"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, January 18, 2013

What "Vanished Virtues"?
Posted by Jill | 8:26 PM


Text of actual letter in the Hackensack, NJ Record, January 15, 2013:
Regarding "Why do we love 'Downton Abbey'?" (Better Living, Page BL-1, Jan. 6):

I was once again engaged and enthralled by the opening broadcast of Season 3 of "Downton Abbey." Why do I enjoy it so much? Isn't it just a glorified soap opera with contrived crises and ensuing deus ex machina resolutions?

Yes, but the magnificent script, the perfect embodiments of the dramatis personae by every member of the cast, the settings and the costumes all combine to cast a magical spell. We are brought into this world of manners, dignity, an uncomplaining assumption of responsibility, a restrained but ever present sense of mutual respect.

Most know and accept their role in the Abbey and in society, yet elements of dissonance in these relationships within and without the Abbey are also skillfully expressed. It is a world of God, king and country, a stiff upper lip, soldiering on in the face of adversity.

In a broader context we know that this society embodied an obsolete and unfair class structure and, for the most part willingly and enthusiastically, participated in the senseless carnage of World War I. This conflict unwittingly rent the very fabric of Downton society in the postwar decades and sowed the seeds for World War II.

Most of the positive values that permeated the world of Downton Abbey have been cast aside. Millions are enslaved by the welfare state at the expense of their dignity and autonomy, the nuclear and extended family is on the decline, our popular culture is increasingly vulgar and anarchic. Is it any wonder that nostalgia for the vanished virtues of Downton touches us to the core?

Yes, most knew and accepted their role in the Abbey. Oh, for the good old days when the nobility had a birthright and the peons knew their place.



Now, I watch Downton Abbey as much as any red-blooded American, but even aside from the series' more ludicrous plot developments, such as the "Is he or isn't he" veteran with no face who may or may not be the supposedly long-lost heir, or the convenient death of Miss Lavinia Swire from the flu, or last week's jilting or the show's resident designated victim, poor Edith, at the altar by an old geezer who was no bargain anyway, at least I understand that Downton, just as Upstairs Downstairs was a generation ago, is FICTION. It no more represents bygone values than Gone With the Wind does the Civil War, or that Hair is a factual portrayal of the late 1960s.

But as today's Republican Party, with far too much acquiescence and active participation by the Democrats, is still trying to return us to those days when Lady Mary could sit around all day doing embroidery and poor Daisy could look forward only to decades of drudgery, and Mrs. Hughes could be touched with gratitude by the assurance by Lady Cora that if she does have cancer, she won't be thrown out in the street, it's worth looking at what real life was like for the Daisys and the Mrs. Patmores and the Mrs. Hugheses and the Carsons.

Alison Maloney, author of Life Below Stairs, cites a list of rules of behavior as put forth in a booklet produced by the Ladies' Sanitary Association in 1901 entitled Rules For the Manners of Servants in Good Families:
Always move quietly about the house, and do not let your voice be heard by the family unless necessary

Never sing or whistle at your work where the family would be likely to hear you

Do not call out from room to room and if you are a housemaid, be careful not only to do your work quietly but to keep out of sight as much as possible

Never begin to talk to the ladies and gentlemen, unless it be to deliver a message or ask a necessary question

Do not talk to your fellow servants or the children of the family in the passages or sitting rooms, or in the presence of ladies and gentlemen

Always answer when you receive an order or a reproof, either: "yes ma'am" or "I am very sorry ma'am" to show you have heard

Should you be required to walk with a lady or gentleman, in order to carry a parcel or otherwise, always keep a few paces behind

Do not smile at droll stories told in your presence or seem in any way to notice, or enter into, the family conversation, or the talk at table, or with visitors

More rules, and a typical day for Edwardian servants, here. In other words, do nothing to allow the ladies and gentlemen to have to acknowledge that you are a human being. Is this the "vanished virtue" of which the letter writer speaks? Shut up and serve your betters? "Know your place" and don't aspire to anything more? That hardly seems like the kind of virtue that an American would hold dear. Here's part of a recollection by one Jean Rennie, who spent sixteen years in service from 1924-1940:
I came to a grandly beautiful Highland castle, with towers and battlements and all, standing high on the hill on the shores of Loch Fyne. I don't remember the exact moment of arrival at the back door, but I do remember walking along a seemingly endless red-tiled corridor. I heard the sound of scrubbing as I went along and I saw a young girl on her knees scrubbing energetically, and seemingly enjoying it. I caught a glimpse of what I afterwards found was the scullery. It was down two steps, and it had the same cheerful redbrick floor. Rounding a corner, I saw the kitchen - a wide, gleaming place, with a long spotless white table down its middle, big windows, barred with railings, like parks, spiked at the top. It looked so clear and clean and friendly. And there was no one in it. I was taken along the passage, right to the end, where I was put into a room with two single beds.

Jessie and I went to our room and put on our caps and aprons again, and Jessie helped me put my few belongings away. Then I wrote a letter to my mother, and soon it was seven o'clock, the hour when I was to be initiated into the mysteries of being a house-maid.

I don't remember the exact way from our kitchen corridor into the house beyond. I can remember a narrow passage with a baize door at the end which led into the front hall, because it was on a shelf in that corridor where reposed the grog tray, from which the butler had taken the whisky he handed to me at six o'clock one morning to wake me up !

I don't remember how I got to the bedrooms, but here we were, and I followed Margaret meekly. We took a dustpan and brush with us, and a duster, into the bedroom belonging to the eldest daughter of the house. There was the laird and his lady, two daughters and a son, a lady housekeeper, and some visitors.

Margaret showed me how to pick up bits of ash and paper and things from the carpet, to draw the curtains and shut the windows. To shut the windows and draw the curtains on the glorious sunset over the purple hill seemed to me sacrilege, but it seemed that the 'gentry' didn't have time to look at sunsets.

We straightened the room and then Margaret moved to the massive wardrobe. She opened the doors wide, and there were hung dresses and coats and costumes, enough to take my breath away. She dug out a black lace dress and laid it across the bed. Then she looked at the other side of the wardrobe and chose from dozens of pairs of shoes a black satin pair, and put them on the floor beside the dress. She went to a drawer and took out a long black slip and some other black underclothes, and from another drawer full of stockings she selected a pair which she examined very carefully before she laid them, with the foot tucked in, across the bed with the other clothes.

I was full of questions, and some I managed to ask, but mostly I just wanted to touch and look at the lovely dresses in the wardrobe.

Why did she put out that dress? Why not another one? Why couldn't Elspeth - well, Miss Elspeth, then - pick her own dress? Suppose she didn't want that one, suppose she wanted a different colour - she'd have to get out all her own things then?

'You ask too many questions, Jane - we've got to do it - it's our job.'

We lit the fire and made sure it would burn up, and that was that room done. We had several more to do, and we had to hurry apparently. It seemed the dressing-gong would go soon, and we must be out of the bedrooms and be ready to go into the drawing-room and other rooms.

In each room we did the same things. Margaret did unbend sufficiently to tell me that you get used to what the ladies wear, especially when they're alone. When there were visitors, or very important visitors anyway, perhaps they preferred something different, in which case they usually told Margaret during the day. But usually it was the same old black frock . . .

Then I heard the deep reverberating tones of a gong just as we'd got back into the dining-room passage. Margaret and I stood with the butler, who was putting finishing touches to the dining-room table. He went through into the front hall, and after a few minutes he came back and nodded to Margaret.

'They've gone up,' he said.

Margaret gathered me up, dustpan and brush and duster and all, and we went into the drawing-room.

The same performance as the bedrooms - bits gathered up, papers and magazines straightened, cushions plumped up and put in their proper places. Firesides swept up and dusted, and fires made up. There were two fires in the great white drawing-room, both blazing high.

Then we went to the gun-room, but Margaret just looked in and said, 'No, that's all right. Come on, billiard-room.'

The billiard-room was just that, and nothing more. Two large billiard tables filled the whole length of the room, and stacked under the tables till they were almost pushing the tables up, were newspapers - I think every Glasgow Herald and every Scotsman that had ever been printed.

Here, too, there was a huge fireplace, with a blazing fire, and we had to tidy up here as well. The same in the front hall, curtains and windows to shut out the still loveliness of the evening.

We were still scuttling round when the gong rang through the house again, and we had to pick up our brushes and dusters and run quick.

Apparently we mustn't be seen. It was to be assumed, I suppose, that the fairies had been at the rooms.
Unlike the easy interactions that take place on Downton and that we remember from Upstairs Downstairs, most servants were terrified of their employers. At a time when the alternative was backbreaking farm work, life in a grand house was only a good deal by comparison, and again -- hardly representative of the society we in America have always claimed to want. Or in this age of talk of "makers and takers", perhaps we do, though one has to wonder about the special place of the landed gentry in the Downton era, who seemed to have little required of them beyond reading and a sizable social calendar, while their servants worked eighteen hours a day, six and a half days a week, with only a half-day off once a week -- hardly enough time to be an amateur CSI investigator, as Downton's Anna seems to have.

Perhaps it's about sexual restraint -- but only for women. In most Edwardian houses, fraternizing among the servants was frowned upon, and unlike Daisy's tragic wedding to the unfortunate William on Downton, more often than not both parties would be sacked, and the woman in the relationship blamed. Half of all children born out of wedlock in 1911 were born to women in domestic service, which makes me wonder for how many doing the master's bidding involved more than just polishing the silver.

So what is this "vanished virtue" about which this letter writer is so wistful? I'd like to believe that it's the sense of noblesse oblige that used to accompany great wealth; the understanding that with great wealth came great responsibility, as Andrew Carnegie noted in his 1889 essay The Gospel of Wealth:

What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few ? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns on which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is not wealth, but only competence which it should be the aim of all to acquire.

There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It call be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of these modes. The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe to-day teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions.The successors have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great Britain the strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an hereditary class. Its soil is rapidly passing into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions the division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection?

[snip]

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes--subject to some exceptions--one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties ; and,most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for - public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

It is desirable ;that nations should go much further in this direction.

Compare this kind of wealthy man with, say, Willard Romney, whose wealth was obtained by driving ever more people into poverty, and whose philanthropy, such as it is, involves contributing to a church that baptizes dead Jews and seeks to block gay people from enjoying the privileges he takes for granted. Or like Donald Trump, who inherited $400 million from his father and has spent the last three decades strutting around like a self-made man. Or any of the various billionaires who have attempted to buy themselves a government that will take what little the lower socioeconomic levels have left and further line their pockets with it.

If that's the kind of "vanished virtue" to which the writer of that letter to the local newspaper was referring, I'm on board. But somehow I don't think it is.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, April 15, 2012

Why a long-lost ship still fascinates
Posted by Jill | 4:59 AM
It isn't as if other great ocean liners haven't sunk. The hospital ship Britannic struck a mine and sank in 1916. The Lusitania was torpedoed by a German U-Boat during World War I and 1198 people died. The Andrea Doria sunk in 1956, killing 46 people. In two years, no one will remember the Costa Concordia either.

But there's one ship that still resonates with people, and as every generation is introduced to it anew, it continues to capture the imagination. What is it about this particular ship? Yes, it sank on its maiden voyage, but it's more than that. It's about more than kids reading A Night to Remember in the sixth grade and then reading it about five more times in a row. It's about more than the teens who went to see James Cameron's movie twenty times in the winter of 1997-98. It's about more than a fascination with Edwardian clothes and luxurious carved fireplaces and grand staircases. I don't think anyone today gets on even a Carnival "fun ship" without thinking of the people who boarded the Titanic in Southhampton and Cherbourg in 1912.

Today we have 9/11 "truthers", who would be the equivalent of the Titanic nerds who got together for James Cameron's recent National Geographic Channel program that delves into the all-important question of what happened to the ship after it sank if they were interested in starting with events and working from there, instead of going backwards from a conclusion to find a cause that matches their initial premise. Cameron may be the über Titanic nerd of all time, with over thirty dives to the wreck and involvement in the development of the cameras that have allowed us a view of the wreck that most of us will never see, but there are thousands of such nerds worldwide who continue to study and rehash the events of that night over and over again. One wonders what these people will do if and when everything that is still unknown becomes known, except that artist Ken Marschall has been painting this ship for over forty years. If I were Marschall, I'd perhaps want to have a past-life regression done, except that there were only a little over 2200 passengers and crew, and not every Titanic nerd can be a reincarnation of the dead.

If you were going to write an allegory about income inequality and the hubris of wealthy men, you couldn't come up with a better one than the story of the Titanic. The ship is both a monument to the Industrial revolution, and the beginning of the last hurrah of the British empire. Unparallelled in size, luxury, and supposedly, safety, this vessel seemed to exist largely as a huge pat on the back to the Titans of Industry chomping their cigars after eating their Filets Mignons Lili. There was nothing that men of great wealth exploiting the labor of men of great physical strength and endurance couldn't do. One of the most effective images in Cameron's 1997 film is a shot of the engines beginning to roar as the ship leaves port, showing just how massive these things were, and all built without power tools. These were men like the Julius Caesar described by Cassius in Shakespeare's play:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Of course Cassius goes on to opine that if those subordinate to Caesar don't take it upon themselves to do something, it's their own fault, but I'm not sure these men got that far.

They are all gone now -- the dead and the survivors alike. The last survivor, Millvina Dean, who was a babe-in-arms on the ship, died in 2009. 100 years ago right now as I write this, the Carpathia was boarding Titanic passengers from lifeboats. Those in the water were no doubt already dead.

Perhaps the story of the sinking of the Titanic resonates because it is a perpetual reminder of what happens when wealthy men become overconfident and insist that not only does everything they touch turn to gold, but that the laws of the universe don't apply to them. There might have been more first-class men saved than third-class children, but despite the clinging of today's downwardly mobile former denizens of the middle class to the nation that they might be rich someday, those first-class men who survived were largely derided as cowards. It remains to be seen if that would be the view today. To some degree, the destruction of a monument to excess by a natural phenomenon is a perpetual reminder that, as the old Chiffon margarine TV ad noted, "It's not nice to fool mother nature." It's almost enough to make you believe in a vengeful God.

Or it may be something just more prosaic. It may be no different from our fascination with the endless loops of footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Center, or the tsunami devastating Japan last year...or even what I endure on New Jersey highways most days on my way to work, when I sit in crawling traffic as people gawk at everything from multi-vehicle accidents to a single car on the shoulder while the driver rearranges the suitcases in the trunk. It may not be a cautionary tale come to life of hubris, or the injustices of class inequality or the dashed dreams of the early 20th century immigrants whose lives were lost. It may just be that we like to gawk at disasters. It's just that some disasters are more compelling than others.

Next up: How That Boat Movie changed my own life.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, April 04, 2011

Thom Martmann Explains It All For You
Posted by Jill | 5:38 AM
Thom Hartmann explains how the ORIGINAL Tea Party was not at all about "small government", or about abortion, or about crushing liberalism, or about any of the pet causes of today's self-styled "Tea Party". It was actually in response to a government that was totally in the pocket of a giant corporation, the East India Company:



And you can rest assured that the original Tea Party wasn't funded by corporate interests the way today's is.

(There's another video, embedded over at Politics USA, but I can't get that one to play. So enjoy this one instead. Or in addition to the other. Then go tell your Tea Party friends the truth (not that the truth has ever mattered to these people if it flies in the face of their ideology...)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, March 07, 2011

The Koch Brothers' Dream Workplace
Posted by Jill | 5:57 AM
Yesterday I watched part of the PBS documentary on the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. fire of 1911. I don't think this is from the same feature, but these recollections of survivors of the factory demonstrate vividly what the workplace looks like when corporations are completely unfettered by regulations and organized labor:




Steven D. over at Booman Tribune blows a hole in all the Republican bullshit about jobs and economic growth and gets to the real agenda:
The Republicans in Congress, and in states across the country are making no bones about their agenda: they desire to kill unions and worker's rights. They desire to kill the EPA, and kill any regulation regarding worker safety, drug safety, food safety, environmental safety -- you name it. They want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform with a thousand cuts until nothing is left but private accounts managed by by their buddies at Wall Street to which you are forced to contribute. They want to privatize prisons and schools.

They want an end to financial assistance to college students and their families (except football and basketball players, of course). They want to kill any investment in alternative fuels and public transportation. They desire the awarding of no-bid contracts to their "friends," i.e., the people who contributed the most to their political campaigns. Oh, and they want to make it ever more difficult, if not impossible, for innovative small businesses to compete with the corporate behemoths that dominate our political landscape. Indeed, without a middle class how can small businesses not dedicated to serving the desires of the rich survive?

In short, the goal of the New and Improved Tea Party Republican Governors and Legislators is to drive a stake through the heart of anyone who still believes he or she is a member of the middle class. As one of their own recently remarked those of us "slobs" in the middle class are a "different breed" the implication being that we are parasites on the body of corporate wealth and power rather than the collective engine of human labor and productivity that made that wealth and power possible.

It's long, but it's worth your time to read the whole thing.

(via)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, June 07, 2010

Wow...this is cool
Posted by Jill | 6:14 AM
A few weeks ago we had a neighborhood garage sale, which resulted in somewhat anemic sales for just about everyone involved. It occurred to me that much of the kind of crap people put out at garage sales -- cheap toys, old cookware, old glassware and sichses -- can now be purchased just as cheaply at the local dollar store. There are still the earlybirds who come around looking for treasures. But as tchotchkes and cultural effluvia of the first half of the twentieth century no longer have a place in our cultural memory, items from that time languish at garage sales, a casualty of the reality that during the heyday of "Antiques Roadshow", more Americans began to be savvy about just what they had. The days when I could go into a flew market for an animal shelter and get there just in time to see someone donating a supermarket bag FULL of vintage Steiff animals and buy the whole bag for twenty-five bucks are over.

A family friend once gave me a huge box of really old sheet music dating from about 1905 to 1918. Some of the covers are beautiful. I sold what I could on Ebay after she died, most of it generating about $1-$5 each, and donated the proceeds to breast cancer research. I've kept a few of the nicest remaining pieces, sold a couple at our LAST garage sale, Freecycled a few stacks of it, and still have about three dozen pieces. No one wants this stuff. Even an original Cab Calloway recording of "Blues in the Night" on the Okeh label can be had on Ebay for five bucks now.

So I guess no one but silent movie buffs and cinephiles will be interested in the treasure trove of previously "lost" silent films that were just found in New Zealand, of all places:
A late silent feature directed by John Ford, a short comedy directed by Mabel Normand, a period drama starring Clara Bow and a group of early one-reel westerns are among a trove of long-lost American films recently found in the New Zealand Film Archive.

Among the discoveries are several films that underline the major contribution made by women to early cinema. “The Girl Stage Driver” (1914) belongs to a large subgenre that Mr. Abel has identified as “cowboy girl” pictures; “The Woman Hater” (1910) is an early vehicle for the serial queen Pearl White; and “Won in a Cupboard” (1914) is the earliest surviving film directed by Normand, the leading female star of Mack Sennett’s Keystone comedies. The Clara Bow film “Maytime” (1923), presents the most famous flapper of the 1920s in an unusual costume role.

Getting the films, which were printed on the unstable, highly inflammable nitrate stock used until the early 1950s, to the United States hasn’t been easy. “There’s no Federal Express for nitrate out of New Zealand,” said Annette Melville, the director of the foundation. “We’re having to ship in U.N.-approved steel barrels, a little bit at a time. So far we’ve got about one third of the films, and preservation work has already begun on four titles.”

As the films arrive, they are placed in cold storage to slow further degeneration. “We’re triaging the films,” Ms. Melville said, “so we can get to the worst case ones first. About a quarter of the films are in advanced nitrate decay, and the rest have good image quality, though they are badly shrunken.”

As funds permit, the repatriated films will be distributed among the five major nitrate preservation facilities in the United States — the Library of Congress, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, George Eastman House, the U.C.L.A. Film & Television Archive and the Museum of Modern Art — where the painstaking work of reclaiming images from material slowly turning to muck will be performed.

Sony, the corporation that currently owns the Columbia library, has assumed the costs for “Mary of the Movies,” a 1923 comedy that is now the earliest Columbia feature known to survive. And 20th Century Fox, a descendant of the studio that made “Upstream,” has taken responsibility for preservation of that title. If all goes well, the restored “Upstream” will be receive its repremiere at the Academy in September.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Forget about yet another empty speech, listen to a real American patriot who left us today
Posted by Jill | 9:40 PM
I guess Howard Zinn couldn't bear to hang around long enough to listen to Barack Obama spout a bunch of crap which he has no intention of fighting for either.

Howard Zinn, 1922-2010:



We should take his advice.

(JP is liveblogging the SOTU. I had to get to work this morning for a 7 AM teleconference and had to go to a schmooze-with-the-managers event tonight. I'm going to bed.)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Dear Mr. President
Posted by Jill | 5:22 AM
THIS is how it's done:



BALLZ. FDR Had Them.

(h/t)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share