Tightening our belts

Aside from gas company executives, no one enjoys high fuel prices.  But they are a small price to pay compared to Ukrainians who are dying for their freedom. 

During World War II, Americans were required, not just asked, to limit consumption of gasoline, textiles, sugar, meat, and a host of other items.  Limits on purchases were enforced via ration books.  Today, Americans are not being asked to restrict themselves as much.  While prices have been on the rise for months due to high consumer demand and continuing problems with the supply chain, the sharp rise in gasoline prices over the past few weeks is the direct result of Russia’s brutal invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.  While Americans have been generationally conditioned to consume, consume, consume – the time has now come for Americans to conserve.  Nowhere is this more true than in consumption of fuels – not just gasoline but all fossil fuels.      

Given the continuing challenges in the supply line, most of us are stuck with the vehicles we’re driving now.  If you opted for a gas guzzler, you’re going to pay much more than those of us who drive more fuel efficient models.  (If you drive an electric vehicle, try not to rub it in our faces.)  That said, we can all do a few things to reduce our personal consumption. 

Obviously, first on the list is avoid unnecessary trips, like driving for pleasure or to take in the scenery. 

Keep your tires inflated to their recommended pressure – you can find it on the side of the tire or in your vehicle owner’s manual.

Keep your car windows closed when driving, even if it means turning on your car’s air conditioning.  It’s more efficient to drive with the A/C on than with the windows open - which creates wind drag and increases fuel consumption.

Don’t be a lead foot on the highway.  You don’t need to slow poke your way around town, but the faster you go over 60/mph on the highway, the greater the drag on your car.

Don’t over accelerate or slam on the brakes.   

When at a steady speed on the highway, use cruise control.  Otherwise, use your vehicle’s highest gear if that’s an option.

Consolidate many errands into fewer.  If you’re waiting in your car while your other half goes shopping, turn the car off.    

Speaking of consolidation, did you know some online retailers like Amazon allow you to consolidate your orders?  If you’re ordering multiple items, you’ll be presented with the option to have them sent in one shipment instead of separately.  It means you may get your shipment a day or two later.  But repressing one’s desire for instant gratification is worth saving the fuel. 

At home, be mindful of your use of heat and air conditioning.  If you sweat enough during the cold months that you’re throwing off your blankets at night, the heat is set too high.  Lower it each night by one degree until you’re comfortable under the covers.  Conversely, during warmer months, set the A/C so you can sleep comfortably over the covers. 

With COVID now manageable, companies are welcoming remote employees back into the workplace.  But they should continue to allow their employees the option to work from home in order to cut down on fuel consumption. 

These are a few things we can do to reduce consumption.  If we all tighten our belts just a little, we can have an impact.

Cancel Culture, McCarthyism, and Russia’s war on Ukraine

 

Only someone with his head stuck in the sand would be unaware of Russia’s invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Only those under the sway of Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine or blinded by their own prejudice would have anything but sympathy for what the people of Ukraine are suffering right now.

The backlash from the West has been immediate.  Vladimir Putin has managed to do in two weeks what President Biden was unable to do in 13 months: the once-fraying NATO has unified and the Western Alliance has solidified.  The sanctions with which Russia now finds itself saddled are bound to cripple the already struggling Russian economy, and will hopefully awaken the Russian people to the extent to which Putin has led them down a false path.  From a military standpoint, despite Russian brutality, the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance has exposed weak points in Russian strategy, unit cohesion, and equipment.  But the effects of the past few weeks have gone beyond the geopolitical and military.

A number of Russian classical music performers have found their careers in the West curtailed and appearances cancelled.  While some would pooh-pooh this development as symbolic, it’s worth noting most of the money these performers earn comes from concertgoers in Europe and the United States.  The most noteworthy performers in this case are conductor Valery Gergiev, soprano Anna Netrebko, and pianists Denis Mastuev and Valentina Lisitsa – all of whom have been vocally supportive of Putin’s regime, with the particularly atrocious Lisitsa describing Ukraine as a Nazi regime (despite Ukrainians electing a Jewish President).   

Putin with piano banger Denis Matsuev

Putin with Anna Netrebko

Putin with Valery Gergiev

Other Russian musicians have also suffered fallout because of Russian’s invasion of Ukraine.  The most visible case is the young pianist Alexander Malofeev.  The Vancouver Recital Society cancelled an upcoming performance of his.  It’s not a question of either logistics or transportation: Malofeev's concert was not scheduled until August.  The young pianist has spoken out, at considerable risk to himself and his family, against Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.  Malofeev’s behavior and circumstances are not at all comparable to those of Gergiev, Nebtrenko, Mastuev, or Lisitsa – who deserve the contempt and cancellations that have been heaped upon them.  But Malofeev?  Not the same at all.

Alexander Malofeev's post after VRS's cancellation

I believe VRS’s decision was an overreach.  At the very least, VRS owes the music lovers of Vancouver an explanation for their decision.  Which specific board members voted for or against this action?  Which patrons/donors instigated and pressured the board into making this decision?

I am as opposed to the actions of the Putin-led Russian government as anybody, and I was warning others about Putin when President George W. Bush “looked the man in eye” and “found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy”. Russia’s actions over the past weeks cannot be excused by any rationale, regardless of what North Korea, Venezuela, Serbia, and some on the American Right (and a few on the far-Left) say.

Malofeev’s career will thrive despite this cancellation.  It may even benefit from it in the longer term, as some are learning of him for the first time.  Yet I note that there are those who haven't said squat about what Putin has done over the decades, yet are wringing their hands about this.  Also, those crying "cancel culture" when this is hardly an example of that phenomenon - because Malofeev (unlike the four stooges I mentioned above) hasn't done anything to warrant being cancelled.  Nor is it McCarthyism - and those claiming it is have little notion of what Joseph McCarthy actually did to destroy innocent people's lives.

First, what is cancel culture?  It stems from the decision to withdraw support from public figures – performers, sports figures, politicians – who have done something to offend sensibilities.  The offensive act can be anything from physical violence to sexual impropriety or even a clumsily phrased but well-meaning statement.  Malofeev has done none of these things, so that term does not apply here. 

What was McCarthyism historically, as opposed to its recent use as a label thrown on anything some group doesn’t like?  Joe McCarthy was a Republican from Wisconsin who was a senator from 1947 until his death ten years later.  During the Army-McCarthy hearings, he claimed to have lists of government employees who were active members of the Communist party – which neither was nor is illegal in the United States.  Not satisfied with rooting out real Communists in government, McCarthy went after people outside of government who were “suspected” of having communist sympathies, then he went after homosexuals (of which, posthumously, he is suspected of being himself).  During the hearings, which were televised, his common tactic was to wave a piece of paper stating “I have here in my hand a list” of people who were accused of whatever offended him at the moment.  As often as not, the paper’s contents were either unrelated to the subject or it was entirely blank. 

Vis-à-vis communism and the Cold War.  I think the point that many have missed over the decades is that while Presidents and politicians of both parties railed against communism, it was never the real threat.  Communism is an economic philosophy – one which doesn’t work judging by the low standards of living in communist countries.  The real threat during the Cold War was not communism but Russian Totalitarian Imperialism – the proof of this is that a number of communist countries have never been a threat to either the United States or the West.  But Russia has legitimately been a threat and ruined life in every country it subjugated during the Cold War – the prime reason so many risked their lives to flee the East and make their way to either Western Europe or the United States.  Very few opted to leave the West and move to Russia.  But I digress. 

Some of those impacted by McCarthyism include Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Lena Horne, and Danny Kaye – all of whom weathered the storm and went on to have successful careers.  In the end, criticism of them was unwarranted because they never cozied to the likes of Hitler or Stalin. 

But there is an example from Classical music history that has been trotted out in past weeks, and the comparison is worth raising – if only to demolish it. 

Wilhelm Furtwängler

Attempts to excuse Gergiev’s behavior by comparing him to German conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler miss the mark.  For those who don’t know, Furtwängler, the most eminent German conductor of the time, refused to leave his home country while the Nazis were in power.  For this, the conductor found his postwar activities restricted and for a period he found it impossible to perform in the United States.  It was not the US government which banned him.  Rather a coalition of performers and other cultural figures, including Arturo Toscanini, Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, and others declared they would have nothing to do with any organization that engaged Furtwängler.  Even late in life, Horowitz mistakenly claimed the conductor was “a supporter of the Nazis.”  Horowitz, who had had bad relations with Furtwängler preceding Hitler’s rise, may have been blinded by his personal antipathy for the conductor.  But even prior to the pianist’s death in 1989 it had become clear that the Furtwängler situation was more complex.  For one, Furtwängler (unlike, say, Alfred Cortot) was not an anti-Semite.  Rather, the conductor, whose provincial thinking and naivety were matched only by his ego, believed that German musical culture could not continue without him and that he would be able to save it from the philistines who had come to power.  Early in Hitler’s regime he spoke against removing Jews from orchestras and against the banning of newer music.  Remarkably, he shared his concerns with Goebbels and Hitler himself, often in undiplomatic terms that would have sent anyone else to a concentration camp.  But Furtwängler’s protestations came to naught, as Jews were purged from German culture and “decadent” music was banned.  Eventually, Furtwängler narrowly escaped arrest as he fled to Switzerland in early 1945.  But Gergiev will only escape the contempt of conscientious music lovers if we forget his history.  The same is true of Netrebko, Matsuev, and Lisitsa. 

But it was wrong of VRS to cancel Alexander Malofeev’s concert.  Nor does it make any sense to cancel performances of works by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich – they should continue, and western audiences should be reminded of how their lives were impacted by the governmental and social elites of their time.

During the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy said that “No government or social system is so evil that its people should be considered as lacking in virtue.”  But I believe he, and every right-thinking person, would draw a distinction between those who are cultural figures, and those who are willing propaganda tools.