Links and Stuff
Hello again! This coming Monday is Labor Day in the US, which is both a celebration of the working person (so it’s a national holiday–go figure!), and also the end of the Summer season. Yes, technically Summer ends on September 22, but as far as schools, retailers, and just about everyone except astronomers are concerned, Fall (or Autumn) begins on Monday. The last few months seem to have whizzed by. Doesn’t it seem that way to you? Maybe that feeling is just another symptom of getting older…
I don’t have much to report on the house-hunting efforts. We looked at a couple more houses this week, but we are at the end of the list, and now need to start whittling that list down. This is going to be tough. Prayers are appreciated from those who are of the praying inclination.
J.K. Rowling has been getting some stick on Twitter recently. For many years, Rowling has been a staunch supporter of Britain’s Labour Party (the current opposition party), crediting Labour policies for helping her when she was in the depths of poverty. The Labour Party are, however, going through a bit of a leadership struggle at the moment. There’s a growing contingent within the party who consider current leader, Jeremy Corbyn, unfit to continue in charge. A large part of that feeling may stem from his apparently ineffective campaigning on behalf of the “Remain” vote during the Brexit debates. In any case, Rowling has come out as a vocal opponent of Corbyn’s continued leadership of the Labour Party, and that’s what has caused people to get snarky with her on Twitter. She has been accused of forgetting what it’s like to be poor, and no longer being able to understand–or speak for–the “little people.” Naturally, she objects to such criticisms. She simply believes Corbyn is not the right leader to get Labour back in power, and would rather someone more electable was leading the party.
I bring up Rowling vs. Twitter not to discuss the merits and demerits of Jeremy Corbyn (after all, as a US citizen, I have no horse in the race–it doesn’t matter to me). Rather, I want to consider for a moment the cost of acquired wealth and celebrity. I see it happen all too often, that people root for someone to be successful, to find a way out of their poverty, or out of a hard situation, and when they over-achieve–i.e., not just getting out, but becoming ludicrously successful and wealthy–those same people who cheered them on turn on them. It’s as if they are saying, “We wanted you to do well, but not that well!” And yet when people talk about income inequality, no-one suggests that Rowling, or Hollywood celebrities, or sports celebrities share their wealth. It seems to me there are some very confused and complex rules to being wealthy, especially in the arts. It almost seems as if some believe artists should shun financial reward, showing their artistic integrity by volunteering to live in squalor. Only then can they have legitimate opinions about things that “ordinary people” care about. We’ve talked about writing and money before, but this is a bit of a different angle. What do you think? Should celebrities keep their opinions to themselves? Does fame and fortune in the arts or sports disqualify you from voicing opinions on politics and culture?
Finally, this week actor Gene Wilder died. He was 83. When I think of Gene Wilder, three movies spring to mind: “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” “Blazing Saddles,” and “Young Frankenstein.” Of these, the latter two probably gave me the most laughs, especially “Young Frankenstein.” Here’s the Associated Press announcement:
