Traditions hold for Mardi Gras despite Katrina

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Even amid the typical debauchery — including early morning drinking, flashes of bare breasts and skimpy costumes in the French Quarter — there was no escaping reminders of the storm.

Zulu, the 97-year-old Mardi Gras club, or krewe, that lost 10 members to Katrina, paraded amid homes that still bear dirty brown water marks from the floodwaters that covered 80 percent of the city. Another krewe, Rex, King of Carnival, paraded past a boarded-up store bearing a spray-painted warning that looters would be shot.

Kevin and Marie Barre, a husband and wife from New Orleans, wore white plastic coveralls bearing the all-too-familiar spray-painted "X" that denotes a home that has been checked for bodies. "It's a reminder. A lot of people who are coming down here don't understand what we've been through," Kevin Barre said.

Members of another club called the Krewe of MRE covered themselves with brown labels from the Meals Ready to Eat that were served to thousands who huddled in the Superdome after the storm. Others dressed as giant maggots, recalling the days when city streets were lined with abandoned refrigerators full of rotting food.

Mayor Ray Nagin, wearing a black beret and camouflage uniform, portrayed cigar-chomping Gen. Russell Honore, the military man who led the first big relief convoy into the city.

Click here for the rest.

I wish I was there--couldn't make it this year because I was working on a paper until very late last night; maybe next year. I get the feeling that Baton Rouge's Mardi Gras celebration is but a shadow of what happens in New Orleans, Katrina or not. You know, being here in Louisiana, getting a taste of what the state is all about, sharing in its fear and anger about Katrina and all its fallout, I'm coming to realize that the hurricane and its aftermath is a defining event in my life. It all happened at just the right moment for its fullest effect. I had been living in Louisiana for a little over a year when the storm hit. I had only come to know and love New Orleans within the last six or seven years, only truly appreciated the city's old school jazz sound for about as long. Only within the last seven or eight years have I understood the depraved depths to which the Republicans have fallen, mad in their orgy of power and America-dismantling. Only within the last decade or so have I come to understand fully how the rich exploit the poor, how anti-black racism continues to be one of this nation's worst problems. How capitalists always have their way. It all comes together with Katrina. The still-devastated city symbolizes everything to me. Everything. Everything I love and hate all wrapped up in mold and storm debris. I know that no American alive right now will ever forget what happened to New Orleans, but I can honestly say that it's become a part of who I am forevermore. Not only will I never forget, I'll never stop thinking about it.



UPDATE From Real Art comments:

Hey Ron,

Let's credit the photog on that end photo....my bud Alex Brandon/AP... a great guy who stayed through the 'cane and spent days dropping cameras to help with rescues while boating with NOPD SWAT... I wish you bloggers would give more of us mainstream news folks our well-deserved props...

toledodave

So I said:

You're right, Dave. I've been trying to do that more, actually, but, for me, laziness often gets in the way. I should especially try harder on this if only because you're watching...and know where I live.

Ron

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Nothing Stops Mardi Gras

From ZNet:

Adding to the emptiness, Calliope and Magnolia, two public housing developments in the neighborhood that were mostly undamaged, remain deliberately empty; most residents have not been permitted to return.

In fact, this week our at-large city council representative, Oliver Thomas, declared publicly that many of the residents should not be allowed to return. Reinforcing the stereotype that people are poor because they don’t want to work, Thomas stated, "There's just been a lot of pampering, and at some point you have to say, 'No, no, no, no, no,” and added, "we don't need soap opera watchers right now."

At the same meeting, Nadine Jarmon, the appointed chief of the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) declared Thomas’ position reflected their policy, adding if “they don't express a willingness to work, or they don't have a training background, or they weren't working before Katrina, then (we’re) making a decision to pass over those people.” These statements were made while, six months after the hurricane, thousands of undamaged units sit empty, thousands more homeless New Orleanians face eviction from FEMA hotels on March 1, and tens of thousands of renters that lived in damaged homes have no where to move to, and no governmental officials seem to care if they come back. In the midst of this crisis, Thomas, two other council members, and the chief of HANO blamed the victims. What about single parents and caretakers? What about the elderly, injured or disabled? Don’t they deserve housing, even if they don’t have training or an extensive job history? Why are only public housing tenants asked if they intend to work?

At a recent demonstration organized by New Orleans Housing Emergency Action Team (NO-HEAT), former residents of the St Bernard Housing Development, many of them visiting for the day from their exile in Houston, expressed their desire to return to their homes. One resident proclaimed that he was going to move back into his home as a form of civil disobedience. While his action is inspiring, the idea that it requires civil disobedience to move back into your own undamaged home is profoundly disturbing. Is this what we’ve come to?

Click here for the rest.

While Mardi Gras goes on, for which I am truly happy, it is becoming increasingly clear that New Orleans' African-American population is getting royally dicked. It's very easy to dismiss this thought as being alarmist, paranoid, or conspiracy-minded, because most people don't really know what's actually going on in there. Indeed, even if you're in the Big Easy, odds are that you're in the parts of town that weren't terribly damaged, and simply don't see the inaction in the rest of the city. Rebuilding after Katrina is a wildly complex operation, and, obviously, those with power and money are working the system for their own benefit: some of those people simply don't care about New Orleans' black people; some actively want them out. But make no mistake about it, the Big Easy's African-American community, the city's cultural life blood, are being driven out. Permanently. If things don't change right now, that's the city's future, lily white and Disney bland. Makes me sick.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What a drag: 'Reefer Madness' of teen sex in Kansas

The Boston Globe's left-leaning columnist Ellen Goodman, via the Houston Chronicle:

Kansas is one of 12 states in which underage sex (under 16 in this case) is a crime even when it involves teen peers. In 2003, state Attorney General Phill Kline, a bandstanding pro-lifer, interpreted that law to require educators, counselors and health care workers to report virtually all sexual activity by those under 16 to the state.

The Kline Theory goes something like this: If sexual activity between teens is illegal, there's no such thing as consensual sex, and thus every act is harmful. These acts include "any lewd fondling or touching of the person ... with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires." In short, health care workers have to rat on 15-year-old sexual criminals who are lustily and mutually "abusing" each other in the back seat of a Toyota.

The health care workers sued, and the recent trial produced some pretty odd exchanges. When lawyer Bonnie Scott Jones of the Center for Reproductive Rights put Kline on the stand, she asked if anything beyond kissing was acceptable? Is oral sex performed by a boy a reportable crime? Yes, said Kline. Oral sex performed by a girl? "I'm not certain," he said.

Click here for the rest.

Man, Reefer Madness is so right. This country's gone insane in so many ways that I've lost count. This notion that teenagers simply shouldn't have sex is such a load of crap. I was shocked the first time I heard of this weird new Puritanism back when I was a high school teacher: a parent casually asserted to me in a conversation about something else that teens had no business having sex. Such a thought was so incredible to me that I forgot to argue with her about it. My god, if any humans should be having sex, it's teenagers! Evolution has made their bodies such that it's all many of them can think about. Why the hell do you think that, historically, most people were married by the time they were sixteen? Duh. Obviously, it was society's attempt to make sure their raging hormones didn't get out of hand. Today, people marry much later, and that's most likely for the best, but people's bodies remain as they always have been. It is foolish and impossible to repress human nature the way they're trying to do in Kansas. Instead, we ought to be teaching comprehensive sex education, you know, the kind with condoms, from early childhood on, so that there are no unwanted pregnancies or STDs. Man, these people are crazy!!! Teach abstinence, undermine the importance of condoms, and criminalize hormones. Fucking stupid. A recipe for disaster.

Didn't the twentieth century teach us anything?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THIS MONTH'S STAR TREK CALENDAR PICTURE IS...



Lieutenant Uhura!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

SPANISH TOWN MARDI GRAS PARADE 2006

The biggest and bawdiest Mardi Gras parade in Baton Rouge was yesterday, and Becky and I were there. Now when I say "bawdy," I mean by Baton Rouge standards. Red Stick, despite it's French name, was actually founded by the English on the site of a failed French trading post, and reflects the uptight national character of its founders, just as New Orleans, obviously founded by the French, reflects that nation's more easy-going sexual attitudes. "Bawdy" here means one bared breast, and you'd miss it if you blinked.

But enough of that. Onto the pictures. We started out by parking on Anal Street.



Okay, it's actually Canal Street, but when we pulled up, this is what I saw, and just had to record it for posterity. Somehow, however, it all seems fitting because Spanish Town is Baton Rouge's equivalent of Houston's Montrose. That is, it's a trendy, upscale gay neighborhood, and, well, you know...

Look, I promised "bawdy" and I'm trying to deliver.

Anyway, as with the Southdowns parade Friday night, it opened up with a small marching band.



Becky said that she thinks it's the same band that was at Southdowns, but I couldn't really tell. Anyway, after the brass band, the floats moved in.







As with last year, I was amazed how most of these floats, while very cool to look at, effectively served as high-volume, efficient bead-delivery mechanisms. The audience, in addition to partying down, did their damndest to snag as many strands as possible.



Of course, to some extent, their hands are up in the air in celebration, as at a rock concert, or in the "We Are the World" video, but don't be fooled: the main reason everybody's reaching up is so they can catch the beads flying in their general vicinity before anyone else can. Occasionally, it gets a bit agressive. But that's cool. It's all part of the event.

And doesn't everybody look pretty with all their beads on?



Anyway, here's another couple of floats.





As with the Southdowns parade, New Orleans and Katrina was the theme. Virtually every float was somehow riffing on the idea, and some were appropriately brutal.

This was my favorite.



I think they did "a heckuva job" with that float, myself. While many floats pulled no punches in displaying Louisiana's anger about the White House's total failure to do its job, some were simply whimsical.

Like this one.



Whimsical and bawdy. Speaking of bawdy, I've never seen more blowup dolls assembled in one place.







Do people actually use such things? I've only ever seen them as comic relief. I mean, I assume that somebody somewhere gets some kind of sexual thrill out of blowup dolls, but, either I've never met these people, or all my friends are lying to me.

I hope they're lying to me.

Anyway, here's some more Spanish Town bawdiness.



These guys were throwing both beads and condoms. LifeStyles Tuxedo Black, to be precise. For formal occasions, I suppose.

These guys below appeared to have the best seat in the house, but kept slowly slipping down, and were continually having to readjust themselves.



Hee hee. "Adjust themselves." I promised "bawdy," didn't I?

Here's an interesting moment.



I think the guy holding the sign is from the same outfit that did the preshow for the Southdowns parade. Annoying, but part of the landscape down here. Actually, I've come to enjoy the absurdity of these fire-and-brimstone types, and look at them as simply being part of the show. I certainly don't feel threatened by them or anything.

On the other hand, some of the drunken revelers did have a problem with this lone Jesus freak and started pelting him with beads. Hard. The scuffle only lasted about a minute, but for an instant, I worried that it might turn ugly. I understand how they felt: everybody's there to get drunk and wild, and along comes Christie McChrist to dampen their spirits, clearly an unwelcome presence. But I thoroughly condemn their response. I mean, like it or not, this guy's got a right to express his views. Argue with him, flip him off, counter his speech with your own, but never intimidate, never get hostile.

That's what comes from mixing politics with alcohol, I guess.

Here are some of my LSU friends who attended the parade with me.



From left to right, Chris, a doctoral student in theater criticism, Reuben, a fellow MFA acting student, Derek, also an MFA acting student, and EJ, a faculty sound designer.

And then it was over, as the street sweeper always signals.



I'm really beginning to think that the street sweeper really is simply a "get the hell out" messenger: they never seem to do that good of a job of sweeping.



Happy Mardi Gras!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Don Knotts, alias 'Barney Fife,' dies at 81

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

The West Virginia-born actor's half-century career included seven TV series and more than 25 films, but it was the Griffith show that brought him TV immortality and five Emmys.

The show ran from 1960-68, and was in the top 10 of the Nielsen ratings each season, including a No. 1 ranking its final year. It is one of only three series in TV history to bow out at the top: The others are I Love Lucy and Seinfeld. The 249 episodes have appeared frequently in reruns and have spawned a large, active network of fan clubs.

As the bug-eyed deputy to Griffith, Knotts carried in his shirt pocket the one bullet he was allowed after shooting himself in the foot. The constant fumbling, a recurring sight gag, was typical of his self-deprecating humor.

Knotts, whose shy, soft-spoken manner was unlike his high-strung characters, once said he was most proud of the Fife character and doesn't mind being remembered that way.

Click here for the rest.

I wasn't much of an Andy Griffith Show fan when I was a kid, although I liked his work on it a great deal: it was Knotts' films and his work on Three's Company that most influenced me. It's weird, I was actually drawing on Knotts for inspiration as recently as the show we closed last weekend, but I think I've always been ripping him off. He was an absolute master of physical comedy, a real life counterpart to Warner Brothers cartoon characters, but it was the complete seriousness with which he approached his comedic roles that has inspired me the most. It's just not funny if the character is somehow in on the joke with the audience. To Knotts, the trials and tribulations of his characters were extraordinarily important, nothing funny about them; his characters were constantly in danger of total and devastating failure, and the humor came out of his flailing attempts to avoid disaster--I've long believed that something's not really funny unless someone gets hurt, and Knotts always illustrated that perfectly.

I think many of today's comedic actors and comedians, especially the usually forgettable cast of SNL, would do well to study him. Because, you know, they're not really funny.

Farewell, Don Knotts.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Rain postpones New Orleans parades

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

A healthy crowd lined St. Charles Avenue today for two of the day's Mardi Gras parades, but a threat of showers postponed one of the city's biggest and glitziest processions on the last big weekend of Carnival.

Rain held off during the morning as the Krewe of Iris headed down St. Charles, with the Krewe of Tucks behind them.

However, the celebrity-studded Krewe of Endymion's parade on elaborate floats through the Uptown area, relatively unscathed by Hurricane Katrina's floods, was put off until Sunday because of the threat of evening thunderstorms. It will roll after the Krewe of Bacchus, another "super krewe," police said.

Click here for the rest.

Postponed, but not cancelled. Indeed, some parades managed to make it before the rain started. Really, it's marvelous that Mardi Gras in New Orleans is happening at all. Meanwhile, here in Baton Rouge, everything is going as scheduled, and the devastation of the Big Easy and its reconstruction are major parade themes (see below). Becky and I attended BR's biggest and bawdiest, although nothing compared to New Orleans, event Saturday afternoon, the Spanish Town parade. It rained lightly off and on throughout, but it didn't start pouring until it had ended. Almost like fate.

Anyway, I'll try to post pics of that one tomorrow.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

SOUTHDOWNS MARDI GRAS PARADE 2006

Okay, another year, another Mardi Gras. Earlier this evening Becky and I attended the Southdowns parade here in Baton Rouge. This year's theme was "Going Back to New Orleans," so there was a lot of Big Easy imagery. But, hey, don't listen to me talk about imagery when you can see for yourself.

Actually, before the pictures, I've got to show you what happened about ten minutes before the parade actually came by:



I had heard rumors all last semester that after Katrina, the evangelistic weirdos who used to be in the soul-saving business on Bourbon Street in New Orleans brought their whole weird caravan to resettle in Baton Rouge. It wasn't until last week, when I saw a guy that I definitely recognized from the French Quarter preaching in front of the student union on campus at LSU, that I was finally able to confirm those rumors.

They came in force to warm up the crowd: there were about ten of them, with big signs and megaphones that blasted messages of hell and brimstone. It's funny how the loudest thing coming out of these types usually isn't about Jesus' love. But then, who wants to worship a pussified loving god? Not me, let me tell you. No, I prefer a badass god who smites and smites and smites the wicked all day long. Of course, "the wicked" means anyone who disagrees with me.

Anyway, onto the parade:



A brass band, if you can't make it out in the darkness:





Dancing construction workers:





I hope I never see another helicopter again:



Little LSU fans:



Satanists demanding equal time after that loud fundamentalist warmup group:



A "Chocolate City" protest float. If you read Real Art regularly, you know that I already think the whole controversy is dripping with anti-black racism. This next shot simply confirms my belief:



Again, it's hard to see in the dark, but the guy to the right is a white man in black face makeup (here's a much bigger version). Maybe this idiot doesn't realize that doing such a thing was decades ago determined to be absolutely tasteless and racist. Maybe he thinks it's okay because it's a joke, and Nagin deserves some reverse racism as...what...punishment? At any rate, it's obvious that more than a few white people disturbed by the "chocolate city" remark are disturbed because they're racists.

Anyway, back to the parade:



Bubbles being spewed out of the tail end of a fire truck (it looks even cooler here):



I kept asking these guys for beignets, but all I got was beads:





And, just like that, it was over. The street sweeper always signals the end of the event:



But Becky and I did okay; we got lots of beads!





Mmmm. Beads.



We also got what are apparently something of a rarity these days, Mardi Gras doubloons. I understand that these little trinkets were all the rage back in the day, but one doesn't come across them so much anymore. Indeed, I didn't get any at the Spanish Town parade last year; it's nice to know that Southdowns still keeps up the tradition.



Happy Mardi Gras!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Phil



Frankie



Paz



Sammy



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MORE ON WHITE HOUSE PORT CONTROVERSY

In response to my recent post on the White House decision to green light the takeover of a British firm that provides port administration services to five major US ports by state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates, which has been accused of helping the 9/11 terrorists and transferring nuclear technology to Iran, my old friend Matt writes in Real Art comments:

I'll take the opposing view on this one, as I actually agree with the administration on this one (wow, that felt weird to write): 1. the UAE is small potatoes next to Saudi Arabi when it comes to owning things in the US and supporting terrorism. To talk about the UAE and continue to ignore Saudi Arabia makes congress look uninformed and only interested in token resistance to the admin. 2. blocking an arab company or country from participating equally in our free market system will look incredibly racist and anti-moslem outside of our borders

So, i think congress looks panic-stricken, directionless and anti-arab doing this and hence I (gulp) agree with Bush.

Thoughts?

Okay, I'll take these in reverse order.

My own problem with this deal is not that it's an Arab company, but a state-owned company, literally an organ of government, from a nation that may very well be aiding terrorists, despite it's being recognized by the White House as an official ally in the "war on terror." I'll grant the possibility that this may create the appearance of anti-Arab discrimination, but, at this point, the only public voice I've heard criticizing opposition to the deal in those terms is the President's. That doesn't mean Arabs aren't angry about it, just that I haven't heard of it yet. Furthermore, I'm not even advocating blocking the deal just yet: for now, I want to know why the White House thinks this is going to be safe; "We've checked it out" doesn't really cut it, given the serious accusations against the UAE. Once we've heard some answers, then a real debate can begin.

My personal bet is that there aren't any answers--from what I'm hearing, this thing was approved by a board of cronies, a real FEMA style operation, that doesn't really have any qualifications to determine the security ramifications of the deal. But more on that below.

As for the point about Saudi Arabia, all I can do is say, "yeah," and just kind of stare at the ground. Really, the point here is that Congress really is uninformed, as is most of the US public about the situation there. Most of the Islamic world's resentment toward the United States comes from its support of Israel no matter how low it goes in dealing with the Palestinians, but a great deal of resentment also stems from American support of despotic rulers in the Middle East. The Saudi royal family is utterly corrupt, stealing the wealth of the nation, while repressing its citizens. Most Americans don't even realize that Bin Laden's own brand of Islamic extremism, Wahhabism, was born in Saudi Arabia; because all other forms of dissent have been crushed in the desert nation, Wahhabist mosques, strongly supported by the royal family, became by default the only place where radical rhetoric is tolerated. Thus, the mosques became the birthing ground for anti-Saudi and anti-American politics on the Arabian peninsula. In other words, US support of the Saudi family indirectly contributed to the rise of the man who masterminded 9/11--that's why the vast majority of hijackers were Saudi citizens.

Nonetheless, exposing the schizophrenic nature of American foreign policy in the region still doesn't explain why it's okay to allow a nation that may have aided those hijackers to take control of several important gateways into the US. Nor does the observation that Congress is "panic-stricken, directionless and anti-arab," a true enough statement by itself.

So I guess that my overall problem with this whole thing is that there are a lot of unanswered questions that, until today, Bush didn't seem interested in answering. I'm very curious as to how he's going to defend the deal. Because...

A lot of new info has come out about this in the last couple of days since Matt made his comment. A lot. So much, in fact, that I'm taking the lazy route and doing what the bigtime bloggers call a "blog round up." Here goes.

From the Daily Kos:

Ignorant, yet defiant

Of course, the big question is who reviewed and approved the deal, since we now find that a decision with major national security ramifications was made without input from either the president (supposedly) or the Secretary of Defense. Or perhaps the better question is whether the administration has decided to hang Chertoff off to dry. The dude is on his way out anyway, might as well tar him with this disaster as well. Because as far as we can tell, we have no proof the committee that McClellan assured us yesterday had unanimously approved the deal has even met.

Furthermore, while the administration was required under law to conduct a 45-day investigation into the deal, none took place. Of course, "laws" are those pesky words on paper that King George and his infallible administration are allowed to ignore and discard at their own perogative.

Yet this is a case with national security ramifications so obvious that even Republicans can't sit on the sidelines. I mean, we're talking about a nation that impeded our ability to take out Osama Bin Laden because half its royal family was chillin' with the terrorist mastemind himself. We attacked Iraq because one of the 9/11 terrorists allegedly met with an Iraqi security official in Prague, yet we give control of our ports to a nation whose leadership is on a first-name basis with Osama himself and got together for tea and crumpets.

Click here for more, including source links.

Again from the Daily Kos:

Secretary Snow Wasn't Aware of Deal--
Despite Law Requiring He Chairs CFIUS

So far, we know that the Secretary of Defense, who is supposed to sit on the committee, didn't. We know that the Secretary of the Treasury, who is supposed to chair the meeting, didn't. Did ANY cabinet-level official do their duty as required by law? Or was the Dubai deal approved by a dozen Yoo-like marionettes of this administration? A list of who exactly participated in the meeting needs to be disclosed. Immediately.

More here.

And from Eschaton, this little bit of CBS News transcription:

Joke

BORGER: Here's one explanation. The president and his senior staff couldn't brief Congress because they didn't know. That's because the panel that makes these calls, the Committee on Foreign Investments, is not run by the high-level Cabinet members listed on its Web site. Those guys usually rubber-stamp decisions made by staffers. Richard Perle is a Bush ally who sat on the panel during the Reagan years.

Mr. RICHARD PERLE (Former Assistant Secretary of Defense): The committee almost never met. And when it deliberated, which it did from time to time, it was usually at a pretty low bureaucratic level.

BORGER: So, is it a joke?

Mr. PERLE: I think it's a bit of a joke if we were serious about scrutinizing foreign ownership and foreign control, particularly since 9/11.

Click here to see it in context (I just copied and pasted the entire bit, actually).

Eschaton also gives a nice little overview of three separate stories which also put the security situation about this port deal in doubt.

So, obviously, I've got a lot of questions. Unfortunately, the White House's track record on answering questions is generally pretty bad. I guess we'll see what happens.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

REALLY THEY'RE ALL JUST QUEER

From Real Art comments about my post lauding Willie Nelson's new ode to gay cowboys:

At my blog I explain why the lyrics to this song are stereotypical and not worth taking seriously.

"Well, okay," I thought, so I clicked through and found this from Blogging Gay Cowboys:

Willie Nelson and That Gay Cowboys Song

At the very least, the lyrics convey the incorrect (but widely held) idea that being a gay male means being feminine and letting the woman inside the man come out. In the parlance of all things country, that kind of thinking is just plain bullshit. Back in the good ole 1980s, Rock Hudson died shattering that stereotype.

There are plenty of gay men around in real life who prefer to emphasize masculine qualities. Yeah, there also are gay men who like to emphasize feminine qualities, too. But, come on. If you’re a gay man and you want to emphasize a feminine mystique, the very last thing you do is dress up like a cowboy.

The songwriter chose to reiterate the false but popular stereotype that to be a gay man is to be both “strange” and feminine. I don’t feel that there’s anything wrong with a gay man who wants to be feminine. But, it is stereotyping to call any gay person “strange” merely for being gay. And the reality is that there are gay men in real life who are masculine and somehow are also very happy with their masculinity.

Click here for the rest.

Okay, I cut my teeth on the issue of stereotyping when I was studying RTF at the University of Texas back in the 90s, so I could go on and on about this, but it's getting late, and I think I can make my point concisely, anyway. So I'll try to be brief.

For starters, I agree with a lot of what this fellow has to say. Being gay isn't necessarily the same thing as gender-bending or transexualism or being in touch with one's feminine side, whatever you want to call it. There are, obviously, as many different kinds of gay people as there are straight people. On the other hand, I think that his analysis of the song is something of a knee-jerk reaction. That is, upon a second reading of the lyrics (see above link to my original post), the song does not at all appear to be attempting to straightjacket gay men into some kind of narrowly defined picture of what it means to be gay. In other words, the song seems to be about one guy's take on one kind of gayness, and doesn't really try to present itself as anything but that. I mean, he's obviously not writing about all cowboys, so I think it's unfair to assume that he's writing about all gay men.

But then, there aren't that many pop songs about gay themes out there, either. Consequently, songs and other cultural artifacts containing gay themes that manage to break through into the mainstream are often put under a microscope and end up, whether intended or not, as representative of all gays in many people's eyes. Like it or not, that seems to be the cultural environment in which we live. Unfortunately, this presents a dilemma for artists who wish to deal with gay themes. Because such works of art will most certainly be taken as speaking for or about all homosexuals, it becomes almost impossible to artistically examine gay subpopulations or gay individuals in ways that are honest and thorough: artists dealing with gay themes are virtually forced to be universal.

But then, there are competing ideas about what is universally gay, competing ideas about what is universally masculine or feminine, yadda, yadda, yadda. In other words, gay art, transgendered art, etc., are problematic in our society from the get-go. Indeed, the concept of homosexuality, and heterosexuality, too, for that matter, is problematic itself, as is the concept of gender. What, exactly, does it mean to be gay? Clearly, one can engage in homosexual behavior, but not listen to Judy Garland records or go to gay bars. What, exactly, does it mean to be a woman? Clearly, one can posess female biological traits, but not enjoy cooking or sewing or children. Same thing with men in reverse. So it's not just cultural behavior, not just biology, not just sexual orientation. It's an extraordinarily complicated discussion to which, at this point, there are no clear cut answers.

Indeed, the complexity of the issues here have been understood for the last decade or so in academia, where all these issues have been bundled into one bigtop subject area known as queer theory.

From Wikipedia:

Queer theory

Queer theory is an anti-essentialist theory about sex and gender within the larger field of Queer studies. It proposes that one's sexual identity and one's gender identity are partly or wholly socially constructed, and therefore individuals cannot really be described using broad terms like "homosexual," "heterosexual," "man," or "woman." It challenges the common practice of compartmentalizing the description of a person to fit into one particular category.

In particular, it questions the use of socially assigned categories based on the division between those who share some habit or lifestyle and those who do not. Instead, queer theorists suggest complicating all identity categories and groups.

Additionally, queer theory also analyzes the "queer" aspects of a humanist work (such as in literature, music, art, etc.) that are not necessarily sexual. In this regard, "queer" is used to mean "strange" or "different" in the sense that a particular work does not fit within the general rules of a particular genre or category, yet is still classified as being a part of that genre or category.

Click here for the rest.

So I think what this blogger is hitting his head against is this kind of complexity arising from the paradoxes, contradictions, and ambiguities that arise from our culture's understanding, or lack thereof, of sex and gender. Ultimately, the bottom line for me with Willie's new song is that it clearly celebrates alternative sexuality, clearly celebrates gender exploration. It's not only pro-gay, it's pro-queer. Whether or not the song's writer is on whatever is ultimately decided to be the right page, as far as these subjects are concerned, is, for the moment, irrelevant: this is a song that makes it okay to be gay, and okay for a man to be a bit girly, and the fact that Willie is performing it means that a lot of Americans are going to hear that message.

Surely that's a concept that gay-friendly people can get behind.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BUSH NOT INTERESTED IN HOMELAND SECURITY

Yet another disturbing sign. From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Bush says he'll veto effort to block port deal

Earlier, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist urged the administration to reconsider its decision to allow the transaction, under which a British company that has been running six U.S. ports would be acquired by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. Frist said he'd introduce a bill to delay the deal if the administration doesn't do so on its own.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

And

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Click here for the rest.

So the point is, if you haven't been following the story, that even though the United Arab Emirates may be officially listed by the US as an ally in the "war on terror," there are serious doubts about where their loyalties may really lie. And this isn't simply a Middle Eastern company that's buying these port operations; this company is actually owned by the UAE. So if the UAE, in fact, supports terrorism, allowing them to take over these ports is essentially handing terrorists the key to the city. Not a good idea. Bush claims that everything has been checked out, but seems unwilling to share his information. As far as I know he hasn't even tried to refute the allegations about 9/11 and nuclear tech transfer.

So what's going on here? Maybe Bush is right and it's just a case of arrogance on his part: I can do this; I'm the President and don't have to explain my actions. That wouldn't be surprising given how up against the wall they seem to be at the White House. It is, however, politically stupid. On the other hand, I'm inclined to believe what I wrote as the title to this post. Bush just isn't interested in homeland security. I've written several times about mind-boggling examples of how, over four years after 9/11, America seems completely unprepared to deal with terrorism at home, which includes, but is not limited to FEMA's dismal response to Hurricane Katrina, unguarded chemical and petroleum plants, and weird border incidents such as allowing the psycho-killer from Canada into the US with his bloody chainsaw.

It's almost as though Bush wants another high profile terrorist attack here, which is also not surprising, because fear has been the one thing that he's been able to consistently turn into votes. At this point, most of the nation has had it with his overall agenda. Except for anti-terrorism, which still seems to be polling above 50% approval. Another successful attack might be just the thing to send frightened citizens to the ballot box to support the tough guy Republicans in November.

But then, I'm fairly paranoid these days, myself. Here's a saner opinion on the subject from CNN's Jack Cafferty, courtesy of Eschaton:

Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six US ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House "you're not gonna do this." And it's about time. No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get. A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads - which way will we choose?Here's the question: What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company to run US Ports??

Click here for some video of the commentary courtesy of First Draft, courtesy again of Eschaton.

Well, okay, Cafferty sounds pretty nutty too, but I guess that's just the times in which we live. At any rate, this whole deal stinks. Bush needs to either explain where he's coming from much better, or call the whole thing off. I bet neither happens.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"big government liberals"

From Eschaton in response to a post made by conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan:

I don't know any "big government liberals" in the sense that Andy means. I don't know anybody who gets a stiffy at the thought of raising taxes and increasing government spending as a share of GDP just for the hell of it. Liberals I know tend to think there are things government should do and we should, roughly, figure out how to pay for those things, though we're not entirely allergic to deficit spending. When taxes have to go up to cover interest and debt repayment costs no liberals I know are going to go "YAY! HIGHER TAXES! WOO HOOO!"

For a long time the Left was tarred as idealistic utopians, addicted to ways of doing things no matter what the consequences. I have no real opinion on whether that criticism was ever true, but in any case it's something which has been embraced wholesale by the Right. They have a small government fetish, and that fetish is linked almost entirely to the top marginal federal income tax rate. Liberals have no such corresponding fetish for "big government" even if they tend to be fans of some government programs conservatives like to demonize as being "big government liberalism." No one's going to enjoy sweeping up after Bush's fiscal train wreck.

Click here for the rest.

This kind of echoes something I was saying saying last week when I was writing about Paul Craig Roberts:

Roberts reminds me that I'm less of a liberal and more of a pragmatist. That is, I have a certain set of social goals, food, clothing, shelter, and health care for all, for instance, that I want to see achieved, but I don't really care how we get there: if conservative programs can do it, then sign me up. It just so happens that most conservatives don't really seem to care about my social goals, so it's progressivism for me, for now.

I should clarify at this point, that this is not to be construed as meaning that someday I might again embrace conservatism. Even though I think there are some good conservative ideas, generally I want change, lots of change, which makes me forevermore a bleeding-hearted liberal. However, as a liberal, I want to keep an open mind about how that change can be accomplished, which means seriously considering conservative ideas and proposals.

All of this means that I may or may not be a "big government liberal" depending on the circumstances--sometimes my assertions may even make me look like a "small government conservative." But then, as Atrios observes, the term "big government liberal" is so weird and vague as to not have any real meaning. I don't want more government for its own sake. Really, even suggesting such a thing is downright insulting. Who the hell wants more government just because? This particular government I certainly don't want more of. No, I believe that government does both good and bad things. I want to see it do more of the good and less of the bad. Or, ideally, as much good as possible, and as little bad as possible.

That seems sensible to me, but the conservative notion of smaller government being better just because simply boggles my mind. It's almost like a religious belief. All bureaucracies suffer a certain amount of waste and inefficiency, and this includes the businesses that conservatives prize so highly as a model for organizational performance. What I really think is that the whole small government meme came out of conservative frustration with decades of Democratic dominance in Washington: not being able to implement their own programs, conservatives simply began to rail away on the concept of government itself. See what's happened now that the GOP is in power? Government has continued to grow, picking up the pace even, and while the small government concept survives rhetorically, it is essentially dead in practice.

Apparently, everybody is in favor of big governement when it's doing what they want it to do.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Can You Say "Permanent Bases"?

From TomDispatch, courtesy of Washington Monthly's blog Political Animal, courtesy of the Daily Kos:

How can anybody tell if the Bush administration is actually withdrawing from Iraq or not? Sometimes, when trying to cut through a veritable fog of misinformation and disinformation, it helps to focus on something concrete. In the case of Iraq, nothing could be more concrete -- though less generally discussed in our media -- than the set of enormous bases the Pentagon has long been building in that country. Quite literally multi-billions of dollars have gone into them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction ("the numbers are staggering"). Since then, the base-building has been massive and ongoing.

In a country in such startling disarray, these bases, with some of the most expensive and advanced communications systems on the planet, are like vast spaceships that have landed from another solar system. Representing a staggering investment of resources, effort, and geostrategic dreaming, they are the unlikeliest places for the Bush administration to hand over willingly to even the friendliest of Iraqi governments.

And

There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency."

Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words "permanent," "bases," and "Iraq" should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report.

Click here for the rest.

In terms of my post about journalist "objectivity" and narrative construction from a few days ago, it seems that the storyline here is that, despite a great deal of unreported evidence to the contrary, the Pentagon and White House's goal is to eventually get out of Iraq when it's "democracy" is ready to roll. Obviously, that's just a storyline. I've been saying for some months now that I feel pretty certain that the US will never leave Iraq, not as long as the world economy depends on oil. Look at it this way, assuming that the neo-con architects of the invasion aren't as stupid as the missing WMDs or futility of Iraqi democracy might suggest, one must conclude that those motivations have always been cover stories, and that the real goal in Iraq is something else. And what might that be? It really is about the oil. Not in a simple now-it's-our-oil way, but in a corner-the-market way. That is, establishing a strong and lasting US military presence in the middle of the world's largest oil deposits essentially gives the American elite control over the spigot. Everybody's spigot. The kind of influence, sway, and leverage such a move gives the US in all dealings with other nations is unimaginable. The neo-cons have effectively transmuted America's unsurpassed military power into vast economic power. In the long term the US will have the ability virtually control the world's flow of oil, control all oil markets. And control of oil means control of everything because everything depends on oil. That's why we're building permanent bases in Iraq, and that's why not even a change of administration, even from Republican to Democrat, will make one bit of difference. The prize is just too tempting.

We'll have bases in Iraq for the rest of my life and longer. Sick, isn't it?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ORTOLAN

Hello there blogosphere. Tara here, not feeling the least bit pressured to make my official first entry here at Real Art (thanks Ron). I decided to write about what I know; or at least what I have been thinking about as of late. I am an avid NPR listener (to listen online or find your own public radio station go to http://npr.org) and heard a broadcast recently about the anniversary of the death of Francois Mitterrand. Mitterrand was the first Socialist president of France. He led for 23 years, abolished the death penalty in France, etc. etc. This is all well and good, but the topic of my first official blog is his last meal. Before dying of cancer in 1981, he and 30 friends dined on a fancy French dish known as ortolan. The meal is made by capturing a thumb-sized yellow-throated songbird (the ortolan), force-feeding it, drowning it in a brandy-like liqueur called Armagnac, plucking it , then baking it. It is eaten head, bones, and all under a white linen cloth to retain the aroma. It is also thought that originally the bird is eaten under a cloth to hide from God the sin of killing one of his smallest creations.

Now being the bleeding-heart, liberal, vegetarian that I am, I was mortified at the thought of of this now illegal meal (the little tiny ortolan is endangered thanks to the cruelty of French cuisine). I thought, this man and his 30 buddies must have been cruel people, sadists. And then I heard more. The ortolan is thought to enbody the soul of France. Mitterrand, after eating the bird in the traditional way, refused to eat another bite for the next eight days until he succumbed to his cancer. Even thinking of it now brings tears to my eyes. This man wanted to find the perfect way to end his life, in my humble opinion. He wanted to pay tribute to the country he loved with the people he loved. He found a peace or a sense of closure by ingesting the very soul of his country. And having attoned or taken in or whatever he thought he had done by eating that dish, he was done. He allowed himself to leave. He chose his own ending.

The ability to end your own life in your own way is a really hot-button topic in our country and I am an advocate of an individuals right to chose (in many areas of life and death). And I am a fan of symbols in our own life, of symbolic gestures. I know little to nothing of Francois Mitterrand outside of his last meal, but the class of his final gesture touches me. It is truely beautiful. DISCLAIMER: I think I would still hit someone trying to catch a little tiny bird to torture and eat-- Mitterrand didn't change my mind about that.

KATRINA COULDN'T KILL MARDI GRAS
Abbreviated parades roll in N.O.
to smaller but enthusiastic crowds

From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

Thin crowds and a rapid stream of floats from several downsized parades made for an abbreviated burst of Carnival activity Saturday in New Orleans.

Chilly temperatures and overcast skies did little to add a sense of festivity to the first day of the city's condensed 2006 parade season. But thousands of hardy celebrants made the best of the situation, many of them happy simply to have Carnival back at all.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the city reduced this year's parade schedule to eight days -- two days this weekend and six straight days starting Thursday -- and booked parades one after another on most days, all following the traditional Uptown route along St. Charles Avenue.

The krewes of Pontchartrain, Shangri-La, Pygmalion, Knights of Sparta and Pegasus paraded Saturday.

Click here for the rest.

The Big Easy really needs this: Mardi Gras is celebrated throughout Louisiana, and in other states, but only in New Orleans does it fully flower into a true world class Carnival. It is one of many aspects that makes the Crescent City unique. Pushing through with the parades and celebrations this year is a statement to the world that New Orleans will not die.

I've never done Mardi Gras in N.O. before. Maybe Becky and I'll take the hour and a half drive there next weekend to scramble for beads.


Hand crafted leather Mardi Gras masks sit in a Decatur Street shop last May waiting for February. Did they make it through the chaos after Katrina? I don't know.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Pat Robertson Accused of Damaging Movement

From the AP via the Washington Post courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

Fellow conservative religious leaders have expressed concern and even open criticism over Pat Robertson's habit of shooting from the hip on his daily religious news-and-talk television program, "The 700 Club."

The Christian Coalition founder and former GOP presidential candidate has said American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip.

Some observers say Robertson, who'll turn 76 next month, courts controversy as a strategy to stay recognizable and keep his followers mobilized. Others say he remains important to the evangelical movement that he helped create when he established the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network in 1960 but he needs to stop damaging it with his words.

Click here for the rest.

So, Robertson is an inflammatory nut even by fundamentalist standards. I suppose that would make me feel better about fundamentalism in general except for the fact that the entire movement itself is also completely psychotic. According to the article, one of Robertson's critics observes that "he tries to interpret contemporary events as 'being part of the drama of God's activity in the world." That's true enough, but ignores the fact that most fundamentalists see current events as part of a larger spirtual struggle. The whole lot of them are millenialists. That is, they believe that humanity is now experiencing the first days of "the end times," wherein the forces of good and evil will do battle in the Middle East--good will eventually win and will establish a holy worldwide regime, ruled by Jesus himself, that will last a thousand years. Then the Earth will be destroyed and all who are not evil will live in eternity with the Father. Actually, their interpretation of the strange visions of the apostle John found in the book of Revelation is even weirder than that, but you get the idea. Fundamentalists also believe that human society is permeated by invisible demons and angels who are locked in constant spiritual warfare over each and every soul. Yes, that's right: they're fighting right now, right next to YOU. They're totally nuts. My best bet is that these fundamentalist leaders have more of a problem with Robertson creating controversy and turning off supporters by speaking so frankly than they do with his theology.

Oh yeah, don't forget that our President is also a fundamentalist.

Heh.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NEW MEMBER JOINS THE REAL ART TEAM

If you check out Real Art regularly, which most people don't, which is okay, really, you know that from time to time my former student from Baytown, Miles, who now attends my old school the University of Texas, will make a post here. He's welcome to post more, which he knows, but is clearly quite busy studying journalism in Austin. (C'mon, Miles, post more!) Actually, the whole idea for him posting here was his; he tried his own blog for awhile, but decided it was too much trouble to keep up with, and pitched the concept of writing here part time. It's worked out well, I think: we don't agree on everything, but we're close enough ideologically, and it's always cool to get another perspective.

With that in mind, I recently invited my buddy Tara from LSU, who often comments here, and who got her MFA in acting last spring and has moved on from Baton Rouge to another part of the country, to join what is now the Real Art team. Like me and Miles, Tara and I don't agree on everything, but we're both quite liberal, and with the added benefit of her concern for art and culture. Which might make for some interesting debate. She's a good writer, with a keen analytical mind. I'm looking forward to whatever she has to say.

So sometime in the near future, expect to hear from her--be sure to check the name tag at the bottom of each post to see if it's Tara, me, or Miles.

the real art team

tara

miles

ron


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BLOGGER ATE MY FRIDAY POSTS!

Damn it!

I don't know what the deal is, but my Friday Cat Blogging post, and my post on journalistic objectivity and narrative construction from Friday were eaten by Blogger. I also lost a couple of reader comments, a complimentary note by a blogger from Austin named Glenda for the latter post, and a witty barb by toledodave about my cat pictures, which is, all things considered, not so painful because Dave is a professional photographer, and, obviously, waaay better at that sort of thing than I am--he certainly has the right to bust my chops about it. What I'd like is to get him onstage playing Hamlet or something and then tell him why it's just not working.

With my luck, however, it would probably turn out that Dave took some courses with Meisner when he lived in New York, and is, in fact, a better actor than I am, too.

But enough of that. I was able to reconstruct the two posts, and they're now happily ensconced below. Hopefully, Blogger is now no longer hungry, and you'll get to actually check them out. Alas, getting all of this figured out took up most of my allotted blogging time this evening, so I'm only going to make one more brief post above--I've still got a lot on my plate until Mardi Gras, so I've got work to do.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Gasbag Gap

Liberal media analyist Eric Alterman on a recent Media Matters study of the big three Sunday morning talking head shows. From the Nation courtesy of Eschaton:
Think about it: These shows feel empowered to engage an agenda-setting discussion with a panel of mostly right-wing politicians, followed by a journalists' panel in which conservatives are paired almost exclusively with down-the-middle reporters, rather than a writer or thinker who might credibly represent the liberal side. Every week, a politically neutered George Stephanopoulos seeks the wisdom of the deeply right-wing George Will, and the "neutral" (though personally conservative) Fareed Zakaria, with no balance whatsoever. (Sam Donaldson, a liberal, was previously an exception to this rule, though no liberal I know would have picked him to represent our side.) The guest list for the far more influential Meet the Press tells a similar story. Why, asks the MMA study's author, Paul Waldman, "would the producers of the shows believe that a William Safire (56 appearances since 1997) or Bob Novak (37 appearances) is somehow "balanced" by a Gwen Ifill (27) or Dan Balz (22)?"

Click here for the rest.

The news isn't simply a collection of events recorded by reporters and then delivered to readers and viewers for their consumption. Events are contextualized, by both reporters and pundits. That is, the news is as much about constructing narratives as it is about recording events. Years ago, before I started studying the news industry, I remember thinking right after I had seen a state of the union address or a presidential debate, that the TV news people were now going to tell me what it all meant--I was consciously relying on the talking heads to cobble together a piece of storyline that neatly fit into the overall storyline with which I was already familiar. I get the feeling that most Americans who consume news do pretty much the same thing. Obviously, people have their own ideas and opinions, but generally those ideas and opinions rely heavily on the news industry's power to contextualize.

And if you think about it for, say, two seconds, it's completely clear that this power of narrative is wildly subjective: back in 2003, the storyline was that anyone who was serious about foreign policy knew that Iraq had WMD, and all other opinions were either stupid or crazy. Of course, plenty of experts disputed the official US position, but virtually all mainstream American journalistic institutions ignored them--their views didn't fit in with the narrative that "the news" had constructed.

That's why it is extraordinarily important for these talking head shows, as well as newspaper op-ed pages, to have a wide ranging diversity of opinion. Really, if the news truly wants to be true to its holy grail of "objectivity" they ought not to be in the opinion business at all, but, then, it seems to me that the news business has never really been serious about its own stated ethical standards.

At any rate, Alterman has done a nice job these past few years of documenting systemic right-wing bias in mainstream American news, and his reflections on this new study are worth a look. Check it out.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Phil



Paz



Frankie



Sammy



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TWO FROM UBER-TEXAN MOLLY IVINS

We had an archival photo call tonight after the show, and I've got some reading to do for my movement class (T'Ai Chi Classics by Wayne Liao), so I'm giving Real Art short shrift this evening. Instead, read these two insightful essays by the always insightful and amusing super Texan Molly Ivins.

Both are from AlterNet.

Dick Cheney Goes Hunting

I am not trying to make a big deal out of a simple hunting accident for partisan purposes -- just thought it was a good chance to pay tribute to old Harry, a thoroughly decent man. However, I was offended by the never-our-fault White House spin team. Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said of her boss, "He was not careless or incautious (and did not) violate any of the (rules). He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." Of course he did, Ms. Matalin, he shot Harry Whittington.

Which brings us to one of the many paradoxes of the Bush administration, which claims to be creating "the responsibility society." It's hard to think of a crowd less likely to take responsibility for anything they have done or not done than this bunch. They're certainly good at preaching responsibility to others -- and blaming other people for everything that goes wrong on their watch.

Click here for the rest.

Impeachment: The Cure For Executive Excess

Gonzales kept trying to frame the issue as a question of whether or not a domestic spying program without warrants is illegal -- in fact, it is against the law. Gonzales maintained that the law is superseded by some unwritten constitutional power due the president during time of war and further that Congress had authorized warrantless spying when giving the president the authority to invade Afghanistan. Strange, so few who voted for invading Afghanistan recall having warrantless spying in mind.

One problem of legal logic is to "define war." We have not been attacked by another nation -- in fact, we were clearly the aggressors against Iraq. We were attacked by a private group of ideological zealots led by a Saudi millionaire. This war -- against no nation, flag or territory -- can presumably last indefinitely, like our wars against drugs and crime.

Barbara Jordan observed:

"[Impeachment] is designed to 'bridle' the executive if he engages in excesses…. The Framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive…. 'A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.' "

Click here for more.

Stay tuned for Friday Cat Blogging tomorrow, and some other post which only exists in theory at the moment.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Willie Nelson releases an ode to gay cowboys

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

The song, which became available exclusively through iTunes Tuesday, features choppy Tex-Mex style guitar runs and Nelson's deadpan delivery of lines like, "What did you think all them saddles and boots was about?" and "Inside every cowboy there's a lady who'd love to slip out."

The song, which debuted Tuesday on Howard Stern's Sirius Satellite Radio show, was written by Texas-born singer-songwriter Ned Sublette in 1981 — long before this year's Oscar-nominated Brokeback Mountain made gay cowboys a contemporary topic.

Sublette said he wrote the song during the Urban Cowboy craze and always imagined Nelson singing it.

Click here for the rest.

Well, it's about time. Yay, Willie!!!

When I was younger and homophobic, I laughed and lauged when I learned about the existence of gay kicker bars. It struck me as absurd, the thought of hypermasculine guys in boots, hats, and big belt buckles two stepping around the dance floor. Then, after working and living with homosexuals for years, I got over my homophobia. Then I met some gay kickers. Strangly, or perhaps not so strangely, I still get a humorous kick out of the thought of gay cowboys, although now I feel like I'm lauging with the lavender buckaroo set rather than at them. I love the challenge they present to the conventional wisdom about masculinity and down home values; I love thinking about straight kickers being totally freaked out by it all.

What a wonderful world we live in.

Here are the lyrics:

Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)

There's many a strange impulse out on the plains of West Texas;
There's many a young boy who feels things he don't comprehend.
Well small town don't like it when somebody falls between sexes,
No, small town don't like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.

Well I believe in my soul that inside every man there's a feminine,
And inside every lady there's a deep manly voice loud and clear.
Well, a cowboy may brag about
things that he does with his women,
But the ones who brag loudest
are the ones that are most likely queer.

Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
What did you think those saddles and boots was about?
There's many a cowboy who don't understand
the way that he feels towards his brother,
Inside every cowboy there's a lady who'd love to slip out.

Ten men for each woman was the rule
way back when on the prairie,
And somehow those cowboys must have
kept themselves warm late at night.
Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,
But I'll tell you the reason a big strong man gets so uptight:

Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
That's why they wear leather, and Levi's and belts buckled tight.
There's many a cowboy who don't understand
the way that he feels towards his brother;
There's many a cowboy who's more like a lady at night.

Well there's always somebody who
says what the others just whisper,
And mostly that someone's the first one to get shot down dead:
When you talk to a cowboy don't treat him like he was a sister
Don't mess with the lady that's sleepin' in each cowboy's head.

Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
Even though they take speed and
drive pickups and shoot their big guns;
There's many a cowboy who don't understand
the way that he feels towards his brother;
There's many a cowboy who keeps quiet about things he's done.

Yee-hah!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Two implanted with silicon chips
Use believed to be first on living humans in the U.S.

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Tiny silicon chips were embedded into two workers who volunteered to help test the tagging technology at a surveillance equipment company, an official said Monday.

The so-called RFIDs — for radio frequency identification chips — are similar to ones Mexico's attorney general had implanted in some employees in 2004 to allow them to enter restricted areas.

Implanting them in workers at CityWatcher.com is believed to be the first use of the technology in living humans in the U.S. Sean Darks, chief executive of the company, has one of chips used to access secure vaults.

Click here for the rest.

Am I the only American, that is, out of Americans who don't wear tin foil hats, who is troubled by this? I'm not worried by the classic implant-as-control-device concept as much as I am about the potential for the government, insurance companies, schools, and employers to require people in their thrall to use such devices to keep track of their comings and goings. Generally, informed people worry about the potential misuse of national identification cards, which is what's going on in Britain right now. But national ID cards are nothing compared to what might happen with these tracking implants. Imagine insurance companies cancelling coverage because you drive through the wrong side of town too often for their tastes, or schools busting kids for being too close to a fight, or the government creating a list of people who go to anti-war rallies, or employers insisting that their workers be home by ten o'clock every evening so they can be more productive on the job. Think it'll never happen? In my lifetime I've watched the whole drug testing phenomenon take on a weird veneer of respectablility. Now days it seems like anybody with a halfway decent sounding excuse can demand your urine for proof of your purity whether you do drugs or not: believe what you want, that's a major violation of privacy, and everybody's okay with it. A proliferation of tracking implants would follow roughly the same course. Advocates would advance some kind of bogus argument, and a portion of the population and government would buy it. Somehow, it'll pass Constitutional muster, and, presto, we're all wearing implants if we want to participate in society.

Christ, we really are headed toward fascism.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WAS CHENEY DRUNK?

From Thought Crimes courtesy of Eschaton:

Alert reader StickDog at DU caught this tidbit. When first posted, NBC news quoted Katharine Armstrong as saying:

"There may be a beer or two in there," she said, "but remember not everyone in the party was shooting.".

About an hour later, the quote was deleted from the story.

Click here for the rest.

You know my first thought about Cheney's accident was that it was interesting but of no political significance. Sadly, hunting accidents are part of the sport, and, while unfortunate, are bound to happen when you have guys with guns running around trying to kill animals--don't get me wrong; after reading about how the meat industry functions in the book Fast Food Nation, I developed a great deal of sympathy for hunters, who are positively humane in comparison. I still think there's probably not anything to the story as far as politics goes, but this beer thing's got my spider-sense tingling. No, I don't think Cheney was drunk, but I wonder why NBC felt it had to eliminate the reference to alcohol being on the scene. I'm curious. It could be an innocuous editorial decision, but it could also be a wrong-headed attempt to help out the Veep--after all, NBC is owned by GE, one of the top weapons manufacturers in the world, a pillar of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about decades ago. Or, worse, perhaps the White House made a couple of phone calls. There might be a political angle to this after all, some sort of cover-up. Or not. I'll keep my ears on this story and see what happens.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE DAILY SHOW GOES NUTS ON
VEEP CHENEY'S HUNTING ACCIDENT

Here's a sample from Crooks and Liars courtesy of Eschaton:

Corddry : "Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time-there-were-quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man. Even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists-he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face.

Click here to see a really, really, really funny ten minute clip from the show.

The Daily Show is usually pretty funny, but this story, for them, was like shooting fish in a barrel. Or birds in the bush, something like that. Anyway, go check it out. I was laughing hysterically by the time the footage from the old Nintendo game Duck Hunt came up. Then I almost wet my pants. FUNNY!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WHITE HOUSE KATRINA FAILURES CONTINUE

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Audits: Millions of dollars in Katrina aid wasted

In its rush to provide Katrina disaster aid, the Federal Emergency Management Agency wasted millions of dollars and overpaid for hotel rooms, including $438-a-day lodging in New York City, government investigators said today.

Two reports released by the Government Accountability Office and the Homeland Security Department's office of inspector general detail a series of accounting flaws, fraud or mismanagement in their initial review of how $85 billion in federal aid is being spent.

And

Sen. Susan Collins, who chairs the committee, decried the findings, noting that a series of audits and hearings after hurricanes in Florida in 2004 highlighted similar accounting problems and had called on then-FEMA director Michael Brown to make immediate changes.

"The problem, once again, is that FEMA failed to prepare for the very type of disaster that happens every year," said Collins, R-Maine. "This 'pay first, ask questions later' approach has been an invitation to unscrupulous behavior."

More here.

And from the New York Times courtesy of Eschaton:

White House Knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush administration officials said they had been caught by surprise when they were told on Tuesday, Aug. 30, that a levee had broken, allowing floodwaters to engulf New Orleans.

But Congressional investigators have now learned that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department's headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight.

And

Representative Thomas M. Davis III, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the special House committee investigating the hurricane response, said the only government agency that performed well was the National Weather Service, which correctly predicted the force of the storm. But no one heeded the message, he said.

"The president is still at his ranch, the vice president is still fly-fishing in Wyoming, the president's chief of staff is in Maine," Mr. Davis said. "In retrospect, don't you think it would have been better to pull together? They should have had better leadership. It is disengagement."

One of the greatest mysteries for both the House and Senate committees has been why it took so long, even after Mr. Bahamonde filed his urgent report on the Monday the storm hit, for federal officials to appreciate that the levee had broken and that New Orleans was flooding.

And

The day before the hurricane made landfall, the Homeland Security Department issued a report predicting that it could lead to a levee breach that could submerge New Orleans for months and leave 100,000 people stranded. Yet despite these warnings, state, federal and local officials acknowledged to investigators that there was no coordinated effort before the storm arrived to evacuate nursing homes and hospitals or others in the urban population without cars.

More here.

Apart from Federal Katrina failures, what these two stories have in common is that the White House fully knew about potential problems well before they happened. In the case of FEMA relief money mismanagement, they had over a year to correct their earlier mistakes, but did nothing. In the case of the levee breaches, they knew it could happen, but were unprepared, and even though they were well informed about it when it actually came to pass, they did nothing. At least, nothing at first. It took about three days of freak-out televison reporting, even from Fox, to shake Bush's people out of their bizarre trance. Even then, their reaction was more about covering up their failure than it was about helping New Orleans.

This kind of incompetence doesn't just happen. It's pretty clear that Bush's White House really doesn't take governing seriously. After a quarter century of Republican sloganeering about such concepts as "government is the problem" and "tax relief" for the wealthy, the GOP seems to be more concerned with dismantling the federal government and handing over the pieces to wealthy donors than it is with the general welfare of the nation. Most people think that, at least, Bush's heart is in the right place, if not his head, but they're quite wrong: the problems of the nation simply don't matter to him.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES
Means "Who Polices the Police?"

From the Houston Chronicle:

Air marshals in Houston face drug charges

Two U.S. air marshals face federal drug charges after being arrested last week, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office said today.

The names of the air marshals or details about what they were arrested for were not released by authorities.

However, Time Magazine's Web site said the air marshals were allegedly involved with the possession or transportation of cocaine and may have received thousands of dollars for their work.

The magazine said one of those arrested is a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent.

Click here for the rest.

Hmmm. I have to say that this does not make me feel safer from terrorists. It strikes me that if these guys, hired by the Bush administration to protect air travellers, can be bribed by drug money, then they can also be bribed by terrorists. Certainly, not every air marshall is a rotten egg, but this potential opening for terrorism fits into an overall pattern of Bush failures on homeland security: the lack of protection for chemical and nuclear power plants, the guy who got through customs from Canada carrying the bloody chainsaw that he used to commit murder there, the infamous botched response to Hurricane Katrina, and a whole lot more, all serve notice that our tough-guy, "bring 'em on," Muslim-fighting President is simply not concerned with keeping Americans safe.

This analysis doesn't even begin to address the problems with police culture that might have enhanced the arrogance of these air marshalls enough to get them to work for the other side. But I've railed away on that topic many times in the past.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WILLIAM SAFIRE'S "ON LANGUAGE"
Getting it Right: 'Hell' is undergoing reheckification

For shame: two posts in two days inspired by conservative essays. How's that for bipartisanship? At any rate, this is from William Safire's whimsical column about the English language; usually, the former Nixon administration speechwriter stays away from ideology when writing these essays.

From the New York Times via the Houston Chronicle:

Language mavens, however, will focus on the president's repeated use of the euphemism heck. Revisiting the scene of Hurricane Katrina's devastation in January, he sought to help regenerate the New Orleans tourism industry by recommending the city as "a heck of a place to bring your family." The Washington Post editorially sniffed at the way he was "deploying the same infamous turn of phrase." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane warned viewers of the State of the Union address, "If Bush uses 'darn' or 'heck' as an adjective to describe a person, place or thing, have a drink. If he uses heck or darn more than once ... that means he's in his folksy mode."

We have a language anomaly here: The euphemism is taken to be offensive, while the harsh word being avoided — in Bush's case, and with apologies to the sensitive or reverent reader, hell — is presumably more acceptable.

Click here for the rest.

I did imply a couple of days ago that I love dirty words. Same thing with euphemisms.

I totally agree with Safire's implication; Bush can say "heck" and "darn" whenever the hell he wants to, damn it. What does it matter, even if the evil one is pandering to his fundamentalist base by doing so? The real words, "hell" and "damn," have become so commonplace that they've lost a great deal of their original punch, so much so that euphemizing them is no longer really all that necessary. Consequently, these old-school substitutes take on new meaning. That is, they have become colloquial, and therefore more "of the people." At the same time, they come in quite handy as far as severity of meaning is concerned. And that's exactly how I use them here at Real Art. Sometimes "damn" or "hell" is exactly what I mean, and so I say it. Other times, I'm feeling more down-to-earth, or don't want to hit it so hard. "Heck" and "darn" are just as good as their evil cousins, and it's pretty unfair to bash Bush for using them.

Really, snide remarks about his use of folksy language only serve to lessen the impact of real criticisms of our boy-king. That is so like the mainstream press: ignore the real issues and attack the inconsequential.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NSA WIRETAPPING AND BLACKMAIL
Who Will Save America?

I've been reading the essays of old school conservative Paul Craig Roberts on and off for a few years now--it's nutty, but most of his stuff I get from a website run by old school communist Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch. Roberts is a vociferous critic of the Bush administration and is very easily mistaken for a liberal because of that. But make no mistake about it; Roberts' analysis comes from a very different point of view. The guy was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, and later an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, a total supply-sider.

Given my conservative past, it's not so strange, I guess, that I find myself agreeing with him often, although certainly not always, and not just because he appears to hate Bush. Roberts stands as a stark reminder that there are still very strong intellectual, conservative challenges to progressive ideas, despite the fact that nobody else seems to be articulating them anymore. Roberts reminds me that I'm less of a liberal and more of a pragmatist. That is, I have a certain set of social goals, food, clothing, shelter, and health care for all, for instance, that I want to see achieved, but I don't really care how we get there: if conservative programs can do it, then sign me up. It just so happens that most conservatives don't really seem to care about my social goals, so it's progressivism for me, for now.

Here's a sample about what I'm talking about from an essay where Roberts appears to be attempting to clarify where he stands ideologically.

From CounterPunch, courtesy of Crooks and Liars, courtesy of Once Upon a Time:

My goals were to reverse the Keynesian policy mix that caused worsening "Phillips curve" trade-offs between employment and inflation and to cure the stagflation that destroyed Jimmy Carter's presidency. No one has seen a "Phillips curve" trade-off or experienced stagflation since the supply-side policy was implemented. (These gains are now being eroded by the labor arbitrage that is replacing American workers with foreign ones. In January 2004 I teamed up with Democratic Senator Charles Schumer in the New York Times and at a Brookings Institution conference in a joint effort to call attention to the erosion of the US economy and Americans' job prospects by outsourcing.)

The supply-side policy used reductions in the marginal rate of taxation on additional income to create incentives to expand production so that consumer demand would result in increased real output instead of higher prices. No doubt, the rich benefitted, but ordinary people were no longer faced simultaneously with rising inflation and lost jobs. Employment expanded for the remainder of the century without having to pay for it with high and rising rates of inflation. Don't ever forget that Reagan was elected and re-elected by blue collar Democrats.

That's the most compelling explanation of supply side economics, or "Reaganomics," that I've ever encountered. Stagflation, or economic recession combined with inflation, was a horrible problem back in the 70s that threatened to utterly destroy the entire economy. Nobody but nobody appeared to have an answer for how to deal with it; the problem was completely unprecedented. Expanding production capacity by giving tax breaks to business was brilliant in this situation; coupled with a hike in interest rates to ease inflation, Reaganomics apparently took care of the rest.

Don't get me wrong on this. Generally, I'm opposed to such a thing. But sometimes you've gotta do things you wouldn't ordinarily do in order to avoid catastrophe. Stagflation, which appeared to be an unsolvable problem, was just such an occasion: what was appropriate then is definitely not appropriate now--stagflation, as Roberts observes, has not been an issue since the late 70s.

Of course Roberts makes observations that are just nutty, too, and mixes them with fairly true statements just to confuse:

My book, with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, details the erosion of the legal rights that make law a shield of the innocent instead of a weapon in the hands of government. Without the protection of law, rich and poor alike are at the mercy of government. In their hatred of "the rich," the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.

Is he talking about China or the Soviet Union? Frankly, he's off his rocker when he asserts that "in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government." That didn't happen in the US. The rich were certainly under fire at points, but persecuted? No way. Nonetheless, his ideas about law as a shield as opposed to a governmental weapon are right on.

I can only attribute his feelings for the poor and suffering rich as ideological bias; he is a conservative, after all.

But, generally, his analysis seems untroubled by his ideology. Check this out:

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.

The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself. The "liberal press" has been co-opted. As everyone must know by now, the New York Times has totally failed its First Amendment obligations, allowing Judith Miller to make war propaganda for the Bush administration, suppressing for an entire year the news that the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens, and denying coverage to Al Gore's speech that challenged the criminal deeds of the Bush administration.

The TV networks mimic Fox News' faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

Click here for the rest.

He may be wrong; this is clearly speculation. But he's absolutely correct about the kind of power that comes from the ability to listen in on citizens' private communications, and blackmail is nothing new in American politics--longtime FBI head J. Edgar Hoover managed to maintain his position through numerous administrations with blackmail, and LBJ kept Hoover in check by blackmailing the blackmailer himself!

Like I said, I don't agree with everything Roberts says, but I love him because he's willing to constrain his rhetoric and analysis with something that both liberals and conservatives are increasingly less willing to use, intellectual honesty.

Could you imagine what our country would be like if everybody was willing to be honest with themselves?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THEY LIKE US; THEY REALLY LIKE US

Glowing reviews for the show I'm doing just keep pouring in...

From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

A '10' FOR 'TENNESSEE'
Pearls before Swine Palace audience in Baton Rouge

Lightning streaks across the sky as thunder and fearful storm sounds are heard.

Gradually, the lighting comes up on the detritus of what Tennessee Williams called "the most splendid city in the world."

The stage is dominated by the elevated, outsized, tattered head of the Rex jester, as emblematic of loss as the Statue of Liberty in the original "Planet of the Apes." The piles of rubble include louvered shutters, the stripped chassis of a car, a dressmaker's dummy, piles of chairs, an ornamental fountain cracked in half and the inevitable refrigerator.

In "Tennessee Williams in QUARTER Time," the playwright and his characters appear in excerpts from his plays, poetry, letters and essays that summon the actual and emotional storms that wind through his work.

Tempests appear in his plays as early as 1937's "Spring Storm" and as late as 1982 in "A House Not Meant to Stand." John Dennis, director of the master of fine arts acting program at Louisiana State University, wanted to do a Katrina-influenced Williams collage that would highlight Williams' "deep-rooted connection to the Gulf Coast and his beloved New Orleans," seeing his vulnerable heroes and heroines as "evacuees from their surroundings."

The result is a masterful mosaic of Williams' words and themes, providing a topical overlay and evocative subtext.

Click here for the rest.

And from the independent student-run newspaper the Tiger Weekly:

Remembering Tennessee

But the utmost credit must be paid to Director John Dennis. He truly captured this production with every aspect. The thematic elements seen throughout added to the personification of Williams and his work. The gritty, raw and dirty set design, combined with the tattered, muddy costumes the actors dawned, was as reminiscent of New Orleans as are the extravagant characters Williams brought to life through his poetic imagery.

Dennis and the entire cast and crew of this production did their homework. They found the voice, tone and candor of such a prominent playwright. And that is no small task to take on.

Whether you know everything or nothing at all about Tennessee Williams, I have no doubt that you will enjoy this production.

Click here for the rest.

I think this production is really striking an emotional chord with local audiences. It feels like most of the rest of the country has put the destruction of New Orleans on the back burner. But here in Baton Rouge, we're thinking about it every day--obviously, it's not in our face the way it is in the Big Easy itself, but it's still the biggest story in the news here, still the most widespread topic of conversation. It's painful, this collective angst, this feeling of loss that just won't go away, this sense of abandonment. It really blows me away when I meditate on how our little collection of Williams scenes inspired by his time in New Orleans offers our audiences a real experience of catharsis in the ancient Greek sense.

We finish the show with a quick two-part dance routine. It opens with the entire cast entering from waaay upstage, moving in spasmodic jerks like zombies, to a groovy bass line. As we approach the audience, we encounter Mardi Gras beads on the floor and slowly put them on. Then the music breaks into a traditional New Orleans jazz tune, and we begin to joyfully move in Big Easy style, concluding our trip downstage with a mass free form dance near our viewers. This has been getting a spontaneous round of applause lately: a shared celebration of the once and future New Orleans, the eventual triumph of reconstruction. It's almost as though you can feel the audience thinking "Right on!"

For me, this is what the theater is all about, indeed, what art is all about. I've written at great length about how I believe that all art should possess an ideological component, and this show certainly does do that, albeit subtly. But Quarter Time, I think, ultimately transcends all that, cutting directly through to the human soul, serving to heal the tattered psyches of Louisiana that have been beaten down by both Mother Nature and incompetent human leadership.

You know, the more I think about it, the more proud I am to be along for the ride.


Andrea Frankle (Blanche) and Joseph H. Chrest (Mitch) performing “A Street Car Named Desire”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Frankie



Paz



Phil



Sammy



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Bitch

This is hysterical.

From Wikipedia:

A bitch is a female dog or other member of the canidae family. In colloquial use, the word bitch is often employed in a metaphorical sense to either insult a woman, or to describe one who is malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, and/or unpleasant (it may also refer to an effeminate male). The former specialised meaning is retained and in widespread use among dog aficionados and breeders, but derogatory usage has become so prevalent in the last century that the term has acquired a profane connotation and is often considered unacceptable by broadcasting regulations and Standards & Practices manuals.

By extension, the adjective "bitchy" — unpleasant, fretful or querulous — and the verb "to bitch" — to complain, especially habitually and without any helpful intentions — are also used, although they are widely considered less offensive than the noun. The verb "to bitch" also has a slang definition: to humiliate or subjugate another, as in "Ali totally bitched Foreman during the Rumble in the Jungle". Neither the adjective or the verb are normally used in formal language.

Click here for the rest.

And it just gets better from there. You know, because they are not part of the formal English lexicon, dirty words are the most flexible in our language. I'm sure you've read at least a couple of missives on the multiple uses of the F-word; indeed, George Carlin was hitting on the topic back during the mid 70s. It's nice to note that such humor still works.

Actually, this is a fairly informative essay, too.

Pretty bitchin' if you ask me.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TAX CUT INSANITY

I generally don't do this, but one of the two essays to which I linked yesterday really made me want to comment, but I just didn't have time last night, thus, the quickie twofer. So now I'm going to comment. Don't worry I won't run on.

Anyway, it's about time a mainstream "liberal" pundit like E. J. Dionne hit on the Republican obsession with tax cuts. Even I have to admit that tax cuts do, indeed, stimulate the economy. I mean, that's just common sense: tax cuts work in pretty much the same way as the old-school Keynesian assertion during the Great Depression that the federal government should pump tax dollars right back into the economy in order to stimulate growth. That is, freeing up money means more people are spending money, which means either greater demand or greater supply depending on what you're targeting.

So tax cuts work. The question very few people seem to be asking is how well they work. Or for how long the stimulus lasts. Or what kinds of cuts are going to be the most effective. Or what sector of the economy will yield the most overall economic benefit. A few people do ask such questions, but not very loudly these days. Listening to GOP rhetoric on the issue leaves the impression that all tax cuts are good, which is simply not true. For instance, a new massive tax cut for corporations that have mined the tax laws for as many loopholes as possible, and in effect pay virtually no income taxes at all, won't do a damned thing for the economy--indeed, this hurts the economy by forcing the federal government deeper into debt, which has severe economic ramifications.

But the Republicans just don't care. They are now, and have been for a long time, the party of tax cuts, or "tax relief," as Bush has taken to calling them. Further compounding the problem is that, it seems to me, Republicans consciously use tax cuts to reward wealthy donors while using rhetoric that makes it sound as though they're somehow helping average ordinary citizens. That's truly fucked, because as business taxes and taxes on the wealthy decrease, personal taxes increase. In other words, tax cuts, in political practice, have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's all about making the rich richer and everybody else poorer. That is, in the hands of the GOP, tax cuts are an act of class warfare. No surprise there: conservatives have been waging class warfare since the beginning of this nation. And usually they win.

Like I said, tax cuts can be a genuine part of an overall strategy to stimulate the economy depending on how they are configured. But tax cuts at all costs is insanity.

What on earth are the Republicans going to do when there are no taxes left to cut?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TWO FROM WORKING FOR CHANGE

One of those busy nights again. So check out these two essays from Working For Change.

tax cuts at all costs

Never again would the Republican Party compromise and "relive the agony of a budget agreement" that involved tax increases. That is definitely "behind us."

Ever since Bush 41's defeat in 1992, Republicans -- especially Bush 43 -- committed themselves to the proposition that they will never, ever cross the tax-cutting Republican right. Taxes will be cut in good times and in bad. They will not be raised, no matter how much the government decides to spend. If preserving Republican unity requires throwing the entire cost of the war in Iraq onto the next generation, go for it. Does the Pentagon need big spending increases? Fine, but don't even think about paying for them with new taxes.

Tax cutting is now the idol of the Republican shrine.

Click here for the rest.

Class is a harder line to cross than color

Undoubtedly, though, King would also be struck by the failure of his followers to carry on the campaign he started shortly before he died. Class is a harder line to cross these days than color.

Perhaps a nation with a short attention span just lost patience. Or perhaps that crusade never gained currency because the problems were more complex than we imagined, lacking the good vs. evil story line of the civil rights movement. Whatever risks lay before the civil rights soldiers, whatever obstacles they faced, their cause was simple enough.

Not so with the complexities of educational failure, drug dependency or falling marriage rates, all of which contribute to sink people into poverty and keep them there. A March on Washington wouldn't stop music producers from pumping out lyrics that glamorize thug culture, nor would pickets stop teenage girls from having children they can't take care of.

Click here for the rest.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

LSU BACKS DOWN ON THREAT
TO BOOT ANTI-RACISM ACTIVIST

Updating this post from last Thursday.

Well, after threatening last week to expel the student activist who has been the most vocal opponent of LSU's policy of tolerance for the mixing of school spirit and racism, there have been a few developments.

First this from LSU's student newspaper the Reveille:

Black faculty defends Phillips

In the letter, which was co-signed by 13 faculty members, the members asked Albert to reconsider the charges because “[Phillips’] actions do not necessarily elevate to the sorts of behaviors prohibited by the LSU Code of Student Conduct.”

The letter describes Phillips as a leader and says the University should be celebrating or at least quietly tolerating his actions.

“In our opinion, students will conclude that Mr. Phillips is being punished because his views oppose those of the administration,” the letter said.

Click here for the rest.

Then this, again from the Reveille:

Students petition for Albert's resignation

Rousell said he started the petition because he was upset about the way Albert handled recent diversity issues and her interactions with students.

The petition ended by asking Albert to resign from her position with the University.

The petition described Albert’s actions toward Collins Phillips III, who was charged with Student Code of Conduct violations regarding his leadership of protests against the purple and gold Confederate flag.

The petition said her actions were “an unfair, unfounded and extreme misuse of power.”

Click here for the rest.

God only knows what else has been going on behind the scenes, but I can't help but think that those two stories above have something to do with this story below.

Again from the Reveille:

University drops charges against Phillips

Phillips said University officials dropped the charges because “it would be best for both sides.”

He said he was told the charges were officially dropped because “no progress was being made on the current situation with the amount of attention it was receiving.”

Phillips said he was presented with paperwork that explained when and where each violation occurred that dated back to last semester’s Confederate flag protests.

“It disturbed me that every centimeter of a move that the SEC made was being documented,” Phillips said.

Phillips said the documented violations were not completely accurate.

When asked if he thought the Code of Student Conduct was compliant with First Amendment rights, Phillips said he thought he could get in trouble for answering the question truthfully.

Several times throughout Phillips’ interview, Phillips told The Daily Reveille that he was frustrated because he could not say what he wanted without fear of consequence.

Click here for the rest.

If you don't already know, Katrice Albert is the university's vice provost of equity and diversity, and she's the one who issued the libel charges against student anti-racism activist Collins Phillips. I'm not surprised that the charges were dropped because all Phillips said was something to the effect that Albert isn't doing her job, an assertion with which I agree: essentially there was no case; Phillips has not only a right but also a responsibility as a student to criticize university officials. However, it's pretty clear now that the motivation behind these bogus charges was not to remove a pest; rather, this was all about scaring him into silence, and it sounds like the effort may have been successful.

This whole sordid tale has been outrageous. LSU should be going nuts trying to find a way to get the purple and gold Confederate battle flag off campus without violating the first amendment. Instead, they tolerate these racist banners and pound the critics of their wrong-headed policy. Ultimately, Albert isn't so much to blame herself; she's apparently trying to do what she believes is her job, which makes her a pawn of much bigger institutional fish. That is, it seems pretty clear that LSU's upper administration fears alienating the money that keeps the school going. Consequently, they've chosen to tolerate these southern swastikas so as to not offend the wealthy donors who embrace the flag. I know they're in a pinch, but that doesn't matter: a university is a beacon for intellectuality and cultural diversity; the Confederate battle flag stands in stark contradiction to such a principle. Either LSU does it's damndest to find a way to greatly decrease the flag's visibility on campus or this university is a sham of a school.

And if that means that I get less money and fewer tuition breaks from the university then so be it. If my funding is coming from old school Louisiana racists, I don't want it. It's dirty money.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

SUPER BOWL NOTES

I said yesterday that I would talk about the Stones' halftime performance today, which I will, but a couple of other issues came up regarding the NFL championship game, so I've decided to put together something of a grab bag post.

Here goes.

For starters, I got a couple of interesting comments on yesterday's post. First my old pal Matt:

Man, the refs gave Pittsburgh that win. Highway robbery!

You know, it was probably because I was rooting for the Steelers that the officials' calls didn't seem so out of line to me. However, that was just my overall impression--I tried to remember some of the calls, and it wasn't an easy thing to do. I remember a pass interference call against Seattle in the first half that I discussed with the people with whom I was watching the game; our consenus was that it was pretty strict officiating, but within the letter of the rules. On the other hand, the Seahawk defender barely touched the Steeler receiver, so I understand that my subjective understanding of the call is arguable. My guess is that there were probably a few more penalties falling into this subjective category for me, but I just don't recall them.

Does anybody else out there in Real Art land agree with Matt? I'd like to hear about some more dubious penalties, ball spots, etc.

My buddy from Baytown, Adam, made this observation:

How 'bout that dude on the Seahawks who's from Baytown, I had no idea until he said his name and then "Baytown, Texas", my dad said he went to Lee.

OF COURSE he went to Lee. After all, Lee is Baytown's traditional football powerhouse; my and Adam's school, Sterling, is lucky to break even on the season. I like to think that if we'd won a few more games, teaching there wouldn't have been so bad. Anyway, how's that Lee quarterback who plays for Iowa doing? He's got a couple of years of college eligibility left. Anybody think he'll make it into the draft?

Onto the Stones. It's nice to know that the old guys can still rock. And it was a rocking performance. Really rousing performances of a couple of Rolling Stones standards: their rendition of "Satisfaction" was better than the 60s single I thought, much heavier, lots more guitar distortion. I was unfamiliar with the second song "Rough Justice" because its on their new album, which I haven't heard yet, but virtually every review of it I've read says it's a new classic. I really ought to get it.


Mick's still got it.

I spent nearly twenty four hours being disappointed by a moment of what I thought was self-censorship during the opening song "Start Me Up," which is now a bigtime sports anthem. Jagger's got a line toward the end of the song that goes "you make a dead man come," which used to make me giggle back when the song was on the charts in the early 80s. What everybody heard last night, however was simply "you make a dead man..." I figured, oh well, they made their decision on the subject back in the 60s when they sang "let's spend some time together" on the Ed Sullivan show instead of the more familiar "let's spend the night together." Bad boys they may be, but when a lot of money is on the line, they're obviously team players, and, no doubt, the TV people are still freaked out by Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" a couple of years ago. But, man, if Paul McCartney was able to make a drug reference during halftime last year, in the line from "Get Back" that goes "Jo Jo left his home in Tuscon Arizona for some California grass," why couldn't Mick say "come?"

Turns out, however, that I was completely wrong. Jagger did sing the naughty line. ABC bleeped it. From the Houston Chronicle:

Stones, the edited version

They might not have flashed any body parts — except for Mick Jagger's well-toned stomach — but the Rolling Stones made ABC glad it imposed a five-second tape delay on the Super Bowl halftime show.

Two sexually explicit lyrics were excised from the rock legends' performance Sunday. The only song to avoid the editor was (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, a 41-year-old song about sexual frustration.

In Start Me Up, ABC's editors silenced one word, a reference to a woman's sexual sway over a dead man. The lyrics for Rough Justice included a synonym for rooster that the network also deemed worth cutting out.

Click here for more, although I've excerpted entirely the only bit about the Stones; the rest is mostly about the game.

Not knowing "Rough Justice," I didn't realize it had been censored. So, I'm not really angry with ABC--they did the wrong thing, but I understand why. On the other hand, I'm damned proud of the Stones' sense of artistic integrity. Standing firm on what one believes is, perhaps, the most important virtue an individual can have in these days of illusion and lies. I just love it when aging icons give me reason to think that disillusionment might not be such a good idea.



Strangely, nobody seems to care about the overt sexuality of the Stones well known tongue icon. I feel pretty certain that the image is not supposed to be some sort of juvenile insult: no, the big tongue is about oral sex, or at least, that's what I've always thought. After all, the logo was designed by pop artist Andy Warhol at around the same time, I think, that he designed the cover to the Stones album Sticky Fingers, which is essentially a picture of Jagger's crotch, complete with a working zipper. I guess people only see what they want to see.

It's also nice to note that Keith Richards is still alive. Well, okay, he's actually been dead since the 70s, but the voodoo that keeps his body animated seems to still be in full force.



Where can I get some of that?

Finally, I'm giving the final word the whole event to Noam Chomsky, courtesy of Mike over at This is not a compliment, courtesy of Little Miss Messycovers, courtesy of...well...somebody else. From the documentary film Manufacturing Consent:

And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laugbter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on.

Click here for the rest.

God, Chomsky's so brilliant. Two important points. First, Americans actually are pretty darned intelligent; it's just that all their brains are successfully diverted into rather meaningless pursuits. If all the intellectual ability in this country was actually used in service of the nation, I think we'd be living in a much better place. Second, football is fascist. This is no joke. The entire culture of football is organized like the military, and the metaphor of the game itself is war. Glorifying football is glorifying war and top-down authortirianism; there's no doubt about it. I guess that's why so many players and coaches are conservative. But god, I love football. If we had a healthier society, one that had a better understanding of democracy, we'd probably not be so influenced by the fascism of football, so I don't think it's the game itself. Nonetheless, I have to call a spade a spade: for our current society, football, as a social force, makes things worse, not better.

Of course, I never think about any of that while watching a game.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM THE REAL ART SPORTS DESK
Steelers top Seahawks to win Super Bowl XL

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

The Pittsburgh Steelers finally gave coach Bill Cowher some Super Bowl satisfaction.

Moments after the Rolling Stones rocked a Ford Field filled with Terrible Towels, Willie Parker broke a record 75-yard touchdown run, sparking Pittsburgh's 21-10 victory today over the Seattle Seahawks.

Not only did the Steelers earn that elusive fifth championship ring and their first since 1980, but they completed a magic Bus ride that made Jerome Bettis' homecoming - and farewell - a success.

"I'm a champion. I think the Bus' last stop is here in Detroit,'' Bettis said. "It's official, like the referee whistle.''

Click here for the rest.

Being a longtime AFC man, I was supporting the Steelers, so I have to say that I was pleased by the outcome. I also like the Steelers because they were a worthy foe to my beloved Houston Oilers back in the late 70s--we never could get past those guys, never could "kick the son of a bitch in" as Oiler coach Bum Phillips once said about getting through the door to the Super Bowl. But then, I didn't really care who won. I'm just not as excited about the pros as I am about college ball. However, what I did get to see was a pretty good game. After the super-blowouts of the 90s, I'm pretty much always happy to see a competitive Super Bowl. And I really love a low-scoring defensive match.

There were other cool aspects. Bill Cowher, currently the longest serving coach with a single team, is a classy guy, and a lot of fun to watch on the sidelines. I've been watching him coach for years, but for some reason I still think of him as one of those young guys--that's not really the case anymore, but I tend to see him as being more from my generation than from those snotty baby boomers. And watching Jerome Bettis play his last game was great, too. He's always amazed me. As big as a lineman, he runs like a guy half his size, and tends to mow down guys half his size, too.

The Stones were good, too, much better than Paul McCartney was last year, but I'll try to write about that tomorrow.


Jerome Bettis, a.k.a. "the Bus," plows right on through a bus stop.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Studies by Texas Cancer Registry find
18 ZIP codes with results above average

From the Houston Chronicle:

Yet each woman fits into a complex puzzle of cancer data that the Texas Department of State Health Services' Texas Cancer Registry has been studying for the past 10 years. Each year the database has grown until now epidemiological studies can include 10 years of cancer deaths and eight years of cancer cases.

From September 2001 to the present, the registry has conducted 51 studies in the Houston area, and 18 of those, or 35 percent, identified ZIP codes with cancer rates higher than should be expected when compared with statewide rates.

Of all the types of cancer, lung cancer was by far the most frequently found to be elevated. The registry detected higher rates of lung cancer in 24 ZIP codes — or 77 percent of all the ZIP codes with elevated levels.

Neil Carman, clean-air director for the environmental group Sierra Club, said he is surprised the test results had not been publicized before the Houston Chronicle analyzed cancer patterns turning up in these reports.

And for the first time, a pilot study is being initiated to try to link the registry's epidemiological data with possible environmental exposures.

"I've talked to citizens in Houston, and they have been wanting more research in light of all the air pollution in the Houston area," Carman said. "In the past, there seems to have been a history of ignoring these issues."

And, for me, here's some really disturbing news:

Lung cancer elevations also were detected in multiple ZIP codes in Pasadena (77502, 77503, 77506) and Houston (77049, 77015, 77017, 77044).

Click here for the rest.

I lived in the 77015 ZIP code area for the six years I was teaching in Baytown. The above excerpted article goes through all sorts of contortions to point out that nobody knows whether these lung cancer spikes are due to any environmental causes--smoking is mentioned repeatedly. But, after living there for so long, and because I'm not constrained by any journalistic ethics requiring me to be "balanced," I'll go out on a limb and just say that this has to be environmental. I smelled the gunk coming in from the plants almost every day I lived on that side of town; sometimes the noxious fumes were near-overpowering. I also know that the EPA, for many years, but especially in the Bush era, has relied on companies to self-report their toxic emission levels because the agency is so wildly underfunded that they simply don't have the manpower to check things out for themselves: because it costs a lot of money to reduce toxic emissions, there is a built-in incentive for companies to lie about the gunk they pump into the atmosphere. I already knew that I was breathing in deadly shit on Houston's east side. Now I know for sure that there are deadly consequences for many of my neighbors. And maybe for me, too. It's utterly screwy to hem and haw about whether these emissions are dangerous. While the powers that be "debate" the problem, tens of thousands of people are being poisioned. That really pisses me off.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FAREWELL AL LEWIS

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Al Lewis, aka Grandpa Munster, dies at 95

But Lewis' life off the small screen ranged far beyond his acting antics. A former ballplayer at Thomas Jefferson High School, he achieved notoriety as a basketball talent scout familiar to coaching greats like Jerry Tarkanian and Red Auerbach.

He operated a successful Greenwich Village restaurant, Grandpa's, where he was a regular presence — chatting with customers, posing for pictures, signing autographs.

Just two years short of his 90th birthday, a ponytailed Lewis ran as the Green Party candidate against incumbent Gov. George Pataki. Lewis campaigned against draconian drug laws and the death penalty, while going to court in a losing battle to have his name appear on the ballot as "Grandpa Al Lewis."

He didn't defeat Pataki, but managed to collect more 52,000 votes.

Click here for the rest.

Missing from this article is the fact that Lewis was great friends with one of my great heroes, Paul Robeson, after whom Lewis' son Paul was named. (Full disclosure: I knew Paul briefly years ago, when he dated a friend of mine from college who he eventually married.) Also missing is the fact that Lewis shared Robeson's radical politics. Grandpa Munster was as far-left as they come, and used his fame to support progressive causes, making him, in my book, one of the great examples of a Real Artist. On a more personal note, I loved his work as an actor. Lewis was one of those old-school comedic actors coming out of Vaudeville, which produced some of America's all-time greatest entertainers--there are very few performers today who have the kind of chops these people had. Losing Lewis hits both the progressive community and the entertainment community hard.

Farewell Al Lewis.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FAREWELL BETTY FRIEDAN

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Betty Friedan, philosopher of modern-day feminism, dies

Betty Friedan, whose manifesto The Feminine Mystique helped shatter the cozy suburban ideal of the post-World War II era and laid the groundwork for the modern feminist movement, died today, her birthday. She was 85.

Friedan died at her Washington, D.C., home of congestive heart failure, according to a cousin, Emily Bazelon.

Few books have so profoundly changed so many lives as did Friedan's 1963 best seller. Her assertion that a woman needed more than a husband and children was a radical break from the Eisenhower era, when the very idea of a wife doing any work outside of house work was fodder for gag writers, like an episode out of I Love Lucy.

Independence for women was no joke, Friedan wrote. The feminine mystique was a phony deal sold to women that left them unfulfilled, suffering from "the problem that has no name" and seeking a solution in tranquilizers and psychoanalysis.

Click here for the rest.

Betty Friedan would have been a hero to me simply for her work as a pioneering feminist--after all, she, like actor and civil rights activist Paul Robeson, spoke out against establishment values pretty much by herself; feminists following Friedan did so within the overall context of the women's movement: Friedan was, at first, a feminist by herself, totally on her own. However, my love for her as a philosopher greatly grew when I realized that the concept of "the problem that has no name" could quickly and easily be generalized to include the majority of the American population. That is, the materialistic lifestyle and philosophy known as consumerism, and the ongoing reduction of the labor force to meaningless service work have created a similar situation for all Americans: as human beings, every individual has a great deal to offer society, but the social order in which we currently live simply does not allow that. We are to do as we are told while working at pointless, soul-sucking jobs, and personal fulfillment is to be found by amusing ourselves with television or buying shiny objects at the mall. I think many Americans are doing exactly what they think they're supposed to be doing with their lives but are miserable anyway, and have no idea why. The whole freakin' country is burdened by "the problem that has no name."

Farewell Betty Friedan. You did more with your life, I think, than most people realize.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BATON ROUGE THEATER
REVIEWER GETS HIS STRIDE

You may or may not recall my trashing the local daily's theater critic here in Baton Rouge last semester. He actually gave us some pretty positive write-ups, butI've had some big problems with his writing, which struck me as incoherent at best, and horrible at worst. Well, it looks like he finally understands how to write a theater review.

From the Baton Rouge Advocate:

Play powerfully presents some of Williams’ best works

When Tennessee Williams died in 1983, the New York Times obituary noted that the playwright would be remembered for his “deep sympathy and expansive humor about outcasts in our society.”

Thanks to Hurricane Katrina, thousands of New Orleanians were cast out of the city that Williams not only loved, but where he set some of his most famous works.

Which is precisely what makes Swine Palace’s latest production, “Tennessee Williams in Quarter Time,” so deeply personal and hauntingly evocative to anyone affected by the disaster. The scenes from his various plays, some taking place in New Orleans, stand as bold testament to the place’s rich history and its profound impact on American literature and culture.

Director John Dennis is to be commended for conceiving of and bringing to the Reilly’s stage, in such a short amount of time, a production that serves as a powerful reminder of just what’s at stake should New Orleans be forgotten.

That Dennis packaged the work so expertly is one of the chief strengths of “Quarter Time.” The play is like a perfectly wrapped gift, opened gingerly out of respect for its marvelous presentation.

Click here for the rest.

You have to understand that my problems with this guy have little to do with whether or not he liked the play; rather, I've railed away on his work because he seems to have known little about the theater as an artistic medium, and because he seemed unwilling to do any homework before seeing a show. This is not the case here. The reviewer deftly fills in the background on the show, and offers some well supported analysis as to why he thinks it works--a little bird told me that he recently attended a theater critics' seminar in California, and it shows. There are no cheap shots here, no brainless self-indulgent musing, just a simple and straightforward essay on the show's value and how successful it was, in his opinion.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that he liked it.

Anyway, check it out. I think this guy's figured out what he's doing.


Cristine McMurdo-Wallis, foreground, portrays Amanda in Tennessee Williams’ ‘The Glass Menagerie.’ Fellow cast members Anna Richardson and Mark Jaynes appear in the background. (photo courtesy of the Advocate)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Phil, Frankie, Sammy



Paz



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

LSU ADMINISTRATION ON WRONG
SIDE OF RACISM CONTROVERSY

First, some background. I mentioned here last October how numerous LSU football fans show up to games waving purple and gold Confederate battle flags like these:



These flags are quite simply offensive: they celebrate a racist and brutal regime philosophically based on the support of slavery as a social institution; I find them to be no different from the swastika--there are plenty of other ways southerners can show their pride without supporting the morally corrupt "nation" known as the Confederate States of America. LSU's administration has issued some lukewarm statements opposing the flag, but, citing free speech rights, claims it can do nothing more. Of course, they're completely wrong. I can think of several strategies short of banning the flag that could prove effective. For instance, the university could throw its massive weight and deep pockets behind a massive PR campaign aimed at making the flag socially unacceptable. Or they could buy and issue to any willing participants different flags that say something to the effect that real Tiger fans don't support the Confederacy. But they don't seem to be interested in that. In fact, it appears that LSU administrators simply want the controversy to go away.

And it seems that they've decided that the easiest way to do it is to silence those who are most vocally opposed to the racist image. So much for free speech.

From LSU's student newspaper, the Daily Reveille:

Collins Phillips hit with five sanctions

Collins Phillips, leader of the Student Equality Commission and last semester's flag protests, said that despite alleged violations of the University Code of Student Conduct, he will not be silenced.

Phillips has been charged by the Office of the Dean of Students for five separate counts of violating the University Code of Student Conduct. University officials would not comment on what disciplinary action would be taken but said consequences may range from expulsion to a warning.

And

Collins was first notified of his violation the evening of the protest in an e-mail from Katrice Albert, vice provost of equity and diversity. In the e-mail she requested an immediate meeting with Phillips, citing some comments Phillips made concerning her diversity agenda and staff.

In her e-mail, Albert alleged that Phillips called the diversity agenda “a bunch of B.S.” and called members of the University Equity, Diversity and Community Outreach staff “lazy.”

At the Jan. 25 meeting in the Quad, Phillips questioned the priorities of University administration. He said that it was wrong for the University to allow money to be spent on building renovations and clickers for Student Government when the University should focus its attention on disabled students and students' needs after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

He also encouraged students to e-mail Chaunda Allen, director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, and Albert to express concerns with changes in the schedule for Black History Month and the need for a new coordinator at the African American Cultural Center.

Phillips said Albert's accusation was based on hearsay because neither Albert or Allen were present at the meeting.

Click here for the rest.

Phillips shouldn't have to dance around on this. It doesn't matter whether the comments are hearsay or not: he can say these things. University administrators are government officials, and are consequently subject to less libel protection than private individuals. Further, students ought to make such accusations if they believe them to be true; such individuals, those who feel compelled to speak out against perceived injustice, are simply being good students, participating as model citizens of the university community. In short, these "conduct code violations" are trumped up bullshit charges.

They're out to get him.

Again from the Reveille:

E-mails may reveal intentions

During the course of the fall semester’s protests against the purple and gold Confederate flag, Katrice Albert, vice provost for equity and diversity, wrote several e-mails seeking advice on stopping the student protests. Albert sought the help of student leaders to deter Collins Phillips and others from continuing their protests.

The first protest was held Oct. 22, 2005, the day of the Auburn football game, and was followed by a march Oct. 24 from the Union to Chancellor Sean O’Keefe’s office. Two more marches were held on Oct. 29 and Nov. 5, also gamedays.

The Daily Reveille obtained the e-mails after a public records request was made for all e-mails sent and received by Albert during the time of the protests.

And

On Nov. 11, 2005, Albert wrote an e-mail to Michelle Gieg, Student Government president, asking her to encourage Phillips to stop the protests. It was one of numerous e-mails from Albert asking for help in quieting the protests and in some cases to quiet protesters themselves.

“I just need help convincing [Phillips] that enough is enough,” Albert said in the e-mail. “And that working within the system with people who are paid to fight for his cause can be more effective. I am hopeful that he will listen to you.”

Click here for the rest.

They're out to get Phillips; it's obvious. They want to kick him out of school because he is the leader of an anti-racist movement on campus that is embarrassing to LSU administrators. I am absolutely outraged. Right-wing fuckheads like David Horowitz rail away against campus "liberalism" nationwide, but down here in Baton Rouge it's like 1954--what's Horowitz worried about? Liberals aren't in charge here. This is just awful. A university should be a beacon for intellectuality and cultural diversity, but not only does LSU tolerate the mixing of racism and school spirit, it wants to do away with anybody who has a problem with it. I'm disgusted.

I sincerely hope that if they kick this guy out, students here have the balls to walk out of class in mass, and stay out until LSU gets its shit together.


A real hero: Collins Phillips, leader of the Student Equality Commission at LSU (photo courtesy of the Reveille)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

VIDEO: Failure of Social Security
Privatization Gets Standing Ovation

From Think Progress courtesy of Eschaton:

When President Bush first launched his campaign to privatize Social Security last year, just 39 percent of Americans approved of how he was handling the issue. A year later, that number has dropped to 35 percent.

The sentiments of the majority of Americans was voiced last night when President Bush brought up his privatization plans. Bush’s statement that “Congress did not act last year on my proposal” was met with rousing, unexpected applause that clearly unnerved Bush.

Click here to watch the video.

I don't even try to watch the State of the Union Address anymore. Whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, the speech itself or the opposition's response, it all strikes me as a bunch of posturing bullshit, meaningless and uninteresting political theater. But this event would have made the whole thing worth it. Hilarious! They wildly applauded a major Bush defeat. If this had been in a movie, I wouldn't have bought it at all. Fact is stranger than fiction.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE DEMOCRATS AND ALITO

Okay, so I saw Alito's confirmation as yet another justification for writing off the Democrats. Here's another point of view that I find compelling.

From Hullabaloo courtesy of the Daily Kos, a missive on the meaning of the twenty five senators who did vote to filibuster Alito:

Obama had to choke out his support for a filibuster, but he did it. A calculation was made that he needed to play to the base instead of the punditocrisy who believe that being "bold" is voting with the Republicans. Don't underestimate how much pressure there is to do that, especially for a guy like Obama who is running for King of the Purple. The whole presidential club, including Biden joined the chorus.

The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. My Senator DiFi commented at the time that she had never seen anything like the depth of passion coming from her constituents. But she voted for the war anyway. So did Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry and Reid. The entire leadership of the party. Every one of them went the other way this time. I know that some of you are cynical about these people (and ,well, they are politicans, so don't get all Claud Rains about it) but that means something. Every one of those people were running in one way or another in 2002 and they went the other way. The tide is shifting. There is something to be gained by doing the right thing.

Click here for the rest.

Very good point. Uplifting, too. Upon reflection, however, it strikes me as nutty that after everything the GOP has gotten away with for the past decade, from the bullshit impeachment of Clinton to the invasion of Iraq, the Democrats aren't fighting harder against them. Yes, these twenty five votes are something of a milestone, but meaningless in terms of things actually happening. It's going to take much much more for the Democrats to convince me that they're interested in anything more than being reelected.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$