1
   

What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 09:40 pm
Bush: "President of all the people, not just those who voted for me"

Something strange happened along the way between the time he made that statement and today. He is now our king, and the government belongs to him, not the American people. He says "my government," like royalty.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 09:44 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Asherman wrote:
1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary. The National Debts is an important issue, but wars always are expensive and the alternative is unacceptable.


Yes, what better way to fight those who want to destroy us than to do the job ourselves, thereby depriving them of the pleasure.


Now this is a feeble retort.

Where in what Asherman has presented is there the slightest hint that he would like or might lead to our destroying ourselves?

If the national deficit was able to destroy us we would be wallowing in the mud long ago.

Are you really so partisan as to suggest that restoring a Republican majority in congress and/or defeating the Democrat's 2008 candidate is tantamount to destroying America?

Actually, I don't think you are and so have to wonder what triggers this sort of gag reflex rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 10:09 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
this winning the war bullshit is just retarded. Who is the enemy? An idea. A constantly shifting and moving target that, like a virus mutates and changes everytime you think you have it. If "winning" is the only concern then break out the nukes right this f**king second and kill them all. Of course that will kill "us" in the process but hey.... you can't make an an omelette.....


"Who is the enemy?" Bipo asks with heart felt angst.

"An idea," he suggests with classic Liberal banality.

No bipo, not "an idea," but a cabal of malignant villains who wish to see my country and yours, literally, in ruins.

It amazes me that fools such as yourself allow your political fevers to blind you to reality. "An idea" didn't fly jumbo jets into the WTC. "An idea" didn't bomb a trainline in Spain. "An idea" didn't slaughter innocents in the London Tubes. "An idea" isn't murdering Shiite and Sunni muslims in Iraq in order to sow chaos. "An idea" didn't burn to death hundreds of Australian tourists in Bali in the name of Allah. "An idea" is not right now plotting a means to kill thousands of your fellow Americans and destroy our economy.

You seem to be suggesting that we have two choices:

Obliterate all Islamic nations

Bend over and take it in the shorts - while sighing, bemoaning George Bush and scanning the NY Times Magazine (not that I would ever accuse you of reading).

I love how you use "f**king" to register your passionate rage. An elite snot of the people our Bipo.

It's ironic that someone who so frequently spews the sour pablum of the Left has the nerve to suggest Asherman has been drinking the koolaide.

But it's all OK. Didn't I read a post indicating you bar band is playing in the Duke region? Somehow I doubt the students are coming to hear you play Journey songs, but I bet the comb over, gasbag professors get a kick out of your leading a set off with "Bush sucks!"
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:07 pm
old europe wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
bi- I understand your frustration. The problem is that we are fighting a war with people who have been pissed off at the West for over a thousand years. Recently, they have become more organized, and have the cash to back them up. Also, they are raising a generation of idiot children who think the greatest thing in the world is to die for Allah, and become a martyr.

What would you suggest? Just ignore it, and hope it goes away? Pandora's box has been opened, and we must deal with it, or we will be destroyed.


Well, look at Iran, for example. The premise here seems to be: either allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, mount them on ballistic missiles and threaten the Middle East, Europe and America with them. Or go to war, launch a massive attack, and, if it is "necessary", nuke them. Black or white. Everything or nothing.

"Seems to be" is a great weasel phrase. You get to mouth nonsense while sustaining plausible deniability.

"I didn't say this was what is going down, I only said it seems to be..."

"My hyperbolic reaction shouldn't be called into question because the incompetence and malfeasance of 'those people' have lead me to belive that it seems to be..."

The premise you seem to perceive may be a reflection of your worst nightmares, but it's hardly based on hard facts. Despite some tough (but unfortunately hollow) talk by this Administration, there is absolutely no evidence that it has immediate, near or mid term plans to deal with Iranian nuclear dreams with military action.

The currently feeble efforts of Europe and the US to talk Iran into standing down its hard-on for nukes is about as grey and dreary as it comes. Where is this stark black and white contrast you argue?

Just because you buy into all of the partisan tripe that masquerades as legitimate criticism of the US government doesn't mean it is anything other than tripe. It does suggest you have a taste for cow guts, but that's about it.


That's the same rhetoric we have heard before the invasion of Iraq, and at least in hindsight it should be obvious to everybody that Iraq had nothing to do with the "War on Terror", that the invasion reduced America's ability to react to real terrorist threats, that it allowed Al Qaeda to reorganize, and that it created a quagmire in the Middle East where thousands of Iraqis are dying every month. Yes, talk about a "breeding ground for terrorists".

Why should it be "obvious" that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the struggle against Islamic fascism? Because it hasn't been executed well? Because we may have come to the right strategy too late? Because, sadly, thousands of young Americans have been killed or maimed?

How difficult is it for you and your confreres to understand the concept that establishing a democratic beachhead in the Middle East, while perhaps not possible in practice, was a perfectly reasonable strategic move in the battle with extreme Islamists? (Very, I guess).

A couple of posts back your fellow traveler bipo argued that we are fighting "an idea." If this is so what better weapon to use than another idea - democracy? Let's not limit our discussion to the esoteric however. The Left is quite fond of lecturing us on how American support of autocratic Arab strongmen have led to the rise of Islamic terrorists, that Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East can only be combated by addressing its root causes (Lord how the Left love root causes!), and yet an attempt to address these root causes by fomenting democracy in the midst of tyranny is unfathomable to them. Could it be because it is a dread neo-con idea? Partisan concerns? Heaven forbid!

Support the idiotic notion that the invasion has reduced America's ability to react to "real" terrorist threats. What "real" terrorist threat has the US not countered since it invaded Iraq? Surely if this dynamic is so obvious to you you can demonstrate it.

Thousands of Iraqis are quite publicly dying today. Thousands were quietly dying during the Saddam regime. It's a tragedy that in an effort to wake from their national nightmare they must withstand additional violence and mayhem, but freedom has a price. Do you really think they would have been better off remaining in the foul grasp of Saddam and his butchering sons?

The liberation of Iraq has been botched. I won't argue the contrary. This doesn't mean that it can't be put back on track and even if it can't it doesn't mean it wasn't the proper cause to attempt or even that it hasn't been worth the effort and the loss.

It's ironic that the very people that find it so hard to stomach American Exceptionalism insist on judging this country within the context that without victory there is always failure.

The contention that Iraq has allowed Al Qaeda to reorganize is simply demonstrative of ignorance.

First of all Al Qaeda may be the foremost head of the Islamist hydra but is not the only one. Secondly, there is no evidence that the Al Qaeda that was responsible for 9-11 has reorganized. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda. "Al Qaeda" has become a universal brand like Coke and Kleenex, and yet not even as powerful as these two.

If Al Qaeda had truly reorganized then we would not only be facing Al Qaeda in Iraq, we would be facing Al Qaeda in Somalia, Al Qaeda in Kosovo, Al Qaeda in London, Al Qaeda in New Jersey, Al Qaeda in Eqypt. We are not. We are facing the continued threat of Islamo-fascists that have been inspired by Al Qaeda and may actually have some tenuous ties to the broken gang hiding in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. but we are no longer facing the foot soldiers of Bin Laden.

Of course this doesn't mean that we are not facing a grave and deadly enemy, but our efforts to combat them have not provided the means of rebirth for their defeated progenitors

True enough that Iraq is a battlefield that draws Islamists to the great war with The West, but that is, in and of itself, a strategic goal. It may or may not be a poorly conceived or executed strategy but is is not born of a practically mindless desire to avenge the perceived failures of a father, and the notion that it is is simply witless.


Sure, that is a situation that will have to be handled carefully. But I don't think that it can be handled by people with the same neocon mindset like those who were responsible for the quagmire in the first place.

What is your definition of the "neo-con mindset?"

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:10 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
We had absolutely no call to invade Iraq. We had already subdued that nation. We had absolute control over the air and could crush their military any time we chose. They could not have ran a nuclear program without its being detected. This was an elective war, that exacerbated the friction between us and muslims. It is being fought over control of oil, not combatting terrorism. There is no way to finess this effort with a new president. It's either persue it stupidly, or bring the operation to an end. No in between is possible.


Without Iraq the Islamists would have given up their desire to restore the Caliphate and conquer the world?

Without Iraq we would be able to rely upon "moderate" muslims to curb their wayward cousins?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:13 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
You should edit the poll to include "Absolutely, Positively no Billary".


you should go back to fellating Unca Ted and sitting on your rifle and let the grown ups talk...


The words of a "grown up."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:40 pm
Thomas wrote:
Asherman wrote:
Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, nor is it likely to be.

I'm not saying habeas corpus is summarily suspended. I'm saying I don't currently have full full habeas corpus rights, and I'd like them restored.

Under the detainee treatment act, a combatant status review tribunal can determine any alien to be an unlawful enemy combatant. They can make their determination without me knowing the evidence against me, presenting my case, or employ a lawyer to do it for me. They can use hearsay and testimony obtained under torture, both of which are known to be worthless as evidence. Having reached its verdict, the military can detain me wherever they want and deny me access to a lawyer again. Courts will be forbidden to hear any habeas corpus petition I might manage to file.

I concede that in practice this is unlikely to happen. If I didn't, I wouldn't be preparing to move. But the fact is that American law now contains a loophole through which a kangaroo court -- the combatant status review tribunal -- can let me vanish in limbo without habeas corpus rights. Changing this is an overriding issue for me.


Not really caring, at all, whether a German living in Germany feels he has full habeas corpus rights in America. If you do immigrate here, by all means, strive to become a citizen so that you can vote and have your opinions (as silly as they may or may not be) count.

Show me a legal system on earth that does not have loopholes. Of course this does not mean that we should not attempt to plug loopholes when we find them, but the very nature of laws insures the existence of loopholes.

There is a certain irony in the idea that we must be limited in our struggle with violent, fundamentalist Islam by the fundamentalist application of the Law.

If, in practice, it is unlikely that a law abiding immigrant from Germany will not be detained as an enemy combatant in some pen in Cuba, than the Law is pretty effective.

Zero Tolerance is madness no matter what it may be applied to. The elimination of all errors is a worthy aspirational goal but to believe that it is ever possible is simply ridiculous.

Innocent men will always be convicted of crimes they did not commit. There will always be individual suffering and many times it will not be deserved.

If we insist on the perfect application of the Law then we will not eliminate error, we will simply transfer the impact of error.

The only way to be absolutely certain that innocents are not wrongly convicted is to tolerate a sizeable number of the guilty being let free. Some may feel this is a fair trade-off, others do not.

If a man who has killed his wife in a fit of anger escapes justice on a technicality then the chances are society is not threatened. If, on the other hand, a serial killer or a dedicated Islamist terrorist escapes justice because of a technicality, society will almost assuredly suffer, not to mention the truly innocent individuals that are their prey.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:41 pm
Thomas wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
What would you suggest? Just ignore it, and hope it goes away? Pandora's box has been opened, and we must deal with it, or we will be destroyed.[/color][/b]

Peel off the `war on terror' bumper sticker, and let criminal law exclusively deal with terrorism again. That's what other nations have been doing with their terrorists. (IRA, ETA, Red Brigades, RAF, ...). It hasn't worked perfectly, but our results have been less bad than yours.


Less bad? How so?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:44 pm
squinney wrote:
Asherman wrote:
How is the nation currently benefiting from the President's policies? We are actively fighting the best of the RIM veteran terrorists, and killing them at a very nice clip. Iran and the DPRK are straining at the leash, but for now they're constrained and limited in their ability to cause trouble. The President has fended off an attempt by the Democratic Congress to usurp the Executive Branch. The national security has been improved both against foreign and home grown RIM terrorists. His has not been an administration of unqualified success, and we shouldn't expect that there wouldn't be failures, mistakes and un-intended consequences.


Am I the only one that caught that Asherman considers the Democrats the same as terrorists?

Rolling Eyes


Probably not, but that doesn't mean that your assessment is accurate.

It is not.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 12:59 am
And now I have read all of the many posts on this thread and responded to those that I found interesting, and so here is my "important issue(s)."

Ignore it, agree with it, belittle it, damn it or question it. Please.

There are many issues of importance to me as respects the presidential election of 2008, but if I must employ an absolute litmus test in determining how I vote, my preferred candidate will:

Recognize Islamism as the existential threat that it actually is and focus his or her administration on defeating it.

This rules out a great number of the current candidates, but to the extent that more than one meets this primary requirement, the next cut will be determined by

His or her belief in American Exceptionalism and the resultant will to direct the vast power of America as a force of good in the world.

Next cut:

Adherence to free market principles

Next cut:

Adherence to the principle of limited government; including very limited taxation

Next one:

Advocacy of strict constitutional constructionism

Next cut:

Likeability

Issue that are important to me and I would like a president to wave his magic wand and make happen (In no particular order):

Legalization of all drugs

Immigration Reform that recognizes the value of immigration for our country, does not center on anti-hispanic prejudice, appreciates the rule of law, and demands assimilation.

Elimination of the death penalty not because it is immoral but because we can never trust the State with the power to kill its citizens.

Implementation of a Flat Tax

Increased compensation for members of our military

A national health insurance program that remains private but allow individuals to benefit from a national pool of risk.

Space exploration

National investment in science

Elimination of all public support for the Arts

Wildlife preservation

The permanent banishment of:

Katrina van den Heuvel (Big time)
David Corn
E.J. Dionne
Neal Gabler (Big time)
William White (Big time)
Eric Alterman
David Duke
Noam Chomsky (Big time)
Ward Churchill
Al Sharpton (Big time)
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schummer (Big time)
Howard Dean
Louis Beam
Kwame Kilpatrick
Dick Durbin
Harry Reid
Jesse Jackson
David Kelly
Michael Moore
Maxine Waters
Barbara Streisand (Big time)
Jimmy Carter (Big time)
Donald Rumsfeld
Tom Delay
Elanor Holmes Norton
Patrick Leahy
Henry Waxman
Tom Metzger (Big time)
John Conyers
John Murtha (Big time)
Ted "Gin Blossom" Kennedy
John Kerry of Vietnam
Al (Kiss me Leonardo) Gore
Alec Baldwin
Cynthia McKinney
Susan Sontag
Howard Stern
Larry Flynt

et al
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 01:15 am
Finn d'buzz wrote:
Quote:
Elimination of all public support for the Arts


Why?

Although I don't agree with all of your stances, I do think I understand the motivation for most of them and even agreed with a number of them- but this leaves me somewhat baffled. In fact, I'd trade funding for the space program for more public support for the Arts- primarily in the public school system.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 01:25 am
Quote:
Susan Sontag


Ms Sontag has been dead for some time, now.

May she rest in peace.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 01:26 am
aidan wrote:
Finn d'buzz wrote:
Quote:
Elimination of all public support for the Arts




And he wants preservation of wildlife! Will the apes be performing in the NYCity ballet?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 01:35 am
Miller wrote:
Quote:
Susan Sontag


Ms Sontag has been dead for some time, now.

May she rest in peace.


Cultural Author, Activist Was a Fearless Thinker

By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 29, 2004; Page A01

Susan Sontag, 71, the American intellectual who engaged and enraged equally with her insights into high and low culture, died yesterday at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She had leukemia.

Philosophy, photography, pornography -- Sontag explored them all with a defiant gusto, informed by an impressive, if lofty, ability to transcend cultural barriers with a barrage of literary and cultural references.

She was not averse to self-promotion and indicated that she was one of the few writers able to survive as an essayist. Her books seldom went out of print and were translated into more than 25 languages. She spoke five.

Reading by age 3, having tea and cookies with author and Nobel laureate Thomas Mann at 14 and graduating from college at 18, she went on to a long career as a provocateur through dozens of novels and nonfiction works. Cumulatively, they placed her among the foremost thinkers about the meaning of art, politics, war, silence and humanity.

She wrote movingly but unsentimentally about her own experiences with cancer -- of the breast at age 43 and the uterus decades later -- and how disease is portrayed in popular culture. Her essay "Illness as Metaphor" (1978) is considered her classic exploration of the subject.

Tall, raven-haired with a streak of white, with bold dark eyes and a wry smile, Sontag was a recognizable figure in the mainstream media firmament through lectures and televised debates. She shoved herself to the forefront of contemporaneous debate with her activism against the Vietnam War -- including a trip to Hanoi -- and later denunciations of Communism as stifling the work of intellectuals. Along the way, she raised her voice against authoritarian -- and sometimes democratic -- leaders around the world.

In the early 1990s, she staged Samuel Beckett's existential masterpiece "Waiting for Godot" in Sarajevo amid bombing and sniper fire.

Sontag won the National Book Award for fiction in 2000 for "In America," about a 19th-century Polish actress who moves to California to start a new life. The author also received a MacArthur "genius" grant, among other honors.

Much of her early distinction arose in the 1960s with her advocacy of European artists and thinkers, including philosophers Simone Weil and Walter Benjamin and filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard. Occasionally, she caused palpitations among the fervently patriotic for her less-nuanced commentary, to the effect that "America is founded on genocide" and "the quality of American life is an insult to the possibilities of human growth."

More recently, she wrote in the New Yorker about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, denouncing the use of the word "cowardly" to describe the attackers.

"In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of the . . . slaughter, they were not cowards," she wrote.

Those declarations were easy fodder for those ready to scorn her as anti-American or a liberal scourge.

Time magazine made her a pop celebrity in 1964 when it noted her Partisan Review essay, "Notes On 'Camp,' " in which she plunged into the world of urban and mostly homosexual style. Mentioning the ballet "Swan Lake" along with the fashion accouterment of feather boas, she wrote that camp style is "serious about the frivolous, frivolous about the serious. . . . The ultimate camp statement: it's good because it's awful."

But her work appeared largely in literary journals, including the New York Review of Books. She was elevated to near-sainthood by her admirers, who considered her an unstoppable literary force and crystalline thinker.

Writing in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, Susan Walker described Sontag's career as "marked by a seriousness of pursuit and a relentless intelligence that analyzes modern culture on almost every possible level: artistic, philosophical, literary, political, and moral."

But she also was lampooned for the headiness of her writing. In a backhanded tribute to her influence in popular culture, the baseball catcher played by Kevin Costner in the 1988 film "Bull Durham" calls her handful of novels "self-indulgent, overrated crap."

Sontag's own motivations were simple, she said: to "know everything." She had a lusty devotion to reading that she likened to the pleasure others get from watching television. "So when I go to a Patti Smith concert, I enjoy, participate, appreciate and am tuned in better because I've read Nietzsche," she told Rolling Stone magazine. "The main reason I read is that I enjoy it."

Susan Rosenblatt was born Jan. 16, 1933, in New York, the older daughter of a traveling fur trader and an alcoholic teacher. She was raised in Tucson and Los Angeles and was largely left alone as a young girl, she later told an interviewer. Raised by a nanny in her parents' absences, she was 5 when her mother came back from China alone. Her father had died of tuberculosis, and her mother revealed the truth months later only after the girl pressed for details about his return. She took the surname Sontag from her stepfather.

Sontag described a girlhood bereft of playmates. Instead, she devoured Djuna Barnes, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo and Jack London. "I got through my childhood," she told the Paris Review, "in a delirium of literary exaltations."

She met Thomas Mann after reading the German author's 1924 novel "The Magic Mountain," set in a European sanitarium. On a second read, she spoke the words aloud and was so enthused about the book that she conspired with a friend to meet the author, then living in Los Angeles in exile during the Nazi era.

"He seemed to find it perfectly normal that two local high school students should know who Nietzsche and [composer Arnold] Schoenberg were," she wrote in a New Yorker account of the visit.

Her stepfather warned her that being so interested in books would make her uninteresting to men. "I just couldn't stop laughing," she once said. "I thought, 'Oh gosh, this guy's a perfect jerk.' "

Before graduating from the University of Chicago in 1951 with a bachelor's degree in philosophy, she married Philip Rieff, a sociologist 10 years her senior whom she would divorce in 1959. They had a son, David Rieff of New York, who survives, along with Sontag's sister.

After Chicago, Sontag received master's degrees in English and philosophy from Harvard University and did all but her dissertation for a doctorate in philosophy.

Her first book, "Freud: The Mind of the Moralist" (1959), was completed in collaboration with her husband. They agreed, however, to put only his name on the title page.

Still, she described this time as liberating. She was 26, divorced and ready to experience what she described as a delayed adolescence filled with dance lessons, discussions with politically motivated young people and a desire to make a literary mark.

She taught religion at Columbia University before completing her first novel, "The Benefactors" (1963), the study of a dreamy rogue named Hippolyte who soon cannot tell reality from his own imagination. It impressed reviewers, and she began cornering magazine editors, sometimes at cocktail parties, about publishing her work.

Her analysis, for the Nation magazine, of Jack Smith's erotically flamboyant film "Flaming Creatures" (1963) brought her attention as an enthusiastic filmwatcher but caustic observer of American morality, which she saw as preventing a full-blown appreciation of the film's "aesthetic vision."

Her early essays, including "Notes on 'Camp,' " were collected in "Against Interpretation" (1966), her first major nonfiction book. She argued against critics who hunted for heady significance in a work of art at the expense of its sensual impact.

"In most modern instances," she wrote, "interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art."

As a radical and incisive thinker, she protested and wrote against the Vietnam War, visiting Hanoi to understand the motivations of the Vietnamese resistance to the U.S. military.

She began examining the presentation of disease in popular culture after her diagnosis of cancer in her breast, lymphatic system and leg and was given a 20 percent chance of survival. She underwent a radical mastectomy and chemotherapy that cured her of the cancer.

In "Illness as Metaphor" and her book "AIDS and Its Metaphors" (1989), as well as countless interviewers, she condemned the idea of illness as a curse or plague, somehow a metaphor for social, cultural or moral decay. Illness is simply fact, she said.

Despite other health conditions, she remained productive, producing a best-selling novel, "The Volcano Lover" (1992), about Lord Nelson and his mistress, Lady Hamilton.

She spent much of her life in transit, living in Paris, Berlin and elsewhere while maintaining a home in what she considered the only livable spot in the United States -- New York. "And what I like about Manhattan is that it's full of foreigners," she said.

A restless voyager into the 1990s, she staged "Waiting for Godot" in Sarajevo. Even those who best understood her questioned her sanity to thrust herself into a war zone for the sake of art. "I didn't think I was invulnerable, because I had a couple of very close calls, and I don't think I'm a thrill-seeker," she said. "I just thought it's okay to take risks, and if ever I get to the point when I don't, then take me to the glue factory."

The Washington Post
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 01:39 am
Miller wrote:
Quote:
And he wants preservation of wildlife! Will the apes be performing in the NYCity ballet?

Laughing
Miller-not to sound biased at all, (except that I really am, having spent so much of my time around scientific/medical folk, and noticing a certain, shall we say, lack of interest in anything that doesn't have to do with science/medicine in a lot of those folks), but I've noticed this about you- for a person who works in the medical profession- you have very creative thought processes.

I myself don't see any discrepancy with wanting to preserve wildlife while not wanting to fund the arts. I do however see a discrepancy with wanting to preserve wildlife on this planet, not wanting to fund the arts on this planet- while at the same time, diverting those moneys and pumping them into the space program.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:04 am
aidan wrote:
Finn d'buzz wrote:
Quote:
Elimination of all public support for the Arts


Why?

Although I don't agree with all of your stances, I do think I understand the motivation for most of them and even agreed with a number of them- but this leaves me somewhat baffled. In fact, I'd trade funding for the space program for more public support for the Arts- primarily in the public school system.


Because public support of the arts can never be free of politics.

In theory I am all for a society that funds artistic expression but in practice I realize that such support demands compromise.

The "Piss Christ" is a perfect example.

Personally, I don't think it had any artistic value at all. Stirring up **** (or piss) is, at best, a very tiny piece of art. If all the "Piss Christ" had was the evocation of emotion, it's not much of a piece of art. I can easily duplicate this artistic expression by going to a gathering of African-Americans and screaming forth the "N-Word".

Art requires far more than a politically charged response. In fact, I would argue that the political aspects of art are so temporal as to render them as editorial cartoons.

Money influences art. We know this to be true.

I don't want Liberal or Conservative money to influence art.

I certainly don't want a portion of my personal wealth (taxes) to support endeavors that I find to be without any artistic value and offensive {And I ain't a Christian} --- (e.g. Piss Christ),

Since art should be free of the influence of yours or mine personal inclinations it must be free of public funding.

Liberals are all to happy to spend tax dollars in support of the Arts because they have no concern that the Arts might reflect a notion in opposition to their own. If they were true to artistic expression, however, they would be loathe to accept any political influence on art, irrespective of whether or not their personal political opinions were represented in the "Art."

Since we are, clearly, incapable of separating art from politics we should avoid, at all costs, a dependence of art upon the whims of public sentiment.

Starving artist are A-OK. They don't need the State to buy them a Lexus and a HD TV. Inevitably they prostitute themselves to the State. The State, oh ye libs, will not always lean to the Left.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:05 am
Miller wrote:
Quote:
Susan Sontag


Ms Sontag has been dead for some time, now.

May she rest in peace.


Well then, let's banish her ghost.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:07 am
Miller wrote:
aidan wrote:
Finn d'buzz wrote:
Quote:
Elimination of all public support for the Arts




And he wants preservation of wildlife! Will the apes be performing in the NYCity ballet?


Idiotic retort, move away.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:16 am
Quote:
"I just thought it's okay to take risks, and if ever I get to the point when I don't, then take me to the glue factory."


Susan Sontag
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:18 am
I see what you're saying- and I agree that it is not the government's role to subsidize individual artists.

But I do think it'd be a productive use of public funds to provide oppotunities for exposure to various forms of artistic expression in public schools-especially music. Unfortunately these programs are being cut left and right.

I think if you get a kid hooked on music- especially making his or her own- you see the dividends in all other aspects of their lives. If we'd use funding in such a way in the early stages of their lives, we'd have to pour less of it into rehab and prisons and young offender programs at the later stages.

Sort of like preserving wildlife- only these would be our children we'd be helping to preserve.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 06:20:51