Author: DOuG pRATt

They must be Belgians

As has been my habit for the past 2+ years, when I’m in a foul political mood, I indulge some light-hearted K3 songs. Somebody was nice enough to put good quality K3 videos on YouTube, saving my site from the storage and bandwidth burdens. These are two of my favorites, with the original line-up, Kristel Verbeke (black), Kathleen Aerts (yellow), and Karen Damen (red) — the colors of the Belgian national flag.

In Love

Is There Somebody on Mars?

Aww, what the heck, here’s Tele-romeo…

These are two of the most versatile, talented, hardest-working and, yes, sexiest women in show biz. I am certain the only reason Karen and Kristel aren’t internationally famous is because they aren’t from England or America.

The deficit and trickle-up economics

I prefer to post fun stuff on this blog, but sometimes political happenings really get me going. Right now it’s the Republican fight against the scheduled expiration of the tax cuts, combined with Alan Simpson’s apparent dominance of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Simpson is the man who, this past August, said…

“Yes, I’ve made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know ’em too. It’s the same with any system in America. We’ve reached a point now where it’s like a milk cow with 310 million tits!”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014698-503544.html

Social Security is not, at this time, counted as part of deficit. It simply isn’t in the budget that is proposed by the President every year. Here, read it for yourself:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

During the Bush years, Republicans had a habit of pretending Social Security could be used for computing the deficit. Why? Because it had a surplus and made the deficit appear smaller. After Bill Clinton left office with a true budget surplus, what did Bush do? Instead of applying it to the national debt, he cut taxes. This is why I don’t believe Republicans when they say they’re desperately concerned about the deficit.

Something else that bugs me about the need to adjust Social Security, is that I keep hearing how much longer Americans live than they did when Social Security was introduced. Well, we do live longer, but only by about five years.

…the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

As expected, liberal economist Paul Krugman isn’t happy with the commission’s recommendations.

Matters become clearer once you reach the section on tax reform. The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. “Lower Rates” is the first point; “Reduce the Deficit” is the seventh.

So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Here is a discussion on the Fiscal Responsibility and Reform commission, from Friday’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook, a Boston-based NPR program. Jack Beatty sums it up succinctly.

[audio:http://www.dograt.com/Audio/2010/NOV/OnPoint.mp3]

OHHH… ALRIGHT… $42 million, and that’s my final offer

Yesterday, Christie’s auctioned a Roy Lichtenstein painting for $42,642,500. The painting is “OHHH… ALRIGHT…”, from 1964. I had to smile (maybe it was more of a smirk) when I read this in the catalog listing.

The seamless surface of Ohhh…Alright… may look as if it was rolled off a printing press in a matter of seconds, but it is actually the product of a long, painstaking procedure. Lichtenstein chose the original illustration from the DC comic book Secret Hearts, which Lichtenstein has made his own by subtly manipulating its content.

Attributing the source material that Lichtenstein used is undoubtedly thanks to the diligent research of David Barsalou, whose Deconstructing Lichtenstein project reveals what’s really behind Roy’s “monumental iconography.”

“Barsalou is boring to us,” comments Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation. He contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a mere copyist: “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. Barsalou’s thesis notwithstanding, the panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

OH... ALRIGHT !... DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000 DAVID BARSALOU

Nonsense. I don’t deny that Lichtenstein had his own style, but “OH… ALRIGHT…” was copied from a panel in a DC romance comic-book that was drawn by Bernard Sachs, and Barsalou is the only reason why Christie’s acknowledges that. If Art is supposed to be about Truth, Deconstructing Lichtenstein is an essential resource.

The best, and most evocative, use of Lichtenstein’s work I have seen in another medium is by our own Miss Lia Pamina, featuring Margo Guryan’s sublime “Love Songs”.

The Beeb on Sparky

It’s hard to believe it’s already been three years since the controversial biography Schulz and Peanuts, by David Michaelis. You have until next Tuesday to listen to a BBC Radio 4 feature on Charles M. Schulz.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/vrvdm/

I’m a bit surprised to hear Jeannie say, “David did a marvelous job…” Russell T. Davies, who brought Doctor Who back from hiatus, chimes in with the factoid that long before the Tardis, Snoopy’s doghouse was much bigger inside than it appeared outside.