First Think, THEN Ink.

It's Grammy Day... And I always state that for an award, the Grammys have tended to be the most out of touch with their field. Granted, there are literally over eighty Grammys that will be presented today, and that doesn't even cover the Latin Grammys, which are typically presented in the Fall with another forty-eight categories represented there.

Why hasn't the Grammys gotten it right? Well, the point is, they're finally starting to... Back in the day, The Voters for the Grammy Awards were people that didn't care for some forms of music, notably Rock music, and so those songs and albums tended to be overlooked for a very long time. Just as an example, the winner of the "Best Rock N Roll Recording" in 1963 was (drumroll please...) "Alley Cat" or according to the label displayed on that disc The Alleycat by Bent Fabric. Now, I know that this is still pre-British Invasion, but this does suggest that something was wrong with the process.

I eventually found out first hand why the Grammy voting board had problems, even into the 1980s and 90s from a person involved in the process: All voters in all music genres submitted nominees for all categories. That meant you had country music people nominating rap, you had classical music people nominating rock. In short, you had people who had no business nominating things for categories they didn't understand or maybe didn't even listen to, and that created a lot of questionable choices for the awards.

Eventually, as the Grammy board started letting more performers in, people who produced and recorded hip-hop, heavy metal, world music, started to be both represented and voted on by people who were experts in those fields. That automatically made the nominating process more accurate.

The Grammys used to be my big day to criticize everything that was wrong with both the music industry and the people running (ruining?) it, but there's been less to complain about more recently. And the Grammy Ceremony has been a pretty great show, for the most part, for the last several years, since Whitney Houston's shocking and saddening death, the night before the 2012 ceremony. Hard to believe it's been six years since then, but in an odd way, it somehow also seems like it's been about twenty or so.

The industry has been trying to find its feet for a number of years since the Napster issues of file sharing became a rallying cry against fans that acquired music from others - this though stores constantly sold blank audio cassettes and rewritable blank CDs as a part of their inventory.

Now, it seems there is a new, somewhat stable and properly functioning system for the artists and producers to get their due, and for listeners to get their music. Platforms like Pandora and Spotify and outlets like iTunes and Amazon seem to be working better, after some earlier problems. The record labels cut away a lot of the fat, people on the payroll who weren't really contributing to the cause are now gone, because these labels can't just sit back on their laurels and watch the money come in. Everybody is working hard to do the best they can because the process isn't as guaranteed as it was, even as recently as the early 2000s.

And that brings me to my altered challenge for today. My point in doing this meme, this month, was that the Grammys were back in NYC, at Madison Square Garden, for the first time since 2003. So, of course I'm doing a special Grammy Challenge as part of it.

The "Record of the Year" category is sometimes confused with the "Song of the Year." But, they're easily discerned. Song of the Year is presented to the Songwriter. In other words, it's a celebration of that piece of music. Record of the Year is presented to the recording artist. So, that award goes to the particular recording of that song. And it's appropriate to choose "Record of the Year" nominees because we are picking particular recordings of songs with this challenge. Of course, "Song of the Year" and "Record of the Year" frequently go to the same recording, but not always.

To me, the best sort of "Record of the Year" lives up to the double meaning of that phrase. It is a great performance, but it also is a cultural touchstone that places both it and us at a particular moment, a specific point in history, one that both clearly delineates and acts as a marker for our collective experiences, making it an actual "record" of that particular year.

Music can do a lot of great stuff. It can make us happy. It can help us channel anger in a positive way. It can soothe us or challenge us or inspire us, music has a lot of benefits. That's why we love it. And helping a charitable cause is one of those elements that music has the power to do.

The movement that led to the song I selected really began with another song: "Do They Know It's Christmas" was written by Boomtown Rats frontman Bob Geldof, in response to the scenes of famine in Ethiopia he viewed on British TV in 1984. Geldof gathered a bunch of recording artists to sing the tune and released it as a charity effort to help support relief for the Ethiopian people. It was an enormous success.

That led to Live Aid, a massive concert featuring performers in both London and Philiadelphia, with drummer/singer Phil Collins taking the Concorde "across the pond" to play at both Wembley Stadium and JFK Stadium on that incredible day. This massive effort produced a massive fundraiser and that set off more...

Like Farm Aid was to help America's farmers stay solvent as they fed the country.

Later, the series of Very Special Christmas albums helped to support the Special Olympics

But sandwiched between those came USA For Africa, an effort by Americans to contribute to famine relief, as the Brits had previously done.

Recorded around the time of another ceremony, that year's American Music Awards, it featured an all-star lineup of vocalists to sing the song, which became an international sensation, as well as the video which let you see a bit of what the recording session was all about, an additional album with more tracks, and a whole line of merchandise.

Thanks to the still operating WEBSITE, we have a collection of PHOTOS of the massive recording session. They are certainly worth seeing, or seeing again.

So, my selection on this Grammy Day, Day 27, is the Grammy Award Record of the Year winner for 1986: USA For Africa - "We Are The World"

Since the results of the 2016 election, a meme has been floating around.





Basically, it’s a thumb your nose moment from conservatives stating that THEY hold the true values of the United States and that their way of thinking and voting is a much more accurate reflection of the way the country should be.

But, is it, really?

As we know, Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote across the country, meaning that she was voted for by more Americans than her opponent. But, because of the configuration of where those votes were, the Electoral College stated that she did not win, and her opponent would assume the presidency.

There are two points that need to be made about this map to put it into context. The first is that the Electoral College seems to be a problem. But I have a couple of suggestions as to why we have issue with it. The first is that Electoral College vote distribution needed an update to properly reflect the population.

Here’s how it stands right now. The state with the smallest population, Wyoming, with just over a half million citizens, has been assigned three (3) Electoral Votes. South Dakota, a state that also has three (3) Electoral Votes, has a population of more than eight hundred fifty thousand, or roughly 350K more than Wyoming. It seems like it deserves at least one or two more Electoral Votes than Wyoming, doesn’t it? Compare that to California, the state with the most Electoral Votes: 55. With a population of over thirty-eight million (38 M) people, we should expect that Electoral Vote total to be closer to at least 130 and possibly a little more. I mean, if we're going to be fair and base this on where in the country people live, that only makes sense, right? Of course, we would have to change the number to win from two hundred seventy (270) to a higher total as well, but that’s easily done and again, in the name of creating a ballot that truly reflects the will of the people.

But, here’s an additional tweak that really should be brought to bear.

Even though the population determines the number of Electoral Votes any state receives, they get those votes whether their population votes or not.

That shouldn’t be the case.

We know that a bit more than forty-seven (47) percent of the population did not vote in the 2016 election. But their states still receive the same number of Electorates. How does THAT make sense? The number of “popular vote” ballots cast in each state should be reflected by the number of Electoral Votes permitted to vote on behalf of that state in the Electoral College.

Think about it. The point is in REPRESENTATION. If the number of Electoral Votes cast by any state remains the same no matter how many (or how few) people vote, that gives a completely inaccurate tally of the voice of the citizens of this country. Electoral Votes are being placed on behalf of people who did not vote. That is, in my view, the biggest overlooked problem with the Electoral College and the entire process of how it works and why people perceive it as completely unfair.

Tweaking the vote to base it on number of ballots received will also mean that everyone’s vote actually will count, and in a direct correlation way to how the results will be presented. Suddenly, a state like Colorado, with its nine (9) Electoral Votes could out vote Georgia’s fifteen (15), because they turned out the vote with many more ballots cast. Then it becomes a real battle to make sure every state has everyone voting so they can retain their Electoral Votes and will get their fullest representation. And this would have the added benefit of practically preventing voter suppression. In this configuration, no matter who the population of your state votes for, it relies on people who actually vote to determine if you get Electoral Votes.

How would the vote have gone if we weighted the Electoral College balloting based on actual number of voters per state? I’d have to do the math to figure it all out, but no matter what, I know it would be a more equitable result, based on who actually voted, and the results really would produce a case where you could truly say “If you didn’t vote, you can’t complain.”

But there’s another element about this map that I think is just as important and maybe goes a bit deeper into the psychology of our collective consciousness.

The bulk of the midsection of the country is conservative. The bulk of the south is conservative. And the only blue areas in those wide swaths of red are in or near larger cities. We also have more blue in places where liberal thought is welcome, like in Vermont and Washington.

Here’s the thing about that.

When you live in a rural area, the communities are homogeneous. It’s mostly all white people who have a fairly rigid sense of who they are, what they believe, how they think and where they want the country to go.

Meanwhile, in a city, you typically have people of many different sorts all sharing the same geographic space with you, sometimes in the same block, sometimes in the same building as where you live.

You have to be liberal to be in a city because you know and understand that you are sharing your home with a lot of other people who aren’t exactly like you! Everyone wants to have a chance to live the life that they want. So, what people in cities understand is that you have to leave space for everyone to do that. In a rural or even in a suburban area, that kind of thinking doesn’t enter because people who are different typically do not enter.

If the United States were a vehicle, liberals would be the accelerator, pushing to change things, moving us forward, taking us to a place where all of us can be open, free and able to have the American Dream. Conservatives would represent the brake, slowing or stopping any changes, sometimes even shifting us to reverse as far as where we are going collectively.

The problem is also reflected in the responses we have seen from these two camps.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the basic response of conservatives was to close up shop. There was no protest, but there also was no support from that side. In fact, the brakes were in full effect as every program and bill that President Obama put forth was challenged and sometimes gutted to slow or block any progress.

Now, what we have is a case where the conservatives are shouting they have a mandate, that they are the best, and that liberals have to kowtow to what they want. It’s a difficult situation to negotiate, especially since the race, even by our unaltered standards, was basically a dead heat.

So, the problem really is, how do we connect these Two different iterations of the United States?

The answer is, quite simply, through communication.

Well, it's quite so simple, though. Have you ever tried to discuss political issues with a person who has an opposing view? Depending on the topic, it can get quite personal and emotional very quickly. It often dissolves into value judgments, insults and worse.

And yet, that is the ONLY way we can pull ourselves through this. We are going to get a little personal because these are elements of life that are dear to us. This will become a little emotional because we really do care about these points. But, and I know I’ll get some flack from some people about it, that leads us to the following truth:

Liberal thinking MUST rule the country.

See, you can always be conservative for yourself. If you feel like the direction of the country is too progressive for your tastes, that’s fine. You don’t have to change what you’re doing. Stay exactly like you are, as far as your personal life is concerned. But not allowing everyone else to move forward, simply because you don’t want to change, is not fair.

The problem is in thinking that we are trying to offend the sensibilities of people who don’t always agree with these changes. And that’s the thing that city people understand so much better than folks who live in the less populated areas of the USA. If I can put it in an agrarian way, we are constantly re-potting our plant, adjusting to allow growth. We can’t stay stagnant. That benefits no one. We have to continue to move forward.

Ultimately, we are a nation of many different kinds of people. If we are true to the tenets that the Founding Fathers wrote into those documents we cherish, the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, we have to make space for our citizens, ALL of our citizens to live free, to not fear, to have the same opportunities to help themselves and to help their country. OUR country.

That’s the way to Make America Great Again.

Though I have taken a step away from politics, at least as far as my job is concerned, the landscape of what is being seen on the current scene compels me to examine where we currently stand. Obviously, the 2000 Pound Gorilla in the room is Donald Trump.

A lot of people I know believe this Trump candidacy is going to eventually run out of gas, will shrivel up and blow away, will not survive any serious scrutiny and will vanish as an amusing sketch from a season of Saturday Night Live that wasn't very good.

I'm not of that group. In fact, I think Trump could win the nomination, and might prove to be a formidable candidate against whomever the Democrats put up.

( Here's why... )