Musings of an Itinerant Life

Back, and My Unsolicited Opinion on the HHS decision

2011-12-09T16:27:00.003-05:00

I finally feel passionately enough about an issue to post on this blog after what, a year and a half?

Re: Kathleen Sebelius and her not letting minors buy Plan B over the counter

I feel very conflicted about this issue, and I come down on Sebelius' side for one reason, although I REALLY wish that I could create a compromise between HHS and FDA's respective decisions.

My opinions:

1) Plan B is ABSOLUTELY SAFE for all women or girls of reproductive age to take.

2) Plan B should be available over the counter.

3) Plan B should be available to all girls 12 and over.

4) Plan B should NOT be available to girls 10-111. But why do I feel this way about the youngest girls, and not about 15-year-olds? Because I feel very strongly that girls of that age are NOT OLD ENOUGH to either give consent or understand the consequences of those actions. I want them to get a prescription not because I want them to suffer the consequences of rape and assault, but because I want those girls, who are so young, to see a doctor and get help. It is so unfair to just let these girls slide through the system without someone being able to investigate why these girls are pregnant. Just because they CAN be pregnant doesn't mean that they should, and I want them to be able to get help.

My compromise: All women and girls 10 and older have access to over-the-counter Plan B. If a girl under 13 tries to purchase it, they and their parents are automatically referred to Child Services. If a 12 year old girl is pregnant, something is very, very wrong.

The true pain of art, and not being able to go the distance

2011-03-13T18:15:00.002-04:00

From Sandra Tsing Loh, in an essay response to The Tiger Mother.

One of the most painful things about being us is how we ache to be as beloved as Mozart, but are stunted. When I think of Chinese parents, I think of people who weep upon hearing Beethoven, but who can’t necessarily bring that joy to others. Perhaps we can do so fleetingly, through our children, while they are still young, decades before they, like me, will sit at a piano, Fallen Prodigies in their 40s, their own kids squalling, dogs barking—once-perfect dolls who berate themselves for losing their youthful technique.

I feel this constantly, and the terror of not being able to get it back paralyzes me.

'An important message about the arts' - an animated video by artist Davi...

2010-09-13T18:08:00.000-04:00

Dear All, Please take a moment to view this cute and funny video on the relevance of the arts to Britain (and, correspondingly, to the United States).

Blogging Janelle Monae

2010-06-02T21:31:00.002-04:00

So, I bought both Janelle Monae cds because I was sent her music video twice by friends. TWICE. They were absolutely right that Monae's music is exactly what I like, and I bought. She's fantastic. She's just as much of a performance artist as GaGa, with as much funky gender-bending design, but she's a better singer and has a MUCH more interesting musical environment. I just started listening to her stuff, and oh, she's just spectacular.

I will admit, I've never been one for orchestral music, but I was totally surprised by how much of a visceral reaction I had to the opening of her CD the Archandroid. It's pegged as the overture to "Act II" of her android saga. I had to close my eyes and just drink it up. I'm SO excited for the rest of the CD.

Uh Oh...

2010-05-25T18:10:00.003-04:00

I was just watching Rachel Maddow Show clips from last night, and OMG it was so frightening - Stephen Chu, Secretary of Energy, HAS NO CLUE WHAT DRILLING IS APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED UNLESS HE READS IT IN THE PAPER.

I immediately started panicking. What the heck is the Administration doing? Don't they know that in a case like this Interior and Energy should be communicating every single day? Who cares that permits to drill are Interior? They should have a hold on them that is totally binding, and approval of any new ones should be ferried up the line to be approved by the heads! Ugh. This is turning into a horrible disaster. My interpretation of what ought to be done:

1) Send out a "request for volunteers" to all high schools and colleges in the US, and have the government organize the shore cleanup. BP should not be in control of that. They don't care about wildlife, they don't care about Louisiana.

2) Have the government control the on-sea cleanup effort. they should stop BP from spraying any chemicals, and instead organize that cleanup themselves.

3) Sequester BP officials and scientists in a room and have them focus all their attention on capping the spill. The government should say that damages will be calculated after the spill is capped, and set no ceiling on damages. BP would then fight the spill while understanding that the quicker they cap it, the less money they'll be sued for.

If a BP manager or other spokesman comes to the government (aside from interior or energy scientists), the ONLY question should be: Is the spill stopped? If it isn't, THEY SHOULDN'T BE TALKING.

At least the gamma ray mapping of the blow out worked...

I am growing an avocado tree in a cup

2010-05-10T23:45:00.002-04:00

I am excited to be venturing into this kindergarten-level experiment in gardening and the growth of seeds. Reactions to the seed in a cup:

My Father: You know, Cara - you are not likely to be here when this tree would be planted, so your mother and I are not going to be responsible for the continued health of this plant.

Me: Ok, well if it dies I'll look sad.

Father: That's acceptable.

My Mother: Oooh! I would love to have an avocado tree.

Two reactions, both wonderfully indicative of their characters.

I am now going to attempt to post a picture of said tree.

Cool Arrangement

2010-02-17T01:10:00.002-05:00

Nobunaga Oda just opened his short program with a bit from Dido and Aeneas by Purcell - When I am Laid (in Earth). Then it went into synth dramatic music - and then it went into something vaguely 80's hard metal - which was totally cool. Thought I should mention.

Comcast/NBC annoys me right now

2010-02-15T23:42:00.004-05:00

So, I thought I'd take a look at the COMPLETE figure skating from yesterday - you know, check out some of the non-american or non-top-4 pairs...gee! who'da thunk. So, I go onto NBC.com, where I could watch it. But there, not only do I have to download "microsoft blah-viewer", because obviously one of the other video players ISN'T ENOUGH, but then I also have to verify my cable/tv provider, and register for a "Comcast Video" username and password, because I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PASSWORDS ALREADY. Honestly, people - I thought NBC was a not-for-pay network - you get your revenue through ads, right? And Comcast - I'm already getting my service through your friggin network - can't you tell? We have wireless, it's password protected, and there's a router. Is it somehow impossible for you to detect that I have your service? Or impossible to detect that I have certain things approved/not approved? I mean, you do it on my TV ALL THE TIME. That's why I can't watch Starz or HBO whenever I want. So LET ME WATCH MY COMPLETE FIGURE SKATING, because jeez! Few enough people want to watch the full program, and apparently, you want to make it harder. Good job, screwups.

Plus, I don't care about the polar bears, when you've avoided playing figure skating for a full 25 minutes now. It was the first event you said you'd cover. BTW, NBC, you deserve to lose money on this, if you're going to cover it so badly.

Note on Last Night

2010-02-15T17:45:00.003-05:00

Ask and ye shall receive:

Last night the Germans did a short program to "Send in the Clowns" from A Little Night Music... by Sondheim. I was pretty appreciative (it was a nice, if unimaginative arrangment), except what ruined it was the OVERWHELMINGLY AWFUL clown costumes.

And I guess that partly answers my question about why all figure skating music is somehow awful - because skaters don't understand what the song means. *shudder*

In honor of the olypics (hopefully part I)

2010-02-14T23:09:00.003-05:00

I'm trying to watch the opening night of figure skating (pairs' short program) which is being interrupted constantly by luge (I don't care) advertisements (many of them totally awful - there was one about a "preparation H"), and talk of the luge competitor who was killed (I feel awful about this - he was younger than me :( ).

So, in honor of figure skating, here's this article from the Washington Post, about the utter crud music that figure skaters perform to. There is a clear bias against modern music in the article, one which I think is worth a bit of thought. Why is pop music so rare? One reason the article states is that vocal music (sung words) is against the rules in singles and pairs, if not ice dance. But why couldn't you do arrangements of other popular music?

Again, back to the purists where classical music is the only good music. Personally, I feel like a Sondheim arrangement might be kind of cool - and unique. "You need something people can relate to, something that can evoke some kind of picture quickly," Weisiger says, wondering how many iterations of "Phantom of the Opera" will be heard at this year's Olympics.

Why is ballet and classical music the only music that both gets "good for figure skating" and "good music" tags?

If you actually have knowledge about this, I'd love to hear what you think.

Awesome Sauce #1

2010-01-11T02:13:00.001-05:00

I wish America would do this......

Createquity - the blog I ought to read every chance I get, but don't

2010-01-11T02:00:00.003-05:00

As a welcome but still disheartening reminder about why good, prolific bloggers don't really have other jobs, Createquity (see updated blogroll) just put out a list of the 10 biggest arts policy stories in 2009. There are 2 reasons this is disheartening (for me) 1) there are some things on there that I didn't even know! Like Number 8. I had no idea that the two biggest west-coast funding groups were going through a leadership change! Yeah - I ought to have kept on top of that. 2) it proves that other people are doing this better, and more thoroughly than I am. Go figure.

Check it out. The list is BEAST.

Also, this quote is my life, and feels really true to me right now, for some reason.

The problem of course, as far as private funding goes, is that what billionaire wants to fund school education? Where’s the glamour in that? You don’t get your name etched in marble on the outside of a hall for that, or get invited to amazing galas, so what’s the point? That’s why I’m focusing on public and state funding — let the private funders bankroll the opry halls, if that’s where they want to hang out.

I sense that in the long run there is a greater value for humanity in empowering folks to make and create than there is in teaching them the canon, the great works and the masterpieces. In my opinion, it’s more important that someone learn to make music, to draw, photograph, write or create in any form than it is for them to understand and appreciate Picasso, Warhol or Bill Shakespeare — to say nothing of opry. In the long term it doesn’t matter if students become writers, artists or musicians — though a few might. It's more important that they are able to understand the process of creation, experimentation and discovery — which can then be applied to anything they do, as those processes, deep down, are all similar. It’s an investment in fluorescence.

It's all an investment in fluorescence. Beautiful, beautiful sentence.

Shows I want to see #536

2010-01-07T20:09:00.001-05:00

Enron. The play.

And this is news to....

2010-01-07T20:02:00.001-05:00

Anyone who hasn't ever bothered to learn about the dramatic side of Shakespeare.

I'm very sorry this academic is dead, and he seems like he was a really amazing guy, but his insights are really very....hmm....accepted? Understood? Been told to everyone 20 times over (hopefully). I guess the fact that he first encountered Shakespeare in a college Shakespeare course accounts for why he was so amazed that Shakespeare is really only alive when in performance. But go figure.

Somehow stimulus going to the arts is a waste of money?

2009-12-12T16:07:00.002-05:00

From an e-mail I received yesterday from my fave group, Pig Iron:

This Wednesday, we awoke to find an unexpectedly early lump of coal in our stocking. Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn issued a report (available here) on 100 purportedly "silly" grants issued by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A grant to Pig Iron administered by the National Endowment for the Arts, earmarked to retain one of our staff positions and to help fund our seven actors' salaries for Welcome to Yuba City, somehow made the cut (it's at #26, for easy scrolling.) Pretty amazing.

I have nothing to say, besides that apparently McCain and Coburn don't understand "job retention".

Hilary is Mad Awesome

2009-10-29T23:53:00.003-04:00

With a possible emphasis on mad. This makes me exhilarated, but also kinda confused....are her words gonna get a good result or a bad result? I have no clue, but her commentary is pure feminist - "back off and respect my authority, misogynistic asshole" is what I imagine her internal monologue going :D

The Playgoer: Ginsburg & Scalia: Live on Stage!

2009-10-29T00:27:00.000-04:00

The Playgoer: Ginsburg & Scalia: Live on Stage!

If only I could have seen this - it sounds like the perfect confluence of my interests :D

if you read the comments, in casting I would definitely put Scalia as Baron Scarpia from Tosca, but Ginsburg....maybe the head nun in Dead Man Walking?

I <3 the Phillies

2009-10-28T23:42:00.001-04:00

If you had given me 3 more months in Philadelphia, God, I would be a rabid Phillies fan right now. As it is, I would marry Cliff Lee in a split second.

What would be awesome...

2009-10-20T15:22:00.002-04:00

So, some of you may know that I work as a theater manager at my high school. Well, I saw this about a community theater, and it sounds so wonderful and cute I wanted to hug it and replace the building I manage with this one. anyways, read about it here. I've been super busy, sorry for not posting.

"Its Africa"

2009-10-05T17:10:00.003-04:00

Sometimes you read a review of a piece of theater and you wish beyond wishing that you were there, in that moment, watching it happen. This looks like the coolest show ever, and I wished I could be there so badly. Imagine! A baboon Lady Macbeth!

Because I don't want to be a Blogroll

2009-09-26T23:15:00.002-04:00

Be warned: this is a written conversation with myself. So if my arguments are spotty, please be understanding.

My brother told me, when I was writing a previous entry, that references to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are the easy way out when speaking about propaganda art. But there is nothing in the past century that can ever ever compare to the brutal slaughter of artists under those regimes. And nothing really to compare to the utter heartbreak that I know artists felt when they had to decide whether to leave the country that they loved, because they feared for their lives, or to stay, and hope beyond hope that their work - their plays, novels, and movies - wouldn't be censored, mutilated, or silenced by oppressive governments.

Don't get me wrong: Russian and German artists experienced two different situations; one had their political compatriots go rogue on them, and the others realized that their government had changed and left them high and dry. But both sides had friends flee or become soulless mouths for the machine.

Weimar Theater in post WWI Germany was a beautiful, sensual, completely immoral world that would have given the Christianists absolute conniption fits. You don't often learn that 1920's Weimar movies included work like "Madchen in Uniform" - the first ever lesbian movie. If you do the research, you get the feeling it was Explicit. Then you learn that the movie's ending was changed in order to pander to the Nazis. Then the Nazis banned the movie, and it wasn't seen until the mid 70's.If you went to Swarthmore with me, then maybe you saw Spring Awakening (the original play - it was popular with Weimar artists). Explicit.

Gorky was a communist playwright and author whose plays are, quite honestly, pure Communist propaganda, and not particularly well written, though they do get better as he writes more (practice = perfect). But they were HIS writing before Stalin came to power. He desperately wanted to show people why they should support the Communist agenda, and he believed in his work. By all accounts, he was tremendously successful. He leaves Russia, visits the US, criticizes Lenin's restrictions on freedom of Speech, and pretty much decides not to come back to Russia. But he returns and gets locked up - house arrest in Moscow. After that, he writes mostly propaganda intended to prop up the Stalinist regime. He may have been assassinated by the NKVD.

So, Democratic and Republican Bloggers alike, BE CAREFUL with your words and your opinions, and your oh-so-doomful or scornful remarks. For the Democrats, there is a reason why Rocco Landesman forcefully said (4 days ago):

Fact 5:		This call was completely unrelated to NEA's grantmaking, which is highly regarded for its independence and integrity. Artistic quality, excellence and merit are the guidelines for decision-making; favoritism or political affiliation plays no role in NEA grantmaking.

Fact 6:		The NEA is a successful, independent federal agency that has supported the best of the arts and arts education for nearly 45 years. We take our responsibility to the American public very seriously and are committed to upholding this public trust.

That reason is because Art, no matter the purpose towards which it is aimed, is powerful. Even if it's the simple artistry of a well-framed photograph that seemingly catches the President ogling a teenager's butt. Or if it's the Hope poster. Or if it's a frighteningly explicit solo performance work about AIDS where infected blood is spilled onstage.

And if the Government starts meddling in the Arts - starts selectively funding art that markets one point of view, that truly is a sign that something bad is going down. So many people are right to freak the heck out. But I'm not sure the Republicans have a better record - just the opposite one, where instead of selectively funding, they try to selectively not fund. And even "moderate" Republicans don't have a particularly good record where it comes to supporting all the arts, forget about a few. As Andrew Sullivan said in 2006,

"For good measure, I'd get rid of the NEA and the Education Department."

Imagine what he'd have done with arts programs in schools. I shudder to think.

All of this said, having read and thought about the issue - the comments were pretty tame, if stupid.

Arts Policy/NEA scandal Blogroll

2009-09-26T22:50:00.003-04:00

So, approximately one week after I wrote my post describing how Glenn Beck took up the NEA as his own personal most recent "lets see how many people we can get fired in the National Government" shtick, the Democratic Blogs finally took notice, and commented. Many of the blogs pooh-poohed any instance of artistic manipulation via Obama's NEA. A couple samples:

Ordinary Gentlemen:

Don’t bother looking for recriminations or punishment for artists who don’t produce pro-Obama artwork, or do produce anti-Obama (or anti-Democrat, or anti-government) artwork. There’s no such coercion anywhere– you know, the kind of coercion that the people pimping this pathetic story so desperately want to find. What’s there is precisely the kind of vague, empty bureaucrat speak that suffuses not only every branch of government, regardless of the party of the sitting president, but also every corporate conference call promoting “synergy” and collective effort for collective goals.

Edge of the West:

Wait wait wait—I thought conservatives were upset because the White House created an office, installed it five federal agencies, then used them to fund a clearly partisan policy agenda to the tune of $2.2 billion. You mean to tell me all those links are about an August 10th conference call that tried to wrangle up support for the current President’s National Day of Service—a call in which not one cent of the NEA’s $155million budget was dispensed or even offered?

The Playgoer:

Something to do with the NEA actually supporting Obama's community service initiative? And this is bad because...? Oh, I see, Glenn, because it's going to indoctrinate our children through all that art they see. Well you should be glad they don't see much of that anyway--thanks to the likes of you.

One of my faves, Anonymous Liberal :

In terms of optics, it was certainly not a good idea for the NEA communications director to participate in such a call (which is probably why he is not the communications director anymore). That organization is not supposed to be involved in political advocacy.

But unless Breitbart's got a lot more, this is the political equivalent of jaywalking. Neither the NEA nor the White House organized this call and the staffers on the call basically gave boilerplate cheerleading remarks. There is nothing in the call that suggests that NEA money or grants were being funneled to progressive artists or anything of the sort. And the White House is of course free to participate on calls with supporters and encourage them to be pro-active. That's what the Office of Public Engagement does....

If Breitbart can produce any actual evidence that NEA resources or money were being improperly used for political purposes, I'll join him in calling for an investigation and for accountability. But this recorded call is pretty weak tea, especially by Bush era standards.

And from the Conservative Blog side, Andy McCarthy, with some perspective:

Needless to say, if something like this happened during the Bush administration, there would already be congressional hearings and screams for the appointment of a special prosecutor. We're about to see (yet again) how serious the Pelosi/Reid Democrats are about all that "rule of law" stuff they spout.

The NEA - What I posted on actually has national relevance!

2009-09-10T20:21:00.004-04:00

So, here we are - one week ago I posted about the NEA getting involved in politics, and said that I wasn't surprised, but that I was disappointed. And a couple days ago, my lovely friend Daniel (who tries and tries to get people to read this blog, and I love him for it), sent me a link to Ben Smith at Politico.

Some Background to the blog post that started it all: There was a blog post by a conservative artist (yes, they do exist) on the Blog site Big Hollywood. The main cheese there is a friend of Drudge's. Anyways, not only did the artist blog about how the NEA asked artists to chip in on Obama's legislative agenda, but apparently he also taped the call. And then sent the recording to Glenn Beck, who went apeshit over it. If you're interested in watching youtube clips of the interview, you can check them out at HuffPost, here. As a result, Senator Cornyn sent an e-mail to Obama, which you can read here. In his letter, Cornyn repeats the original blog post but also adds something really important, if ironic and marginally hypocritical:

"But even if no NEA funding was intended for political purposes, one cannot escape the disturbing impression that this Administration - including appointees within the White House and the NEA - believes that it is appropriate for the federal government to enlist the arts community for the purpose of furthering a specific political agenda. I agree with President John F. Kennedy, who said that '[w]e must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.'

I urge you to make clear that your Administration will never allocate taxpayer dollars to artists based on their support for Administration policy initiatives. Further, I respectfully request that you take the necessary steps to ensure that the NEA - and the American arts community it supports - remain independent from political manipulation by the White House."

And I agree. But I find it hard to trust any Republican who says that the NEA should remain independent from political manipulation - by anyone. The NEA was, sadly, one of the main targets of the Conservative Christian revival in the mid Nineties. The NEA's budget still remains below 1995 funding levels. And all of that was a solely political move. Christianists objected to the artistic viewpoints being funded. And if that isn't political manipulation, I don't know what is. But Ryan Grim, who wrote the HuffPost article I linked to above, puts my point pretty darn well - "the arts agency is constantly under fire from extremist activists who see it as propagating a liberal, libertine agenda. The day the culture war is finally declared over, there will still be skirmishes over the NEA."

Anyways, back to my point. The Ben Smith article I wrote about says that the now named NEA organizer who pushed artists re. Obama's legislative agenda has been demoted! Not sacked, but definitely scolded. His name is Yosi Sergant, and he "has a long history with the Obama campaign, having led the media effort for Shepard Fairey, the artist behind the iconic "Hope" portrait that Obama has credited with helping him win."

So, presumably, his record helped him. Here, via Grim at HuffPost, is the official NEA statement, along with some additional commentary: "The NEA has updated their statement to emphasize that Yosi Sargent remains with the agency, but in a different position: 'As regards Yosi Sergant, he has not left the National Endowment for the Arts. He remains with the agency, although not as director of communications.'

Sources familiar with the situation say that the move represents a significant step down and was the result of the controversy. Discussion about his new duties is still ongoing."

Oh, Berlusconi....

2009-09-10T10:42:00.002-04:00

What Berlusconi gets away with in Italy would get a US President drawn, quartered, and the pieces burned. I love reading these articles because they're so funny and, in a way, alien. Also, seriously? Call girl bribes?

Google is charging people lots of money to advertise on my Blog to....no one.

2009-09-08T20:09:00.000-04:00

I have made, via ad revenue, over the course of the 4-ish months I have been blogging, $0.06. That, my dear friends, is six cents. count them. *rolls eyes*. I don't even know why I bothered putting in the Monetize app.

But you know what's really awesome? That those links introduce me to new and cool things. Yeah, I clicked to go to a website of a foundation that interested me. Whee!

Reasons why I wish I was in Philadelphia this weekend

2009-09-05T19:23:00.002-04:00

The Fringe!!

Not only is there the new Pig Iron show, but my friends are doing two shows: one comedy and one avant-garde theater, and then there's a Gonzales Concert Opera!!!!

omg omg omg.

And then I saw a picture of the Philly skyline and got a little homesick. Dammit.

My Post on the NEA got Hijacked by a More Important Issue

2009-09-05T16:12:00.003-04:00

So, my "post rate" will probably be much more occasional, a factor of being a new employee in a very time intensive job that requires a humongously steep learning curve. I hope to regularly post once a week, with extra posts as time and enthusiasm allow.

So, now onto the big issue of the day. This story is the first post on Arts Journal, and it makes me 1) very sad and 2) very nervous and 3) not surprised at all.

Some background: The Obama administration invited a large number of prominent arts officials and rising artists to a conference call on how the Government and artists could "work together" on prominent issues of the day, and encouraging them to use their talents - essentially, "steering the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate."

Anyone who either knows me or has read this blog knows that I am a huge fan of government subsidy for the arts. If you tell me that art (theater, painting, dance, etc.) is a form of personal expression, intended to express the inner soul of the artist, I will show you 500 examples of artists, both male and female (but mostly male) who relied extensively on Government patronage, or business patronage, or, heaven help me, religious patronage, and managed perfectly well to make beautiful, well-respected work that nevertheless endlessly pushed a strong, active agenda. And that is the way that art always has been and probably always will be.

In an ideal world, and with a perfect government, this is the way that government subsidy of the arts would work: the government would evaluate the potential of an artist applying for a grant, and decide if their work was worth subsidizing regardless of the message it espoused or the politics the artist held. Thus, the money that the government offered would be based solely on talent and promise, not on the message the artist believed most important. Thus, the US would be helping beautiful, powerful or emotionally devastating art come into being without placing artificial standards on it.

And given my hopes for the first administration that actively acknowledged the arts in its platform, I truly desired that this administration would act in a way that held to my utopian vision. But, all things being the way they are, Obama's actions are not surprising, even if they are disappointing.

Which man in power, knowing that a huge number of artists of all types and genres had energized themselves on his behalf would not hope that the same energy would be devoted to his agenda?

The fact that Obama is utilizing the NEA to try to invigorate the artist communities is not surprising. Given the immense reluctance of the US government (puritanical at its core - have I talked about this? let me know if you haven't heard my rant) to acknowledge the power of art of all kinds, the NEA is the only tool Obama possesses. The NEA is the largest artist grant-giving organization in the nation. It spurs other organizations to give as well - imagine! It's so much cooler to give money to an artist that has already been granted money by the NEA! You don't have to do research on their work yourself!

And mostly, the government has viewed artists as opponents rather than as tools. But now it finds itself in a unique position - possibly the only time since the 1930's that the greater proportion of artists have been in agreement with the president's agenda rather than opponents to his agenda. As the Honda TV ads say, Mr. Opportunity is knocking. So, to Mr. Courrielche, who asks:

"But the art community must... ask itself about the proper role of government agencies created to promote the arts. And if put in the wrong hands, could a message machine built by the NEA be used in a nefarious manner not currently foreseeable?"

YES. Because it's happened before. In Soviet Russia and in Fascist Germany art was suborned to the political agenda. Those are the obvious examples. My favorite example of art being squashed because of politics is actually Moliere's Tartuffe. Louis XIV actually prevented the play at first because it criticized the church, but then later allowed it because at that point he wanted to shame the church where he hadn't before. And read the ending of the play. A more blatant piece of propaganda I have never seen.

Artists should be cautious about accepting Government funds. Artists should be cautious about accepting any funds. Because along with Patronage comes obligation. If you agree with the message, great. Fine. Make art about the greed of the Health industry. Mock the system that awards money gaming more than teaching arithmetic to young children. That's what the government wants now. But don't get complacent. If you can make great art within the limits of what the government wants, fine. But if you can't, don't accept the money. Because you'll be at the mercy of the one giving it. Because that's what accepting any money does to you.

So, I'm back

2009-08-30T20:19:00.003-04:00

So, I'm back almost a full month after going off the air - it's been a tumultuous few weeks. I moved back home after thinking that I was going to be in Philadelphia for nearly a year. So, unfortunately, I don't get to talk about the Philadelphia Fringe, because I'm Not There. Which is a huge sadness.

BUT - making up for it are some lovely perks, like my rent has decreased by 200 dollars, and I am now the proud owner of a baby blue vespa named Simone (de Bouvoir, if you want to act like my mother and make everything more literary and fancy-schmancy).

So, in honor of my return, I provide the lovely links of wonder (i.e. I don't want to write 30 posts, but still think that all these things I missed are cool). Just so you know, Arts Journal on my blogroll is the primary source of many of these articles - they do a really amazing job of filtering out valuable arts content, so check them out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2009/aug/26/theatre-critics-artists - This link takes you to a British article on how blogging, artists and critics are all getting really up close in each others' business right now and changing the way criticism is viewed and told. So it's pretty important, at least as far as this blog is concerned :).

A recession hits everyone differently - especially non-industry cities. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thearts/2009752523_actors30.html?cmpid=2628

Maybe this would be a great movie, or maybe I assumed the movies would get to the topic first. In that case, I think I'm happy that live theater is doing it instead. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090826/ennew_afp/entertainmentfrancetheatrebankingcrime_20090826190728

Oh wonderful wonderful (and then past all hooping) would this make an interesting avant-garde theater project...http://playgoer.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-if-woodstock-had-tweeted.html

And, to top it off, an article on my favorite Philadelphia Group, Pig Iron - http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20090827_Pig_Iron__unalloyed.html

I Can't Believe I Missed This

2009-08-11T15:54:00.004-04:00

Rocco Landesman's interview in the New York Times!! It's wonderful, and now there's finally more about how he views his role in the NEA. If I wasn't in the middle of trying to move cross-country, I would have a lot more to say about this, but in the meantime I'll post a few quotes:

The new chairman said he already has a new slogan for his agency: “Art Works.” It’s “something muscular that says, ‘We matter.’ ” The words are meant to highlight both art’s role as an economic driver and the fact that people who work in the arts are themselves a critical part of the economy.

“Someone who works in the arts is every bit as gainfully employed as someone who works in an auto plant or a steel mill,” Mr. Landesman said. “We’re going to make the point till people are tired of hearing it.”

Even more interesting is how Landesman got involved in the position in the first place:

Mr. Landesman wasn’t tapped for the job. “I’d love to say the president drafted me, and I had to answer the call of duty, but no,” he said. “I put my hand up for this.”

“Everybody I talked to said, ‘This is the worst idea I’ve ever heard, put it out of your head immediately,’ ” Mr. Landesman said. “The idea of running a 170-person federal bureaucracy seemed crazy.”

But it’s an unusual moment in history, he said, and he wanted to be part of it. President Obama was “the first candidate in my memory who made arts part of the campaign,” Mr. Landesman said. “He had an arts policy committee and an arts policy statement and arts advisers.”

It's true - Obama, despite how little in regards to the arts he had posted on his campaign website (and now has posted on the White House website) has been one of the few truly culturally sensitive candidates for office. The fact that Obama decided to place this man in charge (he's described as a general in the interview) is indicative that there's someone taking the arts seriously.

Please read the entire article - there's so much I would quote, but...

Illinois is in the same situation as Pennsylvania

2009-08-07T18:42:00.003-04:00

So, a long time ago, when I began this blog, I heard really sad new - Pennsylvania was in grave danger of cutting major (read all) arts funds from their budget. And the news hasn't improved - indeed, it's just plain miserable. On the 4th, Pennsylvania cut ALL arts funding out of the budget. Yes, all. So Philadelphia, which is increasingly a truly vibrant home for impressive and imaginative theater (please check out Pig Iron Company - they're in the links on the right hand side) is really just completely demolished by this.

Well, via my friend Daniel, an article saying that half - yes, half - of Illinois' arts funding has been cut. And if anything, this is even more awful for Chicago, a larger city with more great theater. I truly approve of this article's language...

In craptastic but unsurprising news, the Illinois Arts Council (IAC) got kicked in the proverbial balls by the 2010 Illinois budget. Its $7.8 million allocation is 51% less than that in the 2008 budget, which, thanks to Blago’s veto of the General Assembly’s approved $23.1 million appropriation, was $15.2 million.

The IAC is very blunt about the gravity of the situation - in a letter sent to recent grant applicants on July 29, IAC Chairman Shirley R. Madigan stated, “I have been privileged to be a member of the Illinois Arts Council for many years and I have never seen our situation so dire. Without additional state revenues, we may well have further cuts in the months ahead, and next year will be worse.”

Thoughts on War

2009-07-28T12:20:00.002-04:00

I haven't posted in a while - sorry. But I saw this passage in the NYT today, and... well, I can't really describe how I feel, except that none of the feelings consist of anything related to "cheery".

The sight was not that unusual, at least not for Mosul, Iraq, on a summer morning: a car parked on the sidewalk, facing opposite traffic, its windows rolled up tight. Two young boys stared out the back window, kindergarten age maybe, their faces leaning together as if to share a whisper.

The soldier patrolling closest to the car stopped. It had to be hot in there; it was 120 degrees outside. “Permission to approach, sir, to give them some water,” the soldier said to Sgt. First Class Edward Tierney, who led the nine-man patrol that morning.

“I said no — no,” Sergeant Tierney said in a telephone interview from Afghanistan. He said he had an urge to move back before he knew why: “My body suddenly got cooler; you know, that danger feeling.”

...

That morning in Mosul, Sergeant Tierney gave the command to fall back. The soldier who had asked to approach the car had just time enough to turn before the bomb exploded. Shrapnel clawed the side of his face; the shock wave threw the others to the ground. The two young boys were gone: killed in the blast, almost certainly, he said.

The person who uses children and destroys them in the process of war is worse than a criminal. Worse than a murderer.

Movies and the Recession

2009-07-20T21:57:00.002-04:00

Often I say that the movie industry isn't making enough movies to stay up - my parallel, of course, is from the fifties when movies exuded from every cultural orifice - at least, that's how I imagine it. So admittedly I have no factual basis for my claim that movie studios are more profitable and more imaginative when they are actually making more movies.

I mean, it makes sense - if you have a larger slate of films for any one year, you are more likely totake a risk - you'll lose less money if it's 1/10th of your potential revenue stream for the year, instead of 1/5th. Also, you'll overspend less - there have been so many awful movies with overwhelming budgets - movie studios will moderate more on their budget, and thus you'll end up with more imaginative movies, since directors and producers will have to think in unique ways to get more bang for the buck.

Well, I'm not completely crazy - a study recently proved me right! So HA.

Kings

2009-07-19T23:29:00.002-04:00

Some of you may know that I am a HUGE fan of the NBC show Kings. I recommend you all see it. Kings, to me, is better than any show I have ever seen. It is compelling melodrama, intelligent, with great character development and political intrigue. If you watch it, tell me so that I can enthuse and discuss happenings with you.

Of course, NBC is canceling it after only one season, because they're dumb. If you get a chance to watch the show, please do. Nothing will make me sadder re. the future of TV if they cancel this series.

My ranking of my favorite (currently running) tv shows...

Kings

How I Met Your Mother

True Blood

House

Eureka

OH! And just so you know, Kings is better than Buffy. Yes, I just said that.

Goldman Sachs

2009-07-17T14:22:00.002-04:00

From the NYT:

Financial firms, we now know, directed vast quantities of capital into the construction of unsellable houses and empty shopping malls. They increa sed risk rather than reducing it, and concentrated risk rather than spreading it. In effect, the industry was selling dangerous patent medicine to gullible consumers.

Goldman’s role in the financialization of America was similar to that of other players, except for one thing: Goldman didn’t believe its own hype. Other banks invested heavily in the same toxic waste they were selling to the public at large. Goldman, famously, made a lot of money selling securities backed by subprime mortgages — then made a lot more money by selling mortgage-backed securities short, just before their value crashed. All of this was perfectly legal, but the net effect was that Goldman made profits by playing the rest of us for suckers.

My mother, who knows what she's talking about, has said that beyond this, Goldman, through strategic placement of insiders and "respected experts," has been placed in a position to benefit from every policy regarding the health of the economy in the last 4 years. Goldman profits, the American people suffer.

How to Qualify for the WPA Theatre Project

2009-07-15T00:21:00.003-04:00

An excerpt from Arthur Miller's autobiography, Timebends:

To join the WPA Theatre Project it was necessary to get on the welfare rolls first, in effect to be homeless and all but penniless. And to get the bureaucratic process started I had brought my father to the Welfare Department's requisitioned old warehouse near the Hudson River, where we put on a fine scene of parental indignation against filial rebellion. The welfare worker looked on as we demonstrated why I would never be allowed to sleep in my family home, and simply sighed and judged the performance adequate, without necessarily believing anything more than our economic desperation. The final step was to be an unannounced visit by an inspector to see whether I actually lived in this address with people who were unrelated. My alleged cot, on which I had never slept, stood under a window here, and my winter overcoat hung on a hanger hooked over a gas fixture on the wall. A nice touch was the pair of sneakers placed under the cot, for by this time I was down to one pair of leather shoes.

Whales are Awesome

2009-07-13T11:01:00.002-04:00

Please read the NYT Magazine article on whales - it's available on the NYT mainpage. It is completely blowing my mind (pun intended, although it's bad).

One quote that totally made me gasp, was this:

Whales display an incredible degree of coordination and cooperation in their efforts. Aaron Thode, an associate research scientist from the Scripps Institution, who was in Baja doing acoustical studies of grays, told me of another project he is involved in, using the latest research tools to gain insights into how whales perceive the world. He showed me an extraordinary video of sperm whales pilfering catch from fishermen’s lines in Alaska, 50-foot-long, massive-jawed behemoths delicately snatching a single black cod from a longline’s dangling hook, like an hors d’oeuvre from a cocktail toothpick. Fishermen are currently losing 5 to 10 percent of their yearly haul and fear the problem could become worse because whales who have mastered the technique are busily teaching it to others. The news seems to be rapidly spreading, as reports of similar fish-snatching are coming in from fishermen all over the world.

Some funny things I found...

2009-07-09T01:11:00.003-04:00

Or rather, just interesting. First, the finalists for the annual "bad first sentence in a fake novel" competition! My favorite is the winner in the "Detective" novel category:

She walked into my office on legs as long as one of those long-legged birds that you see in Florida - the pink ones, not the white ones - except that she was standing on both of them, not just one of them, like those birds, the pink ones, and she wasn't wearing pink, but I knew right away that she was trouble, which those birds usually aren't.

Next up, an article to make my peacenicky side really happy: Humans aren't innately coded for war! Violence is not inevitable. My favorite quote:

The first clear-cut evidence of violence against groups as opposed to individuals appears about 14,000 years ago, he says. The evidence takes the form of mass graves of skeletons with crushed skulls, hack marks and projectile points embedded in them; rock art in Australia, Europe and elsewhere depicting battles with spears, clubs and bows and arrows; and settlements clearly fortified for protection against attacks (see "The birth of war").

War emerged when humans shifted from a nomadic existence to a settled one and was commonly tied to agriculture, Ferguson says. "With a vested interest in their lands, food stores and especially rich fishing sites, people could no longer walk away from trouble." What's more, with settlement came the production of surplus crops and the acquisition of precious and symbolic objects through trade. All of a sudden, people had far more to lose, and to fight over, than their hunter-gatherer forebears.

And finally, why on earth is the WSJ starting up an arts and culture section? The timing makes no sense to me. But, they have their reasons. Apparently business-centric papers are just as awful at making money as the NYT. So the WSJ is looking to poach some more general-interest readers. Good luck? Maybe? A quote:

“The Journal is making a very smart decision by focusing on New York,” said Pia Catton, the former culture editor of The New York Sun, which the chattering classes were known to praise for the sophisticated alternative it provided to The Times. “There is so much going on in New York, and it sets the tone for the rest of the country.”

(Ms. Catton herself has recently moved to Washington, D.C., to become an editor at Politico.)

“The Times has gone wrong by covering arts nationally and casting the net so wide that they aren’t focused on New York anymore,” she said.

Times culture editor Sam Sifton, reached for comment, would only say: “We’re extremely proud of our culture coverage and confident it can stand up to competition.”

Politico says nothing new

2009-07-08T12:26:00.003-04:00

in this article, which is a good summary of the current status of arts policy, if nothing else. I restate my points:

Michelle is not a sufficient advocate for the arts. Neither are Landesman or Leach separately. There needs to be one person who organizes our attitudes towards culture in this country.

The Practical Guide to Help Spurned Political Wives Survive Old Problems in the Era of New Technology.

2009-07-01T15:14:00.002-04:00

Although I know many people who (intensely) dislike Maureen Dowd, I believe that this op-ed of hers is hilarious, timely, and perfectly executed.

6. No matter how revolting your husband’s behavior is, don’t be passive-aggressive in public. Refrain from making any remarks that have a veneer of dignity but derogatory subtexts that sound like: “We’re trying to reconcile but it’s going to be tough because he has irreparably damaged my children” or “He has no integrity and I want my kids to have integrity” and “Sure, I’d like to give him a chance if he weren’t such a sleazeball.”

geniuuuusssss - I want to write a play about this. Or see one. Or act in one. Someone, please write it for me.

Hurrah Thank Goodness

2009-06-30T21:29:00.001-04:00

Franken is seated!! Now we can go about making sure that necessary things...like arts funding...get passed!!! HURRAH

Obama Disappoints Me

2009-06-27T16:01:00.002-04:00

One of the things I HATED most about the Bush Administration was their use of signing statements. If you have an issue with a law, take it up with the courts - the Judicial branch is supposed to decide debates of precedent between the Executive and Legislative branches. So when I saw this, that Obama has issued a signing statement, I was horrified.

I don't care how good your reasons are. Signing statements are one of the foremost ways to create a corrupt executive. Obama should be ashamed.

The Atlantic

2009-06-26T13:00:00.002-04:00

I picked up a copy of the Atlantic Weekly - they had this "fifteen ways to fix the world" article. My favorite? You guessed it - pay stimulus money to artists!

Money Quote:

If the Obama administration is serious about stimulating the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible, one choice is clear: it should announce a massive increase in federal arts funding. Artists are among the very poorest citizens. When they get cash, they spend it both quickly and carefully. That’s not what most recipients of federal largesse do, but it happens to be exactly what economists look for in any stimulus package. Arts spending is fantastic at creating employment: for every $30,000 or so spent on the arts, one more person gets a job, compared with about $1 million if you’re building a road or hospital.

The Subtle Poison of same-gender discrimination

2009-06-24T21:16:00.002-04:00

So, there's this fascinating article in the NYT about the problem with female-written plays being produced so much less often than plays written by men.

The catch?? Female artistic directors are responsible for the lower-than-proportional representation of women's work on stage. And the research is fascinating:

Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker), while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.

Amid the gasps from the audience, an incredulous voice called out, “Say that again?”

Ms. Sands put it another way: “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”

Arts Policy Tsunami

2009-06-19T11:14:00.002-04:00

So, in the arts world you can go weeks without finding something to talk about (other than a play review) - and then suddenly be swamped with really important news.

First things first: the NEA just released a report on a study of theater audiences. Playgoer has an important summary of what everything means. But the important part (to my mind) is this:

But breaking the numbers down more specifically reveals at least one more surprising (and disturbing) trend: a real decline over the years in theatre attendance by the entire "college educated" demographic as a whole. (Including advanced degrees.) In other words: our core demographic, supposedly.

Conclusion? Well here's a radical one: maybe we shouldn't consider upper-class highly-educated our core audience anymore? Problem is, though, they're who tickets are priced for. At the current ticket values, they're the only ones who can afford theatre. And they not coming as much anymore. So...who's got a new business model?

So, my first idea: have your friends attend plays. Plays can be really really fun to watch, and musicals even more so. Also, look around for options. I found some great news on the NYT for all the people who can't afford tickets to the theater - LOTS OF FREE THEATER! If you're in NY, I heartily recommend that you attend.

Of course, free theater brings up another issue: How theater artists survive if they aren't getting money from tickets - especially in an age when film and the internet in particular are making it easy to market your work. So, please go read this post at Createquity - it talks about the near-unlivable costs of being a theater artist, and the incredible competition that greater equity fosters. All the hullabaloo about "free theater" is great - but it is still really important to remember that artists are people as well, people who need food and shelter.

And just for kicks, a shout-out to the city I live in for being amazing re. new plays and new theater work.

Locating Lysistrata

2009-06-15T16:01:00.001-04:00

Please read this blog post - I'd be interested to know what readers think of Lysistrata and its message and how to express that message to soldiers.

Anonymity goes down the drain

2009-06-12T18:17:00.000-04:00

I'm Cara Arcuni. I see no reason why this blog should be anonymous. Now I can put it on my Facebook.

Why the Wall Street Journal needs to get its nose out of the Arts

2009-06-12T10:00:00.003-04:00

So, while browsing the internet, I found this truly offensive article. It uses language that honestly makes me furious. I post a few quotes:

Messrs. Leach and Landesman are probably not the choices initially expected from a president who was being lobbied just a couple of months ago to do something as bold as create a cabinet-level department of arts and culture. These are the choices, rather, of a president who doesn't want this to be a political fight. With these nominations it's also clear that Mr. Obama is not making a statement that great change is needed at either agency. This is not to disparage these choices -- both of which, in addition to being rather surprising, are quite good, at least in the eyes of those who think both endowments are already following a wise course. In fact, given the constituencies that rallied most vociferously behind Mr. Obama in the campaign, his choice of these two men ought to elicit a sigh of relief from conservatives.

Privately funded art need not steer clear of controversy, but publicly funded art should. In addition to hurting the endowments' standing in Congress, controversy undermines in the public eye the idea that the arts and humanities are important to civic life and are worthy of public funds.

Both endowments have power to do good things within the broader American culture. If there's no change in direction for the agencies, it still bodes well for the arts and humanities in the country. Particularly if their budgets can increase, the endowments can continue to evangelize for the arts and humanities in a culture that sadly seems to value them less than business, science and professional education.

There are so many problems with this article's thought processes that I don't even know where to start. The idea that funding individual artists' works is somehow not advocating for the public interest is heinous. Of all the projects the NEA has funded over the years, individual artistic efforts are some of the most outstanding. I list:

Prairie Home Companion, created in 1974 through an NEA grant.

The American Ballet Theater, saved in the first year of the Endowment by a grant from the Federal government.

Driving Miss Daisy - that play, then movie? Created through an NEA grant in 1986-7.

And other programs have equally stimulated further funding for the arts: The Challenge Grant program, where federal dollars are matched by donation, was tremendously successful: Twenty years after it was founded, statistics came back where one dollar donated by the Federal Government for the arts stimulated roughly eight dollars.

And the idea that federal dollars should help education not the creation of the arts is absolutely inconsistent with the overall vision for the endowment: Reagan, convenient conservative poster boy, said in 1983 that “We support the work of the National Endowment for the Arts to stimulate excellence and make art more available to more of our people.” Reagan himself acknowledged that part of the work of the endowment is to stimulate excellence. That means grants to individual artists.

I have this belief - that the arts, especially creative arts, are somewhat like entrepreneurs in business. When starting a business, it takes a lot of courage, a lot of daring, and a LOT of initial capital. So, young entrepreneurs in the business world come up with an idea, a good business plan, then take it to the venture capital investors. They choose the most promising, and fund it. But there's no official organization like that for the arts. Because the arts don't (and to large part shouldn't) find their primary motivation in money, investment capital like that is hard to come by. In my mind, that's where the federal government should step in. Take a look at the business plans. Decide which ones to fund. Then step back and see if your risk (and it is a big one) takes off.

Oh - and my little argument for when conservatives balk at funding art they don't agree with -

"I'm a pacifist - Quaker, if you must know. I don't believe in war, I don't agree with the wars that we're involved in. But my tax dollars go to the war effort anyways - I don't have a choice. You claim that your tax dollars shouldn't go to experimental art in the same way that I think my tax dollars shouldn't go to funding war. What makes the arts different than the military in terms of justified funding?"

Hopefully that argument makes as much sense to you as it does to me :D.

NEA and NEH Budgets

2009-06-12T09:49:00.002-04:00

It's official - at the subcommittee level - the NEH and NEA are getting $170mil each: the House Appropriations Subcommittee of the Interior voted on Wednesday. I may be a little behind the times (sorry), but it's happening!

Just as a point of note, these funding levels are STILL below the levels in 1992, when the NEA and NEH were funded at $176mil. Annoyingly, the little, teeny increments are because of Republicans, the people who understand the arts least - “I’ve been trying

to take this back up but to do it in increments that were sustainable with our Republican friends,” said Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington, who is chairman of the House subcommittee.

Sometimes I wonder if the reason why reality TV took over SO overwhelmingly was because there was no new real art coming through the pipeline because of a lack of funds. It's a theory, at least.

HIV and the Adult Performance Industry

2009-06-11T18:41:00.002-04:00

So, I need not detail (I hope) the long and storied relationship between performers and prostitution. Or how extensively art is correlated to an interest (intellectual or otherwise ;) ) in sexuality.

So, now the most recent hullabaloo as regards the Adult Entertainment Industry. For a long long while now the industry has been decrying the need to use condoms when filming. The industry insists that condoms would harm the "fantasy" that the films hope to create.

ABC News reported on the issue:

Jules Jordan of Jules Jordan Video has worked his way from being a porn store clerk to having his own studio and he has a strict no-condom policy.

"Testing's a must for everyone in the industry and that is how I can back up my stance on no condoms. I don't think the fans want to see condoms on film, because the fans are coming to see fantasy and condoms are not usually part of fantasy," Jordan said.

And the modern special effects that would be able to get rid of the condoms on screen are outside the budgets that the movies usually have. But the industry claims that it's in a good place for the prevention of a major outbreak. After an outbreak in 2004, the industry changed its policies and briefly instituted an all-condom policy - now, the quick test that can detect HIV 2 weeks after contraction is supposedly responsible for stopping "all spread of HIV in the adult entertainment industry in the last four years."

But a new outbreak has the industry suddenly nervous:

An actress who works in Southern California's pornography industry has tested positive for HIV, renewing county and state health officials' concerns that the adult entertainment industry lacks sufficient safety measures to prevent the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases...

Los Angeles County has been receiving reports from the clinic of 60 to 80 new cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea a month among adult performers, Fielding said.

That rate of chlamydia and gonnorhea is terrifying.

That creation of fantasy is nothing new - and it is nothing new for people to put up barriers to whatever methods people wish to take to create that fantastic world. But AIDS is more than a prudish restriction for the protection of public morals - like the restriction of women in the Elizabethan Theater. And I wonder if the adult entertainment industry counts itself as being art. I, at least, don't consider it art - but there could be some that do.

Modern modeling skirts very close to that sneaky barrier between sexualized art and sex. A documentary about the modern modeling industry tries to display that secretive world for the first time - unlike the adult entertainment industry, which does have some regulation, the modeling industry has much, much less.

A 16-year-old model is on a photo shoot in Paris. She has very little experience of modelling and is unaccompanied by her agency or parents. She leaves the studio to go to the bathroom and meets the photographer - "a very, very famous photographer, probably one of the world's top names", according to Ziff - in the hallway. He starts fiddling with her clothes. "But you're used to this," says Ziff. "People touch you all the time. Your collar, or your breasts. It's not strange to be handled like that." Then suddenly he puts his hands between her legs and sexually assaults her. "She has no experience of boys, she hasn't even been kissed," says Ziff. "She was so shocked she just stood there and didn't say anything. He just looked at her and walked away and they did the rest of the shoot. And she never told anyone."

The documentary is unique - they did a lot of sneaking video cameras into modeling shows, and were sometimes emphatically shown the door. The documentary, called Picture Me, exposes an industry that desperately needs some regulation - but art - Art if you prefer to make it fancy, uses the artistic privilege to create an alternate universe. Where the line is drawn is really, really important.

Also on my to-post list

2009-06-05T22:06:00.002-04:00

- NEA Awesomeness (i.e. ask your congresspeople for more funding)

- Obama and Support for the Arts - putting your money where your mouth is

- War (i.e. that quote I posted and never got around to talking about)

- The New Deal and the Arts (i.e. I finally do my research on the WPA and what it meant for American Art)

i'm taking suggestions.

Jim Leach and the National Endowment for the Humanities

2009-06-05T21:28:00.002-04:00

So, I've been meaning to post on the recent appointment of Jim Leach, former moderate Republican congressman from Iowa, to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities. Please know that, before starting to write this blog, I knew that there was an NEH and and NEA, but I had no clue how they were different or what the heck the NEH did that was different from the NEA. (By the way - whoever writes the Wiki entry for the NEA really needs to get their act together and put together something more informative - it's really awful.)

So, to organize my thoughts and hopefully educate the rest of y'all as well, here goes. The NEA and NEH were both created in 1965 by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act. This act covers three branches, essentially: the NEA, the NEH, and the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities (essentially a federal committee). There's no real overarching bureaucracy or identity greater than each of its components. The NEA started off with 2.5 million dollars and 12 employees, its goal to fund creative endeavors in the arts - literature, dance, theater, and the visual arts. I'm actually going to write another post on how many amazing things the NEA has facilitated over the years - I could easily get sidetracked, it's so cool. The NEH has a different goal - the facilitation of cultural access. So the NEH funds museums, educational programs, scholarly work, research. These are mostly history-related. The NEH's site betrays a very authoritarian hand in what it deems worthy of funding - "Because democracy demands wisdom, the National Endowment for the Humanities serves and strengthens our Republic by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of history to all Americans." (Note that - what it deems strengthens the Republic. yay.) The NEH gave you, among other things, that cool documentary about Tutankhamun, the endless Civil War documentary you watched in eighth grade history class, and fifteen Pulitzer Prize-winning books.

So, what does Obama's appointment of Jim Leach mean for the NEH? I really don't want to talk about Obama's snagging of "yet another" moderate Republican. But I do want to share some cool stuff I learned about just how much Leach practices what he preaches, arts-wise. Leach is an unstinting advocate for the arts.

In 2006, Leach received the Congressional Arts Leadership Award conferred annually by the Americans for the Arts advocacy group and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. They cited him as an advocate for increased arts and humanities funding and as a co-sponsor of legislation — still not passed — that would allow artists to take larger tax deductions for works they donate to museums and charities. Current law allows artists to deduct the cost of the materials they use to create a work; Leach proposed allowing them to deduct a donated piece’s fair market value.

Also, when he was appointed, Leach commented:

Asked whether he would push to increase funding for what by federal standards is a minuscule agency, Leach said he “will be supporting the administration” in its budgeting decisions. But he said “the arts and humanities are fundamental to our society, particularly in difficult times. In the Great Depression ... we spent far more on the arts and humanities, relative to [national economic output] than we do today. Nothing is more important to understanding what’s happening in society, particularly in a fast-changing world.”

This talk is really good to hear - when Leach was still in office, there was no possible political benefit to attempting to pass the law about donated art. Artists are few, and often don't have the monetary muscle to donate to a campaign. But he did it anyways. In my searching, I've heard nothing but good about him.

My only wish is that Obama would fund the two organizations at the same level - right now he's trying to fund the NEH at 10 million higher than the NEA *pout*.

Fetish Gone Wrong

2009-06-05T13:16:00.002-04:00

BANGKOK (AP) — The body of American actor David Carradine, best known for the 1970s TV series "Kung Fu," was found in a hotel room closet with a rope tied to his neck and genitals, and his death may have been accidental suffocation, Thai police said Friday.

The 72-year-old actor's body was discovered Thursday in his luxury suite at Bangkok's Swissotel Nai Lert Park Hotel. Police initially said they suspected suicide, though Carradine's associates had questioned that theory.

Police Lt. Gen. Worapong Chewprecha told reporters that Carradine was found with a rope "tied around his penis and another rope around his neck."

"The two ropes were tied together," he said. "It is unclear whether he committed suicide or not or he died of suffocation or heart failure due to an orgasm."

Advice to those contemplating complicated hanging fetish activity - make sure you're doing it safely. HAHAHA - it's sad he died, but seriously, dying from an orgasm in Bangkok? Priceless.

Being PC

2009-06-04T15:05:00.002-04:00

I'm a liberal, not so much because I doubt the free market, not so much because I believe in universal health care, not so much because of the enviornment, but because of politicial correctness. As awkward as it may be, it at least demonstrates an attempt to see the world through another lense. This is a daunting task, and failing at it is so much more honorable than not even trying. Maybe you never quite get there, but it holds out a hope for your children, that unreflective, false symetry does not. Conservatives got away with this game for years. The luxury of being the majority in a democracy is the right to act like other people don't exist. But the world is changing around them and Birnam Wood is on the march.

This quote by Ta-Nehesi Coates captures part of why I prefer being a liberal to being a conservative. I can never deny that at times I exhibit not-so-PC or stereotypical remarks. I'm certainly not perfect. But I hope that when I do, people will call me on my remarks and help me to become a better person.

A personal experience: I have been looking for housing recently, and I've discovered that Philadelphia is hugely segregated - both by class and by race - the two are more often connected than not. So I'm living in a very liminal area of Philly, and a relative was around recently. She stayed in a hotel on Rittenhouse, and she said that she wasn't happy with where I am now - but that she wanted me near Rittenhouse...it was so much more beautiful, so much more white.

I was made exceedingly uncomfortable by this comment, and I can only hope that she doesn't fully believe the comment - I know she respects and is friends with people of color - this connection facilitated by their similarity in class. But I hope that I will never be so unaware of how to speak respectfully of people that I will let a comment like that out of my mouth without thought.

Back after an absence

2009-06-03T00:15:00.002-04:00

So, I haven't been posting much, but with good reason. Now my bio is factually correct, instead just an expression of hope. :D

I saw this article - it describes the modern life of a boy not much older than myself who was raised in a monastery away from real life. It's important to remember that as much as the Tibetans deserve to be treated well and self-govern, in every culture there are wrongs done to people. This boy may discover as he gets older that he leans back towards his original culture; he may permanently desert Buddhism. However, the fact that his parents deserted him as a young child is awful - he must have felt so abandoned.

MINIATURE COWS!!

2009-05-29T19:13:00.002-04:00

So cuuute - look at the pictures and read the article here.

The 4-H minicows are a far cry from the full-sized black bull Kristie Petersen had showed when she was in high school. The animal weighed nearly 2,000 pounds. Kristie, with a slender dancer's frame, barely clears 5-foot-2 when she's standing tall.

She gritted her teeth when the bull dragged her across the barn.

Now, she shows the family's minicows at state fairs with pride. But she does try to give the animals a bit of a pep talk before they enter the barn.

"They cower a little bit when they spot those big bulls," she said, patting the head of Stud, her mini Hereford bull. "But really, who wouldn't?"

Arts and State Arts Funding

2009-05-29T18:58:00.002-04:00

So, as you know, Pennsylvania is idiotic and doesn't realize just how important funding the arts actually is. Well, the problem of arts funding goes deeper than that: Here's a blog post that talks about the Arts and how politicians use the miniscule funding for the arts as bugbears when they talk about "streamlining" the budget or to prove that they're "fiscally responsible".

PUBLIC-ART FUNDING IS A RED HERRING, PEOPLE. If we'd fined every politician who tried to use public art for his or her own gain in the last 20 years, we could have paid for art/music/dance/etc. teachers in public schools this whole time. Imagine!

The state spends about $2 million a year, out of an approximately $15 billion operating budget, on public art. Public-art spending accounts for .013 percent of the state's budget. Please ask your legislators to focus their time and money on fixing the other 99.987 percent of the budget.

So, she's a little bit angry. But it happens. Doesn't make her point less applicable.

Also, if you head on over to The Playgoer, he has a nice little thread about Texas, and how they nearly outlawed Theater Lighting Designers. Haha - idiotic Texans.

I don't know how to talk about this

2009-05-28T01:42:00.001-04:00

1) I now understand why Obama didn't release those photos, if this is true. I don't want to see them. I want justice done.

2) I find this morally repellent.

3) I want to cry.

Jesse Ventura is Awesome

2009-05-21T15:43:00.002-04:00

War and the War Presidency

2009-05-21T13:19:00.002-04:00

I think that this distinction between President and "War President" and how we no longer possess the former is really really important. I don't have time to talk about it now, but I definitely will share my thoughts on the development.

"In any event, the U.S. is, more or less, a nation permanently at war. One can debate whether all or some of our wars are good or not, but what can't be debated is that we fight wars far, far more than any other country -- basically, continuously. That's just a fact. After Bush 41's invasion of Panama, R.W. Apple wrote on the front page of The New York Times that the invasion "constituted a Presidential initiation rite" whereby:

For better or for worse, most American leaders since World War II have felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood to protect or advance what they construe as the national interest.

In other words, there's no such thing as an American President who is not a "war President." We never go more than a few years without some kind of a direct war, and are always waging covert and indirect ones. American presidents are inherently "war presidents." We don't really have any other kind. To vest a specific power in a President on the ground that he's a "War President" is to vest that power in presidents generally and permanently.

That's why this media construct that things are different for "war presidents" -- we have to give "war presidents" greater power and leeway; demand less transparency and accept more secrecy; acquiesce to abridgments of civil liberties when "America is at war"; and, coming soon under the Change banner, allow them the right to imprison peopleindefinitely with no trials even beyond "war zones" -- is so manipulative and misleading. It implies that "America at war" is some sort of unusual and temporary circumstance rather than what it is: our permanent state of affairs. In perfect Orwellian fashion, our allies can easily become our enemies (Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Mujahideen precursors to Al Qaeda) and our enemies can just as easily become our allies (Iraqi Sunnis, Gadaffi), but what never changes is our status as a war-fighting nation."

Quote via Glenn Greenwald

Feinstein Rocks

2009-05-20T23:55:00.001-04:00

Often I don't like Feinstein - she rubs me the wrong way somehow, but when I saw this I had an overwhelming feeling of approval and joy. She has said the brave thing and I appreciate her for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lAjiNkn75I&feature=player_embedded

Why I'm Screwed

2009-05-19T16:50:00.005-04:00

Because of this business and employment news.

Guess who fits into the category with the largest decrease in employment? Me!!! And that field's pretty darn large - here's how it's described:

And last but not least, the arts or “creative” category, as I call it, includes designers, actors, artists, athletes, dancers, musicians, reporters, editors, writers, photographers, and everyone else that goes along with that. (If you want to see a full list for 2008, go to here).

What unites all of these groups is that they are all producers of “intangible investments.” That is, engineers, scientists, computer software engineers, artists, designers, and so forth all create long-lived intellectual property which has the potential to contribute to the economy. This includes new software programs, new products, new pieces of art and so forth. Writers produce written works of various degrees of usefulness, but in the aggregate are beneficial.

With the exception of software, the government statistics for GDP pick up very little of these intangible investments. That is, they pick up the part of spending which supports current consumption, but not the part which benefits the future.

shocking, no? And here's the graph of Creative employment:

(Hat tip via Playgoer, via Richard Florida)

HAHAHA - oh awkward awful old sexist advertisements

2009-05-19T16:17:00.002-04:00

Please please never ever let me see an ad like this one in a magazine or newspaper I read. There are more awful advertisements here.

Arts and the Real Life - Responses to the Daily Beast article

2009-05-19T15:44:00.003-04:00

So, here are bits from two comments on the Daily Beast article on Michelle Obama I quoted earlier and ranted about. They discuss what the arts mean - one more bitter, one more upbeat.

Being an artist in contemporary culture is far more a giving up than a celebration of anything. The first thing you usually give up is called a life. You can't afford one.

This is not the world of showing up at the opera, the ballet, the museum, and the theatre. How gala. Art is hard work, sweat, usually a spiritual vacuum, and a financial train wreck. It is completely divorced from the red carpet the First Lady will walk on.

What would be truly amazing and unique (no one is hopeful this could happen) is if the First Lady could see beyond the sparkle of the social scene's dog and pony show. What would be truly amazing would be to have an arts advocate for artists instead of art administrators with publicists and the number of the white house and Charlie Rose on their publicist's rolodex.

Beyond the impossibility of that, what would be revolutionary would be to actually have a National Endowment for the Arts that had a focus on the people who make the arts versus a political focus on keeping culture clean and arts administrators with MFAs endowed.

Culture isn't clean. It's gritty. It's made by human beings who often have no choice in the matter. It's trouble. It's controversial. It asks questions to which answers might be nuanced if they exist at all. It is the job of the artist to ask questions. To challenge. There is none of this in the social scene that art is showcased in today.

What would be shocking would be to have a First Lady who had the gravitas to refuse to be more than frosting on the celebration's cake walk. I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm too busy to hold my breath. I can't afford to care where Michelle Obama comes or goes or arrives in a pumpkin carriage to Lincoln Center's pearly gates. I can't afford the frosting or the cake. I'm too busy kissing the *** of gatekeepers. Most of whom live and work in New York. I'm too busy pretending to teach art when, in fact, what I'm really teaching is the art of survival. We don't have a red carpet to roll out. We don't have Charlie Rose's ear. We don't have a band to play Hail to the Chief as he walks into a room. We don't have a publicist or want one.

If we had a pumpkin, we would eat it.

We struggle for supplies. We make do. We go without. We are thrown out of galleries on our ear. We take the bus. We do not drink champagne. You will never know who we are, and you will never find any of our names next to the First Lady's name published in a social scene report pretending to be news.

We are constantly ripped off by the middle men, the agents, the vampires, the editors, the publishers, the publicists, the assistants in galleries that hate art and loathe artists, the administrators, the journalists who write about money (not art), the galleries themselves, the committees that raise billions to buy bigger and better space for the museums that house the breathtakingly successful, the names, cream of the crop, the boards of directors, the machine, the academics who run from art toward a real paycheck as fast as their little legs can take them. This is the world of pretense, not art.

These people can't make art, and they don't make art. They make a mockery of art. To see another First Lady on their arm is nothing new. Jackie was on their arm. Lady Bird was on their arm. Pat was on their arm. Rosalynn was on their arm. Nancy was on their arm. Barbara was on their arm. Hiliary was on their arm. Laura was on their arm. It's the same arm and the same stiff paradigm. These people have as much to do with art as Jesse Helms had to do with insight or self-expression. This is the status quo of the flashbulbs. Smiles. Gowns. Limos. Status. Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. Ho hum. Gigantic scissors to cut an equally gargantuan facade.

For many, this is art. But here's the kicker, why it's all worthwhile (the less-bitter pov)

An artist is an artist, not because he has training or technique or gallery shows or magnificent performance venues. He/she is an artist because he/she has something to say that can be said no other way, something that resonates with the participant/viewer.
Authentic art means something profound, something internal, something besides dollars to the beholder and the creator. That is what makes it art.
This is, however, the 21st century and it takes appeal to get public interest, the kind of interest that translates into authentic arts programs in public schools, in non-profit organizations that serve at-risk and underprivileged kids.
If Michelle Obama's magic can generate that kind of interest, more power to her.
I hope she does.
If she doesn't, I will still be an artist, teaching what I know to the kids I work with every day.
And so will you.

Michelle Obama and the Arts

2009-05-19T10:39:00.004-04:00

No matter what idiot reporters from the Daily Beast think, Michelle Obama is not a sufficient spokesperson for the arts, nor is she or should she be the "Arts Czar" of the Obama administration. There should be someone knowledgeable and dedicated to the arts, not just the first lady. The Daily Beast says:

Michelle Obama is coming out strong for the arts. That’s not all that unusual for first ladies, but from her, it’s unexpected. The arts weren’t viewed as one of her priorities. When she campaigned, there was barely a mention of the arts. Her official White House biography mentions nothing about the arts. It says that the issues close to her heart, the ones she’ll work on, are supporting military families, helping working women balance career and family, and encouraging national service....

So the sudden, sustained forays into the arts are boosting the morale of those in the arts community who’ve been disappointed by Barack Obama’s failure to appoint an “arts czar,” a point person who would coordinate arts policy across the government and promote the arts. Having Michelle as arts ambassador may just make up for it. She may be able to do for the arts what’s she’s done for interest in fashion just by showing up at the opera, the ballet, the museum, and the theater.

Yeah right. The arts are more important than just some "interest getting". One of the biggest problems in the USA is this idea that art and the arts are luxuries - things nice but not necessary. And to some extent, that's true. The arts are not necessary for survival. But the arts are part and parcel of how a country thinks of itself. Soviet realist art gives a very specific vision of the Soviet Union - so does impressionism. Rent is and was so popular because it captured a time - it somehow captured the feeling of being a twenty-something in the late '80's. Avant garde theater is just as much an expression of intellectual vibrancy as it is strange and unappealing to many.

And the arts deserve more than some visits from the first lady. As much as I admire Mrs. Obama, the position of the First Lady is not one that creates policy. History has defined the role of the First Lady as a spokeswoman, not a czar. Treating the arts as if a spokeswoman is sufficient is one of the things that make the arts somehow "non-employers" - it increases the sad misapprehension in the Pennsylvania senate that the arts aren't important.

When I want to punch "newspaper" writers in the face

2009-05-19T09:55:00.002-04:00

OK - so I came across this on Politico, and it makes me so mad I want to "harshly interrogate" this guy. I don't know how to respond to this "article" - I'd appreciate some help. All I know is I find it infuriating.

A quote:

More likely is that Pelosi was told about waterboarding in 2002 and didn’t view it as the great moral problem that currently vexes so many liberal commentators, who are trying to outdo one another in expressing just how outraged and ashamed they are of their country. That Pelosi would be nonchalant about the use of waterboarding seven years ago is hardly surprising. Despite the sanctimony now sweeping the nation’s capital and editorial pages, few Americans in 2002 would have batted an eye at the simulated drowning of Al Qaeda terrorists for the purpose of saving American lives (and, according to recent polls, the vast majority still wouldn’t lose sleep over it). Far easier now, on “a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009,” as Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in his self-contradictory contextualization of the recently released “torture memos,” to insist upon the criminalization of political differences.

Seriously?? "Sanctimony?" "Nonchalant?" Where on earth does he get off to be allowed to characterize people in this way? He seems to have gone through the thesaurus looking up adjectives to describe someone who happily doesn't care - he later uses "insousiance" (a word I have never before seen used in a newspaper).

Then, he asks this question which I find even more infuriating -

If people were legitimately concerned that we were going to be attacked again in 2002, how does Pelosi become absolved of responsibility but Bush lawyers are guilty of war crimes?

Because she wasn't the person making the policies, dumbass. Get your head out of your partisan tush and realize that truisms are true - With great power comes great responsibility. And the Bush administration had the greater power - thus, greater responsibility.

jackass.

California is Boss

2009-05-19T09:47:00.003-04:00

So, the news today about Obama is amazing, and just proves that (despite its issues) California is wonderful and amazing and superb. Because (drumroll) Obama is enacting California's fuel efficiency standards! This is why states are important - California, through attempting to put these standards in place, has accustomed people to thinking that this is inevitable. So when Obama says Yes! Let's copy California all over the US, people actually follow.

No doubt, it would be different were tons of American car companies not facing bankruptcy, but still!

Politico phrases it this way: The administration official predicted huge environmental benefits from the program. “The projected oil savings of this program over the life of this program is 1.8 billion barrels of oil, [and] the program is also projected to achieve reductions of 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions,” the official said. “That is equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road or shutting down 194 coal plants.”

SO, totally worth it. And then the NYT summarizes the hell that California went through to get a waiver during the Bush era:

The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.

The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.

The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years.

The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said.

I'm ridiculously excited.

Class and the American System

2009-05-18T16:38:00.003-04:00

So, I've recently decided that Richard Florida (correspondent with the Atlantic) is one of my favorite writers. He discusses urban development and growth, and this week he's going to be a contributing writer on Andrew Sullivan's blog. One of his posts today is about Class and the Class system. Intriguingly, he separates modern American society into three classes: the working class, the service class, and the creative class. He says that we define class "simply by peoples' position in the economy - not by perceived status, level of income or what we consume, but by the kind of work we do."

This is a completely different way from the way I had been taught to think about class. From all my history courses, class has been thoroughly tied up with systems of royalty and wealth - even if a monarchy didn't exist, class was nevertheless defined by how much money you made or how much money you inherited - this definition of class by type of work runs completely counter to how I have thought of class.

In many ways the definition makes sense - but I am still left wondering by his separations of working, service and creative. Where the working and service classes separate is a line that I don't fully get - and also the "Creative Class" seems to me to be overly broad - I wonder if the creative class includes jobs like lawyering or serving in the government - those jobs can be interpreted as a "service" to others, but they could also be seen as knowledge-based professions.

I'd be interested to know what you guys think, and I'm going to follow Florida over the course of the week as he explains these things.

CREEPING ME OUT

2009-05-17T11:18:00.000-04:00

This, right here is seriously seriously creepy.

Pelosi and Torture

2009-05-17T10:48:00.002-04:00

So, I wrote this in response to a Michael Tomasky post on Nancy Pelosi, and how she was (to some extent) fenced in by her situation and partisan maneuvering.

Personally, I think that if Pelosi was involved, she should be investigated, but that Pelosi should not be a distraction from pursuing those who are truly responsible for torture and the approval of torture.

Michael -

thanks for trying to explain the situation that Pelosi was in. Personally, I think that she showed cowardice at the time - it is undeniable that there was an infinitely more moral route to take, but she didn't take it. She didn't risk martyrdom (and of all places in the continental united states, San Francisco is probably the place most likely to support their congressperson standing up to Bush and his Republican Hacks).

That said, as soon as news came out that Pelosi was even a little bit informed about these policies, suddenly the Republicans became much more interested in a commission to find out the truth. A lot of the blame that is being placed on Pelosi is rampant partisan maneuvering. The Republicans think that by targeting Pelosi they can prevent the Democrats from investigating just how corrupt they were. Pelosi isn't guiltless. But she is serving as a distraction from those who truly are steeped in guilt...playing into this game is once again allowing the Republicans to govern the media and manipulate the truth.

Mind just got Blown

2009-05-16T18:35:00.003-04:00

OK - so I finally found a really really really compelling reason for why Obama didn't release the torture photos last week. Of course, it being Obama, it bears all the hallmarks of being sneaky and political and freaking BRILLIANT. Here's a snippet from Al Giordano...

The ban on new nuclear weapons is the most historic act, to date, of the Obama presidency, and the national media, punditry and blogospheres have barely touched it. The US government now, for the first time since the Manhattan Project of the 1940s, has a policy of producing no new nuclear arms. To accomplish that, the President overruled his own Defense Secretary and many of the top military brass. And when you make a move like that, as a civilian head of state, you have to take very deliberate steps to make sure that the rank-and-file military soldiers and the mid-level brass will be inoculated from manipulation toward “going rogue” or, as has happened in too many nations, conjuring a military coup d’etat by assassination or other means.

It hasn’t been by happenstance that the young President has personally gone to Langley to address and praise employees of the CIA, and to the FBI building to do the same there, and, of course, he's gone multiple times to the troops of the Armed Forces, always bearing gifts of better pay and health care and benefits and such. It is what must be done to remain strong enough in position as a real commander in chief to be able to buck the military brass on matters as sweeping and important as ending the production of nuclear weapons by the United States.

The flap over the release of 29 photos of torture has bought the President the cover he needed to issue this historic anti-nuclear order, one that will bolster and give credibility to his nuclear non-proliferation negotiations with other countries of the world.

OMG WOW - Obama is officially my favoritest person ever.

2009-05-15T16:06:00.002-04:00

One of the creepiest but at the same time cool pieces of music I have

seen. It also weirds me out that this was coming out when my

parents were only about 2 years older than I am now. wow.

The Purity Myth

2009-05-15T10:20:00.002-04:00

So, as a reward for finishing my written exams, I borrowed the new book The Purity Myth from my school's library and read it. The book quite firmly labels itself as a feminist book - it sees itself as promoting healthy living. The author is Jessica Valenti, founder of feministing.com (one of my favorite feminist sites), and she uses information from feministing.com freely. My major gripe about the book - Valenti is so completely immersed in the feminist community that every time she cites information from books written by the feminist community she has to admit that she is either friends with them, or a co-editor on the book, or any number of other disclosure footnotes. It's distracting and gives the impression that she's not entirely citing some unbiased sources (if there are unbiased sources in this debate).

A poster on Ladyblog actually does quite a good job of summarizing Valenti's book -

Valenti tends to rail against the fetishization of virginity—the abstinence programs that compare having sex with a girl who’s already had sex to chewing everyone else in the classes’ used gum, the purity balls that make girls promise their daddies will be the “keepers” of their “purity” until they give it as a “gift” to their husbands. She has written that these things make girls feel shame about having sex, deemphasize women’s agency be reducing their “greatest gift” to what’s between their legs, putting undue emphasis on the girl being transferred from father to husband, and make sex seem like something women “give” to men and couldn’t possibly enjoy themselves. Her general belief (and, of course, I’m completely paraphrasing here) is that, ultimately, these things are bad for young women because they don’t encourage a healthy view of sex, within or without of the context of marriage, and could possibly be dangerous because they may reduce girls’ ability to assert themselves in sexual matters, to have adequate information about or confidence in the use of condoms, birth control, etc.

Aside from the above, which is her main point, Valenti also discusses more conflicted territory - pornography and the connection between it and the religious right, abortion and the pro-life movement, birth control and the pro-life movement, and the connection between rape and commodified views of female sexuality (I'll talk about rape issues at some other point - it's an issue I feel strongly about and don't want to delve into now).

Valenti is clearly conflicted about pornography - on one level she maintains that most of the industry is horrendously anti-feminist, pretending to be pro-woman but actually just taking advantage of women's insecurities. But she also knows many feminists who believe in a much more sex-positive message and who are trying to create female-positive pornography (i.e. pornography that doesn't involve group banging or horrendously unhealthy acts that I really really don't want to describe here). She refuses to have the discussion of what female-positive pornography is or what it might be if it were to exist. She says "let's have a discussion about it" without ever suggesting some starting points. Given what I've seen lately of politicians trying to get around supporting torture or not... they say the same thing "let's get a group together and discuss it" - never actually putting a foot down one way or the other. They don't want to go on record as supporting anything. As soon as she said that phrase I lost a lot of respect for her.

She never has the discussion of what female sexuality ought to look like. It is clear that she doesn't believe that women ought to just hook up with and have sex with whoever whenever no matter how dangerous. That's not what she's saying. But she also doesn't seem to support a woman who has chosen, with full and deliberate thought to have a sex-free life. She ignores what the feminist connotations of someone who declines to have sex might be. Just as she ignores the not-sexually active women, she doesn't acknowledge the tremendously sexually active women. Even if we don't place an automatic value on chastity, should there be or ought there to be a value placed on restricting one's sexual partners?

Overall, I left the book feeling somewhat gipped. There was a huge huge discussion out there about what a feminist, non-commodified community might look like - pornography and all. She attacked the (or a) problem, but didn't discuss what the answer might be. The new waves of feminism have a very different idea of what the "right" kind of society might be - it's definitely not one ruled and governed by women to the detriment of men. But Valenti never approaches that issue in this book, which I found sad.

Because it's pretty...

2009-05-13T20:51:00.000-04:00

I saw this and went ooo.... pretty...., so I decided to share.

NEA Finally gets a new chairman!!!

2009-05-13T10:16:00.003-04:00

I can't believe I almost missed this article in the NYT today. The news is huge and also looking pretty good. Obama is going to appoint Rocco Landesman to the chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Arts. Some bullet points:

1) He's a producer of five theaters on Broadway, with a lot of experience in the Theater world.

2) He's forthright and honest

3) He's daring - HE is the producer who took a chance on Angels in America and brought the play to Broadway.

4) He has the support of BIG voices in the artistic community - Tony Kushner calls him a brave and perfect choice for the job, and Peter Gelb, general manager of the Metropolitan Opera, thinks that he'll rejuvenate the relationship between the arts and the administration

WOW. I'll update with reactions from the artistic community after I've looked around.

UPDATE>>

Well, color me impressed. The man clearly has an understanding of what not-for-profit theater and commercial theater have to contribute to the arts in America. Via Slog, here are some selections from a longer excerpt of an essay he wrote in 2000 on the interaction between theater for theater's sake and theater for profit's sake:

...increasingly the template of success comes from the commercial arena, which is, in the end, not dedicated to the art so much as to the audience. The uber-model for this trend is ''the American Airlines Roundabout Theater,'' whose artistic director, Todd Haimes, saved a bankrupt institution by adapting contemporary, market-savvy, the-audience-is-king techniques of modern corporations. Provide a familiar product (a well-known play with a well-known star) in a congenial setting (singles nights, comfortable seating), add a powerful corporate sponsor, and you will have a subscription that is the envy of every theater in America....it can be reasonably argued that the forces of the marketplace through the years have been just as effective a censor as government edicts.

It is disappointing enough that those of us in the commercial theater have long ago abdicated any purchase on sustained artistic enterprise. The idiosyncratic giants of an earlier day have given way, by and large, to syndicates of producers and corporations. Big Broadway successes are more often the product of well-crafted nostalgia brilliantly marketed than of bold and intrepid producing (''Chicago'' and our own ''Smokey Joe's Cafe'' are recent examples)

And now, in the nonprofit theater, too, the forces of risk control are at work. The managing directors, with their good board relationships, audience development campaigns and marketing strategies, are asserting their clout as the pressures to ''succeed'' increase.

It's also REALLY REALLY REALLY worth reading the entire essay, here.

But apparently, when Landesman tried to get into the Chicago theater scene (which is dominated by non-profits) he found the competition a bit too tough to handle:

Back in 1994, Landesman's Jujamcyn Theaters operation joined forces with erstwhile Chicago producer Bob Perkins to acquire the Royal George Theatre across the street from Steppenwolf. As then-Readercolumnist Lewis Lazare reported, Landesman and Perkins envisioned the Royal George as "a busy venue for new work, commercial revivals, and the more challenging Broadway transfers."

But financial failures...eventually prompted Landesman to end the partnership. He found maintaining a commercial theater like the Royal George too daunting in a city dominated by the very constituency he'll be expected to represent at the NEA: nonprofits.

Torture, Nancy Pelosi and how the Bush administration squashes dissent

2009-05-13T09:57:00.002-04:00

So, there's a wonderful op-ed in the NYT today about torture and the process by which members of congress were informed about the torture (or "enhanced interrogation") back in 2000. It says that only four members of Congress were informed about the program, in a way that essentially spelled political disaster for any one of the members of Congress were they to come clean about the program. Of course, in a world where humans are principled people who hold to their principles firmly enough to become martyrs, Nancy Pelosi would have done what the author of the op-ed recommends, and marched down the aisle of Congress denouncing the program. But Nancy Pelosi isn't so smart or so principled or so brave. She got to the position she is first by being a mean, crafty politician. To be the first female speaker of the house, you have to be all of that. So she kept quiet.

I may not think she acted correctly, but I can see her motivations. What I want more than anything else is an apology from her - she deserves to give not only her constituents (who, of all constituents in the continental united states would be the most likely to forgive her for speaking her mind) an apology but also all women apologies - when she became speaker I rejoiced to have one more glass ceiling broken, but now that joyous event has been sullied.

A quote:

But four members cannot stop financing and ban activities on their own — that takes the whole Congress. So what might the four have done? They could have demanded that the full committees receive the briefings and that more information be provided. If the White House objected, they could have told their colleagues anyway. The committees then could have put a classified budget provision in the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2003 cutting off money for the program, or delineating how the C.I.A. must treat detainees.

The speech and debate clause of the Constitution shields senators and representatives from civil and criminal liability in the performance of their legislative duties. It would have protected those members if they had decided to march down to the House or Senate floor and denounce the Bush administration for engaging in torture, though that approach not only could have harmed C.I.A. operations, but also surely would have been political suicide.

Phewf.

2009-05-12T22:02:00.002-04:00

OK - finally done with the big tests, have about a week and a bit to refresh and get ready for the end. I'll probably be posting more in the next week, so stay tuned! :D

Civilian Death Scandal - The Daily Beast

2009-05-11T15:32:00.002-04:00

If this story is at all true, the US has taken on the moral burden of returning to the time when we firebombed Japan. White Phosphorus? The worst and most destructive rumors that the Taliban can take control of are the rumors that have truth at their core.

A human rights organization is investigating claims that the U.S. used white phosphorous in a battle with the Taliban last week in which hundreds of civilians have died. A doctor in a nearby village said that civilians were taken to the hospital after the

Posted using ShareThis

Theater on Theater, cont.

2009-05-10T23:38:00.002-04:00

From Arianne Mnouchkine's Mephisto

Juliette: Bollocks, I've seen revolutionary theater before, let me tell you, in the street. I know exactly what happens. They bring out a big loudspeaker and someone shouts: "Down with the bourgeoisie. Long live communism." And then the police come and arrest everybody.

Faust, Goethe, and how Theater just struggles with the same problems over and over again

2009-05-10T22:57:00.004-04:00

So, I was studying for a big final on Tuesday (wish me luck, please) and when re-reading Goethe's Faust came across these passages in the prologue. They're flowery, of course, but I found them amusing because the same three points of view are still being debated in the world of the theater - movies, even. So read, enjoy, hopefully laugh.

PRODUCER And please make sure the plot is filled with action!

Spectators, after all, love spectacles. 90

Give them one thrilling scene after the next,

I want to see their jaws drop to the floor—

Then the show will be a huge success

And word of mouth will spread like wildfire.

You must have mass appeal to win the masses,

So serve up something nice for everyone.

If you lay out a generous buffet 100

Nobody goes away unsatisfied.

PL PLAYWRIGHT I cannot believe what I am hearing!

A true artist would never stoop so low!

PRODUCER Just take a look at who you’re writing for! 110

This person’s bored, that one’s digesting dinner,

Or worse, some have been reading newspapers!

Why do you poets hover in the cloud

When all you really want is a full house?

Poor fools, to entertain a crowd like this

You hardly need to call upon the muses.

If you give them more and more and more

Then I guarantee you’ll hit your mark. 130

People only come here for distraction

It’s much harder to give them satisfaction.

What would you rather offer—pain or pleasure?

(Later down the page)

COMIC ACTOR And so we need your special artistry—

Think about all this poetic stuff

As if it were a love affair. 160

You meet by accident, there is a spark,

And in a while you both become entangled;

Happiness follows, then quarrels, rapture, pain,

And before you know it, it’s a novel.

That’s the kind of play we should put on!

Grab hold of life with both your hands!

Everyone lives it, but not everyone knows it,

And everywhere you grab, it’s interesting.

Colorful scenes that don’t make much sense, 170

Many mistakes, a little spark of truth—

That’s how you make the finest drinks

To nourish and refresh the world.

Then the most beautiful specimens of youth

Will gather for your play to be enlightened.

Sucking melancholy from your play

These tender souls will be delighted

To see the inner workings of their hearts. 180

They cannot wait to laugh and cry,

They devour the language, drink in the make-believe.

A mind that’s formed will never understand,

But one that is still open will be grateful.

Nate Silver Delivers

2009-05-09T19:40:00.002-04:00

This right here is a really cool graph, via Nate Silver. He explains how party identification can be graphed pretty exactly based on which president/party was in power when voters turned 18. Cool, no? I think it's interesting how almost immediately after Bush took office there's a huge spike towards much higher Democratic identification. I'd also be interested to know what happened with Independent identification....

Partisan ID Gap, Based on Identity of President When Voter Turned 18

Miracle Laurie and the distortion of the TV screen

2009-05-08T16:27:00.003-04:00

So, this post is entirely (but actually only partly) on behalf of a friend, Daniel. We both watch this Joss Whedon TV show Dollhouse - maybe you've seen it? if not, please watch it - it gets substantially better over the course of the later episodes. Anyways, so we're talking about characters... (conversation is edited so you can follow the thread of the actual conversation)

Daniel: what do you think of Mellie?

me: I like the character more as I get to know her

12:51 AM the breathy voice gets less annoying

12:52 AM Daniel: anyway

I ask this because like every girl I talk to about Mellie says she's too fat

while every guy I talk to wants to marry her

me: WHAT - too fat??

they're crazy

Daniel: Ned and I went on for a good ten minutes about how attractive she is

12:53 AM me: she's probably like a size 4 or something

maybe a size 6

just because the other actresses are stick thin

12:54 AM wooow

when I have time I'll look at posts about the character

Daniel: mmmm

me: maybe write a blog post about the show

Daniel: go for it

12:55 AM me: its one of the few with a normal sized actress

think about it

Daniel: that would be something very link worthy

me: she's not FAT

Daniel: a long rant about that

me: she's curvy

Daniel: yes she is

Joss Whedon basically made her my dream girl

me: haha

Daniel: because as of late, I haven't dated anyone who's shy around me in their crush

which I deathly miss

so exchanges like

12:56 AM m: "I've been meaning to come down here."

p: "You've been meaning to come down to the federal building?"

m: "Oh...you know..."

me: haha

You know what i realize now? That this blog post was actually my idea. Oh well. He's the one who pestered me about it. So, long story short, my take on Miracle Laurie and the only actress I can think of in a popular series who is NORMAL sized on a popular TV show.

Here are a couple pictures of Miracle:

There are two reactions to Miracle Laurie that I've seen so far: 1) OMG SHE'S BEAUTIFUL/GORGEOUS AND I WANT TO MARRY/DO HER ALL NIGHT LONG!!! and 2) The woman's a fatso who needs to lay off the doughnuts and lose 20 pounds (accompanying statement about how the guy commenting likes his girls skinnier). I'd be interested to know what you guys and girls think.

Personally, I think she's perfect - she is the only actress on screen who I feel shares my body size. When I saw her on screen, I thought yes - that is a person who looks like the person I see in the mirror in the morning. That is someone who looks pretty, who is normal and who might be able to survive in the absolutely brutal world of show business.

I know that this will make certain people feel uncomfortable, but here are some measurements. According to her resume (http://resumes.actorsaccess.com/miraclelaurie), Miracle is 145lbs, 5'9" tall. So she's got some height to her. According to a bmi calculation, she's happily in the "normal" range of weight - a 21.4(ish). Now here's me - your "average" girl - I'm 5'5 and 140lbs - a 23.3. ("Normal" is anywhere from 18.5 to 24.9). So, obviously, I'm on the heftier side of normal. But to have approximately the same BMI that Miracle has, I have to lose 10 pounds. That is the 10 pounds that you always hear that the camera adds. Mellie, on Dollhouse, is supposed to be a girl who looks like me.

So how did I initially react to seeing Mellie (Miracle's character) in Dollhouse? With dismissal. My first thought was to say "oh - that actress will need to lose a few pounds to fit in with the other actresses." But that shouldn't be right. Why was my first reaction to dismiss her rather than Dushku or any of the other women in the show? Sure, they're pretty, but they look like sticks - just take peek at their collarbones. (I just looked up Eliza Dushku's measurements - she's 5'5 and 105lbs - for comparison BMI 17.5) Although shows shouldn't be supporting overeating, or unhealthy weight, why should there be a stigma against otherwise "normal" sized actresses?

Also, I blame some of my reaction on Whedon. One of the first images you get of Mellie is of her proffering a huge tray of lasagna to her next-door neighbor. For a girl, the automatic reaction: wow - all that girl does is eat! If you're going to have a larger-than-standard actress on your show, please don't make the automatic reaction towards her from girls be FOOD. Make it be something else, like oh she's so wonderful and cool. That would go a long way towards breaking down stereotypes. Although, to be fair, he's been doing that more with her lately. So she's become my favorite character bar none.

Another reason to like Miracle: this video.

THE WOMAN HULA DANCES AND PLAYS UKELELE!! and she does it in front of people along with her castmates. So give her a round of applause, and if I thik about something else to say about her, other than that I really like her character, I'll add it in another post.

Pennsylvania is a state that hates the arts and culture

2009-05-06T16:56:00.002-04:00

Because this bill just got passed in the senate. (the article is from yesterday). ALL state money that would go to fund the arts - theater, museums, dance, modern art - everything was completely and utterly cut. I didn't post about it, because of finals, but since I got an e-mail about it while I was taking a study break, I decided I would.

(be forewarned - angry caps outburst)

WHY DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARTS CREATE JOBS AND ACTUALLY EMPLOY PEOPLE!!! STOP WITH THIS PSEUDO PURITAN ATTITUDE THAT NO ONE BELIEVES YOU ACTUALLY ADHERE TO, REPUBLICAN JACKASSES!!!!!

god, I hope the arts money gets re-instated. if it gets cut, in this recession, the chances of me getting ANY paid work in the arts gets reduced to next to nothing. The recession is bad enough for jobs. sheesh.

My only problem with this...

2009-05-06T09:49:00.002-04:00

...is that it doesn't address the creation of green jobs IN THE USA. Because of the advantage other countries have in developing green technologies, they can produce goods of higher quality for a cheaper price. So ending tarriffs is all well and good, but seriously, reduce the ability of american companies to create jobs in a recession? I may not be an economist, but that just seems ridiculous to me.

Anyways, here's the NYT op-ed that I'm referring to.

Procrastinating

2009-05-04T23:04:00.003-04:00

Here's the result of my study break (I am actually graduating from College in May, and have my final exams this week and next) - one amazing article about a woman I may not agree with, but certainly have a HUGE amount of respect for. Meet Helen Gurley Brown, linchpin and creator of Cosmopolitan Magazine.

Funny side-note to the more important and serious blog post below

2009-05-03T19:54:00.003-04:00

I found this while trolling sites researching my arts post. Its a guy who basically just posts weird twitter things. Its funny and silly and makes Twitter (which I have a very ambivalent relationship with) worthwhile.

Posts that i like:

I can't remember if we're still at war with pistachios or not. I have trouble managing my hysteria on the weekend.

There's really no safe way to discuss a woman's recent spray tan. Apparently.

You never really know how your cat is going to react to a new robot. You probably have a pretty good idea. Or you thought you did.

The Arts and Obama

2009-05-03T19:20:00.002-04:00

So, as you all know, I'm a big fan of the arts. And question #2 in my second ever post, asked about Obama's attitude towards the arts and arts policy. So I researched a little, and here's what I found:

The official White House policy on the Arts:

Arts

Our nation's creativity has filled the world's libraries, museums, recital halls, movie houses, and marketplaces with works of genius. The arts embody the American spirit of self-definition. As the author of two best-selling books —Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope — President Obama uniquely appreciates the role and value of creative expression.

My take? The White House is underwhelming me.

The only article I've seen that discusses the state of the arts in the US here, via the NYT. Quote #1:

Given the battle in Congress to include money for the arts in the stimulus package, cultural groups say Washington officials still fail to recognize artists as workers. “The third violinist in a chamber orchestra goes out and buys groceries just like everybody else,” said Bill Ivey, a former chairman of the Endowment.

Teresa Eyring, the executive director of the Theater Communications Group, which represents the country’s nonprofit theaters, said: “Local and regional elected officials and community leaders are seeing and talking about the connection between the arts and the overall health of their communities. The same sensibility hasn’t quite landed at the national level.”

So, at the very least there's SOMETHING going on here. But what really scares me about Obama's attitude towards the arts is this:

The staff member charged with the arts portfolio, Kareem Dale, is relatively young (in his 30s) and potentially overextended (he is already special assistant to the president for disability policy) with little arts experience. And his position has yet to be defined. Mr. Dale is expected to serve temporarily and to be replaced by someone with full-time responsibility for the arts, said a White House official, who asked to remain anonymous because personnel issues had yet to be resolved.

Can anyone say frightening? Obama is generally someone who goes for well-qualified people in office. Plus, we still don't have an official director for the National Endowment for the Arts. Which is a completely different kettle of fish, with its own problems, like the fact that the NEA's budget still doesn't measure up to the levels of funding it had in 1992, over 10 years ago.

OK, fine. Obama is overextended. But the arts are a great way of influencing the mind of the populace (see Shepard Fairey's HOPE poster) and to neglect an office with so much cultural power is seriously ill-informed. Besides - if he could just appoint ONE person to oversee these issues, he wouldn't have to do much else. Isn't that what you have assistants for?

And Last, but certainly not least, here's a GREAT post that lays out all the reasons to have a powerful arts coordinator in the US - Green discusses all the problems in the arts world that would be alleviated by a central arts policy that at the VERY least updates the NEA.

Why I love freedom of speech

2009-05-01T16:41:00.003-04:00

Because this is BRILLIANT. And yes, there's more if you click on the link. These are my favorites, though.

"I swear to God, next stupid thing you say, Biden, I'm blowing this right in your ear until you go deaf."

"Thanks to my administration, these two cuddly teddy bears will no longer be waterboarded."

2009-05-01T16:01:00.006-04:00

Via Glenn Thrush at Politico, this lovely snippet:

To them the big danger comes not from fuzzy threats by furious progressives, but the reality that they will face a well-funded challenge for the right. And all have been reticent in the past about casting votes that create enemies among their homestate banking and real estate interests or, worse still, energize a national, business-backed fundraising effort to kick them out.

Thus the paradox. As Democrats approach the magic number of 60, each member of their caucus becomes more valuable, more powerful and more apt to buck leadership in the name of self-interest -- and the preservation of the Supermajority.

Another reason why Specter's switch isn't quite as good as people were making it out to be.

Brad DeLong, an economist at the University of California Berkeley, says:

All I can say to Senator Specter is: spend the next year working as hard to court the Democratic base as you have worked to court the Republican wingnut base over the past decade, or I am maxing out for every single challenger you face in the Democratic primary.

Just saying...

I had never realized how much people actually disliked Specter - although I guess he was often overshadowed by larger problems, including Pennsylvania's former senator (Santorum) who was a jackass. All this is making me wish that Biden could have bit his tongue, allowed some nice Democratic challenger to come along and oust Specter once and for all and courted Olympia Snowe instead. At least she's not part and parcel of the white men's club, and her re-election is a ways away.

Gem of the Day

2009-04-30T23:54:00.001-04:00

thanks to Wonkette.

Smart vs Stupid

2009-04-30T17:22:00.007-04:00

From Time magazine, see this article.

An attempt either to lower expectations for Obama so that he has a greater chance of succeeding, or another way of playing into the Republicans' asinine game of "who has the worse ideas". But the feeling I get from the article is more of an excuse for the Bush Administration - its ok that we appointed under-qualified people to important positions!

The fact that having a Nobel Prize winning scientist is treated as a rare treat instead of standard practice is disgusting. Plus, his examples of "smart people behaving badly" completely miss the point.

"After researching more than 750 major business failures in great depth, we came to the conclusion that humans are wired for poor decision-making," says Chunka Mui, co-author of Billion-Dollar Lessons. "Ego, sunk costs, emotions, self-interest, etc. lead to blind spots. The not- so-intelligent have the same issues, it's just that the stakes are lower."

The question being.... What happens when you raise the stakes for a not-so-intelligent person? Utter catastrophe, maybe?

Why I call myself a feminist

2009-04-30T13:57:00.002-04:00

Because when my grandparents were getting married, this is what they might have bought my mom for bedtime reading.

My feminism consists of these general statements of purpose:

1) I expect to be treated as an equal - someone with ideas to contribute and ears to listen. I will listen back.

2) My ideal would be that my body would not define how far I could succeed in life - instead, what I can accomplish would be the criterion for my success.

3) I want to be able to have children - any feminism that undermines the power of motherhood is not for me.

my parents have told me that my utopian ideals about being respected as an equal are stupid, and that the obsession with beauty will never change. Thus, I should "play the role" that is scripted out for me in society. My feminism looks forward to a time when I won't be able to say that to my daughter, because it won't be true.

New Feature!!

2009-04-30T01:40:00.002-04:00

It will be called: Thoughts for the Day, and be ridiculously awesome. No, it's actually just going to be the things that I haven't really fleshed out in my head, but want to talk about. So, whoever wants to comment can comment, and we'll have a discussion about it.

1) Re. Specter's party switcheroo, what about Joe Sestak? He was widely considered to be a great challenger for Specter in the general election, and he has a TON of support around here. I haven't heard a single thing about him or his chances. Where does he fit in the party, and what should I be thinking about?

2) Support for the Arts: So far, except for a little bit with the National Foundation, I haven't heard a big deal coming from the Obama administration supporting the arts. Should there be more concern with the Arts funding-wise coming from Washington?

3) Bohemia - I want it to exist now, but I don't think it does. In the age of Obama, is there a leftist counter-cultural movement anymore? If I want one, is it possible to find one? Or am i too much of a square to be comfortable with what I might find? Just so people know, I am not talking about a rural nudist utopian type of community. More of a La Boheme-ish thinkers community. Are Hipsters the modern equivalent?

My Latest Experiment

2009-04-30T01:01:00.000-04:00

So, here goes. I'm starting this blog for these reasons:

1) I need a better way to procrastinate than checking the same political blogs every 10 minutes.

2) I have been inspired by my friend Daniel, who has a blog of his own (Pensons) and I want to be as cool as he is. It's mostly political commentary, with a dash of journalism interest, plus a very strange (sorry Daniel, I had to say it) obsession with high speed rail legislation - although I did have something to do with showing him how cool the train actually is.....

3) I want a blog that combines political commentary and commentary on the arts, and I think that I'm the one to do it.

4) The fact that I have started this means that I'm ridiculously hubristic in thinking that anyone will actually read it. So I'm going to see if anyone actually bothers with this besides me. Call it an experiment. Ooo! Maybe I'll do some artsy art piece about blogging someday. Probably won't happen, but whatever.

5) I want to have a place to talk - I can only talk about half the things that interest me to each of my friends. So call this blog my bestest friend ever. BBFF - Best Blog Friend Forever, or something equally cheezy.....

So there's the introduction. Welcome, and there'll be more coming soon, provided finals don't attack me posthaste.