fulfilled these duties until his death. Since he only worked Sundays and feast days, this left a lot of free time for other pursuits.
Mozart had various posts at courts and cathedrals, finally landing in Vienna as a composer of dance music for royal balls. That post, secured in 1787, afforded him a steady income and quite a few priveleges.
Beethoven was the son of a COURT musician in Bonn. His first job was in the court orchestra, from which he took a leave of absence to study under Mozart. After moving to Vienna, he was supported by a number of noble patrons. His works between 1792 and 1808 bear dedications to them. In 1809, his patrons gave him an annuity to enable him to live worry free.
The great musicians of Europe did NOT scratch their way to the top playing concert halls for the ignorant masses. They were supported by a tremendous interlocking cooperation of the Nobility and the Church. The Churches hired great talent to lead the large choirs and compose sacred music. The Noblility felt a duty to support the arts, and did so with large financial patronage. This confluence of sacred and secular power led to the greatest artistic works of all time.
The same is true of the great works of European architecture. The great churches were built with patronage of Kings, dukes, counts, and others. The nobility bequethed to us the artistic riches that we now have. Without the partnership of Nobility and the Church, what would we have?
When created for ‘mass appeal,’ what passes for art tends to be bawdy (as are Shakespeare’s comedies) if not pornographic. We are living, today, in a ‘mass market’ and there simply is little room for real talent. In prior centuries, every church would have a skilled cantor. Every little court an orchestra, with all the musicians earning a living wage. Out of that pool came Mozart and Bach, and all the rest.
Today? Where are the wealthy patrons who fund their own orchestras? Not simply donating some money here or there, but actually funding the whole thing? Where are the churches with a full-time composer on staff who writes original pieces to be performed for any man or woman who simply walks through the door on Sunday?
They don’t exist. The American experiment destroyed the Noble class, and replaced it with a class of wealthy vulgarians whose money is spent on consumption. We are living the results of this now, as a degraded culture slips into utter turpitude.
Of course, government funding can not take the place of the patrons and the church. Funding works by committee, and the committees will usually end up funding pieces that are ‘politically correct.’ We will end up with whatever sensationalist fare will most appeal to the ‘edgy’ members of our society. In 200 years, no one is going to care about Mapplethorpe’s photography. Nor should they.
I am afraid there is no way out of this trap of decline. Without a noble class working with a national church to enrich and propagate the culture of the nation, there is a breach into which I am afraid nothing can step.
Does this mean that I am ant-free market? No, it only means that I recognize that the free market is a mechanism for matching willing buyers and willing sellers. It has no built-in morality or ethics, no greater sense of purpose. Those must be provided by systems outside of the realm of pure economics. The patrons of old exercised their own discretion and spent their own money to provide a legacy to the world. That was their choice, but it was a choice guided by the expectations of their day concerning their obligations to the society as a whole. The Church also was acting under its sense of duty. We have a free market today, but that sense of obligation in shaping the choices made in it is completely lacking.
Glen wrote: “Bach was a church organist originally. He later was taken into the service of several nobles, most notably Prince Leopold. He then moved on to be a church cantor, with duties at the two biggest churchs in Leipzig. He fulfilled these duties until his death. Since he only worked Sundays and feast days, this left a lot of free time for other pursuits.”
A bit simple there Glen. Being a Lutheran Cantor was more than just working on Sundaysb and feast days. It meant that he was in charge of the liturgical life of Liepzig. As cantor Bach was required to have a written a new prelude, offertory, and prelude every worship service. He was responsible for the organists in Liepzig. He was also responsible for the choirs.
And Lutheran cantors are also responsible for religious education. That’s why today many cantors are ordained pastors.
But you also forget that during the 18th century there was more to the worship life in the city than just Sundays and feast days. There was worship everyday of the week.
Here’s a sample of a cantor’s responsibility during a week from Guther Stiller’s work “Johann Sebastian Bach and Liturgical Life in Liepzig”:
Monday
6:30 a.m. Early service with preaching at St. Nicholas
2 p.m. Short prayer service and exhortation to penitence at St. Thomas
2 p.m. Instruction in the Catechism and the Bible at St. Peter
Tuesday
6:30 a.m. Early service with preaching at St. Thomas
2 p.m. Major prayer service with confession at St. Nicholas
2 p.m. Instruction in Catechism and Bible at St. Thomas
3 p.m. Prayer service adn exhortation to penitence at New Church
3 p.m. Prayer service and Bible exposition at St. John
5 p.m. Instruction in Catechism and Bible at St. George
Wednesday
6:30 a.m. Early service with sermon and Holy Communion at St. Nicholas
9 a.m. Prayer service and instruction of the Catechism at St. James
2 p.m. Minor prayer service and confession at St. Thomas
2 p.m. Instruction in Catechism and Bible at St. Nicholas
3 p.m. Prayer service or exhortation to penitence at St. John
Thursday
6:30 a.m. Early service with sermon and Holy Communion at St. Thomas
2 p.m. Minor prayer service and exhortation to penitence at St. Nicholas.
2 p.m. Instruction in Catechism and Bible at St. Peter
3 p.m. Prayer service or exhortation to penitence at St. John
Friday
6:30 a.m. Penitential service with sermon at St. Nicholas
9 a.m. Prayer service and Catechism instruction at St. James
2 p.m. Major prayer service at St. Thomas
3 p.m. Weekday sermon at New Church
5 p.m. Bible instruction at St. George
Saturday
1:30 p.m. Weekday sermon at St. Nicholas
1:30 p.m. Weekday sermon at St. Thomas
Note 11 Jerry, Arizona Sunsets and Live Ladybugs
Wow, I am impressed. Yes, Lady Di’s and Arizona Sunsets are amazing. I am very impressed that you know about Arizona Sunset. What zone do you live in? I am in Zone 5 and I have to treat some of my hybrid tea roses as annuals because it is difficult to get them to winter over.
Have you ever used live ladybugs to kill aphids without chemicals?
I could spend all of my time in my garden.
Glen
Isn’t it true that musicians competed for the patronage of nobles? The musicians succeeded in getting somebody to voluntarily pay for their activity. I am sure that the musicians of the day were complaining that the nobles had poor taste in music and didn’t sufficiently appreciate true musical genius. Sometimes the musicians themselves didn’t appreciate their own music Tschaikovsky (sp?) didn’t like the Nutcracker. he dashed it off under contractual compulsion.
I think the noble class certainly can be credited with a great deal in the classic period but the fact the music inspires devotion and love from large numbers of people also contributed to its survival in the culture. I was listening to a classical music station which had just played Beethoven’s Fifth and some woman called in and asked “what was that terrific music.?” Most people respond to classical IF they hear it.
My mother grew Arizona Sunsets when I was growing up in Calif.
I became familiar with Lady Di’s when I worked for a florist, at the time they were a very popular rose for arrangements.
I couldn’t tell you what zone I live in now in Florida. But I do know it’s not the best for Roses.
As far as Ladybugs, haven’t used them.
JamesK, apologies
I have been too hard on you. Please accept my apologies. I am sorry that your music career didn’t work out as you wished. It sounds like you had real talent. I was always a plodder on the keyboard. Maybe I should look into Mongolian throat singing, it got a great deal of attention at the Academy Awards a few years ago when Joan Rivers made fun of the man from Tibet who made a documentary about it. Could be a future there for me. What’s the weather like in Tibet?
Missourian –
Of course the musicians competed for patronage. Let me put this in perspective. About 6 months ago, an actor was on the ‘O’Reilly Factor’ to complain about budget cuts in California. Some 18 million USD was being cut that normally went to support Summer theater and music workshops for needy kids. The actor was Michael York, I believe.
Anyway, Michael York waxed on and on about the need for art and how the underpriveleged kids served by this program could be next the great stage actor.
So, O’Reilly (whom I frequently can’t stand, but who got this one right) said, “Can’t you find a bunch of rich Hollywood types to fund the program, if its that worthwhile? Isn’t this about promoting your craft and locating new talent for development?”
York spluttered and sputtered and finally simply ducked the question.
The elite in the U.S. completely differ from the old nobility in that they have assigned the role to government of supporting the arts. Rather than stepping forward to furnish their own orchestra, they expect tax dollars to be used for their pet projects. Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, or any other billionaires are expected to contribute to the arts, but they are not expected to actually run Philharmonics, schools to develop talent, or build large, enduring buildings for the ages. It doesn’t happen. And therein lies the rub, our elite class has walked away and left bureaucrats to pick up the slack. And, of course, the results are pure disaster.
Note 19 Glen
Wow, sounds like a great interchange with Michael York. Wish I had seen it. Your point is well taken.
I have heard that Paul McCartney is promoting a program which provide band and orchestra instruments for school kids. The study of music correlates highly with math achievement. As I said, your point is well taken.
Missourian and Glen, an article you will like:
Prole Models: America’s elites take their cues from the underclass
Dang, a conversation about my favorite subject and lifelong obsession, classical music, and I missed it. That’s what I get for not keeping up from day to day.
JamesK, I know what it’s like to give up the dream of being a professional musician (although in my case, it ended much earlier; I just didn’t get into conservatory). Congratulations on making it as far as you did, and I hope you are able to keep your playing alive.
Another note: Mozart was only superficially succesful. During his lifetime, he was admired and reknowned but not taken as seriously as he should have been. Had he been patronized more, he might have lived long enough to establish the good connections in London that were beginning to form at the time of his death in his late 30s.
Missourian, have you created any new varieties?
Note 18: Missourian, no problem at all. Actually, I enjoy playing music semi-professionally much more than when I had to try to make a living at it. Here and there I get to play with various symphony members and also perform with a few groups who raise money for various charitable foundations. I also found out after I started touring that I didn’t really like traveling anyhow! All in all, I can’t complain.
Note 21: Though I’m a little disheartened by the general lack of appreciation for what I consider great art and music, I’m also not the type to suggest that “low” art doesn’t also have its place. Personally, I think “Family Guy” and the “Simpsons” are hilarious. They make some humorous (and often accurate) assessments of American culture, even if the way they do it is sometimes crude and not to everyone’s taste.
Note 22 Bill
Have I created any new varieties? No to the contrary,I have killed a lot of individual plants. My garden was called “Sink or Swim Acres.” I don’t have anywhere near the time to do serious gardening now, or even non-serious gardening.
I do recommend using ladybugs. There are companies that will ship you live ladybugs every two weeks. You release them on your rosebushes and they patrol the plants. The bugs organize themselves to march over every square inch of the plant looking for aphid larvae or any other insect larvae. When they are done with one plant, they march over to the next plant. Fascinating to watch. This allows you to fight insect damage without using the very strong pesticides that are necessary in some cases. It costs about $10 per package of 1000 ladybugs and you do it every two weeks during the growing season. At its largest, my garden had over 150 individual plants and protecting them from insect damage was difficult without the ladybugs.
You can also build ladybug houses and attach them to any trees on your lot. These encourages the little darlings to stay on your properties. Ladybugs are one of nature’s wonders. Look in American Rose magazine for reference to the ladybug farms in Southern California.
Note 21 Fr. Hans
Excellent article. I will clip for my files. It is a shame that “black culture” changed from Duke Ellington, Mahalia Jackson and Ralph Ellison to Snoop Dog(!?!!) There are some who are fighting back, Cosby and many others who are less well known.
#24. Wow… a Ladybug of the Month subscription. I’ve always liked those little critters, and now I know why.
Do you remember how many shipments you received? If you get a year’s worth, that’s 26 shipments of 10K ladybugs each, for a total of a quarter-million ladybugs per annum. This is almost as interesting as the roses.
Note 26 Ladybugs
Ladybugs are fun, no doubt about that. The shipper would place a 1,000 or 2,000 ladybugs in a sawdust nest then put the sawdust nest inside a box with air holes punched in it so that the ladybugs could breath while being shipped. He would then ship the bugs by some form of express mail. I had to sign for the bugs when they arrived. My local post office got to know me. [Who knows what they said about be behind my back!!]
After you receive the bugs, you can leave the package alone and place it in the refrigerator until you are ready to distribute the bugs in the garden. Before you distribute your bugs you should sprinkle your garden with water, this attracts the bugs attention to your roses. Once out in your garden, simply open the box and distribute the sawdust around the garden. The bugs will get right to work, they are hungry after their trip.
Ladybugs work together, just as ants work together. They “patrol” each rose bush from root to tip looking for insects and insect larvae. They form a pair of columns and crawl up the stems in a spiral pattern. They clean every branch and every stem with Prussian dedication. Fascinating to watch. After about 6 hours, your rose garden is clean as a whistle. All forms of insects are gone. After that most of the ladybugs will fly away looking for more food in another garden. They are a benign presence and will probably go work on your neighbor’s garden. As I noted earlier, they like to nest in moss on trees under the shade. You can buy a ready made ladybug house which is suitable for housing a colony. Cross your fingers and hope that they stay on your property and nest.
Most ladybugs are red with black spots, some are a lovely gold with black spots. They don’t bite humans or animals. They allowed me to avoid the use of very toxic pesticides to control insects on my roses. The neighborhood children enjoyed them also.
Wish I had time to garden as I used to. Someday.
Note 27 Even more ladybugs
Yes, Bill, I did import a large number of California ladybugs to Missouri. My growing season is about 7 months, so I used about 14,000 to 16,000 ladybugs per year. The California ladybugs were red and black. After several years I began to notice some ladybugs with varying colors of red, orange and gold. I was told by another rosarian that these orange and gold ladybugs were the offsprings of the matings of California and Missouri ladybug strains. They all behaved the same way and were all very cute and pretty.