* Top 10 Reasons Giuliani Decency Commission is Absurd
ARTISTpres
Top 10 Reasons Giuliani Decency Panel is Absurd
by Robert Lederman
In his 4/4/2001 press conference announcing the Art Decency Commission New York
City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said:
"The panel will examine situations in which there is perceived or in reality an
affront, an attack, a debasement of religion, ethnicity, race, sexual
orientation, gender."
Giuliani has repeatedly called the Brooklyn Museum’s recent exhibitions,
anti-Catholic bigotry. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Mayor
is absolutely right.
Also for the sake of argument, let’s further assume that the Mayor is right
that tax dollars should never be used for any art or any cultural work, film,
live performance, television show or museum exhibit that is or can be perceived
as, "...an affront, an attack, a debasement of religion, ethnicity, race,
sexual orientation, gender."
Here are ten of countless possible examples of well-known works of art on
display in NYC museums that receive tax dollars from the City and that can be
readily perceived as an affront by one or more ethnic, racial, religious or
sexually-oriented groups.
1. The Ten Commandments prohibit the making or displaying of any "graven
image", i.e. all depictions of the human body, God, pagan deities or any object
intended to be worshiped such as a crucifix, or statue of a saint. While the
Jewish Old Testament has been the inspiration for much of Christian religious
art, such works directly contradict a basic tenant of Judaism and of the Ten
Commandments. That’s why synagogues never have paintings or statues. Should
religious Jews, who make up a very large minority group in NYC and a very
significant portion of the tax base, have their tax dollars used to display
images of Christian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Assyrian, Central American and
African deities? The Brooklyn Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have
two of the world’s largest such collections. The City significantly funds
both.
2. Most NYC museums have paintings and/or statues about Columbus "discovering"
America. What we now know from journals written by eyewitnesses on those
journeys of exploration was that Columbus enslaved and murdered the native
inhabitants wherever he landed. Paintings and statues by artists such as
Frederick Remington depicting the conquest of the West and of American cavalry
killing Native Americans are on display in many NYC museums. Native American
activists have made it known over the past 25 years that they find such
depictions insulting and offensive. Should their tax dollars pay to maintain
the images of conquerors like Columbus or of General Custer and other genocidal
"Indian fighters" in NYC museums?
3. The Museum of Modern Art, The Metropolitan Museum and the Brooklyn Museum
have vast collections of religious and burial artifacts from Native American,
Middle Eastern, African, Oceanic and Central American cultures. Many if not
most of these artifacts were obtained by dubious means, often stolen or
smuggled out of their native countries. Some, like the Egyptian mummies, are
actual human remains stolen from their burial sites. How do the millions of New
York City taxpayers descended from these cultures feel about their ancestral
remains and cultural heritage being stolen and put on display in New York City
museums?
4. The Met has a number of paintings depicting Plato, a Greek philosopher who
advocated man-boy love-a felony crime in NY State. The Museum of Modern Art
(MOMA) has a number of paintings of prepubescent girls by Balthus, a well-known
German pedophile. MOMA also has numerous paintings by Salvador Dali, a
surrealist well known for bashing Catholicism. In one, his wife hangs crucified
on the cross instead of Jesus. Should MOMA’s 65 million-dollar gift from
Giuliani be withdrawn? Shouldn’t Giuliani‘s Decency Commission remove all
these paintings?
5. If tax dollars can be removed from a museum that allegedly attacks religion
why not remove funding for museums supporting religion? Using government funds
for supporting religion is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Why
should Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists or atheists pay for the exhibition of
thousands of paintings created specifically in order to convince people that
Jesus is God?
6. A satirical portrait of Oscar Wilde could be a perceived affront to gays. An
unflattering painting or news photo included in a documentary exhibit about
Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton could be perceived as an
affront to African-Americans. Should such works be banned?
7. A fundamentalist Christian might find the statues of Egyptian, Greek and
Roman gods which fill NYC art museums to be an abomination. The Met in
particular is filled with paintings and sculptures of nudes depicting sexual
situations, homosexuality, rape, incest etc. Should they all be removed? How
about the hundreds of African fertility sculptures on display depicting exposed
genitalia which are far more explicit than the works in the controversial
Brooklyn Museum shows? Are statues and paintings of nude children, the nude
putti and angels popular in so many Greek, Roman and Renaissance works of art,
child pornography? Isn’t child pornography a felony crime in New York?
8. The Rockefeller family’s MOMA shows a number of paintings stolen from Jews
by the Nazis, which have been the object of civil lawsuits. The Rockefeller
family were major supporters of Hitler. Their company, Standard Oil, owned 1/2
of IG Farben, the Nazi chemical and munitions cartel which built and operated
Auschwitz. MOMA has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars from the
Giuliani administration. Isn’t that an affront to all Jews and a desecration
of the Holocaust?
9. Some feminists might find the thousands of erotic female nudes in NYC
museums (almost all of which were painted by men) to be sexist and
exploitative. Women are more than 50% of NYC taxpayers. Should all female nudes
be removed if a few women complain that they were offended?
10. Many sects of Protestants and Baptists consider the Pope and the Catholic
Church to be the anti-Christ. Millions of New Yorkers are members of these
Christian sects. Should all Catholic-influenced Renaissance art be removed from
all the museums based on it offending these taxpayers?
Be assured, I’m not advocating the removal of any of these works. The point
is that all art can be perceived as offensive by someone and more than likely
has been perceived that way at some time or another.
The Catholic Church censored Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel murals by painting
fig leaves on the figures despite this masterpiece having been commissioned by
a Pope. The French rioted over Impressionism. Many Americans still consider
Picasso and Mattise, let alone the Abstract Expressionists, to be non-artists
with less talent than their own children have.
As the archetypal example of a cultural lowbrow, Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly
said, "if I can do it it’s not art". Should some taxpayers’ wishes be
followed and all modern paintings be removed from taxpayer funded NYC museums?
Is Giuliani a prude, a cultural philistine, just plain crazy or is there a
perfectly logical governmental agenda to his Decency Commission? For a detailed
explanation of the real agenda behind this seemingly absurd effort see my
articles, Giuliani Decency Commission Exposed and Giuliani on Art, Hitler on
Art at:
http://baltech.org/lederman/
Bush-Nazi connection, Giuliani, Manhattan Institute, eugenics, West Nile Virus
information
http://baltech.org/lederman/
http://baltech.org/lederman/spray/
http://www.levymultimedia.com/lederman/index.htm
Street artist information
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html
Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists’ Response To Illegal State Tactics)
ARTIS...@aol.com (718) 743-3722
Ron Goodrich
NYC deal with him.
Ron Goodrich
Floyd Baker wrote:
> You see? When you don't listen, you don't learn. He tells in his pages how
> Giuliani is attempting to have all first amendment rights for 'visual' art be
> remove..; for *everyone*. I think that goes a little beyond NYC...
Yes, but he's just a mayor. And weren't you the guy that wanted to kill all the
journalists? Don't tell me about the First Amendment.
BJ Carr
"Floyd Baker" <fba...@olm1.com> wrote in message
news:n4escto5mmm1q4tem...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Isn't he the mayor of a city with a bigger budget than many states? And
perhaps
> people too? He can do a lot of what he want's to do. What he's doing
would
> certainly affect all of us. You said only NYC people should worry about
it.
>
> As for journalists being similar? They are using our right of free
speech? Ah
> yes.., but they do lie a lot in the process. That's a fact. That's not
> freedom of speech.., they're taught in journalism how to keep from being
nailed
> while lying. It's their profession. We have freedom of speech here on
the
> internet. That's great.. You can tell me what you don't like and I'll
give it
> more attention than what some lying, creep, hatchet man for his newspaper,
> journalist has to say.
>
> The problem of course is that people put tooooo much faith in these people
with
> the opinions. They think because they are there in that position, they
*know*
> something? Not! They are just able to keep a line of crap going without
> hesitating or appearing embarrassed or unsure of themselves.
>
> They're called 'bs artists'..., and executing them was just a figure of
*my*
> free speech.
>
> Floyd
>
They have more than constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, they also
have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press, which the courts have
always held to be even more precious and more important than general freedom
of speech. There have been a lot of court opinions coming down recently
about speech on the Internet and whether or not it is protected by freedom
of the press as well as by freedom of speech. There is little constancy so
far in the various court decisions so it is sure to wind up in the Supreme
Court some day in the future.
Quirker
University in Florida are "up in arms" over a play that has been created
there at the University depicting Jesus Christ as a Gay.
As someone who enjoys art and who participates in artistic material -
sometimes I do think that display sometimes does go a bit too far when it
can be done in a less offensive way. I knew an artist once who signed all
his pictures as such "F _ _ K" but with such artistic touch you couldn't
even begin to notice how he signed it.
A sincere photographer
"ARTISTpres" <artis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010405090702...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
Tom Hand
news:9G%z6.5780$l5.50...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
> I heard via the news couple of weeks ago that the faculty of this big
> University in Florida are "up in arms" over a play that has been created
> there at the University depicting Jesus Christ as a Gay.
>
> As someone who enjoys art and who participates in artistic material -
> sometimes I do think that display sometimes does go a bit too far when it
> can be done in a less offensive way. I knew an artist once who signed all
> his pictures as such "F _ _ K" but with such artistic touch you couldn't
> even begin to notice how he signed it.
>
> A sincere photographer
Personally I'm an atheist, but I don't think that public money should be
used to support art that denigrates anyone's religion. If the play is any
good it ought to be able to support itself with paid admissions, not subsist
on handouts from the public treasury.
Woodswun
The problem is that the government is specifically forbidden from restricting
speech/expression - and for very good reason. While I also feel that much of
the so-called art out there is dreck and doesn't warrant consideration as
"art", I'd rather have it displayed than have the government in a position to
restrict it.
If the government or, more particularly, an induhvidual with power in the
government, doesn't like some of what's being done in the name of "art" with
government funds - then said induhvidual within the government is best to
cease and desist ALL funding of the arts.
Woods
>
>
Tom Hand
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3A2A6.9928>
> The problem is that the government is specifically forbidden from
restricting
> speech/expression - and for very good reason. While I also feel that much
of
> the so-called art out there is dreck and doesn't warrant consideration as
> "art", I'd rather have it displayed than have the government in a position
to
> restrict it.
>
> If the government or, more particularly, an induhvidual with power in the
> government, doesn't like some of what's being done in the name of "art"
with
> government funds - then said induhvidual within the government is best to
> cease and desist ALL funding of the arts.
>
> Woods
That's not a bad idea. I enjoy opera and classical music, but I don't think
that people who don't enjoy it should fund my pleasure. Let me and the
others who enjoy it pay the full cost with our admission tickets, or let
private foundations, not the government, subsidize it if necessary.
BJ Carr
"Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:Lx5A6.5832$l5.50...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
When did all this government subsidization of individual artists begin? And
why? I don't think people like Walt Whitman, Georgia O'Keeffe, Herman
Melville or Aaron Copeland ever accepted government largesse. Struggling
artists have always depended upon private patrons of the arts, but I think
it is plain wrong for government to get involved. When the government gives
money to an individual artist it is, in effect, endorsing his art over the
art of all the other artists who didn't receive a subsidy. How is government
qualified to make such a distinction? If struggling artists need help let
today's versions of Peggy Guggenheim and John D. Rockefeller, and other
patrons of the arts, come forward to help them. It is not fair to the
artists who don't receive subsidies, and it is not fair to the taxpayers,
for the government to single out certain artists to receive government
grants.
Quirker
my own. But as someone who has been involved with art (slightly compare to
most) I think that under the Constitution, and we should all feel this way
no matter what, "it is what is within the artist." I take a photograph, I
am the individual who looks through the viewfinder, I produce the photograph
and then I allowed others to voice their opinions, good, bad or indifferent.
I must admit, nothing I ever photographed was indecent nor derogatory, it
never entered my mind nor my eyes to create an aire of confusion like some
artist do from time to time . . .it is their choice for whatever the reason
may be.
I don't agree that art shouldn't be subsidized for if it is, a part of
culture itself would be denied, just like with music and other aspects of
our culture. I wish I could express myself better but I can't, I neither
support nor would I ever deny anyone's freedom of expression through a
statement of Art nor Music but I may criticize it in a constructive
mannerism.
Sincerely
"Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:Lx5A6.5832$l5.50...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
>
Woodswun
Agreed. It's nice to support the arts, but when you've been cutting into the
necessities (education, mental health, healthcare) in order to give money to
them - and then complain about how the money is being spent - it's time to
reassess priorities.
Woods
Quirker
think it is an excellent topic and thoughtful and opened up many avenues of
critique, pro, con and indifferent which normally is produced in the world
of art.
I doubt the artist, and there is more than one, is an atheist, I surely am
not one myself. I've always felt with my photographs, "your invited both
ways, either view my works or look elsewhere."
I've taken photographs which I felt pleased me when I took it, what I see
and felt at the time was the reason I took the photograph. When presented,
I found mixed reviews but with some explanation I found that people
understood, not all, but some . . .some were looking for more, more than I
could produce but that is why I love photographer (art).
If I could suggest to all, visit private photographic studios, it may help
understand more this artistic field. As for an artist on canvass, I guess
again, you'd have to visit such studios and see all aspects of art from the
unknown up to someone very popular . . .we aren't all the same and I think
this field, like music, shows it.
I'll keep taking photographs and remain unknown but I'll be happy doing it.
Sincerely,
If I've missed the point of this Topic Of Conversation then please excuse
me, I'm not totally familiar with the piece of art but know of others that
have been contraversial and led to topics such as this one.
"ARTISTpres" <artis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010405090702...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
Dave Hitt
You can make that argument for *all* art, and then the problem goes
away (pretty much). If NYC museums didn't rely on government funds,
they could go tell Rudy and is really Really REALLY white decency
commission to go fuck themselves, using that exact language.
This whole thing illustrates what a power mad megalomaniac Rudy is.
And stupid to boot. A hundred years from now his role in cleaning up
the city will be pretty much forgotten, but memories of his Decency
Commission will live on.
----
Economics for Democrats - Tax cuts made simple
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Dave Hitt
>When did all this government subsidization of individual artists begin? And
>why? I don't think people like Walt Whitman, Georgia O'Keeffe, Herman
>Melville or Aaron Copeland ever accepted government largesse. Struggling
>artists have always depended upon private patrons of the arts, but I think
>it is plain wrong for government to get involved. When the government gives
>money to an individual artist it is, in effect, endorsing his art over the
>art of all the other artists who didn't receive a subsidy. How is government
>qualified to make such a distinction? If struggling artists need help let
>today's versions of Peggy Guggenheim and John D. Rockefeller, and other
>patrons of the arts, come forward to help them. It is not fair to the
>artists who don't receive subsidies, and it is not fair to the taxpayers,
>for the government to single out certain artists to receive government
>grants.
It also makes it difficult to argue against the government calling the
shots.
If I were wealthy enough to subsidize an artist, I'd be within my
rights to tell him to knock it off if he did something I didn't like.
He could then decide if he wanted to comply, or lose my contribution.
This has been going on for as long as artists have had patrons. If
the government is paying for it, then don't they get to decide?
I'm playing devils advocate here, because the government should not be
allowed to decide what is and isn't fit for viewing. But by accepting
government money, either directly or thorough subsidies for the
museums or galleries, such intervention is inevitable, especially when
you've got egomaniacs like Rudy at the helm.
Ron Goodrich
BJ Carr wrote:
When did all this government subsidization of individual artists begin? And
> why? I don't think people like Walt Whitman, Georgia O'Keeffe, Herman
> Melville or Aaron Copeland ever accepted government largesse. Struggling
> artists have always depended upon private patrons of the arts, but I think
> it is plain wrong for government to get involved. When the government gives
> money to an individual artist it is, in effect, endorsing his art over the
> art of all the other artists who didn't receive a subsidy. How is government
> qualified to make such a distinction? If struggling artists need help let
> today's versions of Peggy Guggenheim and John D. Rockefeller, and other
> patrons of the arts, come forward to help them. It is not fair to the
> artists who don't receive subsidies, and it is not fair to the taxpayers,
> for the government to single out certain artists to receive government
> grants.
I think it goes back to ancient times when artists were commissioned to design
temples and statues to the gods and emperors. I'm not saying whether it's
right or not, but that's when it started. Then again, the artists were paid
for creating what the leader wanted then, not the artist.
BJ Carr
"Ron Goodrich" <rongo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3AD2A7CA...@charter.net...
>
>
> I think it goes back to ancient times when artists were commissioned to
design
> temples and statues to the gods and emperors. I'm not saying whether it's
> right or not, but that's when it started. Then again, the artists were
paid
> for creating what the leader wanted then, not the artist.
>
Yeah, and we had similar programs during the depression in the 1930's for
WPA art. Have you ever seen any of it? It is as far from art as
Creationism is from science.
BJ Carr
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
news:3ad66b8d....@news4.newscene.com...
>
> This whole thing illustrates what a power mad megalomaniac Rudy is.
> And stupid to boot. A hundred years from now his role in cleaning up
> the city will be pretty much forgotten, but memories of his Decency
> Commission will live on.
>
seats. That's where the votes are.
Jim Elbrecht
>Yeah, and we had similar programs during the depression in the 1930's for
>WPA art. Have you ever seen any of it? It is as far from art as
>Creationism is from science.
Art may be mostly in the eyes of the beholder, but when I think of
WPA's art project, I think of photographers Ansel Adams, George
Weston, Minor White, Walker Evans, and most especially Dorothea Lange.
I'm sure there was lots of chaff-- but a couple of Lange's photo's, to
me, were worth the cost of the whole FAP.
Jim
BJ Carr
"Jim Elbrecht" <elbr...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4ku5dts6k2aqe3b6r...@4ax.com...
Well, I must admit I was thinking of painting, not photography. I don't
think any of the WPA commissioned paintings and murals are worth anything,
and I've seen quite a lot of it, actually far too much of it than I would
like. Even when the painters might have been ok if they had a different
subject, the subjects that they were required to paint are reminiscent of
Stalin's propaganda posters of the same era.
BJ Carr
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 23:25:17 GMT, "Quirker" <prea...@borg.com> wrote:
>
>It is up to *no one* group or individual to say what art
> it... If enough people say it is, it is. That's the only criteria and
money
> should not be delved or withheld on anyone's particular whims, fantasies,
likes
> or dislikes.
True. But when government funds art it is saying what art is. That's why
government shouldn't be involved.
Tom Hand
this
> country. What are they here for. They are supposed to be doing what's
best for
> us in *many* ways... Not just policing us, defending us, robbing us...
>
> It should be funding cultural areas in a way that the art and culture
world can
> make the most of the money. Required to spread it around, to invite all
to
> share, to fund untested, new and original works and methods, and in
general to
> have the expertise and legitimacy to know how to apply it most properly.
The
> art world should certainly be have some concurrence on who those people
are that
> could be deciding the rules.., using any of many criteria I won't even
think
> about here.
>
> All in all, the money should just be made freely available to the art
world to
> do with it as it wishes. (With the above expertise applied, of course.)
>
> What a drab and dull world it would be, if only a few limited thinkers
decided
> everything for us. Like Juliani said, if he can do it, it isn't art...
Maybe
> a catchy line but *very* far from being true. That kind of mass
categorization
> is pretty sick; actually.
>
> Floyd Baker
>
Who exactly, in the "art world" do you propose giving that money to? Who is
going to make that decision? The deeper you delve into this the bigger a
quagmire it becomes.
If government is going to give a grant toward a scientific research project
it can have other scientists review the proposed project to see if it is
based upon sound scientific principles. Art, by its very nature, cannot be
reviewed in such a manner. I may like art and you may too, but your art may
be garbage to me, and vice versa. Government involvement can only destroy
art.
BJ Carr
I agree that there is no such thing as an art world with some sort of
consensus as to what constitutes good art, or even as to what constitutes
art.
The Trustees of Sculpture Center in New York City are throwing out its
resident sculptors, whose art for the most part is traditional sculpture in
stone, metal and clay. They intend to sell the large building which has
historically offered space and facilities for sculptors to work, and move to
less expensive rented quarters. Instead of a haven for resident artists
they intend to turn themselves into a gallery for avant-garde works, such as
"performance sculpture," whatever the hell that is.
So who should get the government handouts? Who represents the real art
world? The Sculpure Center or the sculptors? Obviously there is not enough
government money to slather it on everyone who says they are an artist, so
someone in the government has to decide what's good and what's bad, what's
art and what's not. I agree that government should not be put in such a
position of power over art, and that giving public funds to artists is a
corrupting force that can only destroy, not help, art.
Philip Kirschner
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
news:3ad66b8d....@news4.newscene.com...
BJ Carr
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:12:27 GMT, "BJ Carr" <BJ_...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Because they have no M O N E Y people!!!
That's not the case with the Sculpture Center. They have an endowment in
the millions. What's going on there is that the trustees don't like the
kind of sculpture produced by their resident sculptors so they have
arbitrarily changed their mission in order to get rid of them and pursue the
kind of art that the trustees prefer. This is happening in a setting funded
by private money, but it's the exact type of thing you run into with
government funds. Office politics runs deep in the arts world where there
are more big egos and strong opinions than in most fields of endeavor.
>
>
> Horsefeathers! If the government wants to fund the *churches* by paying
for
> some *NON* church related activities they do perform? Crap. How do you
fund
> NON church, church activities... Is some money blue, some red, and some
yellow,
> besides the GREEN that I know about. Isn't money in both my pockets
still
> MINE?
?I thought we were discussing funding of the arts?
>
> Now if they are going to pay my tax money over to churches, I *think* they
can
> make a little available to something worth while!! Like a couple hundred
> million a year or maybe a billion? I have no good handle on the amount of
money
> that would be *reasonable* but I know it's there! It's there for
everything
> else! Now I believe a woman by the name of Radice is, or just recently
was, the
> person who ran the federal arts funding? Not too clear on that right now
but I
> know there are people already in place. The give away or grants or
allotments
> or whatever you want to call them can be allocated per/capita by state
with a
> state panel consisting of people in the areas affected... Tourism,
cultural
> institutions (art, theater, libraries, etc.), city planners, education,
not to
> mention *artists* and *critics* of some renown? The *government*
shouldn't
> have any say as to where it goes. Just make it available! Then get lost.
> Don't tell me there isn't a very logical and effective way to distribute
the
> money once it's out of the hands of the politicians. And who is really
to say
> what should be considered worth funding??? No one! Of course there is
going
> to be money put to things that go belly up... But them's the breaks. As
with
> everything else the government spends money on, nothing's perfect. But in
this
> case, the new things will get a change to see the light. We get a chance
to
> appreciate and to judge for ourselves. Some of them will make it all
worth
> while. Not so with Juliani or any other creep who has no taste.
>
> The people who are looking to do in government funding, must be *very*
satisfied
> with the sit-coms and talk shows on T.V. Sorry but that's not enough for
> everyone.
>
> Floyd Baker
Again, how do you insure that the people handing it out have any more taste
than Guiliani? What qualifies librarians or city planners or art critics to
decide who gets the money? What makes one artist more deserving than
another? Remember the Sculpture Center brouhaha above? How does one decide
which kinds of sculpture should be supported? If Beethoven and Wagner were
alive today but we only had enough money for one, who should get it?
Good art doesn't need government subsidization. It will either pay for
itself in sales or it will attract supportive patrons. It always has.
BJ Carr
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 05:40:31 GMT, "BJ Carr" <BJ_...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> I don't believe they can 'arbitrarily' change their mission. There are
laws
> about that. Non profit 501 (c) (3) for one, but more importantly, there
are
> charters given out by the state not for profit and 'education' type
> organizations... It takes years for an institution to get the
classification
> 'Museum'. You don't do anything on a whim or for no reason. If this
group is
> just a bunch of financial back slappers, with no governmental control in
the
> first place, I can see it happening. For another thing, if they see more
'draw'
> in what they're doing, perhaps you're not keeping up with changing tastes?
:-)
If you don't believe me you can look up an article about it in the New York
Times published on 3/19/01. Just search their library for Sculpture Center.
It'll cost you $2.50 though. It was also publicized in several other
publications at about the same time, but I can't remember specifically where
else I read about it except for the times. I assure you, however, that it
was an absolutely arbitrary move one the part of the trustees, admitted to
by them. They just personally like a different kind of art than that
produced by their in-house sculptors.
> >> Horsefeathers! If the government wants to fund the *churches* by
paying
> >for
> >> some *NON* church related activities they do perform? Crap. How do
you
> >fund
> >> NON church, church activities... Is some money blue, some red, and
some
> >yellow,
> >> besides the GREEN that I know about. Isn't money in both my pockets
> >still
> >> MINE?
> >
> >?I thought we were discussing funding of the arts?
>
> I thought we were discussing the non funding of the arts...
>
> And why is that the case, if the money is available?
> Art is everything! It is in everything. It has a place in basically all
> applications of our culture. You need a diverse, and widely separate
group of
> *private* individuals, from each area where monies are to be disbursed,
each
> using their own thinking and ranking of potential fundables, and scoring
with a
> standard 1-10, plus any other specific or across the board criteria. Then
all
> the individual scorings are compiled and voila, the best places for the
money
> have been determined..., with no *pork*, in the deal.
Art is everything, but everything is not art. The only person who can
determine what is or what is not art is the individual viewer. There is no
other legitimate way to judge, and therefore no legitimate channel in which
to funnel government funds. All government funding is pork.
> It could simply be distributed per capita at the first level. These
panels
> could be at any level actually but perhaps best at the state or regional
level,
> to distribute even more specifically. I said *panels*. Educated people?
> Diverse? Culturally inclined? Do you not believe these types exist, and
that
> they would not volunteer their time to put the money, even elsewhere' from
where
> they are, for the sake of greatly improving the state or country on the
whole?
> Look, I'm smart enough but I can't lay out the entire plan of action for
such a
> system to take. It can be done if people want it. Otherwise you *will*
get the
> Juliani's making things their way...
>
> Are you questioning whether or not *anything* should be done to stop his
kind of
> thinking?
>
>
> >Good art doesn't need government subsidization. It will either pay for
> >itself in sales or it will attract supportive patrons. It always has.
>
> No so at all! Ever hear of starving artists?
>
Good artists won't starve forever. People will recognize the quality of the
work and either buy it or feed the artist. If no one sees the quality it's
because it doesn't exist. You can bet that a lot of those no-talent folks
will get the government subsidies though, because those panels of "experts"
will convince themselves that the emperor is really wearing clothes, when in
fact he is stark naked.
Dave Hitt
>Well, I don't quite agree. The government *should* fund the culture of this
>country. What are they here for.
Really? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Perhaps you
could point it out to me.
>They are supposed to be doing what's best for
>us in *many* ways... Not just policing us, defending us, robbing us...
Their job should be strictly limited to providing police, the courts,
the military, and the *very* few things that can't be realistically
done by the private sector. It is most emphatically *not* their job
to fund art.
>It should be funding cultural areas in a way that the art and culture world can
>make the most of the money. Required to spread it around, to invite all to
>share, to fund untested, new and original works and methods, and in general to
>have the expertise and legitimacy to know how to apply it most properly. The
>art world should certainly be have some concurrence on who those people are that
>could be deciding the rules.., using any of many criteria I won't even think
>about here.
>
>All in all, the money should just be made freely available to the art world to
>do with it as it wishes. (With the above expertise applied, of course.)
I used to sing and play in coffee houses. I quit for a variety of
reasons (got to busy doing other things, mostly) but if the government
would have provided me with a subsidy I'd still be doing it. And why
shouldn't they? If they're funding you, how dare they not fund me?
>What a drab and dull world it would be, if only a few limited thinkers decided
>everything for us.
You mean like government drones? As it is now, there are a myriad of
artists, all competing for our time and attention, and we all get to
chose which ones we'll support. You want opera? Great, you pay for
it, encourage companies to sponsor it, and do whatever it takes to
keep it around. You want Oprah? Fine, watch her show, buy her
magazine, help he keep her place as one of the richest entertainers in
America. Me, I don't like either, but I have spent literally hundreds
of hours (and some money, not much, unfortunately) supporting a arts
organizations that I do like.
The free market works very well for art. Sure, there's a lot of crap
out there, but there has *always* been a lot of crap out there, and
there always will be. I'd much rather see people buying crap with
*their* money than to be forced, at the point of a gun, to buy it with
mine.
Dave Hitt
>Art is everything! It is in everything. It has a place in basically all
>applications of our culture. You need a diverse, and widely separate group of
>*private* individuals, from each area where monies are to be disbursed, each
>using their own thinking and ranking of potential fundables, and scoring with a
>standard 1-10, plus any other specific or across the board criteria. Then all
>the individual scorings are compiled and voila, the best places for the money
>have been determined..., with no *pork*, in the deal.
We do that already. Every time someone buys a cd or a ticket to a
stage play or a movie ticket or a book or a picture for their wall or
a small sculpture for their home they are doing that. And they're
doing it with their own money, so whether or not you agree with their
taste doesn't matter - it's none of your business. As soon as it's
done with tax money, it becomes your business, and my business, and
the business of every tax payer, including the most cultured, tasteful
patron of the arts and the zit-faced burger flipper who passionately
argues that Boys II Men is better than N Sync.
>>Good art doesn't need government subsidization. It will either pay for
>>itself in sales or it will attract supportive patrons. It always has.
>
>No so at all! Ever hear of starving artists?
Yeah. Most are starving because they're producing crap.
Besides, you've got to suffer if you want to sing the blues.
Dave Hitt
>
>Good artists won't starve forever. People will recognize the quality of the
>work and either buy it or feed the artist. If no one sees the quality it's
>because it doesn't exist. You can bet that a lot of those no-talent folks
>will get the government subsidies though, because those panels of "experts"
>will convince themselves that the emperor is really wearing clothes, when in
>fact he is stark naked.
You'll find lots of good examples of that in France. France, arrogant
bastards that they are, adds a surcharge to tickets to any films that
are not made by French "artists." The money then goes to these
"artists." The consistently turn out absolute crap, because they
don't have to answer to the public. Meanwhile, the French population
ignores this "art" and flocks to American films in droves.
Sidney Hellman
> >Well, I don't quite agree. The government *should* fund the culture of this
> >country. What are they here for.
>
> Really? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Perhaps you
> could point it out to me.
I've missed most of this thread, but... Dave, how do you feel about
the gov't funding culture, not because they should, but because it is
a good idea. Caffe Lena would be gone right now were it not for th
meaty gov't grant (Clean Air Act, I think (also provided for historic
preservation)
> ----
> Economics for Democrats - Tax cuts made simple
> http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
>
> -Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Hellman - s.he...@isti.com - http://www.isti.com
(518)580-1845 - office (518)584-8875 - fax
Instrumental Software Technologies, Inc.
Systems Integration and Software Development Specialists
Dave Hitt
>On 12 Apr 2001 18:26:05 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
>
>>Floyd Baker <fba...@olm1.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Art is everything! It is in everything. It has a place in basically all
>>>applications of our culture. You need a diverse, and widely separate group of
>>>*private* individuals, from each area where monies are to be disbursed, each
>>>using their own thinking and ranking of potential fundables, and scoring with a
>>>standard 1-10, plus any other specific or across the board criteria. Then all
>>>the individual scorings are compiled and voila, the best places for the money
>>>have been determined..., with no *pork*, in the deal.
>>
>>We do that already. Every time someone buys a cd or a ticket to a
>>stage play or a movie ticket or a book or a picture for their wall or
>>a small sculpture for their home they are doing that. And they're
>>doing it with their own money, so whether or not you agree with their
>>taste doesn't matter - it's none of your business. As soon as it's
>>done with tax money, it becomes your business, and my business, and
>>the business of every tax payer, including the most cultured, tasteful
>>patron of the arts and the zit-faced burger flipper who passionately
>>argues that Boys II Men is better than N Sync.
>
>Wrong! That's all commercialized, merchandized, peer pressure crap and if it
>doesn't make *money* it isn't there.
Sez you. Lots and lots of people disagree with you, and vote with
their wallet. Me, I agree, it's crap, but it's not my money, so I
don't care. I know, for a fact, that a lot of people think the stuff
I listen to is strange shit, worthless crap. At work today, on Radio
Dave,* I was listening to Ben Folds Five, Dave Bruebeck, Warren Zevon,
Leo Kottkie, Nektar, Strawbs, Heather Nova, and Queen. I enjoyed it
immensely, and I'm sure that some folks think at least some of that is
commercial crap. So? It doesn't *matter.* (BTW, I also listen to
crap sometimes, and make no apologies for it. I once went to a
Bangles concert, on purpose. Had a great time listening to their
disposable crap.)
*A large directory of my hard drive filled with music. There's always
something good playing on Radio Dave. At least, it's always something
*I* like.
> A lot of it wasn't 'intended' to be art in
>the first place. Just 'sensationalism' perhaps? A sure money maker.
There's no such thing as a sure money maker.
>There are
>things that don't make enough money to survive like that, that are certainly
>worthwhile to survive.
Fine. Then support them, to make sure they survive. Buy their stuff.
Turn your friends on to them. Get your company to sponsor them. Do
whatever you like to make sure they survive. I certainly won't stand
in your way.
But if you want to hold a gun to my head (taxes) and say "You'll
support this because I think it's culture" I'm going to fight you
every step of the way.
And who are you to judge culture? You're from *Texas* fer chrissake!
>I'm starting to understand now... Everyone in NYS is
>already conditioned to thinking like this. Accustomed to living with nothing.
>Ready to grab every nickel they can. Dog eat dog...
I'm starting to understand. At least one person in Texas is ignorant
enough to think that "everyone in NYS," all nineteen million of us,
think exactly alike. I guess a previous poster was right - your
schools must suck.
>That's what's coming I guess, when people don't understand that their is beauty
>in life beyond the big buck...
>
>I've been trying to talk about things that *don't* make money... That are good
>for the soul. That make a city beautiful. That make people appreciate life.
I sat down once and calculated that I had donated nearly 1,000 hours
of my time, over a six year period, helping to keep a coffee house
open. A non-profit hole in the wall that I was quite fond of. That
was in addition to supporting it through regular attendance. I didn't
make a dime from it. Nor did I make anything from spending two
summers booking and running a serious of shows for a non-profit
auditorium.
You assume a lot Frank. Remember that old school boy saying about
"when you assume?" Oh, that's right...Texas schools...sorry.
>Things that non-profit museums would like to buy, instead of some rich collector
>hoarding it privately. The public has some taste too, you know. They should
>not be deprived of art, simply because it costs *money*.
No one is deprived of art. Where ever did you get that goofy notion?
>If you're so concerned with saving money, move out of NYS.
I'm not so much concerned with saving money as I am with having it
squandered by some do-gooder who thinks they know more about art than
me. (They might, but that doesn't give them the right to take money
from me at the point of a gun. Never, never, never forget that taxes
are money taken at the point of a gun. Therefore, you should only
spend them on something worth the threat of deadly force.)
----
How to make sure the bureaucrats make the right decision
about dredging the Hudson River.
http://www.davehitt.com/april01/bottomfishing.html
Dave Hitt
>Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) writes:
>
>> >Well, I don't quite agree. The government *should* fund the culture of this
>> >country. What are they here for.
>>
>> Really? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Perhaps you
>> could point it out to me.
>
>I've missed most of this thread, but... Dave, how do you feel about
>the gov't funding culture, not because they should, but because it is
>a good idea. Caffe Lena would be gone right now were it not for th
>meaty gov't grant (Clean Air Act, I think (also provided for historic
>preservation)
I think it's a bad idea for the Federal Government. I think it's
something that should be done locally, if it's done, where the
citizens have more direct input into how their money is spent.
And Lena's...well, I'm rather disappointed at what's happened to the
place. It used to be magic. It was unique and special. I devoted a
tremendous amount of time and energy into keeping it going after Lena
died. But now...the magic is long gone. It's still a damn good
listening room, but if it had closed, I would have shrugged and moved
on. And ten years ago, when I was in the thick of helping to keep it
alive, if you had told me that this would be my reaction today I
wouldn't have believed you. But things change, and not always for the
better. Lena's is a hollow shell of what it used to be. It's nice
that another generation can enjoy it, but they have no idea what
they're missing.
----
How to make sure the bureaucrats make the right decision
about dredging the Hudson River.
http://www.davehitt.com/april01/bottomfishing.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Dave Hitt
>>>Well, I don't quite agree. The government *should* fund the culture of this
>>>country. What are they here for.
>>
>>Really? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Perhaps you
>>could point it out to me.
>
>
>Do you remember anything to the effect of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness'?
Sure do. But <ahem> it's not in the constitution. That's in the
Declaration of Independence.
Regardless of the location, though, it doesn't support your premise.
YOU have the right to life. YOU have the right to liberty. YOU have
the right to *peruse* happiness. No one has to do it for you, nor is
there any obligation on the government's part to guarantee your
pursuit will be successful. No on is obligated to pay for your
pursuit.
>>>They are supposed to be doing what's best for
>>>us in *many* ways... Not just policing us, defending us, robbing us...
>>
>>Their job should be strictly limited to providing police, the courts,
>>the military, and the *very* few things that can't be realistically
>>done by the private sector. It is most emphatically *not* their job
>>to fund art.
>
>Says you. You may be into 'Spider Man' perhaps?
No, says the constitution. You should read it some time. (The
Declaration of independence is a good start, but you need to keep
going.)
I used to be a big Spiderman (not "Spider Man") fan when I was a kid,
but don't see what that has to do with this conversation. Free Clue:
Spiderman wasn't real.
>They don't give *you* the subsidy... Common! They don't give any *artist* the
>subsidy. That's maybe the problem here. Nobody is thinking? They only give
>it to those people who will use, buy, hire, or otherwise cause art to be
>created. If enough people want it, it's art.
Fine. If enough people want it, they can pay for it, and the problem
is solved. By your definition (which I don't agree with) it's not art
if enough people don't want it. In which case, it will cease to exist
because not enough people want to pay for it. So what's the problem?
>Not many will put forth crap, if
>>they can afford the *real* stuff. Crap is counter productive anyway, and really
>wouldn't exist, even with money to 'support' it.
Now you're contradicting yourself, and being goofy besides. You just
said that N Sync was crap that exists solely to make money. Now
you're saying it wouldn't exist even with money. Yet it obviously
does.
> We *need* the real stuff in
>society. If no one thinks a particular musician/artist/sculpture/etc. is any
>good, these people aren't going to be *hired*. Let them starve. Just in your
>case, although it isn't what I would normally be thinking about in this line; if
>you were good enough to draw enough people to a bar/restaurant that could keep
>it afloat, you should be worth the money. Subsidies given out, depending on
>the taxes that are paid back because of them, are relatively effective in
>producing income to the government. You would pay income tax on your earnings
>along with all the other employees you caused to be working to take care of the
>crowd. If you weren't any good, no crowd, no work, subsidy goes to someone
>better that the employer/owner hires. It's called 'investment' and it not only
>improve the economy, it improves the quality of life.
But it works exactly that way *without* the government being involved.
And if I, or my venue, takes government money, then we're also under
the thumb of the censors, and that hurts the art. If we don't, we
only have the free market to contend with, and the art flourishes.
Meanwhile, we haven't taken money from anyone who doesn't want to
contribute.
----
How to make sure the bureaucrats make the right decision
about dredging the Hudson River.
http://www.davehitt.com/april01/bottomfishing.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Ron Goodrich
BJ Carr wrote:
BJ, you hit another nerve. As a photographer, I have to say the WPA resulted
in much of the best photojournalism that exists to this day. There are many
pictures that people think of when they remember the Great Depression, and most
were federally funded by this program. This was really the era when
photography came of age. I'm still not saying that the government funding art
is right or wrong, but I won't agree that it was not art.
BJ Carr
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
BJ Carr
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
news:3adeb362....@news4.newscene.com...
>
> place. It used to be magic. It was unique and special. I devoted a
> tremendous amount of time and energy into keeping it going after Lena
> died. But now...the magic is long gone. It's still a damn good
> listening room, but if it had closed, I would have shrugged and moved
> on. And ten years ago, when I was in the thick of helping to keep it
> alive, if you had told me that this would be my reaction today I
> wouldn't have believed you. But things change, and not always for the
> better. Lena's is a hollow shell of what it used to be. It's nice
> that another generation can enjoy it, but they have no idea what
> they're missing.
>
Unfortunately you are right. I think this happens often in the realm of
historic preservation. People try to preserve or reconstruct a memory, but
of course that is impossible. The memory of Lena's is not a building or a
thing, it is Lena and all the interactions that took place under her aegis.
She was the catalyst, but she is gone, and preserving the place in which all
those good memories took place is a futile effort. You can't go home again.
The reality of the present can never match the memory of the past.
Dave Hitt
>>Sez you. Lots and lots of people disagree with you, and vote with
>>their wallet. Me, I agree, it's crap, but it's not my money, so I
>>don't care. I know, for a fact, that a lot of people think the stuff
>>I listen to is strange shit, worthless crap. At work today, on Radio
>>Dave,* I was listening to Ben Folds Five, Dave Bruebeck, Warren Zevon,
>>Leo Kottkie, Nektar, Strawbs, Heather Nova, and Queen. I enjoyed it
>>immensely, and I'm sure that some folks think at least some of that is
>>commercial crap. So? It doesn't *matter.* (BTW, I also listen to
>>crap sometimes, and make no apologies for it. I once went to a
>>Bangles concert, on purpose. Had a great time listening to their
>>disposable crap.)
>
>Listen, I have nothing against commercial stuff. It's what makes the world go
>round. I like a lot of those you mentioned and more you probably wouldn't. But
>still, if we weren't here, that stuff wouldn't be here either. That makes it
>art of sorts too, I guess. But it's affordable! Are we only to have what each
>individual can afford to buy himself? That's the real point. There are things
>out there that can change the world but they're hidden in some vault or perhaps
>not even put into any physical form yet.
They don't exist physically, but they're still art? Hello?
> But it takes major money to get it out
>in the light. Major to *us*. Minor to the government that spends like water,
>where it does none of us any good. I think they should think about us too, once
>in awhile, that's all.
WE are the government, idjot. It is OUR money. The Government
doesn't get a visit from the money fairy, they take it from US.
Your ignorance of simple, basic facts like this makes conversation
difficult.
>>There's no such thing as a sure money maker.
>
>Sensationalism works every time.
Wrong. It works quite often, but not always. Nothing works always.
>>Fine. Then support them, to make sure they survive. Buy their stuff.
>>Turn your friends on to them. Get your company to sponsor them. Do
>>whatever you like to make sure they survive. I certainly won't stand
>>in your way.
>
>Yeah.., we'll just go out and raise a million or two. Easy. You know, I
>wouldn't want to live in your world. All you want is a boom box.
I just got done explaining that I've spent a significant amount of
time helping to make live music available to the general public. Can
you read, boy?
>>But if you want to hold a gun to my head (taxes) and say "You'll
>>support this because I think it's culture" I'm going to fight you
>>every step of the way.
>
>Yeah..., like you fight the medical insurance companies, the irs, the sales tax
>upon sales tax upon sales tax, the government waste for 500 dollar toilet seats.
Excuse me, boy, but could you get back on the subject, please. If you
want to discuss any of those things, please start another thread and
I'll join in.
And here you are bitching about taxes, and yet saying we should spend
them on non-essentails that no one can agree on.
>This is just an easy rant for you. It takes work to help keep waste from
>happening. It's easier to say don't spend for something worthwhile... *Then*
>they listen. That's readily understood by all politicians, isn't it? So, they
>do... cause they wanted that money anyway, for something else! And you know
>where the money goes??? Do you think you will see any of it??? hee hee hee....
>You just brought 1984 a little closer. (So he was off a few years.., you get
>the meaning, I think.)
Multiple punctuation is the sure sign of a lousy writer. So is "hee
hee hee."
Perhaps you should read something other than the Cliff's notes before
making literary references. In "1984" THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED ALL
THE ART.
BTW, consider that "1984" was a tremendous piece of art. Now consider
that it is available for a 1/2 hours pay in any bookstore, or for
fifty cents in most used bookstores. That's how well capitalism works
in bringing art to the people.
>>And who are you to judge culture? You're from *Texas* fer chrissake!
>
>Me? From Texas? I wish it *was* anywhere but NY but sorry to say, not!
You left me, and several other people here, with the impression you
were from Texas. Please don't try to blame us because you are such a
shitty writer.
>>>I'm starting to understand now... Everyone in NYS is
>>>already conditioned to thinking like this. Accustomed to living with nothing.
>>>Ready to grab every nickel they can. Dog eat dog...
>>
>>I'm starting to understand. At least one person in Texas is ignorant
>>enough to think that "everyone in NYS," all nineteen million of us,
>>think exactly alike. I guess a previous poster was right - your
>>schools must suck.
>
>See what I mean. You get a wrong idea in your head and you run with it... You
>didn't even ask me where I'm from; did you. I rest my case.
Makes your brain cell hurt, doesn't it?
Learn to write more clearly, and you won't be leaving wrong
impressions all over the place.
>>>That's what's coming I guess, when people don't understand that their is beauty
>>>in life beyond the big buck...
>>>
>>>I've been trying to talk about things that *don't* make money... That are good
>>>for the soul. That make a city beautiful. That make people appreciate life.
>>
>>I sat down once and calculated that I had donated nearly 1,000 hours
>>of my time, over a six year period, helping to keep a coffee house
>>open. A non-profit hole in the wall that I was quite fond of. That
>>was in addition to supporting it through regular attendance. I didn't
>>make a dime from it. Nor did I make anything from spending two
>>summers booking and running a serious of shows for a non-profit
>>auditorium.
>
>Good for you. More people should do their best for what they believe in.
>I've put nearly 20 years into a non profit project. Single individuals in our
>group have put in as many as 2000 hours in one *year*... That's as much as a
>full time job, you know..., and NO PAY WHATSOEVER. None of us. And there were
>many...
And that's exactly the way it should be done. People working together
for something they love. Do you really think state workers will do a
better job?
>>>Things that non-profit museums would like to buy, instead of some rich collector
>>>hoarding it privately. The public has some taste too, you know. They should
>>>not be deprived of art, simply because it costs *money*.
>>
>>No one is deprived of art. Where ever did you get that goofy notion?
>
>I can see you believe that. You don't know what it is.
Would you please rewrite that last paragraph so that it means
something? My english/dumbfuck dictionary is in the other room.
>>I'm not so much concerned with saving money as I am with having it
>>squandered by some do-gooder who thinks they know more about art than
>>me. (They might, but that doesn't give them the right to take money
>>from me at the point of a gun. Never, never, never forget that taxes
>>are money taken at the point of a gun. Therefore, you should only
>>spend them on something worth the threat of deadly force.)
>
>You seem to know an awful lot about people Dave... Did you go to school?
I usually drive to work, but I like pizza.
Free clue: A reply is supposed to have something to do with the
quoted text. Got it? Until you learn to read with comprehension, and
write with some semblance of cognitive ability, you'll be at a severe
disadvantage in this forum.
>You know that without taxes, we have nothing, don't you?
No, I don't know that. Neither do you, as you have no basis of
comparison.
We need a minimal government, to protect our rights from predators and
to enforce contracts, and we need a bit of taxation to pay for that.
But without the 40% tax burden most of us pay we'd all have much more
- more stuff, more time, more freedom, and more wealth to spend on
whatever art we liked.
>Our government
>couldn't exist? Unless it federalized all businesses or whatever other means it
>could use to self sustain. But I mean *our* government, you know.
No, I don't know, because you're incoherent.
>The way it
>is? A democracy? Y
We are not, and never have been, a democracy.
>You think we are being told to pay up at the point of a gun?
Absoutly. That is a fact. You have a great deal of trouble with
basic comprehension, so I'll try to keep it down to too syllable
words.
Taxes are money taken at the point of a gun. The gun is seldom seen.
But the threat of it is there, and quite real. Refuse to pay taxes,
or pay too little taxes, or even be suspected (sorry, three syllables)
of not paying taxes, and men with guns will find you, and point those
guns at you. If you refuse to go with them they will kill you.
>You been in china lately? I think you're saying that you could improve our
>democracy with socialism perhaps?
Democracy is a form of government. Socialism is a form of economics.
And China practices neither.
BTW, we are not a democracy. We are a republic.
Your level of ignorance about everything is just astounding.
> I think you've got your priorities all wrong, Dave.
Well Floyd, considering the depths of your ignorance on government,
art, economics, and everything else, I'll try to carry on despite your
opinion. (Although, since you're wrong about just about everything,
perhaps I should take that as a complement.)
Dave Hitt
>On 13 Apr 2001 21:19:08 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
>
>>Floyd Baker <fba...@olm1.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Well, I don't quite agree. The government *should* fund the culture of this
>>>>>country. What are they here for.
>>>>
>>>>Really? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Perhaps you
>>>>could point it out to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you remember anything to the effect of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of
>>>happiness'?
>>
>>Sure do. But <ahem> it's not in the constitution. That's in the
>>Declaration of Independence.
>
>And what exactly does that difference mean?? Were we made independent so people
>like you could say we can't enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
>Because you don't like it?
No, it means that you are an ignorant putz who has no idea what he's
talking about. The DOI and the Constitution are two completely
different documents. The fact that you can't tell which words are in
which documents tells us that you haven't even read them, and are
ignorant of the contents. That helps us put your opinions in
perspective. (i.e. they're based on ignorance, and are pretty much
worthless, except as an example of sloppy thinking.)
>>Regardless of the location, though, it doesn't support your premise.
>>YOU have the right to life. YOU have the right to liberty. YOU have
>>the right to *peruse* happiness. No one has to do it for you, nor is
>>there any obligation on the government's part to guarantee your
>>pursuit will be successful. No on is obligated to pay for your
>>pursuit.
>
>I think you added a word there. Adding your own thoughts, throws you wayyy off
>base..
I was trying to explain it to you. But we're rapidly reaching the
"pig to sing" point with you.
>>Now you're contradicting yourself, and being goofy besides. You just
>>said that N Sync was crap that exists solely to make money. Now
>>you're saying it wouldn't exist even with money. Yet it obviously
>>does.
>
>I think that's what you are saying Dave.. *I* didn't. You're fishing.
No, I'm referring to something you said. Go read your own shit, boy,
if you can stomach it.
I guess we can add altzimers to your list of decencies. It's a long
list, getting longer every time you post.
Dave Hitt
Exactly. The thing that made it Lena's was Lena standing at the top
of the stairs, greeting people by name even if they had only been
there once before, five years ago. It was Lena and Dorethea playing
scrabble in the back of the room while open mikes went until one in
the morning. (They always both scored more than 400 points.) It was
Lena taking artists under her wing and encouraging them and helping
them and supporting them while they developed their talent. It was one
of the cats rubbing against your leg unexpectedly in the middle of a
show. It was Lena's stubbornness, and her love of the music, and her
love of the theater, and her insistence that everyone do things her
way, always. It was the desperate need to rapidly raise funds to keep
it from closing popping up ever five or six or seven years, and the
thrill of past performers coming to the rescue with benefit concerts
and contributions. It was the Revenie (sp?) a cake that was soaked in
rum. The recipe for the it was never found. They now serve a
simulation of it.
One of the first things the board did after we took over was hire a
manager who thought the customers were an annoying pain in the ass.
She had *no* concept of running a hospitality business, (she was a
very inhospitable person) but she was a black woman, so most of the
board did the PC thing and hired her over the strong objections of
just a couple of us. It rapidly went down hill from there, and never
recovered.
Unless they find someone like Lena, someone willing to devote their
lives to a low paying, thankless job, it never will.
Dave Hitt
>On 14 Apr 2001 12:01:35 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
>
>>Floyd Baker <fba...@olm1.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Apr 2001 21:19:08 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Floyd Baker <fba...@olm1.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, I don't quite agree. The government *should* fund the culture of this
>>>>>>>country. What are they here for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Perhaps you
>>>>>>could point it out to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you remember anything to the effect of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of
>>>>>happiness'?
>>>>
>>>>Sure do. But <ahem> it's not in the constitution. That's in the
>>>>Declaration of Independence.
>>>
>>>And what exactly does that difference mean?? Were we made independent so people
>>>like you could say we can't enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
>>>Because you don't like it?
>>
>>No, it means that you are an ignorant putz who has no idea what he's
>>talking about. The DOI and the Constitution are two completely
>>different documents. The fact that you can't tell which words are in
>>which documents tells us that you haven't even read them, and are
>>ignorant of the contents. That helps us put your opinions in
>>perspective. (i.e. they're based on ignorance, and are pretty much
>>worthless, except as an example of sloppy thinking.)
>
>You can call it sloppy Dave. At least you call it thinking.
>
>Sorry but I can't say the same for you.
>
>
>>>>Regardless of the location, though, it doesn't support your premise.
>>>>YOU have the right to life. YOU have the right to liberty. YOU have
>>>>the right to *peruse* happiness. No one has to do it for you, nor is
>>>>there any obligation on the government's part to guarantee your
>>>>pursuit will be successful. No on is obligated to pay for your
>>>>pursuit.
>>>
>>>I think you added a word there. Adding your own thoughts, throws you wayyy off
>>>base..
>>
>>I was trying to explain it to you. But we're rapidly reaching the
>>"pig to sing" point with you.
>
>Oh please, I don't want *you* to explain anything. Are you kidding?
>
>>>>Now you're contradicting yourself, and being goofy besides. You just
>>>>said that N Sync was crap that exists solely to make money. Now
>>>>you're saying it wouldn't exist even with money. Yet it obviously
>>>>does.
>>>
>>>I think that's what you are saying Dave.. *I* didn't. You're fishing.
>>
>>No, I'm referring to something you said. Go read your own shit, boy,
>>if you can stomach it.
>
>Cut and paste Dave. Again you're confused. Do you want me to repost
>everything?
>
>And why in the world would you think I couldn't stomach my own writing? That's
>sort of a really strange concept you have there. Let's try it on you...
>
>"If you can stomach it, read about your own thoughts Dave."
>
>You see? It just doesn't come off very well, does it. No real sense to the
>remark itself.
Sorry you're comprehension is so stilted. It makes perfect sense. My
thoughts are clearly posted in a lot of places. I find it makes good
reading. So do many other people.
>>I guess we can add altzimers to your list of decencies. It's a long
>>list, getting longer every time you post.
>
>
>My list of decencies is *very* long. Thanks.
You got me on that one. Too quick with the spell checker. (You were
one click away from having multiple deviancies.) Now, let's deal with
just a few of your deficiencies:
Your write like shit. You even think that multiple punctuation and
"hee hee hee" is good writing. A substantial number of your replies
have nothing at all to do with what you're replying to.
You are obsessed with Spiderman, and constantly refer to him in
nonsense non-sequetors.
You think non-sequetors are irony.
You evade the question when your own contradictions are pointed out to
you.
You evade the question when your own absurdities are pointed out to
you.
You think that something that does not exist is, somehow, art.
You don't know what kind of government we have.
You confuse systems of government with systems of economics.
You use "1984," where a horrible, totalitarian government controls
everything, in an argument about the government should support art.
>Nice talking to you.
I wish I could say the same. Perhaps, if you save up to get a clue,
I'll be able to.
Dave Hitt
>Hey there David... One more thing.
>
>What's this about the private email you had with others in the group during our
>discussion? Don't tell me you can't handle things up front so you sneak behind
>my back to put me down, where I can't disagree with you? That sort of proves
>you're wrong, doesn't it... Thanks.
I haven't sent private e-mail to anyone in this group in quite some
time. There is no need for it. You think I can't handle an
insignificant speck of bullshit like you up front and openly? Hell, I
was embarrassing your ilk back in the days of 1200 baud modems and
single line BBSs. Maybe skulking around behind the scenery is the way
*you* operate, but I deal with people (and creatures like you) up
front and openly.
Prove otherwise.
>I don't want to make you more paranoid than you obviously are already, so I
>won't tell you that one of your so called friends clued me in here, but I'll
>just give you a clue, and others too, and point out something that seems to
>prove you were doing so.
So you're not only stupid, you're easily conned. Produce this alleged
e-mail. And be sure to post it with *all* the headers, so I can show
you it's a cheap con that would only take in stupid dicks like you.
And if it is, as you claim, an "exchange" of e-mail, there should be
several messages, shouldn't there? Post them all. You have my
permission to post each and every one of that is supposedly to me or
from me.
>>You left me, and several other people here, with the impression you
>>were from Texas. Please don't try to blame us because you are such a
>>shitty writer.
>
>Tell me how you 'know' others had that impression? Or were you just having more
>delusions? You never did copy and paste those 'shitty' phrases where I'm
>supposed to indicate I was from Texas". What's the problem. Can't you find
>them Dave??
I thought you were going to let me have the last word? To immature to
keep your word, I see. No matter, and no surprise.
I've ignored quite a few of your replies because you've shown yourself
to be a stupid little twit whose not worth conversing with. Look up
"teaching a pig to sing." However, since you insist on slandering me
by lying about imaginary e-mail conversations, I'll have to continue
to deal with you, for the moment, at least.
Post that supposed e-mail, in it's entirety, with the full headers, or
apologize. Failure to do either will be taken as confirmation that
you are not only stupid, but a lying sack of shit.
Not that that would surprise anyone.
Put up or shut up.
And to anyone else reading this NG, if you have received any e-mail
from me, any at all, in the last, say, 60 days, please post it, in
it's entirety. You have my permission and blessing to do so.
(Now let's watch this lying sack try to backpedal.)
Dave Hitt
>On 16 Apr 2001 19:32:07 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) wrote:
>
>>Floyd Baker <fba...@olm1.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey there David... One more thing.
>>>
>>>What's this about the private email you had with others in the group during our
>>>discussion? Don't tell me you can't handle things up front so you sneak behind
>>>my back to put me down, where I can't disagree with you? That sort of proves
>>>you're wrong, doesn't it... Thanks.
>>
>>I haven't sent private e-mail to anyone in this group in quite some
>>time. There is no need for it. You think I can't handle an
>>insignificant speck of bullshit like you up front and openly? Hell, I
>>was embarrassing your ilk back in the days of 1200 baud modems and
>>single line BBSs. Maybe skulking around behind the scenery is the way
>>*you* operate, but I deal with people (and creatures like you) up
>>front and openly.
>>
>>Prove otherwise.
>
>Well actually, I didn't say you did. I was asking if there were any?
Thanks, Floyd, for proving to every single person in this NG that you
are a worthless lying sack of shit.
That's not even a good back pedal.
Now that we know that you are as dishonest as you are stupid, there is
no need to discuss anything with you any further.
> It seemed
>there just *had* to be because I didn't see a thing in the *public* postings
>that you were referring to. I think you could have just answered 'nothing'.
>
>I was trying for a kneeJerk reaction..., and I got one... <g>
>
>Btw; if you think going back to 1200 baud modems prove intelligence or anything
>like that, then I got you beat there too. I go back to the 300 baud days...
>In fact, I used to *fix* them..., for *pay*. I also go back to single wire
>Morse key and sounder. Where they used to carry on two conversations, one in
>each direction, at the very same time. Figure that one out Bub...
Another lie. Even back then you didn't fix modems, you replaced them.
You can't even get your lies straight, can you?
>>>I don't want to make you more paranoid than you obviously are already,
>>>so I won't tell you
>
>You see? I said "I wont" tell you that.
Pathetic.
>
>Just pulling your chain. Showing you can't read right. Maybe not think right
>too.
What school you went?
> To be truthful, I *was* trying to make you more paranoid, and it looks
>like I succeeded.
You obviously can't be truthful. You tried to slander me, got caught,
and now are doing a pathetic dance to try to pretend otherwise.
>There are no emails of course. But with all your denials that I'm wrong, you
>did manage to avoid to explain the questionable statement *you* made, didn't
>you.
That's the first honest thing you've said since you started posting in
this NG. Probably the last, too.
>What 'several other people here'? Point it out.., then I'll apologize.
Sorry, asshole. When you outright lie and intentionally libel
someone, you don't get to set further conditions for the apology.
>>Post that supposed e-mail, in it's entirety, with the full headers, or
>>apologize. Failure to do either will be taken as confirmation that
>>you are not only stupid, but a lying sack of shit.
>>
>>Not that that would surprise anyone.
>>
>>Put up or shut up.
>>
>>And to anyone else reading this NG, if you have received any e-mail
>>from me, any at all, in the last, say, 60 days, please post it, in
>>it's entirety. You have my permission and blessing to do so.
>>
>>(Now let's watch this lying sack try to backpedal.)
>
>Back pedal my foot. Nothing to backpedal on.. You have yet to answer my
>question. Just bluster, bluster, bluster.
Perhaps you should pull out your dictionary again.
Thanks, Floyd. You have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to
every single person here, that you are a deceitful, lying sack of
shit. The only person too stupid to see that is you.