We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, February 16. 2016
Should Taxpayers Subsidize the Arts?
University tells students to report ‘incidents of discomfort’ to campus police
Pussies, or cry-bullies?
The accusation of “verbal harassment” is the authoritarian censor’s primary weapon against our constitutional rights
What passes for microaggressions at Columbia: White male professors, ‘stressful situations’
Brutal Dictatorship Seeks Climate Cash to Fund Continued Atrocities
to Be “Equal Partners” to Big Government Regarding Parenting - See more
In 2007, Chuckie Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
Guaranteed he does
Stay classy, Donald
Goodbye to Leading from behind
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The major efforts in promoting the arts and sciences in modern times have traditionally come from wealthy families and/or the Church during the Renaissance. Families like the Medici in Florence were huge contributors to the arts and science. The Il Duomo di Firenze is the result. Up until the late 1800's most artists around the world were privately funded in this way.
Personally, I am against any government support of the arts. The contribution they play in public life today is questionable at best give the decline of the quality of the arts. I challenge anyone to compare Robert Rauschenber's, or Kazimir Malevich's all white paintings against Michelangelo's "David" or Daniel Chester French's "Lincoln Memorial".
Most of the art today is nonsense and shows little, if any talent whatsoever. And this not promoting European art over anyone else; American artists such as Winslow Homer or Thomas Eakins are truly masters and should be held up as the highest level of skill and mastery.
And please...don't get me started on the idea that someone can get a Master's degree in Puppetry.
"And please...don't get me started on the idea that someone can get a Master's degree in Puppetry."
There's nothing ipso facto wrong with such a degree. Almost all human activity is worthy of intellectual study of some sort.
But the degree itself is never really the problem, is it? The problem is always the unrealistic expectations of the person who earns it.
If you wish to focus on, say, the cultural history of Thai shadow puppetry, wonderful. But don't expect the world owes you anything because that's the path you chose to go down.
And as for employment, perhaps if you're very, very lucky you might get a position with a prestigious museum. But if you don't, remember again that it was your choice and don't grumble because your room-mate took computer engineering and is now out in Silicone Valley driving a BMW.
I would say anything related to the arts; puppetry, painting, dance, ceramics, music would be classified as hobbies. Not something worthy of a degree. Art history, well, that could remain up for debate.
The arts have their place in society as they have since the dawn of civilization. And I also agree with you one should not expect serious employment with a degree in puppetry. I mean we might as well hand out degrees to street performers at that rate.
My point is not just any subject is worthy of a "degree". It minimizes the whole idea of awarding a degree as it was originally intended by greater institutions of learning and academia. Through hard work, research and academic achievement with the intention of elevating the subject to the next level. Puppetry? I think not.
Look back at the earliest universities; Bologna, Salamanca, Oxford or Harvard. No one would have dreamed that one day someone would glue macaroni to a paper plate and get a degree for it.
You call to mind my late father-in-law who took some years to come to grips with the fact that his other son-in-law (i.e, not me) was a professional hornist, quite well known and regarded, with a major symphony orchestra. He would get a puzzled look on his face and say, "Yes, I understand that he's a very good hornist, but what does he do for a job - a living?" To him such things were hobbies, not professions.
On the matter of "subsidy" to art, I support various levels of government providing art museums. I support our public schools at all levels providing education in the arts, their history, and the potential acquisition of the very real skills involved in producing art.
The problem lies, as I see it, in defining "art". The government employee who uses the budget provided by taxpayers to do an "art exhibition" where items such as a crucifix immersed in urine meets the criteria for "art" should find himself quickly unemployed and, in future, unemployable for any position paid for with taxpayer funds.
I do not support directly paying for the creation of art by individuals not within the public education system unless the art is commissioned for a particular public purpose and space - memorials, sculptures for public buildings, etc. And, as above, if the public finds the "art" insulting, revolting, or just plain ugly, the government employee responsible for the commission should soon be looking for work outside of public service at taxpayer expense.
Naturally the devil is in the details. But a good start to sorting out such details would be firing a bunch of government employees who use our money to purchase crap.
The problem with the government supporting the arts, is that they get to decide what 'the arts' are and which ones are worthy of taxpayer money. That results in, more often than not, liberal ideas of what 'art' really is. The government cannot hand out taxpayer money without prejudice because art is subjective. So the money needs to end.
Try to apply for a writing grant if you write murder mysteries or mainstream fiction, and you will never get any $$. But if you apply to spend a year writing about your experience living as a transgender in Alabama, and you will get all kind of bucks.
Rigged system. Needs to end.
RE Should Taxpayers Subsidize the Arts?
“Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun.” -- the best mistranslation.
Earl, why do you own a squirt gun? Most adult men don't play with squirt guns.
What's your problem?
(not talking about the problem your wife complains about, I mean your problem with guns).
I have people address me in ways I don't like all the time. Sometimes it is innocent, sometimes intentional. When one has some power in the situation, such as a judge or a parent, one can insist that others use certain forms of address. Not obliging the powerful one has consequences.
Looked at in this way, a student insisting on certain forms of address is a statement of power, even if only the power of blackmail.
"University tells students to report ‘incidents of discomfort’ to campus police"
Portland U students' cultural appropriation of a college has obviously left them damaged. They should leave the U and pursue whatever doesn't leave them feeling 'discomfort'.
The government should not be responsible for supporting the arts. Oregon has a law requiring a small percentage of any public building be spent on art. The problem? It has caused some of the worst crap I have ever seen being placed in and around public buildings. Imagine three broken I-beams placed in a triangle shape as art. Instead of emulating Paris we seem to choose something that looks like a war zone. Who decides that these 'things' are art?
re: Families to be equal partners
A quick Google of "draft policy statement on family engagement" shows it was released for public comment two months ago - and mainly only the nanny-state warroiors were aware of it at the time. The awareness of the critics of the document seems to be coming too late. Where can I find a good public-interest regulatory watch group that can give the public that's gotta pay for this nonsense a head's-up on what your humble public servants have in mind for our next beating session?
The opportunity to advance the field of family engagement is best described as a window. The window is sometimes open and sometimes closed. When the window for opportunity is open, family engagement makes headway. However, when it closes, we seem to lose ground. The question is: How do we maintain ground so that when the window closes, we have a national infrastructure and support in place for districts to avoid losing ground?
Currently, the window is open, with provisions for family engagement embedded in the reauthorized Every Student Succeeds Act; the release of the U.S. Department of Education’s Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family‒School Partnerships; and the joint Draft Statement on Family Engagement of the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. (Emphasis added)
That's what we're up against - that's from the Harvard Family Research Project at the Graduate School of Education, educrat central.
After we close down the departments of education and health & human services, we can close Harvard.
RE Zero Tolerance: 2 Teens Face Expulsion, Jail for Fishing Knives, Advil in Their Cars
"ESCONDIDO — Two San Pasqual High School students suspended last month after authorities found knives locked in their trucks in the school parking lot have been cleared to return to school on Wednesday, an Escondido Union High School District spokeswoman confirmed."
They should never have needed to be cleared in the first place. The stories of I've read of Zero Tolerance are enough to make you cry for the victims (some kids die from it) and scream at the amazing idiocy the practitioners of it display - and they are teaching our kids!
You'll also notice that in the typical "zero tolerance" situation, that the teachur who relieves the kid of the knife/aspirin/etc. is also violating zero tolerance policies by possessing the seized scary thing. even though the zero tolerance policy never considers the intent of the possession (which would be sane), the teachers are never arrested or subject to discipline (which makes this a typical libarded double standard).
We all know that some people are more subject to Zero Tolerance than others!
Vassar Feminist Prof under student fire for allegedly using improper Transgender pronouns
Q: What pronoun do you use for a transgender person?
A: I don't. I'd avoid anyone who made any conversation so burdensome and ludicrous that I had to consciously mind my personal pronoun use. To my mind, "transgender persons" only further marginalize themselves when they come up with nonsense like this.
Support for presenting old art to the pubic, yes.
Subsidizing the production of current art, i.e., modern art.
A resounding NO.
This guy sums it up quite well.
I would support the idea that there should be a national or state gallery, such as the National Gallery in Washington D.C. A place for public display of art, like a library for books and literature is one thing, government funding for a particular art form is another.
Also here: http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2016/02/sanity-prevails-san-diego-teens-will-not-be-expelled-for-knives-in-cars-charges-wont-be-filed/