Even or especially ordinary people know that when celebrities possess a singular artistic greatness, their lives are not for envy or imitation. Two of the most revered and beloved American celebrities were Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. Certainly their deaths plunged us into grief in a way rivaled only by assassination of a president. Americans were “connected” to Elvis and Michael at least as much as they were to President Kennedy. But everyone knows that their lives were sad, screwed up, and self-destructive, and their young deaths were virtually suicides. Nobody models his or her family after Elvis’s or Michael’s. And everyone knows they used their great wealth to indulge extravagantly their bizarre personal fantasies. In Michael case, everyone thinks they know (whether it’s true or not) that much of his wealth was consumed by buying his way out of criminal self-indulgence with children, and both of them, it seems, couldn’t help but degrade themselves by being desperately addicted to drugs.
We know that somehow that Michael’s and Elvis’s greatness was inseparable from their misery, and their deaths filled us with love based on understanding—or maybe the misunderstanding that Elvis and Michael sacrificed themselves for us. Anyone would love to sing like Elvis or dance like Michael, and it’s even fun to dress up like them. But hardly anyone would want to live or really be just like either of them. Shifting, briefly, to a deeper version of celebrity greatness, we can all say we want to be troubled enough and spiritual enough to appreciate the music of Johnny Cash. But who would want to go through the hell of actually being Johnny Cash? (We can say the same, of course, about Charley Parker and Thelonious Monk.) It’s only when celebrity is detached from singular talent and some kind of greatness of soul that the “role model” problem emerges in a big way.
Celebrity greatness, being self-absorbed or irresponsible, is still easily distinguished from political greatness. Politicians (or, better, political leaders) either aren’t or are more than celebrities. President Obama is quite the celebrity, but he’s more than that. (Before he ran for president, it wasn’t so clear he was more than that.) Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Mike Huckabee are now merely celebrities. Sara Palin skillfully made the transition from politician to celebrity. Being governor of Alaska was boring and badly paid, becoming president was and will continue to be a most improbable longshot, but now she’s rich and famous and commands the media’s attention in all its dimensions. John Edwards was a slick celebrity lawyer who passed for a while as a politician; that’s why we needed the National Enquirer to let us in on what he was up to all along. Political commentators, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, are celebrities and nothing more; they’re judged for their entertainment value.
We doubt politicians really are more trustworthy than celebrities, but we demand that they be so. We expect them to behave more responsibly in their personal lives (although the path breaking Clinton narrowed the gap between celebrity and politician here), and we hold them accountable for what they actually do in power. The best way they have of being respected–or even being popular–is by being effective. It’s amazing, in a media-driven, high-tech democracy, that more celebrities don’t morph into politicians, and it’s equally amazing that so many politicians perform badly or are so boring on television. Few politicians have what it takes to morph into celebrities.
Schwarzenegger is a rather singular example of an outstanding celebrity actor who became a genuinely responsible political leader. Some postmodern studies suggest that people voted for Arnold because they couldn’t tell the difference between the real man and the invincible action hero from the movies. But everyone now knows no mere man who plays action heroes can keep California from tanking. Then there’s the very singular case of Reagan–the bad actor who became a great president. Fred Thompson reminded us that most bad actors who look like presidents shy away from the arduous work required actually to be a political leader.
Celebrities, of course, use the stage they’ve been given to express their political opinions, and they are often irresponsibly quite self-righteous about the ignorance and corruption of those who run the government. As artists, they’re especially contemptuous of Republicans, who are vulgarly obsessed with money and cater to “fundamentalist” and patriotic or anti-artistic, anti-liberationist opinion. But they’re indulgent of Democrats who look down on the heartland for desperately clinging to guns and God from the heights of celebrity affairs on the West Coast.
Celebrities characteristically engage in the silly “literary politics” that used to be reserved to poets and novelists and other more genuine bohemians. They usually aren’t particularly well educated and informed. They’re even more easily seduced by conspiracy theories than ordinary people. We can turn, for example, to Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell to learn that 9/11 was really the secret plot of the American government. And celebrities love the sovereign disdain for the facts in pursuit of the conspiratorial “truth” that characterize the engaging “narratives” of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone.
Living in huge houses hanging off the sides of hills in the overpopulated and earthquake-prone California desert, they’re especially concerned about the future of the planet, and they unreservedly admire the Al Gore who designed his account of an inconvenient (and very alarming) truth for their edification. Celebrities regularly display their pseudo-sophistication on Bill Maher’s show, certain they’re on the vanguard of moral and political enlightenment. None of this is to say that celebrities have much more impact on the outcome of elections than other very rich people. Celebrities, like philosophers in an unjust country, don’t desire and aren’t compelled to rule. It’s only fair to add that many of the causes celebrities so generously fund to display their class do lots of good for real people.
June 1st, 2010 | 11:55 am
This probably won’t get posted but in any case –
“In Michael case, everyone knows that much of his wealth was consumed by buying his way out of criminal self-indulgence with children”
Sir, I have to correct you on this and if you had done your homework you would not have written such a blatant lie! Michael insurance company made the decision to pay off the first kid. He had no control over the decision. It is well documented that Michael wanted to fight this accusation. As for the second case against Michael it was an outright ‘bring Michael Jackson down’ by Tom Sneedon (sp?) at any cost. The second boy’s father set Michael up and it’s all on tape. Do your homework sir!
June 1st, 2010 | 12:28 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by gaga, Britany McCraney. Britany McCraney said: Elvis, Michael Jackson, Johnny Cash, Reagan, Palin etc.: More Celebrity Stuff http://tinyurl.com/3xvy4f2 [...]
June 1st, 2010 | 12:40 pm
So I made a change with the first objection in mind. It’s true I don’t know anything for sure.
June 1st, 2010 | 1:27 pm
Michael Jackson’s life was not the tragedy
you speak of. What is tragic is two extortion
attempts fed by greed and the lure of celebrity
as target; a trial brought by an obsessed
DA and tabloid/media crucifixion of an
innocent man. Those who parrot old, tired
media tapes about Michael never took the
time to look behind that veil and see the
kind humanitarian, loving father and generous
artist that he was.
The money that he worked hard for was his
to spend as he chose. And he chose to be
a champion for children, offering his home
as a respite from illness, terminal and
otherwise; from broken homes and inner city
turmoil.
Yes, it’s very sad what happened to Michael.
Fame, and it’s resultant isolation and lonliness,
constant hounding and ridicule by a frenzied
dollar seeking media and real physical ailments
and emotional pain contributed to his use of
drugs to ease that pain.
So yes, Mr. Lawler, I do feel that grief you
speak about. I feel it for the loss of a very
special, unique and talented man who also
was human, with faults like all of us. I
wonder what gifts all of us will miss now that
he’s gone. And, for your information, I try
everyday now to be more like Michael and
treat people with more kindness and compassion and understanding, just like he
did.
June 1st, 2010 | 3:39 pm
Mr. Lawler:
Sir, I feel sorry for you and your ilk. Your bitterness seethes through your writing leaving a trail of gnashing teeth it its path. Your condemnation paints a wide swath. Perhaps you need to walk in other shoes.
I am only one of millions who will no longer look the other way when you portray Michael Jackson in the light he was so falsely cast by media, racism and greed. The world is a poorer place without Michael.
We feel fortunate though that this extra ordinary spirit has left us a legacy – only just beginning – a reminder that it is possible to rise above our differences and for our planet to come together and live in the more just and generous world he envisioned.
June 1st, 2010 | 5:14 pm
Mr Lawler,
Are you aware that Michael gave over $300 million dollars to charities for sick and dying children during the span of his career? Did you know that he is the Guinness Book of Records for the sheer volume of his participation in charity work?
Did you know that EVERY city across the globe that he performed in, he would visit a local hospital or orphanage first in that city and make it a better place with donations of equipment etc., that very day or he would not perform? That he tried to make every place he visited a better place to be in this world?
Michael Jackson was an absolutely ASTOUNDING humanitarian, which of course, was never told to anyone by the media in the U.S. all these years. Go ahead…look it up for yourself.
He was ours…a son of this country, but only truly appreciated elsewhere. Many of us, in fact, most of us, never really knew what we had until he was gone. So brilliantly talented, exceptionally kind, compassionate and thoughtful. Frankly speaking, I could only hope to be as kind, as thoughtful, as giving, and as FORGIVING as Michael was all of his life. I absolutely grieve for all of us Mr. Lawler because my world will now be forever a little darker…and so will everyone elses.
June 1st, 2010 | 5:18 pm
Mr Lawler,
Are you aware that Michael gave over $300 million dollars, HALF of his entire earnings,to charities for sick and dying children during the span of his career? Did you know that he is the Guinness Book of Records for the sheer volume of his participation in charity work?
Did you know that EVERY city across the globe that he performed in, he would visit a local hospital or orphanage first in that city and make it a better place with donations of equipment etc., that very day or he would not perform? That he tried to make every place he visited a better place to be in this world?
Michael Jackson was an absolutely ASTOUNDING humanitarian, which of course, was never told to anyone by the media in the U.S. all these years. Go ahead…look it up for yourself.
He was ours…a son of this country, but only truly appreciated elsewhere. Many of us, in fact, most of us, never really knew what we had until he was gone. So brilliantly talented, exceptionally kind, compassionate and thoughtful. Frankly speaking, I could only hope to be as kind, as thoughtful, as giving, and as FORGIVING as Michael was all of his life. I absolutely grieve for all of us Mr. Lawler because my world will now be forever a little darker…and so will everyone elses.
June 1st, 2010 | 6:11 pm
Here are some nonpoetic observations,
1. It seems like it shouldn’t be that hard to slot your thoughts over the last three posts into a “stuck with virtue/limits of unmoderated Lockean liberationism” framework. Somewhere on the web, Carl Scott has some smart comments about the soul corrupting potential of (seemingly) unlimited wealth, fame, and unaccountability.
2. The observation that Beck and Limbaugh are judged as entertainers is aspirational and only partly true. They do shape the political opinions of millions – many of whom are also able to think of them as part entertainers and also part serious commmentators. For example, millions of Beck watchers have probably foun themselves thinking more about, and less of, Woodrow Wilson as a result of Beck’s broadcasts. Some of this is also true of the Comedy Central guys.
3. I think that in a perverse way, many celebrities who become “famous for being famous” are able to do so by marketing themselves as antimatter role models. They cash in by being (or pretending to be) pitiable, contemptible, wretches who make us feel better, by comparison, about the quite modest amounts of virtue that we are able to display in our own lives. At least that is what I hope Snooki is doing.
June 2nd, 2010 | 1:36 am
I’m glad Pete mentioned Snookie, because all the other posts are only concerned with Michael Jackson. Peter has sorely hit upon a true piety here, and I could only wish that I had friends or acquaintances–let alone fans–like those of Michael’s who would defend me in such a manner as they defend their idol. With only a few disparaging remarks regarding Michael all sorts of claims regarding the pathetic nature of Peter’s life and soul have been broached. In this way, Peter shows that he is not accustomed to speak in the clever manner of celebrity–show biz–publicists.
In other words, Peter must be speaking the truth.
As far as celebrity goes, I’d agree with Peter that it is more difficult to speak intelligently about than it would seem (outside of thinking of the reactions of loyal fandom). In a democracy like ours, it is hard to define a standard of what it means to be worthy of public esteem for speech and deeds (or musical talent) that are truly worthy of such esteem. What is truly great? Celebrity can praise greatness and vacuity (cf. Paris Hilton). It is true that one can have a savvy for self-promotion, like Ben Franklin. But Ben Franklin is great despite the honor resulting from his coon-skin cap and kite flying escapades. Or is it impossible to separate the two? Must sordid self-interest always be a part of noble grandeur? This seems to be the case–would we be interested in Franklin without his amazing (and self-serving) autobiography?
One need not be so alienated from ordinary life to recognize Michael Jackson’s greatness as an entertainer (and even humanitarian), but celebrity is beyond such an actual life. Celebrity connotes something of the image or simulacrum of this actuality, but it has a prestige and glamour that moves well beyond ordinary life. Who really knows Michael Jackson? We know his sad story as presented in the press (and in terms of its ignominious end), and we also love his music. So be it.
BTW, where are the defenders of Elvis here? Didn’t he bring joy to our lives? Wasn’t he involved in doing and promoting good works before his untimely death?
Peter makes a great point of how we forgive the more self-indulgent or unconventional aspects of celebrities’ lives in that we often think this a part of artistic genius. In order to make beautiful art, we think artists must be somehow deeply alienated and screwed up (this is redolent of romanticism or some Jim Morrison hagiography). We at least we think they must have odd and quirky characters. They are deemed great because they are not our equals. In their superiority, whether they wrestle with angels or whether they just can’t fit in, we forgive them their alleged faults (at least as long as they keep demonstrating their superior talent). Yet, at the end of the day, an artist and a celebrity are not always the same thing. Is David Foster Wallace a celebrity? Likewise, as peter notes, a great statesman (or political leader?) is not merely s celebrity. True greatness is more than celebrity.
Tiger Woods, like Michael, was thrown into this world of celebrity as a child. Luckily he had talent. We admire that talent–we celebrate. This is the only gift public opinion can reciprocate. American Idol shows this, but it needs the English “aristocrat” Simon to temper the democratic popularity contest. Simon has much more personality than the electoral college.
But there is the phenomena of mere celebrity too. The adage of famous for being famous. I show my age, but I know who Dennis Hooper was, but who the hell is Justin Biber?
June 2nd, 2010 | 6:50 am
Mr.Lawler, your comments have really brought out the Michael Jackson worshippers. The essential thing about celebrities is that they are false gods, and that there are millions of people who waste much of their lives worshipping these imaginary deities.
June 2nd, 2010 | 8:58 am
I misspelled Dennis Hopper’s name earlier. For penance, I looked for something that would confirm Peter’s emphasis on hard work as rewarding talent. This is not Dennis Hopper’s career for most of it, to be sure, but it is definitely the Band’s MO–what with their Dylan discipleship, but also their bar band experience and their Harry Smith knowledge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkmbLoaORU
June 2nd, 2010 | 10:04 am
I’ve learned from all these fascinating comments. The Michael lovers are actually right that I have to do justice to his humanitarianism, his bringing out of the “We Are the World” impulse in millions.
Unlike Lady Di, he was also really talented and puts a huge amount of his own money where his mouth is. Maybe I can pair that with Elvis’s deep love of gospel music–which was much more private. I got to study up on Snooki–but it makes sense that celebrities excite our moral sense by showing us that not only are they not better than us, but we’re actually better than them. Dennis Hopper ain’t much. But THE BAND is–especially the Canadian Confederate Robbie Robertson. It’s interesting how the hugely talented and genuinely innovative members of the Band (better than Dylan) avoided personal celebrity.
June 2nd, 2010 | 10:10 am
After 5 minutes of googling Snooki, I found out she is the perfect example of the celebrity that excites our moral sense because she’s obviously more trashy [but still good natured] than most of us. I also learned that the first nude pictures of Snooki on all fours have hit the web. I didn’t actually look and will continue with my policy (with more reason than ever) of not posting links.
She definitely deserves to be worked into the article.
June 2nd, 2010 | 10:48 am
Yes, Elvis and gospel. It’s there and it’s beautiful!
And ain’t it strange that the Night They Drove Ol’ Dixie Down was memorably performed by a band (the Band) fronted by a Canadian–all this in the near aftermath of the the civil rights movement no less.
The Band–their name alone–seemed to shun celebrity, even with their Dylan connection and Scorcese movie.
June 2nd, 2010 | 11:24 am
Peter,
Might I suggest looking at this essay on Paris Hilton by Kay Hymowitz:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_4_urbanities-paris_hilton.html
And if I may be self-indulgent (and I have the keyboard, so I may), here are my thoughts on Michael Jackson, in 550 words or less printed in our local paper, read by virtually dozens of people:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090731/OPINION02/907310323
June 2nd, 2010 | 12:05 pm
Jon, I’ve decided not to say more about Paris Hilton, but that’s a good article. Your article on Michael is great, and I might work in Graceland and Neverland, although I think there’s more to them than boredom. We can imagine what the brainy Elvis and Michael would have been had both their celebrity opportunities and an appropriately liberal education. But Tocqueville explains, of course, why that’s quite the improbable combo. (It might account for the comparative sanity of Jodie Foster, though, and longing for liberal education does shine forth in Springsteen. He really wishes he had something genuinely heroic and noble to write songs about at his age.) Good on the anonymity of the very name THE BAND, and even the wonderful Scorcese film does everything it can to subordinate the personalities to the music. That’s why the interviews are so flat.
June 2nd, 2010 | 12:12 pm
“Mr. Lawler:
Sir, I feel sorry for you and your ilk. Your bitterness seethes through your writing leaving a trail of gnashing teeth it its path. Your condemnation paints a wide swath. Perhaps you need to walk in other shoes. ”
Nice job of walking in Mr. Lawler’s shoes there buddy. For the record, I really don’t think an objective analysis of the nature of the words Mr. Lawler chose would at all support the accusation that he is filled with bitterness. That’s kind of silly and out of place on a forum like this. Also, if by chance you are one of those left “gnashing teeth”, try a mouth guard – they’re less than $100 these days.
June 2nd, 2010 | 3:33 pm
For one there is bitterness in this thread and to deny that fact is ignorance. For another, neither Michael Jackson nor Peter Lawler can aptly define what is to be a celebrity, so how are they going to describe it with any real authority? If you asked me whether or not I consider Michael Jackson innocent of all wrong doing … that is laughable. I’m sorry he was abused as a child in the sense that he had to hear his older brothers having sex with groupies. I’m sorry if those groupies probably had sex with him too, and psychologically at a young age I am sure that had a devastating affect. To say that Michael Jackson was making up for this with his donations and “personal touch” is not a big leap nor is it to say that some perverse desires from his childhood most likely emanated or emancipated themselves unto little boys. I’m not saying it necessarily did, but I have my doubts about this Idol — just like all Idols… the veil is hiding something, beyond that who cares?
Back to your quest for wisdom about how celebrity culture has newly epitomized the hyper-individualism you bitterly pronounced existed. Is that really the best you can do anymore is harp about hyper individualism manifesting itself in the rich and well liked? Congratulations you’ve described the effect and pinpointed the cause. Now what? What do we do about it? We cannot go back to being Porchers as you claim and we cannot embrace our natural instincts for Darwinian based ethics. So what do you have? A dying religion. Good call!
June 3rd, 2010 | 8:07 pm
Oh my goodness. “For one there is bitterness in this thread and to deny that fact is ignorance” huh? There might be cynicism in the post, but the bitterness is from jaded Michael Jackson fans, one of whom in some sort of Messianic rant about Michael Jackson baselessly accused someone they don’t know of creating a broad swath of grief and gnashing teeth. Waxing as melodramatic as a teenager, they clearly didn’t read Lawler’s post. And for another thing, Michael’s life really WAS a tragedy. The way he died was the way he lived – troubled and alone.
June 4th, 2010 | 11:51 am
I always enjoy being post number 20. Can I just say that Michael Jackson was indeed a great musician probably the best of all time. I say innocent before proven guilty and he was exonerated. His drug use was definitely disturbing and if it reflected some deep resentment then he definitely at some point released it creatively then succumbed to it later on. His record is saved forever in his music just like Nietzsche’s sanity has been recorded in his works before he too went crazy. I think that “The Really Dumb Ox” hits a good point that Lawler is certainly not bitter about this topic. However, there is some truth to idea celebrities do nauseate us on one level, while their elevating qualities are also respected (when they exist see Sean Connery).
June 7th, 2010 | 12:44 pm
Hello all, Frau Scott and I are getting settled in here in upstate NY. A rather cool morning for June, I must say…California is way more than a state of mind and anyone who has lived in Virginia knows why one would be inclined to fight for it…a shame about the cause behind the fight.
Of course we have to make all the distinctions about the various celebrities, i.e., the Paris Hiltons, the sports stars, the actors, politicians and pundits, and the literary figures/artists/musicians, etc. Degrees, degrees, but at the archetypal center of things, I think that PLATO (read in a Strauss-influenced way, of course!) might be the best guide. In Republic book VIII we learn about the DEMOCRATIC MAN, the man who lives for pleasure, variety, and change. His lifestyle of trying out life-styles on for size, with the exception of the criminal/tyrannical lifestyle, requires, at its archetypal peak of perfection, MONEY. Lots of it. If you have to ask, you can’t afford to be the Democratic Man. That man is not about being ordinary, or common, but about exhibiting FREEDOM to the highest degree possible. And thus, living this life also requires an exhibition of this freedom. As a Democratic Jesus would have said: “Do not hide your multicolored lightshow under a bushel.” As the timocratic man wins regard thru war-exploits, the oligarchic man thru building his bank account, the Democratic Man wins regard and achieves/embodies his regime’s highest good thru FREEDOM EXPLOITS.
The stars that shine the brightest for us are those who are multicolored, whose careers takes unexpected paths and enter different periods–you know, like Picasso, Bowie, Ice Cube, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, MJ, Streisand, Sartre, etc. And their erotic and “political” engagements ideally should also be changing as well, even if, or even better if, those changes are rather messy.
Plato’s Democratic Man, of course, gradually morphs into the Tyrannical Man, the person enslaved by pursuing their pleasures and who requires criminal means to obtain them. And Plato in the the Republic and other dialogues shows you (albeit hyperbolically) that the tyrant’s lot is more unhappy than it looks–he cannot trust anyone, gets surrounded by sycophants, and so he actually turns out to be less free than the archetypal democratic man.
But a CELEBRITY, well, they get to push the Democratic Man’s pleasure addiction to the very brink of criminality. Roman Polanski steps over that brink, but others remain canny enough to always get things consensual and/or private.
In olden days, outright addiction ruins you–you either become the tyrant’s slave or you must become the tyrant. But today, CELEBRITIES can avoid the worst consequences. As long as they continue to sell their fame-related wares, the money doesn’t dry up, and, they can go to rehab for the addictions. And even if they won’t and OD or descend into near insanity, their celebrity creds are still very high. In our day, we remember the James Deans-es and Syd Barretts the way they used to remember the Homeric heroes.
So the archetypal CELEBRITY is like Plato’s Democratic Man, but the riches without political power make him in certain ways akin to Plato’s tyrannical man (sycophants, isolation as a defense, forbidden pleasures). But unlike the actual tyrannical man, raw necessity never forces the yoke of criminal/Machiavellian discipline upon the celebrity. Only the securest actual tyrants (the same applies to criminal bosses) can actually become an addict, at least openly.
What allows the CELEBRITY to exist, though? Plato’s archetypal Democratic Man had to have a limitless fund of riches, presumably from family stores…but this would run out eventually, and had either an oligarchic or aristocratic taint that made it susceptible to democratic attacks in the political arena. The secret is that the modern entertainment industry allows the Democratic Man to be funded and sponsored entirely by…the Demos itself! Their desires and fantasies create the CELEBRITY, and then fund him. In olden times, the big worry was the Demos would sponsor a Man of the People, that they would vicariously live out their aristocratic/glory-seeking instincts through their political man, the Caeser selected by them, who would additionally attack the rich and the noble in their name. This is obviously still a present worry. But the CELEBRITY allows us to have Men and Women of the People who are not political figures, at least initially. We get electronic STARS without greatness-seeking WARS…PEOPLE MAGAZINE instead of PLUTARCH’S (war-filled) LIVES…not bad, from a modern perspective. Regrettable, but perhaps to a large degree unavoidable, from a Pomocon perspective.
That is, Plato saw what the deep desire of we Democratic Persons would be, saw even in ages in which the full enactment of those desires was impossible.
A celebrity like Michael Jackson didn’t know what he was caught up in, and his inner demons and the sycophants caught up with his Democratic-Man/Tyrannical-Man lifestyle. A celebrity like David Bowie, who played the role of Freedom Embodiment for all it was worth, had and acquired bit more distance, and could thus somewhat see that the Demos that had pedestalized him might, in concert with his own darkness, twist his soul beyond recognition. His millions or whatever are safely in Swiss Banks, and whatever dark addictions and secrets he has are likewise out of sight.
I speak in 1920s thru 1990s terms. As for the regularization in our day of the transgressive actions that seek to straddle the soul’s and the societies’ Democratic and Tyrannic divide, which partly accounts for the increase of what Peter calls TRASHINESS, that is a distinct issue, but it has to do with a) the constant push to democratize the freedom-embodying fame I’ve been sketching, which both the old DIY Indy music motto and the reality shows illustrate, and b) the plain fact that, as Janes’ Addiction put it in 1987, that “Nothing’s Shocking.”
The truly talented, arts-wise, and (less-so) sports-wise, in our era have to navigate the seemingly magnetic (but really democratic) pull of the CELEBRITY archetype…totally surrendered to, it will destroy them and their art. Reading book VIII of the Republic might help some of them realize this…and, yeah, it might help all of us think about how to contain the spreading blight of TRASHINESS, a thing more poisonous and oily-er than any oil slick.
January 26th, 2013 | 11:29 am
Howdy! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the great information you have right here on this post. I can be coming again to your blog for extra soon.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact