Man, Herbert West was my first Lovecraft story. Still remember that one fondly.
My first was The Doom that Came to Sarnath. I was into Tolkien at the time and Lovecraft's style of writing struck me as very similar with the old English and the almost poetic prose. The Cats of Ulthar really got me hooked since I'm a cat person and was also into Egyptian mythology at the time. Ah, the good old days...
His Lord Dunsany Dream-world stuff is of an entirely different bent than the Mythos or run-of-the-mill Gothic horror. Though I remember liking "The Doom that Came to Sarnath", thought certainly not as well as I like something like "The Outsider" or, especially, "The Music of Erich Zann". To tie it in politically (so we don't go off topic) Lovecraft is a great discussion point for whether one can enjoy art when the artist holds views they find reprehensible. Obviously, everyone knows Lovecraft was a full-on racist (and certainly everyone knows about the name of the cat in "The Rats in the Walls"). I reconcile it with the fact that HP Lovecraft lived perhaps the most sheltered, hermetic life of any figure I have ever read about. He was raised in an almost aristocratic atmosphere by his aunts but it seemed to me his entire adult life was spent nearly destitute. I doubt he was a good dinner companion, or good companion in general.
Of course you have to ignore the person when you enjoy the art. I couldn't listen to any of my favorite rock bands if I looked at them as role models. My favorite bands are Alice in Chains, Rage Against the Machine, Godsmack, Stone Temple Pilots, Black Sabbath (with Ozzy), Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Ministry, Soundgarden, Fleetwood Mac, Jefferson Airplane, Billy Holiday, Pink Floyd, etc... Not exactly the best moral values in that bunch. With just a little change in my upbringing I'd probably be dead now from a drug overdose!
You do not have to ignore the person when you enjoy the art. There's no mandate to do this. It is better to say that it is up to people how to decide whether they're willing to engage art attached to a problematic artist.
I'm not entirely consistent about this - some people I avoid their art entirely, some people I still enjoy it despite knowing their views. Mostly it depends on how they act upon those views.
If you enjoy it but ignore it you're not being true to yourself in my opinion. If I enjoy the art, whether it be music, paintings, movies, stories, whatever, I can ignore the source. The scientist in me is intrigued by figuring out what draws me to it. That's part of the mystery of art in general. It's the one thing I can't quantify with logic and I'm ok with that...
I find that when it comes to certain people, knowing what they're like and what they do makes it difficult to enjoy their art.
There's also a lot of art I enjoy despite the creator.
Art is usually giving you a glimpse into the creator's soul in some way or another. Reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you Hitler, but it does give you a glimpse of what was going on in his mind. Appreciating the architecture of the Colliseum doesn't make you a bloodthirsty fan of duels to the death but it can still bring a feeling of awe about the grandeur of it. Reading and enjoying Lovecraft doesn't make you a racist but it can give a perspective of how things were in the early 1900's. Maybe my love of history just gives me a sense of perspective but I don't think there's any art you can experience that can fundamentally change who you are as a person.
I never said that it would change who I am as a person.
Reading Lovecraft won't make me a racist, although I would argue that he was significantly more racist than was typical for his time. Appreciating problematic art won't make me problematic. I know this. People are allowed to appreciate whatever art they want, I'm not saying otherwise.
However, I don't appreciate some art because the person who created it has done things that I do not wish to support. This does not mean I lack perspective, it means I have a perspective different from yours.
I'm not arguing you or anyone else should avoid any art. I'm simply saying there are good reasons for people to avoid art if they so choose. There's so much art that avoiding some of it doesn't mean missing out on anything.
I can't argue with that. I'm mostly Irish and German so that's saying something!
This report from what FOX News is saying tonight tells me they understand the calculus behind the Franken resignation and are not at all pleased at what it is going to force them to confront. There is no other explanation for these two people to be saying this about a man who has attacked them mercilessly for the last 20 years:
I always take every given chance to point out that Newt Gingrich served his first wife divorce papers while she was in a hospital bed getting cancer treatment so he could marry his mistress.
This report from what FOX News is saying tonight tells me they understand the calculus behind the Franken resignation and are not at all pleased at what it is going to force them to confront. There is no other explanation for these two people to be saying this about a man who has attacked them mercilessly for the last 20 years:
I can see where this is leading and Trump and Fox News cannot be at all pleased. Maybe the high ground will have an affect even though the Dems have nothing to lose. That would be the best political move in at least a century! I'd sort of be on the losing side but as a chess player, I'd have to tip my hat...
The Dems will be losing at least a rook in the exchange though (Franken). Will you be able to take out the king?
This report from what FOX News is saying tonight tells me they understand the calculus behind the Franken resignation and are not at all pleased at what it is going to force them to confront. There is no other explanation for these two people to be saying this about a man who has attacked them mercilessly for the last 20 years:
I can see where this is leading and Trump and Fox News cannot be at all pleased. Maybe the high ground will have an affect even though the Dems have nothing to lose. That would be the best political move in at least a century! I'd sort of be on the losing side but as a chess player, I'd have to tip my hat...
The Dems will be losing at least a rook in the exchange though (Franken). Will you be able to take out the king?
I'm seeing alot of liberals tonight who are pissed that Franken resigning won't do any good because Trump won't resign and Moore will still get elected. As if the move is to make Republicans grow a conscience and hold their own accountable by shaming them. I think they are missing the point entirely. The Democrats are basically COUNTING on the fact that the Republicans won't do anything. That the current state of the party being led by Trump makes them impotent and incapable to do anything. I'd say that's a safe bet.
Normally this might not work. But post-Weinstein (and honestly, post-Trump)?? It wasn't just me who agreed the women all across the country should get Time's Person of the Year (which they did this morning, and the timing is perfect as well). Nearly everyone who read the comment agreed as well. From all ends of the spectrum and opinions. What are the Republicans (who already have a BIG women problem based on the 2017 election results) going to do when they cede this issue completely and show they don't give a shit about something at least HALF (if not more) of women seem to have personal experience with??
In chess there is seldom success without some kind of sacrifice, at least against a competent opponent. Trump doesn't seem that competent so I guess we'll see if there are any other players that he'll listen too. I'm not holding my breath...
In chess there is seldom success without some kind of sacrifice, at least against a competent opponent. Trump doesn't seem that competent so I guess we'll see if there are any other players that he'll listen too. I'm not holding my breath...
There are competent people in the world, Trump doesn't want to hear from them.
Here are the kind of people he listens to:
- Anyone who flatters him or says nice things about Donald J. Trump and appeals to his ego. I believe this is how Putin first got influence over him. I have no idea how deep the collusion goes but at the very least there seems to be some bromance mutual respect going on there. It was probably easy for the ex-KGB Putin to offer a complient or two "Oh Mr. Trump you're a great businessman!" when they first met and Trump was probably like "Russians, you're one of the good ones!"
- People with similar prejudices and world view or Christians. For example Steve Bannon. I don't think Trump is at all religious but he seems to think he has to play up that angle to 11K.
- People that want to help him make money either by giving it to him directly in the form of donations or enabling him to make money.
All the faux outrage by politicians as their fellows get caught in their misbehavior is pure damage control. Not a bit of it is sincere. Like with the celebrities, they all knew. Until someone starts naming names inside the harassment slush fund or unsealing the slush fund itself, I won't believe anyone is not complicit.
All the faux outrage by politicians as their fellows get caught in their misbehavior is pure damage control. Not a bit of it is sincere. Like with the celebrities, they all knew. Until someone starts naming names inside the harassment slush fund or unsealing the slush fund itself, I won't believe anyone is not complicit.
We know about two Reps who have used the slush fund, so to speak: John Conyers and Blake Fartenhold. One of them has resigned, the other one has said he will simply pay back the money and has given no hint he is thinking of stepping down, nor has Paul Ryan even suggested that he do so. There is clearly a difference between those two outcomes. And Fartenhold's district is as safe for Republicans as Conyers' is to Dems.
I can't see the name Fartenhold without cracking up! It reminds me of 'Dickon' from Game of Thrones where everybody kind of sniggers when he says his name.
I can't see the name Fartenhold without cracking up! It reminds me of 'Dickon' from Game of Thrones where everybody kind of sniggers when he says his name.
He has been a cartoonish figure for years before this came out. If I was asked to make a list of who in the House would have a sexual harassment payout on their record, he would have been one of the first 3 names I wrote down.
Edit: my bad, it's Farenthold. It wasn't on purpose, that's how it always looked to me when I saw it in print.
I can't see the name Fartenhold without cracking up! It reminds me of 'Dickon' from Game of Thrones where everybody kind of sniggers when he says his name.
He has been a cartoonish figure for years before this came out. If I was asked to make a list of who in the House would have a sexual harassment payout on their record, he would have been one of the first 3 names I wrote down.
Edit: my bad, it's Farenthold. It wasn't on purpose, that's how it always looked to me when I saw it in print.
Freudian slip maybe? I'll certainly snigger every time I see his name from now on regardless!
Franken has resigned, and ,as I speculated last night, it was Klobuchar who told him when they talked yesterday he had to go. He has called for a woman to replace him in office. As I said all day yesterday, the GOP has no idea what they are now stepping in politically if they don't respond in kind. And they won't realize it until it is too late.
Twitter has banned all the best people since 2016 unfortunately. I still don't understand what Sargon of Akkad did. I still use the platform though.
The most relevant info from Twitter in my mind was their testimony admitting to the mass censorship of absolutely relevant election information from WikiLeaks during the campaign and how the amount of it being "Russian influenced" was single digits even by their own metrics. It's certainly gone far from being "the free speech wing of the free speech party" as it once billed itself.
Franken resigned and Conyers. No word on Trump resigning yet but his accusations are much more serious. At least Republicans are doing the right things by condemning him and Pedophile Roy Moore who has also been accused of conduct much worse than Franken. Oh wait, no the GOP are still backing those guys. At least low level rep Fartenhold is going to resign, oh wait nope there too.
Franken resigned and Conyers. No word on Trump resigning yet but his accusations are much more serious. At least Republicans are doing the right things by condemning him and Pedophile Roy Moore who has also been accused of conduct much worse than Franken. Oh wait, no the GOP are still backing those guys. At least low level rep Fartenhold is going to resign, oh wait nope there too.
McConnell and McCain have both called for Moore's resignation.
McConnell and McCain have both called for Moore's resignation.
McConnell has basically retreated to a shrug, saying we should "let the people of Alabama make the call." When asked if he'd had a change of heart on this issue, he responded, "I had hoped earlier he would withdraw as a candidate. That obviously is not going to happen." [The Hill]
A single day after Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Palestinians have begun protesting. There have been reports of injuries but so far no deaths. Hopefully this won't result in another full-blown uprising.
McConnell and McCain have both called for Moore's resignation.
McConnell has basically retreated to a shrug, saying we should "let the people of Alabama make the call." When asked if he'd had a change of heart on this issue, he responded, "I had hoped earlier he would withdraw as a candidate. That obviously is not going to happen." [The Hill]
And this is the thing if they think it'll make a difference. Majority of voters won't care. They don't care now and won't care by the next election.
The protests in Palestine is probably what Trump wanted. He can now march in there as 'peace keepers'
It bothers me that the calls for Franken's resignation were dismissed as a cynical political move.
Trump, a Republican, was caught on tape bragging about groping women and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, was caught sexting underage girls and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Roy Moore, a Republican, was accused of child molestation and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Al Franken, a Democrat, was accused of sexual harassment and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Regardless of whether the person in question was a Democrat or a Republican, the Democratic response has been the same: it's not okay and people who do it are not fit for public office. It's the very opposite of a double standard.
You know, you can say that holding Democratic and Republican officials to the exact same standards is partisan politics and the mark of hypocrisy and dishonesty. But if holding everyone to the same standards is wrong, then what the hell are you supposed to do? I can only think of three approaches to this issue:
1. Hold both parties to different standards. 2. Hold no one to any standards. 3. Hold both parties to the same standards.
Democrats picked number 3. If that's not a fair and honest and nonpartisan approach, what should they have picked instead?
It bothers me that the calls for Franken's resignation were dismissed as a cynical political move.
Trump, a Republican, was caught on tape bragging about groping women and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, was caught sexting underage girls and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Roy Moore, a Republican, was accused of child molestation and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Al Franken, a Democrat, was accused of sexual harassment and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Regardless of whether the person in question was a Democrat or a Republican, the Democratic response has been the same: it's not okay and people who do it are not fit for public office. It's the very opposite of a double standard.
You know, you can say that holding Democratic and Republican officials to the exact same standards is partisan politics and the mark of hypocrisy and dishonesty. But if holding everyone to the same standards is wrong, then what the hell are you supposed to do? I can only think of three approaches to this issue:
1. Hold both parties to different standards. 2. Hold no one to any standards. 3. Hold both parties to the same standards.
Democrats picked number 3. If that's not a fair and honest and nonpartisan approach, what should they have picked instead?
I don't see how you could blame Democrats. If they find a problem they act.
Republicans if they face a problem they might say something about it but they will not act.
People seem to accept that this is OK. Maybe they wrap themselves in knots about it but probably not.
"five women said Franken tried to kiss them during a comedy play or squeezed them too hard that it made them willing to say they were uncomfortable. Franken has got to go!
But Roy Moore, totally denies that he assaulted a dozen women, he's a true Christian! He does not even know the women that have yearbook entries signed by Roy Moore! "
To be fair, many Democrats were slow and reluctant to condemn Franken. He was a genuinely well-liked figure, and a lot of the discourse around pushing him out has been focused on avoiding (the perception of) hypocrisy and drawing a political line in the sand. It hasn't seemed to be driven by the same moral outrage that many on the left feel about Moore.
The important thing is that they landed in the right place. Consciously avoiding hypocrisy is not itself hypocrisy. But I can't blame Republicans for perceiving some degree of cynicism in the process.
It bothers me that the calls for Franken's resignation were dismissed as a cynical political move.
Trump, a Republican, was caught on tape bragging about groping women and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, was caught sexting underage girls and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Roy Moore, a Republican, was accused of child molestation and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Al Franken, a Democrat, was accused of sexual harassment and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Regardless of whether the person in question was a Democrat or a Republican, the Democratic response has been the same: it's not okay and people who do it are not fit for public office. It's the very opposite of a double standard.
You know, you can say that holding Democratic and Republican officials to the exact same standards is partisan politics and the mark of hypocrisy and dishonesty. But if holding everyone to the same standards is wrong, then what the hell are you supposed to do? I can only think of three approaches to this issue:
1. Hold both parties to different standards. 2. Hold no one to any standards. 3. Hold both parties to the same standards.
Democrats picked number 3. If that's not a fair and honest and nonpartisan approach, what should they have picked instead?
There is a forth option.
Allow the voting public to determine if an individual is fit to hold office. It is their responsibility to determine what standards politicans should follow.
The democratic party can ask for a person to resign if they become a distraction to the message that they are attempting to sell to the American people, but it is up to that individual and that individual alone to determine if resigning is the best course of action for the people he or she repersents.
If the person refuses to resign, and the party wishes not to affiliate itself with that person, they can remove him or her from the party making them an independent senator.
So if enough people in Arizona doesnt care that Moore is a pedophile and he is elected, that is squarely on them. If the Repbulican party is actually outraged by his actions, (which they are not) they can remove him from the party and in four years time run another candidate against him.
Liberals didn't just like all Franken, alot of us LOVED Al Franken (as far as politicians go). He was the leading fighter for Net Neutrality. He was the most effective questioner of Jeff Sessions all year. It's why alot of liberals (who I disagree with) are angry today. They see us in a horrible situation since Trump got into office, and can't for the life of them understand what kind of weak message is being sent when we send one of our own packing and Trump is still in the White House and Roy Moore is poised to enter the Senate. Alot of it is born out of pure frustration at the current climate.
The main reason Franken had to step down is because, as he said in his speech, there was simply no way he could effectively represent the State of Minnesota with this hanging over his head. I believe he does care for his State. I actually don't think he is the monster that Trump and Moore are. It sucks that he had to go. But he had to go.
As for saying it is all a cynical ploy, you really should look to what happened after he got done speaking today, when a whole line of the female Senators who called for him to step down, and are THE reason it happened, met him as he was walking away from the podium to talk to him with tears in their eyes. They didn't want to do it. They felt they HAD to do it. And they did. And it wasn't all that easy, all things considered.
To be fair, many Democrats were slow and reluctant to condemn Franken. He was a genuinely well-liked figure, and a lot of the discourse around pushing him out has been focused on avoiding (the perception of) hypocrisy and drawing a political line in the sand. It hasn't seemed to be driven by the same moral outrage that many on the left feel about Moore.
While I agree with this, Franken's reactions to the initial accusation were what I would generally hope for in a case like this--he admitted it, apologized to the accuser (which was accepted), and asked for an ethics investigation into himself. It's a little harder to be outraged at someone who seems to be showing contrition, taking responsibility, and desiring atonement.
Comments
I always take every given chance to point out that Newt Gingrich served his first wife divorce papers while she was in a hospital bed getting cancer treatment so he could marry his mistress.
The Dems will be losing at least a rook in the exchange though (Franken). Will you be able to take out the king?
Normally this might not work. But post-Weinstein (and honestly, post-Trump)?? It wasn't just me who agreed the women all across the country should get Time's Person of the Year (which they did this morning, and the timing is perfect as well). Nearly everyone who read the comment agreed as well. From all ends of the spectrum and opinions. What are the Republicans (who already have a BIG women problem based on the 2017 election results) going to do when they cede this issue completely and show they don't give a shit about something at least HALF (if not more) of women seem to have personal experience with??
Here are the kind of people he listens to:
- Anyone who flatters him or says nice things about Donald J. Trump and appeals to his ego. I believe this is how Putin first got influence over him. I have no idea how deep the collusion goes but at the very least there seems to be some bromance mutual respect going on there. It was probably easy for the ex-KGB Putin to offer a complient or two "Oh Mr. Trump you're a great businessman!" when they first met and Trump was probably like "Russians, you're one of the good ones!"
- People with similar prejudices and world view or Christians. For example Steve Bannon. I don't think Trump is at all religious but he seems to think he has to play up that angle to 11K.
- People that want to help him make money either by giving it to him directly in the form of donations or enabling him to make money.
Those are about it.
Edit: my bad, it's Farenthold. It wasn't on purpose, that's how it always looked to me when I saw it in print.
NEARLY HALF OF DONALD TRUMP'S TWITTER FOLLOWERS ARE FAKE ACCOUNTS AND BOTS
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-twitter-followers-fake-617873
The most relevant info from Twitter in my mind was their testimony admitting to the mass censorship of absolutely relevant election information from WikiLeaks during the campaign and how the amount of it being "Russian influenced" was single digits even by their own metrics. It's certainly gone far from being "the free speech wing of the free speech party" as it once billed itself.
The protests in Palestine is probably what Trump wanted. He can now march in there as 'peace keepers'
Trump, a Republican, was caught on tape bragging about groping women and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, was caught sexting underage girls and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Roy Moore, a Republican, was accused of child molestation and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Al Franken, a Democrat, was accused of sexual harassment and Democrats said he wasn't fit for office.
Regardless of whether the person in question was a Democrat or a Republican, the Democratic response has been the same: it's not okay and people who do it are not fit for public office. It's the very opposite of a double standard.
You know, you can say that holding Democratic and Republican officials to the exact same standards is partisan politics and the mark of hypocrisy and dishonesty. But if holding everyone to the same standards is wrong, then what the hell are you supposed to do? I can only think of three approaches to this issue:
1. Hold both parties to different standards.
2. Hold no one to any standards.
3. Hold both parties to the same standards.
Democrats picked number 3. If that's not a fair and honest and nonpartisan approach, what should they have picked instead?
A HuffPost/YouGov survey (writeup, data (PDF))
Republicans if they face a problem they might say something about it but they will not act.
People seem to accept that this is OK. Maybe they wrap themselves in knots about it but probably not.
"five women said Franken tried to kiss them during a comedy play or squeezed them too hard that it made them willing to say they were uncomfortable. Franken has got to go!
But Roy Moore, totally denies that he assaulted a dozen women, he's a true Christian! He does not even know the women that have yearbook entries signed by Roy Moore! "
The important thing is that they landed in the right place. Consciously avoiding hypocrisy is not itself hypocrisy. But I can't blame Republicans for perceiving some degree of cynicism in the process.
Allow the voting public to determine if an individual is fit to hold office. It is their responsibility to determine what standards politicans should follow.
The democratic party can ask for a person to resign if they become a distraction to the message that they are attempting to sell to the American people, but it is up to that individual and that individual alone to determine if resigning is the best course of action for the people he or she repersents.
If the person refuses to resign, and the party wishes not to affiliate itself with that person, they can remove him or her from the party making them an independent senator.
So if enough people in Arizona doesnt care that Moore is a pedophile and he is elected, that is squarely on them. If the Repbulican party is actually outraged by his actions, (which they are not) they can remove him from the party and in four years time run another candidate against him.
The main reason Franken had to step down is because, as he said in his speech, there was simply no way he could effectively represent the State of Minnesota with this hanging over his head. I believe he does care for his State. I actually don't think he is the monster that Trump and Moore are. It sucks that he had to go. But he had to go.
As for saying it is all a cynical ploy, you really should look to what happened after he got done speaking today, when a whole line of the female Senators who called for him to step down, and are THE reason it happened, met him as he was walking away from the podium to talk to him with tears in their eyes. They didn't want to do it. They felt they HAD to do it. And they did. And it wasn't all that easy, all things considered.