MINIATURE COWS!!

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

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

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

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

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

Arts and State Arts Funding

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know how to talk about this

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

2) I find this morally repellent.

3) I want to cry.

Jesse Ventura is Awesome

War and the War Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

Quote via Glenn Greenwald

Feinstein Rocks

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

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

Why I'm Screwed

Because of this business and employment news.

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

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

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

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

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

(Hat tip via Playgoer, via Richard Florida)

HAHAHA - oh awkward awful old sexist advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we had a pumpkin, we would eat it.

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Obama and the Arts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quote: 

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

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

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

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

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

jackass.

California is Boss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm ridiculously excited.

Class and the American System

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

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

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

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

CREEPING ME OUT

This, right here is seriously seriously creepy.

Pelosi and Torture

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

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

Michael -

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

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

Mind just got Blown

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

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

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

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

OMG WOW - Obama is officially my favoritest person ever.

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

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

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

The Purity Myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it's pretty...

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

NEA Finally gets a new chairman!!!

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

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

2) He's forthright and honest

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

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

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

UPDATE>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torture, Nancy Pelosi and how the Bush administration squashes dissent

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

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

A quote:

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

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

Phewf.

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

Civilian Death Scandal - The Daily Beast

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

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

Posted using ShareThis

Theater on Theater, cont.

From Arianne Mnouchkine's Mephisto

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

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

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

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

                     Spectators, after all, love spectacles.                                                90

                     Give them one thrilling scene after the next,

                      I want to see their jaws drop to the floor—

                      Then the show will be a huge success

                      And word of mouth will spread like wildfire.

                      You must have mass appeal to win the masses,

                       So serve up something nice for everyone.                        

                       If you lay out a generous buffet                                                 100

                            Nobody goes away unsatisfied.

PL PLAYWRIGHT     I cannot believe what I am hearing!

                       A true artist would never stoop so low!

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

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

                       Or worse, some have been reading newspapers!

                       Why do you poets hover in the cloud

                       When all you really want is a full house?

                        Poor fools, to entertain a crowd like this

                        You hardly need to call upon the muses.

                        If you give them more and more and more

                        Then I guarantee you’ll hit your mark.                                    130

                        People only come here for distraction                                              

                        It’s much harder to give them satisfaction.

                        What would you rather offer—pain or pleasure?

(Later down the page)

COMIC ACTOR    And so we need your special artistry—

                        Think about all this poetic stuff

                        As if it were a love affair.                                                            160

                        You meet by accident, there is a spark,

                        And in a while you both become entangled;

                        Happiness follows, then quarrels, rapture, pain,

                        And before you know it, it’s a novel.

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

                        Grab hold of life with both your hands!

                        Everyone lives it, but not everyone knows it,

                        And everywhere you grab, it’s interesting.

                        Colorful scenes that don’t make much sense,                                    170

                        Many mistakes, a little spark of truth—

                        That’s how you make the finest drinks

                        To nourish and refresh the world.

                        Then the most beautiful specimens of youth

                        Will gather for your play to be enlightened.

                        Sucking melancholy from your play

                        These tender souls will be delighted

                             To see the inner workings of their hearts.             180

                             They cannot wait to laugh and cry,

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

                             A mind that’s formed will never understand,

                             But one that is still open will be grateful.

Nate Silver Delivers

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

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

Miracle Laurie and the distortion of the TV screen

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

Daniel: what do you think of Mellie?

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

12:51 AM the breathy voice gets less annoying

12:52 AM Daniel: anyway

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

  while every guy I talk to wants to marry her

 me: WHAT - too fat??

  they're crazy

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

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

  maybe a size 6

  just because the other actresses are stick thin

12:54 AM wooow

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

 Daniel: mmmm

 me: maybe write a blog post about the show

 Daniel: go for it

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

  think about it

 Daniel: that would be something very link worthy

 me: she's not FAT

 Daniel: a long rant about that

 me: she's curvy

 Daniel: yes she is

  Joss Whedon basically made her my dream girl

 me: haha

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

  which I deathly miss

  so exchanges like

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

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

  m: "Oh...you know..."

 me: haha

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

Here are a couple pictures of Miracle:

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

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

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

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

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

Another reason to like Miracle: this video.  

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