May 16, 2007
It's in the P-I
In today's column, contumelious liberal columnist Joel Connelly characterizes Republicans who seek to limit taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as Nazis:
With a view of culture more befitting the Third Reich than the Third Millennium, reactionaries in Congress set out in the mid-1990s to kill the National Endowment for the Arts ... Efforts to smash the NEA were eerily reminiscent of the famous statement by Reichmarshal Hermann Goering: "When I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my revolver."
Seattle became a hotbed of resistance to the knuckle draggers of the late 20th century.
Good thing that Connelly is above name-calling
! But more to the point, Nazis banned and exterminated cultural works they found offensive. The NEA's critcs do not object to culture. Their only aim is to limit federal taxpayer subsidies and let individuals and private institutions pay for art. Is Connelly really so bad at his job that he fails to understand the distinction?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 16, 2007
10:37 AM | Email This
Who cares about Connelly, really.
Isn't this about I'm right; you're wrong?
Fight a better fight, please.
2. Is Connelly really so bad at his job that he fails to understand the distinction?
This is another one of those clever rhetorical questions so confusing to our YLM's isn't it??
3. The disassembling of institutions like education and the arts and re-establishing them under a new control authority was one of the first things the Nazis did at the local level to gain support from the disenfranchised. Connelly may be flippant, too imaginative, and missing an opportunity to educate, but not far off the mark in making an allusion to the cultural control battles of the last quarter century. Find me a republican candidate who wants to improve the effectiveness of Public Broadcasting Service, National Education Association, and National Endowment of the Arts and I'll show you a candidate that gets little traction among their party peers. Sadly, most of the current crop of GOP candidates are oddly very in favor of increasing Faith Based pork. One has to wonder.
I, for one, don't want to improve the efficiency of any of the listed programs. I want to simply eliminate them, for the simple reason that not a single one of them is authorized by the Constitution.
If Connelly, or anyone else for that matter, can show me where, in the enumerated powers given to Congress, spending money on art is authorized, I'm all ears.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Funny. I thought that liberals thought that ignoring the Constitution is what made you a Nazi. Which of the enumerated or implied powers in Article I, Section 8 gives the federal government the authority to pay for art?
I'll say it again: George Bush is Hitler!
Heh, two consecutive posts mention "enumerated."
(Well, maybe three now!)
There is not one single reason for taxpayers to fund "art".. NONE.
If "artists" are worthy they will attract benefactors AND buyers (other than Ron Sims and his corrupt government). I, for one, see no need to enhance prisons, sewer facilities and bus stops with "art".
Regarding PBS: when will they become accountable to the public the pays for them? I thought so.
"Public" education controlled on a FEDERAL level is an absolute failure: string up the embalming IV and bury it already.
Privatize the postal service: they are a lumbering bolated bureacracy with more damned useless employees than Walmart and they STILL lose money all the while being rude and unaccountable for pathetic service.
8. One only has to look at the results of the state sponsored art movement in the Netherlands to realize that this was a bad idea. They have storage facilities full of art that no one wants.
Looking at the liberal responses is a classic education in liberal indoctrination.
Nobody addresses the core statement of Stefan, namely that government funding is the issue, not "cultural control". No, they change the subject and talk about "faith based pork".
When did the topic of faith based pork come up in the article?
Nobody gives a rat's hind end about what PRIVATE funding does with its money for the arts.
The other attacks Stefan directly, not the issue. Again, a classic liberal tactic, rant at the person so to ignore the issue at hand.
Learn that Modern Liberals are not "liberal" in their thinking, rather they are the true one-world movement, taking individuality and freedom as their intended casualties.
Modern Liberalism ignores facts, and rants at those who reasonably wish to discuss issues. They are the true enemy of the 21st century United States.
10. The NEA and Washington State's 1% for the arts are just welfare for artists.
Just about all the Republican candidates would want to improve the effectiveness of the Public Broadcasting Service. At present, said 'service', particularly its viciously biased minions at NPR, caters almost exclusively to the hopes, dreams, myths, politics and preferred outcomes of Blue-Staters. The 'news and information' to which their myopic attention is given excludes half the spectrum of interest to the aggregate American public.
What Republican candidate wouldn't want to make this publicly funded enterprise inclusive of all the population? To incorporate real diversity in its selection and reporting of current events? To satisfy the taxpayers that equal numbers of Red-Staters and Blue-Staters are royally pissed at the end of each broadcast day, rather than simply the Red-Staters who have been the designated demons of the last 30 years of public broadcasts?
Come on Republicans, show NPR and PBS what diversity really means.
12. Look, all I'll elaborate is this. If you go and read your history of the very influential and ground breaking arts movements and teachers of the early twentieth century like the Bauhaus school whom the Nazis chased out of Germany through defunding and overt suppression, the majority of the great minds ended up in American institutions. They came here because there was both freedom and the financial incentive (funding) to practice their craft. What does Article I, Section 8 say about however many projects that have been funded for decades? Do you like using the internet or using interstate highways? These services are not explicitly defined in the constitution either.
First comment: The Corpulent One is the loser based upon Godwin's Law.
Second comment, Acid Brain posted:
The disassembling of institutions like education and the arts and re-establishing them under a new control authority was one of the first things the Nazis did at the local level to gain support from the disenfranchised.
OK, so then you should rail against public education and public funding of the arts! Originally they were under PRIVATE control, until some in power decided to fund them with a new control authority in the government.
Thanks for pointing out that the NON-NAZI thing to do is to remove Federal control/funding of these institutions... And thereby implying those who argue to keep Federal funds/control are, in effect, Nazis...
" The NEA and Washington State's 1% for the arts are just welfare for artists.
Posted by Bob in SeaTac at May 16, 2007 11:35 AM"
That's the bottom-line!
The vast majority of self-proclaimed "artists" call themselves artists because it sounds better than admitting you are "life-style unemployed".
This 1% could have bought a whole bunch of asphalt pavement.
Joel is merely pandering to his LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWN pals who lap this touch-feely stuff up cuz they feel guilty about making so much dough from Mommy & Daddy or Grandma Trust-funds, High Tech & Real Estate Inflation.
1% for the Arts is like salve to heal the guilt sores of the KLOWNS....with other people's money!
15. Not getting rid of the NEA; another reason the GOP failed and are now back in the minority. Hey GOP, wonder why so many GOP voters are pissed? Under Clinton we almost kill NEA, under Bush, it is as alive as ever. Come on GOP, drop the nonsense and stop forcing me to pay for PBS, NPR, NEA, NEH, etc. and let those people who like that trash pay for it themselves.
16. The one problem I can see with this approach is that there aren't nearly enough fast food joints out there to provide so-called "artists" with employment suited to their practical skills. Nonetheless, I tend to believe that public art funding should be limited to the stuff on post office walls with the words "Wanted by the FBI" written on it.
"Is Connelly really so bad at his job that he fails to understand the distinction?"
Wrong question. He doesn't want to clarify; he wants to muddle. Obfuscate, for Pudge's benefit. The same as blurring the line between legal and illegal immigrants. It isn't lazy journalism or scholarship as OP suggests; it's the use of a habitual mechanism designed to inflame lazy readers that don't demand a clear and concise recitation of the facts...a recitation free of pejorative associations.
What happens with Connelly, et al, is that his readership (and please forgive the "which came first, the hen or the egg" problem that brings us to this point) consists of an undemanding public that is comfortable with the interpretation of any and all news through blue lenses, seeking validation of the liberal mindset. For them, it is either not possible to consider a topic without shading the meaning, or it is deemed not important to do so. Probably both.
Poor Joel. I think Alzheimers might be starting to take root. The guy's writing is to the point where he keeps reaching in the most pathetic ways. A good journalist ought to be able to think beyond simplistic comparisons to Nazis. But Joel's good writing days are long past. I think they keep him around as sort of a talisman to the spirit of the Left at the P-I.
And if there's any truth to a mind body connection, the poor state in which he keeps his body must be having an effect on his mind.
Acid Brain: They came here because there was both freedom and the financial incentive (funding) to practice their craft.
This justifies violating the Constitution? So any time there's a common-good reason for taking away my civil rights, it's OK for the government to do it? I'll remember that the next time habeas corpus, wrrantless wiretapping, free speech zones, etc. come up.
What does Article I, Section 8 say about however many projects that have been funded for decades?
Um, that they never should have been funded in the first place. And that continued funding continues to violate the Constitution.
Do you like using the internet or using interstate highways? These services are not explicitly defined in the constitution either.
You are forgetting the final clause of Section 8, which allows the Congress to execute implied powers, as long as they are deemed necessary and proper for executing the enumerated powers. So in order to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can establish a national bank.
So, the Congress can -- and does -- reasonably say that the support of the Internet and the interstate highway system is related to, for example, interstate commerce. Of course, it's a matter of opinion, and the Court has traditionally let the Congress judge what is "necessary and proper." And I generally agree with that precedent.
I think we spend way too much on federal roads, but that some spending is warranted. I think funding on the root infrastructure of the Internet is clearly "necessary and proper" for regulation of interstate commerce.
But I've never seen a single argument that even makes a valid attempt at showing how arts funding is "necessary and proper" for execution of an enumerated power. Want you should try to come up with one?
Education, too. Some will feebly point at interstate commerce, saying we need an educated populace to encourage commerce. But aside from the stretch of logic that requires, it also ignores the fact that the Framers specifically rejected education as a valid object of federal funding, specifically for the reasons I mentioned, and there's nothing that's happened in our country to change that. We just decided to ignore the clear intent of the Tenth Amendment.
20. The NEA and Washington State's 1% for the arts are just welfare for artists.
EXACTLY! ... and the dirty little secret is that it DEVALUES the work of ALL artists.
Cream can't rise to the top when it's constantly being blended with crap.
And perhaps the whole point of the common good, nobody better, anti-competition crowd.
21. How many millions in private financing were raised for the sculpture park on the waterfront and the new SAM? If the private sector is so successful in raising funds for something, there is no reason for the public to fund it as well. That goes for new museums and sports arenas, neither of which is necessary for the region to function and thrive.
22. Welfare for artists whose work is commercially devalued by participating in civic projects? Devalues the art? Sorry, not following the industry. And try saying that the local Rotarians or Elks should have held a bake sale instead of using taxes to fund arts because it's not a valid use of funds at any of the veterans monuments on Memorial Day.
Are you saying that monuments honoring our veterans is the same as some of the random crap art funded by the 1%???
That's a stretch that does not reach.
Besides, many of the monuments to our veterans are privately funded by Elks, Veterans Groups & others.
Face it Acid Brain, many artists are losers. They cannot function in the free market or society in general....so they scam tax dollars.
Do you really believe a Statue of Lenin is the appropriate use of our tax dollars?
Wow, this is rich. Joel Connelly e-mailed me a reply that shows he has no idea what he is talking about. I originally wrote:
You do realize, of course, that federal arts funding is a violation of our civil rights?
That would be the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It says the federal government can only do what the Constitution says it can do. And there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 that states (or, as per the "elastic clause," implies) that the federal government has any authority to fund the arts.
You can compare people who want to get rid of all federal arts funding to the Nazis, but it seems to me that you're the one who favors taking away my civil liberties as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
He, showing his complete ignorance of the Constitution, replied:
If what you said had the least bit of truth to it, the Supreme Court would have been asked log ago to rule on legality of NEA.
Just amazing. I know being a Constitutional scholar is not a prerequisite for being a columnist, but he is completely ignorant about one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights! Sigh. Score one for public schools!
25. Mr C that is some mythology you've swallowed. Face it any member of any group whom I differentiate from my own myopic worldview is a loser because they don't conform to my own experiences. Utterly brilliant logic. If you don't understand the absolute irony of the Lenin statue, it says more about your own capacity than the work itself. You can keep swinging on, though.
26. ...and just get real - who paid for the placement of said statue? American entrepreneur Lewis Carpenter. It is no small statement that it is strategically placed next to the known communistic Taco Del Mar franchise, (fyi taco del mar is spanish for socialists by the sea) a long time anti capitalist establishment and thorn in the side of all the flailing businesses on 36th street. Somebody ought to write a law.
27. Artists, like pets should be kept around as long as they don't scratch the furniture. When they beg, or stink, they should be disciplined or put down.
28. Let us just step back and take a look at a couple of scenarios: 1) Jerry Fallwell gives his opinion regarding what the Bible has to say regarding certain behaviors and you can see for yourself what the left has to say about Jerry Fallwell by going on the Daily Kos or DU 2) Certain religions (the "religion of peace" for instance) practices mutilation by stoning of practicioners of these same behaviors and the left does not want us to make moral distinctions. Enough said, think this thriough for yourself.
29. The "how can the Lenin statue be offensive when it's next to a fast food joint?" argument doesn't cut it. There's a reason it wound up in Fremont, and it has nothing to do with trumpeting capitalism. I can't wait for the day it's pulled down, dragged to Elliot Bay and sunk.
30. I really think Connelly is senile. We should have pity on the old fool.