krishanna|dot|com

And Speaking of the First Amendment...

Here's a non-disability related news item.

Jenna Kern-Rugile wrote a good Op-Ed piece on Newsday entitled "Does shock jock hate speech lead to violence?"

Kern-Rugile writes:

On July 27 a man walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville and opened fire, killing two people and seriously wounding seven others.

As someone who has chosen Unitarian Universalism as her faith, I was shaken by the news. Unitarian Universalism congregations, like ours on Long Island, define themselves as a "liberal religious community" - not liberal in the political sense, but because we believe in open-minded discourse and welcome people of all persuasions.

How could such a community become the target of hate?

Police in Knoxville were quoted as saying that the man, later identified as Jim D. Adkisson, 58, targeted the church "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that ... the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

She goes on to mention right-wing radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage and Bill O'Reilly and what they have said that may or may not have helped push the crazy man over the edge.  Evidently, they found books by many of the above listed personalities in the crazy guy's house.

Mind you all she did was raise the question. She did not seek to censor them. She did not call for a boycott.

Enter the haters.

“Newsday has received 3,000 emails against my piece. The online forum comments at newsday.com have been 99% hateful… I actually had someone sitting in a car outside my house for a half hour. I got so freaked I called the cops!” wrote Kern-Rugile in an e-mail to Rory O'Connor at Alter-Net.

The Media Research Center (a conservative  media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media) got in on the act with it's  President L. Brent Bozell sending a letter to Newsday Publisher Tim Knight demanding an apology for Kern’s opinion piece. He demanded that she “never again appear on the pages of Newsday,” stating  her article “was absolutely despicable ” and the newspaper “should be ashamed and embarrassed for having printed it…” because it was “nothing more than an in-print character assassination of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, a foray into absurd Leftist delusions of links between them and the vile murderer in a Tennessee church this past July 27.”

Bozell's diatribe ended with, “This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is Newsday giving this woman a license to assault these fine men in print, accusing them of complicity in murder. Newsday should immediately publish a full retraction, and an abject and absolute apology to those defamed by this woman’s wretched words.”

No. Newsday gave Kern-Rugile a forum in which to assert an opinion that would be read by thousands of readers.

Fine men? Accused of complicity in murder?  Who accused them of that?  I wonder if he read the same Op-Ed piece I did.

And as if that wasn't enough, Kern-Rugile writes in another e-mail, “Bill O’Reilly’s people ambushed me in my driveway today. With camera and microphone. I guess I’ll be on the show tonight or tomorrow. This is not what I had wanted. Yikes. Wish me luck. I don’t feel bad about anything I said, but he’ll probably edit it to make me look like an idiot.”

Happily though, before O'Reilly could use the piece, his competiton on MSNBC, Keith Oberman, broadcasted the story on his show,featuring him on his "World's Worst" segment. Now I'm not nuts about Keith Oberman but I gotta hand it to him this time. I like hearing someone got the jump on ol' paranoid O'Reilly.

 

Attila, the R-Word & Me: The Last Post

I am always ready, willing and mostly able to discuss anything I present on "as the crow flies...", regardless of whether you agree with me or not unless you call me names and have nothing but ugliness to spread around. I delete that stuff which is why if you went looking for the disparaging comments left the other day you won't find them. I think discussion and open communication are important in any public forum so long as you can manage to be civil and constructive.

But as with all good things, this must come to an end. School is beginning for Attie and her son in a few days and the first days back to high school is always requires more of a mom's energy and more so when you have a creative and thoughtful kid like Little Guy. I'll look forward to reading about his new experiences and growth this year.

So in my habit of seeing things through to the end, I am posting Attie's last comment to our discussion.

That's why I love you so much---your willingness to discuss and discuss. :-) I'm not even going to READ the dorky comment left. Thanks for the heads-up.

I certainly don't think any words should be banned, and I hope it didn't come off that way (and how in the world do you "ban" a word?). But to hear/read some people talk (not you, of course), you'd think that because some people have a disability, they don't have a right to voice their objections either, much less occupy a space on the planet:

"I think most people that have a disability should be dead- the ones that contribute nothing, they are like that cause they have bad genes (recessive genes), and keeping them alive and letting them breed is stupid- and- Tropic Blunder... what a retarded slogan"...from Youtube.

In your post, you wrote: '"What if that boy had yelled "Throw it back! Are you slow or what?" Would that have made it any better an experience for either of them?'

I'm not positive, but I think it might have. My son would have probably thought about it for a minute and said something like, "Well, I guess maybe I am being slow." But as the word "retard" has been slung at him as an insult so often, I'm not sure he is able to distinguish it's originally intended meaning from what it has become in our culture--a word deliberately used to degrade people with cognitive disabilities.

You wrote: "Is it really just about creating awareness in the general population about the use of a term that some people find offensive?"

It is to me, but obviously I can't speak for anyone else.

As always, love to you, my friend, and I appreciate your willingness to share ideas. 

I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion now because school, etc is starting this week and I'm going to have a whole new set of issues on my plate to stress me out and piss me off. I can only handle one thing at a time. ;-)

Thanks again,

xoxo

No you didn't come off as wanting to ban the word or the movie in my view, so much as supporting those who do. Obviously you can't ban a word, but demonstrators and protesters were calling for a ban of the movie which is what I objected to.

There are many people in the world with disabilities far more profound than mine and I have often thinking while reading Attie's posts about her son how difficult it must be to have a child with hidden disability like his, especially a cognitive one.

I readily admit, my immediate world is not focused on intellectual, developmental  or cognitive disabilities anymore so I don't always hear the "retard" comments as well as I used to when I was working with people with those disabilties. I also don't have children in my life on a day to day basis and raising kids is tough job, not for the faint of heart for sure. So I am well aware of my deficits in understanding what it is to be a mom to a teenage kid with cognitive disabilites, at least I think I am.

I am artist and writer with a disability, not "legally" married but with a partner of 13 years, no kids and the ability to express myself freely nearly all the time. Our Bill of RIghts is very important to me, especially the first 2, which are being attacked and eroded with alarming regularity by both society as a whole and the government.

Obviously anyone who reads Cheaper Than Therapy or your Disaboom blog with any regularity knows that you are not someone who jumps on the bandwagon without some thought so I was a surprised by your defense of such things. I am grateful you didn't just blow me off and ignore the conversation. Thanks for slogging through it with me, helping me to see more clearly your point of view and reminding me I need to comment more...;)

This is the way I have seen true change come about. It doesn't happen by censorship or insults and that is why I believe conversations and discussions like this are so valuable. They keep our minds open and views broad by asking us to stretch our perceptions and see the world as others see it and then come to understand what that other path must be like for the person traveling it.

More Attila, the R-Word and Me

Let me begin by stating what I thought was obvious: Attie (Atilla the Mom) and I have a deep and abiding respect for one another. We like one another. We are not fighting and I don't even think we are disagreeing. We are having a discussion. I am re-posting her public comments for convenience and clarity, not because I am trying to make her look like an ass. (Anonymous jerkface who ever you are. And yes, you're right I do think it's  "pussified" to write a dickheaded comment, name call and then not have the eggs to leave a name or a valid e-mail address. But I digress).

I believe this a very relevant and intriguing issue for everyone to discuss, mull over and have an opinion about.

I understand that the issue of the R-word and use of the word "retarded" are very personal and emotionally charged topics for many, many people and many people feel attacked and threatened by their use every day.

Our First Amendments rights are also a very personal and emotionally charged issue for many, many people and they are being attacked and eroded every day.

Having said that, Attie wrote in response to my post on Wednesday:

Thanks so much on your continuing post on this! I felt bad about the way I left it, but it really is a personal issue for a lot of people.

I certainly don't consider you to be a bigot, and I'm sorry if I implied you were---and if I did, I was inadequate in my verbiage. I intended it to be a challenge to your almost defiant defense of justifying your use of the word once a friend/associate/whoever of yours stated that she found it distressing.

A couple of days before I read your post, we were in the park, along with a lot of kids/teens/families enjoying a fabulous summer day. We were sitting under a tree, and my son was kind of wandering around in the vicinity, and watching some very young boys throwing around a nerf ball (a football, I think---it had a lot of funky aerodynamic wingy things) on it.

One overthrew it, and it came under "our" tree.  My son picked it up and examined it.

Instead of coming over to get the ball, one of the kids yelled at him..."Throw it back!  Are you retarded or what?"

None of these kids could have been over 10 years old.

No, this child didn't call him a "retard".  He used the term "retarded".  But frankly, my son doesn't get the difference.

You wrote:

"In my opinion if the people we are referring to are indeed "very vulnerable people who don't have the intellectual capacity to raise their voices the way that" I can (and there is a large population of people who fit this category), then maybe we need to be spending time teaching self-empowerment and self-advocacy instead of teaching them it's okay to censor other people's words and ideas because we don't like them and find them offensive."

Unfortunately my son doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of censorship. He is very self-empowered and self-advocated, because he has had to be. But he just doesn't have what it takes to "get" the concepts you think we should be "spending time" on. Bad bad boy. Shame on him.

He has been continuously called "stupid", "retard" and most recently "fucktard" over the years by ignorant youngsters who haven't been taught any better by their elders. With dignity he has repeatedly said, "Please don't call me stupid/retard/fucktard, my name is xxxxxx".

He isn't trying to "censor" anybody.  He's trying to live his life on this planet with the challenges he's been given. 

My son's condition isn't a punch line to him.

Exercising our right to speak up when we find a word offensive isn't censorship. It's letting others know that some of the terms they use in their language is hurtful to a segment of citizens. The choice is obviously up to them whether or not to continue.

But if knowing that their language is hurtful, people continue to use those terms---well it says quite a bit about their character or lack of, doesn't it?

To refer to anyone as "stupid" or a "retard" or a "fucktard" is never okay. Let me say if Atilla's son can look those kids in the face and ask them to stop calling him names, then he is pretty self-empowered and can self-advocate for himself.

I am pretty defiant and forthright about my use of the word "retarded". I have had to be because I have had to defend my right to use it in the current social climate. For me, it is a word to describe some thing (not someone) nothing more. Other people have a bigger problem, I think, with the fact that I say I use it and don't apologize for my use of it. I think it's pretty sad that I have had to defend and explain my right to use it.

I have zero problem with people standing up, demonstrating, screaming about how they don't like that people use a term they find offensive. But when you begin demanding that not only words be "banned" but also radio, television and films you find personally offensive, that IS censorship and that is what is being asked for here. The exact words are "Ban the R-Word, Ban the movie!"

Attila's son might not be able to interpret the nuances of censorship but those people who are speaking for him and for her DO and they are not just telling everyone they don't like the r-word. They are demanding the word be "banned" and that artistic expression containing that word also be banned.  That IS censorship.

It's important to note that the very first person I heard hollering and calling foul was NOT a person with an intellectual disability. It was a supporter who portrayed people with these types of disabilities as people who cannot speak for themselves and therefore needed others them to speak for them. They are unable to speak for themselves, the poor dears. That smacks of an entirely different kind of discrimination. And yet, there they were at the Tropical Thunder opening marching and chanting, "Ban the R-Word, Ban the movie!", the poor dears who couldn't speak for themselves. C'mon now. You can't have it both ways.

I am all for a campaign to create awareness and help people consider why they should eliminate the word "retard" from their vocabulary but why do we need to include banning movies that include the word retard in their dialogue? In fact, I am a bit miffed that I cannot put an R-Word badge on my blog in good conscience because of the censorship element it has taken on. I think raising awareness and encouragement are excellent tools for reaching people when handled properly.

It is true that many people with intellectual disabilities truly can't speak for themselves but are their representatives really passing on what they want known properly? Is it really just about creating awareness in the general population about the use of a term that some people find offensive? Because it has become far more than that to people who are concerned with free speech and the freedom of expression.

I wasn't asking that people teach courses on censorship, I am suggesting that we assist people in empowering themselves so that they can speak for themselves because there's still far too many who can't or don't do what Attie's son has done for himself. There are many reasons for this which would indeed lead us into many other discussions.

Instead, I have a question after reading Attila's story about the boy with the ball.  I am not trying to be funny or snarky in any way. I am genuinely interested in the answer.

What if that boy had yelled  "Throw it back!  Are you slow or what?" Would that have made it any better an experience for either of them? Both words mean the same thing. The kid still yelled at her son. So is it the word choice or the attitudes behind them that creates the offense?

And frankly, how do we know that kids aren't being taught not use such language at home?  How many kids are told not to use some word or term and so they don't... while they're at home or in the presence of their parents. My mother told me not to do or say a bunch of stuff and I didn't in her presence. But peer pressure is a mighty thing and some kids are going to behave in ways and say things when they are among themselves regardless of what they are being taught at home and most outgrow it. That's just the way it is.

So when I stated I think we should spend more time empowering young people with disabilities, perhaps we should start thinking of empowerment as something more than defending oneself  and asking them politely that you be treated better. Perhaps, we need to teach them that empowerment is that what we think of ourselves is more important than what others call us or think of us. I am not saying this is easy. It's not easy for people without disabilities. But self-empowerment is about more than just defending ourselves and our disabilities. It is about knowing who we are and how we view ourselves beyond our disabilities and idiosyncracies.

Not so long ago I was in in a store shopping and a man called me a "fat, crippled bitch" because I was in his way and not moving fast enough out of it. He said it as he passed me. A few people noticed. Did it hurt me? Embarrass me? No. Because I am fat, I am crippled and at times I am very bitchy. Not right then, but I can be. My response to him was, "Yeah,and?" And what could he say, "I'm being an asshole because I'm having a bad day and wanted to hurt your feelings?" He could have but he wouldn't, didn't think to and in all likelihood couldn't. I could launch into a thousand reasons why he shouldn't talk to me like that, why he should change his words and his mind. And my point would be, what? I only have the power to change me and how I respond to the world around me, not someone else.

Indeed, people should be more sensitive to others. People should be more aware of the diversity around them. People should treat each other better. People should be more accepting of differences or eccentricities in others. People should do a lot of things. If we aren't careful we'll should all over ourselves.

The reality is many people don't, won't and don't want to see or do anything if it doesn't benefit them quickly and directly . There are other ways of empowering and teaching people with and without disabilities how to cope with that reality that don't involve defense of ourselves to people who aren't intrinsic to our lives or violating the First Amendment rights of others.

The R-Word: Attila's Reaction

One of my favorite writers and dear blogging friends, Attila the Mom has this to say about my post on the r-word:

Oh I don't know. Try substituting the "R" word that you use in every day language with the "N" word, or maybe "shiftless and lazy" to describe things you find "slow".

 Would you? If not, why not? Since you're using free speech as a reference, do you use terms like "hooked-nosed jew", "wetback" "faggot", etc as a well?

 I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong.

 In a polite and civilized society, we don't use words like this because they marginalize groups of people and are hurtful to some/many of them.

Sometimes the definition of words change over time to reflect current culture and no longer retain much of their original meaning. A good example is the word "gay".

I think that the word "retard" is another.

You've frequently written about different instances in your life where you've been made to feel marginalized, misunderstood and degraded in terms of your disability. You're mad. You're upset. You use your voice to vent and to tell others how much different experiences hurt and infuriatiated you.

Yet one person told you that your use of the "retard" word bothered her and you blew her off. You've read reams of stuff on how the use of the word hurts people, and spent a paragraph or two justifying your use of it.

I guess you really don't "get" it. 

You may have a disability, and work with people who have disabilities, but bottom line---you don't have a cognitive disability.

It doesn't make you one of the "club" or give you a pass to blow it off. Any more than I can tell people without legs to "suck it up" because I once stubbed my toe.

You know, I love you to death, but you're way off the mark. We've spent years dealing with this kind of ignorance and bigotry, and it hurts some very vulnerable people who don't have the intellectual capacity to raise their voices the way that you and I can.

So why use it if it hurts even just one person?  What's the point?

First of all, let me clarify something. I don't use the word "retard" and never in connection with anyone with any kind of a disability. As I stated in my earlier post, I learned that in grade school. Other words like those Attila mentioned in her comment are also not words I use. However, in terms of free speech, everyone has the right to use or not use them. That's what makes the First Amendment nifty.

I use the word retarded to describe things (not people) that I find dumb, slow or just plain backwards. I did not blow my colleague off. She mentioned the word "retarded", not "retard" bothered her and so I made a concerted effort not use it when in her company. Why? Because it bothered her. Did I stop using it altogether? No.

I do write frequently about how I have felt marginalized with regard to my own disability but rarely because someone has referred to me as a "cripple" or a "gimp".  Usually, it is with regard to people's preconceived notions about hidden disabilities.  I can't think of an instance where I have been personally hurt or offended because someone referred to me as a cripple or a gimp, regardless of the spin they put on it. My self-image isn't contingent on someone's idea of who or what I should.

In my opinion if the people we are referring to are indeed "very vulnerable people who don't have the intellectual capacity to raise their voices the way that" I can  (and there is a large population of people who fit this category), then maybe we need to be spending time teaching self-empowerment and self-advocacy instead of teaching them it's okay to censor other people's words and ideas because we don't like them and find them offensive.

But as for people with intellectual disabilities not able to raise their voices from what I can see they are doing a fine job. There are scads of videos on You Tube, national coverage in the Op-Ed sections of newspapers, it's been mentioned at length on both morning and evening news, all protesting Tropic Thunder's use of the R-Word abound. 

My point is that in demanding we ban offensive language and art simply because we don't like it or find it wrong is censorship which is a constitutional rights violation. Since when are movie actors, directors and producers our arbiters of good role modeling? Why are they  responsible for educating and indeed, re-educating the people who view their films?  Can anyone honestly say they are looking for deep meaning or intellectual depth when they go to a Ben Stiller film? The people who make these kinds of movies are in it to entertain not educate.

Like it or not there appears to be a huge market for that genre of filmaking and comedy. IF his intent really was to poke fun at the movie industry, I still say what I said in my first post about this on Active Gray Matter's blog- "Uhm, bad job dude". I may not like Ben Stiller's word choice or portrayal of people with intellectual disabilities but does that mean he doesn't get to express himself? Does that mean it's okay to censor his words, his expression simply because we don't like it or agree with it? I don't think so.

Which brings me to ask,  why am I suddenly a bigot because I don't agree with the current group conscience? Why does that make me wrong or "off the mark"? This wouldn't be the first time I have been told I have no business voicing my opinion by members of the disability community because I don't meet someone's idea of what being disabled is. Undoubtedly it will not be the last. If we are going to be proponents of inclusion and diversity, then let's do it. Let's not just do it when it's pretty or comfortable for us to do so. Sometimes we have to include even the POVs we don't care for.

Oddly, I am always not disabled enough or I don't have the right kind of disability in order to voice a differing opinion about a certain issue. Yet, I am welcomed with open arms if jump on the band wagon without question.

Human nature is a funny little bird.

Just Call Me Krishanna "Switzerland" Spencer: Ban The R-Word, Violate Free Speech & Expression, Invite Censorship

Okay. I've gotten a few e-mails asking me why I've not asserted my opinion on this tempest in a teapot, especially when I've been blogging about it over on the Active Gray Matter blog.

A few weeks ago, I posted about pagan unhappiness with Kathy Lee Gifford's dumbass comment about Pagans being bad. I felt then as I do now, it is essentially a First Amendment rights issue.

Now this month the discussion and focus is on the word , "Retard" because Ben Stiller's new movie Tropical Thunder uses the word in the movie. I've not seen the movie, nor do I plan to and it isn't because I am claiming soldiarity with the ARC boycott or demonstrations regarding the film.  It also isn't because I am joining forces with the other voices clamoring for the protesters to shutup because "they don't get it:.

Just call me Krishanna Switzerland Spencer.   I see valid points on both sides but I am not seeing Tropical Thunder because it looks infinitely BAD. EL STINKO. PHEW. You know one of those movies you see on cable during a rainy afternoon when there's absolutely nothing else to watch and when it's over you look at each other and say, "Boy am I glad I didn't pay money to see THAT in the movie theatre!". And yeah, admittedly that type of comedy film doesn't interest me me much.

Then again, maybe *I* just don't get it.

People with Disabilities are saying the language in the movie is hurtful, discriminatory and humiliating. They say it is hurting and humiliating them personally and telling young kids it's ok to refer to people with intellectual disability as "retards".

Ben Stiller and Jack Black, both say if you see the movie you will understand they are making fun of actors who portray people with disabilities (ala Sean Penn in "I Am Sam", Tom Cruise in "Born On The Fourth" of July, and Dustin Hoffman in "Rainman" to name a few) to make a buck and win an award. Robery Downey, Jr. also stars in the film as a black man and has smartly declined expressing anything beyond gratitude for the ability to live in a country that affords ALL of its citizens free speech and expression.

Amendment I (of the US Bill of Rights)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As many of you know I have a disability, work in the disability field and have worked with people with many kinds of disabilities. I also use the word retarded in my daily vocabulary. I worked with someone once who told me it bothered her a lot that I used the word retarded to describe things I thought were slow or confusing. For instance, I would say "well that's retarded" in response to hearing about slow moving legislature that was obviously needed now.

Long before "retard" was a noun or even a pronoun, it was a verb- a transitive verb to be exact. Retard belonged to the English language from as early as the 15th century, coming from the from Latin retardare, which was derived from re- + tardus meaning slow. Go ahead, look it up if you don't believe me.

Did I or do I refer to anyone with any kind of a disability as a retard? Of course not. My mother taught me not to do that when I was in the 5th grade. She said it was rude and mean and hurtful and it is. But really, do people with intellectual disabilities really own that word? Isn't asking to ban the word's use in all forms of expression censorship?

Afterall, no one is seeking to censor the protesters speech or expression or retarding their right to assemble peaceably, although they are seeking to censor free speech. They could even petition the govenment for redress of their grievances. Will they?  I don't know. Some even say they are creating even more press for the film than would not have been present without their protests.

My point is I see both sides but I don't see how demanding to censor anyone's words would increase awareness or change minds.

From FotoFama Videos:

From the ARC of Virginia:

What are your thoughts, comments, P.O.Vs?

And as an unrelated sidenote:  Why do cup stacking tournaments show up in a search of  intellectually disabled videos on YouTube?

In Defense of Elizabeth Edwards and Other Enablers

And then Lee Woodruff (yep, Bob Woodruff's wife), posted this charming and well put commentary in her space at the Huffington Post.

This past Sunday, Sally Quinn wrote a thought provoking Washington Post column about Elizabeth Edwards that got many of my friends talking. She took a slightly different tack than much of the other media coverage has taken. In the outcry about John Edward's revelations, she pointed one of her fingers at Elizabeth Edwards, as an enabling wife. In my humble opinion, there are arguably many ways to examine this kind of a news story. There are so many angles in the prism from which to view it; who is at fault, who did what to whom, who is lying and when did they lie. In short -- the world has always been and is full of human frailty. But when someone is running for public office, it does require a stronger microscope.

Read more. Go ahead. I dare you.

Words? Thoughts? Commentary of your own?

How is John McCain's Affair Different from John Edwards'?

Cenk Uygur of the Huffington Post has a point.

"We have this weird notion in America now that if a politician is caught in an affair that his career is done. We seem to be saying that what he did in his private life effects his policies or how he governs. But we all know that isn't true. We know that because almost all of our great presidents, and great leaders throughout history, have had numerous affairs. Obviously it didn't hurt how they governed at all".

Read more...

You might be an entrepreneur if ...

In Identify the entrepreneurial spirit within, Dawn Duncan writes:

Recognizing that you may have an insatiable urge to create and lead the charge on a new project is a good first step in identifying if you're suited for being out on your own.

Ask yourself if you possess any or all of the following:

• Strong creativity and a need to express individual style, ideas and opinions.

• Ability to quickly grasp new concepts, shift gears, and go another direction.

• Desire to contribute on a higher level in terms of innovation, creativity or service.

• Resilience; ability to bounce back time after time when rejected.

• Ability to communicate ideas to others and persuade them to get on board.

• Desire to work on a rewards-based system rather than a stability-based system; you would forego a huge base salary for the opportunity to increase compensation based solely on performance.

• Strong desire for autonomy.

• Propensity to derive inspiration from several types of people and sources and develop business ideas based on your reactions to these.

• Tendency to pursue ideas relentlessly until they are implemented.

Yup, I'm moving in the right direction.

What about you?  How many of these traits do you possess and/or identify with?

Richmond Gets Some Warhol

via Art Daily

RICHMOND, VA.- The University of Richmond Museums is pleased to announce the recent addition of 153 original Andy Warhol photographs to the permanent collection of the Joel and Lila Harnett Print Study Center, gifted as part of the Andy Warhol Photographic Legacy Program. In celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the organization donated more than 28,500 original Warhol photographs valued at more than $28 million and divided amongst 183 college and university art museums in the United States. The University of Richmond Museums is honored to be selected as a recipient of this extraordinary gift.

The University of Richmond Museums will organize an exhibition showcasing the works in the spring of 2009. Warhol's "Photographs and Pictures": Selections from the Gift of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts is scheduled to be on view from March 20 to May 22, 2009 in the Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art. The exhibition will be curated by Lucy Green, '09, art history major, University of Richmond, and will be the subject of her senior thesis project.

Green recalls the buzz and excitement among the students and museum staff when opening the gift for the first time. "I was only familiar with Warhol's more popular and commercial prints," Green explained, "but these photographs capture a unique and personal glimpse into Warhol's world." The collection allows her to explore themes such as Warhol's ever-increasing preoccupation with fame, his use of the camera both as an equalizer and a social diary, the method behind his technical process, and finally, Warhol's theories of art and business. Green states, "I feel extremely fortunate to be able to have this valuable opportunity to study Warhol's original photographs with my senior thesis. My in-depth research should provide a foundation for curating and shaping the exhibition for the spring."

Executive director of the University Museums, Richard Waller notes, "We are greatly appreciative of the Warhol Foundation's gift. The photographs provide a rare opportunity to view and study Warhol's creative process and work. The photographs have already sparked much interest among our faculty, staff, and students."

The Warhol Photographic Legacy Program aims to provide greater public access to Warhol's photographs that have remained largely unseen. Curator of the program at the Warhol Foundation, Jenny Moore, notes that these works demonstrate, "Warhol's profound and frank engagement with the personality in front of the lens…his eye for detail, and his compulsive desire to document the world around him."

The University of Richmond received 102 Polaroid photographs in addition to 51 black-and-white silver gelatin prints made by Warhol from 1970 to 1987. Several of these Polaroid photographs served as studies for Warhol's later works. For instance, Witch (1980) directly correlates with his later myth series of pop culture figures such as the Wicked Witch of the West from the film "The Wizard of Oz." Also, the black-and-white works, most of which are candid shots, provide a personal lens into Warhol's life, social circle, and artistic milieu.

Warhol skillfully captured celebrities, socialites, artists, and models in his photographs. The image of Mick Jagger, Mackenzie Phillips, and Nicky Lane Weymouth exemplifies Warhol's illustrious quote that, "a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous." Viewers may recognize others figures of the 1970s and 1980s from athletes Dorothy Hamill and Vitas Gerulaitis to designers Carolina Herrera and Stephen Sprouse to editor of Glamour magazine, Marguerite Littmann. Warhol also reveals the art scene of his time through portraits of contemporaries such as artists Roy Lichtenstein and Victor Hugo as well as influential curators and major art collectors. These noted celebrities paired with Warhol's more personal acquaintances are some of the many subjects represented in the University Museums' recent gift.

Founded in 2001, the Joel and Lila Harnett Print Study Center houses the permanent collection of works on paper of the University of Richmond Museums and serves as a research center for the study and exhibition of prints, drawings, and photographs. With more than 5,000 works on paper in the collection by artists from the fifteenth century to the present, the Center promotes exposure to original works of art to the University's students, faculty, and staff as well as the Richmond community and the region. Through research, programs, publications, and exhibitions, the Harnett Print Study Center encourages the study and appreciation of works on paper and the visual arts.

John Edwards Isn't A Demon

Most everyone knows, I liked John Edwards.  I liked his ideas and I'm usually a sucker for a moderate. When I talked to my mother on the phone last she asked me what I thought about the John Edwards affair. My answer last night was the same as it is this morning: I wasn't surprised and it doesn't affect my opinion of him in the slightest. I believe my exact words last night were, "Oh, that.  No, I wasn't surprised. No one can be that lily white".

"But he did it as his wife was going through 4th stage cancer", said my mother.

"Yeah. That sucks. But people have affairs under all kinds of stressful circumstances. Men have affairs when their wives are pregnant or because there's some huge stressful issue happening and it rarely helps and always sucks".

Infidelity and adultery run rampant in politics. It's nothing new or unusual and we Americans are always quick to moralize and condemn people  for behavior that offends our sensibilities or our moral codes. The older I get the less able and willing I am to wash all things with my morality brush. I have a enough to do in keeping my own turds in a pile without projecting my own code of ethics and morality on other people's behavior.

I tend to view infidelity and adultery as a symptom of something else- an inappropriate response to a stressful situation in a relationship or in some cases, part of addictive behavior. Yes, it's happened to me and it was always about them and their inability to deal to deal with life on life's terms. Does that make them "bad"  or "amoral" people? Not always.

So, I enjoyed reading this article from AlterNet and thought I would share it with those of you who are still hanging tough with me.

Why We Should Stop Demonizing John Edwards