So what did Unions do

This from Mother Jones: ABOUT A YEAR ago, the Pew Research Center looked looked at the sources reporters used for stories on the economy. The White House and members of Congress were often quoted, of course. Business leaders. Academics. Ordinary citizens. If you're under 40, you may not notice anything amiss. Who else is missing, then? Well: "Representatives of organized labor unions," Pew found, "were sources in a mere 2% of all the economy stories studied."
It wasn't always this way. Union leaders like John L. Lewis, George Meany, and Walter Reuther were routine sources for reporters from the '30s through the '70s. And why not? They made news. The contracts they signed were templates for entire industries. They had the power to bring commerce to a halt. They raised living standards for millions, they made and broke presidents, and they formed the backbone of one of America's two great political parties.
They did far more than that, though. As historian Kim Phillips-Fein puts it, "The strength of unions in postwar America had a profound impact on all people who worked for a living, even those who did not belong to a union themselves." (Emphasis mine.) Wages went up, even at nonunion companies. Health benefits expanded, private pensions rose, and vacations became more common. It was unions that made the American economy work for the middle class, and it was their later decline that turned the economy upside-down and made it into a playground for the business and financial classes.
Technically, American labor began its ebb in the early '50s. But as late as 1970, private-sector union density was still more than 25 percent, and the absolute number of union members was at its highest point in history. American unions had plenty of problems, ranging from unremitting hostility in the South to unimaginative leadership almost everywhere else, but it wasn't until the rise of the New Left in the '60s that these problems began to metastasize.
The problems were political, not economic. Organized labor requires government support to thrive—things like the right to organize workplaces, rules that prevent retaliation against union leaders, and requirements that management negotiate in good faith—and in America, that support traditionally came from the Democratic Party. The relationship was symbiotic: Unions provided money and ground game campaign organization, and in return Democrats supported economic policies like minimum-wage laws and expanded health care that helped not just union members per se—since they'd already won good wages and benefits at the bargaining table—but the interests of the working and middle classes writ large.
What has congress done since then? Pay itself and become puppets of the moneyed interests like the Koch's in Wisconsin. What is being fought for here is the survival of the middle-class and working American wage earners. It is for a decent standard of life with the possibility of upward mobility through hard work and education. Not bribery by the top 1% buying themselves a congressman or woman who has no interest in the people who vote her/him in but only in those who make large campaign contributions.
What about campaign reform? Does anyone ever hear about it any longer! NO and there is a reason. One vote per person does not work if the person you expect to carry your interests forward is bought and paid for by special interests. This is the case now and O'bama seems clueless as to how to hold democrats responsible for the values that the party is supposed to represent. At this point there is only one party--the business party that represents the 1% at the top of the feeding chain and is now unwilling to even give crumbs much less cake to anyone.
Wake up and smell the coffee. You can't afford not to.

MSN.com

MSN.com

College Art Association meeting

Eye opening sessions on new media and publishing. Opens up all kind of creative possibilities to have your say and various audiences. I only hope I can find a publiher for my Romaine Brooks book with this kind of creative vision. Other sessions were also useful, particulaarly Joanthan Katz's session dealing with censorship in the arts when it comes to GLBTQ images be they lesbian, gay, homoerotic, or AIDS as the National Portrait Gallery show(Hide/Seek-catalogue available)  he organized with David Ward proved. We are still a very puritanical and unsophisticated nation.

Artistic Influences

Has anyone noticed the similarity between this portrait of Shelley and Romaine Brooks' self-portrait of 1912?

How contemporary is Romaine

Have recently come from reading various news reports about the oppression of women in Islam. If clothes make the man I wonder what Brooks and thousands of women between the wars were saying with the fashion statments they tried to project. Brooks own great self portrait of 1923 and her other portraits of women who were determined to follow their own individual path no matter where it took them. Can you think of any?

Androgyny

few artists have been able to unriddle the force of personality with the power that Romaine Brooks brought to her images. What has always captured my interest is how people have responded to her Self Portrait of 1923. It has never failed to engaged viewers and their impressions have ranged from absolute revulsion to admiration. I have often mused on this wondering if others are as intrigued by this particular image and why it grabs so many eyes.

Recent reviews of Hide and Seek show

in blogs and newspapers all seem to give it a thumbs up. Certainly it raises issues that are contemporary and well worth exploring concerning sexuality and gender. The whole area of "cross dressing" vs. fashion and style in the work of Romaine Brooks and other women of her circle needs a much closer look. We need to contextualize attire for women in regard to sexual politics, history and personal taste.