What is “value”?

Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen, a.k.a. “His Royal Awesomeness”

I rarely write about sport on this site anymore, but I’m going to broach the topic here just for a few minutes because there’s an interesting debate raging across social media right now regarding the NFL MVP award, and which players are worthy. As of this writing, there are four players I see mentioned most frequently. The two that I think aren’t likely to win it are Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow and Eagles running back Saquon Barkley. The debate is really swirling around the other two guys: Bills and Ravens quarterbacks Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson.

I’m not going to actually lay out the case for either player here. As a Buffalonian and someone who roots for the Bills, I openly admit that yes, I think it’s perfectly clear that Josh Allen is the MVP this year. It’s obvious, you weirdos! Just give it to him already. It’s a done deal. It’s in the bag.

But…is it?

Obviously, not really. Lamar Jackson is having an amazing statistical season; in fact, if you were to only look at the numbers, Jackson is obviously the MVP. It’s a done deal. It’s in the bag.

Only, it’s not.

The problem is with the nature of the MVP award itself. It’s an award that’s voted on by a number of sports journalists, and like all such things, it’s a weird blend of stats and narrative. Some years the stats win out, sometimes it’s the narrative that wins out. Sometimes the MVP is given to the player who obviously had the best statistical season, while others it’s a vaguer justification–the best player on the best team, perhaps. That last is one of the bigger reasons for supporting Allen over Jackson this year: as of this writing the Bills have the better record, having already won their division and being on the brink of clinching the Number Two seed in the AFC playoffs, while Jackson’s Ravens have lost more games and may not even end up winning their division (though that looks likely at this point).

It’s the word in the award itself: the most valuable player. And that makes the whole thing a judgment call, basically an opinion. Is Lamar Jackson more valuable to his team than Josh Allen? I don’t know that he is. I also don’t know–really know–that he isn’t. So what we end up with is conflicting opinions, and let’s be honest here: those opinions can shift and change depending on who it is we’re rooting for. (Right now we’re not even going to mention the fact that NFL MVP is now a de facto award for quarterbacks alone; it’s been 12 years since anyone other than a QB won it, and it’s been 38 years since anybody on the defensive side of things won one. And in a pass-whacky league, a wide receiver has never won it.)

Here’s a thought experiment: consider all the argument for Josh Allen for MVP, and all the arguments for Lamar Jackson as well. Now imagine if these two guys were having the exact same seasons–but they played on the opposite teams. Imagine Allen leading the Ravens to a 12-3 record (again, as of this writing), having set all manner of offensive records over his first bunch of years, and the stunning individual performances he’s had in single games this season. And imagine Lamar Jackson playing for the Bills, and putting up the passing numbers he’s put up this year.

If that happened, you would see each camp still advocating strongly for their guy–but with the exact opposite set of arguments.

I do tend to react strongly against purely statistical justifications for MVP awards. I’m not a fan of reducing everything to stats, because I’m a storyteller and a story-lover at heart, and stats aren’t stories. Stats can be a part of stories, but they’re not the whole thing. Josh Allen’s story in Buffalo is amazing and compelling, and when one considers the degree to which he’s played a role in the resurgence of a franchise and the emotions of a fandom (we can talk another time about how maybe a football team’s fortunes in the field probably shouldn’t be this big of a factor in a region’s emotional life), and the role he has come to inhabit in this community, it’s hard to make a case that he’s not incredibly valuable. And most people agree on this point. So is he the most valuable? Maybe, maybe not.

The NFL MVP award turns out, in some ways, to be similar to the Oscars: it’s all about aesthetics and recognition, as opposed to rewarding a true “objective” standout. It’s clear that even with the statistical arguments, there’s no real “objective” standard of a player’s value, so again it’s the narrative that comes in to play. That also happens with the Oscars, where sometimes an actor is awarded an Academy Award less for the particular role for which they’re nominated but as a nod of respect to a career. For Josh Allen, the narrative case is strengthened when various aspects of his career are noted: the degree to which he has been responsible for the Bills winning a lot, the fact that the Bills have enjoyed an even better season this year after an offseason that left many thinking the Bills would take a step back, the further fact that Allen has significantly improved the major aspect of his game that was often criticized before this year (his turnovers).

The other problem with stats is that if a player with gaudy stats is truly the most valuable, then surely it should show up in the win-loss column. One standout weird example of this is from Major League Baseball, which in 1987 awarded National League MVP to Andre Dawson, because he had an outstanding season at the plate (49 HRs). Never mind that his team that year, the Cubs, finished dead last. Was Dawson “valuable”? Well, I’ve seen that debated here and there over the years. The NFL does have ways of avoiding this sort of thing, with its additional awards of “Offensive Player of the Year” and “Defensive Player of the Year”. MVP, then, becomes something else. Something more elusive, dealing with those pesky “intangibles”.

So, what’s my solution? Obviously, I’m a Josh Allen guy. However, there is precedent for doing something more daring: in 2003, the NFL MVP was split, and we had co-MVPs in Peyton Manning and Steve McNair. If that happened again, it would not bother me at all. (Nor, really, would Lamar Jackson winning MVP outright.) Another thing that’s always struck me as odd is why the NFL’s awards are singular. Baseball has multiple sets of awards for each league, so there is no one Baseball MVP; there’s a NL MVP and an AL MVP. Why not a AFC and an NFC MVP? (This wouldn’t help the current situation, obviously, since Allen and Jackson are both AFC guys.)

But ultimately, aside from my thinking there should be awards from both conferences, I don’t much have a problem with any of this. It gets people talking about sport and it shows the passion in the fanbases. More than anything, all these MVP candidates show what a glorious period of football this is, and how much it’s an embarrassment of riches right now. Unfortunately not many people are taking it this way, and that’s a shame. Rooting for Josh Allen surely doesn’t have to mean that I can’t appreciate the amazing football that Lamar Jackson is playing right now.

One last point: sooner or later in all of these discussions one point inevitably gets made: “Neither Allen nor Jackson has ‘won anything’ yet.” This refers to the fact that neither guy has won the Super Bowl (or even been to it) yet. And yes, that does suck. One thing I dislike about the NFL is that for whatever reason, it’s much more conducive to dynasties forming, and this is compounded by the weird way that sports fans (and some commentators) overvalue championships above all else. This is natural, I suppose–winning the Super Bowl is everybody’s goal–but I have a problem with looking at someone’s career as “lesser” if they simply never managed to win it. There’s only one Super Bowl every year, after all, and many fine careers play out in the NFL (or in any sport) that don’t include a championship. Every time I see the “Allen doesn’t have a ring!” thing on social media, I like to respond along these lines: “I have bad news for you if you ever visit the Pro Football Hall of Fame, because I’ll bet most of the guys in there never won a Super Bowl.”

So much of sport is narrative, as much as the folks who love stats would pretend otherwise. Look at Aaron Rodgers and the narrative over the course of his career. Of course, right now the narrative on Rodgers is pretty much that he’s a washed-up weirdo who is going to leave the Jets on the verge of a full-on rebuild, but for years, his story was that he’d have a great regular season, lead the Packers to one of the best records in the NFC, and then faceplant in the playoffs. Year in and year out, that’s what happened…and if any other player had that kind of record, our sporting world would label him a “choker”, fairly or not. So why was Rodgers never labeled a “choker” at all? Because one time, early in his career, he actually won a Super Bowl.

Winning a championship completely changes the narrative of a player and a coach. Win one, and all previous “failures” (and again, it’s a hell of a thing to view all sporting effort that doesn’t produce a championship a “failure”) are forgiven and forgotten. Win one early in your career, and nothing that happens after will ever diminish your sheen: you are a Champion forevermore. Rodgers illustrates the latter, and the former is illustrated perfectly by Chiefs coach Andy Reid. Reid coached the Philadelphia Eagles in the late 90s and the 2000s, and he took them to multiple NFC Championship games (losing all but one) and to one Super Bowl (which he lost). Until Reid won his first Super Bowl with the Chiefs, he was the most recent poster child for the “He can’t win the big one! He coaches small in big moments! He can’t manage a game! He can’t get the team ready to win a Super Bowl!” crowd. But all those years of falling short still happened! They’re right there in his record! But he won a Super Bowl finally (along with, as of this writing, two more), so all of that is forgotten and ignored.

Ultimately, the NFL MVP is a shifting blend of narrative and statistical excellence. This season, there’s enough of both to go around for multiple players, so much so that the award will honestly feel partially incorrect, no matter to whom it’s given in the end.

Unless it’s Josh Allen. If that happens, everything is right in the world.

Share This Post

Keeping up with the Joneses, and keeping ahead of the Smiths (a repost)

This is a repost of something I wrote nine years ago, occasioned by someone on social media opining how terrible it is for the burger-flippers of the world to be getting a raise someplace while the “first responders” aren’t paid well at all. Setting aside that this seems to be the only time many people express concern for the lot of “first responders” at all, I’m reminded of the obnoxious way people in this country erect road-blocks in front of progress because of some vague notion of who “deserves” the progress more. This is, of course, a bullshit excuse for not having progress at all; if you said “Fine, we’ll give those folks a bigger raise and then we’ll do the rest,” they’d find a way to object anew. But the whole phenomenon really does point up some key ways that mainstream American attitudes are holding everyone back.

The post:

Below the jump: some thoughts on the minimum wage. Long and liberal, so beware.

(Note on structure for this post: there is no real “through-line” in terms of my “argument” here. This really is a collection of thoughts, not all of them as closely-intertwined as others.)

After a lot of protesting and virtual “striking”, fast food workers have won a number of victories, most notably the State of New York recommending a raise in the minimum wage in their industry to $15 an hour. Now, there are some provisos that get overlooked in commentary on this: first, that wage is to be phased in over six years, so nobody’s going to be making $15 an hour for making cheeseburgers until 2021, and second, the wage increase only applies to businesses over a certain size threshold (something like thirty locations). So this will hit the McDonald’s and Burger Kings and Subways of the world, but not the small local chains like Tom Wahl’s and Ted’s Hot Dogs.

But it’s a start.

Random thoughts, then:

:: Good for them. I am happy for any worker who benefits from this. I am a firm believer that anything that helps people at the lower end of the economic pool rise up a bit is a good thing.

:: I am also thrilled at the prospect that maybe the pendulum is starting to swing in this country away from what we’ve made our central core of economic priorities since roughly 1980. Our prevailing notion regarding the economy has been to embrace “trickle down”, and we’ve spent nearly 40 years cutting taxes and regulations in an effort to create an economy where virtually all the gains, all the big benefits, all the money are relentlessly funneled to the top. I hope that this minimum wage increase for a specific industry is just the start of something.

:: Of course, for this to be the start of something – the beginning of a swing back toward an economic model where benefits are focused more on the middle and bottom than relentlessly funneled to the top – an awful lot of people have to start looking at things differently. Sadly, this seems to include a lot of people who are in the middle and bottom of the pool. I’m referring here to the constant undercurrent of resentment people seem to feel toward others who are doing better than they are.

We’re all familiar with the concept of “keeping up with the Joneses”, but what I’m noticing now is a kind of insidious reversal of that concept. We all seem to have fewer Joneses with whom we feel we need to keep up, and we feel a constant sense that our grip on what we have is…well, if not exactly weakening, then there’s a sense that what we have could be ripped from our grasp at any moment. So we’re less worried about “keeping up with the Joneses”, and more worried about “keeping ahead of the Smiths”. Each concept is harmful in its own way, but I think the latter might be more dangerous.

“Keeping ahead of the Smiths” leads to jealousy and envy. It leads to literal resentment of when someone else has something that we feel they don’t deserve, and it seems to be an even stronger impulse when it’s something we don’t have that they suddenly do. I don’t know where or when this odd impulse became so engrained in the American psyche, but I definitely believe it’s there. I see this impulse at work whenever voters spread vicious rhetoric about how awful public school teachers are to make the money they make, and I certainly see it at work now.

“Maybe I should go apply at McDonald’s,” I hear a lot these days. Or “Gee, I’ve never made fifteen bucks an hour.” The latter is often coupled with a description of the jobs one has done, obviously intended to make clear that my work should pay more than theirs. And these sentiments aren’t brand new, either, born of shock that burgerflippers (said with appropriate voice filled with disdain) are going to make that kind of money. I once heard a counter clerk at a store complain bitterly that her husband made twice what she did at his union job, even though all he did was [insert menial task here]. I find such sentiments irritating, because first of all, I myself have never been angry that someone else makes more than me at a certain job.

Seriously, I’ve never understood that point. These things are inherently unfair. Minimum wage when I started working at my very first summer job, when I was 17 years old, was $3.35 an hour. It went up to $5.25 a few years later, and there it stayed for a good, long time. When I started moving into management with Pizza Hut, the highest wage I attained was somewhere around $6.50 an hour. So what?

Also, I remember what happened every time the minimum wage went up. The already-existing employees who were making less than the new minimum would get brought up to the new minimum, while employees already above the minimum would get a raise of some sort. However, this always resulted in complaints: “Why am I only getting a raise of fifty cents an hour? I’m making a buck fifty more than minimum now, and after this I’ll only be making seventy-five cents more!” These arguments always struck me as odd. Your pay was going up, wasn’t it? Did it really matter that you stayed ahead of the minimum by the same margin as before? Was “keeping ahead of the Smiths” really that important?

Ultimately, though, this whole issue reveals just how completely Labor in this country has allowed itself to be trampled, and how thoroughly everyone, from the cashier at Home Depot all the way up, has bought into the concept that our companies must be willing to pay no more than what they determine we are worth. That is mind-boggling to me. We’ve completely bought into the idea that the key economic factor holding everyone back from ultimate prosperity is taxes. Every time a tax increase is proposed, well, get ready for some fur to fly. I invariably hear commentary from someone saying “I haven’t had a raise in three years, but now I gotta pay more in taxes!” Setting aside the amount of the new tax levy itself, doesn’t it ever occur to anyone to say, “Hey! How come I haven’t had a raise in three years?”

To my way of thinking, as I look at the numbers that demonstrate a wildly growing level of inequality in America, our economic self-perception is seriously out of whack. We have bought completely into the notion that the Free Markets are the best engine for all this, and never mind that throughout history the most “Free Market”-dedicated eras resulted in massive inequality of the type we’re seeing now. We have bought completely into the idea that the market will eventually bring its benefits upon us, and that it’s taxes that are the big problem. After nearly forty years of unending tax-cutting and deregulating, however, all we have to show for it is wages that are stuck in neutral and money flowing ever, ever, ever upward in a pattern that can only be described as redistributive (albeit in the exact opposite way that that term is usually deployed by libertarian-types). The biggest problem most Americans face, economically, is not what the government is taking out of our paychecks. It is what our employers are not putting into them in the first place.

So why, then, so much resentment toward a group of workers who banded together and through various means of legal redress seem to have won a kind of victory for themselves? Why are so many people so eager to see in this another screwing of themselves by the system, instead of an example of what might be done elsewhere? If you’re so convinced that your line of work is deserving of better pay, than why not band together and do your own self-advocation?

Well, I’m not really sure. Part of it, I suppose, has to do with America’s infatuation with the Individual, and the idea that we are singularly capable of, and ultimately responsible for, achieving things. That’s probably at least partly why I hear so much “I never made fifteen bucks, why should they?” My answer to that is, “Why didn’t you, and why shouldn’t they?” That’s why I always hear so much condemnation of public schoolteachers, and it’s also why we always manage to denigrate factory workers for striking for more money (or for keeping the money they make) even while we complain about the sorry state of American manufacturing.

We do too much worrying in this country of keeping up with the Joneses and ahead of the Smiths. There’s this creepy undercurrent of American thought that tells us that someone doing better than we are really shouldn’t be, and that’s a pretty lousy way to look at life. Maybe we should stop viewing our lives through the prism of how the Joneses and Smiths are doing, and maybe start admitting that if the Joneses and Smiths all do well, maybe it will help us.

:: Side issue: I’ve also seen some rejoinders along the lines that now companies will simply automate more. There’s a picture-meme-thing going around Facebook of what is apparently a McDonald’s someplace where there are no order takers, just a bank of self-order kiosks. “See! They’ll just replace you with machines! Maybe you should have been happy with your $7.25 an hour!!!”

This is simply dumb, of course. Anyone who thinks that such automation isn’t coming down the pike already, because McDonald’s is perfectly happy to pay $7.25 but feels their hand is forced at $15, is simply delusional. And that brings up my biggest worry for the future, which just manages to push Global Warming into the second spot.

Eventually, there simply isn’t going to be enough work for humans to do. We are going to get so good at automating things that there simply will not be enough jobs to be filled by humans. I am nowhere near good enough a futurist, in terms of imagination, to see what kind of society this will lead us to create, but I truly believe that our entire economic way of life, based on work, is going to end somehow. Either we’ll start inventing work, literal “busy work”, just to prop up the idea that we’re all supposed to work jobs for money and then buy the stuff we need, or we’ll move into some sort of post-work economy. I have no idea what that’s going to look like, and the notion of that transition scares me, because it doesn’t seem to me that we make such transitions easily.

It will also be interesting to see what happens specifically to the American psyche once we start settling into a post-work world, when there isn’t enough work to go around. Our country is built to what often seems to me an absurd degree on the idea that it’s our work that makes us who we are. Americans work harder for less, and take less time off than anybody else, and somehow we’ve elevated that aspect of our character to a particular spot of pride. This always strikes me as deeply odd, but I don’t think we’re going to shake off that “Work! Work! WORK!” mentality of ours, in which we’re still expected to be available and answer e-mails on the few vacations we take, and in which we wear the number of hours we work over 40 as a badge of honor, until the ongoing march of technological innovation forces us to do so.

This is another reason why I reject Libertarianism so strenuously. In a world where so much of the work is automated that an ever-shrinking number of people are paid to do what’s left, the idea that the unfettered functioning of a market will be the best way to accomplish anything at all is downright silly. It’s also for that reason that I think that things like single-payer healthcare are going to have to happen, eventually. We won’t have a choice in the matter, if we want people to have healthcare. (And yes, we will want people to have healthcare.)

:: By the way, “hard work” has entirely too strong a grip on our collective imagination. It’s utterly absurd that the United States is one of just a handful of countries in the world, and virtually alone amongst large industrial countries, that doesn’t mandate paid vacation time. Other countries that are not the most affluent nation in the history of the planet have made this happen, but somehow we always manage to claim poverty when the idea is floated here.

:: In fact, this is yet another example of our ongoing national failure to allow the experiences of other countries to inform our own policy choices. Other countries have figured out how to have better healthcare for all citizens than we provide, and pay less to do it; other countries have figured out how to have a significantly higher minimum wage than we do, and yet not have burgers cost the equivalent of twenty bucks; other countries have figured out how to have better national transportation and better this and better that. We’re always told that these things can’t possibly work here, for reasons that never make any sense to me; the USA simply cannot be an outlier on everything, so much so that ideas that work elsewhere are doomed to failure here. And I’m roundly sick to death of any argument against something that boils down to some odd, abstract, almost-metaphysical appeal to “freedom”.

:: Every time some kind of regulation like this comes along, companies and industry groups start screaming “Poverty!” and trotting out the exact same objections. It will destroy their industry, it will destroy jobs, it will crush entire economies in its wake. We hear this every single time the minimum wage is increased at all. We heard this when the ADA was passed. We heard it when the ACA was passed. Hell, we heard it from restaurant and bar owners as cities and states nationwide passed rigorous anti-smoking laws, and we heard it from the direct marketing people when the government created its Do Not Call List. We hear this objections every time out, and never do they come true. At all. So I will not be listening to any such protestations in the future. Business America has gone to that well a few too many times for me.

Of course, there will be some business closures that are cited as examples why this matter of policy is a bad idea. But guess what? There are always business closures – or, at least, business decisions that adversely affect consumers or employees – that are blamed on some new policy or other, such as how every medical insurance company has been able, the last few years, to cite the ACA for raising prices. My general view is that companies are going to do what they plan to do anyway, and if some government regulation comes down the pike that they can blame, so be it.

So yes, McDonald’s may decide that because of this wage increase, locations that have been underperforming will be closed. In general, though, those locations were likely doomed anyway.

Share This Post

One Hunter, two edits

I took this photo of Orion the Hunter as he rose over my backyard the other day, and then I did two different edits of him in Lightroom. I’m honestly not sure which one I like better. (This was a quickie shot taken on Ophelia, my phone.)

I’m leaning toward the second, because it’s darker and has a bit more contrast for the stars, which makes the Pleiades (the little cluster upper right) a bit more visible. What do y’all think?

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

One more day….

My general tradition when I get to the 24th is to post a grab-bag of favorites that didn’t get their own posts this year. But hardly also-rans–these are greats and favorites that I don’t want to ignore. So, let’s go! No commentary, just music. (Well, maybe a little commentary….)

(David Bowie has to bop down the street to play a piano? He doesn’t have one of his own?)
I wonder how “lubricated” they were while shooting this….

(These last two offered in memory of Robert John Guttke, who loved these composers and these two works in particular.)

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas

Another year gone by without seeing The Nutcracker live. What in God’s name am I waiting for? Well, I don’t know. This Christmas season has been unusually chaotic and hard to plan. For me the problem was twofold, I think. First, there was the fact that Thanksgiving was as late as it can possibly be, so that once it was over, there was already less than four weeks to Christmas. That’s way too short a time to pack in everything. Second…well, this is the second Christmas since Mom died and…well, I’ll write about Dad some other time. Suffice it to say that it’s really sunk in this year that the old memories are just that: memories, and the old traditions have joined them.

But I still have some traditions, such as this series of posts. And putting aside two hours at some point, even if it is over several lunch breaks at work, to watch The Nutcracker. Here’s the one I took in this year. This is one of the more magical versions I’ve watched, and the music-making is superlative.

(I’m eschewing the Nutcracker Suite this year. Please make time to lose yourself in this fantasy world, if you can. I still think of my old college orchestra conductor, Dr. Janice Wade, when I hear the numbers that make up the Suite. I hope she doesn’t mind that Maestro Gergiev here does the last bars of the “Waltz of the Flowers” in a way that she personally did not.)

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas

As a lover of film music for just about all my life, here are some film music selections from Christmas movies!

First, from 1984’s A Christmas Carol, the one starring George C. Scott:

Next, a suite from the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol, the one starring Alastair Sim as Scrooge. Which I have never actually seen, even though the wide-spread consensus is that Sim’s Scrooge is definitive to the point of being iconic. I don’t know about that, but the music is certainly damned good, and it should be: it’s written by Richard Addinsell, that fine English composer who is best known for another piece of music he wrote for film, the amazing Rachmaninoff-pastiche Warsaw Concerto, written for the film Suicide Squadron.

Moving into more contemporary times, but staying in the London area, we have this compilation of the three major love themes from Love Actually. This movie has sustained something of a backlash in recent years, but I will hear none of that. NONE, you hear?

Much has also been said of the Robert Zemeckis adaptation of The Polar Express, which I do in fact enjoy a great deal, even if the animation of the eyes isn’t quite…up to par, I suppose. Alan Silvestri turned in a wonderfully evocative and sweeping score for this one. Silvestri is one of those composers who probably doesn’t rank at the fore, but a second rate hack, he ain’t.

Finally, here’s one that I haven’t had the best relationship with over the years. I think my “I love John Williams” bona fides are well-established by now, but in all honesty, I have never much liked his score to Home Alone. However, I’ve given some selections from it a fresh listen this year and I do find myself warming to it, a bit. I still think he explored moods like this more effectively in films like Hook and the Harry Potter films (the ones he scored, obviously). But I do find myself appreciating his Home Alone music more than I used to. I’m still not a fan of the movie itself, but the music is good. I’ve come to hear it as Williams in “Carl Stalling” mode: he’s basically scoring a cartoon, live-action though it may be, which is loaded with gonzo action.

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas

Earlier in the month I featured a Christmas song by The Killers, a band I’ve been delving much more deeply into this year (more to come on that in my end-of-year summation post). So now I’m thinking, “What about some of my other favorite bands and acts?” So, a tour of Christmas sounds of other bands and artists that I like! (I am limiting this to living performers.)

Drew Holcomb and the Neighbors:

Shannon Dooks:

Dolly Parton:

Kelly Clarkson:

Heart:

Blackmore’s Night:

The Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra:

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas

Here’s another annual feature on this site, because it’s as perfect a rendition of a song as I can remember. No cover has ever come close–well, maybe Bing Crosby, but that’s about it. Certainly not the more famous Frank Sinatra version in which he foisted that awful “Hang a shining star on the highest bough” lyric on the world, because he wanted it to be more cheerful.

This is not a song about cheerfulness in general. It is a song about finding what cheer you can, what joy you can, however momentary, in the midst of whatever else is going on in your life. It’s about hoping that someday soon we all can be together, but also about muddling through as best we can until that day comes, if it ever does.

Strong opinions, I know, but I cannot abide “Hang a shining star upon the highest bough”. It’s a totally meaningless lyric, crafted for scansion and rhyme and that’s it. And I cannot abide the erasure of Judy Garland that happens every time any version of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” other than her original, from Meet Me In St. Louis, plays on the radio.

Share This Post

ForgottenStars.net

The official site of Kelly Sedinger: Reader, writer, photographer, and dreamer

Skip to content ↓