Showing posts with label Connecticut. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Connecticut. Show all posts

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Threatens to Come to Kent, CT

An excerpt from the Republican-American (a paper we will probably no longer be getting, as my mother refuses to not read the Opinion section, and then seethes with rage at the opinions expressed there - which is good for the NY Times, or possibly the Hartford Courant) article Fox's O'Reilly chides Kent in 9-11 Tribute Spat:
Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly has taken aim at the town of Kent for refusing to grant a local man's wish that a town memorial to his son, who was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, should read: "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists."
I'm down with Kent's First Selectman Ruth S. Epstein here when she rightly points out, "He can do whatever he wants on his own property".

But what Mr. Gadiel (the local man in question) wants to do is to use the collective's money - and the collective's property - to put forth his own beliefs. If Bill O'Reilly wants to come to Kent and explain to Epstein and others why that is an appropriate use of town funds, all the more power to him. It is his First Amendment right to do so, and it is Mr. Gadiel's First Amendment right to pony up the money for his own memorial, separate from the town's, on his own lawn and with his own message. But it is not within his rights to demand the town spend its money, and donate its land, for that message. And to suggest otherwise, to suggest that the individual has a right to the collective's money, for the individual's own purpose and gain, well, that seems like an idea that runs counter to most Republican philosophy when it comes to taxation.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

A Connecticut Sports Story

This story made me blub on my way to work:


My only complaint - aside from Keith Olbermann's terrible glasses - is the pronunciation of Wolcott. It's pronounced, for whatever the reason, Wulkit; much like Southington isn't pronounced South-ington, but Suthington.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Those Quiet Moments

Harry Shearer, better known to the public as Mr. Burns (or perhaps Ned Flanders - or even Waylon Smithers), is also an artiste. Not in that he actually puts pen or charcoal or paint to paper or canvas or anything else, but he is a modern artist. His newest exhibition is called The Silent Echo Chamber, and it is video and images of individuals in the moments before the television camera roll and we see their public facade. John McCain, Barack Obama, and Chris Matthews are all present in this exhibit. I heard about it from Talk of the Nation, and it seems like a fairly cool and inventive idea. We all know what these people look like and what they personify once the cameras are hot, but what about in those moments - those sometimes terrifying moments - before? The question of whether or not we can see anything from these public-private snippets is an interesting one; can seeing John McCain stare unerringly into the camera really tell me anything more about the man, or even myself? Or is the exhibition just a reprieve from the countless jaunty, somber, "personable", funny, and almost always vocal. In our world made up of a cacophony of sounds, it is those silent moments that are most rare. Like most modern art, The Silent Echo Chamber is probably more of a human Rorschach test than anything else. We probably only see bits of what we already assume the various people to be like rather than who they actually are, because the silence before the talk grants us very little conclusive evidence. But it still seems like an interesting venture - and it is being presented at the Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum in Ridgefield, Connecticut, so I may actually be able to go see it.

Another exhibition, though this one easily accessible due to its on-lineness - is sleepingchinese.com, which occupies a perpendicular angle to the the first exhibit in that these are photographs of private citizens in public places. Which, as the name suggests, are images of sleeping Chinese. I discovered this on Racialicious, and at first I was horribly appalled at the idea, mostly because I - in my Americentric way - thought that the pictures were being taken here. If they had been, it would have been entirely Othering, and more like a weird safari than any really meaningful work. But since the pictures are being taken in China, it becomes both less problematic and more problematic in a different way. The artist says,  
“They talk about ‘The Sleeping Giant’. About ‘The Birth of the New Super Power’ or ‘The Awakening of the Red Dragon’. Often with a strange kind of undertone, which is supposed to frighten us. The reality definitely looks more peaceful.”
It sounds as though the photographer is attempting to demystify the Chinese populace to the outside world to me. It sounds as though even while mentioning the Othering stereotypes, he's pulling from a common ground in an attempt to connect us all. No matter what our idea about China and the Chinese are, we should be able to take something from the fact that we all have to sleep and that we all look fairly similar when we sleep. There is a common humanity in sleeping by that virtue alone. Whether or not someone recognizes that when they look upon the images - or whether it is ethical to utilize a population for the intent of going beyond and behind the rhetoric - is something else entirely.

Friday, October 10, 2008

WOOT!

Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage, being the third state to do so behind Massachusetts and California. I discovered this through The Feminist Underground, which is kind of sad since I live in Connecticut. Anyway, the New York Times is reporting a 4-3 split on the upperest level court in Connecticut over the decision to legalize same-sex marriage, and Governor Rell has said, "The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success".

I am a little confused about that logic; according to Governor Rell, the majority of people in Connecticut are not in favor of straight up same-sex marriage (and I'm not sure if that is true). So, if that is the case, why would something like California's Prop. 8 not meet with success? I'm in no way wishing my state put forth such legislation, and I do happen to believe that if it were placed on the ballot it would not meet with success. But I also think that the statement from Governor Rell is a half-hearted attempt at best to offer some resistance to the idea that homosexuals have (or should have) all of the rights of heterosexual citizens. Her statement that any attempt to reverse the decision would not work seems to be implicitly demonstrating the belief that the Right is on the losing side of this particular culture war.

Anyway, go Connecticut! And congratulations to all of those who are now free to engage in the ridiculousness of weddings, and the beauty and entitlements and acceptance of marriage itself.