What is it about artists

I was following some links about the Joe Dante voting zombies Showtime thing tonight and I found this link from some right-wing website I've never been to.

It's basically a diatribe against artists. We're parasites, as usual. Propagandists. Perpetually adolescent. Worst of all, liberal. The post itself ends with a call to support conservatiove filmmakers like the Orson Welles behind Michael Moore Hates America.

And so it continues through the comments. A bunch of libertarians and conservatives patting themselves on the back for having no imagination and for being logical.

Only a Daniel Myers came to it with any apparent familiarity with what it is to be an artist and an openness to see what's actually there. What he writes isn't perfect, but is much better than what I expect from such a blog.

More representative:

"Contemplate the fact that "artists," as we usually interpret the word, are and have been for centuries social parasites. Their withdraw from the stressful humdrum into a make-believe world of "creative pursuits" is justified by self-serving rationale. Some very few produce enduring works. The overwhelming remainder produce dreck that, with some luck, reduces to recyclable refuse. "

(There was a lot of talk about the Myers-Briggs on that blog as some sort of scientific, authoratative test- I kind of figured most people think of M-B as a step or two above astrology, but whatever)

In my world, as a graduate art student at a University, and before that as an art student at a private art college, the "withdrawal" is into long nights in the studio working through ideas, producing, discussing work and ideas, etc. Art students, they tell me, are more prone toward all-nighters than any except medical students.

I know a lot of artists are actually lazy, parasitic good-for-nothings who have no intellectual curiousity or any true creativity. These people do not tend to make a living of it. Those that do tend to be industrious, competitive, and fairly charismatic.

Why do these people tend, overwhelmingly, to be on the left side of the aisle? I think Mr. Myers' explanations are good. I would expand the part about an antipathy toward "regular people." It is certainly a two way street. Certain marginalized groups have a long history of association with the arts. I'm thinking particularly of gays and Jewish people. It is no secret that the proportion of these groups in the fine art world and the entertainment industry is higher than outside them.

Conservatives tend, far more than liberals, to demand conformity. Those outcast by conservative authority tend to reject conservatism. This is where the notion that artists and liberals don't think for themselves is just baffling. I guess, when you get down to it, I'm a liberal in large part because I spent my formative years constantly chastized for think for, and being, myself, by figures who were overwhelmingly conservative.

Artists, and people with similar temperments, tend to be vilified by most of society as weirdos and parasites. We don't tend to be paid very well. We're not particularly well represented or lobbied for politically. We tend to share circles with other marginal and marginalized groups. And we tend to be less religious than the majority of the population. What a shock, then, that we aren't, by and large, keen on Republicans.

Puppy Poltergeist

You son of a bitch. You moved the cemetery, but you left the bodies, didn't you? You son of a bitch, you left the bodies and you only moved the head stones. You only moved the head stones. Why? Why?

What's next

I feel a change in the winds. If the Democrats don't screw up, they might actually have a majority in Congress this decade. Blame it on the hubris and carelessness of Gingrich's heirs.

Folks who spent years decrying the narcissism, immaturity, and amorality of liberals and Democrats have reduced the business of running this country to tactics, manipulation, and cheap theatrics. Not that there was some sort of golden age, but we live in a time of relentless anti-intellectualism and apathy, and this has certainly been aided by the Pavlovian conditioning of the words "family values," "compassionate conservative," "reformer with results," et cetera.

It's easy to rag on the timidity and cluelessness of the Democrats. But the job they have is terribly hard. They are playing by old rules. But more than that, they're dealing with institutions of power that Republicans have worked very hard to create. They still have some illusion that the point of politics stretches beyond keeping the party in power and securing a position as an industry lobbyist when it's all over.

I keep hearing from bloggers and columnists and thinktankers and the lot that the Republicans should be emulated in how they've come into and held power. This reflects a failure of imagination, the like of which leads to Democrats losing. Never fight the last war. Beyond that, the Republicans are a disaster. Nothing they do works, they can't get their favored non-tax-cut legislation passed, and their quickly becoming ballot box poison.

Democrats, please do this: embrace reform. Not just rhetorically, really embrace changing the queasy nature of politics. I want to hear hardcore demonization of industry lobbyists. Nobody likes lobbyists.
Don't let Republicans dictate the terms of class warfare. Do a couple Republican things- like identify conservatism with its many sins. Everybody likes lower taxes, but the idea of rich people who live of inheritance or other unearned wealth getting huge tax cuts while they get a pittance bothers people. Paris Hilton, people! Also, nobody likes deficits, wastefulness, bridges to nowhere in Alaska. Educate the public.
Do something about the environment. People still think that anyone who cares about the environment is a patchouli-smelling hippy. Change this. And change it soon. Gas has become dangerously expensive, we're losing topsoil, global warming, the list is endless. I also think it would be good strategy. Republicans don't see the environment as a Dem strength because it's kind of out of left field and it plays to a lot of notions of Democrats being pansies.
Do that Contract with America thing you're talking about. Don't talk about 1994. Nobody cares about it, and referencing makes it sound like you're playing politics instead of trying to change the country. If you're trying to convince somebody of something, you don't preface it by saying "I'm going to run a campaign to convince you of this." If you're going to crib from somebody's playbook, you don't warn everyone about it beforehand.
Foreign policy is tricky at the moment, because Americans have a childish macho pride. But Gephardt admitting he was wrong about the war is a good first step. Build a consensus within the party over a new path forward. The Democratic base is generally less hawkish than the electorate in general, but at least it's a position of some priniciple. The electorate at large is reactive and has few foreign policy core beliefs other than a belief in the superiority, strength, and decency of the US relative to the rest of the world. I think the profile of the Dem position should be humane and internationalist. This isn't possible unless there is a significant withdrawal in forces from Iraq.
In general, it's a good idea to be supporting Iraq vets for office. People like symbolism of that sort. There's a long history of veterans serving in the Capital.
I don't think I'm good for advice about immigration, which I see becoming a campaign issue in '06. Democrats always have it harder on these type of issues because it would be easy for a Republican to adopt an extreme (like, say, turn our Southern border into the 38th parallel) but politically safe position.
Most important, in general, is to articulate a wholistic vision for the country. mingle exciting policy (Mars, bitches, except more practical, and more real for voters) with work on Brand Democrat.
The important thing is not to freeze up, to remain defensive, to avoid issues in a way that pushes you in awkward positions, and to dictate the terms of the debate to the greatest possible degree.

"Criminalization of Politics"

Oooh, Frank Luntz must have been busy. The right, by which I mean the Republican Party and its representatives in the media (both in sense of Fox News and individual pundits like the sometimes almost bearable William Kristol) have seized a new rhetorical strategy to prevent the sinking of the SS. Conservatism. Every legal reaction to the manifest curruption of the modern right is now deemed "the criminalization of politics."

Lord knows if this were a society populated by decent people, that wouldn't float. Are there really people out there who think we hold politicians to to high an ethical standard? The same people promulgating this line spent the years 1993-2001 harping on Clinton's crookedness and immorality, spending millions of dollars to investigate minor infractions and right-wing fictions. Turnabout is fair play.

But it's not even turnabout. These people are real crooks. CIA agent-exposing, rat-fucking, money-laundering, extortionist, power-hungry criminals.

The fact is that the Republicans criminalized politics.(By Republicans, I mean the party, not Jeff, or the guy who lives across the street from me) Not in the way they mean it. They turned the sometimes icky business of kissing babies, raising money, selling yourself like cornflakes, and promising things you can't deliver, and turned it into a criminal enterprise. They have no concern for appearance of propriety (see Halliburton, Frist's insider trading, the selection of crony Harriet Miers) because they have the media bent to their will, and millions of Americans who would vote for Charles Manson if he ran on family values.

Derangement syndrome

From the newest Bobo column, available from Not New York Times Select:

Kerry began his speech by making the point that Bush and his crew are rotten. He then went on to make the point that Bush and his crew are loathsome. In the third section of the speech, Kerry left the impression that Bush and his crew are evil.
Now we all know people so consumed by hatred for George Bush that they haven't had an unpredictable thought in five years, but in Kerry's speech one sees this anger in almost clinical form.

Hey Brooksy, thinking Bush is rotten, loathsome, and evil doesn't mean you are consumed by hatred of him. He is rotten, loathsome, and basically evil. And I'm tired of this "clinical" bullshit. Bobo, diagnosing people who think Bush sucks (now basically a majority of Americans) as crazy is Krauthammer's job, not yours. You don't even have the dusty credentials for it.

And you really are misrepresenting Edwards. In fact, most of what you're doing is misrepresenting. Democrats should be tougher. After all, Republicans only win elections by appealing to fear, hate, and gullibility. Bush only beat McCain in the primaries by lying about his sanity and appealing to the racism of South Carolinians (it works, by the way). Bush only beat Kerry because gay-hating and opportunistic Republicans put Gay Marriage bans o the November menu in several states.

Democrats who vote against Roberts aren't doing it just to show they mean business, but because he's a stealth nominee they think will work to infringe our privacy rights and overturn Roe vs. Wade. And Brooks is either totally unclear about what partisanship means, or is merely disingenuous in the way he uses the term.

The Democratic party doesn't have policy problems, not the way Brooks means it. Never has. Despite the avalanche of bullshit ideological enforcement of this mythic "conservatism," most Americans prefer the actual policies of Democrats. What the Democrats are is always on the defensive and out of power, and this means they never really talk about policy. Nobody does. Columnists like Brooks spill buckets of ink writing about style. This very column, in which Brooks decries Democratic obsession with style over policy, doesn't talk about policy. When Brooks praises Edwards, it's for weaving a moving story, not for his policy prescriptions. This is just another "Democrats should be like this" column.

But yeah, we should be more like Edwards than Kerry in this instance. Democrats have an opportunity here, among the manifest failure and unpopularity of the Bush team and its allies, to talk policy. Not so it will be implemented. If the idiot Republicans want to build the world's largest trailer park to permanently house survivors of Katrina, it will happen. No, the Democrats need to forge their identity. Bush and co. are too busy trying to save their own asses to deliver attacks on liberal weakness, impugn our patriotism etc. with their characteristic effectiveness. Go, talk equality, fairness, giving up these stupid tax cuts for the rich, improving FEMA etc. Do it!

But don't listen for one moment while Brooks first mischaracterizes Edwards as non-partisan, and then warns us to be Clintonite centrists (as if a centrist could avoid being termed a fire-breathing liberal if he/she were running) or else. Brooks has one political aim above all, to keep his party, whose base regards anything resembling Brooks, ie. semi-intellectual, culturally urban, and Jewish, as well beneath contempt, (but this is typical for the Republican party, whose media symbols and representatives, like Armstrong Williams, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Krauthammer again, Sullivan, even George Will who, despite being thoroughly WASP is a pencil necked geek, are all basically Chickens for Colonel Sanders in a party that is decreasingly accepting of anyone who isn't white, straight, evangelical Christian, if not male at least submissive to male authority, and dumb as a sack of rocks) in power. Would you trust someone like that to tell you the directions to the nearest gas station?

A project

landing7
Originally uploaded by poopruiz.

A set of photos I've taken of planes landing at the Tampa airport.

Taken from approximately this location. It's a little public beach on Tampa Bay. When the airplanes pass over, it's incredibly loud. After they've passed, there's a peculiar effect where little eddies form hundreds of feet behind and produce a sound like papers being rustled by wind hundreds of feet up.

It might interest some that I saw a few roseate spoonbills, a skimmer, numerous brown pelicans, an osprey, and what looked like a shrike. it's a nice place. I suggest you visit

Paid to fake it in a traveling band

Working undercover for the man.

From this article about an exhibition on East German punk, we find that punks there were enemies of the state, with all that entails for communist East Germany.

"By 1983 the secret police had sunk its talons into the movement and the scene was slowly but surely infiltrated with informants, forced under pressure from the State to choose between cooperation, a jail sentence, expulsion or military service."

via bloggy