Giuliani To Convene NYC anti-art "Decency Squad"
Rjerehnson
From: "Freedom Fighter" lib...@once.net
Date: 03/30/2001 5:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <9a318l$ih1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
YES! For the honor of all that is Holy, New York's one and only Mr.
Decency - adulterer, racist, hypocrite, murderous tyrant, and noted nut case -
is SERIOUS about censoring the arts! His Royal Majesty, El Fuerher
GHOULIANI, shall not let some insignificant Supreme Court decision
finding it unconstitutional obstruct his Historic Crusade for Moral
Salvation!
-----------------
Mayor Names Fig Leaf Advisers
Rudy panel will rule on decency
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Daily News City Hall Bureau Chief
Original Publication Date: 3/30/01
Get the fig leaf.
Mayor Giuliani will convene his so-called "decency" committee next
week to root out objectionable artwork at city-funded museums, but it
isn't clear when or how the panel will sniff out indecent statues,
paintings and photos.
On Tuesday, the mayor will officially appoint members to a cultural
affairs advisory commission that will include pop artist Peter Max,
religious leaders, mayoral aides and old pals. The mayor also offered
a spot to actor Danny Aiello, but he hasn't made a decision.
According to mayoral aides, a subcommittee of the group will follow
the mayor's direction in exploring "decency standards" for artwork at
city-supported institutions.
Giuliani called for a screening committee after becoming outraged when
the Brooklyn Museum of Art displayed a photograph depicting Jesus as a
nude black woman in "Yo Mama's Last Supper."
The subcommittee will "address questions raised by the Brooklyn
Museum," said Deputy Mayor Anthony Coles.
Others in the commission lineup include Rabbi Shea Hecht of Brooklyn,
Parks Commissioner Henry Stern, former Nixon White House lawyer
Leonard Garment and freelance journalist and mayoral pal Martin
Bergman, sources said.
There was some confusion over the status of renowned artist LeRoy
Neiman, who told the Daily News he had been offered a spot on the
commission. But Coles said Neiman would not be on the panel.
The subcommittee will "consider in what ways the standard for publicly
funded art should be different from privately funded art," Coles said.
But the panel may fall short of what was initially envisioned by
Giuliani, who vowed to slap "decency standards" on artwork at
city-sponsored museums and raised the possibility of penalties against
museums that step out of line.
And with only nine months left in office, Giuliani is running out of
time.
The mayor has been railing against the Brooklyn Museum since 1999,
when he tried to evict it after the museum exhibited a painting of the
Virgin Mary dappled with elephant dung. He was forced to back off by
federal court.
"The museum did not serve the people to the best of their ability,"
said Hecht, but he added, "I'm not sure just what this committee will
be able to do about it."
When asked about his appointment, Bergman said, "I think cultural
affairs are very important to New York." But when asked what the
committee would be charged with doing, he said, "I don't think that's
been fully discussed, other than ... it's important to see the
taxpayers are well-served."
The decency panel - depending on the eventual extent of its powers -
could be entering a legal minefield.
Earlier this month, Giuliani shrugged off a Supreme Court ruling that
legal experts said would make it harder for the city to place strings
on the millions of dollars a year it hands to museums and cultural
institutions.
The mayor's panel "is a waste of time, a waste of energy, a waste of
money," said Burt Neuborne, legal director of the Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University Law School.
"If it's intended to have any powers at all, it's unconstitutional,"
Neuborne said. "The only way it would be upheld is if it's a fraud."
The Brooklyn Museum did not respond to several phone calls.
The idea is not without some precedent.
Last year, the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts began using a litmus test
for taste for its programs after Gov. Jim Gilmore scolded officials
for sponsoring a sexually explicit slide show. The guidelines say
nothing specific about obscenity, but were written after Gilmore told
the state-supported museum it must "uphold community standards of
decency."
ryan
Rjerehnson wrote:
> Mayor Giuliani will convene his so-called "decency" committee next
> week to root out objectionable artwork at city-funded museums, but it
> isn't clear when or how the panel will sniff out indecent statues,
> paintings and photos.
Yo Mama's Last Supper, a picture of the Virgin Mary with dung, and any other "art"
with religious connotations should be BANNED from any publicly funded museums.
Religious things such as the 10 Commandments, Star of David, and little miniature
birth of Jesus law fixtures have been ruled unconstitutional. The problem is that
Giuliani doesn't want to bring up the separation of church and state, otherwise
all 'art' with anything to do about religion will be banned. Even though some may
argue this "art" is somehow free speech against religion, just because I draw a
swastika in the Star of David doesn't mean I can hang in a government funded
place. I am thinking of writing the closet socialist group the ACLU about this.
However I know they will be fighting for the combination of church and state since
this "art" is mocking religion. Typical liberal hypocrites. Someone in NYC
should bring up the separation of church and state. There is NO REASON why a
taxpayers money should go to this kind of "art" if someone doesn't believe in it.
archive of pain
miscreant
[so if i can shoot rabbits
then i can shoot fascists]
projectmayhem.fusion.net.nz
mltx
>> week to root out objectionable artwork at city-funded museums, but it
>> isn't clear when or how the panel will sniff out indecent statues,
>> paintings and photos.
>Yo Mama's Last Supper, a picture of the Virgin Mary with dung, and any other "art"
>with religious connotations should be BANNED from any publicly funded museums.
>Religious things such as the 10 Commandments, Star of David, and little miniature
>birth of Jesus law fixtures have been ruled unconstitutional. The problem is that
>Giuliani doesn't want to bring up the separation of church and state, otherwise
>all 'art' with anything to do about religion will be banned. Even though some may
>argue this "art" is somehow free speech against religion, just because I draw a
>swastika in the Star of David doesn't mean I can hang in a government funded
>place. I am thinking of writing the closet socialist group the ACLU about this.
i'm sure the ACLU would be 100% behind your right to draw a swastika
on a star of david and hang it in a public museum - historically, i
seem to remember that they've defended nazis who got busted for
similar things. remember that onion article, ACLU defends nazis' right
to burn down ACLU headquarters? i'm not a fan of the ACLU (christ, i'm
getting sick of typing that acronym), but they seem to be fairly
consistent in trying to maintain objectivity.
mltx
"it's not a hollow threat bitch. step into the area and get your ass
kicked." -usenet gladiator
ryan
archive of pain wrote:
> where the fuck did you get to?
?
ryan
mltx wrote:
Then why would they try to ban me from putting up just the Star of David in a public
court house? Could court houses have rooms declared 'museums' and hand religious
things in them?
mltx
>> on a star of david and hang it in a public museum - historically, i
>> seem to remember that they've defended nazis who got busted for
>> similar things. remember that onion article, ACLU defends nazis' right
>> to burn down ACLU headquarters? i'm not a fan of the ACLU (christ, i'm
>> getting sick of typing that acronym), but they seem to be fairly
>> consistent in trying to maintain objectivity.
>Then why would they try to ban me from putting up just the Star of David in a public
>court house? Could court houses have rooms declared 'museums' and hand religious
>things in them?
the purpose of a museum or gallery is to expose people to art, and to
any messages or emotional responses which the viewers receive from
that art. if the artists use their art to express an opinion, that's
fine, because you go to a museum or gallery expecting to encounter the
opinions of artists. everyone knows that the government isn't
endorsing them, just displaying them.
the purpose of schoolhouses, courthouses, and other government
institutions is not even remotely similar. the display of religious
artifacts in those places would create an exclusive environment and
would amount to government endorsement of one point of view or, in the
case of a star of david, religion. similarly, hanging the ten
commandments in schools - schools not being a place where opinions of
a religious nature are the official business - would amount to
government endorsement of judeo-christian religion.
i really don't see what's so hard about this, ryan.
Joaquin67
<m...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
[snip]
>the purpose of schoolhouses, courthouses, and other government
>institutions is not even remotely similar. the display of religious
>artifacts in those places would create an exclusive environment and
>would amount to government endorsement of one point of view or, in the
>case of a star of david, religion. similarly, hanging the ten
>commandments in schools - schools not being a place where opinions of
>a religious nature are the official business - would amount to
>government endorsement of judeo-christian religion.
>
>i really don't see what's so hard about this, ryan.
>
>
>mltx
<tangent>
even worse, hanging the ten commandments in school's gives a pretty bad
set of guidelines for people to follow really. i don't see why everyone
is so hung up about them being so great. most of them are summed up by
ye olde golden rule. the rest are stupid or pointless or both.
matt
ryan
mltx wrote:
> i really don't see what's so hard about this, ryan.
Socialists don't, especially when this 'art' is bashing typically Christianity. What you
do not fucking understand is that NO ONE has the right for their tax money to go to
promote ANY form or religion. The separation of church and state is very easy to
understand. The state cannot in any way, shape, or form promote a religion. If a school
takes a field trip, this 'art' is an endorsement of the artist funded by the tax payers.
Government cannot fund religious endorsement, you said it yourself. Tax funded places
that portray anything religious is religion endorsed by the government.
archive of pain
>
> ?
your absence from the ng
Grachman W. Olajuwon
>
>even worse, hanging the ten commandments in school's gives a pretty bad
>set of guidelines for people to follow really. i don't see why everyone
>is so hung up about them being so great. most of them are summed up by
>ye olde golden rule. the rest are stupid or pointless or both.
>matt
>
>
stupid? which ones are stupid? maybe the adultery one?
just because you dont like something doesn't mean it's stupid ya know
Grachman, The
mltx
>
>> i really don't see what's so hard about this, ryan.
actually, ryan, mltx wrote quite a long-winded message about how the
two situations - religious material in schools/other government
institutions versus religious material in museums/galleries - and you
completely ignored it.
>Socialists don't, especially when this 'art' is bashing typically Christianity. What you
>do not fucking understand is that NO ONE has the right for their tax money to go to
>promote ANY form or religion.
um. i think you mean that the government doesn't have the right to
appropriate tax money for this purpose, not "nobody has the right to
use tax money to fund religious art". anyway, you're wrong - the
government has the right to do this. you mean it shouldn't have the
right to do this, i'm sure.
>The separation of church and state is very easy to
>understand. The state cannot in any way, shape, or form promote a religion.
yes. exactly. and funding public galleries is not in any way, shape,
or form promoting a religion.
>If a school
>takes a field trip, this 'art' is an endorsement of the artist funded by the tax payers.
umm
>Government cannot fund religious endorsement, you said it yourself. Tax funded places
>that portray anything religious is religion endorsed by the government.
no it's not. i explained this in my message, which you snipped.
perhaps you need to re-read it. or maybe only 1 line of it showed up
on your server - conveniently, the one line which allowed you to
respond while ignoring the arguments.
Joaquin67
"you shall have no other gods before me. you shall not make for
yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth
...
you shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain
...
six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is
the sabbath of the lord your god. in it you shall do no work; you, nor
your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female
servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates"
see? stupid. i always get the feeling that most of the bible pushers
haven't really read it. my personal favorite part is in leviticus. did
you know that bats are birds and are unclean to eat? also, insects
actually have four legs. i got it straight from the book itself.
leviticus chapter 11.
matt
your wise and benevolent dictator
Mutt
matt
Rjerehnson <rjere...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010331091702...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
ryan
mltx wrote:
> no it's not. i explained this in my message, which you snipped.
> perhaps you need to re-read it. or maybe only 1 line of it showed up
> on your server - conveniently, the one line which allowed you to
> respond while ignoring the arguments.
I read your pro government diatribe. Nothing will ever change.
mltx
1. ryan, you retard. i'm an anarchist.
2. ryan, you retard. when you say "nothing will ever change", i assume
you are referring to your inability to argue a point.
ryan
mltx wrote:
> 2. ryan, you retard. when you say "nothing will ever change", i assume
> you are referring to your inability to argue a point.
Your inability to admit this is a violation of the separation of church and
state. My tax dollars cannot, will not, and do not go to private schools.
Why? Because state and chuch/religion must remain separate. Therefore if
tax money cannot go to religious schools, why should it go to a museum to
allow someone to preach their views of religion, christianity, whatever?
mltx
for the reasons i listed in my earlier post. remember, the ones you
completely ignored and snipped from your reply? here, i'll repost
them:
"the purpose of a museum or gallery is to expose people to art, and to
any messages or emotional responses which the viewers receive from
that art. if the artists use their art to express an opinion, that's
fine, because you go to a museum or gallery expecting to encounter the
opinions of artists. everyone knows that the government isn't
endorsing them, just displaying them.
the purpose of schoolhouses, courthouses, and other government
institutions is not even remotely similar. the display of religious
artifacts in those places would create an exclusive environment and
would amount to government endorsement of one point of view or, in the
case of a star of david, religion. similarly, hanging the ten
commandments in schools - schools not being a place where opinions of
a religious nature are the official business - would amount to
government endorsement of judeo-christian religion."
feel free to think of some cutting rebuttal, some way to demosntrate
how these arguments are invalid, ryan. until then, you can just shut
the fuck up, you fucking idiot.
ryan
archive of pain wrote:
> > > where the fuck did you get to?
> >
> > ?
>
> your absence from the ng
The messages in this ng erase from my browser very quickly. Also there
didn't seem to be much going on. I have also been on a crazy schedule.
I work midnight to 8AM with a on 6 off 2 rotation, working 5 weekends,
getting 2 off then back on 5. Add an afternoon class which I NEED to
take to get my first B.S. degree that meets every M and W from 2:15-3:45
and I am a damn zombie. I cannot wait till this summer and next
semester, all night classes!!! Plus they are hiring more people
finally, meaning we will only be working 4 weekends and then get 4
off...I hope, otherwise I may be out of here.
ryan
Mutt wrote:
> what a dick
So if your tax dollars are going to have this museum put up a replica of
Jesus at the cross you would not care?
ryan
mltx wrote:
> >> 2. ryan, you retard. when you say "nothing will ever change", i assume
> >> you are referring to your inability to argue a point.
> >
> >Your inability to admit this is a violation of the separation of church and
> >state. My tax dollars cannot, will not, and do not go to private schools.
> >Why? Because state and chuch/religion must remain separate. Therefore if
> >tax money cannot go to religious schools, why should it go to a museum to
> >allow someone to preach their views of religion, christianity, whatever?
>
> for the reasons i listed in my earlier post. remember, the ones you
> completely ignored and snipped from your reply? here, i'll repost
> them:
>
> "the purpose of a museum or gallery is to expose people to art, and to
> any messages or emotional responses which the viewers receive from
> that art. if the artists use their art to express an opinion, that's
> fine, because you go to a museum or gallery expecting to encounter the
> opinions of artists. everyone knows that the government isn't
> endorsing them, just displaying them.
So tax money going to a Catholic school is ok because the government is NOT
endorsing the religion, a third party is (i.e.: teachers, administrators,
etc.). No of course not, which is why your excuse doesn't hold up to
constitutional muster. Also, Judges in some counties are being sued for
_displaying_ the 10 commandments. Why is this? They are not preaching them,
are turning to them to make a judgment. You reasons why tax money should go to
shit covered pictures of religious objects or any religious objects sucks. If
the Catholic church wanted to have some church artist display their paintings
and asked from some of this public money there would be an outcry over public
money going to display Jesus on a cross or whatever.
So let me ask you this: If this museum were to say have a religion month and
display the 10 Commandments, paintings of the crucifixion of Jesus, etc. by
Catholic artist you would support this as well?
mltx
>> >> you are referring to your inability to argue a point.
>> >
>> >Your inability to admit this is a violation of the separation of church and
>> >state. My tax dollars cannot, will not, and do not go to private schools.
>> >Why? Because state and chuch/religion must remain separate. Therefore if
>> >tax money cannot go to religious schools, why should it go to a museum to
>> >allow someone to preach their views of religion, christianity, whatever?
>>
>> for the reasons i listed in my earlier post. remember, the ones you
>> completely ignored and snipped from your reply? here, i'll repost
>> them:
>>
>> "the purpose of a museum or gallery is to expose people to art, and to
>> any messages or emotional responses which the viewers receive from
>> that art. if the artists use their art to express an opinion, that's
>> fine, because you go to a museum or gallery expecting to encounter the
>> opinions of artists. everyone knows that the government isn't
>> endorsing them, just displaying them.
>So tax money going to a Catholic school is ok because the government is NOT
>endorsing the religion, a third party is (i.e.: teachers, administrators,
>etc.). No of course not, which is why your excuse doesn't hold up to
>constitutional muster. Also, Judges in some counties are being sued for
>_displaying_ the 10 commandments. Why is this? They are not preaching them,
>are turning to them to make a judgment.
i'm sure there was a word missed out of this final sentence, i just
can't think what it would be. seeing as it was fairly important to the
whole paragraph (i think), i'll reserve comment until you've fixed it
up, 'kay?
>You reasons why tax money should go to
>shit covered pictures of religious objects or any religious objects sucks.
touché.
>If
>the Catholic church wanted to have some church artist display their paintings
>and asked from some of this public money there would be an outcry over public
>money going to display Jesus on a cross or whatever.
ryan, you can't just make up fictional historical events as evidence
for your arguments. sorry, but they just don't count.
>So let me ask you this: If this museum were to say have a religion month and
>display the 10 Commandments, paintings of the crucifixion of Jesus, etc. by
>Catholic artist you would support this as well?
as much as i support tax money going to anything? yeah, i guess so -
which is to say, of course, not at all. it's a bit difficult for me to
argue against rightwingers when it comes to what governments should do
with tax money, because the arguments always come down to capitalist
versus capitalist.
but, were i a liberal, i would say the two situations - yo mama's last
supper being on display & a "religion month" - aren't even remotely
comparable.
Joaquin67
i think i asked you this before but i don't remember if you answered.
what is the lemon test and why is it important in this discussion?
matt
King Mob
>Jesus at the cross you would not care?
>
>
Hey, ryan. You know what's kinda funny? How the vast majority of Romanesque,
Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque art all has Christian themes. And yet the
liberals don't seem to be outraged, which they surely should be according to
your theory of the world. Wonder why that is.
---------------------
trip inside this house as you pass by...
Rjerehnson
From: artis...@aol.com (ARTISTpres)
Date: 04/01/2001 2:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20010401143838...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
Giulianis Decency Commission Exposed
by Robert Lederman
"Robert Lederman, a Manhattan man who began sketching political art of the
mayor with a Hitler mustache after the city's arrests of sidewalk art vendors,
called the art panel "ludicrous." "If it wasn't so ludicrous, it would be just
comical-but unfortunately we've known from watching Giuliani for nearly eight
years that he's not kidding," Lederman said."
-NY Newsday 3/30/2001 City's Gatekeepers of Decency?
Rudy supporters may police tax-funded museums
From his first days in office in 1994 New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has
been preoccupied with restricting artists freedom of expression. Before
ordering his crackdowns on squeegee guys, hookers, marijuana smokers, community
gardens, art museums or the homeless, his 40,000 strong army of police was
ordered to arrest the Citys street artists.
Before the First Amendment battles in which Giuliani tried to close down the
peepshows and topless bars of Times Square to make way for Disney; before he
banned press conferences by political opponents on the steps of City Hall;
before he tried to enforce obscure prohibition era laws that made dancing in
bars illegal, Giuliani was in Federal court trying to eliminate all First
Amendment protection for visual art.
Legal briefs Giulianis lawyers filed in 1994 in response to the A.R.T.I.S.T.
groups lawsuit claimed that visual art was unworthy of First Amendment
protection because it didnt express ideas and was therefore not
communicative. His lawyers and spokespersons maintained this bizarre position
all the way to their failed appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"An exhibition of paintings is not as communicative as speech, literature or
live entertainment, and the artists' constitutional interest is thus minimal."
-Giuliani appeal brief against street artists having First Amendment
protection, Giuliani v Lederman et al and Giuliani v Bery et al. See
http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/9590890.html
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html
"Elizabeth Freedman, an attorney speaking on behalf of the N.Y.C. Corporation
Counsel's office [Mayor Giulianis lawyers], explained the City's anti-art
position. "Visual art...does not express ideas", Ms. Friedman said, "and as
such is not entitled to First Amendment protection." 2/24/97 radio interview
WNYC's syndicated business news show, "Marketplace"
Today Giuliani admits that it is in fact ideas, objectionable ideas, which
motivate his attack on artistic freedom. The reality is that censorship of
ideas was always the purpose behind Giuliani persecuting artists.
Having me falsely arrested 41 times for painting him as a Hitler-like dictator
was about the ideas in my art. Similarly, Giulianis attacks on the Brooklyn
Museum are about censoring the ideas expressed in Chris Olfillis and Renee
Coxs art.
The arrests he ordered of public-space photographer Spencer Tunick, of more
than 700 different street artists and of fellow artists and Giuliani-critics
Knut Masco, Jack Nesbitt, Wei Zhang, Christopher Brodeur and Stephen Powers
show that the Mayors efforts to censor art he dislikes has nothing to do
with the use of taxes and everything to do with repression of artistic
expression conveying a controversial political message.
Repression and forced conformity have been the underlying themes of the entire
Giuliani administration. As outlined in his most famous quote, Giuliani
believes in exerting maximum control over people.
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be
anything they can be. Freedom is about authority." Mayor Giuliani, New York
Times, March 17, 1994
Ironically, the conformity that Giuliani hopes to enforce through his Art
Decency Commission is the opposite of what is most respected and admired in
artists - their originality and refusal to conform to orthodoxy.
[-Merriam Webster dictionary definition of Decency
Fitness, orderliness, conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality.]
On Tuesday April 3, 2001 at a 10:45 AM press conference in NY City Hall
Giuliani will formally announce the creation of his Art Decency Commission.
Made up solely of his own appointees all of whom are his personal friends and
cronies, the panel will be charged with determining which works of fine art can
be exhibited in the Citys world famous art museums.
While the Mayor claims his panel will only have authority over museums that
receive City funding the reality is that even the Citys wealthiest museums
use some tax dollars to meet their budget. The Brooklyn Museum, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney as well as
numerous small museums, theatre companies, City-owned public access cable
television networks, hundreds of neighborhood community cultural programs and
all NYC parks would therefore be subject to the decisions of the Art Decency
Commission.
Amusing as it may be to make jokes about the psychological quirks of the Mayor
being the source of his views on art, there is ample evidence to prove that
completely independent of his personal motivations lies a high-level and
historically-documentable agenda of censorship for the purpose of preventing
political speech by artists. Giuliani is intimately linked to this agenda.
Consider these facts* all of which are fully documented at my website
1. Giuliani proudly admits to getting the ideas for his policies from the
Manhattan Institute (MI), a right-wing think tank created in 1978 by William
Casey. To give a sense of the influence this organization has in America today,
GW Bush claims that next to the Bible the Manhattan Institute is the single
greatest influence on his own political ideas. MI is funded by the
Rockefellers Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan/Chase Bank), pharmaceutical
companies and ultra-conservative right wing foundations with direct ties to
eugenics and Nazism.
2. Casey was a lifelong intelligence operative involved in many of this
nations most notorious covert operations from WWII until his death in 1987.
Following the war Casey headed US intelligence in Europe working closely with
Reinhard Gehlen, a CIA operative who was formerly Hitlers chief of Soviet
intelligence. Casey then headed the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a CIA
front located in NYC. Under Caseys leadership the IRC brought thousands of
former Nazis to the U.S. for the purposes of propaganda and social control and
for their expertise in military and eugenics-based medical research. After
manipulating the financial markets as head of the Securities and Exchange
Commission in the 1960s Casey created the Manhattan Institute, the think
tank behind the Giuliani and GW Bush administrations. Casey played a leading
role in getting Nixon elected, was Reagans campaign manager and was
Reagans CIA director for both of his terms in office. Giuliani was the #3
official in the Reagan Justice Department.
To give some idea of how Casey and friends approached the issue of free speech,
consider this one example. After becoming angry at ABCTVs coverage of the
Reagan administrations foreign policy objectives, CIA director Casey tried
to get the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to terminate ABCs
operating license. When the FCC refused, Caseys Capital Cities, a consortium
of former CIA operatives who became wealthy by using their connections and
intelligence expertise to manipulate the stock market, bought ABCTV
specifically in order to censor their news department. Ask any NYC reporter
about Giulianis behind the scenes efforts to censor the news, get reporters
fired etc. He learned from a master of censorship.
ABC was later sold to Disney. Giuliani, or Disneyani as he is sometimes known,
admits that Disney has been the number one corporate force behind the cultural
sterilization of midtown Manhattan during the past eight years. Weve had the
Disnification of Times Square, now under Giuliani we will have the
Disnification of the Citys art museums and culture.
3. In Germany during the 1930s Adolf Hitler began dictating what kind of art
was to be allowed in a campaign strikingly similar to Mayor Giulianis. Using
the exact same justification as Giuliani is using in NYC and in some cases the
exact same words and arguments, Hitler declared that the avant garde art of
Germany was anti-Catholic and that tax dollars should not be used to pay for
displaying such art. He defunded museums, arrested artists and confiscated tens
of thousands of paintings and sculptures, many of which are now considered some
of the greatest masterpieces of the twentieth century. Hitlers real beef
with German art was that it was critical of him and the Nazi regime. For the
quotes, see Giuliani on Art, Hitler on Art at http://baltech.org/lederman/
4. Adolf Hitlers rise to power was financed by some of William Caseys
closest friends and associates. This clique of oil, chemical, manufacturing and
Wall Street banking executives included GW Bushs grandfather Prescott Bush,
John D. Rockefeller III, brothers John Foster and Allen Dulles and Averill
Harriman.
Following the war this clique adopted the propaganda and social manipulation
techniques that the Nazis had developed in order to control American public
opinion and silence their critics. Today these techniques have been combined
with further research by Madison Ave. ad companies and behavioral scientists to
fashion almost foolproof techniques of opinion manipulation, mind control and
disinformation. Artistic freedom is a direct threat to this kind of social
control.
Using an unlimited budget supplied by the newly formed CIA (of which Allen
Dulles became the first director) they created numerous front organizations
which promoted pro-American and pro-corporate culture. The Ford and Rockefeller
foundations and the media were full-partners in these efforts, with CIA
operatives and colleagues of this elite clique heading many of the major
newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, television networks and boards of
charitable foundations.
Until the counter-culture erupted on the scene in the 1960s and temporarily
shook the nation loose from their control, virtually every aspect of mainstream
American literature, theatre, publishing, orchestral music, film and fine art
was directly influenced if not completely controlled by this clique. While
these men claimed that defeating Communism was their purpose the reality is
that these same Wall Street banking interests and industrialists had financed
both the Russian Revolution and the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy.
Social control rather than any particular ideology left or right is all they
are loyal to. Like Rudolph Giuliani they can move freely from conservatism to
liberalism and back, as the situation requires.
Today we are ruled by a new generation of their successors, many of whom - like
GW Bush - have inherited the political positions, wealth and ideas of their
fathers. Its not a coincidence that many of GW Bushs top advisors are
associated with the Manhattan Institute or that they were the inventors of
compassionate conservatism, an ideology with more than a passing similarity to
Hitlers eugenics policies.
5. A recently published book which I highly recommend, "The Cultural Cold
War-the CIA and the world of arts and letters" by Frances Stoner Saunders
published by the New Press, provides a detailed examination of how
CIA-sponsored cultural propaganda then and continues to do so today.
Particularly relevant to the issue at hand was the sudden prominence in the
1950s art world of Abstract Expressionism.
While struggling abstract painters like Jackson Pollack (whose work I admire)
legitimately developed their unique styles it is a historical fact that the
abrupt universal acceptance of their art and its ubiquitous display in
government buildings, corporate headquarters and museums was engineered by the
CIA working directly with the Rockefeller familys Museum of Modern Art. The
goal was to undermine the cultural popularity of art with a recognizable human
subject which, as my paintings of Giuliani and the controversial Brooklyn
Museum shows demonstrate, is perfectly suited to criticizing those in authority
be they political or religious leaders.
Wander through the immense museums run by the Rockefellers, the Whitneys, the
DuPonts, the Ford Foundation and the U.S. government. You will and see room
after room of huge paintings that in many cases are nothing more than a splash
of paint or a single color without any subject. Are we looking at the refined
taste of the corporate elite or a conspiracy to eliminate figurative expression
with a political message?
Giulianis censorship efforts are ultimately not about his own parochial
tastes in art but are aimed at advancing the objectives of those he works for.
The idea is to chill speech generally and specifically to intimidate
influential museums that might be tempted to show art that criticizes those in
power. Such shows could inspire a new generation of artists to use their
talents in the fight for social justice.
If you think it is far-fetched to believe that politicians fear art, consider
this. Mayor Giuliani has spent millions of tax dollars having me falsely
arrested, processing my criminal cases, confiscating my paintings and defending
his constitutionally unsound position in Federal court. The NY Post, his most
obsequious defenders in the media, have published eight editorials denouncing
my Giuliani-as-Hitler paintings. Undercover police officers posing as members
of A.R.T.I.S.T. "collected" hundreds of my paintings from protestors during the
Diallo demonstrations while the Mayor made numerous public statements demanding
that people not carry them.
From: -Newsweek 4/5/99 Rudy on the Record
Question: "Are you personally stung by those signs at the demonstrations that
say 'Adolf Giuliani'?"
Mayor Giuliani: "Five years ago I might have cried over it. And now I just feel
that this is a crazy exaggeration that we've allowed, and that our media
coverage is selective... You cover Susan Sarandon. But [the police and the rest
of the city] see the Adolf Hitler signs, the comparisons to the president of
Yugoslavia. These [demonstrators] are getting arrested, some knowingly, some
unknowingly, under that banner."
In Hitlers time many prominent Germans from the cultural sphere were anxious
to jump on the Nazi bandwagon by denouncing aspects of German art. In 1950s
American artists, film makers and writers succumbed to government threats and
blackmail and testified before the McCarthy hearings by denouncing their most
outspoken and progressive fellow artists as "commies" and subversives.
NYC artists, actors, lawyers or religious leaders who would willingly serve on
the Mayors Decency Commission are far more despicable than those who
cooperated under extreme pressure with the McCarthy hearings. They are willing
traitors to the principles of free speech. First Amendment freedom is the basis
for artistic and religious freedom and for all that is most revered about
America.
On April 3 at 10 AM join me outside NY City Hall to protest the Decency
Commission. Bring your own art or some elses and help stand up for freedom
of speech.
*Discussed in detail with supporting references in my articles at
http://baltech.org/lederman/
For articles on the Decency Commission see this past weeks Daily News, NY
Times, Newsday, NY Post
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
ryan
mltx wrote:
> but, were i a liberal, i would say the two situations - yo mama's last
> supper being on display & a "religion month" - aren't even remotely
> comparable.
Ok, yo mama's last supper vs a painting of the last supper. Should tax money be
used by a museaum to display the last supper as well as yo mama's last supper?
Joaquin67
wrote:
you got something against da vinci? we already have used tax money to
show (reproductions of)the last supper. even worse, i saw it in my art
book in a *gasp* public school. your point?
matt
red rum
i think you're confusing 'art commenting on religion' with 'promotion
of religion through art', they're very different
--
<censored by the new zealand dept of film and literature>
Mutt
ryan <nomor...@aol.net> wrote in message news:3AC73861...@aol.net...
i can think of worse ways to spend my (or my parents) tax $$$.
matt
--
:: If i could be who you wanted ::
:: If i could be who you wanted all the time ::
:: All the time ::
ryan
red rum wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:11:13 -0500, ryan <nomor...@aol.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >mltx wrote:
> >
> >> but, were i a liberal, i would say the two situations - yo mama's last
> >> supper being on display & a "religion month" - aren't even remotely
> >> comparable.
> >
> >Ok, yo mama's last supper vs a painting of the last supper. Should tax money be
> >used by a museaum to display the last supper as well as yo mama's last supper?
> >
> i think you're confusing 'art commenting on religion' with 'promotion
> of religion through art', they're very different
Depends on the artist's desire. If the desire is to just paint a picture of Jesus on
the cross to sell it to someone and it happens to get in this museum, should state
money go to display this?
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
bat while dresses like a priest and put in this museum. obviously
tastelessness is a foreign concept.
Kron
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
Kron
mltx
>bat while dresses like a priest and put in this museum. obviously
>tastelessness is a foreign concept.
hahahaha
i know comparing people with hitler is overdone, but in this case it's
really appropriate
so:
hello hitler
mltx
stay in school and keep off drugs
your country's all right but the culture sucks
Jonathan Ashley
> how did this fascist get into power? oh yeah, we elected him.
"we"?
> Kron
-----
http://oblivion.accessus.net/~jon/
GRITTY SHAKER: The David Holmes Web Page
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
the people
Kron
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
>really appropriate
please rebut what i said. cant you acknowledge that some things are too
tasteless for a public museum?
Kron
Joaquin67
Calrissyen" <kronni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"we"?
>
>the people
>
>Kron
in order to form a more perfect union....
matt
Hatt Baby
it's a relative concept.
Jennifer
~~~~~~~~~~~
"... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not
expect men to finance their choice." - Karen DeCrow
Judy
>
My question is, who elected to show this painting and why? And who elected
the person who chose to put this painting in a museum? We will never have a
set of rules that deside what is art. You can't program a computer to
judge what is worth looking at. Someone has to have that job. If we are
getting lousy art, then the problem must come from either public demand or
apathy in choosing people to pick the art.
or was I dreaming...
Jonathan Ashley
> >"we"?
>
> the people
Of the united states of America?
Clarissa
>
>> >"we"?
>>
>> the people
>Of the united states of America?
>
Really? I don't remember getting to vote for him over here in Chicago. Of
course, we do have the butterfly ballot here, so I might have just been
confused....
Jonathan Ashley
Hey I'm in chicago too.
And yes I was pointing out that I didn't vote for him either.
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
whoa you must be pretty dumb if you think chicago is NY. or do you not
understand why you he wasnt on your chicago ballot? dufus.
Kron
Jonathan Ashley
You said "we the people" voted for Giuliani.
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
yes, we the people did. the people in new york arent any more special than
the people in any other state; they are still part of our uniform
population. like you didnt know exactly what i meant either. her statement
was a glib pointless remark, though im sure someone will attempt to justify
its pointlessness.
Kron
red rum
>> >Ok, yo mama's last supper vs a painting of the last supper. Should tax money be
>> >used by a museaum to display the last supper as well as yo mama's last supper?
>> >
>> i think you're confusing 'art commenting on religion' with 'promotion
>> of religion through art', they're very different
>
>Depends on the artist's desire. If the desire is to just paint a picture of Jesus on
>the cross to sell it to someone and it happens to get in this museum, should state
>money go to display this?
>
there the painting has artistic merit, then it gets into the museum on
that basis.
if it does have the side effect of converting, let's say 5 people to
jediism, who cares? the point is your money was well spent promoting
art. if that's a problem for you then at least recognise it as being
separate from the religious argument
Grachman W. Olajuwon
>>
>> just because you dont like something doesn't mean it's stupid ya know
>>
>>
>>Grachman, The
>
>"you shall have no other gods before me. you shall not make for
>yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven
>above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
>the earth
>...
I dont think this is stupid, especially if you worship money.
>you shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain
>...
if you believe in God, not stupid
>six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is
>the sabbath of the lord your god. in it you shall do no work; you, nor
>your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female
>servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates"
Is that a commandment? Anyways, if you believe in God, not really stupid.
>see? stupid. i always get the feeling that most of the bible pushers
>haven't really read it. my personal favorite part is in leviticus. did
>you know that bats are birds and are unclean to eat? also, insects
>actually have four legs. i got it straight from the book itself.
>leviticus chapter 11.
>matt
>your wise and benevolent dictator
>
that's not one of the 10 commandments, though it probably should be.
>
>
>
>
Grachman, The
Grachman W. Olajuwon
is it cuz of redistricting???
~~confused~~
Grachman, The
Joaquin67
>>From: Joaquin67
>
>>>
>>> just because you dont like something doesn't mean it's stupid ya know
>>>
>>>
>>>Grachman, The
>>
>>"you shall have no other gods before me. you shall not make for
>>yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven
>>above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
>>the earth
>>...
>
>I dont think this is stupid, especially if you worship money.
this is a prohibition against making any likeness of nature. you know,
like the mona lisa or those little raising the flag on iwo jima thingies
or golden cows. it honestly is. mainstream protestantism doesn't treat
it as such but the jehovah's witlesses do. so do orthodox jews. quite
stupid as a rule, especially as an ideal to hold up to kids in public
schools. just plain pointless.
>>you shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain
>>...
>
>if you believe in God, not stupid
if you believe in a petty jealous infantile god with a love for eternal
burnings, not stupid, i guess. so when is it appropriate to call upon
the lord god to damn something?
>>six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is
>>the sabbath of the lord your god. in it you shall do no work; you, nor
>>your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female
>>servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates"
>
>
>Is that a commandment? Anyways, if you believe in God, not really stupid.
yup, it's part of the "remember the sabbath one". but how do you
prevent your male slave (translation above has been sanitized for the
modern reader. but the ten commandments endorse slavery) from doing any
work? or the stranger that you have for some reason let into your
gates? or your cow?
>>see? stupid. i always get the feeling that most of the bible pushers
>>haven't really read it. my personal favorite part is in leviticus. did
>>you know that bats are birds and are unclean to eat? also, insects
>>actually have four legs. i got it straight from the book itself.
>>leviticus chapter 11.
>>matt
>>your wise and benevolent dictator
>>
>
>that's not one of the 10 commandments, though it probably should be.
>
>
>Grachman, The
on this, at least, we agree.
the way i see it, people shouldn't be looking back to the beliefs of a
bunch of goat herders for guidance in the modern world. besides, the
mesopotamian religion is so much sexier.
matt
Clarissa
Yes, I was being glib and pointless.
But I still thought I would be a part of "the people." Of course, I might
just not have been paying attention in biology class.... :)
(that last statement was glib and pointless also, so you don't have to
respond)
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
>just not have been paying attention in biology class.... :)
i appreciate your sense of humor Clarissa :)
it always irritates me when people put down a public official, like he got
into power by some elitist coup, when it was the majority of his governing
area, ie da people.
Kron
Clarissa
Kronnilingus Calrissyen wrote in message ...
>
>i appreciate your sense of humor Clarissa :)
Thanks
>it always irritates me when people put down a public official, like he got
>into power by some elitist coup, when it was the majority of his governing
>area, ie da people.
But many people don't feel like the election process is truly fair and
uncorrupt. A lot of election fraud still takes place, even in the United
States. A lot of voters believe that elective office is "bought" by whoever
can spend the most money. And in many places, the parties choose (or have
immense influence over) who the candidates are.
If voters don't think that someone was fairly chosen by "the people," of
course they are going to question his governing.
clarissa
Jonathan Ashley
Christopher Hitchens (who by your little schpiel there you would love) has
a quote that says "What choice do we have in our choice?" He's talking
about elections. You should check him out.
Jarrod
no, because you can't define taste.... and you can't say one person's is
better than another's
--
Jarrod
--
Funk slap bass mixed with dancehall and hip-hop beats and punk guitar
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
>better than another's
youre right. by that definition nothing is tasteless and the concept is
null.
Kron
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
>uncorrupt. A lot of election fraud still takes place, even in the United
>States.
if thats all youre going on thats pathetic.
>A lot of voters believe that elective office is "bought" by whoever
>can spend the most money.
on campaigning, for 'votes'
>And in many places, the parties choose (or have
>immense influence over) who the candidates are.
jesus. the people comprise the 'parties'
>If voters don't think that someone was fairly chosen by "the people," of
>course they are going to question his governing.
or request recounts.
Kron
Jonathan Ashley
> >But many people don't feel like the election process is truly fair and
> >uncorrupt. A lot of election fraud still takes place, even in the United
> >States.
>
> if thats all youre going on thats pathetic.
>
> >A lot of voters believe that elective office is "bought" by whoever
> >can spend the most money.
>
> on campaigning, for 'votes'
>
> >And in many places, the parties choose (or have
> >immense influence over) who the candidates are.
>
> jesus. the people comprise the 'parties'
Kron if you honestly believe this you are insane!
You don't think there needs to be any election or campaign reform here in
the States? Is that what you are saying?
Clarissa
>You don't think there needs to be any election or campaign reform here in
>the States? Is that what you are saying?
I think he said that there's no such thing as election fraud in the United
States.
But that wasn't even my point. My point was, that if the people don't
*believe* that the election process was fair, then they aren't going to have
confidence in their leaders, whether that belief is based on reality or not.
Kron said:
>it always irritates me when people put down a public official, like he got
>into power by some elitist coup, when it was the majority of his governing
>area, ie da people.
The city I live in had city president elections last week. For the past
several months, the candidates have been accusing each other of everything
under the sun. It got so bad that the Justice Department sent in observers
to monitor the election. The average voter, who has been watching all this
on the news, is probably wondering whether the election was really fair.
Even if it was fair, the voter is still going to have a doubt in the back of
his mind as to whether the winner really has a legitimate right to the
office. So of course the voter will put down the official, and can you
really blame him?
clarissa
Jarrod
well, basically yes...... because tastelessness is only in the eye of the
beholder... it is not definable
Kronnilingus on the road
>*believe* that the election process was fair, then they aren't going to
have
>confidence in their leaders, whether that belief is based on reality or
not.
oh my.
why wouldnt they believe the election process is fair?
>So of course the voter will put down the official, and can you
>really blame him?
only one half of the populace, and just enough to be under the simple
majority.
Kron