http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/ Politics, Society, and a Dash of Philosophy en http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/10/next-post.html UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT …………… Early to bed, as well as early to rise, Makes a man healthy, wealthy as well as wise - Benjamin Franklin. … I don’t see it. - George Washington … Now both of these are high authorities - very high as well as respectable authorities - but I am with General Washington first, last, as well as all of the time on this proposition. Because I don’t see it, either. . . . Put no trust in the benefits to accrue from early rising, as set forth by the infatuated Franklin - but stake the last cent of your substance on the judgment of old George Washington, the Father of his Country, who said “he couldn’t see it.” And you hear me endorsing that sentiment. Mark Twain, “Early Rising, As Regards Excursions to the Cliff House,” MARK TWAIN IN THE GOLDEN ERA 1863-1866. …………… Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: Up@Night http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/10/next-post.html Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:04:25 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/06/obamas-pragmatism-or-move-over-culture-wars-hello-political-philosophy.html [This piece was originally posted on December 14, 2008.   It also appeared in Talking Points Memo on December 17, 2008.  I am reposting it now because of the fact that of continuing interest.  You can find the original with feedback by selecting "December" from the calendar at right.] Here is a prediction: the culture wars shall be left by the wayside as we enter a seemingly new land, the land of the tactically minded chief executive, whose tactics are the tip of a philosophical iceberg.  The executive is Obama as well as the iceberg is Pragmatism. Comments regarding Obama’s pragmatism constitute something of a cottage industry. These discussions usually involve contrasting Obama’s pragmatism, on behalf of example, in choosing his cabinet, with the ideological approach of Bush as well as the neo-cons.  Here the term pragmatism is meant to denote political flexibility, comfort with the expedient, as well as a willingness to compromise.  For critics it is meant to suggest an unprincipled orientation toward questions of great moment. Given Obama’s willingness to label himself a pragmatist, numerous have been mystified by his commitment to specific values, finding him not only unclassifiable in accepted political categories, but mystifying as a person.  For example, in a recent article in Harpers, “The American Void,” Simon Critchley treats Obama as, well, a void.  He just can’t figure the guy out.   In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (PBS site), there's nothing strange about Obama’s political views on behalf of those who are familiar with the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism or the Social Gospel Movement. Interestingly, Critchley makes much of Obama’s mother being an anthropologist, but what he fails to draw attention to is that Ann Dunham’s thesis director was Alice G. Dewey, John Dewey’s granddaughter.  (John Dewey was perhaps the an estimated all famous Pragmatism of the twentieth century.) This is no accident. Obama’s thought as well as practice can be located in the tradition of American Pragmatism (pragmatism with a capital P) as well as in the liberal Social Gospel Movement that was influential in Chicago during the early part of the 20th century. The latter is still influential in some Chicago churches as well as community groups, especially those that would have an estimated all engaged Obama’s attention as a community organizer. One of the few commentators to have begun to tease out the differences between Obama’s pragmatisms is Chris Hayes. He writes in The Nation, “Pragmatism in common usage may mean simply a practical approach to difficulties as well as affairs. But it’s also the name of the uniquely American school of philosophy whose doctrine is that truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. What unites the two senses of the word is a shared skepticism toward certainties derived from abstractions–one that is welcome as well as bracing at the end of eight years of a failed, faith-based presidency. . . . And if there’s a silver thread woven into the pragmatist mantle Obama claims, it has its origins in this school of thought. Obama could do worse than to look to John Dewey….For him, the crux of pragmatism, as well as indeed democracy, was a rejection of the knowability of foreordained truths in favor of ‘variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation.’ ” The Nation, Dec 10, 2008 Hayes is moving in the right direction.  I would take his claims a step further.  There is no understanding of Obama without an understanding of Pragmatism. Take on behalf of instance the question of whether one can have principles as well as still be a pragmatist.  From the vantage point of philosophical Pragmatism, the question is non-starter.  The utilize of principles to address philosophical as well as political issues extends back to Plato as well as Aristotle, as well as migrates through Kant’s deontological ethics into the twentieth century.  But the Pragmatist wants to bypass this mode of thinking, one that requires us to trust that affirming values requires a principled affirmation of values.  Principles are in fact problematic as well as counterproductive.  Dewey, on behalf of example, railed against Kant during WWI, claiming that the rigidity of his ethics of principled imperatives was reflected in the dictatorial as well as undemocratic mindset of the German regime.  People who trust in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths as well as principles.  As Hannah Arendt argues, debate is at the heart of political life, as well as Truth (with a capital “T”) kills debate. (Obama’s father was a man of principle to the point of stubbornness.  He had a failed career as well as a led a troubled life.  It is hard to read Dreams of My Father and not conclude that Obama came away from his “journey” with a lasting distaste on behalf of principles. His mother, on the other hand, was the epitome of a Deweyan in her love of experience, experimentation, novelty, change, as well as belief in the transformational power of education.) In the “Epilogue” to Dreams of My Father, Obama reports a conversation that he as well as his sister, Auma, had with Dr. Rukia Odero, a professor of history.  A central question in the discussion: how should Africans adapt to the values that Westerners have took to Africa?   That Obama chose to report the conversation is telling.  Rukia, I would argue, is meant to give voice to Obama’s views.  She states, “I suspect that we can’t pretend that the contradictions of our situation don’t exist.  All we can do is choose.”  And at the end of discussing the complexities of the issue of female circumcision, she goes on to say, “You can't have rule of law as well as then exempt certain members of your clan.  What to do?  Again you choose.  If you manufacture the wrong choice, then you learn from your mistakes.  You see what works.”  (Dreams from My Father, New York: Crown, 2004, p. 434)  “Seeing what works” is indeed the mantra of Pragmatism.  Yet as in existentialism, this doesn’t mean that one doesn’t feel the weight of moral as well as political decisions.  It means that one can’t appeal to principles in advance to justify one’s decisions or “what works.” But doesn’t being a pragmatist, in both senses of the term, just manufacture Obama a relativist?  No doubt on behalf of the ideologically committed, those who fear a leader without a moral compass, this would be a central concern.  But once again this is to frame the issue in the wrong fashion.  Relativism is a problem on behalf of moral absolutists.  Without a lasting commitment to absolutes, there isn’t a problem of relativism.  Instead there's the problem of deciding what values to hold.  To frame the discussion in terms of absolutism versus relativism is already to take the framework of the religious right, which is what the Republicans have been notoriously successful in doing on behalf of two generations.  However, the choice is not between absolutism as well as relativism.  It is between different values. Commitments to values arise from numerous sources, including thoughtful deliberation as well as prudential considerations.  And it is in the realm of “prudence” that one finds a symmetry between upper as well as lower case pragmatism.  For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not at all times trump other values, but sometimes they do, because of the fact that prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good.  As a matter of fact, a thoughtful political agent doesn’t manufacture dogmatic, read absolutistic, decisions in advance regarding what values as well as tactics may be the an estimated all vital as well as relevant. The culture wars have relied on disagreements over specific values as well as the belief that principles are central to morality.  Or at least this is the way that the religious right has sought to frame the controversy, a perception that neo-cons have used to reinforce their political agendas.  When Obama speaks of being post-ideological, of being a pragmatist, I read him as trying to address logjams over values by avoiding divisive discourses based on principles.  How does one accomplish this?  Well, one way is to sound as if one is not ideological, on behalf of example, by showing flexibility on specific moral as well as political questions.  By so doing Obama is not simply maneuvering. He is not being disingenuous.  He is behaving as if he is a committed Pragmatist, as well as as such he is seeking to modification the ground rules on behalf of political discourse. Obama may very well succeed with a little help from his (several million) friends, as well as realities on the ground, namely, a serious financial crisis that suddenly has life-long, dogmatic free-marketers operational on behalf of cover.  He may also succeed because of the fact that he is attuned to something very basic about the American psyche.  It is no accident that Pragmatism is the an estimated all significant philosophy that America has produced.  There is something deeply American about it.  But is it Left, Right, or Center? Once again, this is to request a misleading question.  Its tent is large sufficient to contain persons from across the American political spectrum, if one judges political commitments by specific values.  Yet in an American context Obama’s Pragmatism presents a much greater challenge to the ideological Right than to the ideological Left.  How so?  If the conversation is shifted away from absolutes, the Right in America shall lose the ground from which it has hurled its an estimated all potent missiles.  Some on the Right are beginning to recognize the threat that Obama poses.  Some still trust that they can take back the days of the culture wars. The latter, however, are predicated on the “principled versus pragmatist” distinction, one that is becoming less consequential with each passing day.  So, I wish the dogmatic Right lots of luck. They shall require it.  As on behalf of the non-dogmatic Right, if debate is crucial to a thriving democracy, I wish them well, as well as so does the Pragmatist Obama. Obama on pragmatism (with a small p) as well as the dangers of certainty (which relates to philosophical Pragmatism). Posted in John Dewey, Obama, Obama as well as pragmatism, Philosophy, politics, Pragmatism, Progressivism Tagged: America, John Dewey, Obama, Obama as well as pragmatism, Philosophy, politics, Pragmatism http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/06/obamas-pragmatism-or-move-over-culture-wars-hello-political-philosophy.html Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:43:46 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/07/david-brooks-means-too-well.html Adam Smith, on the left, looks through Brooks, while Hegel, on the right, can only think, “Oy.” …. Poor David Brooks.  You just never know when he is going to get in over his head, as well as neither does he.  One can only marvel at some of the “out of left” field claims as well as arguments that he has made, while continuing to present himself as the an estimated all reasonable man on the planet.  Don’t get me wrong.  It’s hard to dislike the guy, with his schoolboy enthusiasms as well as his deferential feedback about the brains (specifically, the high SAT scores) of the members of the new administration.  And you have to prefer him to Rush. But sometimes in his desire to show off as well as create a splash he goes too far.  Yesterday, April 7, 2009, was just such a day.  Brooks entitled his column in the NY Times, “The End of Philosophy.”  If that wasn’t pretentious enough, he then proceeded to tell us how philosophers have spent 2,500 years barking up the wrong tree because of the fact that scientists have now discovered connections between morality as well as emotion.  (As if this is not an old topic, even in Ethics 101.) Well, I couldn’t resist a quick response, as well as it appears that neither could hundreds of others.  I am reproducing my feedback here (unedited) because of the fact that it seems that they were recommended by good number of readers, as well as well, you know, one can never pass up an opportunity to knock David’s books out of his hands, figuratively speaking, that is.  His article, The End of Philosophy, is a wonderful example of what happens when one goes into the water before one knows how to swim, believing that one doesn’t have to learn.  (Just act naturally.)  I recommend it to instructors of philosophy (and writing) as a useful classroom tool.  Don’t do as David does, or else….  I recommended it to everyone else as a rewarding screamer. …. David, Oy. I think that we require to talk. I am afraid that you are practicing philosophy without a license, which is okay, up to a point. (First rule: do no harm.) What is striking is how consistent you have been over the years in basically holding to a view of morality that Adam Smith as well as his followers would fine congenial, especially on cooperation. And then presenting from time to time “new insights” that support this position. (The notion that sympathy is the foundation of our moral sensibilities is certainly a feature of this school.) The one place where this School would have let you down in the past (that is, before you discovered emotion) was your desire to trust that Reason (with a capital R) can be relied on on behalf of moral guidance. (More on this below.) I hope that you won't be offended if I say, your piece needs a bit more work. It is not entirely consistent as well as cogent, on behalf of example, in the way that it leans on emotions as well as then suddenly takes a turn toward “responsibility” at the end, without any sort of explanation on behalf of how the latter relates to the former. (And how are we to understand the development of the responsibility?) But it also contains some rather bizarre claims, on behalf of example, “Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions as well as involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us manufacture snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.” Are you really claiming the babies manufacture moral judgments? Is any sort of emotional response to be understood as a moral judgment? Is the fact that we can’t explain why we think something is wrong at all times a failure of reason or a failure to appreciate the ways in which habits as well as judgments get built up over time? (Not all failures in understanding are failures of reason. I am afraid that you suffer a bit from the jilted lover of reason syndrome. You were a believer as well as now Reason hasn’t lived up to its billing. So, we jump from Reason to Emotion.) Much to be said here. But this is only a space on behalf of quick comments. I have a suggestion. You might desire to take a look a classical American Pragmatism, on behalf of it tries to grapple with morality in terms of values without relying on a “traditional” notion of reason. (This may be especially interesting to you, since it can be argued that Obama is a philosophical pragmatist, a topic I have written about, if I can engage in a bit of germane self-promotion.) — everythingdead, NY Posted in Adam Smith, America, American Philosophy, David Brooks, emotion, ethics, Hegel, Obama Administration, Philosophy, politics, Pragmatism, pundits, reason, Rush Limbaugh Tagged: Adam Smith, America, American Philosophy, David Brooks, emotion, ethics, Hegel, Obama Administration, Philosophy, politics, Pragmatism, pundits, reason, Rush Limbaugh http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/07/david-brooks-means-too-well.html Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:14:14 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/07/.html UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT …………… Early to bed, as well as early to rise, Makes a man healthy, wealthy as well as wise - Benjamin Franklin. … I don’t see it. - George Washington … Now both of these are high authorities - very high as well as respectable authorities - but I am with General Washington first, last, as well as all of the time on this proposition. Because I don’t see it, either. . . . Put no trust in the benefits to accrue from early rising, as set forth by the infatuated Franklin - but stake the last cent of your substance on the judgment of old George Washington, the Father of his Country, who said “he couldn’t see it.” And you hear me endorsing that sentiment. Mark Twain, “Early Rising, As Regards Excursions to the Cliff House,” MARK TWAIN IN THE GOLDEN ERA 1863-1866. …………… Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: Up@Night http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/07/.html Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:24:25 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/04/another-reason-to-be-proud-of-americathe-handshake.html Aretha Franklin sang it, “Respect,” as well as the Obama administration is making it a watchword of both foreign as well as domestic policy.  Obama’s repeated invocation of “respect” isn’t merely a ploy, a tactic.  It is driven by a deep egalitarianism.  It is very Obama, as well as it’s America at its best.  And it’s worth considering the recent handshake incident at 10 Downing Street in this light. “Larger Than Life in London” (excerpt) By A. A. GILL, New York Times, April 4, 2009 IT’S invariably the little things, the unconsidered, off the cuff, in passing, unrehearsed things that snag our attention, as well as seem to be telling of the bigger things. In the case of Barack Obama’s first visit to London as well as the Group of 20 conference to save the endangered habitat of bankers as well as real estate salesmen, it was the handshake with the bobby that seemed to be emblematic. In a forest of waving palms, this handshake meant more. As the president stepped up to 10 Downing Street, he leant over, made eye contact, said something courteous, as well as shook the hand of the police officer standing guard. There’s at all times a police officer there; he is a tourist logo in his ridiculous helmet. He tells you that this is London, as well as the late 19th century. No one has ever shaken the hand of the policeman before, as well as like everyone else who has his palm touched by Barack Obama, he was visibly transported as well as briefly forgot himself. He offered the hand to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who was scuttling behind. It was ignored. He was left empty-handed. It isn’t that Mr. Brown snubbed the police officer; he just didn’t see him. To a British politician, a police officer is as invisible as the railings. Posted in 10 Downing Street, America, Aretha Franklin, egalitarianism, foreign policy, Obama, politics, President, respect Tagged: 10 Downing Street, America, Aretha Franklin, egalitarianism, foreign policy, Obama, politics, President, respect http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/04/another-reason-to-be-proud-of-americathe-handshake.html Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:20:41 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/04/.html UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT …………… Early to bed, as well as early to rise, Makes a man healthy, wealthy as well as wise - Benjamin Franklin. … I don’t see it. - George Washington … Now both of these are high authorities - very high as well as respectable authorities - but I am with General Washington first, last, as well as all of the time on this proposition. Because I don’t see it, either. . . . Put no trust in the benefits to accrue from early rising, as set forth by the infatuated Franklin - but stake the last cent of your substance on the judgment of old George Washington, the Father of his Country, who said “he couldn’t see it.” And you hear me endorsing that sentiment. Mark Twain, “Early Rising, As Regards Excursions to the Cliff House,” MARK TWAIN IN THE GOLDEN ERA 1863-1866. …………… Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: Up@Night http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/04/.html Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:22:25 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/03/some-sage-advice-on-obamas-plan-to-help-the-banks.html RockefellerJ.P. Morgan in action Obama’s budget is smart as well as far-sighted.  I wish I could say the same about the bank bailout.  We are certainly not out of the woods on this one. On April 1st, the New York Times ran an Op-Ed piece by the noble winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz.  (There is an excerpt and  link below.)  It’s about as clear a presentation of the issues involved as I have seen (in a short piece). And it lays out why we should be concerned about the plan, which is no doubt the work of Geitner as well as Summers.  I worry, as numerous do, that the red-herring rhetoric of “nationalizing” the banks shall prevent us from properly addressing the situation.  I worry that Geitner as well as co., on behalf of all of their good intentions, are too adjacent to Wall Street not to be sucked into the myth that “nationalizing” must mean socialism or the appearance of socialism.  (The irony here's that this is precisely the rhetoric that the right has used so successfully in the past to prevent such needed programs as universal medical insurance.)   I worry that this plan is viewed as a shrewd transfer to get the Wall Street/banking crowd on board by Geitner as well as co., but shall end up providing the banks only a temporary boost in liquidity, yielding “profits” that shall once again permit them to laugh all of the way to their posses banks. J.P Morgan headquarters My hope is that if the plan doesn’t work, the Administration shall promptly turn around as well as say, we tried, as well as transfer on to a solution more appropriate to the problem.  I am confident that Obama the pragmatist would manufacture such a move.  The question at hand: how hard shall his posses soft ideologues fight to avoid the appearance of “nationalizing” the banks? Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism (excerpt) by JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ THE Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — as well as taxpayers lose. Treasury hopes to get us out of the mess by replicating the flawed system that the private sector used to take the world crashing down, with a proposal marked by overleveraging in the public sector, excessive complexity, poor incentives as well as a lack of transparency. . . . What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains as well as the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess. So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex as well as nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has permitted the administration to avoid going back to Congress to request on behalf of the money needed to fix our banks, as well as it provided a way to avoid nationalization. Posted in 1930s, banking plan, banks, capitalism, Economy, Obama, politics, Pragmatism, Recession, Wall Street Tagged: banking plan, banks, capitalism, Depression, Economy, Geitner, Obama, politics, Recession, Summers, Wall Street http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/03/some-sage-advice-on-obamas-plan-to-help-the-banks.html Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:37:18 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/03/to-serve-manto-make-you-richpromises-promises-promises.html In thinking about the financial crisis—Wall Street, brokers as well as bankers, as well as their supporters in Congress, those who have promised us so much in return on behalf of so little these past few decades—I remembered hearing the words, “We request only that you trust us.” But I was not trusting.  I was suspicious.  I was ill at ease.  Yet, who was I to question the wonders that they produced, the capital that they created, the products they financed, the fortunes they made. But now I recall.  We had been warned.  They would come bearing gifts.  And then….  Here is that warning (in abridged form), drifting over the air waves on behalf of more than fifty years. Posted in bankers, capitalists, depression, Economy, politcal humor, politics, Recession, science fiction, Wall Street Tagged: capitalists, Congress, Depression, Economy, political humor, politics, Recession, science fiction, Twilight Zone, Wall Street http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/03/to-serve-manto-make-you-richpromises-promises-promises.html Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:11:11 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/03/.html UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT UP@NIGHT …………… Early to bed, as well as early to rise, Makes a man healthy, wealthy as well as wise - Benjamin Franklin. … I don’t see it. - George Washington … Now both of these are high authorities - very high as well as respectable authorities - but I am with General Washington first, last, as well as all of the time on this proposition. Because I don’t see it, either. . . . Put no trust in the benefits to accrue from early rising, as set forth by the infatuated Franklin - but stake the last cent of your substance on the judgment of old George Washington, the Father of his Country, who said “he couldn’t see it.” And you hear me endorsing that sentiment. Mark Twain, “Early Rising, As Regards Excursions to the Cliff House,” MARK TWAIN IN THE GOLDEN ERA 1863-1866. …………… Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: Up@Night http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/03/.html Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:15:25 -0400 everythingdead http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/03/29/artists-need-jobs-too-and-democracies-need-artists.html WPA POSTER There has been a operational debate on behalf of decades about the extent to which the government should support the arts.  It’s lovely to know that Obama recognizes the contributions that the arts manufacture to our communities, nation, as well as world.  Here is an excerpt from a recent piece in the NY Times. New York Times, March 24th, “Problems Persist, but Arts Advocates See Progress Under Obama” (excerpt): Given the battle in Congress to include money on behalf of the arts in the stimulus package, cultural groups say Washington officials still fail to recognize artists as workers. “The third violinist in a chamber orchestra goes out as well as buys groceries just like everybody else,” said Bill Ivey, a former chairman of the Endowment. Teresa Eyring, the executive director of the Theater Communications Group, which represents the country’s nonprofit theaters, said: “Local as well as regional elected officials as well as community leaders are seeing as well as talking about the connection between the arts as well as the overall health of their communities. The same sensibility hasn’t quite landed at the national level.” “In President Obama we have a leader who is making the connection,” she added, “who seems to understand both the spiritual as well as economic necessity of the arts to our nation’s strength.” Mr. Ivey, who led the transition team devoted to the arts as well as recently met with Mr. Dale, said he expected the White House position to involve coordinating the work of the Endowment, the National Endowment on behalf of the Humanities, as well as the Institute of Museum as well as Library Services. “It’s great to have a direct West Wing connection,” Mr. Ivey said. “I don’t think we’ve ever had an administration that thought about the vibrancy of our cultural life as a central public policy,” he added, “as a marker of quality of life in a democracy.” Posted in Artists, Arts, Democracy, National Endowment on behalf of the Arts, National Endowment on behalf of the Humanities, Obama, politics, WPA Tagged: Artists, Arts, Democracy, National Endowment on behalf of the Arts, National Endowment on behalf of the Humanities, Obama, politics, WPA http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/03/29/artists-need-jobs-too-and-democracies-need-artists.html Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:30:33 -0400 everythingdead