Which literature classic are you? |
 George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-Four. You are the classic warning against the threat of totalitarianism. To you, politics and philosophy are inseparable, authorities suck and the reality might not exist outside our imaginations. Take this quiz!  Quizilla | Join | Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code |
On this triumphant day for Barack Obama, let's give credit where it is due!
IT'S THE RETURN OF OBAMA GIRL!
~*~
Left: Is Mike Huckabee the next president?
~*~
Well, you gotta start somewhere. And so, we begin in Iowa, the center of the country. The political playoffs start TONIGHT!
The vote is so close on BOTH sides that campaigns are openly offering baby-sitting, transportation and sandwiches for whoever comes out and stands up (literally) for their candidates. (Wouldn't that kind of accommodation be great for the GENERAL ELECTIONS, too?) The Iowa caucuses are actual meetings in which people must publicly vote for their favorites, not quietly disappear into a voting booth. This raises the stakes, considerably.
As Obama said recently, Iowa's up-close-and-personal vetting process gives voters a chance to look under the hood and kick the tires, so to speak. The people in Iowa get the longest and most in-depth opportunity to inspect presidential wannabes. If they don't know them, none of us do. Politico.com reports:
And as more than one pundit has recently commented, 80,000 votes is nothing in a place like Los Angeles or Manhattan. Yet, the people of Iowa are very savvy; they've been through it all before. For example, many will not "declare" at all, right up until the vote. They've seen candidates repeatedly blow it, like, the very day of the caucuses. Hidden scandals, clueless and/or stupid statements to the press, flared tempers, anything could tip the scales at this late hour. And they are watching.
In 1,781 precincts across the frigid face of Iowa, Republicans and Democrats start meeting in early evening — most caucuses start at 7 p.m. (8 p.m. EST) — to begin winnowing tightly bunched fields in both parties and start setting the contours of what is likely to be an unparalleled nomination sprint.
The candidates were up late — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee showed up on late night television — and rose early for one last day of stump speeches and rallies designed to bolster the faithful and woo the undecided.
"I feel good, but it depends on who comes out, who decides to actually put on their coats, warm up their cars and go to the caucuses," Clinton said in a taped appearance on CBS’s "The Early Show."
About 120,000 to 150,000 people were expected to come to the Democratic caucuses and 80,000 to 90,000 to the GOP meetings.
We know everything that has ever happened, and there is no end to derision.--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra
~*~
After turning 50 in September, I became somewhat obsessed with the age of bloggers. I discovered I could find a lot of male bloggers in the 50-and-older category. But where are the women?
I know, there are a few. And I am not talking about Arianna Huffington, who is 57 and a billionaire (and therefore looks 25), but about us ordinary bloggers, such as Raven, Jackie, Risa, JJ, Marion, Maitri and Shadocat. I try to find them and link them on my blog... they are like precious jewels.
I have wondered if the hyperventilating over WOMEN'S AGE might be the cause of this phenomenon; we might call it The Botox Effect. We cover up the "lines" in our writing, as we try to cover the lines in our face. We minimize that which makes us seem old. If there is something new we don't understand, such as contemporary slang, we don't dare ask for clarification and thereby give ourselves away. Perhaps, then, there are more of us than I realize? Many women pointedly do not provide their ages on their blogs, while men usually do; a silly, sexist and archaic cultural habit.
At times when I write about nostalgia, as I enjoy doing, I get replies from isolated people (who will not comment publicly, it is worth noting) thanking me for publicly remembering something that they agree needs recounting. But they say it in hushed, secretive emails, as if I have said something dirty out loud. THE PAST IS OLD, and therefore, not a good thing. NEW is good, new is revolutionary, new is a product that has been improved, reformulated, with all kinds of good shit added to it to make it a rockem-sockem, highly-evolved and BETTER thing... better car, better house, better suburb, better dishwashing liquid.
Various cultures throughout the world once prized the old, as those who had knowledge and wisdom. As American imperialism runs roughshod all over the world and into every nook and cranny of the globe, we see all that is old is shunned and shunted aside. Hatred of what is old is now invading hearts and minds and cultures everywhere. Universally, the belief that old age equals wisdom is fast disintegrating. NEW NEW NEW shall reign. The old is hidden or eliminated, and that includes old people.
On certain progressive blogs, when I try to comment about what we expected or thought in the past, it's a sure way to get beat up and left for dead. Yes, I am told, that just proves how fucked up everything was back then. Nietzsche's Last Man of History knows everything that has ever happened, and there is no end to derision.
The very idea that we may know something is laughed at. And yet writing "teh" is not considered laughable, for some reason. I guess because it's a "young" thing to do.
~*~
When you get old enough, you find photos of yourself (and your head, and your feet, and your husbands, and your kids) all over the net, which is a scary thing.
~*~
When old women aren't laughed at, we are completely ignored.
I have tried very hard not to be petty about this. I have concentrated HARD on my new tattoo, and asked my various saints whether I am being self-centered or petty when I am ignored and patronized. I look around, though, and I see a DEARTH of women bloggers my age. Of course we are ignored, we do not even exist. We are not a DEMOGRAPHIC BLOCK and they don't have to deal with us as a GROUP, or maybe they would notice how shitty they talk (or don't talk) to us.
I am pretty tired of this, and I have nearly given up blogging twice over it. Being ignored or talked down to, hurts. How much of this is also sexism and elitism/classism is hard to say... perhaps taken altogether: an older, working-class woman in South Carolina is simply unimportant. Possibly, if I were from New York, London or someplace cool, that would be sufficient to allow me to be taken seriously. But I keep coming back to age: Menopausal gals ain't hawt, and subsequently, we don't say very hawt things. And on the internets, hawtness is a crucial selling point.
My rant was brought on by a particular blogger, who of course is oblivious to my existence. Thus, it makes no sense to link him here, it won't matter to him one way or the other. He may find it peripherally amusing. But I am curious as to how many people might read this, and wonder if I am talking about them?
~*~
I think about right-wing conservatives, and their continuous political appeals to old people. I wonder if much of their success is their promise not to forget about us, to honor our lives and experience? By contrast, the left (where I have spent my life), sends us off to the glue factory.
One last thing: Unless you die, you will all age. If you'd like that to be a pleasant experience, rather than an unpleasant one, it may behoove you to change the culture NOW. Otherwise, I daresay, you'll someday understand exactly what I mean by this post.
Yall come back now, ya hear?
----------------
Listening to: Etta James - Don't Lose Your Good Thing
via FoxyTunes
Left: One of Busby Berkeley's famous female kaleidoscopes, in 42nd Street. (1933)
Sitting here on New Years Day, relaxing with Turner Classic Movies, watching That's Dancing (1985), which I have seen before, several times.
For those of you who believe blogging (and the attendant political blog-wars) are a waste of time, rest assured, they are not. I am seeing the movie quite differently now. I thank bloggers such as Donna Darko, Blackamazon, Bint, Sylvia, Vanessa, BFP, Donna J., The Angry Black Woman, and Kevin at Slant Truth. Watching this movie, one would think white people had invented tap dancing.
Why did I not notice this before, or if I did, explained it away?
Certainly, since this a documentary (of sorts) about the history of dance in movies, one could say they are accurate in leaving out people of color other than Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson. But of course, that isn't true either. The then-called 'race movies,' popular from 1927 - 1948, showcased plenty of African-American choreography, particularly in St Louis Blues, Juke Joint and Harlem is Heaven, all of which are resolutely ignored.
I am interested in when black dancing styles were stolen for mainstream Hollywood movies. Other than an arresting clip of a tiny, very young and adorable Sammy Davis Jr. juxtaposed with a clip of precocious mimic Shirley Temple, there is no account of this process.
Similarly, Busby Berkeley's gay-nightclub sensibility and Bob Fosse's prodigious riffing on stripper-style, is also ignored. Such explanations of their origins might prove embarrassing. Instead, they are presented as white-guy choreographers who sprang fully-formed from the forehead of Zeus, even though both men were very open and honest about their influences.
As for women of color, forget it. Not even Oscar-winner Rita Moreno gets a mention; the West Side Story segment instead chooses the Jets in the garage, doing COOL. Admittedly, I love that, but AMERICA* is also an amazing, fabulous rave-up. But that was the Sharks, wasn't it? Should I wonder why the white gang gets to be in the movie but the Puerto Rican gang doesn't?
The first women of color presented in That's Dancing are the dynamic Paula Kelly and Chita Rivera, flanking beautiful Shirley MacLaine in Fosse's Sweet Charity. They are indeed worth the wait, but hey, that movie was made in 1969, forgodsake. No women of color dancers in film until 1969??? And how many of Busby Berkeley's thousands of dancers were actually women of color? (I know little about him, except his movies and his reputation for being something of a tyrant. And by the way, yall, seeing this movie again has started me on a search for a good book about him. If you know of any, recommendations welcome!)
~*~
In addition to this being the best dance number ever committed to film (no arguing the point please, this is MY blog), the stunning leads (Rita Moreno and George Chakiris) also won Academy Awards, probably for blowing everyone away with how utterly fantastic and good-looking they are.
This amazing work of art was choreographed by (gay) Jerome Robbins (changed from Rabinowitz), subject of the fascinating and entertaining book, Dance With Demons: The Life of Jerome Robbins by Greg Lawrence. Highly recommended reading for movie fangirls and boys of all ages!
*This song also contains an excellent critique of race in the USA that sounds almost contemporary... kinda scary since it was filmed back in 1961. However, you will notice the following lyrics are in the original film (see clip), but omitted (!!!) from the lyrics-link, above:
Life can be bright in America
If you can fight in America
Life is alright in America
If you're a white in America
Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim...and with lyrics like those, no wonder it was left out of That's Dancing, as well as subsequent versions of West Side Story!
Enjoy these beautiful people, and once again, have a great New Year!
