|
|
|
August 01, 2010
Who gets to elect our "cultural" representatives?
Sometimes I don't know what to do with what I guess should be called "news." Like this um "book" um "review" that was linked on Drudge. Something about Angelina Jolie putting urine in a Mountain Dew bottle intended for her dad Jon Voight's girlfriend, and how her mom helped her lose her virginity at age 14. Stuff like that. Oh and she took a shower with Leonardo DiCaprio, and nothing happened. (Which means I should be surprised?) What's the point of all this? I am supposed to get titillated? Or am I supposed to get outraged? This woman is an actress (I also vaguely recalled the important detail that she was -- and then I was told that she apparently still is -- married to actor Brad Pitt), and the author of the book wants to sell it, so presumably they all get excited over other people getting excited and/or outraged, and everyone makes money. Or I guess maybe there's a "moral lesson" to be found in reading about a single tawdry and seedy life. What moral lesson can that be? People like this are "destroying" the "culture"? What culture? Theirs? Or are they supposed to be "us"? If "they" are "us" then I guess I am Angelina Jolie. Or an Angelina Jolie wannabe? Or maybe it's a Brad Pitt wannabe that I'm supposed to be? Should I go pee in a Mountain Dew bottle now and blame her? I'm baffled. This feels like one of those "important" things that I am just supposed to know why it's so important and urgent. And I'm taking issue with the supposed to part, because I don't see why I'm supposed to. If anyone can explain, I'm all ears. My Congressman John Dingell was a leading sponsor of the Obama/Pelosicare bill (it bears his name too), but I didn't vote for him and really don't feel represented by him. Still he has power, and arguably does things in the name of his constituents, of which I am one. I never voted for Angelina Jolie for anything, and I don't even know whether I have seen any of her films... (I just checked; she has 40 film credits, and I have seen one -- ''The Good Shepherd" -- which wasn't that great and I didn't notice her.) So not being her fan, I can't be said to have voted for her and am not represented by her in any capacity. But if Dingell doesn't represent me, how can she? Some would say that Angelina Jolie is an official unelected representative of my "culture," and that therefore I should not only care, but care deeply. But would she say that she represents me? I doubt it. I think the people who would tell me that she represents me are running some sort of con game. They're the ones who elected her, not I. posted by Eric on 08.01.10 at 09:24 AM
Comments
This is half an idea, at most, but I'll whip it out anyway, because it feels like it's kind of onto something: Royalty's "representation" of "us" in some convoluted way consists of their being free of the moral, legal, financial, etc. constraints on "us." When they take advantage of their greater freedom and do things that grossly exceed what's permitted to "us," it's "our culture's" fault. "Representative" excesses justify, to "us," further constraining "us," thus enlarging the gap between royalty's freedom and ours. This makes royalty even more "representative" of "us," so... Repeat until revolution and/or fall, I guess. guy on internet · August 1, 2010 11:07 AM I'm not sure there's a greater insult to an "artist" like Jolie than not noticing her. You cad! Donna B. · August 1, 2010 07:00 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2010
July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• the bigoted nature of identitarianism makes me want to find a "tribe"
• Who gets to elect our "cultural" representatives? • Sweetening the pot -- NOT! • "freedom to think what they want to think" • A surprising and hopefully sincere apology • To the authoritarian ruling class, dissenters are "authoritarians"! • The Tea Party may have "wings," but no one can clip them! • Obama's Katrina: Did Admin Policies/Incompetence Cause The Oil Spill? • Atomic Time • The Inertia Question
Links
Site Credits
|
|
My belief is that "self esteem" is so skewed/screwed in this country that a very large number of people live vicariously through the rich and lamous...