There’s a tremendous amount of material worthy of discussion in Bill Moyer’s speech, much of which I’m still thinking about. What I feel comfortable talking about immediately is his use of the word “democracy.” I’ve been unable to track down the context of the Benjamin Franklin quote on the internet, but it seems to me to be the beginning of an argument against democracy. If the strict rules of democratic voting are followed, the wolves will win. With what is the lamb well-armed? I would guess it’s the doctrine of man’s inalienable rights, which is our greatest defense against unlimited democracy.

Democracy means, “the people rule.” Strictly speaking it has no inherent connection to the idea of individual rights. What people often mean by democracy is the form of government in the United States, which is a constitutional democracy. But surely, the adjective is far more important than the noun, referring to the idea that neither kings nor mobs can overturn rights we possess by virtue of being human.

In Bill Moyer’s speech, I find another meaning to democracy creeping in, i.e., an egalitarianism in regard, not just to rights (including the right to vote), but to material wealth. This is suggested when he refers to the “two basic pillars of American society” as “shared economic prosperity and a public sector capable of serving the common good”. If those are truly the pillars of our society, we’re in big trouble. For, if it’s agreed this must be a nation based on principles, by what principle is the decision made as to who gets what? If there is no other criterion besides “the greatest good for the greatest number” or some such principle, won’t who gets what be eventually decided by the whim of those who rule?

Bruce Marr

Thomas Paine
1737-1809, Political Theorist and Writer

He said something like, if all of the early recordings and most famous recordings, are and were recorded on Steinway pianos, the listener will become used to that sound and expect that sound always, so, I think that we can relate this Rubinstein theory, to the vast number of obscenity words, inserted into our dialect.

If obscenity is all one hears on the radio, internet, television and in the movies, the natural human instinct, would be to unfortunately repeat them and psychologically accept them into the vocabulary and make it very difficult,
to reverse their familiar sound and expression.

To me this is very annoying although my wife tells me I should simply ignore them. But it’s more than a bit like the incessant conversations on cell phones in louder than normal voices which we endure in public transportation or other enclosed spaces. We routinely consider that listenining-in to peoples conversations, communications, etc. without invitation or authorization is a prime form of “invasion of privacy” (currently taking the form of a mammoth assault on our democracy coming from all branches of governmnent with the White House setting the pace). But these people unknowingly, uncaringly, or arrogantly who interfere with our “quiet enjoyment” are in a smaller but insidious way, are likewise “invading our privacy”. This and the mindless constant use of cellphones in the middle of the street, crossing intersections busy with vehicular traffic, etc., are symtoms of the general disease of our society. It is not the tools, the mechanisms themselves or the technological advances that should be faulted, but the larger pattern in which the arts are demeaned, assaulted and undermined in every way by the social system dominated by “the market”.

I’m also looking forward to a return to the World of the Piano on Wednesday’s! See you then.

Yes, cell phones are a plague. Perhaps the users are irradiating their brains with electrical waves? (I won’t say, “Let’s hope so.”) Since cell phone users insist on invading my space, I reciprocate: I lean towards them and drink in their every word, trying to discover as much about their private life as I can. It’s amazing how much personal information you can glean from a one-sided phone conversation!

I’ve been hearing fewer car alarms lately. Could this modern plague be diminishing?

“Entertainment surrogates our time; relieves us of it for a spell; lives through it for us while its on loan; does what it takes to keep it for just so long as that feels nonconsequential, not threatening our ultimate reappropriation; returns it refreshed but otherwise intact, unsullied by any lingering tarnish or blemish of content; cleansed but not altered, corroborated but not invaded, renewed but not re-formed. High art surrogates our time exactly so also; but aspires to not only surrogate our time but also to transform it permanently and substantively: purports to return it to us comprehensively reconstructed: such that not just immediately during or following, but always thereafter, and even with cumulative effect, our time (= the world) will not be the same.”

keep writing! You’ll always have a reader and fan here!