LazlosBasement.com

It’s not the first time such an outstandingly bassackwards resolution has been proposed in a state senate meeting, and I strongly suspect it will not be the last. But there is a little extra sting to Representative John LaBruzzo’s most recent brainchild, which could be generously described as dumbfuckery gone south. LaBruzzo, who represents a Metairie district in the Louisiana state legislature, has officially proposed that the state spend its residents’ hard-earned tax dollars by “voluntarily” sterilizing women who don’t meet his financial standards - while simultaneously “encouraging” wealthy women to have more children - as a means to improve the state’s economy. Seriously.

Now, the asininity (it’s a word, I looked it up) of this proposal should be shockingly obvious to our fair readers, but I’ve got insomnia so just for shits and giggles I’m gonna go ahead and point it all out anyway. Let’s start with the fact that LaBruzzo touts this proposal as a way of “addressing the problem of intergenerational welfare,” which one can only assume means that he thinks “welfare” is the economic quandary at fault for low wages and joblessness in Louisiana (those pesky hurricanes and Wall Street aside). First, there’s no such thing as “welfare” any more, so one can only hope LaBruzzo is using the inadequate term to refer to the replacement program TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), which provides - read my lips here - TEMPORARY financial assistance to some families (children are a requirement, adults without children do not qualify ) whose income falls below the poverty level. In other words, the majority of people who benefit from the TANF system are children whose parents DO work (another requirement) but whose wages are too low to raise the family above poverty. And they can only receive benefits for a maximum of five (that’s 5, or V if you’re an ancient Roman) years total. They can thank Bill Clinton, who I firmly support as our best Republican president ever, for that time limit. So that pretty much shatters the myth of “intergenerational welfare,” because this country will be goddamned if more than one percent (that’s 1%) of the entire federal budget is spent on assistance to these families. Truth.

But why stop there? Last we heard it takes two to tango, so you might ask why LaBruzzo only wants to offer the $1000 bribe to sterilize women? Ah HAH! He has you right where he wants you now! LaBruzzo would be happy to cauterize a few low-class vas deference tubes. Why, he’ll even offer you broke blokes $500 for the pleasure. Apparently your tubes are only worth half as much as fallopian tubes. See? He’s not sexist at all. Why, women’s reproductive rights are twice as expensive as men’s!

Of course, LaBruzzo’s ingenious eugenic plan would only be fair if he offered some form of incentive to upper class, college-educated (read White) families to have more children. After all, parity is an American value, right? So how ’bout some more tax breaks? Because if we’ve learned one thing from the gigantic clusterfuck that has become Wall Street, it’s that the winners of the Birthright Of Family Wealth lottery need more tax breaks. Knock a few more dollars off their itemized lists, that’s sure to get the bedroom rockin.’

In short, Rep. John LaBruzzo thinks he can magically succeed at what smarter and better men (and women) cannot; he can cure the financial disparities of an entire society’s classism by applying the simple tenets of sexism and racism to the whole lot of ‘em. By the way, LaBruzzo is a White upper-class post-grad with a kid, which clarifies where he would personally fall in the mix, though of course that’s beside his point, which I’m thinking resides on the top of his head.

On the other hand, this is from the same district that sent KKK leader David Duke to the legislation in 1989. So maybe LaBruzzo’s making progress after all.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The field of politics has been referred to as “the art of the possible,” but what place does art truly hold in politics (or vice versa)? While many artists would say that art should transcend - or at least be divorced from - politics, photographer Jill Greenberg seems to think otherwise. Greenberg, who exhibits her work on her webpage manipulator.com, made a very strong and very public statement about her latest subject, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, through her photography. Greenberg’s work has come under fire since one of her photos served as the cover for the latest issue of The Atlantic magazine. Greenberg was contracted to photograph McCain for the publication, but her website displays further photographs of McCain which are edited to literally look like something out of a horror movie. Perhaps even more provocative than the visual editing are the photograph captions, which read, consecutively:

Darkness is only driven out with light, not more darkness.” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.*

*mccain voted against mlk day

It was really fun to cheat on my car-injury-disabled first wife.

and

I called my wife a cunt in front of reporters.

While the shock value of the photos is obvious, their place in contemporary American politics, not to mention the art world, is unclear. While politically motivated blue-state activists might consider the photographs to be visionary, one cannot help but wonder what Greenberg hopes to accomplish by displaying them. At the same time, although media-minded red-state activists have decried the photographs as “sarcastic” at best, Greenberg certainly cannot be accused of dishonesty when it comes to her political assessments. The Canadian born artist makes no bones about her liberal political tendencies, nor is this the first time her professionalism has been questioned. Slate notes that her series of photographs entitled “End Times,” which showed toddlers in the midst of tantrums, gained international notoriety as her methods were questioned and labeled abusive by some critics. Greenberg did not hesitate to answer the criticism with contextual remarks which, in retrospect, may have provided a preview of the current controversy:

They’re not meant to be read as mere baby pictures; they’re meant to be a statement. As Greenberg herself explains in the gallery’s press release, “The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset. It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation.” “As a parent,” she continues, “I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come.”

The controversy over the McCain photographs will likely spin further out of control before it settles; Greenberg has already been dropped by her agent in retribution for the series, and re-signed with a previous agency. This is despite the fact that her photographs have graced the covers of national periodicals such as Time Magazine, Newsweek, and TV Guide. And since controversy is hardly a detractor when it comes to media coverage, it seems likely that her career will not suffer from the series in the long run. But it remains to be seen whether Greenberg’s honesty is really her best policy; the Atlantic has stated publicly that it may file charges against her despite using one of the photographs from the series on its cover. Her journalistic integrity, if she had any, is likely now permanently kaput. On the other hand enthusiasts note that art is not journalism, and as super-activist and singer Bono says, “It is the artist’s job to define the problem.” Clearly Greenberg feels that right-wing politics are the problem; but her work may ultimately backfire on her. It engenders a certain amount of sympathy for McCain and illustrates nothing so well as the divisiveness and single-mindedness of the blue state/red state controversy… and in the end we may decide that’s the real enemy.

Read more of our series on ‘expanding the concept of art’

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Hubris: (a) a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution.

(b) DeSean Jackson

DeSean Jackson’s obnoxiously stupid fumble in last night’s showdown between the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles actually shook me out of my hurricane season malaise enough to make me want to blog again. Thanks DeSean. (BTW-the Phillies lost).

Bookmark It

Hide Sites