PoliticsI am not prescient enough to know if anything will be accomplished in Washington these next few weeks. The Republican party represents logjam. The Democrats represent the squabbling family. The lobbyists still own pretty much everybody, access-wise. Out among the rest of us in this land, we go to work and pay our bills and hope for the best. We take care of our kids.
The people marginalized and crazy listen to Rush and Glenn Beck. The young not-so-cool beat each other up, still looking for some sort of manhood ritual. The women in the audience vacillate between being attractive and fearing their own bodies. Overall the culture is not too clear on what it wants to be.
But that's okay. Whatever else is going on, Obama is president. Remember the last few years. No matter how bad this guy may be perceived to be, he will never be in GWB's class for stupidity and poor luck. What gets me about George Bush and his supporters is that this was clear even before the powers that be in the aristocracy and the Republican party made him president. He was always a failure, with poor luck and an inability to make a good judgement. I suppose they figured he'd be easy to control.
Frankly, if Scooter Libby hadn't been convicted (and thus diminished Dickhead Cheney's influence in the white house), and Condi Rice hadn't risen in influence, things could have been even worse. As it was, the Bush years pretty much trashed america. So, will Obama bring us back? Is it even possible?
But you gotta love those Republicans. They are ever more nuts. Now Newt Gingrich has been characterized by the Mullahs of the Right as a RINO, republican in name only. Ouch. And he used to be seen as the intellectual face of the right. Now that role has been taken over by Glenn Beck. Wow. Things are gonna get really crazy. We can only hope the electorate continues to vote their economic interest.
CultureI bought some more Rita Mae Brown books off of ebay. I bought a bunch of her books new in the 90s when Paige was reading the cat mysteries. Now I buy them used for low money. At one time I would've felt bad about that. But no longer. Mainly because the people in her books who she consistently characterizes as poor middle-class people, even though they hang out with the rich and powerful people in their little towns and they live in property that is worth millions, these people constantly complain about paying their fair share of taxes. Government is always bad, the people are always good. Never mind the infra-structure, or defense, or social security. Never mind any of that. It 's just mindless whining about cash flow.
I point out that Brown herself keeps many horses, runs a foxhunt, and travels when she wants to. Whine whine whine. She pounds out the books, two or three a year, because she needs a lot of cashflow. The avergage american family gets by on in the neighborhood of 50gs. How much do you think this woman is spending? I would guess she's more in the 250gs area. In any case, it doesn't matter. I buy her books, which I find entertaining, and pay her nothing for the privilege. Well, I have given her some serious money over the years. But hey. Those days are over Rita.
What's really interesting to me is that Rita used to be a fiery lesbian activist in the city. It turns out she's really just an upper middle-class little lady at heart. Her books often have discussions of really high-end sports car and guns. She knows a lot about food and possessions, but clearly not much about policy and culture. It is interesting to me.
And yes, I've read her other books, too. Her tennis novel, her book that rang up the grecian gods (literally), and some of the others. And they are all over the map. She's really not too clear on what it is she believes. There's a mild amount of xtianity in the cat books, very middle-level except for the old lady, Miranda Hogendobber, that is a serious fundie, until her old boyfriend shows up and they start up again, after forty or fifty years. Then her religion becomes less pronounced.
Why read the woman? Mainly, the animal characters are fun. They are critical of humans in smart and interesting ways. They also share the author's inability to take responsibility for the larger world, though. But they get away with it by simply saying it it the natural way. To let the poor starve to death. That's what the animals in the forest do. Does Brown think that is what we should do? If humans are different from other species in some demonstrable way, isn't it because we make it possible for the failures of the species to continue to live and spawn. Is this good or bad? Is it your kid we are talking about? If it is, then you would say it is necessary. Mrs. Murphy, Brown's cat, would say it is irresponsible to allow those who can't keep up to continue living.
Well, that's pretty much the argument about the role of government there. The libertarians would say that is what is wrong with government, the idea that we should take care of everybody. There is always a tension between the fact that humans are a herd animal, that we have to live together or our children will die, and the fact that there is an element of the nomad that is inherent in us, but these days it is expressed by the desire to make something of one's self (and by these days, I mean since city culture arose six thousand years ago). We are either all in this together, or we are all on our own. Which is it?
Both of course. You come into the world into your family, but you are significantly trapped in your own head. Self consciousness exists, but culture is learned from your family. Ultimately you grow up, marry, reproduce, get old and die by yourself, even if your family is around you. You never get outside of the skull, unless you are one of those people who have convinced yourself you can cast your consciousness out into the universe. Hey, maybe you can. In which case, I guess you can leave the rest of us behind and go be the next evolved species.
But this entire discussion begs the actual question: buying books used means the creators of those books are not paid for what they have provided. And the music biz is upset because people download stuff for free? Ha. Writers have been ripped off for years. Who among us hasn't haunted used bookstores? I know I have. And although I have felt bad about it, I have ripped off many writers in my lifetime.
But the only people who get really rich from art in our culture are the business people who create the models of production and distribution. Do they deserve it? Sure. But they always make sure they get the most of the revenue stream, and that is where it breaks down. That isn't right. Is there anything that can be done about this? Who knows. The internet is fun, though, because it takes a lot of control away from the MBAs, so things are much more diverse than they were. Publishing on demand to kindle devices and cell phones will also complicate it all. The one thing you can be assured of is that the artists will continue to be screwed. That is the nature of capitalism. That's why most artists are democrats and not republicans. Or maybe they become more republican as they age and accrue some holdings (Rita Mae comes to mind, here).
So I am going to read Rita's foxhunting mysteries. I like the character of Sister, the old lady, because she isn't as judgemental as most of Brown's other characters. And I like the foxes and the interest they have in the game itself. Is this actually true of foxhunting? I have no clue. Consciousness seems like it should be extremely different between species, but Brown of course antromorphises all her animal characters as much as possible.
PoetryMeanwhile I've started reading Anne Sexton's poems again. They remind me of Pat Smith, the woman I lived with from 1973 through 1981. She was 13 years older than me and had been significantly wounded in her life by her mother's suicide when Pat was thirteen. In any case, Pat was a pretty good poet, and eventually Sangamon Poets published a chapbook of her stuff entitled "The Museum Is Closed". I don't know how familiar she was with Sexton in those days. I was not reading Sexton, myself. Knoepfle didn't like her and discouraged me from looking at her stuff (Knoepfle liked Liesl Mueller as far as women poets went; he wasn't really fond of women in general, except insofar as they kissed his ass).
The only problem with Anne is her relentless desire to kill herself. It manifests in nearly every piece in ways ranging from blatant to obscure. And her episcopalianism seems to legislate for it consistently. Well, I have an interest in other people's suicides, I have to admit it. Having children, I would never do something like that. But I try hard not to be judgemental. Sexton of course also had an incestuos relationship with her daughter. So she had some big problems. Yikes.
I have been writing some new poems, however. I'd ask someone to read them, if anyone were reading this. But I doubt somehow that anyone is. On my poetry blog,
Homage & Apology, in the last hundred hits on the blog, 32 of them aren't me. And of those 32 at least 8 are google's bots roaming through. So, I understand that know one reads this stuff unless I put in something that is currently pop, which I sometimes inadvertently do do. Like the anglo-saxon thing. Better not to go there, eh?
May the Lady Arianrhod honor me with Her mercy this hard weird Tuesday at the end of October, 2009. May you all be well in your diverse selves.